Gamebrics: Integrating Analytical Rubrics into Serious Games

to Teach Analytical Skills

Hugo Huurdeman

1 a

, Hans Hummel

1 b

, Rob Nadolski

1 c

, Giel van Lankveld

1 d

Konstantinos Georgiadis

1 e

, Johan van den Boomen

, Hub Kurvers

, Petra Neessen

2 f

Ron Pat-El

3 g

and Aad Slootmaker

4 h

Faculty of Educational Sciences, Open Universiteit, Valkenburgerweg 177, Heerlen, The Netherlands

Faculty of Management, Open Universiteit, Valkenburgerweg 177, Heerlen, The Netherlands

Faculty of Psychology, Open Universiteit, Valkenburgerweg 177, Heerlen, The Netherlands

Expertisecentrum Onderwijs (ECO), Open Universiteit, Valkenburgerweg 177, Heerlen, The Netherlands

Keywords:

Serious Games, Analytical Rubrics, Formative Assessment, Monitoring Dashboard, Complex Skills,

Workplace-Based Online Learning.

Abstract:

Complex skills, such as analytical thinking, are essential in the rapidly changing society of the 21st century.

An ongoing question is how to teach these complex skills in higher education. Serious games hold potential

to stimulate the acquisition of analytical skills. Rubrics are proven feedback and evaluation instruments, but

have never been directly integrated into the gameplay of serious games. This position paper discusses how

the novel integration of analytical rubrics into serious games may ﬁll this gap. We discuss our approach

for this integration and illustrate it using an implementation of analytical rubrics into an existing scenario-

based serious game. The discussed approach involves creating theory-informed rubrics, performing validated

mappings of rubric elements to game activities and the formulation of appropriate reﬂective feedback. In

addition, we outline the design and implementation of a player-facing dashboard to allow players to track

their progress, in-game performance in terms of analytical skills and to receive reﬂective feedback. Finally,

we provide a brief outlook to an ongoing evaluation study examining the effectiveness of the integration of

rubrics into serious games.

1 INTRODUCTION

The acquisition of complex skills via active learn-

ing, especially in online settings, is a challenge for

higher education – as evidenced during the COVID

pandemic. A way to stimulate learning these skills

is via well-designed serious games. These kinds of

games for ‘serious’ purposes (Michael & Chen, 2006)

provide the opportunity to offer students activating

tasks in authentic settings. The use of serious games

may have several advantages: increasing the motiva-

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3027-9597

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3579-749X

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6585-0888

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8319-2244

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2277-5256

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2712-5116

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4742-0163

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4882-0679

tion of students (Connolly et al., 2012), but also low-

ering the workload of the involved educational staff.

This position paper focuses on the use of serious

games to teach vocational (professional) competences

in context. Analytical skills are an important pre-

requisite for such professional learning. To this end,

rubrics are directly integrated into the gameplay of se-

rious games. Rubrics are proven feedback and eval-

uation instruments, which link criteria to proﬁciency

levels (Van den Bos et al., 2017; Arter & Chappuis,

2010). In this paper, we focus on analytical rubrics,

containing not just scores but also an analysis of a

certain proﬁciency level, and on rubrics related to an-

alytical skills. While rubrics focusing on complex

skills exist, and can be used to assess the acquisition

of these skills, they have never been integrated into

the actual gameplay of serious games. The Game-

brics project

aims to ﬁll this gap by looking at for-

https://www.gamebrics.nl

Huurdeman, H., Hummel, H., Nadolski, R., van Lankveld, G., Georgiadis, K., van den Boomen, J., Kurvers, H., Neessen, P., Pat-El, R. and Slootmaker, A.

Gamebrics: Integrating Analytical Rubrics into Serious Games to Teach Analytical Skills.

DOI: 10.5220/0011974900003470

In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2023) - Volume 2, pages 403-409

ISBN: 978-989-758-641-5; ISSN: 2184-5026

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

403

mative assessment of complex skills via the integra-

tion of analytical rubrics into the gameplay of three

serious games.

