Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 845

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis

Open access
Arnab, Sylvester, Lim, Theodore, Carvalho, Maira B., Bellotti, Francesco, de Freitas, Sara, Louchart, Sandy, Suttie, Neil, Berta, Riccardo, De Gloria, Alessandro·2015·British Journal of Educational Technology

Abstract

Although there is a consensus on the instructional potential of S erious G ames (SG s), there is still a lack of methodologies and tools not only for design but also to support analysis and assessment. Filling this gap is one of the main aims of the G ames and L earning A lliance (http://www.galanoe.eu) E uropean N etwork of E xcellence on S erious G ames, which has a focus upon pedagogy‐driven SG s. This paper relies on the assumption that the fundamental aspect of SG design consists in the translation of learning goals/practices into mechanical element of gameplay, serving to an instructional purpose beside that of play and fun. This paper proposes the L earning M echanics–G ame M echanics (LM‐GM) model, which supports SG analysis and design by allowing reflection on the various pedagogical and game elements in an SG. The LM‐GM model includes a set of pre‐defined game mechanics and pedagogical elements that we have abstracted from literature on game studies and learning theories. Designers and analysts can exploit these mechanics to draw the LM‐GM map for a game, so as to identify and highlight its main pedagogical and entertainment features, and their interrelations. The tool may also be useful for teachers to evaluate the effectiveness of a given game and better understand how to implement it in educational settings. A case study is reported to illustrate the framework's support in determining how gameplay and pedagogy intertwine in an SG. Finally, the paper presents the results of two comparative user tests demonstrating the advantages of the proposed model with respect to a similar state‐of‐the‐art framework.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjet.12113

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 57 references

Cited by

See all 845

Metadata

Authors
Arnab, S., Lim, T., Carvalho, M. B., Bellotti, F., de Freitas, S., Louchart, S., Suttie, N., Berta, R., & De Gloria, A.
Venue
British Journal of Educational Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-01-05
Volume
46
Issue
2
Pages
391-411
ISSN
  • 0007-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8535
OpenAlex
W1803184879
Cited by
845
References
57
FWCI
111.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/bjet.12113
The paper
Arnab, S., Lim, T., Carvalho, M. B., Bellotti, F., de Freitas, S., Louchart, S., Suttie, N., Berta, R., & De Gloria, A. (2015). Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12113

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.