TAXONOMIC CONCEPTS FOR STORYBOARDING DIGITAL

GAMES FOR LEARNING IN CONTEXT

Klaus P. Jantke

and Rainer Knauf

Fraunhofer IDMT, Children’s Media Department, KinderMedienZentrum, Erick-K¨astner-Str. 1a, 99094 Erfurt, Germany

Ilmenau University of Technology, Department of Artiﬁcial Intelligence, P.O. Box 10 05 65, 98693 Ilmenau, Germany

Keywords:

Game-based Learning, Serious Games, Games Taxonomies, Storyboarding, Situated Learning, Context.

Abstract:

The design and employment of digital games for serious purposes such as learning has several prerequisites.

Designing a game that affects human players effectively requires the anticipation of particular human game

playing experiences. Recent digital games taxonomies provide the WHAT and storyboarding is the technology

for determining the HOW of planning the manifold of potential affective experiences in digital game playing.

Game-based learning needs storyboarding and storyboarding needs concepts of digital games taxonomies. The

appropriate consolidation of taxonomies and storyboarding results in explicit media didactics in context.

1 THE AUTHORS' POSITION

This paper aims at advocating the authors’ position on

inevitable preliminaries of game-based learning:

P1 Game-based learning bears promising potentials

due to the attractiveness of game playing to young

learners and because of the extra motivation it is

bringing with it.

P2 Playing serious games may affect human learners

by what they experience when playing the game.

P3 Serious games do not work per se, but require

elaborate contexts of employment for learning.

P4 Storyboarding is the anticipation and organization

of human experience.

P5 Digital games taxonomies explicate peculiarities

of game playing relevant to affective experiences.

P6 Appropriate taxonomic concepts specify contexts

in which playful learning experiences may affect

human learners effectively.

Particular emphasis is put on the propagation of

C1 concepts of storyboarding in serious game design,

C2 concepts of games and game playing taxonomies.

Besides the systematic theoretical development,

the authors’ position is illustrated by means of some

real-life case study. The case study itself is based on

a certain original game concept, its implementation,

and its qualitative evaluation. These preliminaries are

published in the ﬁrst author’s conference publications

(Jantke, 2006b) and (Jantke, 2010b).

2 MOTIVATION

In contrast to earlier critical assessments such as,

e.g., (Jantke, 2006a), (Seelhammer and Niegemann,

2009), and others, the authors feel encouraged by

recent reports on successful serious games projects

from (Chafﬁn and Barnes, 2010), (Cooper et al.,

2010) and (Thomas and DeRosier, 2010) to (Jenson

et al., 2011).

Besides mastery of the domain topics, the design,

the implementation, and the employment of digital

games for serious purposes have numerous prereq-

uisites. Designers and developers need to anticipate

the particular human activities expected to affect the

players effectively. Storyboarding

is the anticipation

of human experience (Jantke and Knauf, 2005).

Comprehensive work like (Fullerton et al., 2004)

reﬂects iterative approaches to ﬁnd ways of provok-

ing effective human players’ activities. Having game

based learning in mind, this work illuminates the need

to anticipate more than just playing a certain game.

Metastudies such as (Dondlinger, 2007) reveal

that the necessary prerequisites of playing which may

have an intended desirable impact are still extremely

vague and cover elements such as “narrative context,

rules, goals, rewards, multisensory cues, and interac-

tivity” (ibid., p. 28). From insights of such a general-

ity one can hardly derive any game design decision.

The authors want to be considerably more precise.

It is a frequent misconception to see storyboarding as

the organization of learning materials such as PDF sources.

401

Jantke K. and Knauf R..

TAXONOMIC CONCEPTS FOR STORYBOARDING DIGITAL GAMES FOR LEARNING IN CONTEXT.

DOI: 10.5220/0003947904010409

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2012), pages 401-409

ISBN: 978-989-8565-07-5

 2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

3 BACKGROUND

This paper is based on two widely independent areas

of research: storyboarding for e-learning (Jantke and

Knauf, 2005) and games taxonomies (Jantke, 2010c).

For reasons of space, this introduction is kept short.

The following three sections from 4 to 5, in particular,

are dedicated to some consolidation of storyboarding

and taxonomies. Section 6 is surveying the case study.

3.1 Storyboarding for e-Learning

Design and development of digital systems intended

to support human learning processes need some care-

ful a priori speciﬁcation. What the authors are aim-

ing at is much more than just system speciﬁcation

as known from conventional software engineering.