Achieving this goal involves theory-informed de-

sign, development and evaluation of the integration

of rubrics into existing serious games. For this, ana-

lytical rubrics have to be created, as well as validated

mappings of game activities to these rubrics via a con-

tent validation method (Hummel et al., 2017). Fur-

thermore, guidelines for in-game feedback have to be

formulated. To allow players to track their progress

and to receive feedback, the design of an in-game

dashboard is required.

This paper ﬁrst describes the backgrounds and

previous literature on serious games, rubrics, think-

ing skills and feedback (Section 2). This is followed

by an outline of the approach of the project, and the

utilized serious games (Section 3). Next, we discuss

the initial results of our work (Section 4), followed by

the conclusions and future work (Section 5). We will

provide an outlook to ongoing work: an evaluation

study with students in which the effectiveness of the

integration of analytical rubrics is being examined.

2 BACKGROUND

This section introduces the concepts related to serious

games, formative assessment, analytical rubrics, ana-

lytical skills and reﬂective feedback, which are used

in the design and development of the Gamebrics tools.

2.1 Serious Games and Formative

Assessment

Serious games have been deﬁned as games for which

the prime purpose is not just entertainment, but the

achievement of serious goals, ranging from learning

to behavioral change (Michael & Chen, 2006; Gee,

2007). Previous meta-analyses (e.g. Connolly et al.

(2012); Wouters et al. (2013)) have shown that these

games can contribute to knowledge acquisition and

content understanding. However, these analyses have

also shown that complex skills such as problem solv-

ing and analytical thinking may be developed using

serious games.

One important element of serious games is the as-

sessment of learning by the players. This can take the

shape of formative assessment, but potentially also of

summative assessment resulting in a grade. An open

issue of assessment in serious games how to carefully

integrate this into the gameplay, to avoid interrupting

the state of ‘ﬂow’ a player may be in (Csikszentmiha-

lyi, 2008; Shute et al., 2009). At the same time, the

assessment should have a high reliability and valid-

ity. Hummel et al. (2017) have developed a way to

integrate formative assessment in serious games in a

way assuring content validity, involving the mapping

of game activities on performance indicators and pro-

ﬁciency levels.

Serious games cover a wide diversity of game gen-

res, for instance simulations, strategy games or adven-

ture games (Connolly et al., 2012). The focal point of

this paper is on scenario-based games, which can be

created using platforms such as uAdventure (P

erez-

Colado et al., 2019) and EMERGO (Nadolski et al.,

2008). EMERGO has been described as “a method-

ology and generic toolkit for developing and deliver-

ing scenario-based serious games”. Using EMERGO,

more than 70 serious games have been developed. Of-

ten, these games have focused on complex (thinking)

skills, such as analyzing information & problem solv-

ing in professional workplace learning settings.

2.2 Analytical Rubrics and Skills

A rubric is a feedback and evaluation instrument.

It is usually structured as a matrix of two dimen-

sions (Van den Bos et al., 2017). The ﬁrst dimen-

sion, presented on the vertical axis, contains crite-

ria for evaluation. The second dimension, presented

on the horizontal axis, contains proﬁciency levels.

Two types of rubrics are commonly distinguished:

holistic rubrics, in which complex skills are assessed

as a whole and analytical rubrics, in which indi-

vidual, singular criteria are speciﬁed. Van den Bos

et al. (2017) make a further distinction between task-

speciﬁc rubrics (which can be only applied to one con-

text) and generic, domain-independent rubrics, which

can be utilized in a broader context, but at a less spe-

ciﬁc level of detail.

As Arter & Chappuis (2010) indicate, rubrics can

be used for assessment in various settings. They can

support assessment goals at the level of understand-

ing and application of knowledge, performance skills

(e.g. presenting), creation of products (e.g. reports)

and higher-order cognitive skills such as analytical

skills. The latter entail sub-skills like analysis, syn-

thesis, critical thinking and problem solving.

The New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives by

Marzano & Kendall (2007, 2008) also deﬁnes vari-

ous ‘operations’ in relation to critical thinking skills,

which include Matching (“identify important similar-

ities and differences”), Classifying (“identify superor-

dinate and subordinate categories”), Analyzing Errors

(“identify errors”), Generalizing (“construct new gen-

eralizations or principles”) and Specifying (“identify

(...) logical consequences”).

CSEDU 2023 - 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

404

2.3 Reﬂective Feedback

Hattie & Timperley (2007) have deﬁned feedback as

all the information an educator provides about the

progress of learners, with the goal to increase learn-

ing and achievement. Effective feedback decreases

the gap between the current and the desired knowl-

edge and understanding of a learner. Further, Hattie

& Timperley (2007) distinguish three types of feed-

back: feed-up (“where am I going?”), feedback (“how

am I doing?”) and feed-forward (“what should I do

next?”).

In addition, it is possible to look at the ways

to effectively give feedback in interactive tutoring

systems. Narciss & Huth (2004) created a concep-

tual framework for the design of this kind of feed-

back. They distinguish between the feedback content

(evaluative and informative components), presenta-

tion (e.g. timing) and function (cognitive, metacog-

nitive and motivational). Reﬂective feedback pro-

vides information on both the progress achieved and

on ways forward to further improve the mastery of

skills.

3 GAMEBRICS APPROACH

Within our Gamebrics approach, formative assess-

ment via analytical rubrics is designed, developed

and evaluated, based on previously validated meth-

ods. We implemented this tooling in three serious

games which are in different stages of development,

but will focus our illustrations on one of them.

3.1 Development Steps

The project consists of four main phases. In the ﬁrst

phase, a domain-independent, analytical rubric for

analytical skills is developed. This rubric is mapped

to game activities of two existing serious games, via

a validated method for content validation (Hummel

et al., 2017). The second phase involves the cre-

ation and integration of existing and enhanced tool-

ing into the EMERGO framework (Nadolski et al.,

2008). This includes a student dashboard and an au-

thoring environment for teachers. Within the third

phase, an experimental comparison between game-

play with and without rubrics is conducted. Finally,

the fourth phase involves the reporting of ﬁndings, the

documentation of created tools and the depositing of

underlying source code.

This position paper focuses on the ﬁrst and second

phase of the Gamebrics project, and describes ﬁnd-

ings and its achievements thus far.

3.2 Exemplary Game Implementation

The support for formative evaluation via rubrics is in-

tegrated into three serious games at different stages of

development: Kastanjehoeve (already in exploitation

over a year, domain management science), Junior Sci-

entist (launched in Feb. 2023, domain psychological

research) and EduMythbusters (under development,

domain educational science). However, we limit our

illustration of the implementation to the ﬁrst game.

The Kastanjehoeve game (Figure 1) constitutes an

introduction to the ﬁeld of business administration

(within the ﬁeld of management sciences). Within the

game, students perform a virtual internship in an el-

derly home (named Kastanjehoeve) and have to solve

authentic management problems. The game already

forms an integral part of Management & Organiza-

tion, a ﬁrst-year Bachelor course in Management Sci-

ences at the Open Universiteit (OUNL).

These games already support online active learn-

ing in higher education, but are expanded to include

rubrics on analytical thinking.

Figure 1: Screenshot Kastanjehoeve game: question from

supervisor. Note: the original game is in the Dutch lan-

guage. The screenshots in this paper have been translated

to English.

4 INITIAL RESULTS

This section describes the initial results of the ﬁrst two

phases of the Gamebrics project. We focus on the cre-

ated rubrics, the mapping of game activities, guide-

lines for in-game feedback, the design of a dashboard

and the implementation so far.

4.1 Creation of Rubrics

Essential to the integration of formative assessment

of complex skills into the gameplay of the selected

serious games is the creation of the rubrics them-

selves. The aim was that these would cover various

aspects of analytical thinking and would be domain-

independent.

Gamebrics: Integrating Analytical Rubrics into Serious Games to Teach Analytical Skills

405

Table 1: Analytical thinking skills deﬁned within the Gamebrics project, and corresponding skills in previous literature.

# Sub-skill Marzano et al. (1993) Marzano & Kendall (2008)

1 Comparing & selecting Comparison Matching

2 Identifying errors in reliability Error Analysis Analyzing Errors

3 Inducing Induction Generalizing

4 Deducing Deduction Specifying

5 Decomposing information Classiﬁcation Classifying

6 Structuring information Classiﬁcation Classifying

7 Making decisions Constructing support Decision making

8 Analyzing perspectives Analyzing perspectives Investigating

Based on an analysis of previous EMERGO

games as well as previous literature (Marzano et al.,

1993; Marzano & Kendall, 2007, 2008), eight sub-

skills of analytical thinking were deﬁned: Comparing

and selecting, Identifying errors, Inducing, Deducing,

Decomposing, Structuring, Making decisions and An-

alyzing perspectives. These sub-skills are further de-

ﬁned and related to previous literature in Table 1. For

each deﬁned skill, a rubric was created. The con-

tents of these rubrics were adapted from operational-

izations of skills by in terms of learning objectives by

Marzano et al. (1993) and Marzano & Kendall (2008).

The ﬁnal rubrics contained four proﬁciency levels, ex-

pressed in stars. These levels were inspired by the ﬁrst

four levels of Krathwohl (2002)’s revision of Bloom

et al. (1956)’s taxonomy, ranging from one star (“rec-

ognize”), to two stars (“understand”), three stars (“an-

alyze”) and four stars (“apply”).

4.2 Mapping of Game Activities to

Rubric

While the created rubrics provided a detailed

overview of different sub-skills of analytical thinking,

there was no direct connection to the game activities

in the serious games used in our project. Therefore,

we created a mapping of the different rubrics and their

proﬁciency levels to the existing game activities.

The method for this mapping was inspired by a

previously validated method for content validation by

Hummel et al. (2017). Speciﬁcally, this method in-

volves the mapping of learning activities (from the

scenario of the serious game) to performance indi-

cators (from the rubrics for each analytical thinking

subskill created in the previous step). This process

was done by the subject matter experts: the educators

involved in creating the original serious games and

using these in their courses.

A challenge occurring in this process was that

Kastanjehoeve, the existing serious game used in the

mapping, contained important elements of analytical

thinking, but was not originally designed with a spe-

ciﬁc focus on the eight analytical sub-skills deﬁned

in the previous step. Therefore, each separate game

Table 2: Number of measurement points of analytical think-

ing skills after mapping to game activities Kastanjehoeve.

# Sub-skill Measurement points

1 Comparing/selecting 3

2 Identifying errors 1

3 Inducing 1

4 Deducing 6

5 Decomposing 1

6 Structuring 4

7 Making decisions 6

8 Analyzing persp. 10

Total 32

activity (denoted as “micro-challenge” within Game-

brics), had to be classiﬁed in terms of the analytical

thinking skill it captured, the proﬁciency level which

applied to it, the weight factor for the total score in

the game, and the observables which could be used to

observe the performance of a player. For this process,

a structured mapping table was constructed, by which

the subject matter experts could systematically note

down these elements.

Table 2 summarizes the results of this process for

the Kastanjehoeve serious game. In total 32 mea-

surement points for the eight analytical skills were

found. For some sub-skills, relatively few measure-

ment points were identiﬁed (e.g. identifying errors),

while for other sub-skills, many points were identi-

ﬁed (e.g. analyzing perspectives). The observables

ranged from relatively simple measurements, for ex-

ample whether a game activity has been completed,

to more complex ones, for instance how many man-

agement techniques a player could identify in video

fragments and how many attempts she needed.

4.3 Guidelines for In-Game Feedback

An important element of in-game support for stu-

dents to potentially improve their analytical thinking

skills is the feedback they receive during the game-

play. Within Gamebrics, we distinguish two types of

feedback. First of all, there is natural feedback, which

is part of the game scenario itself. For instance, the

player’s supervisor in the Kastanjehoeve game may

indicate why a provided answer to a multiple-choice

CSEDU 2023 - 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

406

question is wrong. Here, we take this type of feed-

back “as is”. A second type of feedback is generic

reﬂection feedback. This type of reﬂective feedback,

in our case pertaining to the analytical skills, is added

after playing parts of the game, but should not disturb

the game experience itself (in other words: should be

unobtrusive).

To formulate the feedback and to decide when to

display it, we took into account two of Narciss & Huth

(2004)’s factors contributing to the informative value

of feedback: content and presentation.

In terms of evaluative and informative content, in-

game feedback was formulated based on Narciss &

Huth (2004)’s guidelines and an inventarisation of the

necessary conditions for game-independent feedback.

The feedback consists of a generic part, the base, for-

mulated on the basis of the proﬁciency level, and a

content remediating part, which is also coupled to the

proﬁciency level.

The games within Gamebrics vary

considerably, as they originate from Management Sci-

ences, Psychology and Educational Sciences. There-

fore, similar to the rubrics, the feedback is formulated

in a domain-independent way, so they can be applied

to all games in question. A challenge in this process

is that a balance has to be struck to avoid that the

feedback is either too broad or too narrow. There-

fore, the base of the feedback only gives an indication

of the performance (the score compared to the maxi-

mum score). In the remediating part of the feedback, a

textual description of the desired behavior is included

to improve the mastery of the analytical thinking sub-

skill.

A challenge with regards to the presentation of the

feedback is the timing. It should be shown at mo-

ments which should not interrupt the ‘ﬂow’ of the

gameplay. Therefore, we implemented the display

upon completing parts of the game. For instance,

in the Kastanjehoeve game, the dashboard containing

feedback is shown for the ﬁrst time when completing

the introductory part of the game.

4.4 Dashboard Design

Via the Gamebrics dashboard, the player can in-

spect her progress in terms of the gathered points in

the game, the performance with regards to the ana-

lytical skills and receive reﬂective feedback. Dur-

ing the design process, design elements and learned

lessons were incorporated from the Pe(e)rfectly

Skilled project

, such as the skills wheel, a circular

Since our eight rubrics each contained four proﬁciency

levels, we had to create 24 feedback texts for each serious

game.

https://www.surf.nl/peerfect-vaardig

Figure 2: Gamebrics Dashboard: Progress screen (a), Kas-

tanjehoeve game.

Figure 3: Gamebrics Dashboard: Skills Wheel (b), Kastan-

jehoeve game.

Figure 4: Gamebrics Dashboard: Advice screen (c), Kas-

tanjehoeve game.

visual representation of a player’s performance. A

design challenge during the creation of the dashboard

was to make it generic enough to be usable in existing

serious games.

The dashboard shows a player’s progress (a), the

proﬁciency level for analytical skills via the ‘skills

wheel’ (b), and feedback for improving the analytical

skills (c).

Figure 2 depicts the progress screen within the

dashboard (a). It includes the scores and maximum

scores on the eight sub-skills, based on the currently

completed challenges. Via two buttons, a player can

switch to a screen with the skills wheel, or the advice

screen. Figure 3 contains the skills wheel (b). It dis-

plays via different colors and tooltips whether a player

has improved, stayed at the same level, or has wors-

Gamebrics: Integrating Analytical Rubrics into Serious Games to Teach Analytical Skills

407

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.

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

to Monitor and Foster Learning: Flow and Grow. In

U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Serious

Games (pp. 317–343). Routledge.

van den Bos, P., Burghout, C., & Brinke, D. J.-t. (2017).

Toetsen met rubrics. In H. van Berkel, A. Bax, &

D. Joosten-ten Brinke (Eds.), Toetsen in het hoger

onderwijs (pp. 201–214). Houten: Bohn Staﬂeu van

Loghum.

Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., &

van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the

cognitive and motivational effects of serious games.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 249–265.

American Psychological Association.

Gamebrics: Integrating Analytical Rubrics into Serious Games to Teach Analytical Skills

409