Educational Game Ratings

Standardized Educational Games Ratings: Suggested Criteria Daniel Hurd and Erin Jennings Spring 2009

Standardized Educational Games Ratings: Suggested Criteria Intro to Educational Games Video games have evolved greatly over the years, becoming a more complex and effective interactive media and forming a highly popular and expansive industry; one that is likely to continue to grow at a significant rate. In 2007 alone, game software sales grew over six percent to 9.5 billion dollars (Entertainment Software Association, 2008). Capitalizing on this increasing popularity, educators have the unique opportunity to use many components of game design and apply them towards a curriculum which utilizes gamebased instruction, either through educational games or through the re-purposing of entertainment games. The idea of motivation, for example, can change the sometimes lamented prospect of mastering a new subject into a player-initiated experience, where learning occurs simultaneously with engaging game play. Harnessing the compelling and immersive nature of games to teach subjects is no small feat, however, and the promotion of these games is hindered by the lack of a consistent and reliable rating system. With no effective method of distilling a game down to its educational content, parents and educators may find it hard to choose a title appropriately. Intro to Game Ratings In order to propose a new rating system for games with educational content, it is very useful to look at ratings systems already in place. Entertainment games are currently rated according to the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, or ESRB. Most of the current game development studios submit their games to the ESRB for ratings (Entertainment Software Rating Board, 2008), and some will even modify their in-game content to acquire a desired rating. This

rating can be found on the back of almost any commercially-available title. This rating system is content-based, and categorizes the objectionable content of a game into age-specific ratings. A game with a heavy violence factor may be given a 'M' rating, or over 18 years old appropriateness, whereas a game with only comic-style mischief might be rated E for everyone (Entertainment Software Rating Board, 2008). Games with educational content could very well be included within the ESRB's rating structure, but the benefits of the current system would be diluted by the rating structure's lack of attention to learning principles. In other words, games that define themselves as educational would be graded solely on their amount of objectionable content, and not by educational criteria. As few educational games have objectionable (as defined by the ESRB) content within them, does an objectionable-content-based system make much sense in this context? We need a rating system more tailored to the unique learning environment of educational games; one which can simultaneously assess their educational potential and age relevance, allowing teachers and parents to know, at a glance, where their investment is going. The ESRB employs several subject-matter experts to help in their game rating process. These experts play through parts of a game to determine whether the objectionable content descriptors and examples (submitted by the game developers) matches their own proposed rating for the game. Subject matter experts, in this case, are defined as, "adults [who] typically have experience with children, whether through prior work experience, education or by being parents or caregivers themselves" (Entertainment Software Rating Board, 2008). While the ESRB's approach may be sufficient to point out objectionable content, any ratings system designed for games with educational content should include subject-matter

experts with significant understanding of educational theory, game design, and possibly psychology. It would help to have a mix of gaming experience levels across the subject matter experts, as perspectives will be needed both from the gamers' standpoint and from the complete gaming novice. Why Rate Serious Games? Typical game-rating sites are primarily concerned with a game's technical presentation and the level of enjoyment it provides. Although the staff at such rating sites are accomplished gamers, they likely lack the expertise required to properly evaluate the effectiveness of educational games. To provide meaningful and valid assessment of these games, education experts should be an integral part of the rating design and process. Currently, there are no official standards or set of criteria that games must meet before "educational" games can claim to be educational. In fact, one of the new markets opened by Nintendo is the "brain training" line of software, which claims to enhance your brain's function with continued play. There is quite a bit of controversy around this assertion: "A survey of tenyear-old children found no evidence to support claims in Nintendo's advertising campaign . . . that users can test and rejuvenate their grey cells" (Fernandez, 2009). Since Nintendo is actively promoting their Brain Age games as educational, this brings up a potential issue. If educational content were regulated in the same way as mature content, then Nintendo would be required to submit supporting documentation about any educational claims. A list of best educational outcomes, much like the ESRB mandatory objectionablecontent reports from the entertainment game developers, could validate their claims. An

educational games rating system could take this responsibility from the developer, allowing an unbiased and specially trained group of raters to define any such content. The current lack of oversight has allowed educational games to vary widely in instructional value, usability and engagement. An objective set of standards would enable schools and parents to determine the educational value of a game prior to purchase. Standardized criteria would also allow consumers to compare several titles and choose the one that best suits their needs. To facilitate the development of standards for the evaluation of games, a rating system should be designed that addresses criteria relevant to education. These criteria include overall value, usability, accuracy, appropriateness, objectives, feedback, relevance, engagement, rapport, and motivation. Current Models of Review The idea of a universal rating system for educational games is not a new one. One of the most prominent educational game review groups is TEEM, located in the United Kingdom (TEEM, 2008). TEEM accepts submissions from publishers and, after a fee is paid, reviews the game by combining traditional text reviews with videos. These reviews are then uploaded to their website for public perusal. TEEM's review staff contains a rotating group of subject matter experts, most of which are school teachers. TEEM asserts that they are now, "the biggest directory of independent evaluations in the UK" (TEEM, 2008). While the goal of groups such as TEEM is admirable, the implementation of their review process, how they determine which games to review, and their end result of verbose, multimedia presentations do not lend themselves well to either the desired objectivity or the

time constraints that a more universal system would have to adopt.

A fee-based review

structure undermines the objectivity of any reviews produced, and is wholly incompatible with the notion of a standardized, universal educational game rating system. The ESRB is a non-profit organization, and is a preferred model for unbiased game ratings. Serious Games Rating Criteria As the trend of using educational games in instructional contexts continues, the need for standardized ratings will only become greater. We suggest the following criteria as relevant to educational games ratings. Overall Value The notion of value in entertainment games is centered around total length of possible game play, replayability, online options and cost. However, value in educational games should be measured differently to reflect more context-relevant concerns. In this case, the total length of game play may not be as important as the length of a typical play session, the total of available lessons or learning modules, and the length of the learning curve. As teachers and parents strive to make the best educational choices for their children in a less-than-perfect economic climate, a focus by the review system on educational content versus retail cost will be very effective. Value can affect educators looking at various programs to implement in the classroom or computer lab, where the priorities might be low cost and effective short-burst game play sessions. Value can speak to the home consumer, who will be looking for a program to supplement school work in reinforcing certain subjects. In this case, value will refer to educational content (subjects covered, and how effectively), final retail price, and average session time. Value will be prominently featured in the

final rating system to help address some of these concerns. Usability The most compelling and enriching educational software in the world would have its effectiveness severely limited by a steep learning curve. Usability and accessibility is an important category for reviewers to consider so that they can more accurately inform the consumer about the actual age appropriateness of the software, and can point out any imbalances inherent within. For example, a game traditionally rated E for everyone by the ESRB might have little objectionable content but, due to bad user interface design or disconnected and scattered learning modules, may be very inaccessible to the very students to which it is marketed. Bad design could make a particular piece of software too complex for its intended audience, or make it unplayable altogether. Usability ratings should be included in the proposed rating system to alleviate some of the frustration encountered when the design of a game does not match with its audience, and this will help further determine the educational value of a game. Accuracy In order to effectively teach the player a subject or skill, the content of an educational game must be accurate. Accuracy is determined by how successfully the game models the reality of the scenario it attempts to represent (Feinstein & Cannon, 2002). Content or mechanics that are inaccurate may lead to impaired comprehension, defeating the player's learning goals and the purpose of the game. For instance, in the Civilization series, any culture can become a nuclear power, even the Mayans and Romans. Conclusions drawn from game content that is inaccurate could lead to confusion.

Appropriateness Appropriateness is determined by how well the game's content and design are adapted to the target user's needs. While the ESRB rating reflects the maturity level of a game's content, it does not consider how well the presentation and mechanics of the game, from the menu structure to the controls, consider the abilities and requirements of the user. Both elements are important, in that one without the other could make the game unsuitable or unusable for the player. Although educational games aim to teach players a specific set of skills or knowledge, additional non-content-based outcomes may be derived beyond the primary content. All games teach players something; what varies is the usefulness of the knowledge outside of the game context (Koster, 2005). Learning the names of all the regions of Azeroth, for example, may not be very useful to a player outside of World of Warcraft; however, the game also allows the player to practice transferable skills such as reading a map, recalling directions, and managing resources. By engaging in a game, players may also learn to become participants or even experts within a semiotic domain, a system with its own unique grammar, conventions, and ways of communicating meaning (Gee, 2007). Learning how to speak the language of a domain is an important skill that players will draw on continuously as they progress through different interests, roles, and social groups. Because of the variability among games and their players, it is difficult to quantify noncontent-based learning. A player with one style of gameplay may not derive the same outcomes as another, and games themselves differ in terms of the skills that they teach. Therefore, a special note will be made for each rated game, listing potential non-content based “side-

