An Analysis for the Identification of Use

and Development of Game Design Strategies

as Problem Posing Activities for Early
Childhood Learners

George Kalmpourtzis1(&), Margarida Romero2, Cindy De Smet2,

and Andreas Veglis3
1
Infinitivity Design Labs, Laussonne, France
[email protected]
2
Laboratoire d’Innovation et Numérique pour l’Education,
Université Côte d’Azur, Nice, France
{margarida.romero,cindy.de-smet}@univ-cotedazur.fr
3
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
[email protected]

Abstract. Examining and identifying the way that designers approach game
design could support the improvement of game design curricula. This paper
explores how kids in the early childhood approach develop and apply game
design strategies during participatory game design sessions. During a period of
three months, eighteen kindergarten learners participated in game design ses-
sions, creating their own games. The data analysis suggests that those learners
applied different game design strategies than the ones they initially started using.
The frequency and intensity of the use of those strategies also changed, showing
patterns that indicate learners’ development in their use of game design strate-
gies and add empirical evidence to the field of game design education. Addi-
tionally, the Game Design Strategies Analysis (GDSA) is presented, which
elaborates on the different types of strategies encountered when designing
games.

Keywords: Game design
Game based learning
Participatory design

1 Introduction and Theoretical Background

Rapid and continuous technologic advances have strongly impacted modern education.
An educational aspect with a continuously increasing research interest is that of game
design, both as a tool for the support of curricular activities but also for their potential
to create meaning making of children’s developing capacities in diverse contexts and
practices [1]. Additionally, research interest on the development of game design skills
has been developed in the last years [2].
Learning about game design is related to the general notion of learning by design,
which requires the combination of problem-solving, critical thinking and creative
thinking skills [3]. This process has been addressed through different approaches and

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

M. E. Auer and T. Tsiatsos (Eds.): IMCL 2019, AISC 1192, pp. 57–68, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49932-7_6
58 G. Kalmpourtzis et al.

practices in order to establish and facilitate students’ involvement in the game design
process [4]. According to Schell [5], games could also be viewed as problem situations,
engaging the participant in a playful attitude. Hence, game design could be considered
similar to problem posing [6]. The development of strategies to solve and design
mathematical problems has been identified as a key aspect of students’ mathematical
thinking [7]. So, the development of game design strategies by students could poten-
tially help them better understand the process of game design.
Game design education has also been addressed through the prism of participatory
design. Designing games with the participation of students has been a topic of
increasing interest in the field of human computer interaction. Previous studies have
focused on students’ engagement in the design process [8], in the evaluation and
communication of the process [9] and in organizing the design process through the
creation of design tools [10].
The current paper aims at examining which types of game design strategies are
developed and used by students in the early childhood while designing games during
organized participatory game design interventions. The paper also presents the Game
Design Strategies Analysis, a framework that stemmed from the qualitative analysis of
this study, taking into account previous work in this field.

1.1 Game Design with Students

Engaging learners in the role of game designers is not a new concept. Previous research
has focused on the impact of students’ involvement in game design on their narrative,
cognitive, creative and design skills [11]. Design sessions with young partners have
been studied through the prism of cooperative inquiry [12]. Those studies showed a
positive impact on students’ interest in the field and the understanding of the concept of
game design [13], the construction of knowledge and raised the question of the transfer
of acquired knowledge and skills in other contexts [14].
Several frameworks have been proposed for the analysis and design of games in
learning contexts [15]. Each of those frameworks approach game design through dif-
ferent perspectives, including game and learning mechanics, flow, interaction, decision
making and problem solving and posing. Research has also focused on the identifi-
cation of common patterns in order to address problems and issues that frequently
appear in game design processes [16], while others have focused on the use of design
strategies for greater player engagement [17]. Games have been examined as problem-
solving environments. One approach considers problems presented in games and
classifies them as either ill-structured or well-structured [18]. Contrary to well-
structured problems, which have fixed answers, ill-structured problems are more open
and urge players to come up with diverse problem solving strategies [19].

