Tangible or Digital? A Comparison Between Two Tools for Designing

Asymmetric Role-Playing Games for Learning

elle Guigon

1,2 a

, Mathieu Vermeulen

2 b

, Mathieu Muratet

1 c

and Thibault Carron

1 d

CNRS, LIP6, Sorbonne Universit

e, 4 Pl. Jussieu, F-75005 Paris, France

CERI SN, IMT Nord Europe, 764 Boulevard Lahure, F-59000 Douai, France

Keywords:

Serious Game, Design, Scenario, Multiplayer, Technology Enhanced Learning.

Abstract:

The design of serious games is a complex process, particularly when it comes to scripting. We are particularly

interested in asymmetrical multiplayer serious games, i.e. where several identiﬁed roles have different tasks

and objectives. These games are usually collaborative to be closer to real-life work or learning situations.

Few methods and tools have been designed to assist in the making of scenarios for this type of game. Our

aim here is to compare two tools for this purpose: one tangible and one digital, both based on the same

conceptual model, and to compare the advantages and the limitations of these two tools. We also want to make

suggestions to help choose between them depending on the context. We base these comparisons on qualitative

experiments carried out with the two tools. The results tend to show that the use of a tangible tool is preferable

in the ideation phase, at the very beginning of scenario design, because it appears to be quicker to familiarise

yourself with. The digital tool, on the other hand, would be more effective in the long term, to manage several

scenarios and update its content.

1 INTRODUCTION

These days, students have few opportunities to con-

front real-life professional situations that they could

only approach through internships and group projects.

However, studies show that there is a skill transfer

from virtual world to reality (Rose et al., 2000; Tork-

ington et al., 2001). As Freitas (Freitas and Neumann,

2009) points out, role-playing is effective before tak-

ing a job to avoid mistakes in the real world. Indeed,

serious games have been developed in this ﬁeld. Fa-

bricatore (Fabricatore, 2000) proposes the following

deﬁnition of a serious game:

[...] a virtual environment and a gaming expe-

rience in which the contents that we want to

teach can be naturally embedded with some

contextual relevance in terms of the game-

playing [...].

They provide a way of tackling realistic situations

with the advantage of being able to replay the si-

tuation several times for learning purposes (Marﬁsi-

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1790-6418

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3646-1741

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6101-5132

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6982-7055

Schottman et al., 2013). Thus, serious game seems

suitable for students to confront professional situa-

tions because this type of activity would be com-

plicated to repeat in real-life conditions. We there-

fore want to focus on serious games that are multi-

player, to incorporate the cooperative aspects of the

professional world. The deﬁnition of cooperation and

its distinction from collaboration is not unanimous

as shown by Casta

ner (Casta

ner and Oliveira, 2020).

Here, we will use the term “cooperation” as described

by Roschelle (Roschelle and Teasley, 1995), to know:

Cooperative work is accomplished by the divi-

sion of labour among participants, as an activ-

ity where each person is responsible for a por-

tion of the problem solving. We focus on col-

laboration as the mutual engagement of par-

ticipants in a coordinated effort to solve the

problem together.

In the ﬁeld of games, it is common to use the term

cooperation to talk about games that we consider, ac-

cording to this last deﬁnition, to be collaborative. In

addition to being cooperative, the games we are ad-

dressing are “asymmetric”. We therefore chose to use

this term to describe the type of game that interests

us. This means that the different players will not have

Guigon, G., Vermeulen, M., Muratet, M. and Carron, T.

Tangible or Digital? A Comparison Between Two Tools for Designing Asymmetric Role-Playing Games for Learning.

DOI: 10.5220/0012558900003693

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2024) - Volume 1, pages 34-42

ISBN: 978-989-758-697-2; ISSN: 2184-5026

the same role to play (Meyer et al., 2021; Li et al.,

2017; Bortolaso et al., 2019). Each role will have its

own pedagogical objectives, tasks and skills. We call

this type of game Role Learning Games (RLG). The

aim is for players to understand how these roles work

together, to learn to manage their time and to take ac-

count of the actions of other players and their inﬂu-

ence on their own work. However, Marﬁsi (Marﬁsi-

Schottman, 2023) points out the problem that exis-

ting authoring tools for designing serious games are

either not available to teachers or require development

skills.

Our general problem is: how can we help tea-

chers and educational engineers build a RLG sce-

nario? This type of game is still underdeveloped and

this can be explained by the lack of tools and methods

to help design them (Guigon et al., 2021). Neverthe-

less, a model (RLG Model) (Guigon, 2022) has been

built for this purpose (Figure 1 is an overview of the

model). It has been reiﬁed in the form of two tools:

a tangible one (RLG Kit) and a digital one (RLG

Maker). This model deﬁnes that a RLG (in orange on

the ﬁgure) contains at least one mission (black). And

each mission includes at least two quests (blue): one

for each role. To achieve the educational objectives

of each quest and obtain rewards, the role will have

to complete tasks (red) of various kinds. However, it

is essential to have at least one task in common with

another role by quest. This common task allows and

highlights the cooperative side of the game (green).

These are the main characteristics of this model.

Mission M1

Quest Q1

Task Q1T1

Quest Q2

Q1T1

Cooperation

Mission M2

RLG

Task Q2T1

Q2T1

Mission M1

Figure 1: RLG Model overview.

The model was reiﬁed into two tools, one tangible

and one digital, to evaluate it and to tackle different

constraints in different contexts. What are the beneﬁts

and the limits of these two types of tools?

We can suppose on one hand that a tangible tool

offers more ﬂexibility, facilitates collaborative design

and is better suited for brainstorming (Pernin et al.,

2012) or will be the quicker to familiarise yourself

with (Sutipitakwong and Jamsri, 2020) or to perform

the activity (Cuendet et al., 2012; Schneider et al.,

2011). Moreover, (Roy and Warren, 2019) grants ad-

vantages of tangible cards that could apply to our Kit,

that is to say:

• Facilitating creative combinations of infor-

mation and ideas

• Providing a common basis for understan-

ding and communication in a team

• Providing tangible external representations

of design elements or information

• Providing convenient summaries of useful

information and/or methods

• Are semi-structured tools between blank

Post-it notes and detailed instruction ma-

nuals

On the other hand, the digital tool could allow de-

signers to share their scenario with other designers

(Emin et al., 2010; Marﬁsi-Schottman et al., 2010) or

to create them without worrying about creating incon-

sistencies (Marne and Labat, 2014). Another advan-

tage is to analyse user data (Oliver-Quelennec et al.,

2022). We assume that they will complement each

other and provide advantages inherent in their format.

This lead us to our research question: how can we

help designers choose the appropriate tool for script-

ing RLG? The designers we are targeting are teach-

ers and educational engineers because they can help

teachers implement this type of resource in the class-

room. To answer this question, we will ﬁrst present

the two tools and then describe the experiments that

have been set up to evaluate them. We will then be

able to draw up a comparison of these tools to help

designers in their choice.

2 TOOLS PRESENTATION

The RLG Model was reiﬁed in the form of two tools

in order to evaluate it. These tools have been tested

with teachers several times allowing continuous im-

provement.

2.1 RLG Kit

This Kit comes in the form of a set of wooden puzzle-

type pieces (see Figure 2), rewritable and magnetic.

Tangible or Digital? A Comparison Between Two Tools for Designing Asymmetric Role-Playing Games for Learning

Figure 2: Some tiles of the RLG Kit: educational objectives, background, role & quest, and some tasks.

The puzzle shape was carefully chosen, implicitly in-

ﬂuencing the designers to use them in a certain or-

der by following the nesting of the pieces. To de-

ﬁne this order, ﬁve experiments were previously con-

ducted with the target audience. The experiments pre-

sented below (see subsection 3.1) led to the addition

of an expansion to the basic Kit, allowing the addition

of more fun features such as non-player characters,

additional roles and resources for instance.