benefits” that lie outside of the main learning content. This list could be standardized to include elements such as team work, logic, communication, social organization, and others. Novel elements could also be added to the list when they are presented in a new game. Relevance Relevance is determined by how meaningful and applicable the game's content is to the target user. To be relevant to players, the system must assist them in achieving their learning goals (Driscoll, 2005). Injecting relevance into the game makes the content more relatable, and therefore more meaningful and significant to the player. Whenever possible, an educational game should ground the instructional material in a context that the player is likely to understand; for example, games directed at children should present lessons in terms and situations that are relevant to children, such as attending school or playing at a park. Another issue of relevance is whether or not a game is suitable within a particular learning context. With Civilization, for example, the game is appropriate for use in history education, as long as the educational elements are emphasized over the fantasy elements. Although this task would be the responsibility of the instructor or parent, the ratings system could suggest appropriate usage. Objectives Objectives are also an important part of game design, and are especially critical for educational games. Objectives define the player’s goals and the criteria that determine success or failure. For entertainment games, objectives may include collecting fifty stars, saving the princess, or eliminating all enemies from a level. In educational games, the objectives are tied to learning outcomes. For example, players may have to correctly solve math problems in order to

earn fifty stars, or accurately diagnose and treat an illness in order to cure the patient. Games that lack clearly-defined objectives will be frustrating for players, because they will not know what is expected of them. Assessment of the player’s performance is also difficult without objectives to compare it to. Educational games should have clear, appropriate, and assessable objectives. Feedback To help the player understand how their performance compares to the game’s objectives, feedback should be provided. The feedback may be as simple as a sound effect or score indicating success or failure. Educational games often require more detailed feedback, however. Players should not only know whether or not they achieved their objectives; they should also know why or why not, as well as how to improve. Instructional feedback should help the players learn from their mistakes by coaching them to the correct response (Driscoll, 2005). Engagement For an educational game to be successful, players must derive enjoyment from playing it and be willing to progress through the game to pick up new knowledge and skills. These requirements map to the factors of engagement and motivation (Virvou et al, 2005). Engagement refers to the level immersion a player experiences, or how well the game makes the player believe that they are actually experiencing the simulation (Paras & Bizzocchi, 2005). Highly engaging games encourage the player to keep playing, which in the case of educational games, also means that the player will have a greater opportunity to continue learning. Engagement is therefore an important factor in the design of educational games (Medina, 2005).

The features of games that make them engaging to players are under debate. Even game developers have difficulty quantifying and applying the factors of engagement, as evidenced by the number of unsuccessful games produced each year. Garris et al (2002) suggest that games are appealing because they incorporate elements of fantasy and mystery, have clearly-defined rules and goals, stimulate the players’ senses, provide an appropriate level of challenge, and allow players to be in control. For educational games, these features mean that the player’s experience is interesting in terms of content and presentation, and that the game is easy to grasp but complex enough to pose a challenge. If a game is too difficult, players will become frustrated and be unmotivated to continue playing. Games that are too easy or too quickly mastered, on the other hand, lead to boredom and lack of engagement. Well-designed games provide just enough challenge to keep the players interested. Instruction often follows a similar pattern, with students struggling to grasp a concept, mastering it, and moving on to the next challenge. Ultimately, if the game and player are successful, boredom is inevitable, as the player will have mastered all of the challenges (Koster, 2005). Until mastery is achieved, however, game designers must find a balance between boredom and frustration in order to maintain engagement. Because this aspect is so critical to the instructional quality of the game, it will be addressed by the rating system. Also critical to engagement is the factor of rapport. If non-player characters are present in the game and interact frequently with the player, particularly if they fill the role of mentor or guide, it is important that the character establishes a positive relationship with the player. Gratch et al (2007) assert that virtual agents can be designed to build rapport through simulated attentive body language, thereby facilitating communication and learning. This process is aided

