{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011838989739542225, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.185365853658537, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Applying Activity Theory in Comparatively Evaluating Serious Games

Despite the interest in serious games research through the years, there remains methodological issues which threaten the strength of its evidence base. Much has been published on the topic and its possible learning effects, but little is written to explicitly describe and compare the various interactions and representations used in relation to learning effects. Reviews of the topic frequently voice concerns that the wide variability in approaches to serious games prevents researchers from making firm conclusions about the general benefits of serious games/game-based learning. A number of frameworks have been published to evaluate the educational benefits of serious games as well as to guide its design. However, they do not adequately address which game mechanics and representations will be suitable to the learning objectives and players. Activity Theory has been used in a variety of ways in games research but to our best knowledge, it does not appear to have been applied to compare and contrast the activities of game play and its representations, on learning. Here, we describe how an adaptation of Activity Theory could help to clarify which game components are most useful and why.