Matchballs – A Multi-Agent-System for Ontology-Based Collaborative Learning Games

  • Sabrina Ziebarth
  • Nils Malzahn
  • H. Ulrich Hoppe
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7493)


Computer games are currently one of the computer science applications with the highest amount of users. The “serious gaming” approach tries to use the attraction (i.e. the fun factor) of such media not only for entertainment purposes, but also to convey serious content at the same time. Serious games have been established in vocational and advanced training over the last years and have a big potential for informal further vocational training. This paper presents a multi-agent-architecture for collaborative, serious and casual games. The focus is on casual games, since these are known to be small games with a high potential for frequent gaming by people of various social and educational background. To be flexible concerning the learning domain an ontology-based approach has been used. The ontology may easily be exchanged to adapt the game to another domain. Furthermore, the data created in the games can be used in a “wisdom of the crowd” approach to enhance the ontology. To test our architecture, an ontology on food safety and hazardous material regulations was created and the game was evaluated with a group of technician students of a professional training academy.


CSCL Multi-Agent-Architecture Serious Games Games with a Purpose Ontologies 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Michael, D., Chen, S.: Serious Games: Games that educate, train, and inform. Thomson Course Technology PTR, Boston (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marr, A.C.: Serious Games für die Informations- und Wissensvermittlung. Bibliotheken auf neuen Wegen, vol. 28. Dinges & Frick GmbH, Wiesbaden (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apperley, T.H.: Genre and game studies: Toward a critical approach to video game genres. Simulation & Gaming 37(1), 6–23 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crawford, C.: The Art of Computer Game Design. Osborne/McGraw-Hill, U.S. (1982), Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuittinen, J., Kultima, A., Niemelä, J., Paavilainen, J.: Casual games discussion. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Future Play, pp. 105–112. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen, E.G.: Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research 64(1), 1–3 (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D.W.: Using cooperative learning in math. In: Davidson, N. (ed.) Cooperative Learning in Mathematics: A Handbook for Teachers. Addison-Wesley (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hepp, M.: Possible Ontologies: How Reality Constraints the Development of Relevant Ontologies. IEEE Internet Computing 11, 90–96 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pinto, H.S., Martins, J.P.: Ontologies: How can They be Build? Knowledge and Information Systems 6, 441–464 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Siorpaes, K., Hepp, M.: Games with a Purpose for the Semantic Web. Journal IEEE Intelligent Systems 23(3), 50–60 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    von Ahn, L.: Games with a Purpose. Journal Computer 39(6), 96–98 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Toups, Z.O., Kerne, A., Hamilton, W.: Motivating Play through Score. In: ACM Computer Human Interaction 2009 Workshop on Engagement by Design (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kipper, B.: Interlocking Multi-Agent and Blackboard Architectures. In: Pinto-Ferreira, C., Mamede, N.J. (eds.) EPIA 1995. LNCS, vol. 990, pp. 371–375. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weinbrenner, S., Giemza, A., Hoppe, H.U.: Engineering Heterogeneous Distributed Learning Environments Using Tuple Spaces as an Architectural Platform. In: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2007), Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 434–436 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Erman, L.D., Lesser, V.R.: A Multi-Level Organization for Problem Solving Using Many Diverse, Cooperating Sources of Knowledge. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Atrificial Intelligence, Tbilisi, Russia, pp. 483–490 (1975)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miles, A., Bechofer, S.: SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System Reference (2009),
  17. 17.
    MacQueen: Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In: Proceedings of the 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, pp. 281–297 (1967)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Novak, J.D., Canãs, A.J.: The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (2006),
  19. 19.
    Esiobu, G., Soyibo, K.: Effects of concept and vee mapping under three learning modes on students’ cognitive achievement in ecology and genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32(9), 971–995Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chung, G.K.W.K., O’Neil Jr., H.F., Herl, H.E.: The use of computer-based collaborative knowledge mapping to measure team processes and team outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior 15(3-4), 463–493 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chinn, C.A., O’Donnell, A.M., Jinks, T.S.: The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. Journal of Experimental Education 69(1), 77–97 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chiu, C.-H., Huang, C.-C., Chang, W.-T.: The evaluation and influence of interaction in network supported collaborative Concept Mapping. Computers & Education 34(1), 17–25 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabrina Ziebarth
    • 1
  • Nils Malzahn
    • 1
  • H. Ulrich Hoppe
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität Duisburg-EssenGermany

Personalised recommendations