Adaptability of Learning Games Based on Learner Profiles in the Context of Autonomous Training

  • Maho Wielfrid MorieEmail author
  • Bi Tra Goore
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 275)


Learning games are widely used as teaching resources, because of their capacity to help learners’ increase their knowledge in conditions of autonomous learning, especially in domains for which training is expensive. However, to get the best productivity of these learning games, they should be adapted to the learners’ profile. To propose content in an application that satisfies the uniqueness of each learner is difficult. We therefore want to provide learners with learning games that meet their profiles and improve the proposal by tacking their new skills into account, so that they are always in the presence of games adapted to their needs. The idea of this paper is to propose a model, that provides a training plan based on learning games, adapted to the learners’ profile. The ALGP (Adaptive Learning Games Provider) model defines the learning profiles of individuals, then characterizes learning games to make a mapping between the profiles and characteristics of the games. But, to meet the needs of learners throughout the lessons, monitoring data are added, to dynamically adapt the content according to their progress. An evaluation of the model through learner follow-up in two separate classes, a first class assisted by the ALGP model and a second class with the traditional system without assistance of the model were carried out, and the results obtained show that the learners in the assisted class, are more motivated and more involved than in the non-assisted class, which increases their productivity.


Learning games Adaptive learning Classification Learner profile 


  1. 1.
    Prensky, M.: “Engage Me or Enrage Me”: what today’s learners demand. Educ. Rev. 40, 60 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zyda, M.: From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer 38, 25–32 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Djaouti, D.: Serious Game Design: considérations théoriques et techniques sur la création de jeux vidéo à vocation utilitaire (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hernandez, N., Mothe, J., Ramamonjisoa, A.B.O., Ralalason, B., Stolf, P.: Indexation multi-facettes des ressources pédagogiques pour faciliter leur ré-utilisation, p. 10. Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse (2009). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marfisi-Schottman, I., George, S., Tarpin-Bernard, F.: Un profil d’application de LOM pour les Serious Games. In: Environnements Informatiques pour l’Apprentissage Humain, Conférence EIAH 2011, pp. 81–94. Editions de l’UMONS, Mons 2011, Belgium (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Michel, H., Kreziak, D., Héraud, J.-M.: Évaluation de la performance des Serious Games pour l’apprentissage: Analyse du transfert de comportement des éleveurs virtuels de Vacheland. Systèmes d’information & management 14, 71–86 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Felder, R.M., Silverman, L.K.: Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Eng. Educ. 78, 674–681 (1988)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    James, W.B., Gardner, D.L.: Learning styles: implications for distance learning. New Dir. Adult Contin. Educ. 1995, 19–31 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Khenissi, M.A., Essalmi, F., Jemni, M., Kinshuk, Graf, S., Chen, N.-S.: Relationship between learning styles and genres of games. Comput. Educ. 101, 1–14 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pinto, T., Vale, Z.: Adaptive learning in games: defining profiles of competitor players. In: Omatu, S., Neves, J., Rodriguez, J.M.C., Paz Santana, J.F., Gonzalez, S.R. (eds.) Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence. AISC, vol. 217, pp. 351–359. Springer, Cham (2013). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., Ecclestone, K.: Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review. Learning and Skills Research Centre, London (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yee, N.: Motivations for play in online games. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Impact Internet Multimedia Virtual Reality Behav. Soc. 9, 772–775 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nacke, L.E., Bateman, C., Mandryk, R.L.: BrainHex: a neurobiological gamer typology survey. Entertain. Comput. 5, 55–62 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Monterrat, B., Lavoué, E., George, S., Desmarais, M.: Les effets d’une ludification adaptative sur l’engagement des apprenants, vol. 24. STICEF (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J., Jessel, J.-P.: Classifying serious games: the G/P/S model. In: Handbook of Research on Improving Learning and Motivation Through Educational Games: Multidisciplinary Approaches (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neven, F., Duval, E.: Reusable learning objects: a survey of LOM-based repositories. In: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 291–294. ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Badri, M., Nuaimi, A.A., Guang, Y., Rashedi, A.A.: School performance, social networking effects, and learning of school children: evidence of reciprocal relationships in Abu Dhabi. Telematics Inform. 34, 1433–1444 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dunn, R.S., Griggs, S.A. (eds.): Practical Approaches to Using Learning Styles in Higher Education. Bergin & Garvey, Westport (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mayer, I.: Towards a comprehensive methodology for the research and evaluation of serious games. Procedia Comput. Sci. 15, 233–247 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut National Polytechnique Felix Houphouët-BoignyYamoussoukroCôte d’Ivoire

Personalised recommendations