Developing Serious Games with Integrated Debriefing

Findings from a Business Intelligence Context
  • Christian Karl GrundEmail author
  • Michael Schelkle
Research Paper


Serious games (SG) are recognized in several domains as a promising instructional approach. When it comes to the field of Information Systems, however, they are not yet broadly investigated. Especially in business intelligence and analytics, a literature review indicates the absence of SG for proper report design. Such games, however, seem beneficial since many business reports suffer from poor business information visualization (BIV). To address this issue, the scope of the study is twofold: first, the paper presents a SG that aims to foster learning about BIV. Second, it evaluates this SG in a laboratory experiment, comparing it to a more conventional instructional approach (i.e., presentation) and testing two different versions of the game: One version integrates debriefing into the game itself, whereas the other version uses classical post hoc debriefing. Results indicate that it is favorable to integrate debriefing into the game in terms of motivation and learning outcomes. In the vein of design science research, the authors thus intend to contribute a useful artifact as well as a novel design principle for this instructional approach: Integrating debriefing into SG.


Serious games Debriefing Business information visualization Business intelligence Design science research Laboratory experiment Evaluation 


  1. Abt CC (1987) Serious games. University Press of America, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  2. Arbel Y, Hong L, Baker TE, Holroyd CB (2017) It’s all about timing: an electrophysiological examination of feedback-based learning with immediate and delayed feedback. Neuropsychologia 99:179–186. Google Scholar
  3. Basole RC, Bodner DA, Rouse WB (2013) Healthcare management through organizational simulation. Decis Support Syst 55(2):552–563. Google Scholar
  4. Beattie V, Jones MJ (2008) Corporate reporting using graphs: a review and synthesis. J Acc Lit 27:71–110Google Scholar
  5. Blohm I, Leimeister JM (2013) Gamification. Wirtschaftsinformatik 55(4):275–278. Google Scholar
  6. Boet S, Bould MD, Bruppacher HR, Desjardins F, Chandra DB, Naik VN (2011) Looking in the mirror: self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing for simulated crises. Crit Care Med 39(6):1377–1381. Google Scholar
  7. Briggs RO, Schwabe G (2011) On expanding the scope of design science in IS research. In: Jain H, Sinha AP, Vitharana P (eds) Service-oriented perspectives in design science research: DESRIST 2011. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 92–106Google Scholar
  8. Brown TA (2015) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, 2nd edn. Methodology in the social sciences, GuilfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Card SK, Mackinlay JD, Shneiderman B (1999) Readings in information visualization: using vision to think. Morgan Kaufmann, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. Charsky D (2010) From edutainment to serious games: a change in the use of game characteristics. Games Cult 5(2):177–198. Google Scholar
  11. Chen H, Chiang RHL, Storey VC (2012) Business intelligence and analytics: from big data to big impact. MIS Q 36(4):1165–1188Google Scholar
  12. Connolly TM, Boyle EA, MacArthur E, Hainey T, Boyle JM (2012) A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Comput Educ 59(2):661–686Google Scholar
  13. Crookall D (1992) Editorial: debriefing. Simul Gaming 23(2):141–142. Google Scholar
  14. Crookall D (2010) Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simul Gaming 41(6):898–920. Google Scholar
  15. Csikszentmihalyi M (1991) Flow: the psychology of optimal experience, vol 41. Harper Perennial, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. de Freitas S, Gibson D, Alvarez V, Irving L, Star K, Charleer S, Verbert K (2017) How to use gamified dashboards and learning analytics for providing immediate student feedback and performance tracking in higher education. In: Barrett R, Cummings R (eds) Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web companion, Geneva, pp 429–434Google Scholar
  17. de Kort YAW, IJsselsteijn WA, Poels K (2007) Digital games as social presence technology: development of the social presence in gaming questionnaire (SPGQ). In: Moreno L (ed) Proceedings of the 10th annual international workshop on presence, October 25–27, 2007, Starlab, Barcelona, Spain, pp 195–203Google Scholar
  18. Deci EL, Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Der Sahakian G, Alinier G, Savoldelli G, Oriot D, Jaffrelot M, Lecomte F (2015) Setting conditions for productive debriefing. Simul Gaming 46(2):197–208. Google Scholar
  20. Deterding S, Dixon D, Khaled R, Nacke L (2011) From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification”. In: Lugmayr A, Franssila H, Safran C, Hammouda I (eds) MindTrek’11. ACM, New York, pp 9–15Google Scholar
  21. Faria AJ, Hutchinson D, Wellington WJ, Gold S (2009) Developments in business gaming: a review of the past 40 years. Simul Gaming 40(4):464–487Google Scholar
  22. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Market Res 18(1):39–50Google Scholar
  23. Garris R, Ahlers R, Driskell JE (2002) Games, motivation, and learning: a research and practice model. Simul Gaming 33(4):441–467. Google Scholar
  24. Gee JP (2003) What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Comput Entertain 1(1):20. Google Scholar
  25. Gefen D, Straub D (2005) A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: tutorial and annotated example. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 16(5):90–110Google Scholar
  26. Grund CK (2015) How games and game elements facilitate learning and motivation: a literature review. In: Cunningham D, Hofstedt P, Meer K, Schmitt I (eds) Informatik 2015. Ges. für Informatik, Bonn, pp 1279–1293Google Scholar
  27. Grund CK, Meier MC (2016) Towards game-based management decision support: using serious games to improve the decision process. In: Stelzer D, Nissen V, Straßburger S (eds) Proceedings of the Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (MKWI) 2016, pp 155–166Google Scholar
  28. Grund CK, Schelkle M (2016) Developing a serious game for business information visualization. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Americas conference on information systems (AMCIS), pp 1–4Google Scholar
  29. Grund CK, Schelkle M (2017) Visualisieren spielend erlernen - Ein Serious Game zur Verbesserung von Managementberichten. In: Strahringer S, Leyh C (eds) Gamification und Serious Games: Grundlagen, Vorgehen und Anwendungen. Springer, Wiesbaden, pp 167–181Google Scholar
  30. Grund CK, Tulis M (2017) Using elected elements in large-scale information systems lectures. In: Leimeister JM, Brenner W, Peters C (eds) Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, pp 776–787Google Scholar
  31. Grund CK, Schelkle M, Hurm M (2017) Architecture and evaluation design of a prototypical serious game for business information visualization. In: Leimeister JM, Brenner W, Peters C (eds): Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, pp 1271–1274Google Scholar
  32. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105Google Scholar
  33. Hichert R, Faisst J (2015) International business communication standards: IBCS Version 1.0. Proposals for the conceptual, perceptual, and semantic design of comprehensible business reports and presentations. Accessed 21 Dec 2018
  34. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15(9):1277–1288. Google Scholar
  35. Hu L-T, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J 6(1):1–55. Google Scholar
  36. Kickmeier-Rust MD, Albert D (2010) Micro-adaptivity: protecting immersion in didactically adaptive digital educational games. J Comput Assist Learn 26(2):95–105. Google Scholar
  37. Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  38. Krippendorff K (2004) Reliability in content analysis: some common misconceptions and recommendations. Hum Commun Res 30(3):411–433. Google Scholar
  39. Kriz WC (2010) A systemic-constructivist approach to the facilitation and debriefing of simulations and games. Simul Gaming 41(5):663–680. Google Scholar
  40. Kusurkar RA, Ten Cate TJ, Vos CMP, Westers P, Croiset G (2013) How motivation affects academic performance: a structural equation modelling analysis. Adv Health Sci Educ 18(1):57–69. Google Scholar
  41. Lederman LC (1992) Debriefing: toward a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simul Gaming 23(2):145–160. Google Scholar