1.2 Problem Posing Strategies in Mathematics and Game Design

Education
Problem posing has been the subject of research interest mainly for its connection to
problem solving [20]. Problem posing education has proved to be a challenging
endeavor, because of the subject’s difficulty [21]. Games, creating intrinsically
 An Analysis for the Identification of Use and Development of Game 59

motivating learning experiences, are proposed as a tool for the facilitation of problem
posing education [22]. In order to structure better learning environments, different
approaches on identifying and analyzing problem posing strategies have been proposed
[23]. Those approaches include the use of relevant questions, generating problem
posing strategies and modifying existing problems in order to create new ones. To
facilitate problem posing instruction, Stoyanova [24] classified problem posing situa-
tions as: Structured, Semi-Structured and Free of structure. Similar approaches have
been proposed for the design of game spaces.

2 Methodology

2.1 Participants
The study involved a group of eighteen children in the kindergarten, eight girls and ten
boys. The participants were 5–6 years old and were all children of the same kinder-
garten classroom, located at a suburb of Thessaloniki, Greece.

2.2 Setting

Game Design Situations

For a period of three months, the study’s participants were introduced to two hourly
game design sessions per week. The sessions would not occur during the same day.
The structure of game design sessions was also based on participatory design tech-
niques and the problem posing analysis by Stoyanova [24], as well as the Kalm-
pourtzis’ [25] structured, semi-structured and free situations of creating games.
• Structured game design situations included already designed games that learners
needed to reformulate or redesign at will, starting from a concrete and defined basis.
• Semi-structured game design situations provided learners with half-finished
games, requiring from learners to come up with their own fully working games. In
semi-structured game design situations, players were asked to design their own
games, taking into consideration those elements as a scaffolding mechanism.
• Free game design situations did not offer external support to players, obliging
them to design their own games in any way they deemed preferable.
These different types of design situations were proposed to create a scaffolding
mechanism where learners would be accustomed to the proposed game design process
and familiarize themselves with the process of creating games.
Game Design Sessions
For the context of game design, an iterative process consisting of four steps was
proposed. Those steps included:
• Understanding the game: learners identify their resources and define their
objectives, understand their technical restrictions and decide the direction they will
take towards the design of their games.
60 G. Kalmpourtzis et al.

• Designing the game: learners brainstorm, exchange ideas, analyze the proposed
game components, leading to their games.
• Implementing the game: players construct their game prototypes.
• Presenting and looking back: players present their games, observe their peers play
them and receive their feedback.
Game design sessions focused on the creation of low-tech prototypes for both
physical and digital games. For this purpose, different kinds of materials were supplied
to learners. Low-tech prototypes included wireframes, content representations and they
were accompanied with instructions learners needed to present at the end of each
design phase. During each session, learners worked in small groups [26]. Each group
consisted of three to five participants and an adult observer. The role of the observer
was to attend and take notes, as well as facilitate the team’s design process but only in
cases where the team members were stuck [27]. The selection of the team’s members
aimed to maintain the balance between the age of the children (teams are composed by
5 and 6 years) and the mix between boys and girls.
During the period of the study, learners were also presented with a variety of
different games (board games, outdoor games, card games, treasure-hunt games) and
technologies in order to be aware of their various options and creative possibilities [12].
These activities included both physical and digital games.

2.3 The Game Design Strategies Analysis

The Game Design Strategies Analysis (GDSA) was proposed based on the work of
Stoyanova and Ellerton [28]. The GDSA was proposed before the design sessions as a
starting, considering that it will be modified, based on the findings of the current study.
The initial GDSA consists of five main categories:
1. Reformulation game design strategies: describing cases where game elements are
only rearranged or differently presented, with no apparent changes on gameplay.
2. Reconstruction game design strategies: describing cases where the content or
materials of game components change with no other apparent change on game
components and their interaction.
3. Imitation game design strategies: describing the modification of existing com-
ponents, based on previously encountered experiences.
4. Expansion game design strategies: describing the expansion of existing games
and components, based on previously encountered experiences and components.
5. Invention game design strategies: describing the proposal of novel, not previously
encountered game components.