Some tiles were also added after replicating

the scenario of commercial asymmetric multiplayer

board games (such as ROOT, The Werewolves of

Miller’s Hollow, CS Files and Scotland Yard) with the

RLG Kit. These tiles are, for example, steps allowing

you to segment the scenario, the possibility of block-

ing another player in one of their tasks if the game is

rather competitive, or the possibility of choosing be-

tween several tasks during your turn.

The Kit also contains a paper booklet to guide de-

signers step by step on the tiles to ﬁll. This book-

let is in two parts. The ﬁrst part guides the user on

the essential steps to complete to build the skeleton of

the game. The second part details the tiles of the ex-

pansion of the Kit and explains how to improve your

game. In addition, an example sheet shows how to

place the tiles together and use the tool to its theo-

retical maximum potential (comparing tasks between

roles, for instance). The sources of the ﬁles are avail-

able

to reproduce the Kit using a fablab (a.k.a. digital

manufacturing laboratory).

2.2 RLG Maker

RLG Maker is a digital adaptation of the RLG Kit.

It has been designed to be as close as possible to the

tangible version and thus to reduce the time of adap-

tation and understanding of a new tool (see Fig. 3). In

addition, its format makes it possible to further guide

users by arranging the tiles in the recommended order.

Furthermore, some options inherent to certain tiles

are available by clicking on them. An important op-

Download the Kit design ﬁles: https://bit.ly/RLGkit

tion has been added to this version: the scenario

backup. Indeed, it is possible to stop the scenario at

any time and download the backup ﬁle of your project

(in json format). This allows the designer to resume

their work later by importing their ﬁle and to share

it. Therefore, this also allows the users to work on

multiple scenarios thanks to multiple ﬁles.

To guide the designer, the booklet used for the Kit

has been adapted to the digital version and can be

downloaded from the tool. However, to avoid having

to search in a PDF, the tile boxes have placeholders to

give examples of the expected content, and tooltips

appear when hovering the tiles or boxes to explain

what is expected. Then, to help users follow the right

order in ﬁlling the tiles, a tutorial was implemented

following the experiment presented in section 3.2. It

also explains how to browse the tool depending on the

hardware used (mouse, pad or keyboard).

The tool is accessible online

. It is planned to

make RLG Maker sources available with each new

major update. The tool is currently available in En-

glish and French and can easily and quickly be trans-

lated into other languages.

3 EXPERIMENTS

To validate these tools and improve them as well as

the underlying model, qualitative experiments were

set up for each. Note that this research is placed

in the epistemological paradigm of pragmatic con-

structivism (Avenier and Thomas, 2015). Indeed, we

reproduce ecological situations with our end users

(teachers and instructional designers in our case).

Thus, we place them at the heart of our experiments

to study the construction of asymmetrical LG. To do

that, we developed, collaboratively with end users, a

model and tools to build those games and collect data

about their use. Model and tools allow us to study if

the users have a better understanding of the creation

RLG Maker: http://rlgmaker.imt-nord-europe.fr/

CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

Figure 3: Some tiles of RLG Maker: educational objectives, background, role & quest and some tasks.

of RLG. Moreover, we work in the ﬁeld of Technol-

ogy Enhanced Learning (TEL) focused on IT.

Then, we apply the principles of Design-Based

Research (DBR) (Wang and Hannaﬁn, 2005). Each

stage of the design process for these tools has gone

through several iterative phases, thanks to experi-

ments with end users. For example, the order in which

the design stages are carried out, or the use of the tools

(usefulness, usability and acceptability) have been the

subject of several experiments followed by improve-

ments. All of this has led to reﬁnements to the un-

derlying model at each iteration. The Kit experiments

presented here were all part of the same iteration, and

it was modiﬁed following these experiments. Further-

more, we comply with the ten principles of the DBR

set out in the article by (Mandran et al., 2022). We

use the THEDRE (Traceable Human Experiment De-

sign Research) method and its associated framework

to guide us in the DBR. .

Each group was audio-recorded and the sessions

were ﬁlmed. The organization of the sessions was

similar: they began with a brieﬁng phase of around

15-20 minutes on the presentation of this type of

game, we explained what was expected from the ses-

sion, and the testers ﬁlled out a form to ﬁnd out

their level of mastery and knowledge on the subject.

Then, the scripting period lasted an hour on average.

The leader, identical for all sessions, only intervened

when participants called for help. Finally, for half an

hour, the volunteer groups could present their project,

followed by a debrieﬁng to ﬁnd out how they felt

about the tool, what they liked and what needed to be

improved. Everyone also completed Brooke’s SUS

questionnaire (Brooke, 1996) to assess the usability

of the tool.

3.1 RLG Kit Experiments

There were three experiments with the RLG Kit. This

tool being a reiﬁcation of the RLG Model, the main

goal was to evaluate the tool, the elements that com-

pose it and therefore, if the model allows the design

of a RLG.

Table 1 presents a summary and comparative view

of the experiments. The duration of the experiments

was not identical because it depended on the partici-

pants’ available time. The ﬁrst session took place in

the teacher’s free time. For the second experiment,

it was divided into two 45-minute sessions because

it took place during their lunch break. For the last

experiment, it took place during a seminar gathering

teachers and educational engineers from engineering

schools.

We can see in Table 1 that two of the experiments

led to the outcome of two games, one for high school

and one for middle school (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Games made with the RLG Kit in class.

Tangible or Digital? A Comparison Between Two Tools for Designing Asymmetric Role-Playing Games for Learning

Table 1: Experiments conducted with the RLG Kit.

Experiments 1st 2nd 3rd

Testers 1 teacher (high school) 8 teachers (middle

school)

15 teachers (engineer-

ing school, divided into

5 groups)

Duration (hours) 3 1,5 2

Material 1 RLG Kit 1 RLG Kit 5 RLG Kits

Goal Create an asymmetrical

serious game scenario

for a high school course

using the Kit

Create an asymmetrical

serious game scenario

to revise the French A-

levels with the Kit

Discover the Kit and

create ﬁctional scenar-

ios with the Kit

Subject French French, mathematics,

history-geography,

technology, physics-

chemistry, life and

science studies

English, composite ma-

terials, law, industrial

engineering, optics,

mathematics and elec-

trical engineering, IT

Game set up with students Yes Yes No

3.2 RLG Maker Experiment

RLG Maker has so far been tested once with eight

educational engineers who work in higher education

and will be tested a second time with teachers from

engineering schools. As for the RLG Kit, we evalu-

ate the RLG model through another reiﬁcation, RLG

Maker. RLG Maker is a web application developed in

Javascript and the Angular Framework. In addition to

this, for this experiment, a paper guide (similar to the

one downloadable from the tool) was offered to the

participants. As the latter was used, this means that

the tool did not answer all of their questions. This

explains why a tutorial incorporated into the tool was

subsequently implemented.

During this experiment, there were eight educa-

tional engineers, divided into teams of two to design

a scenario for an hour (see Figure 5). This experiment

took place during a seminar bringing together educa-

tional engineers from a group of French engineering

schools.

4 TOOLS COMPARISON

Here are the positive and negative points of each

tool that we have observed through experiments with

qualitative data. These observations were cross-

referenced with sentences during the debrieﬁng or

during the session. For the record, we call the puz-

zle pieces “tile” and the white boxes that make them

up “box”.

Figure 5: Experiment with RLG Maker.

4.1 RLG Kit

4.1.1 Pros

Thanks to the experiments, a few observations were

made:

1. We could see that the main advantage of the RLG

Kit is its quick handling. It was observed in eve-

ry experiment. Indeed, being able to manipulate

puzzle pieces is done without any difﬁculty.

2. The tool seems suited to part of our target audi-

ence which is teachers (seen in every experiment).

Erasable markers are available to ﬁll in the boxes

CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

of the tiles. In addition, the pieces are magnetic

so they can easily be used on a whiteboard.

3. The format of the Kit allows several people to

handle the tiles at the same time (seen in every

experiment).

4. This format seems to arouse interest and motiva-

tion among designers who seem eager to write on

the tiles and manipulate them (seen in every ex-

periment).

