Content area
The huge range of learning opportunities makes educational offers for learners quickly (ex)changeable. An adequate Learning Experience Design (LXD) is the key to keep learners in an offer. LXD has strong intersections with concepts such as gamification and game-based learning (GBL). Within the two GBL projects presented in this paper, methods of the design thinking approach have been applied in the context of LXD. Both concepts share the idea of involving the user group in the design process in order to create a user-oriented solution to a specific problem. The first GBL project focussed on the development and testing of a serious game called "Stress-Rekord"1 (Engl. stress record) which aims at contributing to maintain the employability of nurses through effective prevention and health-promoting leadership behaviour. During the project, paper prototyping was used to test game mechanics and game aesthetics as well as usability. By using this method, concrete game scenarios and player behaviours could be explored before the digital integration. The second GBL project "gOPAL", aimed at the development of a study assistance course for first year students based on a gamified motivation design which is integrated into the learning management system (LMS) OPAL. During the development of the study assistance course, an idea factory was carried out in order to receive immediate feedback from the target group. The evaluation of both educational offers shows that the design methods had been successfully implemented, as users were satisfied and the drop-out rate was low. The paper describes the two methods paper prototyping and idea factory and shows how the balance between learning objectives and learning experiences had been mastered in two GBL projects.
Abstract: The huge range of learning opportunities makes educational offers for learners quickly (ex)changeable. An adequate Learning Experience Design (LXD) is the key to keep learners in an offer. LXD has strong intersections with concepts such as gamification and game-based learning (GBL). Within the two GBL projects presented in this paper, methods of the design thinking approach have been applied in the context of LXD. Both concepts share the idea of involving the user group in the design process in order to create a user-oriented solution to a specific problem. The first GBL project focussed on the development and testing of a serious game called "Stress-Rekord"1 (Engl. stress record) which aims at contributing to maintain the employability of nurses through effective prevention and health-promoting leadership behaviour. During the project, paper prototyping was used to test game mechanics and game aesthetics as well as usability. By using this method, concrete game scenarios and player behaviours could be explored before the digital integration. The second GBL project "gOPAL", aimed at the development of a study assistance course for first year students based on a gamified motivation design which is integrated into the learning management system (LMS) OPAL. During the development of the study assistance course, an idea factory was carried out in order to receive immediate feedback from the target group. The evaluation of both educational offers shows that the design methods had been successfully implemented, as users were satisfied and the drop-out rate was low. The paper describes the two methods paper prototyping and idea factory and shows how the balance between learning objectives and learning experiences had been mastered in two GBL projects.
Keywords: learning experience design, design thinking, game based learning, paper prototyping, idea factory
1.Introduction
Digitization has created a huge range of learning opportunities, yet, at the same time learning offers and resources have become (ex)changeable. Numerous educational institutions provide online courses, content platforms such as Youtube have become the hub of learning materials, and more and more new providers or companies occupy niches of the educational market. They all compete for learners' attention, which, however, is limited while the variety of digital education material is huge, next offers are easy to reach, and a change of provider is quickly done. Thus, learners have inevitably become emancipated. Their reactions and interactions determine success and failure of digital educational offers. However, it may be doubted that only pedagogical aspects are relevant for the learners. Other aspects such as first impressions, aesthetic as well as emotions, influence learners' decisions.
With increasing educational offers, users are looking for learning experience. They are looking for those educational offers that make learning vivid, experienceable or emotional, that give pleasure or enable social learning. Learning experience is oriented towards basic human needs (e.g. affiliation, hedonism, fun) and by this it facilitates the access to learning. From a pedagogical point of view, it is undisputed that motivation and emotions promote learning processes and increase learning success (Sailer, 2016). The concept of learning experience starts here. With an experience-oriented design of learning environments motivation and positive emotions can be promoted. Yet, what characterizes learning experience within learning environments? Is it medial elements or technical functions that influence learning experience? Learning Experience Design (LXD) is characterized mainly by the user-oriented conception of learning environments, while the technical implementation of specific aesthetics is only of minor importance (Hokanson, Clinton & Tracey, 2015). Therefore, learning environments should be consequently designed from a user perspective. For this purpose, learning designers have to master a set of methods that goes far beyond the traditional instructional design (Kapros, 2018), e.g. special methods are needed to actively involve the target group in the design and implementation of learning opportunities. This paper presents two methods of the design thinking approach which have been applied in the context of LXD. The concept of LXD and design thinking share the idea of involving the user group in the design process in order to create a user-oriented solution to a specific problem.
LXD and concepts such as gamification and game-based learning (GBL) are strongly interlinked. The use of game elements makes learning processes experience-oriented, which in turn has an impact on learning motivation and learning success. The two GBL projects, presented below, aimed at increasing the learning experience by a serious game or the implementation of game elements in a non-gaming context. Both projects will be briefly outlined, and two methods of design thinking will be described with regards to the systematic involvement of the target group in the conception and design process of the educational offers.
2.Efficient methods within game based learning projects
Today, it is an essential success factor for educational offers to consistently keep in mind the requirements and needs of users and trying to find respective solutions (Schallmo, 2018). Design thinking may answer the following questions we have to deal with when creating an application (Schallmo, 2018): who are the users, and, how can requirements and needs be identified as well as translated into user-oriented solutions? Design thinking, according to Schallmo (2017), intends to develop new solutions to challenges (objectives), is consistently oriented towards users (orientation), is based on a structured and iterative process (process) and is applied by an interdisciplinary team (participants). The concept of design thinking contains a set of various methods applicable in different stages of the design thinking process (Uebernickel & Brenner, 2016). Two of these methods of design thinking, idea factory (Horton, 2006) and paper prototyping are presented on the basis of their success for the two GBL projects "Stress-Rekord", a serious game and "gOPAL", a gamified study assistance course for first year students.
2.1 Paper prototyping
Within the project "Stress-Rekord" one of the most contributing method for usability testing and gameplay development was paper prototyping. The aim of the project was the development of a serious game for the healthcare sector in order to enhance the employability of nurses. The game is developed as a browser based application and deals with the topics prevention and health-promoting leadership behaviour. Thus it mainly addresses care managers or staff in leading positions within the health care sector. In the game, the player acts as a predefined character (care manager) and is asked to lead the workplace health management of a fictional home care service. With the help of occurring events representing different problem situations of the nurses (game characters) the player is challenged to identify work-related health risks of his/her staff. With the selection of suitable actions, the player is able to reduce these health risks and, thereby, also able to lower the overall stress level of the game characters (Figure 1).
One of the greatest challenges during the game development phase was the creation of a user-friendly game interface as well as the development of consistent game elements (e.g. story, rules) while simultaneously meeting, on the one hand, the pre-defined learning objectives of the game and, on the other hand, fostering learning experience. In order to reach these goals, the design thinking approach was used. The approach includes a set of different steps taken by teams that are faced with a specific design challenge; in our case the development of a serious game. As a first step, it is important to empathize with the future users of the product in order to get a grasp of their needs and desires. Secondly, based on the previous step, it is necessary to select a set of needs and, thereby define a specific design challenge. Once the problem to be solved is defined properly ideas can be generated (ideate). This step involves the generation of not only one but a broad range of possible solutions to the problem. Later through prototyping and testing the best solution will be identified (d.school, 2010). One of the core characteristics of the design thinking process is its iterative nature (Meinel, Weinberg & Krohn 2015). The steps described previously can either follow a linear progression or can be taken in a various order according to the needs and style of the design thinking challenge (d.school, 2010). Figure 2 shows the design thinking process applied during the development of the serious game "Stress-Rekord".
The phases of prototyping and testing will be more closely looked at in this section. Both phases are tightly interlinked due to the iterative nature of the whole process. In order to answer different questions concerning the development of the serious game project team developed and tested different kinds of prototypes.
The general purpose of prototyping in game development is to identify problems and weak points in the gameplay. Besides, prototyping is an economical and hardly time-consuming opportunity to gather feedback and detect weaknesses at an early stage of development and before the digital realization of the game. Digital games and board games often share the same logics and game mechanics, thus, it is beneficial to first develop the game as a kind of board game - a so called paper prototype (Schell, 2016). A games' playability can only truly be evaluated by actually playing the game. Even before the digital realization, it is essential to test the game mechanics and different aspects of usability. Therefore, the paper prototype should be developed as early as possible without focusing too much on its aesthetics (Kapp, Blair & Mesch, 2013). Typically, a paper prototype is made of movable pieces representing the user interface and displaying different game scenarios (Kapp, Blair & Mesch, 2013). In many cases, it is useful to build several paper prototypes as each prototype answers a different question, e.g. a prototype for authors provides information on the consistency of contents or storyline and a prototype for graphic designers may help to develop the layout for the interface (Schell, 2016).
According to these recommendations the development team of "Stress-Rekord" created a set of different paper prototypes (Figure 3). The most comprehensive one was a prototype that included the contents and storylines of four different game characters as well as the main navigation elements. With the help of this prototype it was possible to create a game experience and perform a whole game walkthrough with the test users. Additionally the project team created several other versions of paper prototypes representing only selected parts of the game, which needed a closer assessment. These smaller versions of prototypes were mostly used during meetings of the development team consisting of programmers, graphic designers, authors and didactic experts. The following description refers to the comprehensive prototype only, as it was the most detailed, most revised and most tested one.
For the early test phase it is suggested to choose a test group that gives a friendly feedback. For later stages also strangers should be invited for testing in order to receive a truthful and more objective assessment of the prototype (Kapp, Blair & Mesch, 2013). During the testing phase for the serious game "Stress-Rekord", the team firstly invited colleagues being experts in the field of didactic conception of learning environments to test the game. Later on, the team also involved the typical user group (i.e. care managers) to test the paper prototype. Within a period of nine months, the team conducted 25 tests. After each round of playing, the paper prototype was refined according to the feedback given by the test players. Thus, a slightly modified prototype was tested each time.
For testing, it is recommended to not talk to the player during a test but ask him/her to speak out loudly his/her thoughts, or, explain the actions taken during the gameplay. Notes should be taken, especially concerning troublesome points of the gameplay scenario (Kapp, Blair & Mesch; 2013). If the player gets stuck during the gameplay it is possible to support him/her with some hints how to continue playing. After the walkthrough it is helpful to pose questions to the test player about the gameplay experience (Kapp, Blair & Mesch, 2013). During all of the 25 test runs with the paper prototype of "Stress-Rekord", the thinking aloud method (Dumas & Redish, 1999) was used. All test players were instructed on how to use this method and which thoughts might give useful insights for the development team. The actual test run was always conducted on a table using the movable pieces of the prototype to simulate the user interface. Two facilitators acted in the role of the "human computer" and moved the paper pieces of the prototype (content and buttons) according to the players' actions. After about 30 minutes test phase, a debriefing followed, in which the development team posed questions to the test player; in particular, the test player was asked about the perceived meaning of different game elements and about his/her gaming experience and feelings while playing.
After testing the gameplay with the paper prototype, game mechanics, graphic design and content were implemented into the digital browser based game application which was finally tested and evaluated by the target group. In order to identify the learning experience gained by playing the serious game, the following criteria were evaluated by qualitative-quantitative triangulated methods (questionnaire and group discussion):
* Usability (e.g. usefulness and aesthetics)
* Playfulness (e.g. immersion, flow, excitement, challenge, feelings)
* Effectiveness (increased knowledge, attitude and behavior change)
Established instruments2 were used for operationalizing the evaluated variables. For evaluating the effectiveness of learning with the game, the project team collected the data at two different times of measurement (before and after playing the game) in order to compare the two different data sets (Döring, Lange & Schade, 2018). Regarding usability and visual aesthetics, the test phase with the actual digital application resulted in a rather positive feedback from the target group. Aesthetics were rated with 4,37 and the usability with 4,77 [n = 30, on a scale form "does not apply" (1) to "applies" (7)]. In terms of effectiveness, it was reported that the serious game is rather useful for junior managers than for already experienced managers. Additionally, it was remarkable that the assessment of the players' attitude towards health-promoting leadership behavior showed already good results before playing the game, and worse results after playing. It can be assumed that the serious game contributes to sensitizing users and makes them reconsider their personal assessment of their own level of health-promoting leadership behavior (Schaarschmidt, 2019).
The applied method of design thinking, paper prototyping, was not directly evaluated within the project. The results of the serious games' evaluation allow some cautious and indirect conclusions on the effectiveness of paper prototyping though. It can be assumed that the method contributed to developing the serious game with adequate user interface and aesthetics as well as an efficient gameplay experience. However, there are still opportunities for enhancing particular learning objectives.
2.2 Idea factory
The idea factory, as a way of idea engineering (Horton, 2006), has contributed as a part of the improvement of "gOPAL" (Figure 4).
"gOPAL" is an online study assistance course for first year students with a gamified motivational design based on the LMS OPAL. In short learning units including stimuli, missions and knowledge stores, students can unlock important information and tips for their studies to become a campus insider. With the help of "gOPAL" new students continuously receive helpful information on studying at the university Technische Universität Dresden as well as on regional specificities. Different principles and elements from the field of game design, such as storytelling, quests, rewards, achievements, visual presentations, feedback, surprise, curiosity etc., were embedded in the scenarios (Figure 5) and were also part of the project evaluation (Heinz, Fischer, Heitz & Breitenstein, 2018).
The idea factory was titled "Together, we create! Invitation to the Idea Factory 'gOPAL - Design, Content and Usability'" and consisted of a briefing phase, the planning of the idea factory and the screenplay (the procedure). The leading question for the introductory part (briefing) was: How can "gOPAL" be improved in terms of design, content and usability? Thus, four main goals were developed to frame the outcome of the idea factory: 1) achieving five to ten solutions for an appealing design, 2) improving suggestions for existing topics 3) getting solutions for better usability and 4) gaining additional topics to extend the current contents. The following success criteria for "gOPAL" were set: a constant or increasing number of participants and the participation within the offer across the first two semesters. The results finally had to be compared with the technical possibilities of the LMS, and the framework conditions were announced to the participants of the idea factory.
The planning of the idea factory consisted of a general invitation and a personal invitation of students to take part in the idea factory. The invitation process was coordinated with the student representatives. In order to reach as many students as possible for taking part in the idea factory, time and place were considered carefully: The idea factory took place in the central lecture building, which is easy to reach for every student. Teaching times were analysed in order to avoid overlap in time. Participants came from various subjects, corresponding to the target groups of "gOPAL" - Electrical Engineering/Information Technology, Economics and Teacher Training. Within the idea factory, student subject teams were formed. The idea factory team had the following specialised tasks: Moderators, assistants, reporters and interviewers. The reporters should also record interesting verbatim information from time to time and mark it as a quotation, if possible with sociodemographic information and subject background. Moreover, photos from the created material were taken. Generally speaking, more photos could be taken if they do not interfere with the creative process. In order to create a pleasant working atmosphere, we offered drinks and snacks (Figure 6).
The screenplay is displayed via table 1 and follows ideas from Horton, Chelvier, Knoll and Görs (2011) as well as Uebernickel and Brenner (2016).
The results of the idea factory were incorporated into the concept development of "gOPAL". Important results were the desired continuous communication (push messages) with the target group. The content had to be appealing and appropriate for the target group. The information should be easily accessible and consumable. The story had to be adapted to the everyday events of the target group and information had to be made available as needed. This accentuated the need of carefully choosing only the content relevant for the students and avoiding to overload them with information by choosing the right time to present the content. Well-known metaphors or target group-specific narratives, such as the virtual desk or the story context of the student flatsharing community, facilitate access for users, as the stylistic means are linked to each other. The reward system in "gOPAL" can do without badges, points or leaderboards. This is explained by the fact that students have to earn the required information by unlocking them what makes information more valuable and they serve as a kind of reward system. The access statistics between 2016 and 2018 show that more than 400 users make intensive use of "gOPAL". The dropout rate is below 15 percent. The evaluation shows an overall positive rating of 4.7 on a scale from insufficient (1) to very good (6) with n = 47 (Heinz et al., 2018). This shows that the motivation design, which was co-created in the idea factory, was positively received by our target group.
3.Implications
Paper prototyping was one of the most beneficial methods for the development team of the serious game "Stress-Rekord". Using and testing a paper prototype is an important tool for fostering communication within multidisciplinary teams and with future users in an easy and structured way (Snyder, 2003). Using several paper prototypes helped the development team to conduct meetings in a more efficient, creative and tangible way. In addition, feedback on game mechanics and learning experience was generated easily and efficiently. Weaknesses within the game mechanics as well as problems with understanding the navigation or different game elements could be identified quickly and at an early stage of game development. Most importantly, inconsistencies in the storyline were revealed during several test runs. According to the experiences made during the project "Stress-Rekord" the following recommendations regarding the use of paper prototyping are proposed:
* Build and test a paper prototype as early as possible in the design process.
* Test the paper prototype as often as possible and revise it after each test.
* Document feedback given during the testing scenario.
* Test the paper prototype with different user groups in order to gather feedback from diverse perspectives.
Through the involvement of students from different subjects in the "gOPAL" idea factory, it was possible to perceive their differentiated specialist cultures, and thus, their different ideas and needs. The participation of the target group helped to achieve the balance between learning objectives and learning experiences. Furthermore, Gamification cannot just be over-sculpted, the appropriate implementation to the target group is crucial (Fischer, Heinz, Schlenker & Follert, 2016). The moodboard and various materials made it possible to express and recognize the different tastes by giving participants the chance to freely change the existing system. The main advantage of an idea factory is that the horizon of the development team and the participants can be broadened through creative design possibilities, and, ideas can be shown and implemented, which are difficult to express verbally. The findings from the idea factory and the evaluation of the project allow the following conclusions.
* Through a systematic involvement of the future user group in the design process drop-out rates can be lowered.
* Regular push messages are essential for consistent use.
* The cover story must be developed in dialogue with future learners.
* Different subject cultures are connected with different gamification needs.
The digitization of education not only affects the quality of educational offers or arrangements but also changes their conception. Increasingly, there are open development processes that make users or learners systematically an essential part of the design of learning environments. By this, learners can help to shape learning environments according to their own ideas and needs. Learner involvement does not replace the classical didactic conception based on learning goals but introduces an additional level of Learning Design: The level of LXD. LXD ensures that learning takes place with positive emotions and a high motivation and that learning outcomes are easier to apply in practice. The implementation of such methods is by no means trivial, but requires careful preparation and permanent communication with the target group. The most important factor for a learners' learning experience is an adequate design. No matter how good the content may be, if the onboarding and learning experience is not designed in a user friendly way, there will be no sufficient use of the materials. Since the methodological requirements for digital education are changing, it is no longer sufficient to orientate simply on classical instructional design. Future learning designers are encouraged to use the methods of design thinking in order to meet the various needs of learners to create an adequate LXD.
1 Funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the funding priority "Präventive Maßnahmen für die sichere und gesunde Arbeit von morgen"
2 For operationalizing criteria 1) and 2) "GEQ" (IJsselsteijn, de Kort & Poels, 2013) and "meCUE" (Minge & Riedel, 2013) were used. Criterion 3) was evaluated on the basis of the following instruments: "BMQ-IPASUM" (Kiesel & Fischmann, 2012), "COPSOQ" (Nübling et al., 2017), "BGWmiab" (BGW, n.a.), "Gesundheitsfördernd führen" (BGW, 2007), "Selbstcheck Führungsverhalten für Führungskräfte" (GeFüGeProjekt, n.a.), "Fragebogen zum betrieblichen Gesundheitsmanagement" (Unfallkasse Nordrhein-Westfalen, n.a.).
References
BGW - Berufsgenossenschaft für Gesundheitsdienst und Wohlfahrtspflege (n.a.) Fragebogen zur psychischen Belastung. Retrieved June, 3, 2019 from: https://www.bgw-online.de/DE/ArbeitssicherheitGesundheitsschutz/Organisationsberatung/Personalbefragung.html.
BGW - Berufsgenossenschaft für Gesundheitsdienst und Wohlfahrtspflege (2007) Gesundheitsfördernd führen. Retrieved June, 3, 2019 from https://www.bgw-online.de/DE/Arbeitssicherheit-Gesundheitsschutz/GrundlagenForschung/GPR-Medientypen/Downloads/Projektbericht-GesundheitsfoeFuehren Download.pdf? blob=publicationFile.
Döring, S., Lange, N., & Schade, C. (2018). Ein Serious Game für Führungskräfte im Pflegebereich. Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung, 13 (4), pp. 292-297.
d.school (2010). An introduction to design thinking process guide. Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford. Retrieved April, 30, 2019 from https://dschoolold.stanford.edu/sandbox/groups/designresources/wiki/36873/attachments/74b3d/ModeGuideBOQTCAMP2010L.p df.
Dumas, J. S. & Redish, J. (1999). A practical guide to usability testing. Exeter, UK: Intellect Books.
Fischer, H., Heinz, M., Schlenker, L. & Follert, F. (2016). Gamifying Higher Education. Beyond Badges, Points and Leaderboards. In J. C. Spender, G. Schiuma & J. R. Noennig (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Forum on Knowledge Asset Dynamics. IFKAD 2016. Towards a New Architecture of Knowledge: Big Data, Culture and Creativity (pp. 2242-2255). Dresden, Germany: IKAM a. o.
GeFüGe-Projekt (n.a.) Fragebogen Selbstcheck Führungsverhalten für Führungskräfte. Retrieved June, 3, 2019 from https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/mbf as fuehrungskraefte selbstcheck.pdf.