The processes of human learning are rather involved

and need a certain ﬁrm scientiﬁc foundation. Be-

sides educational psychology, in general, and particu-

lar aspects like motivation (from (Malone, 1981) to

(Hoffman and Nadelson, 2010; Paas et al., 2005)),

mental effort (from (Salomon, 1983) to (Paas et al.,

2005)), and cognitive load (from (Sweller, 1988) to

(Kalyuga, 2009; Mayer and Moreno, 2003), there

are many lessons learned from recent applications

like (Callaghan et al., 2010; Chafﬁn and Barnes,

2010; Cooper et al., 2010; De Castell et al., 2007;

Hawlitschek, 2009; Jenson et al., 2011; Shelton and

Scoresby, 2011; Thomas and DeRosier, 2010).

From the two present authors’ constructivist point

of view

, learning needs the learner’s activity. And ef-

fective learning is usually best supported by affective

learning experiences. Storyboarding is the organiza-

tion of experience ((Jantke and Knauf, 2005), p. 25).

For the operationalization of this educational per-

spective, the authors have introduced storyboards as

hierarchically structured graphs. Composite nodes of

such a graph may be substituted by other graphs deter-

mining the concerning human activity in more detail.

They are named episodes. Atomic nodes, in contrast,

are named scenes representing elementary learner ac-

tivities or services of the IT system.

For illustration, an atomic node may describe just

a media ﬁle (text, picture, animation, audio, video)

presenting learning content, an exercise, a particular

communication event (talking to a co-learner, asking

somebody for information, ...) or any off-line action.

An in-depth discussion of positions of constructivism,

unfortunately, is quite far beyond the limits of the present

paper. Interested readers are directed to sources such as,

e.g., the collection of chapters edited by Sigmund Tobias

and Thomas M. Duffy entitled Constructivist Instruction:

Success or Failure?, by Routledge, 2009.

3.2 Digital Games Taxonomies

Digital games taxonomies provide conceptualizations

for systematizing the extremely heterogeneous and

dynamic ﬁeld in which innovative ideas and those that

appear innovative, at least, come and go frequently.

Some approaches like the one called the Ilmenau

Taxonomy (Jantke, 2010c) are canonical and apply to

every digital game. Reﬁnements such as the so-called

Erfurt Taxonomy (Jantke, 2010c) introduce particular

concepts (Jantke, 2010a) which apply only in some

conditions. Furthermore, there are highly interesting

specialized taxonomies focusing only a few speciﬁc

phenomena such as (Lewis et al., 2010), e.g., in which

the authors systematize video game bugs.

Taxonomies, in general, are frequently seen as

multi-dimensional spaces in which every object of

interest–in the present investigation always a game–

can be characterized by its values according to the

dimensions of the space. In the most simple case, a

game is characterized by a point in the space. But

in contrast to conventional mathematics, dimensions

can not be assumed to be orthogonal. Consequently,

certain games are better imagined as clouds sitting

somewhere in the space. The mutual interdependence

of taxonomic dimensions is discussed in some detail

elsewhere (Jantke, 2010a; Jantke, 2010c).

Let us investigate a few taxonomic dimensions in

more detail. To every digital game, it applies that

• the game is a computer program,

• the game is entertainment media,

• in computer science and in entertainment media,

there is nothing more interactive than games.

Consequently, there are 3 canonical dimension along

which every digital game G may be described in some

reasonable detail. What are the characteristics of G

seen as a computer program? What are the charac-

teristics of G seen as entertainment media like, e.g.,

ﬁlm? What characterizes human behavior when play-

ing the game? In other words, what does a human

being experience when playing G? To answer these

three questions is, indeed, canonical (Jantke, 2010c).

The idea of the Erfurt Taxonomy (Jantke, 2010c)

is to systematize–beyond the canonical dimensions of

the Ilmenau Taxonomy–all the aspects that may be

relevant to the one digital game, but completely ir-

relevant to another one.

For illustration, music is playing a crucial role in

several interesting digital games. In contrast, there are

numerous other digital games that need no sound at

all. Therefore, ‘the role of music’ or, simply, ‘music’

is a typical dimension of digital games taxonomies

beyond the canonical minimum.

CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

402

The variety of taxonomic dimensions for games

is overwhelmingly rich. Among others, there is the

dimension of ‘contemporary politics’, the dimension

of ‘erotics’, and the dimension of ‘humor’. Readers

may immediately imagine several reﬁnements.

Other interesting dimensions refer to issues of

gender, of language, of culture, and so on. Many of

them are rather involved. For illustration, think of ref-

erences from a particular digital game to other media

products and pieces of art such as literature, motion

picture, and the ﬁne arts. To a certain audience, these

references are a source of enjoyment and satisfaction,

whereas they miss some other audience completely.

