Improving Safety Training Through Gamification: An Analysis of Gaming Attributes and Design Prototypes

  • Leonard D. BrownEmail author
  • Mary M. Poulton
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 780)


New approaches are needed to improve outcomes for safety training in hazardous industries. We use an evidence-driven approach to identify the key attributes of serious games that have the potential to improve safety training. Following a detailed needs assessment, we identified four major themes of usability problems which may be addressed through gamification: Limited accessibility, lack of context, lack of consequence, and absence of practicum. Based on our analysis, a series of application prototypes was developed to improve safety training in the mining industry. In particular, we discuss Harry’s Hard Choices, a game for mining emergency response training. Pilot tests indicate high levels of user satisfaction and engagement and anecdotal evidence of training transfer.


Serious games Training Mining Usability Contextual Inquiry 



We thank Michael Peltier for his significant contributions to the serious games development. We also thank Eric Lutz, Aly Waibel, Michelle Lutz, and the many industry experts who participated in our field studies. This work was supported by NIOSH award 1U60-OH010014, Science Foundation Arizona award SRG-0330-08, and MSHA Brookwood-Sago awards BS-22468-11-60-R-4, BS-23833-12-60-R-4, and BS-26353-14-60-R-4. The authors have disclosed a financial interest in Desert Saber, LLC to the University of Arizona. These interests have been reviewed and are being managed by the University of Arizona in accordance with its policies on outside interests.


  1. 1.
    Pappas, C.: Top 10 e-Learning Statistics for 2014 You Need to Know (2014).
  2. 2.
    Lutz, M., Lutz, E.A.: The future of training in a data-driven mining industry. In: SME Annual Meeting, 24 February 2016. SME, Phoenix (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McWilliams, L.J., Lenart, P.J., Lancaster, J.L., Zeiner Jr, J.R.: National Survey of the Mining Population: Part II Mines. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, CDC/NIOSH IC 9528, NIOSH Pub. 2012-153 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dale, E.: Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching, 3rd edn. Dryden Press, New York (1969)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peters, R.H., Vaught, C., Mallett, L.: A Review of NIOSH & US Bureau of Mines research to improve miner’s health & safety training. In: Brune, J. (ed.) Extracting the Science: A Century of Mining Research, pp. 501–509. Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, Littleton (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S., Kraiger, K., Smith-Jentsch, K.: The science of training and development in organizations: what matters in practice. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 13(2), 74–101 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burke, L., Hutchins, H.: Training transfer: an integrative literature review. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 6(3), 263–296 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Juul, J.: The game, the player, the world: looking for a heart of gameness. In: Copier, M., Raessens, J. (eds.) Proceedings of Level Up: Digital Games Research Conference, Utrecht, Netherlands, pp. 30–45 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malone, T.W., Lepper, M.R.: Making learning fun: a taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In: Snow, R.E., Farr, M.J. (eds.) Aptitude, Learning and Instruction III: Conative and Affective Process Analyses, vol. 3, pp. 223–253. Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum (1987)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thiagarajan, S.: Team activities for learning and performance. In: Stolovitch, H.D., Keeps, E.J. (eds.) Handbook of Human Performance Technology, pp. 518–544. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mallett, L.G., Orr, T.J., May, I., Cole, G.P., Lenart, P.J., Unger, R.L., Beshero, D.C., Hall, E.E., Vaught, C., Brune, J., Klein, K.: Underground Coal Mine Map Reading Training. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, NIOSH/CDC, Pub. No. 2009-143c (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garris, R., Ahlers, R., Driskell, J.E.: Games, motivation, and learning: a research and practice model. Simul. Gaming 33(4), 441–467 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wilson, K.A., Bedwell, W.L., Lazzara, E.H., Salas, E., Burke, C.S., Estock, J.L., Orvis, K.L., Conkey, C.: Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes. Simul. Gaming 40(2), 217–266 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gee, J.P.: What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy, 2nd edn. Palgrave/Macmillan, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pavlas, D., Bedwell, W., Wooten II, S.R., Heyne, K., Salas, E.: Investigating the attributes in serious games that contribute to learning: flow and grow. In: Proceedings of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting, vol. 53, no. 27, pp. 1999–2003 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Staalduinen, J.P., de Freitas, S.: A game-based learning framework: linking game design and learning outcome. In: Khyne, M.S. (ed.) Learning to Play: Exploring the Future of Education with Video Games, pp. 29–45. Peter Lang, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yusoff, A.: Conceptual framework for serious games and its validation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hays, R.T.: The effectiveness of instructional games: a literature review and discussion. Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division Pub. 2005-004 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Malone, T.W.: Towards a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cogn. Sci. 5(4), 333–369 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lieberman, D.A.: What can we learn from playing interactive games? In: Vorderer, P., Bryant, J. (eds.) Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences, pp. 379–397. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Squire, K., Jenkins, H.: Harnessing the power of games in education. Insight 3(1), 5–33 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shute, V., Ventura, M., Bauer, M., Zapata-Rivera, D.: Melding the power of serious games and embedded assessment to monitor and foster learning: flow and grow. In: Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M.J., Vorderer, P. (eds.) Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects, 295–321. Routledge, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beyer, H., Holtzblatt, K.: Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brown, L.D.: Design, evaluation, and extension of serious games for training in mine safety. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vaught, C., Hall, E.E., Klein, K.: Harry’s hard choices: mine refuge chamber training. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, NIOSH/CDC, IC 9511 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brnich, M.J., Vaught, C., Kowalski-Trakofler, K.M.: Man’s mountain refuge: refuge chamber training. Report of Investigations RI 9685, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, NIOSH/CDC (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Björk, S., Holopainen, J.: Patterns in Game Design. Charles River, Rockland (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chin, J.P., Diehl, V.A., Norman, K.L.: Development of an instrument for measuring user satisfaction of the human computer interface. In: Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), pp. 213–218. ACM Press (1988)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lowell Institute for Mineral ResourcesUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations