Towards Computer-Supported Self-debriefing of a Serious Game Against Cyber Bullying

  • Olga De TroyerEmail author
  • Anas Helalouch
  • Christophe Debruyne
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10056)


It is argued that reflecting on the in-game performance in a serious game is important for facilitating learning transfer. A way to facilitate such a reflection is by means of a so-called debriefing phase. However, a human facilitated debriefing is expensive, time consuming and not always possible. Therefore, an automatic self-debriefing facility for serious games would be desirable. However, a general approach for creating such an automatic self-debriefing system for serious games doesn’t exist. As a first step towards the development of such a framework, we targeted a specific type of serious games, i.e., games displaying realistic behavior and having multiple possible paths to a solution. In addition, we decided to start with the development of a debriefing system for a concrete case, a serious game about cyber bullying in social networks. In particular, in this paper, we focus on different visualizations that could be used for such an automatic debriefing. We combined a textual feedback with three different types of visualizations. A prototype was implemented and evaluated with the goal of comparing the three visualizations and gathering first feedback on the usability and effectiveness. The results indicate that the visualizations did help the participants in having a better understanding of the outcome of the game and that there was a clear preference for one of the three visualizations.


  1. 1.
    Peters, V.A.M., Vissers, G.A.N.: A simple classification model for debriefing simulation games. Simul. Gaming 35(1), 70–84 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fanning, R.M., Gaba, D.M.: The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simul. Healthc. 2(2), 115–125 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crookall, D.: Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simul. Gaming 41(6), 898–920 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Verpoorten, D., Westera, W., Specht, M.: Reflection amplifiers in online courses: a classification framework. J. Interact. Learn. Res. 22, 167–190 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winne, P.H.: Experimenting to bootstrap self-regulated learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 89(3), 397–410 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cebolledo, E., De Troyer, O.: Modelling social network interactions in games. In: Intelligent Narrative Technologies and Social Believability in Games: Papers from the AIIDE 2015 Joint Workshop, pp. 82–88 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vig, J., Sen, S., Riedl, J.: Tagsplanations: explaining recommendations using tags. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 47–56 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Medler, B., Magerko, B.: Analytics of play: using information visualization and gameplay practices for visualizing video game data. Parsons J. Inf. Mapp. 3(1), 1–12 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wallner, G., Kriglstein, S.: Visualization-based analysis of gameplay data – a review of literature. Entertain. Comput. 4(3), 143–155 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Medler, B., John, M., Lane, J.: Data cracker: developing a visual game analytic tool for analyzing online gameplay. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2365–2374 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoobler, N., Humphreys, G., Agrawala, M.: Visualizing competitive behaviors in multi-user virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Visualization 2004, pp. 163–170 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andersen, E., Liu, Y.-E., Apter, E., Boucher-Genesse, F., Popovic, Z.: Gameplay analysis through state projection. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, pp. 1–8 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harpstead, E., Myers, B., Aleven, V.: In search of learning: facilitating data analysis in educational games. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 79–88 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nicholson, S.: Completing the experience: debriefing in experiential educational games. Syst. Cybern. Inf. 11(6), 27–31 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cleophas, C.: Designing serious games for revenue management training and strategy development. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 140:1–140:12 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pavlov, O.V., Saeed, K., Robinson, L.W.: Improving instructional simulation with structural debriefing. Simul. Gaming 46(3–4), 383–403 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cebolledo, E., Troyer, O.: iATTAC: a system for autonomous agents and dynamic social interactions – the architecture. In: Göbel, S., Ma, M., Baalsrud Hauge, J., Oliveira, M.F., Wiemeyer, J., Wendel, V. (eds.) JCSG 2015. LNCS, vol. 9090, pp. 135–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19126-3_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reiss, S.: The Normal Personality: A New Way of Thinking About People. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Berne, E.: Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy: A Systematic Individual and Social Psychiatry. Ravenio Books, Helsinki (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lazar, J., Feng, J., Hochheiser, H.: Research Methods in Human Computer Interaction. Wiley, Hoboken (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brooke, J.: SUS - a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olga De Troyer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anas Helalouch
    • 1
  • Christophe Debruyne
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Research Group WiseBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Knowledge and Data Engineering Group, School of Computer Science and StatisticsTrinity College DublinDublin 2Ireland

Personalised recommendations