Hokanson, B., Clinton, G. & Tracey, M. W. (2015). The Design of Learning Experience: Creating the Future of Educational Technology. Cham, Germany: Springer.
Heinz, M., Fischer, H., Heitz, R. & Breitenstein, M. (2018). Gamified Study Assistance - Motivational Design For First-YearStudents. In Proceedings of IAC in Dresden 2018. Prague, Czech Republic. Czech Institute of Academic Education z.s., pp. 111-117.
Horton, G. (2006). Idea engineering: Teaching students how to generate ideas. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Engineering Education, ICEE 2006.
Horton, G., Chelvier, R., Knoll, S. W. & Görs, J. (2011). Idea Engineering: A Case Study of a Practically Oriented University Course in Innovation. Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1-7. IJsselsteijn, W. A., de Kort, Y. A. W., Poels, K. (2013). The game experience questionnaire. Retrieved June, 3, 2019 from https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/21666907/Game Experience Questionnaire English.pdf.
Kapp, K. M., Blair, L. & Mesch, R. (2013). The gamification of learning and instruction fieldbook: Ideas into practice. San Francisco, CA, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Kapros, E. (2018). Designing for the User Experience in Learning Systems. Cham, Germany: Springer.
Kiesel, J. & Fischmann, W. (2012). BMQ-IPASUM Fragebogen. BMQ Evaluation & Consulting GbR, Institut und Poliklinik für Arbeits-, Sozial und Umweltmedizin Uni Erlangen. Retrieved July, 16, 2018 from http://www.arbeitsmedizin.unierlangen.de/docs/BMQIPASUM-Fragebogen.pdf.
Meinel, C., Weinberg, U., Krohn, T. (Eds.) (2015). Design Thinking Live: Wie man Ideen entwickelt und Probleme löst. Hamburg, Germany: Murmann Publishers.
Minge, M., Riedel, L. (2013). meCUE - Ein modularer Fragebogen zur Erfassung des Nutzungserlebens. In: Boll, S., Maaß, S., Malaka, R. (Eds.) Mensch und Computer 2013: Interaktive Vielfalt. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich, pp. 89-98.
Nübling, M. et al. (2017). Mitarbeiterbefragung zu psychosozialen Faktoren am Arbeitsplatz. Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire, deutsche Standardversion. Retrieved June, 3, 2019 from https://www.copsoq.de/assets/Uploads/COPSOQ-Fragebogen-mit-Skalenzuordnung-060717-download.pdf.
Sailer, M. (2016). Die Wirkung von Gamification auf Motivation und Leistung : Empirische Studien im Kontext manueller Arbeitsprozesse. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.
Schallmo, D. (2017). Design Thinking erfolgreich anwenden: So entwickeln Sie in 7 Phasen kundenorientierte Produkte und Dienstleistungen. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Gabler.
Schallmo, D. (2018). Jetzt Design Thinking anwenden. essentials. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Gabler.
Schaarschmidt, N. (2019). Evaluationsergebnisse der Erprobung: Wie geeignet ist das Lernspiel für Führungskräfte in der Pflege und trägt es dazu bei, für gesundheitsförderliches Führungsverhalten zu sensibilisieren? Project Blog StressRekord. Retrieved April, 30, 2019 from https://www.stressrekord.de/evaluationsergebnisse-der-erprobung-wiegeeignet-ist-das-lernspiel-fuer-fuehrungskraefte-in-der-pflege-und-traegt-es-dazu-bei-fuer-gesundheitsfoerderlichesfuehrungsverhalten-zu-sensibilisieren.
Schell, J. (2016). Die Kunst des Game Designs: Bessere Games konzipieren und entwickeln. Frechen, Germany: mitp.
Snyder, C. (2003). Paper prototyping: The fast and easy way to design and refine user interfaces. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Morgan Kaufmann.
Uebernickel, F. & Brenner, W. (2016). Design Thinking. In C. P. Hoffmann, S. Lennerts, C. Schmitz, W. Stölze & F. Uebernickel (Eds.), Business Innovation: Das St. Galler Modell. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Gabler.
Unfallkasse Nordrhein-Westfalen (n.a.). Fragebogen zum betrieblichen Gesundheitsmanagement. Retrieved June, 3, 2019 from https://www.unfallkassenrw.de/fileadmin/server/download/Praeventionsmaterialien/Praeventionsdateien/Fragebogen.pdf.
Copyright Academic Conferences International Limited Oct 2019