Conclusions and Outlook

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


This thesis presented the three-tier approach towards the use of social media interactions for peer education in serious games. Major results include the SoCom.KOM middleware concept, including the components for content integration, game adaptation and peer group formation. In evaluation studies with implemented prototypes for three scenarios the applicability of the approach and concepts behind SoKom.KOM has been shown. Before concluding and summarizing the thesis contributions in Sects. 8.2, 8.1 will critically reflect on the initial thesis objectives. Finally, the outlook in Sect. 8.3 will give a brief overview of potential future aspects for research, based on the knowledge generated from thesis.


Recommender System Matching Criterion Educational Game Game Developer Game Participation 
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.
    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 Conferenceon Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), pages 350–354, Athens, Georgia, USA, 2011. IEEE.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johannes Konert, Dmitrij Burlak, Stefan Göbel, and Ralf Steinmetz. GroupAL: ein Algorithmus zur Formation und Qualitätsbewertung von Lerngruppen in ELearning—Szenarien mittels n-dimensionaler Gütekriterien. In Andreas Breitner and Christoph Rensing, editors, Proceedings of the DeLFI 2013: Die 11. e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik der Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., pages 71–82, Bremen, Germany, 2013. Köllen. ISBN 9783885796121.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prasad Balkundi and D. A. Harrison. Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(1):49–68, 2006. ISSN 00014273.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mark S. Granovetter. The Strength-of-Weak-Ties Perspective on Creativity: a Comprehensive Examination and Extension. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6):1360–1380, May 1973. ISSN 1939–1854.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andrea Petróczi, T Nepusz, and F Bazsó. Measuring tie-strength in virtual social networks. Connections, 27(2):39–52, 2006. ISSN 0226–1766.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. P. Dempster, N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin. Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data via the EM Algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 39(1):1–38, 1977Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jürgen Buder and Christina Schwind. Learning with Personalized Recommender Systems: A Psychological View. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1):207–216, January 2012. ISSN 07475632.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yung-Ming Li, Tzu-Fong Liao, and Cheng-Yang Lai. A Social Recommender Mechanism for Improving Knowledge Sharing in Online Forums. Information Processing & Management, 48(5):978–994, September 2012. ISSN 03064573.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thomas Rodenhausen, Mojisola Anjorin, Renato Domínguez García, and Christoph Rensing. Context Determines Content. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM RecSys workshop on Recommender systems and the social web—RSWeb’12, page 17, New York, New York, USA, September 2012. ACM Press. ISBN 9781450316385.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Loren Terveen and David W. McDonald. Social matching. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 12(3):401–434, September 2005. ISSN 10730516.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