79

AN EDUCATIONAL APPROACH OF GAME BASED INFORMAL LEARNING IN MARITIME

Nikitas NIKITAKOS 1, Ioannis SIRRIS 2

1 University of the Aegean Department of Shipping Trade and Transport, Korai 2A Chios 82100 Greece, nikitas@aegean.gr 2 University of the Aegean Department of Shipping Trade and Transport, Korai 2A Chios 82100 Greece, stt3000012@stt.aegean.gr

ABSTRACT Games according to Gee (Gee 2003), are 'multimodal texts' belonging to distinct 'semiotic domains' that employ a range of strategies in which images, words, sounds, music, movement and bodily sensations are factors, and their recognition and production evidence of the learning of these emerging literacies.. Game based learning and educational game design, is a multifactor domain combining educational psychology, learning theory and computer games research demanding the cooperation of two different scientific areas, education and computer science, having a common work “game design”. In educational games, game design includes a major task, “embedding suitable educational approach and instructional techniques, for specific learning outcome and student profile, into the scenario and game play without loosing the fun and attractive part of it.” In this paper a framework for designing educational games is presented and applied to maritime education for navigational safety training. The game is designed for adult seafarers and maritime faculty students in non-formal educational settings. Keywords: Education, Game, Design

1. INTRODUCTION It is maintained that most initial learning in computer games is behavioural learning. Players learn by trial and error, as well as stimulus associations. When the basic rules of game are understood, players start to think cognitively how they should respond in a new situation; actively update existing knowledge to fit what is newly confronted in game environment. After that, players create their own tactics, fit them selves into the game and test existing knowledge into new approaches according to constructivist theory. Putting their selves as the imaginary game characters make them more responsible according to humanist learning theory. Sharing their experience and communicating with others forming a game community is part of the social learning theory.

Nevertheless Games Based Learning (GBL) is a promising new technology used in Education field. What it seems clear from GBL literature review is that a sound learning theory should be the base and the start point of each activity that wants to call it self “educational”. Prensky (2001), researcher in the field of games and learning, argues that the model we apply to learning should depend on what it is that we are trying to ensure people learn at any given time:

“It seems to me… that there is another way of looking at all of this… and that is: ‘How do they learn what?’… We must fit the ‘how do people learn?’ question to ‘what it is they are learning?’ “ (p80/82)

The above phrase implies not only thinks about “what is they are learning” but also about “who is learning” and “what is the form of learning”. These questions are analyzed in this paper under the hypothesis of maritime education and Game Based Learning (GBL) in order to create a framework for creating educational game designs.

2. WHAT IS THEY ARE LEARNING? Learning theories has to do with the question “What it is they are learning?” Different learning objects require different learning theories e.g. learning approach. As games have become more complex in terms of graphics, complexity, interaction and narrative, a variety of genres have created. Learning theories can be satisfied by different game genres. Also, games have the ability to combine different games genres creating

80

new ones that incorporate different characteristics from each game pattern. Games environment is seen as one that can support both the mundane 'acquisition of facts' through drill and practice, and the complex acquisition of process skills through simulation. Even simple types of game can be designed to address specific learning outcomes such as recall of factual content or as the basis for active involvement and discussion according to Blake and Goodman (1999).

2.1. GBL and Educational Application Level. Games can support all educational application level, as STCW states, based on various game-world, structure and play supported by different genres and game theories (Figure 1).

At the event level or Lesson level, a game may be designed to facilitate one or more specific instructional event within an instructional unit. A relatively simple game, like adventure (quiz, puzzle) or table top games for example, may be designed to present learners with a scenario engaging their interest and asking them to explore related concepts through a series of readings and activities in order to facilitate recall of factual content or to promote active involvement and discussion according to Dempsey, et al. (1996).

At the unit level, a game incorporates all of the events and activities necessary to achieve a specified set of goals and objectives associated with an instructional lesson or unit. That means the game, like simulation games, will be designed to engage learners, facilitate exploration, solicit explanations and elaborations, and evaluate learning.

At the course level, one game is played throughout an entire course, tying together all the units, lessons and events associated with the course. Business strategy simulation games are best suited in this case.

Figure 1: GBL for all educational levels

2.2. Teaching Strategies Each learning theory is served by appropriate tasks plans and teaching actions, known as teaching strategies (Table 1). If an instructional experience or environment does not include the teaching strategies required for the acquisition of the desired knowledge or skill, then effective, efficient, and appealing learning of the desired outcome will not occur." according to Merrill, et al, (1996). Here, it is presented some of the leading teaching strategies in the computer supported learning environment. These strategies should be taken into account when designing an educational game in order to be embedded in it.

Data

Information

Connection

Understanding

Process the data (behaviorist) (Support function, Event or Lesson Level)

Wisdom

Knowledge

Understand how system works (Cognitive) (Management function, Unit level)

Realize risks and chances (Constructivism) (Administer function, Course level)

G.B.L.

81

Table 1: Teaching strategies.

Learning theory Teaching strategy

Social Group and Cooperative Learning, Thematic Instruction, Project-based learning, Pedagogical scenario, Storytelling / narratives

All theories Motivation based learning, Minimalism (J. Carroll), Engagement theory

Cognitivist Organization, Experiential Learning, Encoding and Retrieval, Direct Instruction, Thematic Instruction, Case Studies, Tutorials and Self-Tests, Learn by Doing, Learn by mistakes, Pedagogical scenario, Inquiry-based learning (IBL), Interactivity, prompt feedback, Concept mapping, Role Playing, Debates, Storytelling / narratives

Constructivist Problem based learning, Group and Cooperative Learning, Thematic Instruction, Case Studies, Learn by Doing, Learn by mistakes, Project-based learning, Pedagogical scenario, micro worlds, Inquiry-based learning (IBL), Object based learning

Behaivorist, Direct Instruction, Tutorials and Self-Tests, micro worlds, Reinforcement, Simulations

Humanist Tutorials and Self-Tests, Interactivity, prompt feedback, Time on task

2.3. GBL and Learning theories Matching Learning theories and Game genres we come to the following conclusions:

If educators want a learner to perform a new skill, develop competencies and demonstrate technical or psychomotor skills, then choosing a behavioral approach makes sense. This learning theory is most advantageous when a change in behaviour is the desired outcome of an educational intervention.

For students wanting to develop memorizing capabilities, critical thinking and problem-solving skills on meta-cognition and conditions of transfer, then a cognitivist approach may be the best choice. In this framework, the learner uses cognitive tools, such as insight, information processing, perceptions, and memory, to facilitate learning by assigning meaning to events.

If learners need to assume responsibility for their own continued professional development, become autonomous and self-directed, then a humanistic approach with a focus on self-directed learning may help achieve this goal. Student’s curiosity is intensified and stimulated.

Initiating best practices in a work or communication setting and human relationships is part of social learning approaches in which learner model expert behaviour. Observation and modelling are key characteristics of this learning orientation. Players observe, imitate and develop behavioural models; where players receive positive reinforcement for “correct” social behaviour.

Finally, for understanding complex theories, or the meaning of system dynamics, a constructivist approach might help uncover underlying meaning and unmask embedded assumptions. Discovery learning is one of the instruction models based on constructivism. Computers take discovery learning a step further with the advent of game and simulation.

82

Table2: Matching Learning theories, Learning objects and Game genres.

Aspect Behaviourist Cognitive Humanist Social Constructivism

View of the learning process.

Changes behaviour

Process entirely in the head of the learner

A development of personal potential

Interaction/ observation in a group context.

Discover and transform complex information, check new info against old rules.

Site of learning

External resources and tasks are what matters

Making connections in learner’s head is what matters

Emotion, attitude and thinking are important

Learning needs a relationship between people and environment

Discover learning, make practice and find new knowledge.

Purpose in education

Produce behavioural change in desired direction

Develop capacity and skills to learn better.

Become self-reliant, autonomous

Full participation in communities of practice.

Explore mechanisms built the knowledge as logical sequence.

Learn what Facts, skills, procedures.

Judgment, Reasoning.

Behaviours, Creativity.

Language, Communication Theories, Process

Example

Laws, policies, product specifications, run a machine, Assembly, bank teller.

Management decisions, timing, ethics, morale, strategic and tactical thinking, quality analysis.

Invention, Product design Supervision, self-control, setting examples

Acronyms, foreign languages, timing, involvement

Marketing rationales, how people learn, auditing, strategy creation.

Game genre

Action, sports, role-play, adventure, tabletop games.