Here is an illustration. The cartoon point & click

adventure CLEVER & SMART is rather humorous and

full of references. When playing this game, you con-

trol alternatingly one of two secret service agents.

The agents’ boss in the games’ virtual secret service

hierarchy is named “L”. Don’t you immediately think

of Judi Dench starring as “M” ...?

The ‘role of time’ is a another particularly interest-

ing dimension which should be divided into a larger

number of suitable sub-dimensions. Prominent games

in which mutually varying time phenomena play a

crucial role are, e.g., BRAID, PRINCE OF PERSIA:

SANDS OF TIME, and the point & click adventure

SHADOW OF DESTINY.

The discussion of time leads to questions of the

evolution of a game story, an interesting issue which,

unfortunately, is beyond the limits of this paper.

Callaghan et al. describe a game-based learning

approach in which activities beyond the limits of the

virtual world are essential (Callaghan et al., 2010).

The present authors call those taxonomic concepts

‘extra game play’ and ‘meta game play’, as sketched

in (Jantke, 2010c) and (Jantke and Gaudl, 2010).

Digital games are bringing with them properties

with respect to taxonomic dimensions. Vice versa,

digital games may be classiﬁed by means of taxo-

nomic concepts. For illustration, there are games that

require a certain physical activity of the player which

goes beyond the limits of controlling game playing

via standard interfaces such as keyboards, game con-

trollers, joystick, and steering wheels. Games of this

sort are nowadays usually called exergames. Exer-

games as studied in (Lucht and Gundermann, 2009),

(Park et al., 2010), (Sinclair et al., 2010), (Yang et al.,

2010a), and (Yang et al., 2010b) have peculiarities

which lead to a variety of further taxonomic concepts.

Though those concepts are surely of interest in story-

boarding and of a particular interest from a didactic

point of view taking aspects of health care, e.g., into

account, these issues are also beyond the limits of the

present short conference contribution.

4 DIDACTICS AND

STORYBOARDING

As brieﬂy mentioned above, constructivism–

according to the present authors’ understanding, at

least–leads to emphasis on the learners’ experiences.

Jenson et al. (Jenson et al., 2011), for instance, are

“shifting the focus [...] from

′

ﬁguring out what

people know

′

” to investigating questions “more like,

′

what did you experience

′

” (ibid., p. 30).

Here, the authors’ storyboarding approach comes

into play. When designing a digital game for certain

learning purposes, it seems highly desirable to expli-

cate the intended playing experiences of the human

learner. When should she laugh? When and why

should she be surprised? When and how to scare the

learner? In which conditionsshould some learner face

a certain conﬂict situation? And how to ﬁnd a way

out? There are inﬁnitely many potential experiences

to be set up with some educational purpose in mind.

Some experiences go beyond the limits of game

playing itself. When, why and how should a learner

interrupt game playing for initiating a certain conver-

sation with other co-learners? When, why and how

should a learner lean back and take time to contem-

plate the game playing experience so far? Should

learners be encouraged to play repeatedly and should

those cycles of repeated game playing be dovetailed

with other experiences?

The answers to those and other similar questions

need some representation within game development.

According to (Jantke and Knauf, 2005), representa-

tions of anticipated experiences may be effectively

written down as paths through storyboards.

In this vein, some didactic ideas and principles are

getting different graphical representations on varying

levels of granularity. Didactics becomes visible.

For illustration, imagine that studying a certain

content needs a number of repeated exercises. Thus,

suitable graphical representations, accordingly, might

show certain cycles. There may be a main cycle, but

there might also be several cycles distributed over the

whole game playing experience.

As another illustration, imagine a ﬁeld of stud-

ies in which collaborative learning is assumed to be

highly advisable. Learners should talk to each other.

A related storyboard for a serious game in this ﬁeld

has to embed game playing into human conversation.

Storyboarding is no longer only storyboarding of the

game itself, but speciﬁes game playing within a more

comprehensive context of learner activities.

Modeling didactic knowledge by storyboarding

may go even further (Knauf et al., 2010) and take

more complicated curricular processes into account–

TAXONOMICCONCEPTSFORSTORYBOARDINGDIGITALGAMESFORLEARNINGINCONTEXT

403

another exciting issue beyond the limits of this paper.

5 FROM DIGITAL MEDIA

DIDACTICS TO TAXONOMIES

AND STORYBOARDS

One may take any of the numerous taxonomic con-

cepts for pondering its usefulness for didactic design.

For illustration, think of manipulations of time for the

purpose of realizing repeated exercises of a certain

type. Even the taxonomic concept of ‘bullet time’

known from shooter games

might be especially ex-

ploited for the set-up of training situations. Bullet

time may help some users who have difﬁculties with a

certain task to try it again under simpliﬁed conditions.