3 Design of the Research and Data Analysis

For the present study, a qualitative research methodology was used. The selection of a
qualitative methodology was also supported from the understanding that in order to
better examine the process of designing games, several other factors needed to be taken
 An Analysis for the Identification of Use and Development of Game 61

into account, such as practices, common patterns, interaction among peers, thought
processes and emotions, which are difficult to extract through conventional research
methodologies [29]. Our study focuses on the collection of data from the conversations
among peers during design teams, their actions and decisions and their final creations.
The collection of data was carried out in two ways. From one side, semi-structured
interviews [30] with each participant were conducted at the beginning and the end of
the interventions period. These interviews focused on the application, suggestion and
incorporation of strategies and common practices of learners while they were designing
their games. The interviews presented learners with three game design situations, one
structured, one semi-structured and one free, during which leaners needed to create
their own games, digital or physical, according to their preference. From the other side,
learners’ work in design teams was audio recorded with the intention of later analysis.
Additionally, the works of the design teams were collected and stored to provide
additional information for the analysis of data.
The findings deriving both from personal interviews and design teamwork were all
transcribed. A line-by-line coding was used to identify emergent themes. The GDSA
acted as a first point of reference. Initially codes would be based on the five strategy
categories proposed by the initial GDSA. Through these codes and the analysis of
teams’ deliverables and observers’ notes, categories were identified through a flexible
category standard and an iterative process, where categories would emerge, change or
be refined based on the constant examination of incoming information. A “thorough
and interrogative” approach to data [31], where information would be cross-checked
between cases, interviews, audio recordings and produced work did take place.
This iterative process led to the refinement and re-structuring of a final GDSA
because of the qualitative analysis that was conducted.

4 Results

4.1 Game Design Strategies

The final and revised GDSA (Fig. 3) describes the strategies incorporated in game
designers’ decisions while preparing, implementing and presenting their games. Those
game strategies are also related to learners’ perception of the structure and consistency
of games, their structural elements, materials, representation and interaction with
players. The analysis of data finally showed four principal game strategy categories:
Reformulation, Reconstruction, Expansion and Invention, each of which consists of
different subcategories. After the analysis of data, the initially proposed strategy cat-
egory of Imitation was eventually merged with the category of Expansion. A detailed
analysis is presented below.
62 G. Kalmpourtzis et al.

Reformulation Game Design Strategies

Reformulation strategies describe a set of game design strategies during which
designers’ resort to changing the presentation of a given game by altering its initial
presentation description, and without impacting the initial game in any way. Learners
used reformulation strategies in several occasions. Those cases were grouped in three
subcategories.
The first one is related to learners’ reformulation and different presentation of an
existing game. When applying strategies of this category, learners were deliberately
changing words related to the description of given games or were just repeating the
initial game instructions with another word sequence. For instance, during a session
where the base game was Hide and Seek, a team presented the same game by just
rephrasing the initial instructions.
The second subcategory describes players’ involuntary response to shifting away
from an existing game implementation. When this strategy was encountered, learners
wanted to recreate an exact replica of a previously encountered game. This is seen in
the following discussion between learners, who were designing a matching game. One
learner, proposed the use of color matching between cards, which was an addition to
the game’s existing presentation where there were some animal images:
Learner 1: This is not a butterfly that goes with a butterfly. The teacher said we
should create the same combination: butterfly with butterfly.
Learner 2: Yes, but this is red. They both have a red color.
Learner 1: Yes, but it’s not a butterfly with a butterfly, a crown with a crown, and a
princess with a princess.
The third reformulation subcategory is related to providing playable examples of
how a whole game or some parts of it, are being played. In such strategies, players do
not change the game and do not repeat its instructions but provide a playable example
of how the game could be played to present it to other learners who are potential co-
designers or players. For example, when playing Snakes and Ladders, a team, instead
of presenting the game’s instructions, gave an example of how it is played. The team
had not changed the game at all during their design session and only focused on how to
present it to their peers, which eventually ended up being in the form of an example.
Reconstruction Game Design Strategies
Reconstruction game design strategies describe the use of the same game mechanics of
an existing game while changing the content, material and sizes of game components,
but without affecting the nature of the game. In reconstruction game design strategies,
learners addressed games as a defined system whose attributes are prone to change.
Four subcategories for this category group were identified during this study.
The first subcategory is related to the modification of symbolic content of game
elements. When this type of strategy was applied, learners would change the content of
cards, videos or board games. However, in this type of strategy, the final game would
not change in nature. As presented in Fig. 1, changing the symbolic content led learners
to redesign the video game Forest Maths, while they did not perform any other type of
change on its game play.
 An Analysis for the Identification of Use and Development of Game 63

Fig. 1. Forest Maths and learner prototype

The second subcategory is connected to the modification of game component sizes.

This subcategory could be potentially merged with the first one, but its high frequency
during the analysis led to the proposal of a separate subcategory. Strategies of this
subcategory describe learners’ decision to change the size of the game objects, the
repeatability of events, like the number of rounds required to complete a level, the
number of game elements required for the completion of a game, the number of
players, team sizes, point number or time duration. Figure 2 represents a prototype for a
puzzle game, initially based on the concept of Forest Maths, where the number of holes
and their position has been increased.

Fig. 2. The result of intentional modification reconstructive game design strategies

The third and fourth subcategories describe the rearrangement and modification of
spatial elements and time sequences of events during the game. The third subcategory
describes the repositioning of game components in different spatial arrangements. For
example, for the game Snakes and Ladders, learners decided to arrange the tiles dif-
ferently than the original square arrangement. The fourth subcategory describes the
repositioning of game events in different chronological order. For example, for the
game Forest Maths, a platform game where players need to complete patterns on a line
to allow bugs to pass to the other side, learners decided to modify the intervals of bugs’
appearance so that they change the difficulty of the game.
64 G. Kalmpourtzis et al.

Expansion Game Design Strategies

Expansion game design strategies describe a set of strategies used to expand the
structure of a familiar game or game element with the incorporation and refinement of
other known elements or whole games. Even if expansion strategies result to possible
new game experiences, they describe cases where proposed game structures were based
on previously known games or game components. Expansion strategies also include
the total or partial omission or removal of game elements from a game. Expansion
strategies consist of two subcategories.
The first one describes the set of strategies that apply the use of familiar games or
game structures to expand an existing game concept or base or the use of such
structures in order to start a game from scratch. In one of the game sessions, learners
that were influenced by the video game PiBot: Math & Action, decided to incorporate
different familiar elements to expand the game. Consequently, they added new rules
that corresponded to other games that were familiar to learners, such as collecting
artefacts, defeating enemies by bumping on their heads and using super-powers. During
a session the following discussion among learners took place:
Observer: What type of game would you like to create?
Learner 1: I propose French hide and seek!
Observer: What is French hide and seek?
Learner 1: One kid will hide and all the others are chasing.
Observer: And why did you decide to name it like this?
Learner 1: This is how I call it. It’s played outside in the school yard and this is
how it’s played in France.
This discussion shows that the learner modified the rules of the familiar game hide
and seek, by changing its gameplay.
The second subcategory describes strategies of generalizing or transferring a game
structure and incorporating it as a component of another game or using the mechanics
of existing game elements to their own. During one session, learners decided to create a
game, based on their own narrative, inspired by the Turtle Mutant Ninja franchise.
Wanting to keep the narrative element, they decided to create a game based on the
mechanics of Snakes and Ladders. The designers generalized the use of one game to
incorporate their narrative elements.
Invention Game Design Strategies
Invention game design strategies describe the use of strategies that led to the creation of
new information or structures related to the produced games. Learners that use those
strategies come up with new structures that are not relevant to previously familiar
games or game elements. Invention strategies are related to whole games or game
concepts. This study identified the use of invention strategies to expand familiar game
structures with new and unique elements. Not one single complete game came up as the
result of using this strategy.
 An Analysis for the Identification of Use and Development of Game 65

Reformulation Reconstruction Expansion Invention

Change of Modification of
presentation and content
description Expansion based on
familiar logic
Modification of
intensity / repetition /
magnitude
Repeating existing
situations
Modification of spatial
components
Expansion through
generalizing
Use of examples Modification of
chronological
sequences

Fig. 3. The revised GDSA after the qualitative analysis

5 Discussion and Conclusions

This study, which examines the use of strategies by learners during participatory game
design sessions, offers a perspective on the nature and way of utilization of different
types of game creation strategies. The use and development of the strategies presented
by the GDSA was examined during the three months of interventions. The use and
development of all encountered strategies was examined during three different phases,
each of which corresponded to the three game design situations: structured, semi-
structured and free ones (Table 1). Each period corresponds to approximately a period
of 4–5 weeks. The analysis shows three patterns that evolve during time. The first one
is related to the decrease in the use of reformulation and reconstruction strategies. The
use of those two strategy categories are very frequent during the first game design
sessions and fall rapidly in the two last phases. The first one is the reversely propor-
tional utilization of reformulation and reconstruction strategies during the duration of
the sessions. Learners were observed to use such strategies at the early sessions and can
be linked to the fact that learners were new to the design process, and were not
accustomed to their functions as designers. To this direction points also the increased
number of random uses of strategies with a trial and error approach on behalf of them,
that tends to decrease later in the duration of the study. The great number of usages of
different strategies during the first period, in comparison to the others, also points the
experimental approach of learners, during which they resorted to a continuous and not
always intentional or purposeful, proposition of strategies to create their games.
66 G. Kalmpourtzis et al.

