You are here:

Social, constructivist and informal learning processes: together on the Edge for designing digital game-based learning environments

, , , , Grifo multimedia S.r.l.

Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society Volume 11, Number 3, ISSN 1826-6223 e-ISSN 1826-6223 Publisher: Italian e-Learning Association


The theoretical conceptions of game-based learning are different from those of traditional instruction. Indeed, the classical approaches of needs and task analysis seem to be not appropriate for designing digital serious games as computer-supported collaborative learning environments. This paper aimed at arguing that social, constructivist and informal learning processes provided accurate frameworks for analyzing needs, activities, and outcomes for designing digital serious games. After focusing on the epistemic assumptions of such theoretical frameworks, this paper described the digital serious game Cibopolis as case study, able to grasp different learning processes, involving players as learners in collaborative participation and knowledge building on nutrition and healthy lifestyle. Especially, the context, the training goal, the adopted learning solutions and the main features of the designed Cibopolis game were specified. Then, the results of the pilot test involving young learners (N=65; Range of Age=14-32 years old) was briefly reported. Specifically, it was pointed out how learners perceived the Cibopolis game in term of usability and engagement. To conclude, some relevant theoretical issues concerning digital game-based learning environments and practical implications that could support IT professionals – such as, instructional designers, developers, web designers, and so on – were highlighted.


D'Aprile, G., Di Bitonto, P., De Asmundis, R. & Ulloa Severino, A. (2015). Social, constructivist and informal learning processes: together on the Edge for designing digital game-based learning environments. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 11(3),. Italian e-Learning Association. Retrieved March 22, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Babyak M.A. & Green S.B. (2010), Confirmatory factor analysis: an introduction for psychosomatic medicine researchers, Psychosomatic Medicine, 72 (6), 587-597.
  2. Baranowski, T., Buday, R., Thompson, D.I., Baranowski, J. (2008), Playing for real: Videogames and stories for health-related behaviour change, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34 (1), 74-82.
  3. Boulos, M. (2012), Xbox 360 Kinect Exergames for Health, Game for Health Journal, 1 (5), 326-330.
  4. Brooke J. (1996), SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale, in: Jordan P., Thomas B., Weerdmeester B.A., McClelland I.L (eds)., Usability evaluation in industry. 189194, London, Taylor& Francis Ltd.
  5. Cole M. (1996), Cultural psychology. A once and future discipline, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
  6. Hetzner S. & Pannese L. (2009), E-VITA, simulazioni di vita in ambito intergenerazionale, Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 5 (2), 75-82.
  7. Kankaanranta M. & Neittaanmäki P., eds (2009), Design and use of serious games, Berlin, Springer Science& Business Media.
  8. Kapp K.M. (2012), The gamification of learning and instruction, San Francisco, Pfeiffer.
  9. Keller J.M. (1987), Development and use of the arcs model of instructional design, Journal of instructional development, 10 (3), 2-10.
  10. Koschmann T., ed (1996), CSCL, theory and practice of an emerging paradigm, Mahwah, Lawrence Erbaum Associates.
  11. Jonassen D.H. & Rohrer-Murphy L. (1999), Activity Theory as a Framework for Designing Constructivist Learning Environments, ETR & D, 47 (1), 61-79.
  12. Lave J. & Wenger, E. (1991), Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation, New York, Cambridge University Press.
  13. Lee, W., Chae, Y.M., Kim, S., Ho, S.H. & Choi, I. (2010), Evaluation of a mobile phone-based diet game for weight control, Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 16 (5), 270-275
  14. Lewis J.R. & Sauro, J. (2009), The factor structure of the system usability scale, Human Centered Design, 5619, 94-103.
  15. Ligorio M.B. (2010), Dialogical Relationship between Identity and Learning, Culture& Psychology, 16 (1), 93-107.
  16. Maillot, P., Perrot, A. & Hartley, A. (2012), Effects of interactive physical-activity videogame training on physical and cognitive function in older adults, Psychology and Aging, 27 (3), 589-600.
  17. McDaniel R., Fiore S.M. & Nicholson, D. (2010), Serious storytelling: Narrative considerations for serious games researchers and developers, in: Bowers J.C., Bowers C. (eds), Serious game design and development: Technologies for training and learning. 13-30, Hershey, IGI Global.
  18. Matusov E. (2001), Intersubjectivity of a way of informing teaching design for a community of learners class, Teaching and Teachers Education, 17, 383-402.
  19. Nardi B.A. (1996), Activity theory and human computer interaction, in: Nardi B.A. (ed), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. 1-8, Cambridge, The MIT Press.
  20. Norradin E.M. & Kian, N.T. (2015), Three learning potentials in digital games: perception of Malaysian university teachers, Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 11 (2), 143-160.
  21. Paavola S. & Hakkarainen, K. (2005), The Knowledge Creation Metaphor. An Emergent Epistemological Approach to Learning, Science& Education, 14, 535-557.
  22. Pannese L. & Carlesi, M. (2007), Game and learning come together to maximize effectiveness: The challenge of bridging the gap, British Journal of Educational Technology, 38 (3), 438-454.
  23. Pinelle D. & Gutwin, C. (2008), Evaluating teamwork support in tabletop groupware applications using collaboration usability analysis, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 12 (3), 237-254.
  24. Poels K., de Kort, Y. & Ijsselsteijn, W. (2007), It is always a lot of fun! Exploring dimensions of digital game experience using focus group methodology, in: Kapralos B., Katchabaw M. (eds), Futureplay 2007. 83-89, New York, ACM.
  25. Prensky M. (2000), Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  26. Quisumbing L. (2005), Education for the world of work and citizenship: towards sustainable future societies, Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 35 (3), 289-301.
  27. Scardamalia M. & Bereiter C. (2005), Does education for the knowledge age need a new science?, European Journal of School Psychology, 3 (1), 265-284.
  28. Suchman L. (1987), Plans and situated action, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  29. Thomas D. & Brown J.S. (2007), The play of imagination: Extending the literary mind, Game& Culture, 2 (2), 149-172.
  30. Vermunt J.D. & Verloop, N. (1999), Congruence and friction between learning and teaching, Learning and Instruction, 9, 257-280.
  31. Vygotsky L.S. (1978), Mind in Society, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
  32. Wenger E. (1998), Communities of practice. Learning meaning and identity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact