Enhancing the Assessment of Serious Games using Fuzzy AHP



Abstract Views
182

Downloads
145

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Apr 20, 2023
Published Jul 6, 2023
10.24018/compute.2023.3.3.103

Abstract viewed = 182 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

In recent years, Serious Games have emerged as an innovative pedagogical strategy for enhancing learning in various fields of knowledge. However, in order to effectively utilize Serious Games, it is crucial to systematically evaluate them and obtain robust evidence of their impacts. To achieve this, integrating Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making (FMCDM) methods can be beneficial for evaluating Serious Games, as they allow for the weighting of evaluation criteria based on the specific context of use. FMCDM methods have the ability to account for the imprecision and uncertainty of human judgments. The objective of this paper is to propose an evaluation system for Serious Games based on four dimensions that are validated and weighted using the fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, tailored to the context of use. The proposed Serious Games evaluation system was tested on a Serious Game validated by a pedagogical committee, and the results obtained demonstrate the quality and relevance of the proposed evaluation system for Serious Games.

Keywords: FMCDM Fuzzy AHP Pedagogical Strategy Serious Game

References

  1. Connolly TM, Boyle EA, MacArthur E, Hainey T, Boyle JM. A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education. 2012; 59(2): 661-686.
     Google Scholar
  2. Petri G, Giani, Gresse von Wangenheim C. How to Evaluate Educational Games: a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Universal Computer Science. 2016; 22: 992.
     Google Scholar
  3. Liu S, Ding W. An Approach to Evaluation Component Design in Building Serious Game. Learning by Playing: Game-based Education System Design and Development. Edutainment. 2009; 5670: 141-148.
     Google Scholar
  4. Di Loreto I, Gouaich A. An Early Evaluation Method for Social Presence in Serious Game. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Computer Supported Education, eds. J.A. Moinhos Cordeiro, B. Shishkov, A. Verbraeck, & M. Helfert, Valencia, Spain, 2010.
     Google Scholar
  5. Loh CS. Information Trails: In-Process Assessment of Game-Based Learning. In: Ifenthaler, D., Eseryel, D., Ge, X. (eds) Assessment in Game-Based Learning. Springer, New York, 2012.
     Google Scholar
  6. Papastergiou M. Digital Game-Based Learning in high school Computer Science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education. 2009; 52 (1): 1-12.
     Google Scholar
  7. De Freitas S, Oliver M. How can exploratory learning with games and simulations within the curriculum be most effectively evaluated? Computers & Education. 2006; 46: 249-264.
     Google Scholar
  8. Mitgutsch K, Alvarado N. Purposeful by design? : A serious game design assessment framework. Foundations of Digital Games, pp. 121-128. New York, USA, 2012.
     Google Scholar
  9. Ak, O. A Game Scale to Evaluate Educational Computer Games, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, eds Gülsün A. ,Fezile O, Sezer K; Deniz Ö, Barcelona, 2012.
     Google Scholar
  10. El Borji Y, Khaldi M. Comparative Study to Develop a Tool for the Quality Assessment of Serious Games Intended to be Used in Education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET). 2014; 9(9): 50-55.
     Google Scholar
  11. Carvalho C. Is game-based learning suitable for engineering education?. Proceeding of the Global Engineering Education Conference, Marrakech, Morocco: IEEE, 2012.
     Google Scholar
  12. Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD. Evaluating training programs: the four levels, 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers; 2006.
     Google Scholar
  13. Serrano-Laguna Á, Manero B, Freire M, Fernández-Manjón B. A methodology for assessing the effectiveness of serious games and for inferring player learning outcomes. Multimedia Tools and Applications. 2018; 77(2): 2849-2871.
     Google Scholar
  14. Gabus A, Fontela E. World Problems an Invitation to Further Thought within the Framework of DEMATEL; Battelle Geneva Research Centre: Geneva, Switzerland, 1972.
     Google Scholar
  15. Keršuliene V, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z. Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2010; 11(2): 243-258.
     Google Scholar
  16. Saaty TL. Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
     Google Scholar
  17. Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control. 1965; 8(3): 338-353.
     Google Scholar
  18. Buckley JJ. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 1985; 17(3): 233-247.
     Google Scholar
  19. Saaty TL. Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World. 3rd ed. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications; 2012.
     Google Scholar
  20. DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2003.
     Google Scholar