Paper ID #32743

Using a Serious Game to Teach Maritime Economics and Technology toStudents from Mixed Backgrounds

Dr. Jeroen Pruyn, Delft University of Technology

Jeroen Pruyn is an assistant professor in Maritime Operations and Management at Delft University ofTechnology in the Netherlands. The field of MOM-bridges the gap between economics and engineeringwith a focus on the maritime sector.

Active as an innovative lecturers since 2004, he was awarded one of the four TU Delft Education fellow-ships in 2020 based on these efforts. He is using his grant to further the gamification of his education andintroduce his approaches to a broader audience.

Dr. Edwin van Hassel, University of Antwerp

Edwin van Hassel is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Transport and Regional economics, AntwerpUniversity where he is also teaching three courses. He has an engineering degree in naval architectureand he has a PhD in applied economics. His main research interest and expertise is in inland navigation,port hinterland transport, ship design and transport modelling. He holds a PhD with a topic in the field ofinland waterway transport. More recently the scope of his work has been extended to maritime cost chainmodelling. He also is involved in several research ranging from logistics projects to infrastructure costbenefit analysis and transport modelling projects.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2021

Using a Serious Game to Teach Maritime Economics and

Technology to Mixed Background Students.

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to discuss the successful application of a complex serious game to

teach maritime economic concepts to non-maritime economic students (i.e. Naval Architects and

Marine Engineers) and to teach maritime technology aspects to non-naval architects (transport

and logistics students). A complex serious management game was developed in a joint effort by

the University of Delft’s Marine Technology and the University of Antwerp’s Maritime

Economics programme over the past decade. It has proven to be a highly appreciated and

effective way to teach students of both fields.

The paper discusses the course design and history, demonstrates its success based on evaluations

and continued expansion of the user base, and explains the success of the design by linking it to

educational theories such as the use of scaffolding, direct instruction, assessment for learning, the

role of feedback and the importance of context.

The final discussion/reflection focuses on the impact of online and distant learning on achieving

the learning goals, based on five courses at five different institutions given in the period

September 2020-January 2021.

Introduction

The importance of multi-disciplinarity in education is not new. According to several theories, the

importance is increasing[1-3]. Though the term T-shaped engineer was already coined by David

Guest in 1991 [4]. In this instance, it referred to the environmental awareness of the engineer. It

is not enough to be good at calculations, but one has to be able to manage and understand the

economic concept of the solution to know if and how a developed technical solution can be

implemented. This idea was embraced by many technical universities in many different forms

see for example a recent overview created by Neeley and Steffensen [3].

On the other hand, the students' perceptions of elements outside of their core curriculum are in

general not very positive (e.g. [5, 6]). In many cases, this results in low appreciation of e.g.

economic courses at technical universities or vice versa. Also at TU Delft, this was the case.

However, in 2004 the department of maritime transport at TU Delft and the department of

transport and regional economics at the University of Antwerp decided to join forces and to

develop a new approach: the maritime business game. This maritime business game is used at

both universities, which was a novel approach in 2004.

Other maritime education levels, such as officers training, have already for decades used games

in maritime education, primarily in the form of simulators [7-9]. Though also in these studies, as

far as the authors are aware, there are no games used to teach the related disciplines.

This paper will discuss the development of a serious game for maritime technology and maritime

economics students to teach them about the field of the other. After a short history of the course

and detailing of the course design, key success factors as retrieved from evaluations and

discussions with students will be discussed. A unique aspect is that this game is currently

provided at seven different education programmes. These success factors are thereafter related to

several theories that can explain this. In the final discussion, a short reflection is given on the

impact of distant learning on the achievement of the learning goals by students.

Theoretical Support

Games in education have a relevant literature history with one of the first mentions of such

approaches increasing motivation going back to 1980 [10]. For our paper relatively recent (2010-

2020) overview papers on serious games in education, game-based learning and gamification

were investigated as elements of each of these approaches can be found in at least some of the

courses provided. To start with a clear distinction between these three concepts, serious games

are computer-based learning simulations that engage players in realistic activities designed to

increase knowledge, improve skills, and enable positive learning outcomes [11], while Game-

Based Learning [GBL] focuses more on learning primarily basic math or language skills through

a game that is played, finally, gamification is the application of game elements to a none game

environment [12-16]. It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the exact position of each term,

but much research in these fields is focused on discussing the success and negative sides of

gameplay in education and will be used to validate the course design.

As identified by [17], digital serious games are most common in higher education and within

engineering, though the reflection on the combination of the two is not reported. Still as stated at

the beginning of this paper, none could be found related to maritime education (technology or

economy). On the other hand, education focussing on entrepreneurship is described to embrace

games already for a long time[18] and to some extent, the maritime business game falls into this

aspect, though the goals are different, as entrepreneurial skills are not the focus, but serve as a

mechanism to teach about the link between economics and technology (See also Game design

section).

Gamification literature offers the clearest representation of game elements and their role in

motivation and learning [13-16]. These are usually subdivided into achievements, social,

immersion, non-game rewards, miscellaneous [16]. Within miscellaneous, the freedom to fail or

onboarding is an important aspect [14]. A leader board, on the other hand, is associated with

many of the negative aspects of gamification [15], such as disengagement and should therefore

not be a prominent feature of a game in a course. A recent study by Zhonggen [19], also

identified another negative effect of serious games, the mental workload is increased, negatively

affecting the learning effect. In essence, the capacity to pick up the intended information is

limited by the fact that the student also has to learn how to play the game and how to interpret

the overload of information.

The cognitive load theory is one of many learning theories linked to serious gaming. Li and Tsai

[20] show in their study that most applications of serious games draw from either Cognitivism or

Constructivism in their theoretical foundation. Especially cognitive load theory, cognitive theory

of multimedia learning, Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence and situated learning theories

are often mentioned as relevant for serious games. Plass et Al. [21] discuss many relevant

mechanics, though only add scaffolding as a theory to the list above.

Cognitive load theory [22] was already identified, however, to teach business economics without

context to technology students and vice versa is very difficult as they have no previous

knowledge to build on [23, 24]. By putting this new information in context it is absorbed much

easier. Another key benefit of the game approach is the interconnectivity created, resulting in

many storage and retrievals of the information, via different connections and associations, this

helps with creating lasting knowledge [25]. Finally, the direct feedback and assessment of

choices made through the game mechanics and the combination of details and broad discussions

further support the learning [26-28].

Finally, students should not simply be let loose in a game. Extensive support in the form of

explicit instructional guidance [29, 30] is required to achieve the learning goals. The role of the

lecturer in this is thereby crucial as instead of the more classical role, he or she needs to alternate

this with direct tutoring of the small game groups or individuals. Depending on their particular

situation, the right scaffolding needs to be provided to balance motivation, learning and

achievements [31, 32]. Finally, the impact of the created community of practice [33] should not

be underestimated. It can support the goals of the course and stimulate learning.

Course Design

In this section, the theories described above will be used to support the design of the course and

in the next session, the game itself will be discussed However first a short introduction into the

history of the course is provided as reference.

Although the use of a game already started in 2004, this paper will primarily focus on the second

game, released in early 2016, as can be seen in the timeline in Figure 1. Although the objective

of the course has always been to teach the relation between economics and technology to both

maritime engineering and maritime economics students, it was discovered that the original set-up

of the interaction between yards and owners was more focused on negotiations than the actual

translation of economics to technology and vice versa. Also as can be seen in the same figure,

quite some effort (three years) was required to create a balanced game environment. Therefore,

before committing to a new game design, the Consistent Maritime Macro to Micro Economic

(C3ME model) was developed to create a realistic and balanced data set from macroeconomic

level down to freight rates and cargo movements. This would support both a simplification of the

context while maintaining realistic relations [23, 24]. The output of this model forms the

foundation on which the current game was developed.

Figure 1: Timeline of the maritime business game development

The current game is provided in different programmes in slightly different forms. In all

programmes, the Maritime Business Game performs an integrating role [23]. In most cases at the

end of a set of supporting courses, but in two cases it is provided at the start to provide a frame of

reference for all the other courses. Both situations seem to work almost equally well, though do

depend on the pre-existing knowledge

The core of the course is the same for all (see Figure 2). Firstly the teams of students are being

made. These teams are the shipping companies in the game and they consist of three students.

Normally between 5 and 35 of these shipping companies take part in a course. These teams do a

trial run to familiarise the students with the gameplay (1). In the next phase, a business plan (2)

has to be written by each company in the game, before the teams start to play the game. In the

third phase, the game will be played and the teams need to execute their business plan (3).

Finally, the teams need to develop a year report (4) and they need to explain to their management

(to the course instructors). On top of this also a set of assignments was designed (5) to support

the full discovery of the game. Furthermore, extensive materials such as lecture notes, videos and

manuals, combined with clear instructions, are provided to provide the students with explicit

instructional guidance [29, 30]. All these materials can be used throughout the whole process.

This ensures that the students study the game world and the lecture materials. Without proper

preparation, the lessons learned from the game are fewer and shallower. However, to compensate

for a bad preparation by the students, the year report (4) performs a key function. Using the

board of directors’ part of the year report, the instructions are such (supported again by manuals

and videos) that the students must investigate their performance and discover what went wrong

even if they did not yet realise this during the gameplay. The same report is also used to teach

about the business economic aspects of a company and their expression in profit and loss, cash

flow and balance sheets and how to compare companies in a sector using indicators.

Figure 2: Key element of the maritime business game.

The role of the lecturer in this is crucial as he or she, depending on their particular situation, will

need to provide the right scaffolding to balance motivation, learning and achievements [31, 32].

Especially at the TU Delft, where the game is run twice in the same course, the community of

practice [33] is very strong. To achieve this, the teams in the second round are formed by

members of three different teams in the first round. Even with a more complicated and difficult

setting for the game, the improvements in both the reports and the game result is very significant

and a great way for the students to experience this increase in knowledge themselves as well.

The goal of the course is to broaden the insight of maritime technology and economics students

in the direction of each other. This has been translated into a set of learning goals, which are

covered by the five elements of the course as can be seen in Table 1. The first two learning goals

(a,b) relate to the more technical aspects of the course. Learning goal c relates to market

economics, linking technology and economy. The next three (d,e,f) relate to business economics.

Although learning goals a-f can be taught in a regular form as well, the final two learning goals

(g, h) are the added value of using a game for teaching. You can always do a risk assessment, but

being confronted with the execution of your plan, will teach you the value of this, or at least the

difficulty of dealing with overlooked issues. Also, the pressure resulting from having to make

decisions under limited information availability in a matter of minutes is a different kind of

pressure than normally found in projects or classes.

Table 1: Link between the learning goals and the course elements

(1

) Tria

l Ru

n

(2) B

usin

ess Pla

n

(3) M

aritim

e

Bu

siness

Gam

e

(4) Y

ear R

eport

(5) S

up

port

Materia

ls.

(a) Apply knowledge on ship design, production, operations

and marine engineering in a challenging and realistic

environment

x x x x

(b) Calculate the optimal speed for a vessel for any trip and

cargo

x x x x

(c) Link the (technical) capacities of a ship to the (economic)

niche markets

x x x x

(d) Examine how variations in supply and demand create

market dynamics

x x x x

(e) Judge both investment proposals and year results x x x x

(f) Observe the relations between the main financial

reporting elements (cash flow, balance, profit and loss

statement)

x x x

(g) Evaluate the importance of risk assessment and

mitigation

x x x

(h) Perform as a team member in a stressful environment x x x x

Furthermore, to support the immersion [13-16], rounds are short generating time pressure and

sessions are at least 3 hours to be able to focus on the game completely. The social aspects are

covered well by both working in a team, rather than as individuals, but also the competition with

other teams in the game is present. This competition is not limited to the final leader board alone,

but also each round in the pursuit of winning contract bids and buying and selling vessels. As a

leader board is also associated with many of the negative aspects of gamification [15], such as

disengagement, this is only shared at the end of the game. Once or twice during the session, an

average profit is provided, but no further details. It was discovered this helped motivate the

groups with a loss as they are comforted by the fact they are not alone, on the other hand, nobody

is sure they are last and thus there is the option to improve. The game results, also, have a very

limited impact on the final grade of the course, encouraging students to learn from mistakes [14],

rather than to be paralysed by fear of failure. Other than the final grade, which is primarily based

on the reports, there is no outside reward for the game.

Game Design

To illustrate how the learning goals are implemented in the course, a more detailed description of

the course and the game will be given. As already mentioned, the game is founded on the C3ME-

model and relies on this model to provide a consistent data set. The objective of the game is that

students manage a shipping company transporting dry bulk cargoes between different regions in

the world. This maritime transport market has both short term and long-run effects and

dynamics. To capture this, the model has been built up by the four shipping markets (Sale and

Purchase, Cargo, Newbuilding and Demolition) as indicated by Stopford [34]. Next to that a

financial market and macroeconomic data are incorporated into the model. To reduce the

complexity in the macroeconomic part, the world is reduced to 16 maritime relevant regions.

These regions are treated as if they are one country, with one (aggregated) economy (See also

Figure 3). Besides the macroeconomic data, such as import, export, GDP, inflation etc. detailed

data is available on a weekly level for the freight rates between each set of regions (and within a

region) for eleven size ranges.

Figure 3: Representation of the 16 maritime regions and major trade lanes.

Each region, in the model, has 3-5 ports (depending on the trade intensity) of various sizes and

with a variety of limitations, such as draft restrictions (not allowing large vessels to enter fully

loaded), crane requirements and ice-class requirements. Each week a random set of contracts are

created based on the trade volume between regions and the relative volumes of the ports within

the region. Although not used in the C3ME model, 11 different cargo types are introduced.

Depending on the vessel qualities, a cargo is either volume bound or weight bound. Ships with a

focus on weight cannot take as much volume, while ships focussed on volume cannot deal with

heavy cargos. This is a good example of specialisation as part of techno-economic choices.

Within the game, a set of ships is available for which the division size, age and other qualities are

in line with the dry bulk fleet at the time of the game design. This does mean that not all vessels

are relevant for a starting company with 5 mln in cash but increases the realism as these ships

can be aspired by the students. Sale prices and various costs are again taken from the C3ME

model, while the additional option of selecting your speed (and thus save on fuel) is given in the

game.

The focus of the business plan (2) (see Figure 2) is to compare the described demand (freight)

and supply (vessels) in order to identify a strategy for the starting ship owner. Although the game

settings are fixed (though the contracts are randomly generated), the choices made by the entire

group influence the intensity of the competition in each of the sub-markets. Using a TOWS

(reverse SWOT as the market is there, but the company is not yet there) and a confrontation

matrix they assess the risks and opportunities and identify a niche to operate in. The business

plan is also used to make the first trip calculations and to discuss Net Present Value (NPV) and

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) to validate their choice.

In the trial run (1), the focus is on getting to know the game mechanics and collecting data for

the business plan. The rounds are slow here, each week (the standard game step), lasts for about

20-30 minutes allowing for about 6-8 weeks to be played. This gives time to work through the

trial assignments, which support learning the key game mechanics (5). Besides these, assignment

manuals and YouTube video’s [35] on e.g. trip calculations are available. In the game (3) the

speed is much higher and students are strongly encouraged to prepare for this. Usually, a full

year (53 weeks) are played in one day, resulting in a time of around 6 minutes per week and

slightly longer for the first two weeks to allow adjustments to the plans if the desired vessels are

all bought by others.

In the game teams consist of 2-3 students, supporting a division of task to deal with the short

time. Although due to the consistent environment, a profitable company is possible, also in the

first year, this is only achieved by 10-15% of the teams on average. As there is a lot of

information to consider a lot of mistakes are made. This is a good thing, as it offers opportunities

to explain market mechanisms or other technological or economic principles. This approach to

mistakes is actively communicated to ensure it does not cause any extra stress.

With the stressful short term game session, there is often not enough time to learn and

understand the mistakes made other than via some quick hints from the lecturer. That is why the

year report (4) is a key element of the course. Here the students reflect on their actions (trip

success, loaded vs unloaded, cargo hold utilisation, market changes and events and reasons for

penalties). The game is set up in such a way that this can easily be retrieved also after the game

and used as input for discussions.

Student Feedback and Evaluations

The game was developed as a cooperation between the University of Antwerp (UA) and TU

Delft (TUD), logically the course is provided at these institutions. Actually, the UA offers it in

two master programmes (MLM and C-MAT), while the TUD offers it in one programme (MT-

MSc). Since the delivery of the current game in 2016, more institutions have adopted the course.

Currently, it is also provided at Erasmus University Rotterdam as part of their Maritime

Economics and Logistics master (MEL) and as part of an exchange programme for Maritime

Technology master students from the Nanyang Technological University Singapore (NTU).

Furthermore, three higher vocational institutes, Rotterdam Mainport Institute (RMI), Nationale

Hogeschool Leeuwarden Stenden (NHL) and the University of Southeast Norway, also have

adopted the course as part of either a minor or their final year programme.

Table 2: Summary of student scoring of the course in evaluations

# 2019-2020 2018-2019 2017-2018 2016-2017 Average

1 MBG-TUD 8.4 7.3 7.3 8.1 7.8

2 MBG-UA1 8.8 8.7 9.1 8.9

3 MBG-UA2 9.2 Text feedback, generally positive 9.2

4 MBG-MEL Text feedback, generally positive 7.6 7.6

5 MBG-NHL Not shared in detail, generally positive

6 MBG-RMI Text feedback, generally positive

7 MBG-NSU Text feedback, very positive

Although the background varies in either maritime economics and technology as well as in

education level, the responses are very positive (Table 2). Where grades are available the average

is between 7.5 and 9 (out of 10), which is good to very good especially compared to other

courses. To further validate the course, several lecturers, from these institutions, were also

invited to play the game and to further contribute to the set-up and potential.

Considering the remarks in the evaluation concerning the design of the course, the most

frequently mentioned positive aspects are the direct application of the knowledge and clear

feedback (in the form of failures in the game) as well as the intrinsic motivation for learning

coming from the competitive nature of the game. On the other hand, the higher vocational and

non-western students tend to have some issues with the lack of a clear structure and the amount

of data to sort out. It seems that two aspects play a key role in the extent of overloading. The first

is the time schedule of the course; Both the impact of time allocated before the trial run to

already explore the game and enough (free) time between the trial run and the game can be

noticed, e.g. for the same programme over different years. The second is assumed to be the prior

education, as both higher vocational students and non-western students seem to experience a

higher mental workload [13]. With a much smaller role for problem-solving education in both

sub-groups, this could be explained with the cognitive load theory [16]. The first one can be

remedied by making sure there is sufficient time available, the second one is more difficult,

though is currently addressed via extra direct instructions to support the step-by-step discovery

of the game and processes for the business plan and year report. These effects were more

prominent in the current year with the remote set-up and will be discussed further in the

COVID/Distant learning section.

COVID/Distant Learning

Due to the corona pandemic, a new challenge emerged when teaching the course in which the

MBG was used. These courses are now, just like all other courses, fully online. All materials are

available online, the game itself is played via a web browser and the set-up of 1.5 days can be

maintained, in short, there is no clear barrier to teach this course online. Still, in retrospect, some

subtle differences are there and these will be discussed next.

First of all the common online meeting tools all had their own little peculiarities, that needed to

be worked around to allow the group to join a central meeting as well as join their project group

private meeting. This meant that in general time was lost in each session organising this aspect,

even if a moderator was available. The only workaround would be to reserve some time for this

and communicate clearly about this.

A second observation primarily relates to the students from the higher vocational institutes.

These indicated, more than in previous years, to find the lack of structure and clear assignments

difficult to deal with. This could be because the distance to their lecturers was larger than in

previous years. The lecturers might have been offering support, that was now not readily

available. On the other hand, as the course is in both cases part of a larger education block, it

could also be that COVID has impacted the pick-up of knowledge in the related courses, leading

to a different starting position compared to earlier years. In any case, for next year a more direct

description will be made available to counter this.

The third and final observation is that on the one hand visiting the groups as a lecturer both on

request and on their own initiative worked very well in supporting their learning experience. It

was also a lot more interactive than doing an online lecture or a large discussion. However, in

reviewing the reports and success of the groups in the game, the importance of a community of

practice [33] was noticeable. In the normal class are students are in the same room and can

usually see and hear what is being said by the groups close to them, either among themselves or

in a conversation with the lecturer. Also, discussions during a coffee break are quite common in

that situation. This way information and insights spread more easily than was the case in the

fully online variant.

Overall it could be stated that there are some small improvements possible to the fully online

variant of the course, however, in general, the key characteristics and intrinsic motivation was

maintained. Making the transition one of the successful COVID adaptations and opening

opportunities for further studies to be supported with this interactive course both remotely and in

person.

Conclusions

To conclude the review of the course and game design, the set-up is supported by theory and has

attracted much positive attention from other institutes. Though for us the following is perhaps the

most rewarding proof of a good game; from time to time, you run into a student 5-10 years later

for the first time since the course. In this case these students invariably all comment on how they

still remember the mistakes and misconceptions they had during the game, or how they still draw

on the knowledge from the game in their current decisions and strategies. The authors are not

aware of many other courses where the content left such an impression, rather than, for example,

the peculiarities of the lecturer or simply only the amount of work.

References

[1] C. J. King, "The Multidisciplinary Imperative in Higher Education. Research & Occasional Paper Series. CSHE. 11.10," Center for Studies in Higher Education, 2010.

[2] S. Menon and M. Suresh, "Synergizing education, research, campus operations, and community engagements towards sustainability in higher education: a literature review," International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2020.

[3] K. A. Neeley and B. Steffensen, "The T-Shaped Engineer as an Ideal in Technology Entrepreneurship: Its Ori-gins, History, and Significance for Engineering Education," in Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education, 2018.

[4] D. Guest, "The hunt is on for the Renaissance Man of computing," The Independent, vol. 17, no. 09, 1991.

[5] Y. Everingham, E. Gyuris, and J. Sexton, "Using student feedback to improve student attitudes and mathematical confidence in a first year interdisciplinary quantitative course: from the ashes of disaster!," International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 877-892, 2013.

[6] P. Strauss and L. Grant, "'We mainly deal with maths': New Zealand engineering lecturers' and students' perceptions of'engineering writing'," New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, vol. 24, no. 2, p. 1, 2018.

[7] E. Boulougouris et al., "Developing multidisciplinary blended learning courses for maritime education with cross-European collaboration," WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 319-340, 2019.

[8] E. Markopoulos, J. Lauronen, M. Luimula, P. Lehto, and S. Laukkanen, "Maritime safety education with VR technology (MarSEVR)," in 2019 10th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom), 2019: IEEE, pp. 283-288.

[9] S. A. Voloshynov, A. Yurzhenko, H. Popova, and E. O. Shmeltser, "The use of digital escape room in educational electronic environment of maritime higher education institutions," 2019: CEUR Workshop Proceedings.

[10] T. W. Malone, "What makes things fun to learn? A study of intrinsically motivating computer games," ProQuest Information & Learning, 1980.

[11] M. Prensky, "Fun, Play and Games: What Makes Games Engaging. Retrieved August 27, 2012," ed, 2001.

[12] S. Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, and L. Nacke, "From game design elements to gamefulness: defining" gamification"," in Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments, 2011, pp. 9-15.

[13] F. F.-H. Nah, Q. Zeng, V. R. Telaprolu, A. P. Ayyappa, and B. Eschenbrenner, "Gamification of education: a review of literature," in International conference on hci in business, 2014: Springer, pp. 401-409.

[14] D. Dicheva, C. Dichev, G. Agre, and G. Angelova, "Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study," Journal of Educational Technology & Society, vol. 18, no. 3, 2015.

[15] A. M. Toda, P. H. Valle, and S. Isotani, "The dark side of gamification: An overview of negative effects of gamification in education," in Researcher Links Workshop: Higher Education for All, 2017: Springer, pp. 143-156.

[16] J. Majuri, J. Koivisto, and J. Hamari, "Gamification of education and learning: A review of empirical literature," in Proceedings of the 2nd international GamiFIN conference, GamiFIN 2018, 2018: CEUR-WS.

[17] G. J. Hwang and P. H. Wu, "Advancements and trends in digital game‐based learning research: a review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010," British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. E6-E10, 2012.

[18] J. Fox, L. Pittaway, and I. Uzuegbunam, "Simulations in entrepreneurship education: Serious games and learning through play," Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 61-89, 2018.

[19] Y. Zhonggen, "A meta-analysis of use of serious games in education over a decade," International Journal of Computer Games Technology, vol. 2019, 2019.

[20] M.-C. Li and C.-C. Tsai, "Game-based learning in science education: A review of relevant research," Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 877-898, 2013.

[21] J. L. Plass, B. D. Homer, and C. K. Kinzer, "Foundations of game-based learning," Educational Psychologist, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 258-283, 2015.

[22] J. Sweller, "Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning," Cognitive science, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 257-285, 1988.

[23] B. J. Zimmerman, "Social learning theory: A contextualist account of cognitive functioning," in Recent advances in cognitive-developmental theory: Springer, 1983, pp. 1-50.

[24] J. S. Brown, A. Collins, and P. Duguid, "Situated cognition and the culture of learning," Educational researcher, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 32-42, 1989.

[25] F. I. Craik and R. S. Lockhart, "Levels of processing: A framework for memory research," Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 671-684, 1972.

[26] P. Black and D. Wiliam, "Assessment and classroom learning," Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 7-74, 1998.

[27] J. Hattie and H. Timperley, "The power of feedback," Review of educational research, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 81-112, 2007.

[28] C. Reigeluth and R. Stein, "Elaboration theory," Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (1983), pp. 335-381, 1983.

[29] P. A. Kirschner, J. Sweller, and R. E. Clark, "Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching," Educational psychologist, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 75-86, 2006.

[30] B. Rosenshine, Principles of instruction. International Academy of Education, 2010. [31] D. Wood, J. S. Bruner, and G. Ross, "The role of tutoring in problem solving," Journal of child

psychology and psychiatry, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 89-100, 1976. [32] M. Kangas, A. Koskinen, and L. Krokfors, "A qualitative literature review of educational games in

the classroom: the teacher’s pedagogical activities," Teachers and Teaching, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 451-470, 2017.

[33] E. Wenger, "Communities of practice: A brief introduction," 2011. [34] M. Stopford, Maritime economics 3e. Routledge, 2008. [35] J. Pruyn, "TUDeflt Maritime Business Game Channel," ed: Youtube.com, 2021.