by the tendency of players to empathize with agents as though they are real people, and feeling compelled to help if the character is in distress. While engaging characters encourage playing and learning, unappealing agents could have the opposite effect. Players are unlikely to spend hours learning from characters who are insulting or unsympathetic. It is therefore important for serious game designers to develop agents carefully and with consideration for their target player. In the case of exceptionally engaging or repellent characters, a special note will be added under the Engagement rating. Motivation Motivation may be the most important characteristic of effective learning (Nadolski et al, 2008). Without motivation, the player is reluctant to play the game, and unlikely to benefit from the instructional content and strategies. Effective educational games must therefore attempt to provide motivation. Strategies for motivating the player may involve the setting of goals or objectives, providing scores or feedback, and issuing challenges and rewards (Medina, 2005). Engagement and motivation are significant factors influencing the player's willingness to play an educational game. Educational games must employ strategies for engaging, motivating, and establishing rapport with their players. Games that are enjoyable and motivating will score highly in the rating. Additional Ratings Categories Some publishers have attempted to expand the educational content of their games by consulting with educators and formulating lesson plans to accompany all or part of a particular program. Lucasarts has an educational division, and through their website, http://www.lucaslearning.com/edu/lesson.htm , they have presented several lesson plans

meant to enhance and complement their software offerings. For example, the website provides step-by-step instruction for educators using Droid Works to teach the physics of pulleys in the classroom. These instructions effectively illustrate and isolate the subjects or theories to be learned, how to use the software within the classroom format, and how to blend that software use with physical lessons and examples. In this case, should the games presented be reevaluated within the context of the publisher's enhanced support, or should a separate rating exist for publishers that continually go above and beyond to enrich their software? Additionally, if a publisher offers supplementary material, should that material also be rated, or should it only be noted that such additional material exists, and should be reviewed by the end-user? To maintain our focus on the educational qualities of the reviewed games, we feel that it is important to list additional materials, if available, but to restrict our site's numerical reviews to software only. We propose that game publishers be rated in a separate section that details their level of consistency in software quality, and their after-market support (if any). This separate rating would allow parents and educators to tell, at-a-glance, if they can expect additional content in the future for a prospective title. Gaming Literacy Not every person who plays a game can be expected to immediately grasp the fundamentals of the controls, the flow of game play, and the expectations placed on the players. Especially when repurposing otherwise entertainment-based games for use as educational supplements (as has been done in some classrooms with the Civilization series), the learning curve can present a serious issue when trying to get students motivated. To someone

who does play games, but who has never played a simulation game, the basics of game play may be completely foreign, which might force the instructor to devote more time to teaching the fundamentals of the game itself, and not the desired educational content within. A ratings section on video game and genre familiarity could point consumers to the correct title for the correct audience, marking games as truly for the novice, or as requiring previous familiarity with certain genres of games. Issues with Educational Game Ratings Transparency and Objectivity For game ratings to be valuable, they must be objective. To maintain the objectivity and integrity of the rating process, a number of policies should be enacted, influencing the funding of the project, communication with the community, and the distribution of rating results. As discussed in the Current Models of Review section, the TEEM model is dependent on the willingness of developers to submit their games for evaluation; if too many negative reviews are handed out, it is unlikely that the developers will continue supporting the initiative. A similar issue has affected sites that allow developers to purchase advertising space. In one particularly publicized instance, Gamespot editor Jeff Gerstmann allegedly lost his job after issuing a low score for the game Kane & Lynch, whose publisher, Eidos, advertised heavily on the Gamespot site (McWhertor, 2007). This incident underscores the importance of establishing a ratings model that allows the reviewers to remain objective, and not dependent on the game developers for financial support. To avoid this issue, a serious games rating site could be independently funded through educational technology grants. The US Department of Education and the MacArthur Foundation

for Digital Media and Learning are two potential sources for funding. Both organizations provide millions of dollars a year for research into topics of educational technology and games. Although maintaining a long-term project through grant funding is a tenuous proposition, it could be the best way to ensure the objectivity and respectability of the serious games rating site. Transparency is also an important factor in maintaining objectivity. The community that depends on the ratings should know that the reviewers are competent, that user concerns and suggestions are taken seriously, and that they have access to the full results of every review. Providing the full report to users is a vital step in promoting transparency, eliciting feedback, and increasing the number of rigorous evaluation studies available in the field of educational games. Accessibility Accessibility for disabled learners is a significant concern in education. The Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requires public schools to provide every disabled child with an equivalent education in an environment that is as accessible as possible. This requirement often means that schools must tailor instruction on an individual basis, depending on each student’s abilities, ensuring that learning is maximized while hardship and frustration are minimized (Americans with Disabilities Act, 2009). Regrettably, accessibility is a low priority for most game developers, due perhaps to a lack of awareness or to limited resources (Zahand, 2006). Developers also want to maximize the appeal of their games. Accommodating the needs of a minority of players with a particular disability may mean diminishing the game’s usability or engagement for a majority of players.

Although the major development studios have largely neglected accessibility, a handful of independent games have been designed for players who have visual, auditory, or mobility impairments (Bartimeus Accessibility Foundation, 2009). These games deliver content in multimodal forms, such as subtitles for dialog and auditory cues to accompany images, to avoid favoring one sense over another. Research into universally accessible games is ongoing. At a time when few games consider accessibility, including it in the ratings system would only lower the overall scores and harm otherwise very well-constructed educational games. For this reason, accessibility should instead be highlighted in a separate category that addresses any considerations a particular game has made, and to which players the game is best-suited. Suggested Rating System In order to rate a game effectively, a system is needed that cannot be misinterpreted. The ESRB currently has a system for rating entertainment games, the majority of which is nonapplicable to educational games. The rating system in place uses a letter and possibly a symbol, along with text keyword descriptors, to rate the objectionable content in games. The current system uses EC for early childhood, E for everyone over 6, E+ for everyone over 10, T for teens, M for mature, and AO for adults only (Gentile et al, 2005). The idea of shortening what can easily be a verbose and in-depth analysis of a game to a letter and a symbol is appealing from a consumer's standpoint (in that it makes a game easy to assess at a glance), but difficult and rife with potential problems for the ratings board. The challenge here is to create a scale that is easily understandable by a wide range of consumers without sacrificing too much flexibility, which allows a game ratings board to effectively voice their opinions.

A ratings system should be immediately familiar and easily contextualized, and should not require a supplementary key to decipher. We propose that educational games be rated on a scale that is already culturally recognizable, unmistakable, and already associated with education. Individual criteria within the review should be rated on a A-F scale, with A being the highest level of accomplishment. The average of these ratings will determine the Overall Value. Using this scale helps our rating system to be recognizable within the context of educational content, and in essence, we are "grading" the game according to its merit. Example Rating Where in the World is Carmen Sandiago? Broderbund A In Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? (Broderbund, 1985), the players are put in the role of a detective tasked with locating and arresting the notorious master thief, Carmen Sandiego. Players must interview witnesses and collect clues to determine Carmen’s whereabouts as she travels across the world, stealing treasured landmarks. The primary learning content of the game is geography, which the players are exposed to as they track Carmen’s movements across the map. Overall Value: A The game overall is engaging, appropriate for a wide audience, and most importantly, achieves its instructional goals. Players are provided with clearly-defined objectives and feedback for their decisions.

Usability: A The game’s interface and rules are easy to learn and simple to use. Special Note: all conversations with characters are subtitled, so players with hearing impairments do not miss any information and are able to successfully complete the game. Accuracy: B When the game was first released in 1985, it accurately depicted the geography of the time. Since then, countries have been renamed and the lines on the map redrawn, so the game is not as accurate as it once was. Appropriateness: A Although this game is unrated by the ESRB, it would likely receive an E for Everyone rating due to its mild content. The comedic situations, visual style, and challenge presented by the game are appropriate for the pre-teen audience for which it was produced, but would likely appeal to an even wider audience. Non-content-based learning is addressed in the Appropriateness rating. In Carmen Sandiego, players not only learn geography; they may also practice time management and communication (through scripted dialog with non-player characters). Relevance: A The knowledge taught by the game is relevant to the target audience. The knowledge taught by the game is important for the pre-teen age group, which is required to learn geography in school; also, because of the wide range of locations covered, a city near the player’s hometown is likely to come up, making the game more personal and meaningful. This game is appropriate to supplement geography lesson plans, or for at-home practice.

Objectives: A The game clearly presents the player’s objectives at each stage of the game, listing information such as witnesses left to question and locations left to visit. Feedback: B Feedback in the game is limited. Players are encouraged to try again when an incorrect decision is made, but are not given corrective feedback explaining why the choice was wrong. Motivation: A Though trial-and-error will allow players to determine Carmen’s last known location without employing the clues that should have led them there; however, relying too much on this tactic will allow time to elapse and Carmen to evade capture. Players are therefore motivated to learn geography in order to successfully complete their objectives. Engagement: A The game employs eye-catching graphics and animation (for the time), comedic writing, increasing challenges, and elements of mystery and suspense to engage players. Conclusion Establishing a universal, standardized, independently-funded, and easily-understood rating system is no small task. Though the ESRB does not address the concerns of educational games in a substantial way, they have managed to raise their awareness among consumers, force compliance from the developers, and, as a result, they are now the standard for entertainment games ratings. It is not this paper's intent to have a fully-functioning business model that simply needs funding, but rather, to raise awareness and suggest some possibilities for the implementation of

a universal review method for educational games. At a time when the benefits of computerassisted educational programs are being researched, overall familiarity with games is growing, and the ubiquity of computers within the classroom is solidifying, the need to educate the consumers about the benefits and value present in many of today's educational games is becoming all the greater. We feel that now is the time to assemble a regulatory body with the purpose of reviewing and assessing the content of these games in a meaningful way, and we hope that some of the ideas presented within are catalysts for the future of educational games ratings.

References Americans with Disabilities Act (2009). A guide to disability rights laws. Accessed 24 April, 2009 from http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm Bartimeus Accessibility Foundation (2009). Game accessibility. Accessed 20 April, 2009 from http://www.accessibility.nl/games/index.php?pagefile=home Broderbund Software (1985). Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? Driscoll, M. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Entertainment Software Association. (2008). Industry facts. Accessed 10 April 2009, from Entertainment Software Association: http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.asp Entertainment Software Rating Board. (2008). ESRB home page. Accessed 13 April 2008, from Entertainment Software Rating Board: http://www.esrb.org/index-js.jsp Feinstein, A. & Cannon, H. (2002). Constructs of simulation evaluation. Simulation & Gaming. Vol. 33(4). Fernandez, A. (2009, January 27). Nintendo Brain Age / Training vs. Crossword Puzzles. Accessed 20 February 2009 from SharpBrains: http://www.sharpbrains.com/blog/2009/01/27/nintendo-brain-age-training-vscrossword-puzzles/ Garris, R., Ahlers, R. & Driskell, J. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation and Gaming. Vol. 33(4). Gee, J. (2007). What games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Gentile, D., Humphrey, J., & Walsh, D. (2005). Media Ratings for Movies, Music, Video Games, and Television: A Review of the Research and Recommendations for Improvements. Ames, Indiana. Gratch, J., Wang, N., Okhmatovskaia, A, Lamothem F., Morales, M, van der Werf, R., & Morency, L. (2007). Can virtual humans be more engaging than real ones? 12th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Koster, Raph. (2005). A theory of fun for game design. Scottsdale: Paraglyph Press, inc.

Lucas Learning. (2009). Learning about pulleys with Star Wars Droid Works. Accessed 27 January, 2009 from Lucas Learning: http://www.lucaslearning.com/edu/lp_droid1.htm

McWhertor, M. (2007). Gamespot editor fired over Kane & Lynch review? Kotaku. 29 November. Accessed 25 April, 2009 from http://kotaku.com/gaming/rumor/gamespoteditor-fired-over-kane--lynch-review-328244.php Medina, E. (2005). Digital games: A motivational perspective. DiGra 2005 Conference Proceedings. Nadolski, R., Hummel. H., van den Brink, H., Hoefakker, A., Kurvers, H. & Storm, J. (2008). EMERGO: A methodology and toolkit for developing serious games in higher education. Simulation Gaming. Vol. 39(3). TEEM. (2008). TEEM home page. Accessed 12 April 2009, from TEEM: http://www.teem.org.uk/ Virvou, M., Katsionis, G. & Manos, K. (2005). Combining software games with education: Evaluation of its educational effectiveness. Educational Technology & Society. Vol. 8(2). P. 54-65. Zahand, B. (2006). Making video games accessible: Business justifications and design considerations. Gamasutra. September 20. Accessed 12 February, 2009 from http://gamasutra.com/features/20060920/zahand_01.shtml