Table 1. Frequency of game design strategies in the course of the study

Situation type
Structured – Semi-structured – Free structured -
phase 1 phase 2 phase 3
Reformulation 51 32 35
strategies
Reconstruction 71 38 33
strategies
Expansion strategies 5 17 33
Invention strategies 0 2 5

The second one is connected to the increase of use of expansion and invention
strategies during time, in the context of this study this period was three months. The
second tendency is described by the proportional increase of use of expansion and
invention strategies over time. This increase is also followed with a more cautious,
intentional and targeted use of strategies during game design sessions. The increase of
use of those types of strategies is also related to the nature of the tasks that design teams
were asked to design. As part of the scaffolding mechanism that the study examined,
the cases that learners would face would be structured, semi-structured or free-
structured. As a result, initially learners would be asked to change existing games, then
start designing games from half-made games and eventually come up with their ones.
As presented in Table 1, the frequency of using different types of strategies is different
in those phases. From one side, time and familiarity may play a role in this phe-
nomenon. Additionally, the nature and different demands in terms the nature and
structure of the activity in each of the three design situations may also play a role in the
use of learners’ strategies.
The third one is connected to the decrease in the overall use of strategies throughout
the course of time. During phase one, the number of strategies used is almost twice as
big as the number of strategies encountered during the next two phases. The strategies
used during phase one are mainly reformulation and reconstruction and they consist of
several trial and error efforts from learners’ side. This aspect is related both to the
decrease in trial and error strategies, familiarity with the design process and resultant
observation of the previous two observations.
Consequently, this difference in the use of different strategies both as design sit-
uations change from structured to semi-structured and free-structured in the course of
time indicating that experience and familiarity with game design processes impact the
way that learners use different game design strategies that involve the recollection,
identification and combination of other game elements or invent totally new game
concepts. The shifting from reformulation and reconstruction strategies towards ones
that fall into the categories of expansion and invention also seems to be followed by a
decrease in the use of trial and error or arbitrary use of strategies without a purpose.
Further studies around the topic, where the GDSA will be used and reflected upon
will shed more light in the framework’s capacity to describe game design strategies
during the process of game design.
 An Analysis for the Identification of Use and Development of Game 67

References
1. Kafai, Y., Peppler, K.: Developing gaming fluencies with scratch. In: Steinkuehler, C.,
Squire, K., Barab, S. (eds.) Games, Learning, and Society: Learning and Meaning in the
Digital Age, pp. 355–380. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012). https://doi.org/
10.1017/CBO9781139031127.026
2. Kalmpourtzis, G.: Developing kindergarten students’ game design skills by teaching game
design through organized game design interventions. Multimed. Tools Appl. 78(14), 20485–
20510 (2019)
3. Kalmpourtzis, G.: Educational Game Design Fundamentals: A Journey to Creating
Intrinsically Motivating Learning Experiences. A K Peters/CRC Press, New York (2018)
4. Fails, J.A., Guha, M.L., Druin, A.: Methods and techniques for involving children in the
design of new technology for children. Found. Trends Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, 85–166
(2013)
5. Schell, J.: The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses. CRC Press, Amsterdam (2014)
6. Chang, K.E., Wu, L.J., Weng, S.E., Sung, Y.T.: Embedding game-based problem-solving
phase into problem-posing system for mathematics learning. Comput. Educ. 58, 775–786
(2012)
7. English, L.: Children’s problem posing within formal and informal contexts. J. Res. Math.
Educ. 29, 83–106 (1998). https://doi.org/10.2307/749719
8. Djaouti, D., Alvarez, J.: The creation of newsgames as a teaching method - empirical
observations. In: Kalmpourtzis, G. (ed.) Educational Game Design Fundamentals: A Journey
to Creating Intrinsically Motivating Learning Experiences, pp. 72–77. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL (2018)
9. Malinverni, L., Mora-Guiard, J., Pares, N.: Towards methods for evaluating and
communicating participatory design: a multimodal approach. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud.
94, 53–63 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.03.004
10. Triantafyllakos, G., Palaigeorgiou, G., Tsoukalas, I.A.: Designing educational software with
students through collaborative design games: the we! design & play framework. Comput.
Educ. 56, 227–242 (2011)
11. Könings, K.D., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merriënboer, J.J.G.: Participatory instructional
redesign by students and teachers in secondary education: effects on perceptions of
instruction. Instr. Sci. 39, 737–762 (2011)
12. Druin, A.: Cooperative inquiry: developing new technologies for children with children.
Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. 14, 592–599 (1999)
13. Bermingham, S., Charlier, N., Dagnino, F., Duggan, J., Earp, J., Kiili, K., Luts, E., Van Der,
S.L., Whitton, N.: Approaches to collaborative game making for fostering 21st century
skills. In: Proceedings 7th European Conference Games-Based Learning, pp. 45–52 (2013)
14. Habgood, M.P.J., Ainsworth, S., Benford, S.: Intrinsic fantasy: motivation and affect in
educational games made by children. Learn. 36, 483–498 (2005)
15. Arnab, S., Lim, T., Carvalho, M.B., Bellotti, F., de Freitas, S., Louchart, S., Suttie, N., Berta,
R., De Gloria, A.: Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis. Br.
J. Educ. Technol. 46, 391–411 (2015)
16. Kelle, S., Klemke, R., Gruber, M., Specht, M.: Standardization of game based learning
design. In: Murgante, B., Gervasi, O., Iglesias, A., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O. (eds.) ICCSA
2011. LNCS, vol. 6785, pp. 518–532. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
17. Dickey, M.D.: Game design narrative for learning: appropriating adventure game design
narrative devices and techniques for the design of interactive learning environments. Educ.
Technol. Res. Dev. 54, 245–263 (2006)
68 G. Kalmpourtzis et al.

18. Hong, N.: The relationship between well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in
multimedia simulation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State Univer-
sity, University Park (1998). www.cet.edu/research/papers.html
19. Papert, S.: The children’s machine. Technol. Rev. Nh-. 96, 28 (1993)
20. Crespo, S., Sinclair, N.: What makes a problem mathematically interesting? Inviting
prospective teachers to pose better problems. J. Math. Teach. Educ. 11, 395–415 (2008).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-008-9081-0
21. Mestre, J.P.: Probing adults’ conceptual understanding and transfer of learning via problem
posing. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 23, 9–50 (2002)
22. Chang, M.: Edutainment technologies. educational games and virtual reality augmented
reality applications. In: 6th International Conference on E-learning and Games, Edutainment
2011, Taipei, Taiwan, September 2011
23. Kojima, K., Miwa, K.: A system that facilitates diverse thinking in problem posing. Int.
J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 18, 209 (2008)
24. Stoyanova, E.N.: Extending and exploring students’ problem solving via problem posing
(1997). https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/885
25. Kalmpourtzis, G.: Connecting game design with problem posing skills in early childhood.
Br. J. Educ. Technol. 50, 846–860 (2019)
26. Patton, Q.M.: Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed. Sage Publications Inc.,
Newsbury Park, London, New Dehli (1990)
27. Kalmpourtzis, G., Vrysis, L., Ketsiakidis, G.: The role of adults in giving and receiving
feedback for game design sessions with students of the early childhood. In: Auer, M.E.,
Tsiatsos, T. (eds.) IMCL 2017. AISC, vol. 725, pp. 266–275. Springer, Cham (2018). https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75175-7_28
28. Stoyanova, E., Ellerton, N.: A framework for research into students’ problem posing in
school mathematics. technology in mathematics education. In: Proceedings of the 19th
Annual Conference Mathematics Education Research Group Australas. (MERGA), June 30–
July 3 1996 Univ. Melbourne, 1996 (1993). ISBN 0959684468
29. Strauss, A., Corbin, J.: Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedure and
techniques. Qual. Sociol. 13, 3–21 (1990)
30. Fontana, A., Frey, J.: The interview: from structured questions to negotiated text. Collect.
Interpret. Qual. Mater. 66, 911–917 (2006)
31. Barbour, R.S.: Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail
wagging the dog? BMJ 322, 1115–1117 (2001)