5. Finally, the fact that all designers can partici-

pate in the construction of the scenario on the

tool seems to favour the scenario conceptualisa-

tion phase. That is to say that everyone can give

their ideas and write them on the tiles (seen in ev-

ery experiment). The scenarios produced with the

Kit and RLG Maker (the online tool) for the same

duration seem more accomplished with the Kit.

Indeed, the paper guide advises you to take a cer-

tain number of basic steps to build your scenario

and these steps are more advanced with the users

of the Kit than with RLG Maker for the same du-

ration of the experiment.

4.1.2 Limits

Here are observed limitations of this tool:

6. The fact that the Kit is erasable is a strong point

for its reusability, but becomes a weakness if you

want to store it between two design sessions. It

was observed during the 2nd experiment. Indeed,

by storing the tiles or handling them carelessly,

the tiles can then be erased without the possibility

of going back as easily as with a keyboard short-

cut.

7. Being a tangible tool, it is really made for in-

person design sessions. Lending the Kit to work

separately is possible but not recommended due to

the tiles being erased during storage (seen in the

2nd experiment).

8. The number of tiles is limited per Kit, so you

would have to add tiles if you want to create a

very large game (seen in the 3rd experiment).

9. The complete Kit with extension is made of wood,

so its weight and size must be taken into consid-

eration. Even if it ﬁts in a briefcase, if you want

to have several copies to develop several games

in parallel, it can become bulky and heavy to

transport (seen during the preparation of the 3rd

experiment). One Kit ﬁts into a box measuring

43x32x13,5cm, or 19 litres.

In addition, certain limits were not observed during

the experiments but are known, namely:

• With one Kit it is only possible to create one game

at a time, if you wish to create several simultane-

ously, you must therefore acquire more Kits.

• It is possible to upgrade the Kit by creating new

tiles but this takes time and requires materials and

access to speciﬁc machines (seen after the three

experiments for the creation of the expansion).

4.2 RLG Maker

4.2.1 Pros

Here are some advantages observed during the exper-

iment:

10. The main observed advantage of this tool is that

participants could save their scenarios . It is en-

tirely possible to stop your scenario at any time,

download the save ﬁle, then re-import it to mod-

ify it next time. This functionality was used by

the leader to analyse the scenarios created by the

participants. It was then possible to analyse every

activity performed in the tool, chronologically.

11. Some participants could use the tool without

opening the paper booklet. Indeed, there are

tooltips and placeholders to explain every tile and

box.

12. Changes to the tool can be implemented very

quickly depending on the modiﬁcations to be

made, for instance: a text modiﬁcation, adding a

ﬁeld to a tile, changing a color is quick and easy.

Being able to improve the tool after this experi-

ment has proved useful.

13. Contrary to the Kit, since the tool is digital, it does

not take up space. Only a computer or a tablet

with an internet connection is needed to launch it.

It is then possible to work on it and download the

backup without connection. It is therefore possi-

ble to use it easily. For this experiment, there were

four groups but this caused no transport problem

for the experiment leader.

Even if it was not observed during this experi-

ment, we can note that since this is a digital tool, there

is no limit on the number of tiles available.

4.2.2 Limits

Some weak points have been observed with this tool:

14. Handling was more difﬁcult for the users. Indeed,

manoeuvrability was not optimal during this ex-

periment so they had to learn how to move, zoom

in and out, and use some features. These were not

present in the tangible format and that take time

when getting started with the tool.

Tangible or Digital? A Comparison Between Two Tools for Designing Asymmetric Role-Playing Games for Learning

15. Even if the time between the end of the instruc-

tions and the moment when users started writing

on the tiles is rather similar between the two tools

(between 4 and 9 mins for RLG Maker and be-

tween 3 and 9 mins for the Kit), users of RLG

Maker used this time to familiarise themselves

with the tool while those with the Kit took this

time to read the guide and ﬁnd an idea for a sce-

nario. RLG Maker’s users struggled more moving

forward and seemed more lost when implement-

ing the scenario in the tool.

16. Since the tool is on a computer, only one de-

signer can manipulate it at a time. Communica-

tion is therefore important so that other designers

can get involved in the construction of the sce-

nario. During the experiment, the two members of

a group opened the tool on their laptop, only one

implemented the scenario but the second wanted

to help her teammate ﬁnd elements in the tool so

she searched how to do it on her own computer

(see Figure 5).

The following remarks were not observed during the

experiment but are known limitations:

• The ﬁrst constraint for its use is the need to have a

computer (or a tablet) with an internet connection

to load the tool.

• If the computer encounters a battery problem or

other technical problem, it is possible to lose all

its data if the designer has not saved his scenario

regularly. In fact, there is no database attached

to the tool to avoid any General Data Protection

Regulation (GDPR) problems.

4.3 Recommendations According to the

Context

Our problem is to help teachers to choose the most

suitable to their goals. Table 2 takes into account the

observations we made during the experiments with

the RLG Kit and RLG Maker. In this table, the pres-

ence of the “+” symbol means that this tool is appro-

priate to the proposed characteristic. When there is a

“++” symbol it means that the tool in question is more

suitable than the other regarding this aspect. The “-”

symbol means that this tool is not appropriate for this

characteristic.

Considering the criteria in this table, we can see

that the two tools seem complementary: where one

reaches its limit, the other supports this aspect and

are quite balanced.

One possible use to take advantage of the bene-

ﬁts of both tools would be to start by using the RLG

Kit during the conceptualisation phase, so that all de-

signers can interact with the material (seen in 3.) and

help with scenario design (as seen in section 4). Once

the ﬁrst design session has been completed, then im-

plement the scenario obtained in RLG Maker to save

it (as seen in 10.) and be able to modify it remotely

or separately. All designers could then have access

to it and consult it as they wish. Note that it is advis-

able, according to the experiments carried out, to have

between two or three designers with the RLG Kit, if

there are more then it is preferable to divide the quests

of the different roles. Indeed, during the experiment

with middle school teachers, there were eight design-

ers and the game had four roles. As each of the roles

covered a different discipline: French, Mathematics,

History and Science, then the teachers of these disci-

plines worked separately on the quest that concerned

them. However, before dividing up the work, they had

to agree on the plot of the game and when the differ-

ent roles would cooperate. Then, they built their quest

around these common tasks.

Concerning RLG Maker, the experiment was only

carried out with pairs and it seems to work well. We

assume that it would be possible for a maximum of

three people to use the tool on the same device. Be-

yond this number, users might be more comfortable

using another device such as a projector.

Table 2: Comparison of the usage characteristics of the

RLG Kit and RLG Maker.

RLG Kit RLG Maker

Face-to-face ++ +

Remote - ++

Manipulability ++ -

Easy to use ++ +

Conceptualisation ++ +

Collaborative

design

++ +

Design in

several times

- ++

Multiple

simultaneous scenarios

- ++

Transportability + ++

5 CONCLUSION

To conclude, this paper presented two tools to as-

sist in the design of asymmetric role-playing games

for training, mainly intended for teachers and educa-

tional engineers. The aim of this article was to com-

pare these two tools, the RLG Kit (tangible) and RLG

Maker (digital) to understand the advantages and lim-

itations of each of them.

CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

We have outlined the advantages and limitations

of the two RLG scenario design tools based on exper-

iments with the target audience. Then, we have pro-

posed a comparative table to help designers choose

between the two tools based on the context and their

constraints. Each of them having its strengths, it is

then possible to beneﬁt from all these advantages by

combining the two tools. That is to say, to use the tan-

gible Kit in the conceptualisation phase to involve all

the designers as much as possible, then to implement

the scenario on RLG Maker to be able to continue the

work, if necessary, remotely and to save the scenario

in a more lasting way. Indeed, as in Model Driven

Engineering, one of our future objectives is to be able

to load the scenario into a gaming environment like

Unity or Godot.

We can conﬁrm that the advantages of the cards

cited by (Roy and Warren, 2019) in the Introduction

were, for the most part, found during the Kit experi-

ments.

(Pozzi et al., 2022) offered teachers a game to de-

sign collaborative learning activities using a board in

three different formats. Each format had its advan-

tages and disadvantages, but their hybrid augmented

reality format could be the most advantageous by

combining the qualities of the tangible and digital for-

mats. This could be a new avenue for our project and

worth studying in detail.

We are currently looking for a way to automati-

cally recognise the pieces of the tangible Kit to au-

tomatically implement the tiles and their content in

RLG Maker using a photo, for example. This would

avoid having to copy what is already written on the

Kit.

In the meantime, we are continuing experiments

with RLG Maker because we are in a process of

continuous improvement (in accordance with Design-

Based Research). The next experiment will test a new

functionality which aims to check the scenario. This

will ensure that the quests can be completed at the

same time for all the roles, and if the players can carry

out common tasks simultaneously. To date, there has

not yet been a game developed with RLG Maker since

the experimentation aimed to test the tool to improve

it and not to produce one or more games, but our ob-

jective is to promptly develop one with it. These im-

provements may have an inﬂuence on the tool itself

(ergonomics, accessibility for example), but also on

the Kit and the model if new elements appear with the

tests.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was funded by the French government as

part of the France Relance recovery plan through the

Nucl

eoﬁl project

REFERENCES

Avenier, M.-J. and Thomas, C. (2015). Finding one’s way

around various methodological guidelines for doing

rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemo-

logical frameworks. Syst

emes d’information & man-

agement, 20(1):61–98. Place: Paris Publisher: ESKA.

Bortolaso, C., Bourdiol, J., and Graham, T. C. N. (2019).

Enhancing Communication and Awareness in Asym-

metric Games. In van der Spek, E., G

obel, S., Do, E.

Y.-L., Clua, E., and Baalsrud Hauge, J., editors, En-

tertainment Computing and Serious Games, Lecture

Notes in Computer Science, pages 250–262, Cham.

Springer International Publishing.

Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A ’Quick and Dirty’ Usability

Scale. In Usability Evaluation in Industry, pages 189–

194. Taylor & Francis.

Casta

ner, X. and Oliveira, N. (2020). Collaboration, Coor-

dination, and Cooperation Among Organizations: Es-

tablishing the Distinctive Meanings of These Terms

Through a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of

Management, 46(6):965–1001.

Cuendet, S., Bumbacher, E., and Dillenbourg, P. (2012).

Tangible vs. virtual representations: when tangibles

beneﬁt the training of spatial skills. In Proceedings of

the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer In-

teraction: Making Sense Through Design, NordiCHI

’12, pages 99–108, New York, NY, USA. Association

for Computing Machinery.

Emin, V., Pernin, J.-P., and Aguirre-Cervantes, J. (2010).

ScenEdit: An Intention-Oriented Authoring Environn-

ment to Design Learning Scenarios. Pages: 631.

Fabricatore, C. (2000). Learning and Videogames: an Un-

exploited Synergy. In 2000 Annual Convention of

the Association for Educational Communications and

Technology (AECT), Long Beach, CA, USA. Pages:

1-17.

Freitas, S. d. and Neumann, T. (2009). The use of ‘ex-

ploratory learning’ for supporting immersive learn-

ing in virtual environments. Computers & Education,

52(2):343–352.

Guigon, G. (2022). Vers la conception de jeux s

erieux

multi-joueurs et multi-r

oles. In RJC-EIAH 2022,

Lille, France.

Guigon, G., Vermeulen, M., Muratet, M., and Carron, T.

(2021). Towards an Integration of the Multi-role Di-

mension in the Design of Learning Games: a Review

of the Literature. In de Rosa, F., Marﬁsi Schottman,

I., Baalsrud Hauge, J., Bellotti, F., Dondio, P., and

Romero, M., editors, Games and Learning Alliance,

Nucl

eoﬁl project : https://bit.ly/nucleoﬁl

Tangible or Digital? A Comparison Between Two Tools for Designing Asymmetric Role-Playing Games for Learning

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 258–264,

Cham. Springer International Publishing.

Li, J., Deng, H., and Michalatos, P. (2017). MagicTorch:

A Context-aware Projection System for Asymmetri-

cal VR Games. In Extended Abstracts Publication

of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Inter-

action in Play, CHI PLAY ’17 Extended Abstracts,

pages 431–436, New York, NY, USA. Association for

Computing Machinery.

Mandran, N., Vermeulen, M., and Prior, E. (2022). THE-

DRE’s Framework: Empowering PhD Candidates to

Efﬁciently Implement Design-Based Research. Edu-

cation and Information Technologies.

Marﬁsi-Schottman, I. (2023). Designing Serious Games,

Mobile Learning and Extended Reality Applications

for and with teachers. Habilitation

a diriger des

recherches, Le mans Universit

Marﬁsi-Schottman, I., George, S., and Tarpin-Bernard, F.

(2010). Tools and Methods for Efﬁciently Designing

Serious Games. page 226.

Marﬁsi-Schottman, I., Labat, J.-m., and Carron, T. (2013).

Building on the Case Teaching Method to Gener-

ate Learning Games Relevant to Numerous Educa-

tional Fields. Proceedings - 2013 IEEE 13th Inter-

national Conference on Advanced Learning Technolo-

gies, ICALT 2013.

Marne, B. and Labat, J.-M. (2014). Model and Authoring

Tool to Help Teachers Adapt Serious Games to their

Educational Contexts. International Journal of Learn-

ing Technology, 9(2):161.

Meyer, U., Becker, J., Mueller, T., Jeworutzki, A., Draheim,

S., and von Luck, K. (2021). Asymmetrical Game

Design Approaches Solve Didactic Problems in VR

Engineer Trainings. In 2021 7th International Con-

ference of the Immersive Learning Research Network

(iLRN), pages 1–5.

Oliver-Quelennec, K., Bouchet, F., Carron, T., and Pinc¸on,

C. (2022). Evaluating the Transposition of a Learn-

ing Analytics Dashboard Co-design Tangible Tool to a

Digital Tool. In Open and Inclusive Educational Prac-

tice in the Digital World, Cognition and Exploratory

Learning in the Digital Age, pages 115–133. Springer

International Publishing.

Pernin, J.-P., Michau, F., Mandran, N., and Mariais, C.

(2012). ScenLRPG, a Board Game for the Collabo-

rative Design of GBL Scenarios: Qualitative Analysis

of an Experiment. Proceedings of the European Con-

ference on Games-based Learning.

Pozzi, F., Persico, D., Passarelli, M., Ceregini, A.,

Polsinelli, P., and Bicocchi, M. (2022). Smartness

dimensions in designing collaborative learning activi-

ties. In 2022 IEEE 21st Mediterranean Electrotechni-

cal Conference (MELECON), pages 632–637. ISSN:

2158-8481.

Roschelle, J. and Teasley, S. (1995). The Construction of

Shared Knowledge in Collaborative Problem Solving.

Computer Supported Collaborative Learning.

Rose, F., Attree, E., Brooks, B., Parslow, D., Penn, P., and

Ambihaipahan, N. (2000). Training in virtual environ-

ments: Transfer to real world tasks and equivalence to

real task training. Ergonomics, 43:494–511.

Roy, R. and Warren, J. P. (2019). Card-based design tools:

a review and analysis of 155 card decks for designers

and designing. Design Studies, 63:125–154.

Schneider, B., Jermann, P., Zufferey, G., and Dillenbourg,

P. (2011). Beneﬁts of a Tangible Interface for Collab-

orative Learning and Interaction. IEEE Transactions

on Learning Technologies, 4(3):222–232. Conference

Name: IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

Sutipitakwong, S. and Jamsri, P. (2020). Pros and Cons

of Tangible and Digital Wireframes. In 2020 IEEE

Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), pages 1–5,

Uppsala. IEEE Press.

Torkington, J., Smith, S., Rees, B., and Darzi, A. (2001).

Skill transfer from virtual reality to a real laparoscopic

task. Surgical Endoscopy, 15(10):1076–1079.

Wang, F. and Hannaﬁn, M. (2005). Design-based re-

search and technology-enhanced learning environ-

ments. Educational Technology Research and Devel-

opment, 53(4), 5-23. Educational Technology Re-

search and Development, 53:5–23.

CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education