Business simulation, adventure, strategy games

Role-play, strategy god games.

Role play, tactical strategy games

Strategy, adventure, open ended simulation games.

83

2.4. Educational Games’ Structure. Stapleton and Hughes (2005) posit a schema that helps illustrate how the results of fundamental ID tasks on game’s main conventions facilitate the design and development of instructional games (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Game main conventions and ID events.

Gaming main conventions Story’s Intentional Learning (Instruction, Game-world)

1. Character 2. Worlds 3. Events

Play’s Incidental Learning (Practice, Game-play)

1. Stimulus 2. Response 3. Results

Game’s Intrinsic Learning (Performance, Game-structure)

1. Goals 2. Tools 3. Rules

Gaming fundamental ID tasks

1. Expose 2. Inquire 3. Discover 4. Create 5. Experiment 6. Share

These fundamental ID tasks that are embedded into games are pointing out why games can support any learning theory and teaching strategy.

For example, a behavioural approach learning theory emphasizes on the PLAY part of the game where stimulus – response - results situation take place.

Accordingly, cognitive theory can be accommodated by game’s Intrinsic learning, discovering rules, finding out the results of player’s acts, and using available tools provided in game environment. The creations of the player are the results of the cognitive procedure.

Exposition in new circumstances and experimentation of new techniques and tactics are evidences of constructivism learning theory. It is a form of meta knowledge where player has the opportunity to create and apply his mental model to the game.

Sharing what he has learned and communicating with other players inside or even outside the game as member of game communities, is part of the social learning theory.

Finally, player get exposed, identifies him self and feels responsible for the game character he controls. In game achievements and playing style are very important to him. This is where humanist learning theory can be accommodated by games.

84

3.Who Is Learning?

Game developers recognize that the more you know about the player, the more successful your product is. To formulate game ideas that match what’s in the player’s mind, game developers analyze key psychographic (e.g., values, attitudes, learning style, skills and culture) and demographic (e.g., gender, age, generation, gaming experience, pre-existing knowledge) variables of the target market through available research and market critiques. Learner analysis is the equivalent task within Instructional Design.

Seafarers according to their duties compose a learning team with common demographic characteristics such as age (adults), gender (males), pre - existing knowledge according to their studies.

Seafarers have also some common psychographic characteristics such as a positive attitude to technology but also insufficient familiarization with computers according to Perić, A. Čišić, D. Frančišković I., (2003). Also, the demanding and risky characteristics of sea service environment with the applied environmental and safety policies, implies common values and attitudes to seafarers. Learning style is not common; however according to Kolb theory, students learn not only with their preferable learning style, stating that a complete instructive model should support all learning styles and student will get advantaged more or less by all of them.

However, these common psychographic and demographic characteristics point to a preferred learning style among seafarers that is described by actively construction of knowledge, through experimentation, using all their senses and existing experiences. Learning profile of seafarers is suitable for GBL and shall be taken into account when selecting educational techniques and forming the appropriate instructional design for the educational game.

4. WHAT IS THE FORM OF LEARNING?

When designing an instruction or an educational tool such as games, we have to consider where the learning action is taking place and secondly if it is an organized, on purpose lesson or it happens accidentally (Figure 3). According to these we have:

Formal learning environment includes the hierarchically structured school system that runs from primary school through the university and organized school-like programs created in business for technical and professional training.

Informal learning environment describes a lifelong process whereby individuals acquire attitudes, values, skills and knowledge from daily experience and the educative influences and resources in his or her environment, from family and neighbours, from work and play, from the market place, the library and the mass media.

Intentional learning is the process whereby an individual aims to learn something and goes about achieving that objective.

Unexpected learning happens when in everyday activities an individual learns something that he or she had not intended or expected.

The distinction made is largely administrative. Formal education is linked with schools and training institutions; non-formal with community groups and other organizations; and informal covers what is left, e.g. interactions with friends, family and work colleagues.

85

Figure 3: Formal, Informal, Non Formal Learning

A study of time-to-performance done by Sally Anne Moore at Digital Equipment Corporation in the early 1990s, and repeated by universities, other corporations, and even the Department of Health and Human Services, graphically shows this disparity between formal and informal learning (Figure 4).

Figure 4: the “75/25 Rule of Learning”.

