Computers in Industry 102 (2018) 40–49

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Industry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compind

Learning and motivational effects of digital game-based learning

(DGBL) for manufacturing education –The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
game
Stefano Perinia,* , Rossella Lugliettia , Maria Margoudib , Manuel Oliveirac , Marco Taischa
a
Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering (DIG), Politecnico di Milano, via R. Lambruschini4/b, 20156 Milan, Italy
b
HighSkillz Ltd, F4 Admirals Offices, Main Gate Road, The Historic Dockyard Chatham, ME4 4TZ Kent, United Kingdom
c
Department of Industrial Management, SINTEF Technology and Society, P.O. Box 4760 Sluppen, NO-7465 Trondheim, Norway

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Despite its potential, empirical evidence of the educational effectiveness of Digital Game-based Learning
Received 31 January 2017 (DGBL) for manufacturing education is still limited. To this respect, the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Game
Accepted 27 August 2018 was developed in order to explain in an interactive way to university students life cycle assessment, a tool
Available online xxx
which is becoming increasingly important for sustainable manufacturing. The study was based on a two-
group pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design involving 62 participants and was aiming at
Keywords:
understanding the impact of LCA Game on both learning and motivation of university students. The
Manufacturing
results show that students using LCA Game performed significantly better on procedural knowledge
Serious game
Digital game-based learning (DGBL)
while students involved in the non-gamified activity performed significantly better on factual
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) knowledge. In addition, while higher levels of usability and enjoyment were associated to the LCA
Knowledge Game group, no particular differences were found on the other motivational dimensions. Thus, this study
Skill provides important insights about the specific educational benefits that can be obtained through DGBL in
manufacturing education.
© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction still in its nascent phase. To date, some important initiatives

1.1. The manufacturing skills gap
Manufacturing is one of the pillars of European economy. In the
last years, despite the global crisis affecting the sector, several
advancements in both technologies and processes are fostering its
progress, leading to the so-called “Fourth Industrial Revolution”.
Nevertheless, despite these widespread changes, manufacturing is
increasingly suffering a lack of skilled human resources able to
support them [1]. In particular, high skills are those most requested
but at the same time most difficult to find and develop [2]. The
causes of the skill shortage have already been identified and
discussed in literature. The most important can be resumed in an
aging workforce, an outdated workforce planning, the limited
education efficiency, the changing nature of work and a poor image
of manufacturing among youngsters [3].
Despite the presence of the abovementioned issues, the
exploration of the possible solutions to the skill gap problem is
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: stefano.perini@polimi.it (S. Perini).
have been developed and important institutions in the sector
have provided their guidelines to face it [4]. From the
educational side, in the last years new teaching approaches
have been developed in order to update and improve the
competences of young generations and to prepare them to the
new challenges of the industrial world [5]. These methodologi-
cal efforts have been also supported by the development of
interactive learning environments able to virtually represent to
students manufacturing concepts (e.g. servitization, sustain-
ability) otherwise hardly communicable by means of traditional
teaching approaches [6]. Moreover, the use of these technolo-
gies has allowed the design of more complex learning
experiences that can involve the user in a more sophisticated
educational route [7]. The potential of these technologies for
the manufacturing sector is therefore extremely high, since
through their use the new advanced competencies requested by
the industrial world could be trained in advance, forming a
young workforce already ready to support innovation in the
companies. In order to make concrete this manufacturing skills
revolution, considerable efforts in the development and
validation of the most suitable educational technologies should
be done.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.08.005
0166-3615/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 S. Perini et al. / Computers in Industry 102 (2018) 40–49
1.2. DGBL for manufacturing education
The use of interactive learning environments drew its concepts
on cognitive constructivism, where the user is considered as actively
developing his/her own knowledge according to his/her experi-
ences [8]. On the basis of cognitive constructivism, experiential
learning theory has been developed, considering as fundamental
the role of the user and his/her interaction with the teaching
activity [9]. Different types of interactive learning environments
have been used in the last years in order to support the
development of advanced manufacturing skills and hence allow
students to explore in advance the challenges of modern industrial
world. Indeed interactive learning environments enable the
representation of concepts (e.g. servitization, sustainability)
otherwise hardly communicable by means of traditional teaching
methods. For instance, simulations [10], on-line distance learning
[11], virtual factory teaching systems [12] and mobile technologies
[13] can be mentioned.
When digital interaction meets game-based learning then
Digital Game-based Learning (DGBL) arises. The main advantage of
DGBL is represented by the association of the active involvement of
the learner with the fun element, that is not used anymore for mere
entertainment but to support the engagement of the student [14].
As a consequence, DGBL enables specific conditions that have
been identified as extremely relevant for the success of
manufacturing education. In particular, it allows the sequencing
of task and activities, reducing the typical complexity of many
manufacturing concepts and providing a structured learning path
to be followed [15]. It continuously provides real-time feedbacks
for self-assessment, making learners understand where they
should improve [16]. It allows reflective practice, clarifying the
objectives and expected outcomes of the learning activity [17]. It
stimulates creativity and problem solving ability, representing an
ideal environment to continuously explore, develop and test new
ideas [18]. It lets the learners play with different roles, facing
different situations and therefore understanding the implications
of the different activities [19]. It facilitates the multidisciplinarity
of the learning activity, in order to allow proper connections
among the different disciplines of manufacturing [20].
For example, Coller and Shernoff [21] discuss the use of a
serious game (NIU-Torcs) to support a numerical methods course
for undergraduate mechanical engineering students. The authors
developed an application where the user has to write a C++
program in order to give a car driving commands in a real-time race
in a 3D environment. With the aim of optimizing the route of the
car, the students have to explore on their own concepts such as
numerical root finding, curve fitting and optimization, and apply
them in the coding of the race. The results show a higher
motivation of students if compared to traditional teaching
activities. Gomes et al. [22] present the 5S Game aiming at
explaining main concepts of lean manufacturing to mechanical
engineering MSc students. The user faces four different scenarios
where the 5S concept should be applied, choosing each time the
proper actions according to the principles of the methodology. The
motivation of the participants and the usability of the game were in
general encouraging. Li et al. [23] introduced GamiCAD, an
interactive tutorial system for AutoCAD able to provide a gamified
real-time feedback on the tasks performed by the learner. Results
in terms of engagement of the learner and tasks’ completion ratio
were higher than the non-gamified version. Hauge and Riedel [5]
presented COSIGA, a multi-player simulation-based game about
concurrent engineering (CE) approach for new product develop-
ment. The different players take a realistic role and mutually
interact to develop a type of truck. Evaluation of the game showed
the cognitive change of participants according to the nature of the
different roles interpreted.
41
1.3. Learning and Motivational aspects of DGBL for manufacturing
education
It is evident that the two main objectives of DGBL are the
learning and motivational ones, even though there is still in general
a lack of empirical evidence supporting these hypotheses [24–26].
For motivational aspects, few interesting results have already been
made available [25,27,28] that highlight the positive impact of
DGBL on students’ motivation towards learning. For manufacturing
education, despite the benefits identified and the different
applications developed, the issue becomes even more relevant,
since rarely the results of the DGBL educational interventions are
collected and follow a common approach. However, as already
highlighted also for manufacturing education the few results
available are mainly for the motivational aspects, with scant or no
evidence for the learning ones [5,21–23]. Further knowledge about
DGBL effectiveness could lead to its systematic use in manufactur-
ing curricula, identifying the concepts for which is most suitable
and the requirements that are needed for its scalability.
In order to structure an analysis of DGBL effectiveness, a first
distinction should be done between assessment and evaluation.
Assessment is about the measurement of the achievements of
persons (i.e. the users interacting with the DG), while evaluation is
about the measurement of objects (i.e. the DG itself) [29]. In DGs
specifically designed for learning objectives, the final evaluation of
their effectiveness can be reasonably translated in the assessment
of the learning outcomes of the users playing with it [29]. As
identified by the EQF [30], those learning outcomes can be
identified in terms of knowledge (i.e. the information re-elaborated
in a structured way while learning), skill (i.e. the use of knowledge
to do activities) and competence (i.e. the use of knowledge, skill and
other abilities in real situations). On the other hand, according to
Anderson [31], knowledge can be classified in factual (i.e. the
knowledge of terms and details), conceptual (i.e. the knowledge of
the theories and models that link elements), procedural (i.e. the
knowledge on how to do something) and metacognitive (i.e.
knowledge of one’s own cognition). While knowledge as meant by
EQF can be associated to Anderson’s factual and conceptual
knowledge, skill as meant by EQF can be associated to Anderson’s
procedural knowledge. From DG perspective, all the learning
outcomes identified can be considered as relevant, even though
their achievement becomes more difficult as far as you pass on one
hand from EQF’s knowledge to competence [29], and on the other
hand from Anderson’s factual to metacognitive knowledge.
As already pointed out, the proofs of DGs learning effectiveness
are in general pretty scant so far, also because of the intrinsic
difficulty to capture and formalize the changes in user’s learning.
For this reason, some authors proposed to focus on the
measurement of transfer and application, even though this way
the assessment will be extended in time and several external
variables could influence the results [32]. On the other hand, it
should also be considered that learning by playing needs some
time in order to be effectively elaborated by the user. As a
consequence, it becomes extremely critical the proper time
sequencing of the assessment measures. Finally, the definition
of objectives and robust assessment methods should be addressed,
trying to avoid as much as possible the use of self-reported
answers to measure learning outcomes [32].
In DGs for manufacturing education, the user assessment as a
measure of the overall educational effectiveness should be closely
related to the objectives of the specific educational intervention. In
particular, the general learning objectives of the educational
intervention should be expressed in terms of one (or more) of the
learning outcomes represented in Table 1, and then decomposed in
the specific learning objectives of the DG to be implemented. On
the base of the learning outcome(s) and of the specific learning
42 S. Perini et al. / Computers in Industry 102 (2018) 40–49
Table 1
Learning Outcomes and Anderson’s Types of Knowledge.
Learning Outcome [30] Anderson’s Type of Knowledge
[31]
Competence – week course aiming at presenting life cycle analysis of
Skill Procedural Knowledge
Knowledge Factual and Conceptual Knowledge
objectives identified, the proper definition of robust assessment
methods should be then addressed. For Knowledge assessment,
the most suitable way is the pre and post testing by using
questionnaires, that is also the most used approach in studies that
measure educational effectiveness [33]. For Skill assessment, the
most suitable way is again the pre and post testing with
questionnaires if the activity is theoretical (e.g. implementing an
algorithm) [33], while a test in a controlled environment should be
used if the activity is practical (e.g. assembly of two components)
[34]. For Competence assessment, the most suitable way is the
measure of transfer and application in real environments [35].
The measure of the overall educational effectiveness of the
intervention can be complemented with the assessment of the
motivational aspects, which are related as well to its content and
learning objectives. Finally, also the evaluation of specific aspects
of the DG such as enjoyment [36] and usability [37] can be used as
a support to the analysis. In both cases, several measurement tools
mainly based on perceptual scales are already available in the
educational literature [38,39] and therefore they can be easily
adapted to the specific needs of the educational intervention
designed.
1.4. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in manufacturing education
In the last years the importance of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
for engineering and manufacturing education has considerably
increased. The LCA is a structured methodology which quantifies
the environmental impacts of a product, good or service
throughout its whole lifecycle. The LCA is standardized by ISO,
in the 140,404 and 14,044 regulations [40], where a LCA
framework is presented and the general guidelines are highlighted.
LCA is currently one of the most promising approaches for
sustainable manufacturing, i.e. the production of industrial goods
able to meet economic, environmental and social objectives [41],
and therefore its knowledge is becoming always more an
important element in the education of the new generations of
manufacturing students.
One of the first works about LCA education is that of [42], who
presented a board game to teach design for environment,
environmental management and LCA to environmental engineer-
ing students [43]. discussed about the new elements (e.g. risk,
green chemistry, LCA) that should be integrated into chemical
engineering curricula. [44] introduced a classroom simulation
about EIO-LCA (“economic input-output life cycle assessment”)
based on a mix of hands-on activities and the use of the online tool
as a support for calculations. [45] discussed again about how to
integrate sustainability principles into industrial and manufactur-
ing engineering curricula. [46] described the structure and main
outcomes of a project-based learning (PBL) intervention to teach
Design for Environment (DfE) principles to engineering students.
The project used the MicroHeat technology, which was made
available by the company collaborating with it. All the works just
presented are mainly descriptive and don’t provide any empirical
data about user assessment nor educational intervention evalua-
tion.
On the other hand, Bascoul [47] developed a board game to
teach business students the environmental implications of
marketing strategies and decisions. Empirical data collected
aimed at assessing students’ perceptions and interest about
environmental issues and at evaluating their overall satisfaction
of the intervention [48]. collected data about a high school 3/4-
transportation fuel/vehicle systems. The comparison of pre-
post results revealed a significant impact on students’ energy-
related knowledge, self-efficacy and behaviors while no signifi-
cant impact on attitude about energy. Moreover, the post results
about course evaluation were considered as positive (i.e.
interest, relevance, self-declarative knowledge). [49] addressed
again the issue of integrating environmental sustainability into
undergraduate engineering education. Comparison of pre-post
results of a 4-week LCA module showed a significant impact on
students’ LCA knowledge but no significant impact on students’
attitude about LCA. Finally, [50] presented the results of a 9-
week massive open online course (MOOC) about LCA targeting
engineering students. The results revealed a change in students’
perspectives about LCA and positive results about future
intentions about LCA.
As for the works on the use of DGBL for manufacturing
education, also for those presenting empirical evidence about LCA
educational interventions, the results are still extremely scant.
Also the data collection is conducted in a heterogeneous way,
even though this is partially due to the need of adapting the
assessment and evaluation tools to the specific objectives of the
educational intervention. No previous work was found about the
specific use of DGBL for LCA education in engineering or other
disciplines.
2. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Game
The “LCA Game” is a serious game introducing the main
concepts and processes of a life cycle assessment. To achieve this
goal the player is introduced to a manufacturing company where
he/she should perform the LCA of a coffee maker. The student is
immersed in a realistic environment, where he/she can understand
the benefits and limitations of LCA together with its main
implementation steps. The general learning objectives of the
LCA Game are defined as Knowledge and Skill development, i.e.
Factual, Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge. Through the
gameplay the student is expected to achieve the following learning
objectives of an LCA process:
 Understanding of LCA data gathering process in an enterprise
 Selection of relevant LCA data among possible mistakes and
redundancies
 Elaboration of LCA data in an LCA report
 Provision of suggestion to the management of the enterprise in
order to improve the sustainability of the product
The abovementioned learning objectives are the pillars of the
game’s structure and are based on the four main LCA phases
defined by the ISO 14,044 (i.e. goal and scope definition, life cycle
inventory, life cycle impact assessment and interpretation). Phase
1 is the goal and scope definition, where the problem and the
objectives are structured. In phase 2, the inventory analysis, the
simplified process diagram of the product life cycle is defined and
data shall be collected. In phase 3, the impact assessment, the
environmental impacts are reported and a full report has to be
filled in order to provide the results to the CEO of the company.
Finally, in phase 4, the interpretation, opportunities for improve-
ment are identified and sent to the CEO.
In “LCA Game”, the student is given the role of a young
sustainability manager, who has been hired to evaluate the
environmental performance of the company processes and supply
 S. Perini et al. / Computers in Industry 102 (2018) 40–49
chain of the paper filters coffee maker, one of the company’s main
products. Before starting the analysis, a brief overview of the scope
and context of the game is provided. First, the goal of the analysis,
described in the briefing page, helps the player to carry out the
assessment, focusing on the scope of LCA. On the other hand, the
characters’ description helps the student identify the different
profiles, so that he/she will ask the right questions that will finally
lead him/her to the appropriate solution. There are four more
characters in addition to the player, and another challenge for the
player is to understand who has the correct information, and who
is wrong.
After going through the briefing page, the student has
immediately at his disposal several action options (Fig. 1):
 Personal Computer: the student can use it to find required data
by consulting the ERP System (where info about the BoM is
stored) and the Coffee Machine Instructions (where info about
Middle of Life and recycling is stored).
 Books: two books help the student to find information regarding
scientific data that are not directly related to the company, but
are referred in other lifecycle phases.
 LCA Toolbox: a tablet where the student finds different apps
where he/she can implement the LCA data. It is always available
on the screen and the student can open it whenever he/she
wants and see the game’s completeness level, in terms of
“Boundaries Selection”, “Flowcharts”, “Data Entry”, “Impact
Charts”, and “Recommendations”. In addition, the student can
access again the “Briefing” and the “My Notes” section with all
the recorded dialogues. All these sections are presented like
applications of a real smart tablet (Fig. 2).
 The company site: the environment of the game is the player’s
office. The student can move within the space by using keyboard
arrows, visiting other offices and rooms.
In order to perform all the activities and steps required by the
game (i.e. select the correct system boundaries, collect data, fill a
final report and send suggestion to the CEO) the student has the
opportunity to ask information from four different characters, i.e.
the CEO, the Production Manager, the Shift Manager and the R&D
Manager. These characters they all have different information to
give that will contribute to the achievement of the above-
mentioned goals. Apart from interacting with them, the student
Fig. 1. Students' office with the tools for the LCA Game.
43
can also look for important information for the LCA in the
computers and the shop floor production machine’s monitors
(Fig. 3). The student can navigate within the company’s facilities
and even use the lift to go downstairs and visit the shop floor. There
he/she can also collect useful information from the Programmable
Logic Controllers (PLCs) of the plant.
Since the game activities follow the structure of ISO 14,044 LCA
framework, the tablet apps are structured accordingly to help the
student understand the game’s steps. As required by the ISO
framework, the goal and scope definition shall be identified and
described. This requirement is covered by the “Briefing” app that
helps the student with the goal, but the scope is the application of
the LCA. In particular, the system boundaries shall be analyzed in
order to have the list of data required during the life cycle
inventory.
In “Boundary Selection” app, a flowchart describing the main
phases of the coffee maker’s life cycle allows the student to select
the system boundaries he/she wants to include into the analysis
(Fig. 4). The boundary conditions have information on the
upstream processes, including activities about the coffee bean
production and the paper filter production. The second area of the
boundaries conditions is composed by the core processes, that are
all the activities required by the coffee machine manufacturing.
This information is directly related to the company. Finally, the last
area of investigation is represented by the downstream processes.
This phase includes the activities related to the coffee maker usage
and the final disposal (including the recycling of the materials).
Once the system boundaries are defined, a full picture of the
flowchart highlights the lifecycle steps with the relevant inputs
and outputs that shall be investigated during the game. The
“Flowchart” app shows all the inputs and outputs required by the
product life cycle. One of the goals of the game is to understand
which data are necessary for the assessment (life cycle inventory)
and which are not. As a consequence, one of the main steps of the
game is the data collection, where a list of inputs and outputs shall
be filled in the data entry sheet (represented by the “Data Entry”
app). The LCA Game helps the student to understand if he/she has
already discovered that information in the game, looking at the
different sources or talking with characters. Fig. 5 shows a
screenshot of the data collection list. The orange mark on the right
(greyed out lines of the list) means that the student has not found
that specific piece of data yet, while the yellow mark on the left
44 S. Perini et al. / Computers in Industry 102 (2018) 40–49
Fig. 2. Tablet interface with apps of LCA Game.
means that the student found the value and hence he/she is able to
insert it.
When all the data are filled in, the life cycle impact assessment
may be performed. In the “Impact Charts” app, three different
graphs help the student to prepare a report composed by four
sentences (Fig. 6). For each sentence, the player has to choose
among multiple choices of the impact categories and the
justifications of each answer. Each sentence refers to a different
life cycle phase (i.e. coffee machine manufacturing, filters
production, usage phase and end of life). For each of this life
cycle stages, one out of four impact categories (i.e. climate change,
occupation land, toxicity, fossil depletion) can be selected with the
related justification, which describes why that specific impact
category is the highest or the lowest.
Finally, the student has to send an improvement suggestion to
the CEO. The LCA Game is completed when the student submits the
LCA report to the CEO by clicking on the proper button. Finally, an
email from the CEO provides the score of the student and an
individual evaluation of his/her work. The email provides
information related to the benefits of the player’s indicated
suggestion as well as the percentage of his/her achievements for
each section.
Fig. 3. Example of a character of the LCA Game.
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Research questions
The aim of the study was to study the effects of DGBL on the
learning and motivational performances of manufacturing univer-
sity students. For this purpose, the research addressed the
following research questions.
1 Do students working with the DGBL approach obtain better
learning performances about life cycle assessment than
students working with a non-gamified digital approach?
2 Do students working with the DGBL approach obtain better
motivational performances about life cycle assessment than
students working with a non-gamified digital approach?
3.2. Participants
Two classes for a total of 62 students were randomly chosen
from an industrial engineering graduate program of a technical
university in Northern Italy. Their demographic background was
representative of the program. 677% of the participants were males
and 323% females. In this study, a two-group pretest-posttest
quasi-experimental approach was used. The two classes (taught by
the same teacher) were randomly assigned to the experimental (33
participants: 23 males, 10 females) and control (29 participants: 19
males, 10 females) condition.
3.3. Research procedure
Both groups were involved in the same research procedure
which included the following four steps. First, participants in both
the experimental and control group received two sessions of 1 h
each by means of a traditional frontal lecture given by the same
teacher in order to introduce the general context of LCA and its
relationships with sustainable manufacturing. Then, the partic-
ipants completed a 30-min pretest. Afterwards, a 1h30-min
activity followed. During both activities, the same teacher and
teaching assistant were present. The teacher and teaching assistant
 S. Perini et al. / Computers in Industry 102 (2018) 40–49 45

Fig. 4. System boundaries definition during the LCA Game.

Fig. 5. Data collection list to be filled in during the LCA Game.

just answered to technical questions about the activity itself,
without providing any further information about the strategy to
approach the activity or about LCA itself. After the activity, the
participants completed a 30-min posttest. Therefore, the only
difference between the two groups was the 1h30-min activity. The
participants in the experimental group engaged with the LCA
Game previously downloaded on their laptops, until the send of
the LCA report to the CEO and the subsequent reception of their
personal evaluation. The participants in the control group engaged
with a non-gamified computer-based activity based on the same
content and data of the LCA Game. The material was composed by
four documents: three PDF files, with the information about the
context, objectives and data needed to perform the activity as well
as the picture with system boundaries description; an Excel file for
the execution of the activity according to the same steps of the LCA
Game. Also for the control group, all the documents were
downloaded on the laptops of the participants before the activity.
3.4. Data collection
The pretest included a Knowledge and an LCA Interest question-
naire, while the posttest included a Knowledge, LCA Interest,
Usability, Enjoyment and LCA Future Intentions questionnaire.
For Learning aspects, the Knowledge questionnaire aimed at
assessing the Overall, Factual, Conceptual and Procedural Knowl-
edge of participants about LCA and was tailor-made for the study
because of the lack of standardized tests able to assess LCA
knowledge. The questionnaire included 5 items for each of the
46 S. Perini et al. / Computers in Industry 102 (2018) 40–49
Fig. 6. Life cycle impact assessment performed in the LCA Game.
three knowledge sections, for a total of 15 items each of them
structured as a multiple-choice question with just one correct
answer. The questions were designed by the authors and had been
validated in previous pilot tests with a total of more 200 graduate
students of the same technical university. The answers to each
item were scored as 1 for a correct answer and 0 for an incorrect
one [51]. Therefore, the participant’s total score for both pretest
and posttest ranged from 0 to 5 for each knowledge section and
from 0 to 15 for the Overall Knowledge.
For Motivational aspects, in order to assess the participants’ LCA
Interest the STEM Semantics Survey was used [52]. The STEM
Semantics Survey is composed of five sub-scales each with five
items measured on a 7-point Likert scale. In particular, the
structure of the STEM Semantics Survey’s sub-scale was adapted to
LCA. For Usability, the System Usability Questionnaire (SUS) was
adopted [53]. The SUS is formed by ten items and was created in
order to evaluate products and services, e.g. hardware, software,
websites and applications. The questionnaire used for Enjoyment
was the In-game GEQ (“In-game Game Experience Question-
naire”), which is based on fourteen items and aims at measuring
the participants’ experience of a game session [54]. The LCA Future
Intentions were assessed by using the six-items specific question-
naire proposed and validated by [50].
3.5. Data analysis
For Learning aspects, data collected from pretests and posttests
in both groups were first analyzed by means of descriptive
statistics and paired-samples t-test. Then, a series of one-way
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were conducted, using the results
of the sections of the posttest Knowledge questionnaire as
dependent variables and those of the pretest as covariates, and
treatment as independent variable. This in order to understand the
differences between the two groups for each of the Knowledge
dimensions identified.
For Motivational aspects, the results of the two groups for
Usability, Enjoyment and LCA Future Intentions were analyzed by
means of descriptive statistics and independent t-tests. For LCA
Interest, data collected from pretests and posttests in both groups
were first analyzed by means of descriptive statistics and paired-
samples t-tests. Then, a one-way ANCOVA was conducted, using
the posttest results as dependent variables and the pretests results
as covariates, and treatment as independent variable. This in order
to understand the differences in LCA Interest between the two
groups.
4. Results
4.1. Learning aspects
For Learning aspects, the results show a statistically significant
improvement of the Overall Knowledge both for the experimental
(t = 4.8176, p < 0.001) and control group (t = 5.8916, p < 0.001). For
Factual Knowledge, for both experimental (t = 4.3930, p < 0.001)
and control group (t = 9.5566, p < 0.001) there are also statistically
significant effects, as well as for Conceptual Knowledge (experi-
mental group: t = 1.7050, p < 0.05; control group: t = 2.0262,
p < 0.05). For Procedural Knowledge, there is a statistically
significant improvement just for the experimental group
(t = 3.6186, p < 0.001) while for the control group there is even a
slight even though not significant decrease (t= -0.2806, p > 0.05).
In order to test the differences between the Learning aspects of
the two groups, a series of one-way ANCOVA was then conducted.
Even though for each of the Knowledge dimensions the pretest
results didn’t have any significant difference between groups
according to t-tests (p > 0.05), ANCOVA was run anyway in order
to properly consider the influence of the covariate [55]. In
particular, for each Knowledge dimension posttest results were
used as dependent variables, the treatment as independent
variable and the pretest results as covariates. Before ANCOVAs
 S. Perini et al. / Computers in Industry 102 (2018) 40–49 47

were conducted, all the basic assumptions of ANCOVA were CONTROL EXPERIMENTAL
verified. In particular, for each Knowledge dimension Shapiro- Usability 2.81 3.26
Wilk and Levene tests were done in order to test respectively for (1-5) (SD 0.62) (SD 0.44)
Enjoyment 2.87 3.22
the normality of distribution and for the homogeneity of variance (1-5) (SD 0.67) (SD 0.54)
across the two groups. Furthermore, the homogeneity of the LCA Future Intentions 1.40 1.33
regression slopes was verified for each Knowledge dimension by (0-2) (SD 0.44) (SD 0.36)
testing the presence of interaction between the pretest results
(covariate) and the treatment (independent variable). No
interaction was found for any of the Knowledge dimensions
(p > 0.05).
CONTROL EXPERIMENTAL
The results of the one-way ANCOVAs show significant differ- PRE POST PRE POST
ences between the groups for Factual and Procedural Knowledge LCA Interest 4.72 4.54 4.44 4.49
(respectively F = 9.54, p < 0.01, h2 = 0.14; F = 10.97, p < 0.01, (1-7) (SD 0.84) (SD 1.03) (SD 0.80) (SD 1.00)
h2 = 0.16) while the influence of pretest results was significant
just for Factual and Overall Knowledge (respectively F = 21.70,
p < 0.01, h2 = 0.27; F = 8.13, p < 0.01, h2 = 0.12). In particular,
students in the control group performed significantly better on 5. Discussion
Factual Knowledge (Adjusted Mean EG = 3.78, Adjusted Mean
CG = 4.35) while students in the experimental group performed The results of the experimental group show a significant
significantly better on Procedural Knowledge (Adjusted Mean improvement in Factual, Conceptual, Procedural and Overall
EG = 2.13, Adjusted Mean CG = 1.30). Knowledge about LCA. Therefore, the user assessment implemented
provides evidence of the positive impact of the LCA Game on the
CONTROL EXPERIMENTAL specific learning objectives identified. The most significant effect is
PRE POST PRE POST
reached on Factual and Procedural Knowledge, while the weakest is
Factual Knowledge 2.41 4.28 2.73 3.85
(0-5) (SD 0.78) (SD 0.70) (SD 1.15) (SD 0.91) on Conceptual Knowledge. This can be explained by the time needed
Conceptual Knowledge (0- 1.48 2.03 1.39 1.88 to develop in a robust way concepts, theories and structures about a
5) (SD 1.02) (1.05) (SD 1.06) (SD 1.24) given topic [56], which partially contrasts with the quite brief
Procedural Knowledge (0-5) 1.38 1.31 1.27 2.12 exposition to the LCA Game the participants were submitted to. For
(SD 0.90) (SD 0.97) (SD 0.91) (SD 0.99)
Overall Knowledge 5.28 7.62 5.39 7.85
this reason, the results obtained for Conceptual Knowledge can be
(0-15) (SD 1.53) (SD 1.50) (SD 2.14) (SD 2.00) considered as extremely positive. Also the results of the control group
show a significant improvement in Factual, Conceptual and Overall
Knowledge about LCA while no improvement in Procedural
Knowledge. In particular, while for Factual Knowledge the control
**p < 0.01

Factual Conceptual Procedural Overall

Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge
df MS F MS F MS F MS F
Pretest 1 10.77 21.70** 1.27 0.95 1.14 1.19 23.15 8.13**
Treatment 1 4.73 9.54** 0.32 0.24 10.52 10.97** 0.55 0.19

group outperformed the experimental group, for Procedural

4.2. Motivational aspects
For Motivational aspects, the results of the independent t-tests
show a statistically significant higher level of both Usability
(t = 3.3270, p < 0.001) and Enjoyment (t = 2.2369, p < 0.05) for the
experimental group. For LCA Future Intentions, the result of the
control group is slightly higher than that of the experimental
group but the difference is not statistically significant (t= -0.6800,
p > 0.05). For LCA Interest, the paired-sample t-tests show that
the posttest results of the experimental group are slightly higher
than the pretest results but the difference is not statistically
significant (t = 0.2481, p > 0.05). On the other hand, the posttest
results of the control group are lower than the pretest results but
also in this case the difference is not statistically significant (t=
-1.4178, p > 0.05).
In order to test the differences in the LCA Interest between the
two groups, a one-way ANCOVA was conducted by using LCA
Interest posttest results as dependent variables, the treatment as
independent variable and the LCA Interest pretest results as
covariates. Before ANCOVA was conducted, all the basic assump-
tions of ANCOVA were verified. The results of the one-way ANCOVA
showed no significant difference between the two groups on LCA
Interest (F = 0.27, p > 0.05).
Knowledge just the experimental group dealing with the gamified
version of the activity revealed to have significant benefits. This
element is extremely important and can allow us to draw some
important conclusions about the DGBL approach. Indeed, with
reference to the EQF’s classification of learning outcomes [30], both a
gamified and non-gamified digital learning approach can have a
positive impact on the Knowledge of the learner about a given subject,
even though a non-gamified approach will have a more positive
impact on Factual Knowledge, i.e. the knowledge of terms and details.
On the other hand, a gamified digital learning approach will be
definitely more effective than the non-gamified one on the Skills of
the learner. As a consequence, the gamified approach seems to be
more appropriate than the non-gamified one when there is the need
to address the more operational aspects of students’ learning, while
for the more theoretical aspects can be overcome to some extent by
the non-gamified one. In fact, the results show how DGBL is especially
suitable to support a more proactive learning once a more theoretical
basis has already been provided and there is hence need to make the
student familiar with the methods and tools of the subject addressed.
In other words, the engagement resulting from the immersion in the
DG favors the learning of the more procedural aspects, where the
structuring of tasks in predefined paths [15] and the provision of real-
time feedbacks on the actions carried out [16] become essential to
48 S. Perini et al. / Computers in Industry 102 (2018) 40–49
develop in the user the ability to solve complex problems and not only
to understand definitions and theoretical concepts. These results are
supported by the values obtained for Enjoyment and Usability, since
for both variables the experimental group had higher scores than the
control group. Therefore evidence shows how, as already suggested
by DGBL theory [14], higher levels of Usability and Enjoyment are
essential to guarantee the involvement of the student in the learning
process, which will eventually lead him/her to acquire more
significantly the practical aspects of the subject.
Furthermore, it should be noticed that positive results about
LCA Knowledge were obtained also by [49], but after a period of
exposition to the teaching activity of 4 weeks. With the LCA Game,
students were able to improve their learning performances after
just a 1h30-min activity. On the other hand, the results partially
confirm the work of [51] about the application of DGBL to the study
of human immunology for middle school students. While the
results obtained by [51] were similar to those of the LCA Game for
Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge, no significant difference
was observed between the experimental and the control group for
Factual Knowledge. This can be explained by the different age
group of the participants [57] but also by the different subject of
the educational intervention [58].
For the other motivational aspects (i.e. LCA Future Intentions and
LCA Interest) related to the experiment, there were no particular
differences in the results obtained for the two groups. Therefore, the
motivational results confirm what was achieved, even though with
different activities, by [49]. For LCA Future Intentions, the results
obtained by [50] are generally better, even though they were achieved
after a 9-week intervention. As a consequence, two important
elements about motivational aspects should be taken into account.
First of all, the quite brief time of exposure to the activity, which
proved to be sufficient to increase the learning but not the students’
interest towards the subject [59]. Second of all, the actual difficulty to
have an impact on the aspirations of graduate students, who have
already taken important decisions about their studies and future
careers [60]. From this point of view, we can then suggest that more
heterogeneous and longer awareness paths may prove more effective
for university students. In this context, DGBL could be used as one of
the components of a broader educational intervention.
6. Conclusions
Manufacturing is nowadays suffering from a severe skills gap.
Therefore, new teaching approaches are being developed in order
to prepare the new generations to the new challenges of the
industry before their entrance in the work world. DGBL is a
promising approach to support the development of students’
advanced knowledge about the latest advancements of the sector.
DGBL adds to interaction the fun element in order to support the
engagement of the user in the learning process. Despite this high
potential, the development and validation of DGs for manufactur-
ing is still in its nascent phase. In particular, proper evidence of
their educational effectiveness and suitability for the sector are
still largely lacking.
For these reasons, in this paper first a structured methodology
to validate the educational effectiveness of DGs for manufacturing
has been presented, identifying as final objective the assessment of
the learning and motivational progresses of the student. To this
respect, the specific learning outcomes to be used as a reference for
the design of DGs have been identified and linked to Anderson’s
types of knowledge. On this basis, the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Game has been then presented. Its expected learning outcomes
and specific learning objectives have been identified as well as the
design features that were needed in order to support their
achievement.
The results of the experiment suggest on one hand the
effectiveness of the LCA Game to improve both the knowledge
and skill of the students and on the other hand its particularly
suitability to train them on the more operative aspects of the
subject. Indeed the possibility to involve the students in a
continuous and engaging trial-and-error process allows to focus
the learning efforts on the specific methods and tools of the
discipline while disadvantaging the memorization of the details.
Thus the use of the LCA Game proves to be particularly suitable for
the combination with more traditional teaching approaches,
stimulating the students’ practical skills once a more theoretical
learning phase has already been previously carried out.
Moreover, while the confirmation of the importance of the
engagement of the user in the DGBL process was obtained, the LCA
Game turned out to be not suitable for increasing the motivational
aspects related to the subject. Given the brief exposure time and
students’ target age group, the development of longer and more
heterogeneous educational interventions should be considered
more promising.
DGs for manufacturing education are hence important tools to
train in a rapid and effective way the skills of the university students
that will have to access shortly an industrial world increasingly
complex and dynamic. Because of their simple use, the findings also
suggest the high potential for scalability of DGs for manufacturing
education, as well as for their implementation in current
manufacturing curricula. These applications can be in fact employed
without any specific previous work by teachers and students, and
make them particularly suitable for the introduction of manufactur-
ing concepts, leaving the floor to professional software tools in case
their application is needed. Indeed, we should remember that the
final objective of DGs is not that of fully substituting the teacher, but
rather supporting him/her, allowing the differentiation of educa-
tional activities in order to complement traditional frontal lectures
and to make the learning process more engaging and effective.
However, further results about the effects of DGBL in other
subjects of the manufacturing domain should be still collected,
thus identifying the specific topics and issues that are most
suitable to be taught with this approach. Finally, more extensive
comparisons should be done between the effects of DGBL and of
other interactive teaching approaches, providing stronger evi-
dence of its specific limits and strengths.
Acknowledgements
The research leading to these results has received funding from
the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/
2007-2013) under grant agreement no 609147.
References
[1] Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute, Boiling Point? The Skills Gap in U.S.
Manufacturing, (2011) .
