1. Space Adventures

2. Ambitions Recap Section-explanation and reflections Further methodological developments Agenda

3. How can we develop a concept for an adventuregame where learning is an intergrated game element? Thesis ambitions: To make an academically grounded concept for a learning-based adventuregame Overall interests: Great potentials, but great differences between computergame industry and the academic community. To realize its potentials, learning-based computergames must bridge this gap. Ambitions

4. We have answered our problem formulation through 4 sections: 1. Theory Show how learning and computergames can be integrated 2. Emperical data Understand the criterias/expectations of invovled parties. Gather inspiration 3. Running conclusion Developing our argumentation for the concept 4. Design document Commmunicating our concept according to an industry standard Recap

5. Epistemolog and learning Operationalizing Luhmann: learning and teaching takes place in differnet systems Computers and learning Specifing Papert’s learning-objectives Using flow to encourage feedback Adventure games Understand its elements to integrate learning Balancing industry knowledge with academic knowledge (narrativity discussion) Theory Section

6. Understanding the criteria of our three main actors: students, teachers and scientists Relating their differnet criteria to our theoretical conclusion. To balance our theoretical findings and be inspired To prototype or not to prototype? Pros: Give critical feedback and deepen the emperical grounding Cons: Maturity of field Emperical section Turn of events

7. Running conclusion Developed the concept as we progressed Many theories - many possibilites – 6 points could bring them together Method

8. Space strategy or space simulation? Computergame/learning combination results in a different learning process Clear objectives - what and how Mapping genre/gameplay motivation with learning process Learning based computergames should find its place in larger curriculum perspective Further methodology

9. Academically based concept presented as a design document Presented to DSRI and others involved with the game To be implemented by December 1 From Academia to Implementation

10. Concentrate on one key mission This combination will act as our prototype to be tested in November From the results of this mission we will build the other missions Running evaluation of the game The full release will be in December Comes with evaluation form Unique opportunities The next step

11. Already at our presentation of the design document to DSRI challenges begin to arise Issue of qualitative feedback to student answers, the bottleneck problem. Teacher feedback as a game element We had to reevaluate the teachers role Crossing into the implementation phase New Challenges

12. How it could be Learning process is divided into parts How it is now The origins of in-game storytelling comes from the computer game industry It becomes apparent that learning computer games simply have some fundamentally different characteristics than normal computer games and should be treated that way Teachers Role –a suggestion

13. 6 theoretical points reevaluated with all accumulated game evaluation data we can begin to create game production guidelines We have a unique opportunity to follow a product from the theory to the full implementation Future article Future