![](bg6.png)
ened on each sub-skill in the last part of the game. Via
additional functionality it is possible to compare dif-
ferent moments in time in the game. Figure 4 shows
the feedback screen (c). All eight sub-skills are dis-
played, with for each skill an advice how the player
could improve herself. This advice is structured based
on the description in Section 4.3. Finally, there is
an indication which game challenges have been com-
pleted and which will still follow.
5 CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE
WORK
With the continuous advent of online learning, seri-
ous games hold potential to enhance the acquisition
of complex skills, such as analytical thinking skills.
Rubrics are proven feedback and evaluation instru-
ments, but these have never been directly integrated
into the gameplay of serious games. This position
paper has shown how the novel combination of an-
alytical rubrics into the gameplay of serious games
(hence ‘gamebrics’) may fill this gap. We have high-
lighted our approach, involving the creation of theory-
informed rubrics, the validated mapping of rubric el-
ements to game activities and the formulation of re-
flective feedback based on existing guidelines. More-
over, we have outlined the player-facing implemented
dashboards in Gamebrics, where players can track
their progress without interrupting the ‘flow’ of the
game.
At the moment of writing this paper, the effec-
tiveness of integrating rubrics is being examined in
a large-scale evaluation with students, for the Kastan-
jehoeve and Junior Scientist serious games. In both
evaluations, an experimental group is given the game
without formative evaluation through the rubric, and
another group with the formative evaluation of the
rubric. This will be combined with validated ques-
tionnaires. The analysis of the experimental data will
shed more light on the effectiveness of directly inte-
grating rubrics within the gameplay of serious games
for formative assessment.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Mick Hummel, who de-
signed the GUI of the Gamebrics tooling. This project
was financed by a SURF grant, within the call “Open
& Online Higher Education 2021”, project # 2021-01.
REFERENCES
Arter, J. A. & Chappuis, J. (2010). Creating & Recognizing
Quality Rubrics. Boston: Prentice Hall.
Bloom, B., Engelhart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl,
D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. 1:
Cognitive domain. London: Longmans, Green and
Co Ltd.
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T.,
& Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review
of empirical evidence on computer games and serious
games. Computers & Education, 59(2), 661–686.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The Psychology of Op-
timal Experience. New York: Harper Perennial Mod-
ern Classics, 1st edition.
Gee, J. P. (2007). What Video Games Have to Teach Us
About Learning and Literacy. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feed-
back. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
American Educational Research Association.
Hummel, H. G. K., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., Nadolski, R. J.,
& Baartman, L. K. J. (2017). Content validity of
game-based assessment: case study of a serious game
for ICT managers in training. Technology, Pedagogy
and Education, 26(2), 225–240. Routledge.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxon-
omy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212.
Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Marzano, R. J. & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The New Taxonomy
of Educational Objectives. Thousand Oaks: Corwin
Press, second edition.
Marzano, R. J. & Kendall, J. S. (2008). Designing & as-
sessing educational objectives: applying the new tax-
onomy. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & McTighe, J. (1993). As-
sessing Student Outcomes: Performance Assessment
Using the Dimensions of Learning Model. Associa-
tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Michael, D. & Chen, S. (2006). Serious games: games that
educate, train and inform. Boston, Mass: Thomson
Course Technology.
Nadolski, R. J., Hummel, H. G. K., van den Brink, H. J.,
Hoefakker, R. E., Slootmaker, A., Kurvers, H. J., &
Storm, J. (2008). EMERGO: A methodology and
toolkit for developing serious games in higher educa-
tion. Simulation & Gaming, 39(3), 338–352. SAGE
Publications Inc.
Narciss, S. & Huth, K. (2004). How to design informa-
tive tutoring feedback for multimedia learning. In In-
structional design for multimedia learning. Muenster:
Waxmann.
P
´
erez-Colado, V. M., P
´
erez-Colado, I. J., Freire-Mor
´
an, M.,
Mart
´
ınez-Ortiz, I., & Fern
´
andez-Manj
´
on, B. (2019).
uAdventure: Simplifying Narrative Serious Games
Development. In 2019 IEEE 19th International Con-
ference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT),
volume 2161-377X (pp. 119–123). ISSN: 2161-377X.
Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., & Bauer, M. (2009). Melding the
Power of Serious Games and Embedded Assessment
CSEDU 2023 - 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
408