[2] & McKinsey, Company, Manufacturing the Future: the Next Era of Global
Growth and Innovation, (2012) .
[3] A. Skevi, H. Szigeti, S. Perini, M. Oliveira, M. Taisch, D. Kiritsis, Current Skills
Gap in Manufacturing: Towards a New Skills Framework for Factories of the
Future, Advances in Production Management Systems. Innovative and
Knowledge-Based Production Management in a Global-Local World IFIP
Advances in Information and Communication Technology, (2014) Ajaccio.
[4] S. Perini, M. Oliveira, J. Costa, D. Kiritsis, P.H. Kyvsgaard Hansen, L. Rentzos, A.
Skevi, H. Szigeti e, M. Taisch, Attracting Young Talents to Manufacturing: A
Holistic Approach, Advances in Production Management Systems. Innovative
and Knowledge-Based Production Management in a Global-Local World IFIP
Advances in Information and Communication Technology, (2014) Ajaccio.
[5] J. Hauge, J. Riedel, Evaluation of simulation games for teaching engineering
and manufacturing, Procedia Comput. Sci. (2012) 210–220.
[6] M. Dessouky, D. Bailey, S. Verma, S. Adiga, G. Bekey e, E. Kazlauskas, A virtual
factory teaching system in support of manufacturing education, J. Eng. Educ.
(1998) 459–467.
 S. Perini et al. / Computers in Industry 102 (2018) 40–49
[7] D. Mavrikios, N. Papakostas, D. Mourtzis, G. Chryssolouris, On industrial
learning and training for the factories of the future: a conceptual, cognitive and
technology framework, J. Intell. Manuf. 24 (2013) 473–485.
[8] P. Doolittle e, W. Camp, The career and technical education perspective, J.
Vociational Tech. Educ. 16 (1) (1999).
[9] T. Roberts, A philosopical examination of experiential learning theory for
agricultural educators, J. Agric. Educ. 47 (1) (2006) 17–29.
[10] T. Wiesner e, W. Lan, Comparison of student learning in physical and simulated
unit operations experiments, J. Eng. Educ. 93 (3) (2004) 195–204.
[11] M. Stefanovic, The objectives, architectures and effects of distance learning
laboratories for industrial engineering education, Comput. Educ. (2013) 250–262.
[12] Y. Yao, J. Li e, C. Liu, A virtual machining based training system for numerically
controlled machining, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 15 (1) (2007) 64–72.
[13] V. Monroy, J. de Dios Calderon, J.C. Miranda V, Taking the lab into the
classroom: using mobile technology to monitor and receive data from CNC
machines, J. Manuf. Syst. 24 (3) (2005) 266–270.
[14] C. Ferguson e, C. Olson, Friends, fun, frustration and fantasy: child motivations
for video game play, Motiv. Emot. 37 (1) (2013) 154–164.
[15] J. Sykes, Affective gaming: advancing the argument for game-based learning,
Affective and Emotional Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction, IOS Press,
2006, pp. 3–7.
[16] B. Coller e, M. Scott, Effectiveness of using a video game to teach a course in
mechanical engineering, Comput. Educ. (2009) 900–912.
[17] A. Avramenko, Enhancing students’ employability through business
simulation, Educ. + Train. 54 (5) (2012) 355–367.
[18] W. Hung, E.V. Leon, Manufacturing education and research at texas A&M
university: responding to global trends, J. Manuf. Syst. 24 (3) (2005) 153–161.
[19] M. Mehrabi, Lab System Design in Support of Manufacturing Engineering
Curricula, J. Manuf. Syst. 24 (3) (2005) 251–255.
[20] F. Soares, M. Sepulveda, S. Monteiro, R. Lima, E.J. Dinis-Carvalho, An integrated
project of entrepreneurship and innovation in engineering education,
Mechatronics (2012).
[21] B.D. Coller e, D.J. Shernoff, Video game-based education in mechanical
engineering: a look at student engagement, Int. J. Contin. Eng. Educ. Life-Long
Learn. 25 (2) (2009) 308–317.
[22] D. Gomes, M. Pereira Lopes, E.C. Vaz de Carvalho, Serious games for lean
manufacturing: the 5S game, IEEE Rivista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del
Aprendizaje (2013) 191–196.
[23] W. Li, T. Grossman e, G. Fitzmaurice, GamiCAD: a gamified tutorial system for
first time autocad users, Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on
User Interface Software and Technology (2012).
[24] S. de Freitas, Learning in Immersive worlds - A review of game-based learning,
JISC e-Learn. Programme (2006).
[25] M. Papastergiou, Digital Game-Based Learning in high school Computer
Science education: impact on educational effectiveness and student
motivation, Comput. Educ. 52 (2009) 1–12.
[26] P. Wouters, E. van der Spek, E.H. van Oostendorp, Current Practices in Serious
Game Research: a Review From a Learning Outcomes Perspective, (2009) .
[27] J. Kirriemuir, Video gaming, education and digital learning technologies, D-Lib
Mag. 8 (2) (2002).
[28] K. Facer, Computer Games and Learning - Why Do We Think It’s Worth Talking
About Computer Games and Learning in the Same Breath? - a Discussion Paper
futurelab, (2003) .
[29] T. Hainey, T.M. Connolly, Y. Chaudy, E. Boyle, R. Beeby e, M. Soflano, Assessment
integration in serious games, Psychology, Pedagogy and Assessment in Serious
Games, Hershey, Information Science Reference, 2014, pp. 317–341.
[30] European Union, European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning,
(2008) .
[31] L. Anderson, Objectives, evaluation, and the improvement of education, Stud.
Educ. Eval. 31 (2005) 102–113.
[32] K. Orr e, C. McGuinness, What is the "Learning" in game-based learning?
Psychology, Pedagogy, and Assessment in Serious Games, Hershey,
Information Science Reference, 2014, pp. 221–242.
[33] F. Bellotti, B. Kapralos, K. Lee, P. Moreno-Ger e, R. Berta, Assessment in and of
serious games: an overview, Adv. Hum. Interact. (2013).
[34] D. Jia, A. Bhatti e, S. Nahavandi, The impact of self-efficacy and perceived
system efficacy on effectiveness of virtual training systems, Behav. Inf. Technol.
33 (1) (2014) 16–35.
[35] C. Baranauskas, N. Gomes Neto e, M. Borges, Learning at work through a multi-
user synchronous simulation game, Int. J. Continuing Eng. Educ. Life Long
Learn. 11 (3) (2011) 251–260.
[36] P. Sweetser e, P. Wyeth, GameFlow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment
in games, ACM Comput. Entertainment 3 (3) (2005) 1–24.
[37] P. Moreno-Ger, J. Torrente, Y. Hsieh e, W. Lester, Usability testing for serious
games: making informed design decisions with user data, Adv. Hum. Interact.
2012 (2012) 1–13.
[38] J. Brockmyer, C. Fox, K. Curtiss, E. McBroom, K. Burkhart e, J. Pidruzny, The
development of the Game Engagement Questionnaire: a measure of engagement
in video-game playing, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45 (4) (2009) 624–634.
[39] R. Ryan, J. Conneell, E.R. Plant, Emotions in non-directed text learning, Learn.
Individ. Differ. 2 (1990) 1–17.
[40] Technical Committee ISO/TC 207, (2006) .
[41] M. Garetti e, M. Taisch, Sustainable manufacturing: trends and research
challenges, Prod. Plan. Control. (2012) 83–104.
49
[42] B. Cushman-Roisin, N. Rice III, M. Moldaver, A simulation tool for industrial
ecology, J. Ind. Ecol. 3 (4) (1999) 131–144.
[43] C. Slater, R. Hesketh, D. Fichana, J. Henry, A. Flynn, Expanding the frontiers in
green engineering education, Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition (2005).
[44] T. Hawkins e, D. Matthews, A classroom simulation to teach economic input-
output life cycle assessment, J. Ind. Ecol. 13 (4) (2009) 622–637.
[45] J. Aurandt e, E. Butler, Sustainability education: approaches for incorporating
sustainability into the undergraduate curriculum, J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ.
Pract. 137 (2) (2011) 102–106.
[46] S. Lockrey e, K. Johnson, Designing pedagogy with emerging sustainable
technologies, J. Clean. Prod. 61 (2013) 70–79.
[47] G. Bascoul, J. Schmitt, D. Rasolofoarison, L. Chamberlain, E.N. Lee, Using an
experiential business game to stimulate sustainable thinking in marketing
education, J. Mark. Educ. 35 (2) (2013) 168–180.
[48] S. Powers, J. De Waters, E.M. Venczel, Teaching life-cycle perspectives:
sustainable transportation fuels unit for high-school and undergraduate
engineering students, J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 137 (2) (2011) 55–63.
[49] N. Weber, J. Strobel, M. Dyehouse, C. Harris, R. David, J. Fang, E.I. Hua, First-year
students’ environmental awareness and understanding of environmental
sustainability through a life cycle assessment module, J. Eng. Educ. 103 (1)
(2014) 154–181.
[50] E. Masanet, Y. Chang, Y. Yao, R. Briam e, R. Huang, Reflections on a massive open
online life cycle assessment course, Int. J. lifecycle Assess. 19 (2014) 1901–1907.
[51] M.-T. Cheng, T. Su, W.-Y. Huang e, J.-H. Chen, An educational game for learning
human immunology: What do students learn and how do they perceive? Br. J.
Educ. Technol. 45 (5) (2014) 820–833.
[52] T. Tyler-Wood, G. Knezek, R. Christensen, Instruments for Assessing Interest in
STEM Content and Careers, J. Technol. Teach. Educ. 18 (2) (2010) 341–363.
[53] J. Brooke, SUS: a "quick and dirty" usability scale, Usability Evaluation in
Industry, Taylor and Francis, London, 1996.
[54] W. IJsselsteijn, K. Poels, E.Y. de Kort, The Game Experience Questionnaire:
Development of A Self-report Measure to Assess Player Experiences of Digital
Games TU Eindhoven, Eindhoven (2008).
[55] H. Song, M. Pusic, M. Nick, U. Sarpel, J. Plass, E.A. Kalet, The cognitive impact of
interactive design features for learning complex materials in medical
education, Comput. Educ. 71 (2014) 198–205.
[56] R. Siegler, E. Stern, Conscious and unconscious strategy discoveries: a
microgenetic analysis, J. Exp. Psychol. 127 (1998) 377–397.
[57] F. Blumberg, Developmental differences at play: children’s selective attention
and performance in video games, J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 19 (4) (1998) 615–624.
[58] T. Connolly, E. Boyle, E. MacArthur, T. Hainey, J. Boyle, A systematic literature
review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games, Comput.
Educ. 59 (2012) 661–686.
[59] V.L. Wyss, D. Heulskamp, C.J. Siebert, Increasing middle school student interest in
STEM careers with videos of scientists, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 7 (4) (2012) 501–522.
[60] P. van Leuvan, Young women’s science/mathematics career goals from seventh
grade to high school graduation, J. Educ. Res. 97 (5) (2004) 248–268.
Stefano Perini is PhD candidate at the Department of Management, Economics and
Industrial Engineering (DIG) of Politecnico di Milano, where is also lecturer in the
courses of Advanced and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems and Operations
Management. His main research interests are the study of ICT-based innovation and
Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) solutions in the manufacturing sector.
Rossella Luglietti is a research assistant at the Department of Management,
Economics and Industrial Engineering (DIG) of Politecnico di Milano, where is also a
lecturer in the course of Advanced and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems. Her
main research interests are the study of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and
sustainability applied to manufacturing sector.
Maria Margoudi is a research scientist at HighSkillz Ltd. Her background is pedagogics
and educational technology. Her research interests include pedagogical aspects of serious
games and digital game-based learning and their applications to science education.
Manuel Fradinho Oliveira is senior research scientist at Sintef. His research
interests include social media, serious games, user engagement, gamification, user
behaviour change, virtual environments, and mixed reality. He has more than 100
refereed conference and journal publications to date.
Marco Taisch is professor at the Department of Economics, Management and
Industrial Engineering of Politecnico di Milano, where he teaches the courses of
Advanced and Sustainable Manufacturing Systems, and Operations Management.
Member of the IEEE Engineering Management Society, IEEE Man, Systems and
Cybernetics Society and senior member of the IIE Institute of Industrial Engineer,
from 2007 till 2013, has chaired the IFIP Working Group 5.7 on Advances in
Production Management Systems. He has published or edited 7 books and more
than 125 papers in international journals and conference proceedings.