This is called the “75/25 Rule of Learning”. We get only about 25 percent or less of what we use in our jobs through formal learning. The other 75 percent of learning happens as we creatively adopt and adapt to ever

Formal Learning

Learning environment

Unexpected Intentional

Every day enviroment

Learning action

Non-Formal Learning

Informal Learning

Organized enviroment

Class, E-Learning,

Meetings

Self study, Explore, Web surf

Reading Coaching

Community Teaming

86

changing circumstances. So the informal or non-formal piece of the equation is not only larger, it’s crucial to learning how to do anything.

Games used in non – formal learning have a predetermined educational scope that has to do with student’s profession or studies (explicit knowledge) providing an environment that advances corresponding politically correct attitudes and behaviours (implicit knowledge). Games, even in a non-formal learning are supposed to have fun, be interesting. Player wants to test his knowledge or even learn something new about his profession.

How non-formal learning influences the instructional strategy?

Tasks should be related closely to real-world practices and concrete experiences, not staged as practice for some later test or exam. Learning objects should be supported by corresponding activities and attitudes providing in a rounded fantastic world, (close to reality) that supports these learning activities and gets affected by them. In this way player sees his actions as part of the whole system and how each one influences and get influenced by (all?) factors existed in real world environment.

On the other hand, games are not simulators; so real world environment can be simplified (avoiding complex functions and details of real world that do not affect instruction of the learning object) and get enriched with fantastic items (scope, roles, materials, procedures, functions, opponents…) in order to be more fascinating interesting and motivating, but without loosing consistency with reality as far as specific learning object demands.

Non-formal games should provide progressively complex challenges, which are clear and finite and can be repeated; players should be able to adapt the level of difficulty (from novice to expert) if necessary. Game activities should have aims and goals clearly understand and the accomplishment of which stretches their current competence. They don’t need to be multiplayer titles or adapt advanced game technological achievements.

Playing a game should be supported by additional resources such as walkthrough guides and hints and tips on the Internet in order to promote wider understanding and knowledge about it. Players should not necessarily be ‘trained’ beforehand; they should be allowed to practice playing, often failing, revising and re-trying tactics.

Non-formal games are not supposed to be an all in one learning activity. Instead, games cooperate with current learning methods as stated by Squire & Jenkins (2002), being part of a more student centred learning approach according to social and experiential learning strategy as described in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Integrating Non formal educational games in education

5.EDUCATIONAL GAME DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

In order to produce educational computer games beyond edutainment we must combine commercial game developers – designers and instructional designers / educators subject matter expert, argues Hirumi (2002). These two parts can be mediated if we apply a suitable instructional strategy during game design. The instructional strategy proposed here (figure 6) is based on the instructional design of (Dick et al. 2001) “Systems Approach Model for Designing Instruction”.

Just-in-time lectures

Literature

Texture, image, voice

materials

Presentations

Internet peers

GBL Non - formal

Students

Practice

87

Figure 6. Game main conventions and ID events. (Source: Dick et al. 2005)

5.1.Analysis phase (What the game is about). Table 3 describes the Analysis phase for instructional designers and game developers.

Table 2: Description of Analysis Phase

Tasks Educators / Instructional designers Game Designers / Developers

Define learning goals, skills and knowledge.

Assess needs, education scope, prerequisites and learning outcome. Reconcile formal education lesson plans. Decide learning theory.

Combine learning goals with entertainment goals. Identify game complexity and genre.

Create learners’ profile Make Learner analysis (Entry behaviours, needs, learning method, attitudes demographics, game experience).

Identify game difficulty, levels, challenges, availability and interface.

Learning context and scope

Instructional design, educational and instructional resources.

Decide resources. hardware requirements, networking

Performance context Game world settings and learning activities. Check the analogies between reality and imaginary game world. Draft IMS-LD document.

User interface, game genre. Make a draft game story. System dynamic tools may be used.

Basic instructional approach

Design structure Game genre, game play. Decide game design method.

Analysis phase results.

Concept document includes short descriptions of:

The Premise or High Concept (what makes the game exciting and sets it apart from other games),

Player Motivation (game’s victor condition),

Game Play (what player will do while playing)

Story (main events, characters, and settings),

Target Audience/Market,

Game Genre,

Target Platform, Hardware Requirements,

Game Goals.

Assess Needs to Identify Goal(s)

Conduct Instructional Analysis

Analysis Learners and Contexts

Write Performance Objectives

Develop Assessment Instruments

Develop Instructional Strategy

Develop and Select Instructional Materials

Design and Conduct Formative Evaluation of Instruction

Design and Conduct Summative Evaluation

Revise Instruction

Analysis phase Design phase Production phase

88

5.2.Design Phase (Fleshing Out The Details). Table 4 describes the design phase for instructional designers and game developers.

Table 3: Description of Design Phase

Tasks Educators / Instructional designers Game Designers / Developers

Game play Generate objectives. Associate learning activities with learning objects and objectives.

Game play (players’ actions, strategies, motives and game’s reactions. User Controls)

Game rules. Factor analysis and system dynamics on player activities and game world events.

Game structure (the rules of the game applied to players and simulated environment. Artificial Intelligence.)

Game world, competition.

Cluster and sequence the objectives. Communicate the organization of objectives to developers. Create the IMS-LD document.

Define game levels by considering game and instructional flow, duration, availability, relationships and difficulty. Define the overall story. User interface.

Delineate Learner Assessment Methods

Assess What: Concrete entertainment goals and objectives

Assess When:

Before game starts,

At the beginning of each level, during or at the end of each level, after the game.

Assess Where and how: Integrated within the game, Conventional criterion referenced testing methods or product and performance checklists.

Determine learner assessment and ensure alignment between objectives and assessments.

Decide game rewards and penalties as assessments’ results.

Apply Grounded Strategies and Events

Identify instructional events associated with the instructional approach or strategy selected during concept development.

Verify that grounded instructional strategies and events are embedded within the artistic story and game play.

Integrate grounded instructional strategies and events with story events to optimize GBL exploiting similarities and resolving differences in story and instruction. Integrate one or more grounded events to facilitate the achievement of terminal objective.

Begin Formative Evaluations

Expert reviews by subject matter experts as well as media, learning and human factors specialists

One-to-one evaluations identify and remove the most obvious errors in the instruction and to obtain initial reactions to the content from learners.

Revision Identify difficulties experienced by learners in achieving objectives and relate these difficulties to specific deficiencies in the instruction. Re-examine the validity of the instructional analysis and the assumptions about the entry behaviors and characteristics of learners. Review the instructional strategy.

Verify game difficulty suits to specific players. Check the consistency of game story and the integration of game objectives. Ensure game controls and user interface are simple and easy of use. Make sure players know what to do at each level – part of the game. Examine if player is motivated, if assessments does not break game flow and if game is attractive and pleasant.

Design Phase Results

1. IMS – LD document. IMS Learning Design focuses on the organization of learning activities. Modern pedagogical theory insists on the importance of scenarios, i.e. story-boards that define learning activities. The IMS Learning Design Specification (IMS-LD) provides a very thorough framework for evaluating the capabilities of software tools within the learning design space and also a platform-independent notational convention to allow sharing and re-use of these designs

89

2. Game design documents (GDD), it is an extension of the concept document, a project overview and detail descriptions of: Game world, Game play, Game structure, Art, Audio and Technical Features, Production Details

3. The Art Bible establishes the look and feel of the game and provides a reference for other art. It helps ensure consistency in style throughout the game and typically consists of:

A set of visuals (ranging from pencil sketches to digitised images that capture final look of the game); and

A visual reference library that reflects the direction the art should take over time.

4. The Technical Design Document is based on the GDD and includes a description of:

The game engine, including comparisons with other engines on the market;

How game will transition from concept to software;

Who will be involved in the development of the game engine, including what tasks each person will perform, and how long it will take to perform each task;

What core tools needed to build the game; including hardware and software that must be purchased.

5. Game prototypes.

5.3. Production Phase. Table 5 describes the production phase for instructional designers and game developers.

Table 4: Description of Production Phase

Tasks Educators / Instructional designers Game Designers / Developers

Complete Formative Evaluations

Small group evaluations are to determine the effectiveness of changes made following the one-to-one evaluation.

Field trials are recommended for the Beta version of instructional games. The primary purposes at this stage of production are to complete testing, fix all bugs, fine tune performance, and ensure the game may be used in its intended setting.

Game developers create and test prototypes, during design phase, and various versions of games during production. Such tests tend to focus on ease of use, documenting and fixing programming bugs, and ensuring the game is (still) fun to play.