The way of presenting content clearly affects the

way of perception (Mayer, 2002), so what about ways

beyond play in game-based learning

Managing cognitive load has to be taken seriously

(Kalyuga, 2009). Load problems are surely relevant

to game-based learning (Mayer and Moreno, 2003),

but rarely mentioned explicitly, as playful learning

seems so overwhelmingly promising. Assessment of

cognitive load, as one might expect, is known to be

involved (Br¨unken et al., 2003), even if digital games

are still out of scope. Certain earlier work such as

(Leacock and Nesbit, 2007) does not seem to apply.

To sum up very brieﬂy, it is not sufﬁcient simply

to provide a particular game for game-based learning.

Every digital game is bringing with it a certain

game-speciﬁc load, because players have to master

the game mechanics and need to focus both overall

goals and current quests.

There is abundant evidence for the need to specify

context conditions in which intended learning effects

are likely to occur.

Certain concepts of digital games taxonomies are

helpful for the a priori speciﬁcation of game playing

experiences. There are, in particular, several concepts

describing phenomena beyond the limits of a single

game playing session (Jantke, 2010a). For the sake of

illustration within the present paper, the authors focus

on ‘extra game play’ and ‘meta game play’.

The taxonomic dimension of ‘extra game play’

subsumes all phenomena of intentionally interrupting

game play for getting engaged in certain extra-game

activities such as communication, e.g.

Bullet time means the feature that allows for playing an

action–in particular the player’s shooting of an adversary–in

slow motion. Besides the clear advantage to shooting in real

time, bullet time is appreciated as a feature that allows for

enjoyment of graphically attractive actions such as jumping

and shooting at the same time.

The taxonomic dimension of ‘meta game play’

subsumes all phenomena on a meta-level w.r.t. single

game play sessions such as, e.g., comparing effects in

dependence on certain game parameter settings.

6 A STORYBOARDING CASE

STUDY BASED ON

TAXONOMIC CONCEPTS

Reﬂective thinking is playing a rather prominent role

in technology-enhanced learning (Hong and Choi,

2011). This section is presenting the present authors’

case study in game-based learning in which a certain

type of the learner’s reﬂective thinking is decisive.

Taxonomic concepts and their particular appearance

in storyboarding encode, so to speak, the authors’

actual didactic approach. Didactics becomes visible.

6.1 From Jostle to Gorge

There is a particularly simple game named JOSTLE

(Jantke, 2006b)

for between one and four players.

Some of them or even all may be computer programs;

the latter makes sense in case a player wants to inspect

the mutual interaction of Artiﬁcial Intelligence (AI)

strategies. JOSTLE is a simple turn-based path game.

Every player regardless of whether being human or

AI is controlling some team of robots. These robots

are heading for some target area where they can score

points according to some simple rule. On their way,

the robots are jostling each other.

The game has been developed as a research tool

to allow for the comparison of different strategies–

human or AI.

AI strategies can be tuned by the human player;

this makes particular sense if the player is a learner

dealing with particular questions and phenomena of

Artiﬁcial Intelligence.

At this point, it becomes understandable that even

the extreme case of setting up 4 computer programs

of different character like, e.g., the good, the bad and

the ugly (Gaudl et al., 2009) and let them play with

and against each other makes sense. Human learners

may study AI by tuning AI agents, watching them,

re-tuning them, continue watching them, and so on.

But the players’ number of choices in JOSTLE

is quite limited. There are not many opportunities

to reveal an AI agent’s character. For this reason,

the concepts of JOSTLE have been enriched toward

a more ﬂexible game named GORGE (Jantke, 2010b).

This paper has been winning a best paper award on the

CSIT 2006 conference in Amman, Jordan.

CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

404

The crucial new feature of GORGE are gorges, i.e.,

interrupts of the paths. Crossing the gorges needs a

speciﬁc form of collaboration of at least two different

robots (see (Jantke, 2010b) for more details). This

gives rise to a variety of agents’ behaviors such that

players regardless of being human or AI may reveal

some character, so to speak, ranging from a helper or

a wimp to a freeloader or a quarreler.

6.2 Learning Goals and Didactics

GORGE is, very much like JOSTLE, more a research

tool than a game. However, the game is sufﬁciently

interesting to be played several times.

The educational potential of the game lies in the

opportunity to easily control the characteristics of

programmed players and, subsequently, to investigate

the effects of varying settings.

Figure 1: Setting up some programmed AI behavior.