  42. Legner C, Eymann T, Hess T, Matt C, Böhmann T, Drews P, Mädche A, Urbach N, Ahlemann F (2017) Digitalization: opportunity and challenge for the business and information systems engineering community. Bus Inf Syst Eng 59(4):301–308. Google Scholar
  43. Lindsey RV, Shroyer JD, Pashler H, Mozer MC (2014) Improving students’ long-term knowledge retention through personalized review. Psychol Sci 25(3):639–647. Google Scholar
  44. Locke EA, Latham GP (2002) Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. Am Psychol 57(9):705–717. Google Scholar
  45. Matt C, Hess T, Benlian A (2015) Digital transformation strategies. Bus Inf Syst Eng 57(5):339–343. Google Scholar
  46. Nadolski RJ, Hummel HGK (2017) Retrospective cognitive feedback for progress monitoring in serious games. Br J Educ Technol 48(6):1368–1379. Google Scholar
  47. Papastergiou M (2009) Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Comput Educ 52(1):1–12Google Scholar
  48. Pavlov OV, Saeed K, Robinson LW (2015) Improving instructional simulation with structural debriefing. Simul Gaming 46(3–4):383–403. Google Scholar
  49. Qudrat-Ullah H (2007) Debriefing can reduce misperceptions of feedback: the case of renewable resource management. Simul Gaming 38(3):382–397. Google Scholar
  50. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Raemer DB, Eppich WJ (2008) Debriefing as formative assessment: closing performance gaps in medical education. Acad Emerg Med 15(11):1010–1016. Google Scholar
  51. Ryan RM (1982) Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: an extension of cognitive evaluation theory. J Personal Soc Psychol 43(3):450–461Google Scholar
  52. Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 55(1):68Google Scholar
  53. Ryan RM, Rigby CS, Przybylski A (2006) The motivational pull of video games: a self-determination theory approach. Motiv Emot 30(4):344–360Google Scholar
  54. Sheldon KM, Filak V (2008) Manipulating autonomy, competence, and relatedness support in a game-learning context: new evidence that all three needs matter. Br J Soc Psychol 47(Pt 2):267–283. Google Scholar
  55. Steinwachs B (1992) How to facilitate a debriefing. Simul Gaming 23(2):186–195. Google Scholar
  56. Susi T, Johannesson M, Backlund P (2007) Serious games: an overview. Technical Report HS-IKI-TR-07-001, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  57. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2013) Using multivariate statistics, 6th edn. Always Learning, PearsonGoogle Scholar
  58. Taylor G, Jungert T, Mageau GA, Schattke K, Dedic H, Rosenfield S, Koestner R (2014) A self-determination theory approach to predicting school achievement over time: the unique role of intrinsic motivation. Centemp Educ Psychol 39(4):342–358Google Scholar
  59. Tegarden DP (1999) Business information visualization. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 1(1):1–38Google Scholar
  60. Thiagarajan S (1992) Using games for debriefing. Simul Gaming 23(2):161–173. Google Scholar
  61. Venable J, Pries-Heje J, Baskerville R (2012) A comprehensive framework for evaluation in design science research. In: Peffers K, Rothenberger M, Kuechler B (eds) Design science research in information systems: advances in theory and practice. Springer, Berlin, pp 423–438Google Scholar
  62. Ware C (2012) Information visualization: perception for design, 3rd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  63. Wigfield A, Eccles JS (2000) Expectancy—value theory of achievement motivation. Centemp Educ Psychol 25(1):68–81. Google Scholar
  64. Wouters P, van der Spek ED, van Oostendorp H (2009) Current practices in serious game research: a review from a learning outcomes perspective. In: Connolly T, Stansfield M, Boyle L (eds) Games-based learning advancements for multi-sensory human computer interfaces. Hershey, Derry Township, pp 232–250Google Scholar
  65. Wu W-H, Hsiao H-C, Wu P-L, Lin C-H, Huang S-H (2012) Investigating the learning-theory foundations of game-based learning: a meta-analysis. J Comput Assist Learn 28(3):265–279. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business and EconomicsUniversity of AugsburgAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations