Digital Versus Analogue Multiplayer Gaming: Comparing Learning Outcomes

Part of the Translational Systems Sciences book series (TSS, volume 18)


In this study, we explore the similarities and differences in learning effects produced by playing a digital and an analogue version of the disruption management game for container terminal operations. We organized the analogue game sessions with students in the United States and digital game sessions with students from Greece. We analysed a postgame survey that captured the learning experiences of the participants to compare the differences and similarities of the learning effects of either game. Based on the results, we conclude that the type of game has limited effect on the learning experience, while incorporation or exclusion of learning principles does have.


Analogue games Communication Container terminal operations Digital games Disruption management Information sharing Learning 


  1. 1.
    Papastergiou M (2009) Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Comput Educ 52(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ramani GB, Siegler RS, Hitti A (2012) Taking it to the classroom: number board games as a small group learning activity. J Educ Psychol 104(3):661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Connolly TM, Boyle EA, MacArthur E, Hainey T, Boyle JM (2012) A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Comput Educ 59(2):661–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xu Y, Barba E, Radu I, Gandy M, MacIntyre B (2011) Chores are fun: understanding social play in board games for digital tabletop game design. In: Proceedings of DiGRA 2011 conference: think design playGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steenken D, Voss S, Stahlbock R (2004) Container terminal operation and operations research – a classification and literature review. OR Spectr 26:3–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brinkmann B (2011) Operations systems of container terminals: a compendious overview. In: Bose J (ed) Handbook of terminal planning. Springer, New York, pp 25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bose J (2011) General considerations on container terminal planning. In: Bose J (ed) Handbook of terminal planning. Springer, New York, pp 3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Verbraeck A, Kurapati S, Lukosch H (2016) Serious games for improving situational awareness in container terminals. In: Logistics and supply chain innovation. Springer, Heidelberg/New York, pp 413–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Behdani B (2013) Handling disruptions in supply chains: an integrated framework and an agent-based model. Doctoral thesis, Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harrington LH, Boyson S, Corsi T (2010) X-SCM: the new science of X-treme supply chain management. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gurning S, Cahoon S (2011) Analysis of multi-mitigation scenarios on maritime disruptions. Marit Policy Manag 38:251–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harteveld C (2011) Triadic game design: balancing reality, meaning and play. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kurapati S (2017) Situation awareness for socio technical systems: a simulation gaming study in intermodal transport operations. TRAIL Research School, Delft. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kurapati S, Lukosch H, Verbraeck A, Brazier FMT (2015) Improving resilience in intermodal transport operations in seaports: a gaming approach. EURO J Decis Processes 3:375–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klemke R, Kurapati S, Lukosch H, Specht M (2015) Lessons learned from creating a mobile version of an educational board game to increase situational awareness. In: Gráinne C, Tomaz K, Christoph R, Johannes K, Lavoué E (eds) Design for teaching and learning in a networked world: 10th European conference on technology enhanced learning, EC-TEL. Springer, Cham, pp 183–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Panzoli D, Peters C, Dunwell I, Sanchez S, Petridis P, Protopsaltis A, Scesa V, de Freitas S (2010) A level of interaction framework for exploratory learning with characters in virtual environments. In: Intelligent computer graphics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 123–143Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Feinstein AH, Cannon HM (2014) Fidelity, verifiability, and validity of simulation: Constructs for evaluation. Dev Bus Simul Exp Learn 28Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lukosch H, van Nuland B, van Ruijven T, van Veen L, Verbraeck A (2014) Building a virtual world for team work improvement. In: Meijer SA, Smeds R (eds) Frontiers in gaming simulation. ISAGA 2013, Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Cham, p 8264Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lukosch H (2013) Balancing fidelity of simulation game environments to increase situational awareness skills. In: International conference on games and learning alliance. Springer, Cham, pp 370–375Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations