1. London February 27-29 2012 European Commission Information Society and Media Post 1 st Review Meeting GaLA Game and Learning Alliance The European Network of Excellence on Serious Games WP1 – Strategic Coordination ELIOS Lab – DIBE – University of Genoa 1

2. London February 27-29 2012 European Commission Information Society and Media Post 1 st Review Meeting Target Strategic coordination of the NoE on 3 major axes –Research Integration De-fragmentation of topics & processes in SG R&D –Joint Research Activities Addressing hot topics in SG research – Spreading of Excellence Supporting international visibility of the SG field and a proper coordination among SG research activities at EU level 2

3. London February 27-29 2012 European Commission Information Society and Media Post 1 st Review Meeting Criticism 1 – Shaping other WPs “Level of coordination in this WP is rather negligible” –What we presented/delivered: Summary of requirements from business meetings: –Users & stakeholders »Show to potential customers effectiveness of educational value »Examples of good practices of integration –Designers & developers »Rules/tools from pedagogy/objectives –Researchers »Outlets for publications »Common ground among disciplines »Closer relationships with end-users industries –Industries »Huge production costs for the educational part »Lack of suited business models for SGs –Markets »Gamification »Gaming on social network platforms 3

4. London February 27-29 2012 European Commission Information Society and Media Post 1 st Review Meeting Crit. 1 – Negligible coord. in shaping other WPs Suggested actions –Showing in D1.1 the mapping to tasks Objectives and outcomes stated in both D1.1 and DX.Y, for all the deliverables Metrics –Number of mapped tasks »Year 2 target: 9 (at least one ) »To be agreed with every WP leader in London. So, please remember the list »Considered in the partner performance evaluation (WP leader) –Percentage of coordination achieved for every mapped task »Y2 target: at least 80% of the tasks over 80% in the year expected 4

5. London February 27-29 2012 European Commission Information Society and Media Post 1 st Review Meeting Suggested actions Performance metrics coordination –All discussed, coordinated with WP1 + Quality Manager –Final approval needed –Status WP2 – Advanced paper discussion WP9 – No feedback from Wp1 WP3 – Discussion in course Other WPs - No Partner assessment –For every metrics, consider per-partner numbers Every WP leader to check feasibility –(Retroactive in Y1) –Score system to be defined Fair, challenging, compelling –Integration with the GaLA Game 5

6. London February 27-29 2012 European Commission Information Society and Media Post 1 st Review Meeting Criticism 1 – Shaping other WPs Associate partnership –There were 4 partners –Situation now is: Xx new partners Yy are in contact Associate partner list on the website Cito participating in London Imaginary and Games2Growth showed interest –Actions Invite GaLA partners to be proactive. Metrics –Number of associate partners »Year 1: 4 »Year 2 target: 8 –Per GaLA partner 6

7. London February 27-29 2012 European Commission Information Society and Media Post 1 st Review Meeting Sustainability of integration methodologies/tools Virtual Research Environment (T8.1) –WP1: guarantee a global view over the SG landscape Considering the various WPs, stakeholders Living Labs (T8.2) –WP1: guarantee a global view over the SG landscape Young Academy (T5.1) –WP1: synergies with website, conferences, publications, didactics New: student competition (T5.8, Damien Djaouti) Suggested actions –WP leaders to refer to Y1 Del1.1 (see also target mapping – slide 4) –Check carefully slides before the reviews –More detailed description in next version of D1.1 –Metrics: Nr. of covered integration methodologies/tools Joint assessment (WP1 and WP/Tx.y lead + QM) - % achieviem. of the y. targets –Yearly targets to be set here in London 7

8. London February 27-29 2012 European Commission Information Society and Media Post 1 st Review Meeting Sustainability PhD and MSc projects –32 PhD projects active –Several joint effort business-academia Metrics: –Stand-alone projects, target: 40 To be briefly reported by each partner: –Joint PhD projects, target: 8 Double score? (per each partner) But overlap with Seed projects. If the same, we drop here 8

9. London February 27-29 2012 European Commission Information Society and Media Post 1 st Review Meeting 2- Joint research activities Coordinate WPs based on: –Fundamental research (WP2&3); external stakeholder requirements Major indications: –WP2 – Scientific and Technological R&D Map pedagogical objectives to game meachanics Assessment of learning effectiveness Interoperability and content re-use –WP3 - Applications Learning impact Best practice on development and adoption of SGs Understand discrepancies among app domains –WP4 – Industrial engagement Definition of business models Branding of SGs –WP5 – Education Interdisciplinary knowledge in Alignment Schools Multidiscplinary paths for SG design education 9

10. London February 27-29 2012 European Commission Information Society and Media Post 1 st Review Meeting Major indications to WPs WP6 – Integration in educational process –User studies to demonstrate effectiveness of SGs for education –Good practice examples of integration of SG into formal education –Meta-analysis of learning outcomes WP7 – Integration in corporate training –User studies to demonstrate effectiveness of SGs for education –Provide good practice examples of SG integration into companies WP8 – Services –User-centered design for the VRE and the LLs –VRE design to support a wide inter-sectorial view on the SG field –Establish of a common ground among SG disciplines WP9 – Spreading of excellence and dissemination –Appropriate publication outlets (conference) –Coverage of all social media –High-quality contents 10

11. London February 27-29 2012 European Commission Information Society and Media Post 1 st Review Meeting Major indications to WPs Actions: –Performance metrics: Nr of reccomendations provided –18 (at least 2 per WP) –To be agreed here in London with all WP leaders % of achievement (score shared with the relevant WP/T leader, score ) –Target: at least 80% with at least 80% –Self-assigned score. Validation by the QM 11

12. London February 27-29 2012 European Commission Information Society and Media Post 1 st Review Meeting Promote joint R&D projects Identification of topics –Key issues from R&D and app domains (WP2 and WP3) –Evaluation of SG effectiveness (Impact on learning) –User assessment –Pedagogically-driven design –Adaptation, personalization and recommendation in serious games –Integration of SGs in curricular activities –SG character development –Simulations –Deployment of SGs and user studies Actions –Identification of topics for Y2 Based on the new version of D2.1 Check correspondence with the Y1 list (above) – WP2/3 leaders 12

13. London February 27-29 2012 European Commission Information Society and Media Post 1 st Review Meeting Promote R&D team forces Seed projects –Strong concern by the reviewers! –Increase the number (PhD/MSc projects) –Short report (Max 2 pages, template to be provided) –No joint proposals (despite explicitly cited in the contract as an objective proof of collaboration among partners) –GaLA game Tuesday and Wednesday –Metrics –Template for seed project activity description. Target: done – Number of collaborative seed projects: 8 (Y1: 3) –Partner assessment 13

14. London February 27-29 2012 European Commission Information Society and Media Post 1 st Review Meeting 3- Spreading of excellence Relationships with other EU-TEL projects –Stellar, 80Days, eCircus, Elektra, Target, Siren Most of them are finished –Other Terence, xDELIA, Segan, eSG, Magika, chernug, ecute, new ones? –What objectives? –Metrics Number of EU projects in contact (per partner assessment as well) –Target: 10 Number of joint activities (per partner assessment as well) –Target: 5? 14

15. London February 27-29 2012 European Commission Information Society and Media Post 1 st Review Meeting T1.2 – SG metrics Work done on taxonomies, state of the art etc. –Rule for taxonomies High level: WP1 (game types, pedagogies, game mechanisms) –To be agreed (if probs, discussion in the next slot) and used by all WPs WP3 SIGs: domain-specific taxonomies WP4 Market taxonomies (if relevant) Proposal for GaLA VRE game description and classification –Targets In-depth understanding of SGs through a detailed description of their mechanisms (Serious game studies) Apply existing games into learning and training contexts, considering appropriate pedagogies Design new games and enhance existing games, identifying weak points –SG assessment metrics are included as well –Multidisciplinary approach described in the next slot 15

16. London February 27-29 2012 European Commission Information Society and Media Post 1 st Review Meeting T1.3 – Roadmap Johann Riedel leader –Contribution expected by all WPs 16

17. London February 27-29 2012 European Commission Information Society and Media Post 1 st Review Meeting T1.4 - Constitution of the European Society on SGs Issues: name –European Serious Game Association –2 points: European –Criticized by reviewers –Serious Game Association, just born in the US Simulation –Simulation for learning is an emerging concept »Realism, no «contraddiction in terms», as for serious games Game and Simulation for Learning Society –GSLS, G&S, G&S 4L, GS4L In a short time, UniGe account system open again after end-of-year inventary –Estimated costs Registration tax: 170€, Legal costs: 500 € Metrics –Number of partners. Target: 45? 17

18. London February 27-29 2012 European Commission Information Society and Media Post 1 st Review Meeting Further suggestions by reviewers Stronger emphasis on NoE identity –Focus on impact on learning Game studies Assessment modalities User studies Game mechanics Serious use of games All WPs, TCs, SIGs should modulate this topic/ into their goals an practices Overlap among TCs –Discussion with WP and TC leaders –Attention in presentations: be focused 18