Humans can set up the programmed adversaries’

preferences according to four dimensions: the desire

for jostling others (left upper parameter in ﬁgure 1),

the willingness to cooperate for crossing any gorge

(left lower parameter), the willingness to step down

into a gorge by himself (right upper parameter), and

the engagement for salvaging others from a gorge

(right lower parameter). This allows for a surprisingly

large number of perceivably different “AI characters”.

Based on the potentials of the, so to speak, serious

game GORGE, some learning goals are set:

G1 Learners shall understand how setting parameters

results in system behaviors that appear somehow

intelligent or human-like.

G2 Learners shall appreciate the importance of AI to

an interesting and ﬂexibly varying experience of

digital game playing.

G3 Learners shall enjoy the power of being in control

of AI and shall develop some conﬁdence in being

able to control computer technology.

To achieve the goals above, the authors rely on

exploratory learning which is largely self-directed,

which involves a high degree of learner activity, and

which is essentially playful and really a lot of fun.

Reﬂective thinking is inevitable for general insights.

These are the authors’ key didactic principles to

be implemented by means of taxonomic concepts in

storyboards–didactics will show in the design below.

6.3 Didactics and Taxonomic Concepts

Studies suitable to achieve goal G1 surely need some

investigation of several varying settings of the NPCs

preferences. It is highly unlikely that unexperienced

players ﬁnd immediately two sufﬁciently interesting

and sufﬁciently different settings of NPC parameters.

There is some need for employment of the taxonomic

concept of extra game play–players should be allowed

to leave some current game play for modifying the

settings on the ﬂy. Successfully tuning parameters

during game playing may contribute to achieving G3

as well.

Figure 2 shows some typical situation in which a

human player might wish to interrupt the game for

changing settings. His robots on the upper path on

the right are about to win the game without much of

the NPCs’ resistance who currently waste their energy

in restless jostling on the other path.

Figure 2: Game playing scenery giving rise for an interrupt.

Goals G2 and/or G3 may be achieved if a human

player has opportunities of experiencing human-like

or, at least, believable NPC behavior. But behavior as

a whole does only unfold throughout complete game

play. For a substantial comparison of varying NPC

characters, one needs to play several times–an issue

of the taxonomic concept of meta game play.

NPC is short for non-player character in a digital game.

TAXONOMICCONCEPTSFORSTORYBOARDINGDIGITALGAMESFORLEARNINGINCONTEXT

405

Is it really true that playing GORGE is only fun if

at least one of the (NPC) adversaries plays somehow

aggressively? You can hardly tell from playing only

once. Suppose you have equipped some NPC with

an aggressive behavior by, say, setting the preference

of jostling to a maximum and, in addition, setting the

preference of collaboration to a minimum. It might

possibly happen within a certain game play that, by

chance, there are not sufﬁciently many opportunities

for the evil to show. Hence, one should play again.

6.4 Taxonomy-based Storyboarding

Storyboarding of game-based learning means more

than storyboarding the game play as can be seen in

ﬁgure 3. In particular, the two feedback arrows re-

present taxonomic concepts such as extra game play

(the inner loop) and meta game play (the outer loop).

Figure 3: Top level storyboard of playful learning with

GORGE within a context of reﬂecting playing experience.

Recall that every node (rectangular box) is an episode

which may be expanded by some graph substitution to

specify details of the anticipated e-learning process.

The ﬁgure 4 shows part of a larger graph reﬁning the

“playing the game ...” episode of ﬁgure 3 above.

After observing robots getting stuck in intensive

jostling, there are foreseen three variants of learner

behavior. The role of storyboarding is to explicate

several needs such as, for instance, opportunities for

players’ communication about observed phenomena.

Figure 4: Cutout from some episode expansion.

6.5 Evaluation of Game-playing Impact

The authors have undertaken several qualitative

and quantitative evaluations of the didactic design

sketched in the section 6.4 before (left column of this

page). Setting up evaluation experiments, performing

evaluations, processing the data, and ﬁnally publish-

ing the results is a ﬁeld of scientiﬁc work in its own

right clearly going beyond the limits of the present

position paper. Nevertheless, the authors would like

to inform the audience about a few typical evaluation

activities and about a few characteristic results.

Game playing experiences as anticipated and

speciﬁed by means of storyboarding as in section

6.4 have been taking place on several exhibitions

and fairs based on different implementations of the

game GORGE ranging from stand-alone executables

through a Silverlight browser game implementation

to some touchscreen version based on Unity.

There have been young players of an age ranging

from 10 to 20 years and adults including groups of

teachers from different school types. Subjects playing

the game in an evaluation session have been playing

individually or came in groups of varying size. There

have been groups of students and groups of teachers

as well.

To sum up brieﬂy, the experimental settings lead

to results demonstrating that the game-based learning

didactics implemented according to the storyboards

sketched in section 6.4 achieve the goals G1, G2, and

G3, in general.

Furthermore, there is some variety of additional

insights. Identical experiments in two different larger

cities with groups of students of an age between 13

and 20 years provided almost identical results like the

following one.

First of all, the subjects have been introduced

to the game and its peculiarities. Next, they have

been asked to set up three NPC characters such that–

according to their own (unspeciﬁed) expectations–

other students of their age would most likely consider

the experience of playing GORGE as entertaining as

possible. Interestingly, all the subjects–without any

single exception–havebeen setting up one of the NPC

characters to be highly aggressive. In a subsequent

qualitative analysis, they explained unisono that some

CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

406

degree of the in-game adversaries’ strength including

aggression is considered inevitable to make a game

challenging and, thus, enjoyable.

Another interesting result of these two particular

experiments is that all subjects have chosen settings

between the extreme values for at least one of the

other NPCs. The reason is a desire for NPCs not so

easy to see through–players have high ambitions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation

with a larger number of scientists and engineers in-

cluding interns and students who contributed to the

design and implementation of several serious games.

Furthermore, they gratefully acknowledge the

support by colleagues who has been striving to bring

the games into application, to train teachers, to set up

game playing and playful learning experiments, and

to perform qualitative and/or quantitative evaluations.

The ﬁrst author’s work on games taxonomies has

been partially supported for three years from 2008

until 2011 by the Thuringian Ministry for Education,

Science, and Culture (TMBWK) within the project

iCycle under code PE-004-2-1

CLOSING REMARK

By their very nature, storyboards are usually a bit

larger than the cutouts shown on the preceding pages.

Therefore, the authors decided to offer a few slightly

larger examples in an appendix below.

REFERENCES

Bartolom´e, N. A., Zorrilla, A. M., and Zapirain, B. G.

(2010). A serious game to improve human relation-

ships in patients with neuro-psychological disorders.

In Bradbeer, R. and Ahmadi, S., editors, 2nd Inter-

national IEEE Consumer Electronic Society Games

Innovation Conference, pages 9–13. IEEE Consumer

Electronic Society, IEEE.

Br¨unken, R., Plass, J. L., and Leutner, D. (2003). Direct

measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learn-

ing. Educational Psychologist, 38(1):53–61.

Callaghan, M. J., McCusker, K., Losada, J., Harkin, J.,

Wilson, S., Dugas, J., Demots, S., Deboit, F., Fou-

quet, A., and Sauviat, F. (2010). Game-based strat-

egy to teaching electronic & electrical engineering in

virtual worlds. In Bradbeer, R. and Ahmadi, S., ed-

itors, 2nd International IEEE Consumer Electronic

Society Games Innovation Conference, pages 19–26.

IEEE Consumer Electronic Society, IEEE.

Chafﬁn, A. and Barnes, T. (2010). Lessons from a course

on serious games research and prototyping. In Pro-

ceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the

Foundations of Digital Games, FDG’10, June 19-21,

Monterey, CA, USA, pages 32–39. New York, NY,

USA: ACM.

Collins, A. and Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking Education

in the Age of Technology. The Digital Revolution and

Schooling in America. New York, NY, USA: Teachers

College Press.

Cooper, S., Treuille, A., Barbero, J., Leaver-Fay, A., Tu-

ite, K., Khatib, F., Snyder, A. C., Beenen, M., Salesin,

D., Baker, D., Popovi´c, Z., and ¿57,000 Foldit play-

ers (2010). Lessons from a course on serious games

research and prototyping. In Proceedings of the Fifth

International Conference on the Foundations of Digi-

tal Games, FDG’10, June 19-21, Monterey, CA, USA,

pages 32–39. New York, NY, USA: ACM.

De Castell, S., Jenson, J., and Taylor, N. (2007). Digital

games for education: When meanings play. Interme-

dialities, 9:45–54.

Dondlinger, M. J. (2007). Educational video game design:

A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Educa-

tional Technology, 4(1):21–31.

Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007). Educational Potential of

Computer Games. Continuum Studies in Education.

Continuum Press.

Fullerton, T., Swain, C., and Hoffman, S. (2004). Game De-

sign Workshop: Designing, Prototyping, & Playtest-

ing Games. San Francisco, CA, New York, NY,

Lawrence, KS: CMP Books.

Gaudl, S., Jantke, K. P., and Woelfert, C. (2009). The good,

the bad and the ugly: Short stories in short game play.

In Iurgel, I., Zagalo, N., and Petta, P., editors, Pro-

ceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Dig-

ital Storytelling, number 5915 in LNCS, pages 127–

133. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009.

Hawlitschek, A. (2009). Spielend lernen, aber wie? –

Zum didaktischen Design von Serious Games fr die

Schule. In Schwill, A. and Apostolopoulos, N., ed-

itors, Lernen im Digitalen Zeitalter. Workshop-Band.

Dokumentation der Pre-Conference zur DeLFI2009,

14.-17. Sept. 2009, pages 119–126. Freie Universit¨at

Berlin.

Hoffman, B. and Nadelson, L. (2010). Motivational en-

gagement and video gaming: A mixed methods study.

Education Technology Research and Development,

58(5):245–270.

Hong, Y.-C. and Choi, I. (2011). Three dimensions of re-

ﬂective thinking in solving design problems: A con-

ceptual model. Education Technology Research and

Development, 59(5):687–710.

Jantke, K. P. (2006a). Digital games that teach: A critical

analysis. Diskussionsbeitr¨age 22, Ilmenau University

of Technology, IfMK.

Jantke, K. P. (2006b). Knowledge evolution in game de-

sign – just for fun. In Issa, G., Qaddoura, E., Al-

Qawasmeh, E., and Raho, G., editors, CSIT 2006, Am-

man, Jordan, April 5-7, 2006, pages 433–442.

Jantke, K. P. (2010a). Extra Game Play & Meta Game Play.

Report KiMeRe-2010-03, Fraunhofer IDMT, Abtlg.

Kindermedien.

Jantke, K. P. (2010b). The Gorge approach. Digital game

control and play for playfully developing technology

competence. In Cordeiro, J., Shishkov, B., Verbraeck,

TAXONOMICCONCEPTSFORSTORYBOARDINGDIGITALGAMESFORLEARNINGINCONTEXT

407

A., and Helfert, M., editors, CSEDU 2010. 2nd Inter-

national Conference on Computer Supported Educa-

tion, Proc., Vol. 1, Valencia, Spain, April 7-10, 2010,

pages 411–414. INSTICC.

Jantke, K. P. (2010c). Toward a taxonomy of game based

learning. In Proc. Intl. Conference on Progress in In-

formatics and Computing, Shanghai, China, Dec. 10-

12, 2010, pages 858–862.

Jantke, K. P. and Gaudl, S. (2010). Taxonomic contributions

to digital games science. In Bradbeer, R. and Ahmadi,

S., editors, 2nd International IEEE Consumer Elec-

tronic Society Games Innovation Conference, pages

27–34. IEEE Consumer Electronic Society, IEEE.

Jantke, K. P. and Knauf, R. (2005). Didactic design

through storyboarding: Standard concepts for stan-

dard tools. In First International Workshop on Dis-

semination of E-Learning Technologies and Applica-

tions, DELTA 2005, in: Proceedings of the 4th Inter-

national Symposium on Information and Communica-

tion Technologies, Cape Town, South Africa, January

3–6, 2005, pages 20–25. Dublin, Ireland: Computer

Science Press.

Jenson, J., Taylor, N., and De Castell, S. (2011). Epidemic:

Learning games go viral. Journal of the Canadian

Association for Curriculum Studies, 8(2):28–49.

Kalyuga, S. (2009). Managing Cognitive Load in Adaptive

Multimedia Learning. Hershey, PA, New York, NY:

Information Science Reference.

Knauf, R., Sakurai, Y., Tsuruta, S., and Jantke, K. P. (2010).

Modeling didactic knowledge by storyboarding. Jour-

nal of Educational Computing Research, 42(4):355–

383.

Krotz, F. (2007). Mediatisierung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

Leacock, T. L. and Nesbit, J. C. (2007). A frame-

work for evaluating the quality of multimedia learn-

ing resources. Educational Technology & Society,

10(2):44–59.

Lewis, C., Whitehead, J., and Wardrip-Fruin, N. (2010).

What went wrong: A taxonomy of video game bugs.

In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference

on the Foundations of Digital Games, FDG’10, June

19-21, Monterey, CA, USA, pages 108–115. New

York, NY, USA: ACM.

Lucht, M. and Gundermann, T. (2009). Bewegungsspiele.

Bewegung als Katalysator von Lernen und Spielen?

In Schwill, A. and Apostolopoulos, N., editors, Ler-

nen im Digitalen Zeitalter. Workshop-Band. Doku-

mentation der Pre-Conference zur DeLFI2009, 14.-

17. Sept. 2009, pages 103–108. Freie Universit¨at

Berlin.

Malone, T. W. (1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically mo-

tivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 4:333–369.

Mayer, R. E. (2002). Cognitive theory and the design of

multimedia instruction: An example of the two-way

street between cognition and instruction. New Direc-

tions for Teaching and Learning, 2002(89):55–71.

Mayer, R. E. and Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce

cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational

Psychologist, 38(1):43–52.

Neidt, C. O. and Sjogren, D. D. (1968). Changes of student

attitudes during a course in relation to instructional

media. Education Technology Research and Devel-

opment, 16(3):268–279.

Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., van Merri¨enboer, J. J. G., and

Darabi, A. A. (2005). A motivational perspective

on the relation between mental effort and perfor-

mance: Optimizing learner involvement in instruc-

tion. Educational Technology Research and Develop-

ment, 53(3):25–34.

Park, K.-W., Kim, B.-C., Yoo, J.-W., Park, K. H., and Wohn,

K. (2010). Enabling sportive games with a do-it-

yourself wearable computing platform. In Bradbeer,

R. and Ahmadi, S., editors, 2nd International IEEE

Consumer Electronic Society Games Innovation Con-

ference, pages 103–109. IEEE Consumer Electronic

Society, IEEE.

Salomon, G. (1983). The differential investment of mental

effort in learning from different sources. Educational

Psychologist, 18:42–50.

Seelhammer, C. and Niegemann, H. M. (2009). Playing

games to learn – Does it actually work? In Proceed-

ings of the 17th International Conference on Comput-

ers in Education, pages 675–681. Hong Kong: Asia-

Paciﬁc Society for Computers in Education.

Shelton, B. E. and Scoresby, J. (2011). Aligning game

activity with educational goals: Following a con-

strained design approach to instructional computer

games. Education Technology Research and Devel-

opment, 59(5):113–138.

Sinclair, J., Hingston, P., Masek, M., and Nosaka, K.

(2010). Testing an exergame for effectiveness and at-

tractiveness. In Bradbeer, R. and Ahmadi, S., editors,

2nd International IEEE Consumer Electronic Society

Games Innovation Conference, pages 95–102. IEEE

Consumer Electronic Society, IEEE.

Snow, R. E. and Salomon, G. (1968). Aptitudes and instruc-

tional media. Education Technology Research and De-

velopment, 16(4):341–357.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving:

Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12:257–285.

Thomas, J. M. and DeRosier, M. E. (2010). Toward effec-

tive game-based social skills tutoring for children: An

evaluation of a social adventure game. In Proceedings

of the Fifth International Conference on the Founda-

tions of Digital Games, FDG’10, June 19-21, Mon-

terey, CA, USA, pages 217–223. New York, NY, USA:

ACM.

Tobias, S. and Duffy, T. M., editors (2009). Constructivist

Instruction: Success or Failure? Routledge.

Yang, C.-M., Chou, C.-M., Yang, T.-L., Hu, J.-S., Sun,

K.-C., Hung, S.-H., Cheng, J.-H., Wang, C.-H., and

Huang, Y.-M. (2010a). Dancing game by digital tex-

tile sensor. In Bradbeer, R. and Ahmadi, S., editors,

2nd International IEEE Consumer Electronic Society

Games Innovation Conference, pages 110–115. IEEE

Consumer Electronic Society, IEEE.

Yang, C.-M., Yang, C.-W., Hung, S.-H., Wang, C.-H., Lin,

H.-H., Fang, W.-C., Huang, W.-C., and Huang, Y.-M.

(2010b). An innovative breathing game applied with

textile sensors. In Bradbeer, R. and Ahmadi, S., edi-

tors, 2nd International IEEE Consumer Electronic So-

ciety Games Innovation Conference, pages 116–121.

IEEE Consumer Electronic Society, IEEE.

APPENDIX

The following ﬁgures show a few more storyboards

from the case study discussed in section 6 of the con-

tribution.

CSEDU2012-4thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

408

Figure 5: Storyboard of some potential experience of fooling the player’s adversaries by luring robots into the wrong direction;

a game playing experience relevant to the learning goals G2 and G3, in particular, enjoyed for feeling the player’s superiority.

Figure 6: Storyboard of cooperation with some NPC at some gorge for forming a roped party and crossing the gorge to-

gether; a game playing experience relevant to learning goal G2 and, furthermore, providing a good basis for the discussion of

strategies.

Figure 7: Storyboard of a learning activity in which a learner is asked to simulate a certaion human-like playing behavior;

the ﬁrst scene speciﬁes a teacher activity whereas the next scene on the right speciﬁes some human communication, perhaps,

among several learners or in some student-teacher dialogue; the branching between ‘game play’ and ‘observation’ mean

simultaneous actions (in contrast to all the other branching points on display here which specify alternative player activities).

TAXONOMICCONCEPTSFORSTORYBOARDINGDIGITALGAMESFORLEARNINGINCONTEXT

409