Implemented Scenarios and Evaluation Results

  • Johannes KonertEmail author
Part of the Springer Theses book series (Springer Theses)


The components derived and designed in the preceding Chaps.  4,  5, and  6 have been implemented as prototypical applications in the three scenarios described below. The implementation was realized to investigate the acceptance of the conceptualized components by end-users, evaluate their impact on knowledge exchange and user experience, and finally, in the case of the group formation algorithm, to conduct a comparison with algorithms from related work.


Random Matcher Player Type Math Task Task Solution Cohort Performance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Regina Bruder. Mathematische Kompetenzen nachhaltig entwickeln und sichern. In Mathematikunterricht entwickeln. Bausteine für kompetenzorientiertes Unterrichten, chapter 2 Vielseit, pages 18–53. Cornelsen Scriptor, 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Regina Bruder and Christina Collet. Problemlösen lernen im Mathematikunterricht. Cornelsen Scriptor, Berlin, Germany, 2011. ISBN 3589230746.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johannes Konert, Kristina Richter, Stefan Göbel, and Regina Bruder. Knowledge Sharing in the Classroom—A Social Network Approach for Diagnostic Assessment and learning together. In Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), pages 350–354, Athens, Georgia, USA, 2011. IEEE.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johannes Konert, Kristina Richter, Florian Mehm, Stefan Göbel, Regina Bruder, and Ralf Steinmetz. PEDALE—A Peer Education Diagnostic and Learning Environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(4):27–38, 2012. ISSN 1176–3647.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kristina Richter, Johannes Konert, Regina Bruder, Stefan Göbel, and Ralf Steinmetz. Supervising Knowledge Sharing in the Classroom: Supporting Teachers’ Individual Diagnosis and Instruction in a Peer Education Scenario. In Proceedingsof the 12th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), page 3, Rome, Italy, 2012. IEEE. ISBN 9781467316422.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R Gillies. The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Junior High School Students During Small Group Learning. Learning and Instruction, 14(2):197–213, April 2004. ISSN 09594752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maria Klawe and Eileen Phillips. A Classroom Study: Electronic Games Engage Children As Researchers. In The first international conference on Computer support for collaborative learning, pages 209–213. Citeseer, 1995. ISBN 0805822437.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    William Damon. Peer Education: The Untapped Potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5(4):331–343, December 1984. ISSN 01933973.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marianne Bayrhuber, Timo Leuders, Regina Bruder, and Markus Wirtz. em Pedocs - Repräsentationswechsel beim Umgang mit Funktionen - Identifikation von Kompetenzprofilen auf der Basis eines Kompetenzstrukturmodells. Projekt HEUREKO. BELTZ Pädagogik, 2010. ISBN 9783407411570.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jacqueline Leighton and Mark Gierl. Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment for Education: Theory and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN 1139464280.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kristina Richter. Peer-gestütztes Lehren und Lernen im Klassenraum—Konzeption, Entwicklung und Erprobung einer computergestützten Lernumgebung für den Mathematikunterricht. Ph.D. thesis (in submission), Technische Universität Darmstadt, 2014.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Florian Mehm. Authoring of Adaptive Single-Player Educational Games. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität Darmstadt, 2013.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Florian Mehm, Viktor Wendel, Stefan Göbel, and Ralf Steinmetz. Bat Cave: A Testing and Evaluation Platform for Digital Educational Games. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Games Based Learning, pages 251–260, Copenhagen 2010. European Conference on Game-Based Learning, Academic Conferences International.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Göbel, Viktor Wendel, Christopher Ritter, and Ralf Steinmetz. Personalized, Adaptive Digital Educational Games using Narrative Game-based Learning Objects. Entertainment for Education. Digital Techniques and Systems, pages 438–445, 2010.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stefan Göbel, Florian Mehm, Sabrina Radke, and Ralf Steinmetz. 80days: Adaptive Digital Storytelling For Digital Educational Games. In Yiwei Cao, Anna Hannemann, Baltasar Fernández Manjón, Stefan Göbel, Cord Hockemeyer, and Emmanuel Stefanakis, editors, Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Story-Telling and Educational Games (STEG’09), Aachen, 2009.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Florian Mehm. Authoring Serious Games. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, pages 271–273. ACM, 2010. ISBN 9781605589374.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Florian Mehm, Stefan Göbel, and Ralf Steinmetz. An Authoring Tool for Educational Adventure Games: Concept, Game Models and Authoring Processes. International Journal on Game-Based Learning, 3(1):63–79, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beatrice Rammstedt and Oliver P. John. Kurzversion des Big Five Inventory (BFI-K): Diagnostica, 51(4):195–206, October 2005. ISSN 0012–1924.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alice Y. Kolb and David A. Kolb. The Kolb Learning Style Inventory - Version 3.1 Technical Specifications. Technical report, HayGroup, Boston, USA, 2005.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Richard A. Bartle. Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs. Journal of MUD Research, 1(1):19, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Richard M. Felder and Linda K. Silverman. Learning and Teaching Styles. Engineering Education, 78(June):674–681, 1988.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johannes Konert, Stefan Göbel, and Ralf Steinmetz. Modeling the Player, Learner and Personality: Independeny of Models of Bartle, Kolb and NEO-FFI (Big5) and the Implications for Game Based Learning. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Game Based Learning (ECGBL) 2013, pages 329–335, Porto, Portugal, 2013. Academic Publishing International. ISBN 9781909507630.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    K. Somasundaram. Advanced Programming in JAVA 2, Updated to J2SE6. Jaico Publishing House, Mumbai, India, 2008. ISBN 8179928888.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dick Hardt. The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework. 2012.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lennart Erik Nacke. Affective Ludology. Ph.D. thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, 2009.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stefan Göbel, Michael Gutjahr, and Sandro Hardy. Evaluation of Serious Games. In Klaus Bredl and Wolfgang Bösche, editors, Serious Games and Virtual Worlds in Education, Professional Development, and Healthcare, chapter 7, pages 105–115. IGI Global, Hershey, USA, 1 edition, 2013. ISBN 9781466636736.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Anders Hejlsberg, Scott Wiltamuth, and Peter Golde. C# Language Specification. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc, October 2003. ISBN 0321154916.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bjarne Stroustrup. Programming: Principles and Practice Using C++. Addison- Wesley Professional, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008. ISBN 0321543726.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Paolo Pialorsi and Marco Russo. Introducing Microsoft LINQ. Microsoft Press, Redmond, USA, May 2007. ISBN 9780735623910.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ryan Cavanaugh and Matt Ellis. Automating the Process of Assigning Students to Cooperative-Learning Teams. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Agoritsa Gogoulou, Evangelia Gouli, George Boas, Evgenia Liakou, and Maria Grigoriadou. Forming Homogeneous, Heterogeneous and Mixed Groups of Learners. In P. Brusilovsky, M. Grigoriadou, and K. Papanikolaou, editors, Proceedings of Workshop on Personalisation in E-Learning Environments at Individual and Group Level, 11th International Conference on User Modeling, pages 33–40, 2007.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Christos E. Christodoulopoulos and Kyparisia a. Papanikolaou. A Group Formation Tool in an E-Learning Context. 19th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence(ICTAI 2007), pages 117–123, October 2007.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kyong Jin Shim and Jaideep Srivastava. Team Performance Prediction in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs). 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing, pages 128–136, August 2010.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pedro Paredes, Alvaro Ortigosa, and Pilar Rodriguez. A Method for Supporting Heterogeneous-Group Formation through Heuristics and Visualization. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 16(19):2882–2901, 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical Engineering and Information TechnologyTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations