Do Board Games Make People Smarter? - nientepanico.org … ·...

DOI: 10.4018/IJGBL.2019100101

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2019

Copyright©2019,IGIGlobal.CopyingordistributinginprintorelectronicformswithoutwrittenpermissionofIGIGlobalisprohibited.

1

Do Board Games Make People Smarter?Two Initial Exploratory StudiesMarco Bartolucci, Università degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia, Italy

Francesco Mattioli, Università degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia, Italy

Federico Batini, Università degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia, Italy

ABSTRACT

Inrecentyears,theauthorshavewitnessedtherebirthofboardgames.Thiscontributionaimstoinvestigatetheeducationalpotentialofnon-randomboardgamesintwoways:thecomparisonofperformancesof“expertadultplayers”and“adultnon-players”throughacorrelationstudy(n=45)andthecomparisonbetweentheresultsachievedbyagroupofchildrenafter26hoursofgametraining(n=10)andthoseofacontrolgroupthatcarriedouttraditionaleducationalactivities(n=10)byusinganonrandomizedcontrolgrouppretest-posttest.Specifically,thefindingsrelatingtofluidintelligence,analyticalandconvergingcognitiveprocessesandcreativitywerecompared.Theresultssuggestthatnon-randomboardgamescanbeanimportantstimulusforthecognitivefunctions,withaparticularfocusonthecreativeside,andthereforehaveanimportanteducationalfunction.

KEywoRDSBoard Games, Cognition, Experimental Research, Intelligence, Learning

INTRoDUCTIoN

In “Theplayof animals”Gross (1898)described some interesting animalbehaviours.Thewildpeacocks,foreveryday.Inturn,twoofthematatimeenterthecircleandarealbattlebegins.Ifoneofthemleavesthecircle,thefightstops.Thisbizarrebehaviour,justlikesomanyothersdescribedbyGross,canbetracedbacktojustonething:thegame.Liketheanimals,wealsoplay,andinfactweare“Homo-Ludens”(Huizinga,1967).ThepoetFriedrichSchillersaidthatmanisentirelymanonlywhenheplays.Lorenz“believed”that“bothartandtheyearningofmanforknowledgearenothingmorethanoutwardsignsofthegreatgameinwhichnothingispredefined,exceptfortherulesofthegameitself.”(Lorenz,1983,p.64).Gameisinnateinournature,curiosityisgame,knowledgeandartaregame.Inthiscontributiongameisframedasatoolthroughwhichdifferentsituationscanbe“simulated”or“experienced,”sothatlearningcanbestructuredandleadtotheeducationalsuccess.

why is Studying Games Necessary, Nowadays?DavidSudnow,apianist,realisedin1983thathewasaddictedtooneoftheveryfirstdomesticgames:Breakout.Henarrateshisstoryinabookanddescribesthegameas“Thirtysecondsofplay,forthreebricks,andI’monawholenewplaneofbeing,allsynapseswailing”(Sudnow,1983,p.41).Sudnowfeltcompletelyfocused,tothelimitsofhiscapabilities,andheexperiencedtheFlow,“thesatisfyingandexcitingfeelingofcreativeaccomplishmentandincreasedfunctioning.(Csikszentmihàlyi,1975,p.XIII).TheexperienceofFlowwasfirsttheorizedbyCsìkszentmihàlyiin1975;hestatedthat“games

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2019

2

areanobvioussourceofflow,playingistheexperienceofflowpar excellence”(Csikszentmihàlyi,1975,p.37).PlayersexperiencemorethananyoneelsethisstateofmindthatmotivatesthemandmakesthemFieri (Proud)oftheirwork.

FieroisalsotheItalianwordadoptedbygamedesignersfromallovertheworld,introducedbyNicoleLazzaroattheGameDevelopersConference.Infact,thereisnowordinEnglishtodescribethemomentwhen“wethrowourarmsupandscream.”(McGonigal,2011,p.34).Proudnessisoneof themostpowerfulneurochemicalpeakswecanexperience(Hoeft,Watson,Kesler,Bettinger,&Reiss,2008).Thatiswhycommunitiesofplayersarisespontaneously:blogs,wikis,forumsandYouTubechannels.Thetruthisthat“Realitydoesn’tmotivateusaseffectively.Realityisnotdesignedtomaximizeourpotential.”(McGonigal,2011,p.3).Wecouldsaythesamethingforeducationalpaths,itseemsthattheyarenotdesignedtomaximizestudents’learning.Thereisadirect,realandconcretefeedbackinthegame.Itisdifficulttolinktheactiontoitsfeedbackwhenitisdistantintime,whereasthecloserthefeedbackistotheaction,themoreeffectiveitis.Inagame,continuousfeedbackisprovidedallowingtochangestrategiesofaction,similarlyinlearningimmediatefeedbackshould be encouraged in order to change behaviour. For example, mistakes during a path couldbeconsideredasfeedback.Evenamistakeingamesisconsideredanintegralpartofthelearningprocess,generatingpermanentoptimismandpromotinginductivereasoning(Metcalfe,2017).Onthecontrary,inlearningpathwaystheerrorisoftenseeninanegativewayandcausesthemotivationtobeloweredtothepointofconstitutingareal“block.”AFinnishresearchteam(Ravaja,Saari,Salminen,Laarni,&Kallinen,2006)foundthattheemotionalpeakingamesdoesnotoccurwhenyouexceedalevelbutwhenyoufail.ThegameunderconsiderationinthiscaseisMonkeyBall2.Inshort,iftheerrorisrewarded,eveninasmallpart,theplayerismotivated(inthecaseofMonkeyBall2,therewardforfailurewasasneeringmonkeythatfellintothevoid).ThefeedbackmechanisminthegamesperfectlyreflectsVygotsky’s(1978)theoryofthe“proximaldevelopmentzone.”Theplayer,infact,throughsmalltasks,isaccompanied(butnottoomuch)infindingthesolutionandthenisrewarded.Inaplayfulenvironment,moreover,tasksareperfectlybalancedfortheirowngamelevel,theyarenevertoodifficultortooeasy.Anotherimportantfactoriscooperation.Ingames,thereisalwayssomeonetohelpyouaccomplishyourmission.ThesuccessofWordofWarcraftismainlyduetothis:itwasthefirstgametointroducemechanismsthatgeneratetrustbetweenplayers(theyeveninventedaneconomicsystemforsharingrewardswithinteams).Inlearning,theseprocessesarehandleddifferently:being“accompanied” is considereda signofa specificdifficultyof thestudent;beingcalibratedtothegroup(or,worse,to“programs”),theleveldoesnottakeintoaccountindividualresourcesandlimitations;cooperationisoftendiscouragedandmosttasksareindividual.

GAMES AND EDUCATIoN

Whyboardgames?Literatureconcerningtheboardgamesisunfortunatelyverypoor.Itisabundantifwe includechess in the term“boardgames.”GobetandCampitelli inEducationalbenefitsofchessinstruction:ACriticalReview(2006)highlightanimportantandproblematicdetailofchesseducation:“Whilechesseducationisbeneficialatthebeginning,thisbenefitdecreasesaschessskillsgrow”(Gobet&Campitelli,2006,p.25).Thishappensbecauseinchessthepropertiesofspacearelearnedquicklyandatthatpointthelearningpromotedbythegameissaturated.Thetruthafterall,asKostersays,isthat“Thefunofgamescomesfromapprenticeship.Itcomesfromunderstanding...Whenplaying,learningisdrugs”(2004,p.8-9).

Cookdefinesgamemechanicsas“rule-basedsystems\simulationsthatfacilitateandencouragetheusertoexploreandlearnthepropertiesofthespaceofpossibilitythroughtheuseoffeedbackmechanisms”(2006).Thelatterdefinitionperfectlyexplainstherelationshipbetweenmechanicsandfeedback,focusingontheconceptoflearning.Modernboardgamesallowtoexploreaveryvastandcomplexworld,wherethestrategiesundertakenaredifferentineachgame.Inagametableitisnotuncommontoseethe“AnalysisParalysis,”aphenomenonthatafflictsplayerswhoaretoostrategic,

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2019

3

whoabruptlyslowdownthegamebycalculatingcostsandbenefitsofeverysinglemove.Thisisbecausemanymoderngamesrequireahighcognitiveload,causedbytwocomponents:complexityandcomplication.Complexityreferstothenumberofchoicestobeconsideredateachturnandthesetoflong-termconsequencesthatsuchchoicesimply.AnexampleisDominantSpecies(Jensen,2010), agameofmajorities,where in each turnyouhaveawide rangeofoptions thatmustbecalculatedfor3/5hours.Anotherexampleis“Go”wheretworulesimplyextremecomplexityandfreedomofplay;thepossiblemovesinthisgameinfactare2,08×10170.AKoreanproverbsaysthatnoGogamehasbeenplayedtwice.Thecomplicacyrefersinsteadtotheabundanceofruleswithconsequentsubrules,specialcasesandexceptions.AnexampleinthiscaseisrepresentedbyArkhamHorror(Launius&Wilson,2005)averysimplegameinthemechanicsbutwithanextremelylongregulationofabout60pages,includingFAQ.Ifwewantedtocreateaclassificationwecoulddividethegamesinto4macro-categories:1.Childrengames,thataregamesforchildren;2.Familygames,developed for families and casual players; 3. Gateways, translated into “passing,” with mediumdifficulty;4.Hardcoregames,hardgames, for experiencedplayers.Moderngamesarecreative,everyyearhundredsofnewmoreandmoreinterestinggamesarelaunched;thegamemechanics,hithertoconsideredasfundamental,areoverturned;boardgamesareconstantlyevolving.TakeforexampleTheMind(Warsch,2018),a4-playercooperativefamilygame,whichisdescribedintheboardgamegeek.comforumasfollows“TheMindismorethanjustagame.It’sanexperiment,ajourney,ateamexperienceinwhichyoucan’texchangeinformation,yetwillbecomeonetodefeatallthelevelsofthegame.”InTheMind(Warsch,2018)thereisadeckwithcardsnumberedfrom1to100,eachplayerreceivesahandcomposedofasmanycardsasthelevel(Level1,1cardtoeachplayer,level2,2cardstoeachplayer,etc..)andthepurposeistoplaythecardsinascendingorder,inturn,withoutbeingabletocommunicateinanyway.Therearealmost100,000gamesintheboardgamegeek.comdatabase(thelargestsitespecializedinboardgames)wherewecanfindgamesforeverytypeofuser.Arecentresearch(Willet,Moudgalya,Boltz,Greenhalgh,&Koehler,2018)hasanalyzedmorethan7millionreviewsofboardgamesintheboardgamegeek.comforumandonly1,978(0.1%)containedtheword“education.”Thisreflectsanunderestimationbyplayersoftheeducationalvalueofboardgames.NeitherMonopolynorRisikowillbediscussedhere.Theproblemwiththistypeoftitlesistheveryhighrandomcomponent.InMonopolyeveryturnhasacompletelyrandomoutcome:Ithrowthedice,IarriveintheBoardwalk,Iloseeverything!Thisway,thegamelosesthatsenseofintellectualchallengethatmostplayersarelookingfor.Moderngamesdonoteliminaterandomness,onthecontrarytheyturnitintoanimportantstrategicdetail,namelyprobability.Forinstance,inDiceForge(Bonnessée,2017),thedicescanbemodified,thefacescanberemovedandreplaced,theplayermustcreatehis/herowndiceprogressivelyenhancingitaccordingtotherulesofthegame,arealdicebuildingmechanics.Boardgamesallowathree-dimensionalcontactwiththepieces:touchingthepieces,movingthemandhavingacontactwithrealcomponents,accordingtoHeydenetal.(2017),isessentialforchildrenaged8to12years,becauseithelpsthemtoputintopracticetheirspatialandobjectrotationskills.Inrecentyears,manyboardgameshavebeendigitized.Itwasaneconomicallyinevitableprocess,whichprofoundlychangesthegameplay.Rogersonetal.(2015)havecarriedoutaninterestingresearchproject,analyzingproblemsandcriticalitiesoftherealanddigitalversionsofboardgames.Inshort,whatemergesisadrasticchangeinstrategiescausedbytheabsenceofface-to-faceplaying.Asanexample,thetracks,theclassicscoreboards,giveavisualperceptionofthepositioninthegamecomparedtootherplayers,indigitalversionthetracksdisappearbecausetheytakeuptoomuchspaceonthescreenandaretransformedintoamerenumberthatundergoesincreases;theperceptionchangescompletely,eliminatingthecomparativecomponent.Inanycase,manygameswithoutrealcontactwouldnotevenexist.Theanalogueanddigitalgamemodesareverydifferentandneverthelessadaptable.Thereareprojectsthattrytocombinetheadvantagesofarealgamingenvironmentwithinavirtualgamingenvironment,asin“MansionsofMadness”whereadashboardwiththumbnailsisflankedbyadigitalnarrativeenvironment.Gameshavetheabilitytocreateenvironmentsthatencourageteamwork.Inthelastfew

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2019

4

years,thecollaborativegamessectorhasbeenverysuccessful.Inschoolssomedidactictoolshavebeenintroduced,suchastheauthentictasksbasedonsimilardynamicsencouraging,andsometimesforcing,cooperation.ApopularcollaborativegameisPandemic,astrategiccooperativefamilygamefor2-4players.InPandemicweplayasdiseas-fightersandtheaimofthegameistocollaborateinordertodefeat4strainsofdiseases.TheinterestingthingaboutPandemicisthatitforcesplayerstoworktogether,aseachplayerinfacthasspecialskillsthatmustnecessarilybeusedtodefeatthegame.AccordingtoaresearchbyBerlandandLee(2011)cooperativegamessuchasPandemicareaperfectenvironmentforthedevelopmentofacomputationalthinking.

HypothesisTheaimofthisworkistoverifyhowmuchnon-randomboardgamescancontributetothedevelopmentofcertainlearnings,bothspecific(disciplinary)andgeneral(basicandtransversalskills).Sincethisisalargelyunexploredterritory,wewantedtoverifywhatskillsexperiencedplayersdevelopedcomparedtonon-playersandwhateffectscouldproduceatrainingguidedbyboardgames.Inparticular,wewantedtoverifyiftherewasacontributionofgamesinthedevelopmentoffluidintelligence,thedevelopmentofanalyticalandconvergingcognitiveprocessesandcreativity.

MaterialsFivetestswereusedintheinvestigation,inpaperordigitalformattheoptionofthesubject.(1)TheRaven’smatricesPM38(PM38),whichmeasurethefluidintelligence,usedforbothchildrenandadults,andinparticularthePM38seriesDandE.TheFluidIntelligenceconstruct,introducedbyCattell(1963),referstotheabilitytoadaptownthinkingpatternstonewproblems,regardlessoftheacquiredknowledge.Fluidintelligenceiscriticalinawidevarietyofcognitivetestsandisconsideredtobeoneofthemostimportantfactorsinfluencinglearning.(Gray&Thompson,2004)(2)TheRemoteAssociationTest(RAT)byMednickandMednick(1971).Thetestissimple:fourwordsarepresentedandthesubjectmustfindthewordrelatedtothosefour.Theitems,orseriesof4wordsforeachtestwere30,presentedinrandomorderand,amongthem,therewere15easyand15difficultitems.Twoformsweredeveloped,AandB.TheBformdiffersfor50%oftheitemsfromtheAform.Thefirstform(A)wasusedforthecomparisongroupandforthepre-testinthechildren’sgroup;theformBwasusedforthepost-test.ThetestisgenerallyusedtomeasurecreativepotentialaccordingtoMednick’stheory(1962),butithasbeendemonstrated(Lee,CorinneHuggins,&Therriault,2014)thattheRATtestevaluatescognitiveprocessessimilartothoseofawiderangeofotheranalyticalandconvergingprocesses.(3)AlternativeUsestask(AUT)byGuilford(1976)whichmeasuresthesubject’sabilitytothinkinadivergentway.Inthistestacommonobjectispresented,inourcaseitwasapaperclipandthesubjectisasked“Howmanyusescanyoufindforthisobject?.”

Inthiscase,weneedtospecifythatthecorrectionwasmadebycountingtheusesfoundwithoutconsideringrepeatedanswersforthefinalscore.Suchas:“Hitatyre”and“Hitaballoon.”(4)ThegraphictestofthecreativitybyPaulTorrance,andinparticulartheactivity3calledLinesandCircles(GRAF):inthistestarepresentedtwosheetswithwhitefigures(inourcase,circles),andweaskedthesubjectstosimplycompletetheminacreativeway.TheevaluationcriteriahavebeenspeciallydevelopedandsummarizedinTable1.

(5)Theproblem-solvinginventory(PSI),kindlygrantedbytheresearchersoftheUniversityofPadovawhodealwiththeItaliantranslation.Inthiscasethetestiscomposedoftwoforms,oneforadultsandoneforchildren.Itisdividedintothreescales:

1. “Self-efficacy in own problem-solving skills,thatisthedegreeofconfidenceinownskillstocopewithdifficultsituations.Itisanindexofself-confidencewhichcanhelptomanagethedifficultiesarisen.”

2. “Tendency to deal with difficult situations,thatisthewillingnesstodealwithoravoiddifficultsituationsthatrequireproblem-solvingskills.”

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2019

5

3. “Self-control ability,thatishowmuchapersonbelievestobeabletocontrolownemotionseveninthecaseofproblematicsituations.”

DesignThestudyexaminestwogroups,anadultgroup(n=45)andagroupofchildren(n=20).Thegroupofadultsiscomposedof21experiencedplayersand24non-players;inordertoselecttheexperiencedplayers,agroupof21playerswasanalysedtodefineatimethresholdallowingtoidentifyexperiencedplayers.These21playersarepartofmoreassociationsoffansofboardgames,inparticularitisfairtomentionthemostimportant:HydraGames,TanadelGoblinPerugia.Thankstotheircontributionthethresholdwasidentifiedinfivehoursperweekinordertodivideexperiencedplayersfromnon-players.54%ofexperiencedplayersreportedplayingmorethan8hoursperweek.Non-playerswereselectedpayingattentionincomposingagroupwhereageandlevelofeducationwerethesameasthoseoftheexperiencedplayers.Thisprocedureofgroupassignmenthasallowedtohaveanaverageageandaverysimilarlevelofeducationinthetwogroups(playersandnon-players),tothedetrimentofarandomizationofthesample.Theaverageagewas29.25intheexpertgroupand27.14inthegroupofnon-players.Theaveragelevelofeducation,measuredasyearsofstudy,was15.29inthegroupofexpertsand14.80inthegroupofnon-players.

In the nonrandomized control group pretest-posttest design with children, the experimentalgroupwasconventionallyselected, thanksto theavailabilityof thePerugiaScienceMuseumforsummeractivities.Thecontrolgroupwas selectedwithinanassociation that carriedout similaractivities,payingattentiontomaintainingasimilaraverageage.Theexperimentalgroupconsistedof10childrenwithanimbalancebetweengirlsandboys,respectively9and1.Thecontrolgroupconsistedof10children.Theaverageageofthecontrolgroupwas12.7years,whiletheaverageageoftheexperimentalgroupwas11.2years.

TrainingThegroupofadultsdidnotcarryoutanytraining.Inthisgroup,infact,asinglemeasurementwascarriedout.TheanalysisofchildrenconsideredanonrandomizedControlGroupPretest-Posttest.Theexperimentalgroupcarriedoutatrainingof26hoursbyplayingboardgames,inaccordancewithTrinchero’sresearchonchess(2012),25hoursoftrainingistheminimumtimerequiredtoobserveaneffect.Inthemeantime,thecontrolgrouphascarriedouttraditionalteachingactivities,bygoingtocompulsoryschoolnormallylikeanyotherdayoftheweek.

Table 1. GRAF correction criteria

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2019

6

The26actualhoursof training (excludingpre-andpost-test)weredivided into threehoursa day, fromMonday toFriday, over 2weeks. In accordancewith Gobet andCampitelli (2006),“compulsatoriness”underminesmotivation;consequently,aplanwasimplementedthatwouldallowthesubjectstoleavethetrainingatanytime.Nochildleftthetraining.Atypicalmorninginvolvedchildrenfrom10to1:30p.m.,withappropriatebreaksandwell-structuredactivitiessothatnooneremainedwithoutplaying.Thefirstdayoftrainingwasdedicatedtotheexplanationofthegamesandtheirrules,andinthefollowingdayschildrentriedinturnallthegames.Afterthisphasetheresearchers left the children free to plan their days according to their personal preferences. Thegamesusedduringthetrainingrequiredaseparationintoseveralgroups.Intheeventthatagroupfinisheditsgamebeforeanothergroup, itwas invited toreflecton thestrategiesused.After thefirsttrainingdays,thesubjectsspontaneouslystartedtoexchangeopinionsonthestrategies.Inthisphaseofsharing,strategiclearningemergedthroughthecomparisonofthegamemodesused.Thisprocessalsoemergedinthetestingphaseoftheexperiencedadults,whocarriedoutthetestsinsmallgroupsof5/7people.Thesubjectswerepurposelyseparatedbutdespitethistheytriedatallcoststocollaborate:inRaven’smatrices,forexample,theytriedtoworktogetherinordertodiscoverthevariablesonwhichtofocus(suchastheanglesofthefiguresorthenumberoflines).Clearly,despitethepressures,anykindofexchangethatcouldcompromisethevalidityofthetestswaslimited.Themechanismstheyputinplacewerenotatallamerecopying.AsimilarprocessemergedalsointheRATtest:attheendofthetestthesubjectswhohadtakenthetestdiscussedanimatedlyonthepossiblesolutionstothedifferentitems.Inconclusion,thesebehavioursarerepresentativeoftheseriousnessandinvolvementthatthegamehasstimulated.

GAMESTheboardgamesusedduringthetrainingare13,listedbelow:

Splendor(André,2014)byMarcAndré,astrategicFamilygamefor2-4players.InSplendorweplayasmerchantsofRenaissancegemsandtheaimofthegameistobuyasmanyaspossibleofdevelopmentcardsthroughgemsandpermanentbonusesthatgiveagoodprogressionofthegame.Thisgamewaschosenbothbecauseithasmanyelementsofreasoningintheshortandlongtermandbecauseitrequiresalotofattention;theactionsofotherplayersandthecontinuouschangesinthedashboardofthegamehavetobeconstantlymonitored.

Ticket to Ride Europa(Moon,2005)byAlanR.Moon,aFamilystrategicgamefor2-5players.Thegamehassimpleandelegantmechanics,itcanbelearnedin5minutesandlastsaboutanhour.TheaiminTickettorideistobuildrailwaylinesaroundcontinentalEurope.Thisneweditionismuchmoreinterestingthanthepreviousonesbecauseitrequiresacarefulplanningoftheroutesbytheplayer.

The Castles of Burgundy(Feld,2011)byStefanFeld,astrategygamefor2-4playerslastingabout90minutes.Thegameisverysimpleinthemechanicsbuthidesawidestrategiccomplexity,whichiswhyitisappreciatedbybothexperiencedandcasualplayers.Theaimofthegameinshortistobuildanownfeudwithdifferenttypesofcardseachofwhichallowstoreceivemoreorlesspointsdependingonthecombinations.Amongthegamesused,thisisoneofthemostcomplexbutnoparticulardifficultieshaveemerged.Therangeofchoicesforeachturnislimitedbyarandomcomponentaseachplayerusestwodicethatdependingontheresultcanfavorcertainstrategiesoverothers.Therandomnessisnotvery“felt”thankstothemodifiersthatcanadd+1/-1tothedierollandthroughsomecombinationsitisevenpossibletoreacha+2/-2.Thechoiceofthisgamehasbeeninfluencedmainlybythestrategiccomponent.

Eight-Minute empire(Laukat,2012)byRyanLaukat,strategicfamilygamefor2-5players.Thegameisbasedontwomainmechanics:controlofterritoriesandcollectionofasetofcards;theactionsoftheplayersaremediatedbythecoinsreceivedatthebeginningofthegame.Asforthedurationthetitleisquiteoptimistic,usuallyrangingbetween8and20minutes.Itwaschosen

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2019

7

becauseusuallygameswithterritorycontrolareverylong(forexample“Risiko”).Eight-Minuteempirecaninsteaddrasticallyreducethedurationwithoutlosingthedirectinteractiondevelopedbythiskindofgames.

Dobble(Spotit!)(Balnchot,2009)byDenisBlanchotandGhostBlitz(Zeimet,2010)byJacquesZeimet,aretwopartygamesofvisualresearchandspeed.Therulesarereallyminimalandtheskillsrequiredareexclusivelymanual.Gamesofthistypearealsocalled“fillers,”thatisgamestofillthedowntimebetweenaheaviergameandtheother.Dobble,GhostBlitzandBellzwereintroducedbecauseoftheneedtorepresentthewiderangeofboardgamesonthemarket.Becauseoftheireaseandimmediacy,theyareamongthemostusedgames.

Bellz!(Reid,2014)byDonReidisafillerofdexterity.Theaimofthegameistocapturethelargestnumberofbellswithamagneticpen.Theskillsrequiredarepurelymanualandthedurationisveryshort:about10minutes.InBellz!Itisrequiredtoworkwithprecision,thebellsinfactreachtinysizeanditbecomesreallydifficulttocatchthemwiththemagnet.

Carcassonne (Wrede,2000)byKlaus-JürgenWrede, a strategic familygame for2-6players. Itis amodularmapgame, inwhich thedashboard is createdby theplayersduring thegame.Thismechanics,otherthanbeingthemainstrategy,ensuresalwaysdifferentgames.Inshort,eachplayerintheirturntakesamapcardandattachesittothemaindashboard:thescoresarecalculatedbasedonthepositiononthemapoftheir“meeple.”Whenplayedwithasmallnumberofplayers(2/3)Carcassonneoffersmanyopportunitiestodevelopshortandlong-termstrategies,asthechancesofcatchingcardsusefultotheownstrategyincreasesignificantly.Thisgamewaschosenbecauseofitsveryinterestingmechanicsand,inrecentyears,ithasbecomeverypopularamongcasualplayers.

Soqquadro (Luciani, Tucci, & Sorrentino, Soqquadro, 2014) and Soqquadro outdoor (Luciani,Tucci,&Sorrentino,SoqquadroOutdoor,2016)bySimoneLuciani,LorenzoTucciSorrentino,DanieleTascini,apartyactiongamefor2-12players.Soqquadroisaninterestinggamebecauseitmovestherealgameplayawayfromthetable.Inshort,thereareabout100cards,eachofwhichhasoneormoreadjectivessuchas“green”or“soft.”Theaimoftheplayersistoexplorethesurroundingenvironmentlookingforanobjectthatcanmatchthedescription.Soqquadrowaschosenbecauseitpushesplayerstofindcreativesolutionstosolveaprobleminashorttimewithinthedailyenvironment.

Dixit(Roubira,2008)byJean-LuisRoubira,partygamefor3-6players.Dixitisoneoftheveryfewgamesthatmanagestostimulateempathiccontactbetweenplayers.Inthisgamethereisnostrategy,inthisgameyouonlyhavetouseyourimagination,intuition,senseofhumorandabitofmadness.Dixitconsistsofjust84cardsillustratedwithparticularlydreamlikefiguresandascoreboard;andbehindtheseminimalcomponents,ajourneyhides.Itwaschosenforhisabilitytotraintheimaginationandencouragemetaphoricalreasoningandcreativity.

Hive(Yianni,2001)byJhonYianni,anabstract2-playergame.Hiveconsistsoftwenty-twohexagonal,elevenblackandelevenwhitepieces,eachrepresentingavarietyofcreatureswithauniquewayofmoving.Theaimofthegameisto“block”theopponent’squeenbee.InHivethepiecescannotbeeliminatedorremovedfromthegame:asaresult,thegameplayisinconstanttensionandhidesagreatstrategiccomplexity,asplayershavetoplan,defendthemselvescunninglyandattacksilently.

Concept (Alain&Beaujannot,2013)byAlainRivolletandGaëtanBeaujannot,deductionpartygamefor4-12players.InConceptthereisaboardwithillustrationsthatdescribeawiderangeofoptionsinreality,suchas:“wide,”“square,”“red,”“music”etc.Inturn,oneortwoplayers,dependingonthenumberofparticipants,chooseawordoraphraseandthroughconceptsandsub-conceptsmustmakeotherplayersguess,placingcubes,withouttalking.TheadvantageofConceptistheenormouscreativefreedomthatislefttotheplayers(animportantfactorthathasledthechoice):theonewhoknowsthewordcaninfactusethousandsofmodestogetotherplayerstothesolution.

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2019

8

RESULTS

Theanalysisofthettest,asregardsthecomparisonbetweenexpertsandnon-players(Figure1),showssignificantresultsintheRemoteAssociationTest(RAT)test(t=2.884;p<.01),intheRavenMatrixes(SPM38)(t=4.979;p<.001),inthedivergentthinkingtest(DIV)(t=3.021;p<.01),andintheGraphicTest(GRAF)(t=2.492;p<.05).AsfarasthePSIscale2and3areconcerned,thestatisticsarenotrelevant.Scale1oftheproblem-solvinginventory,whichreferstothe“degreeofconfidencethatapersonhasinownabilitytocopewithdifficultsituations”(La.r.i.o.s.-UniversityofPadua)issignificantbetweengroups,withnon-expertsgrouphigherthanexperimentalgroup.(t=-3.201;p<.01).

Figure2showsthemeansoftheincrementsinthegroupofchildren.Inordertoevaluatethevariationinthetwogroupsofchildren,weproceededwiththeanalysisofthebaselineoftheentrytests.Themeanswerenotsignificantlydifferent.Fromthet-testanalysis,asignificantincreasewasfoundfortheexperimentalgroupintheRemoteAssociationtest(RAT)(t=2.521;p<.05),intheRavenmatrices(SPM)(t=4.125;p<.001),andinthedivergentthinkingtest(DIV)(t=2.381;p<.05).

DISCUSSIoN

Theresultsofthecognitivetests(GraphicTest,AlternativeUsesTask,RemoteAssociationTestandRavenMatrices)arerelevantforexperiencedplayersandforchildren.Experiencedplayersscorehigherthannon-playersintheRavenmatrices;similarly,childrenbeingtrainedscoresignificantlyhigherthantheircontrolgroup.TheRavenmatriceshavealreadybeenused(Unterrainer,Kaller,&Halsband,2006),andtherearenosubstantialdifferencesbetweenexperiencedchessplayersandnon-players.Hänggietal. (2014), studiedchessgrandmasters throughan in-depthanalysis fromwhichaninterestingfactemerges:Ravenmatricesdonotproducesignificantresultscomparedtothoseofthecontrolgroup.Thesampleusedisverysimilartoourownintermsofage,educationandamplitudeand inouranalysis theRavenmatricesshowedanexcellent levelofsignificance.

Figure 1. Results of the group of children, Effect size (Means of the increments, difference between post-test and pre-test), bars denote the standard error

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2019

9

ThechessmastersinfactuseareasoningbasedonpatternsandthereforeadifferenttypefromtheconstructmeasuredbytheRavenmatrices(Gobet,DeVoogt,&Retschitzki,2004).IntheRemoteAssociationTest(RAT),expertscoresfarexceedthoseofnon-players,evenwiththesameaveragetime.TheRATtestscores,asexpected,areinlinewiththoseofdivergentthinkingandcreativity,demonstratingexcellentsemanticproblem-solvingskills.Expertshavealsosuccessfullysolvedmoredifficultitemsincomparisonwithnon-players.Inthechildren’scontrolgrouptherewasadrasticdropintheaveragetimeofcompletionoftheRATtest.Theaveragetimeofentryis15.40minuteswhiletheaveragetimeofexitis9.49minutes.Thisresultsinfewercorrectitems.Intheexperimentalgroupwedidnotseethiseffect,whichindicatesthatthetraininghas,inaway,helpedchildrentofocusonacomplextask.SimilarcriticalitiesalsoemergeintheRavenmatriceswhereitcanbeobservedaloweringofthescorebetweentheincomingandoutgoingtestsofthecontrolgroup.Intheanalysisontheadults,thescale1oftheproblem-solvinginventory(self-efficacyinownproblem-solvingskills)issignificantforthenon-playergroup.Theresultsofscale2(Tendencytodealwithdifficultsituations)arenotstatisticallysignificantbutthereisaslighttrendinfavourofthenon-playergroup.Scale3(Self-controlability),likescale2,doesnotshowastatisticallysignificantinteraction.Inthechildren’sgroupwenoticeanincreaseintheoutputscoresinscale1and2inbothgroups,whileinscale3wenoticeadecreaseinthescoresintheexperimentalgroup.Apossibleexplanationisthatplayerstesttheirskills,andwhentheyplay,theyfaceimportantcognitiveobstacles.Strategiespursuedtoovercomethemarenotalwaysoptimal.Theperfectcost/benefitbalanceisnoteasytocalculateevenconsideringtheminimumrisk.Anexplanationcouldbethatchildrenoftheexperimentalgroup,aswellastheexperts,testedtheirskillsbyplayingandfoundthatoftenitisnotsoeasytosolveaprobleminacomplexenvironment.

Inaway,they“camebackdowntoearth.”Beinginacomplexenvironmentmakethemre-evaluatetheirownskills.Thecomparisonisthereforeproductivebutextremelyself-critical.Let’snotforgetthatcognitiveresultsindicateasubstantialincreaseinskillsaftertraining.Boardgames,thoseplayedbyadultsandthoseusedduringtraining,couldrepresentanactivityofcognitiveinterventionforworkingmemory.InSplendor,forexample,itisrequiredtoconstantlymonitorthegametablekeepinginmindalotofinformation:thenumberofgemsonthetableandinownspaceandthe16developmentcards

Figure 2. Results of the group of adults (Means of the raw scores), bars denote the standard error

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2019

10

constantlychanging.Inadditiontothis,theplayermustplanhisownstrategyandcarefullycontrolthestrategiesofotherplayers,whomayhinderhimatanytime.Inaresearch(Campitelli,Gobet,Head,Buckley,&Parker,2007)anactivationofthefrontalandparietalareasrelatedtoworkingmemoryaroseduringtherecognitionofpatternonchessboardbychessgrandmasters.ThesameresultsemergedinXiaohongetal.(2011),wheretheposteriorprecuneusshowedagreateractivationinboardgames(shogi)comparedtoothervisualstimuliinbothprofessionalandamateurplayers.Fromtheseclueswecouldhypothesizealinkbetweenboardgamesandworkingmemory.Inanotherresearch(Jaeggi,Buschkuehl,Jonides,&Perrig,2008)ithasbeenobservedanimprovementinthescoresoffluidintelligenceafteratrainingwithworkingmemory(dualn-backtask),andtheresultsareconfirmedbyarecentmeta-analysis(Auetal.,2015).Ifboardgameswereaformofworkingmemorytraining,wecouldexplainthescoresinRaven’smatricesthatmeasurefluidintelligence.AsfortheRattestandthedivergentthinkingtest,theresultscanbeexplainedthroughtheanalysisofthegamesusedfortraining.ThemechanicsofConceptreflectsMednick’stheorizationofcreativity:“Theformationofassociativeelementsinnewcombinationsthatfollowspecificrequirementstoderivemeaningandusefulness”(Mednick,1962,p.221).Inthisgame,infact,playershavetouseasetofillustrations(eachofthemreferringtoaconcept)toexplainacertainwordorphrase.Inordertobeabletoguesstheword,playersmustnecessarilyputinplaceacreativeprocess,thesolutionisnotlinearsothatitisnecessarytofocusonthedetailsofeachwordorphrase.SomeevidencethatemergedinformallyduringthetrainingactivityshowstheemergingofaFlowexperience(Csikszentmihalyi,1975)duringthegame:futureresearchmayanswerthisquestion.

CoNCLUSIoN

Theresultsshowapositiveeffectofthetrainingintheexperimentalgrouponboththecognitiveandthecreativeside.Similarresultsemergeinthecomparisonanalysisbetweenexperiencedadultsandnon-players.Thesetofresultsgivesustheopportunitytodemonstratehownon-randomboardgamescanbeanimportantstimulusforcognitivefunctions,eveninlearning.Gamestudiesinrecentyearshavemainlyfocusedonthenegativeeffectsofvideogames.Recently,theWordHealthOrganization(WHO)statedthatitwillincludeintheICD-11the“gamingdisorder,”apathologyforaddictiontovideogames.Butwearegoinginthewrongdirection,weneedtohaveamorebalancedperspective.Whileitisimportanttowarnabouttherisksassociatedwithaddiction,itisalsotruethatthepotentialofgamesisstilllargelyunexplored.Weneedtocreateseriousgames,weneedtocreategamesthatencouragediscovery,knowledgeandart.Ifthesemechanismswork,andthosewhoproducegamesknowthis,whydowenotusethemtoinvolveandstimulatestudentsineducation?Weneedtomakeourworld,andespeciallyourschool,morelikeagametomaketeachingareal“epicmission,”asJaneMcGonigalsays.Itwouldbeinterestinginthefuturetoseehowmuchtheseresultscanbeachievedwithlargergroupsanddifferentagegroups.Itwouldalsobeinterestingtoverifylongitudinallytheschoolresultsandlistentotheteachers’feedback,aswellastoverifyspecificdisciplinarylearning.

LimitsFuturestudieswithalargersampleandbetterinternalvaliditywillclarifytheprocessesthatemergeandaredrivenbyboardgames.

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2019

11

REFRENCES

Alain,R.,&Beaujannot,G.(2013).Concept.BoardgameGeek.Retrievedfromhttps://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/147151/concept

André,M.(2014).Splendor.BoardgameGeek.Retrievedfromhttps://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/148228/splendor

Au,J.,Sheehan,E.,Tsai,N.,Duncan,G.,Buschkuehl,M.,&Jaeggi,S.(2015).Improvingfluidintelligencewithtrainingonworkingmemory:Ameta-analysis.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,22(2),366–377.doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0699-xPMID:25102926

Balnchot,D.(2009).Spot it!BoardgameGeek.Retrievedfromhttps://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/63268/spot-it

Berland,M.,&Lee,V. (2011).Collaborative strategicboardgamesasa site fordistributedcomputationalthinking.International Journal of Game-Based Learning,1(2),65–81.

Bonnessée, R. (2017). Dice Forge. Boardgame Geek. Retrieved from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/194594/dice-forge

Campitelli,G.,Gobet,F.,Head,K.,Buckley,M.,&Parker,A.(2007).Brainlocalizationofmemorychunksinchessplayers.InternationalJournal of Neuroscience,117(12),1641–1659.PMID:17987468

Cattell,R.(1963).Theoryoffluidandcrystallizedintelligence:Acriticalexperiment.Journal of Educational Psychology,54(1),1–22.doi:10.1037/h0046743

Cook,D.(2006).What are game mechanics?LostGarden.Retrievedfromhttp://www.lostgarden.com/2006/10/what-are-game-mechanics.html

Csikszentmihalyi,M.(1975).Beyond Boredom and anxiety.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.

Csikszentmihalyi,M.,&Figurski,T.(1982).Self‐awarenessandaversiveexperienceineverydaylife.Journal of Personality,50(1),15–19.doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1982.tb00742.x

Csikszentmihalyi,M.,&Massimini,F.(1985).Onthepsychologicalselectionofbio-culturalinformation.New Ideas in Psychology,3(2),115–138.doi:10.1016/0732-118X(85)90002-9

Djakov,I.,Rudik,P.,&Petrovskij,N.(1927).Psychologie Des Schachspiels.Berlino:deGruyter.

Feld, S. (2011). The Castles of Burgundy. Retrieved from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/84876/castles-burgundy

Gobet,F.,&Campitelli,G.(2006).Educationalbenefitsofchessinstruction:Acriticalreview.InChessandEducation:SelectedessaysfromtheKoltanowskiconference(p.124-143).AcademicPress.

Gobet,F.,&Campitelli,G.(2006).Educationalbenefitsofchessinstruction:ACriticalReview.InChessandEducation:SelectedessaysfromtheKoltanowskiconference,(p.124-143).AcademicPress.

Gobet,F.,DeVoogt,A.,&Retschitzki,J.(2004).Movesinmind.ThePsychologyofBoardGames.

Gray,J.,&Thompson,P.(2004).Neurobiologyofintelligence:Scienceandethics.Nature Reviews. Neuroscience,5(6),471–482.doi:10.1038/nrn1405PMID:15152197

Groos,K.(1898).Theplayofanimals.NewYork:Appleton.doi:10.1037/12894-000

Hänggi, J., Brütsch, K., Siegel, A., & Jäncke, L. (2014). The architecture of the chess player’s brain.Neuropsychologia,62,152–162.doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.07.019PMID:25065494

Heyden,K.,Huizinga,M.,&Jolles,J.(2017).Effectsofaclassroominterventionwithspatialplaymaterialsonchildren’sobjectandviewertransformationabilities.Developmental Psychology,53(2),290-305.

Hoeft,F.,Watson,C.,Kesler,S.,Bettinger,K.,&Reiss,A.(2008).Genderdifferencesinthemesocorticolimbicsystem during computer game-play. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 42(4), 253–258. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2007.11.010PMID:18194807

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2019

12

Huizinga,J.(1967).Homo Ludens.Milano:IlSaggiatore.

Jaeggi,S.,Buschkuehl,M., Jonides, J.,&Perrig,W. (2008). Improving fluid intelligencewith trainingonworkingmemory.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,105(19),6829–6833.doi:10.1073/pnas.0801268105PMID:18443283

Jensen, C. (2010). Dominant Species. Boardgame Geek. Retrieved from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/62219/dominant-species

Koster,R.(2004).A theory of Fun for Game Design.Phoenix:ParaglyphPress.

Land,G.,&Jarman,B.(1993).Breakpoint and beyond: Mastering the future today.NewYork:HarperCollins.

La.r.i.o.s.–UniversitàdegliStudidiPadova.(n.d.).ManualeperloscoringdelProblemSolvingInventory.

Laukat, R. (2012). Eight-Minute Empire. Boardgame Geek. Retrieved from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/131366/eight-minute-empire

Launius,R.,&Wilson,K.(2005).Arkham Horror.BoardgameGeek.Retrievedfromhttps://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/15987/arkham-horror

Lee,C.,CorinneHuggins,A.,&Therriault,D.(2014).Ameasureofcreativityorintelligence?Examininginternalandexternalstructurevalidityevidenceoftheremoteassociatestest.Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,8(4),446–460.doi:10.1037/a0036773

Lorenz,K.(1983).Der Abbau des Menschlinchen.Munchen:PiperVerlagGmbh.

Luciani, S., Tucci, L., & Sorrentino, D. (2014). Soqquadro. Boardgame Geek. Retrieved from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/160614/soqquadro

Luciani,S.,Tucci,L.,&Sorrentino,D.(2016).Soqquadro Outdoor.BoardgameGeek.Retrievedfromhttps://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/204992/soqquadro-outdoor

McGonigal,J.(2011).Reality is Broken.NewYork:ThePenguinPress.

Mednick,M.,&Mednick,S.(1971).Remote associates test.HoughtonMifflin.

Mednick,S.A.(1962).Theassociativebasisofthecreativeprocess.Psychological Review,69.PMID:14472013

Metcalfe,J.(2017).Learningfromerrors.Annual Review of Psychology,68(1),465–489.doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044022PMID:27648988

Moon, A. (2005). Ticket to Ride: Europe. Boardgame Geek. Retrieved from https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/14996/ticket-ride-europe

Nakamura,J.,&Csikszentmihalyi,M.(2002).TheConceptofFlow.InS.Lopez&C.Snyder(Eds.),Handbook of positive psychology(pp.89–105).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Piaget,J.(1972).IntellectualEvolutionfromAdolescencetoAdulthood.Human Development,15(1),1–12.doi:10.1159/000271225

Ravaja, N., Saari, T., Salminen, M., Laarni, J., & Kallinen, K. (2006). Phasic Emotional Reactions toVideoGameEvents:APsychophysiological Investigation.Media Psychology,8(4), 343–367. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0804_2

Reid,D.(2014).Bellz!BoardgameGeek.Retrievedfromhttps://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/167292/bellz

Rogerson,M.,Gibbs,M.,&Smith,W.(2015).Digitising Boardgames: Issues and Tensions.Melbourne:MicrosoftResearchCentreforSocialNaturalUserInterfaces.

Roubira,J.-L.(2008).Dixit.BoardgameGeek.Retrievedfromhttps://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/39856/dixit

Sala,G.,&Gobet,F.(2016).Dothebenefitsofchessinstructiontransfertoacademicandcognitiveskills?Ameta-analysis.Educational Research Review,18,46–57.doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2016.02.002

Sudnow,D.(1983).Pilgrim in the Microword.NewYork:WarnerBooks.

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2019

13

Trinchero,R.(2012).Gli scacchi, un gioco per crescere. Sei anni di sperimentazione nella scuola primaria.Milano:FrancoAngeli.

Trinchero,R.(2012).Gli scacchi, un gioco per crescere: sei anni di sperimentazione nella scuola primaria.Roma:F.Angeli.

Unterrainer,J.,Kaller,C.,Halsband,U.,&Rahm,B.(2006).Planningabilitiesandchess:Acomparisonofchessandnon-chessplayerson theTowerofLondon task.British Journal of Psychology,97(3),299–311.doi:10.1348/000712605X71407PMID:16848944

Vygotsky,L.(1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological functions.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Warsch,W.(2018).The Mind.BoardgameGeek.Retrievedfromhttps://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/244992/mind

Willet, B., Moudgalya, S., Boltz, L., Greenhalgh, S., & Koehler, M. (2018). Back to the Gaming Board:UnderstandingGamesandEducationthroughBoardGameReviews.InSociety for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference(pp.495-503).AcademicPress.

Wrede,K.-J.(2000).Carcassonne.BoardgameGeek.Retrievedfromhttps://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/822/carcassonne

Xiaohong,W.,Hironori,N.,Kenichi,U.,Takeshi,A.,Kang,C.,&Keiji,T.(2011).TheNeuralBasisofIntuitiveBestNext-MoveGenerationinBoardGameExperts.Science,331(6015),341–346.doi:10.1126/science.1194732PMID:21252348

Yianni,J.(2001).Hive.BoardgameGeek.Retrievedfromhttps://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2655/hive

Zeimet,J.(2010).Ghost Blitz.BoardgameGeek.Retrievedfromhttps://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/83195/ghost-blitz

International Journal of Game-Based LearningVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2019

14

Marco Bartolucci is a post-doc researcher, AND PhD in neuroscience. Among the research fields: prevention and countering of school dispersion; cognitive empowerment; reading and narrative listening processes, relations between neurosciences and learning. As a clinician and researcher, he is interested in learning disabilities, school inclusion and processes of learning and cognitive empowerment. He also deals with software for cognitive rehabilitation and educational strategies through augmented reality devices. Among publications: Dispersione scolastica. Ascoltare i protagonisti per comprenderla e prevenirla (edited by, with F. Batini, FrancoAngeli, 2016), Lettura e dispersione (ed. by, with I. D. M. Scierri, R. Salvato, FrancoAngeli, 2018), Batini, F., Bartolucci, M., & De Carlo, E. (2017). Fight Dispersion Through Education: The Results of the First Cycle of the NoOut Project. Mind, Brain, and Education; F.Batini, M.Bartolucci, A.Timpone (2018) “The effects of reading aloud in the primary school.” In Psychology and Education Journal; F. Batini, M. Bartolucci, E. De Carlo (2018) “I feel good at school! Reducing school discomfort levels through integrated interventions.” In: Athens journal of education; M. Bartolucci, F. Batini (2018) “The effects of a narrative intervention program in people living with dementia” In: Psychology and Neuroscience.

Francesco Mattioli graduated in Applied Psychology at the University of Perugia (2017). His interests range from cognitive game design to the perception of the social and physical environment. At the moment, he is deepening his interest in cognitive neuroscience as a Master Student at the University of La Sapienza in Rome. This enables him to explore the interaction between technology and human beings. Francesco is a member of the Applied Pedagogy Lab of the University of Perugia where he takes part in several research-and-action projects. In 2018, Francesco was one of the recipients of the Italian award “Youth in Action ideas for Sustainable Development Goals.” As a result, he had the opportunity to work at Giangiacomo Feltrinelli Foundation in Milan, one of the most renowned research centers in Italy. Giangiacomo Feltrinelli Foundation contributes to the dissemination of knowledge to the general public through the exploration of fields such as politics, sustainable development, education and the relationship between public spaces and residents. Francesco has a peculiar attitude towards finding solutions to all kinds of problems with a multidisciplinary approach which intertwines both scientific and humanistic aspects.

Federico Batini Current themes of research are early school leaving, teaching improvement by the use of authentic tasks and how they can be used to promote school success, the effects of fiction reading in the developing (or injured) brain and competence-based approach. Relevant publications: F.Batini, M.Bartolucci, A.Timpone (2018) “The effects of reading aloud in the primary school.” In Psychology and Education Journal F. Batini, M. Bartolucci, E. De Carlo (2018) “I feel good at school! Reducing school discomfort levels through integrated interventions.” In: Athens journal of education M. Bartolucci, F. Batini (2018) “The effects of a narrative intervention program in people living with dementia” In: Psychology and Neuroscience M. Bartolucci, F. Batini, E. De Carlo (2017) “Fight dispersion through education: the results of the first cycle of the NoOut project.” In: Mind, Brain and Education F. Batini, V. Corallino, M. Bartolucci, G. Toti (2016) “NEET, a phenomenon yet to be studied.” In: Interchange: a quarterly review in education.