Production Phase results

For the Alpha version, the game is playable from start to finish, but there may be few gaps and the art assets may not be final. Game engine and user interface are both complete. Production of the Beta version focuses on fixing bugs and the integration of all assets. The objectives are to complete testing (including use on all supported platforms), bug fixing and performance tuning. For the Gold version the product has been reviewed and finalized and is ready for production.

6. CONCLUSION Educational Games is a promising emerging technology suitable for educational needs of maritime industry. GBL can be applied not only to onboard education but also to formal maritime education as a supplementary tool (non – formal) in the process of active and critical self learning. Educational Games can be adjusted almost to any learning needs if it is designed under a framework such as the one proposed in this paper, developed by a team formed by instructional designers, field masters educators, game designers and game developers. According to this framework, major parameters that should be taken care of are:

Learning theory and corresponding grounded teaching strategies that form the basis of an instructional design and derive from the learning object or outcome.

Learner analysis, in our case seafarer’s analysis, having particular needs, demographic and psychographic characteristics

90

Realization that GBL has best results as a method of non formal education that is in accordance and complementary to formal education; without however loosing its advantages.

Further work on this subject contains the development of the game described in this paper and the evaluation of its application to several cases in maritime industry.

7. REFERENCES Blake, J., Goodman, J. (1999). “Computer-based learning: Games as an instructional strategy”, The

Association of Black Nursing Faculty Journal, 10(2), 43-46. Crawford, C. (1982). The Art of Computer Game Design, Vancouver: Washington State University

Vancouver., Access date: 1.8.2005, http://www.mindsim.com/MindSim/Corporate/artCGD.pdf Chung, D. N.. (2002). Shipboard Training for the Efficient Maritime Education, Access date: 1.8.2006

http://bell.mma.edu/~iamu2002/Papers/NamPaper.doc Coleman, J. S. Livingston, S. A. Fennessey, G. M. Edwards K. J. Kidder, S. J. (1973). “The Hopkins' Games

Program: Conclusions from Seven Years of Research”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 2, No. 8 (Aug., 1973), pp. 3-7

Dempsey, J. V., Lucassen, B. A., Haynes, L. L., Casey, M. S. (1996). Instructional applications of computer games. New York, NY: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reprodcution Service No. ED 394 500).

Det Norske Veritas Forum, (2000), Marine insurance highlights – The Changing Pattern of Risk. Access date: 1/9/2006, http://www.dnv.com/dnvframework/forum/articles/forum_2000_01_18.htm

Dick, W., Carey, L. Carey, J. O. (2001). The systematic design of instruction (5th ed.) New York: Longman. Dick, W., Carey, L. Carey, J. O. (2005). The Systematic Design of Instruction (6th edition), New York:

Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc. Egenfeldt Nielsen, S. (2005). Beyond Edutainment: Exploring the Educational Potential of Computer

Games, Access date: 15.10.2005, http://www.itu.dk/people/sen/egenfeldt.pdf Gee, J. P. (2003). What Video Games Have to Teach us About Learning and Literacy. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan Hirumi, A. (2002). “The design and sequencing of e-learning interactions: A grounded approach”,

International Journal on E-Learning, 1(1), 19-27. Kirriemuir J., McFarlane C.A. (2004). Literature Review in Games and Learning Graduate School of

Education. University of Bristol. Futurelab. Access date: 1/8/2006, www.futurelab.org.uk/research/lit_reviews.htm

Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., and Pratt, J. (1996). “Reclaiming instructional design”, Educational Technology, 36(5),5-7.

Perić, A. Čišić, D. Frančišković I. (2003), eLearning in Maritime Envoronment University of Rijeka, Faculty of maritime studies Access date: 1/8/2008, http://129.3.20.41/econ-wp/get/papers/0305/0305002.pdf

Prensky, M (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Stapleton, C. B. Hughes, C. E. (2005). “Mixed reality and experiential movie trailers: Combining emotions

and immersion to innovate entertainment marketing”, Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Human-Computer Interface Advances in Modeling and Simulation, New Orleans, LA, January 23-27: 40-48.

Thiagarajan, S., Steinwachs, B. (1990), Barnga: A Simulation Game on Cultural Clashes. Yarmouth, Me: Intercultural Press.