<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>An Adventure Serious Game for Teaching Effort Estimation in Software Engineering</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Beatriz Marín</string-name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Matías Vera</string-name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Giovanni Giachetti</string-name>
          <email>ggiachetti@inacap.cl</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Universidad Diego Portales</string-name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias</string-name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Santiago</string-name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Chile beatriz.marin@mail.udp.cl</string-name>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>matias.vera@mail.udp.cl</string-name>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Universidad Tecnológica de Chile INACAP</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Santiago</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="CL">Chile</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>71</fpage>
      <lpage>86</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>Imagine that it is possible to learn effort estimation concepts and its application in an attractive manner, where complex and technical knowledge are presented through a playful experience. The serious game Back to Penelope face this challenge, in which the student is trying to save the life of a young girl astronaut from a desolated world. To do this, the player must correctly estimate the development effort for the vital systems of the spaceship of the astronaut. The game is based on the COSMIC measuring method for estimation. This paper presents the results obtained from a systematic review performed to identify the main features of the existent serious games related to estimation. Moreover, this paper presents the design of the game developed, which has elements to improve the motivation of the students that use Back to Penelope. Finally, we present the promising results obtained from the validation of the game when teaching software engineering courses.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Serious Game</kwd>
        <kwd>COSMIC</kwd>
        <kwd>estimation</kwd>
        <kwd>learning</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1 Introduction</title>
      <p>
        Effort estimation is one of the key factors involved in the failure of software
development projects according to the Chaos Report [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. At the same time, proper
planning is the fourth most important factor for the success of a software project. The
works presented in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ] and [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] indicate that an incorrect planning can be produced by
1) lack of expertise in the planning process; 2) unrealistic assumptions and
expectations; 3) lack of a systematic measurement process that has adequate methods
and tools for the project involved.
      </p>
      <p>
        In this context, effort estimation capability is one of the main aspects that must be
properly learned by software engineers. Despite the relevance of performing
appropriate effort estimations for software engineers, the process of teaching these
kinds of complex technical concepts is always a hard task. This teaching process is
especially difficult since comprehension of concepts and the ability to apply these
concepts to practical problems are both needed. Furthermore, traditional teaching
classes have demonstrated to be effective to introduce measurement estimation
concepts; however, they are not effective in motivating students [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] or allowing them
to put the knowledge learned into practice [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]. Teaching classes based on serious
games can be a good alternative to capture students’ attention and to improve their
motivation in the application of more complex/technical software engineering
concepts [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]. Thus, a serious game provides a risk-free environment that allows
students to experiment and have re-learning experiences.
      </p>
      <p>
        In this paper, we present a serious game developed to teach effort estimation using
the COSMIC Function Points measuring method [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ] applied to conceptual models.
The game is oriented to courses related to software engineering and software project
management. The game, Back to Penelope, is a supporting tool for the teacher (not a
replacement), which is oriented to improve the learning skills related to the
application of the estimation technique. Back to Penelope has been successfully
applied to software engineering courses in a preliminary evaluation. Thus, the
contribution of this paper is twofold: 1) to present the structure and design of an
adventure serious game for teaching estimation, and 2) to show the results from the
initial evaluation of this game with software engineering students.
      </p>
      <p>The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 shows the related work to
serious games and teaching effort estimation skills in software projects; Section 3
presents the design of the game; Section 4 briefly explains the validation of the game;
and finally, Section 5 summarizes our conclusions and future work.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2 Related work and Background</title>
      <p>
        The use of serious games to improve learning has been widely studied as we can
observe in the references [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10 ref8 ref9">8-10</xref>
        ], which in summary show that students’ behavior
influences their learning [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ]. In order to find previous works related to serious games
for teaching effort or time estimation, we conducted a systematic mapping review
process by following Kitchenham guidelines [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ]. Thus, the review protocol
considers: the formulation of the research question, the definition of the search
strategy, the definition of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the data extraction
strategy.
      </p>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>2.1. Research question and Search Strategy</title>
        <p>The research question that drives this review is the following:
What evidence about serious games in the field of teaching/learning time or effort
estimation exists?</p>
        <p>From this question, the following search string was defined using the main words
of the research question and the AND and OR operators: Serious Games AND
Learning AND techniques AND (effort estimation OR time estimation).</p>
        <p>The search string was used in the digital libraries a) IEEE Xplore, b) ACM Digital
Library, and c) Springer Link. We use these digital libraries since they store the
majority of computer science research.
2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria, and Data extraction strategy
The definition of the search process first considered to execute the search string in the
selected digital libraries. Then, we read the title and the abstract in order to identify
the candidate studies. If the paper did not fulfill the inclusion criteria, or it fulfilled
one of the exclusion criteria, then the paper was discarded. If the paper fulfilled the
inclusion criteria, it was selected as a candidate study. For the selection of candidate
studies, we defined inclusion and exclusion criteria.</p>
        <p>Inclusion criteria:
• The paper must be a conference or journal manuscript written in English or</p>
        <p>Spanish.</p>
        <p>• The paper is about serious games oriented to effort or time estimation.
Exclusion criteria:
• The paper is related to effort or time estimation for development of serious
games.
• The paper is related to effort or time estimation only, without a serious game
that subjects can use for learning.
• The paper is related to serious game design or implementation only, without
presenting an approach for learning effort or time estimation.
• Grey literature (blogs, letters, book prologues, posters), books, master or
doctoral thesis)
• Duplicate of papers among the target libraries.</p>
        <p>After the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the candidate studies
were completely read in order to select them. For the data extraction strategy, we used
a tabular form to store all the information extracted from the selected papers in order
to easily compare all the approaches. To do this, we use the following criteria:
• Game Name. As indicated in the reference paper.
• Game Type. The type is directly related to the interaction with the player,
for instance, this can be a simulation game, adventure game, role game,
multiplayer, etc.
• Learning Scope. This is indicated when the serious game analyzed is
oriented to teaching other aspects than effort estimation.
• Game Design. It refers to the game architecture, and it is mainly related to
functional features.
• Validated (Val). Indicates with Yes or No, when the game has been
validated. It considers type of validation, number of users, measures defined,
and the validation process.
• Effort Estimation (EE). Indicates with Yes or No, when the game analyzed
considered effort estimation activities to be done by the players (students).</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-2">
        <title>2.3. Systematic Review Execution and Results</title>
        <p>applied to increase the initial number of candidate studies obtained since it was
reduced. The snowballing technique considers reviewing the references of each
candidate study obtained from the execution of the search string in order to obtain
more candidate studies.</p>
        <p>Table 2 shows the final articles selected and the data extracted according to the
strategy defined above.</p>
        <p>To answer our research question (What evidence about serious games in the field
of teaching/learning time or effort estimation exists?), we found evidence of serious
games related to the field of teaching effort or time estimation (see Table 2).</p>
        <p>
          From the articles selected, 70% are related to software project management, and
30% are oriented to effort estimation. In detail, 20% consider an effort estimation
process performed by students. The work proposed in [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
          ] that is related to the
ProDec approach, applies an effort estimation approach based on Albretch function
Point. This is a simulation game that considers the ISO 21500 [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
          ]. This work has
been validated with students to estimate the effort of a set of pre-defined tasks.
        </p>
        <p>
          The approach of The Incredible Manager presented in [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
          ] considers effort
estimation from the developer side; however, this approach does not use a specific
method for effort estimation.
        </p>
        <p>The other approaches analyzed do not consider effort estimation tasks, or indeed
the effort is already predefined by the system without intervention of the player
(student) in the estimation process.</p>
        <p>
          Most of the games are related to general tasks of software engineering and project
management. Only two games are oriented to more specific domains. In the case of
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
          ], the domain is related to software process improvement, and the approach
presented in [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>
          ] is related to the requirement engineering domain.
        </p>
        <p>
          All the approaches analyzed are related to simulation games, where the players are
involved in explicit software engineering challenges or planning tasks of project
management. In some games, the players can take specific roles as project leader or
developer such as in papers [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
          ] and [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">18</xref>
          ]. However, none of these approaches present
novel gaming scenarios or a story thread that differs from software engineering tasks,
which could better motivate the use of the game as a complementary learning
technique. These strategies have shown that serious games benefit the learning
process [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
          ].
        </p>
        <p>
          Later, some background about the Cosmic Function point approach and the MDA
Framework for game design is provided to facilitate the comprehension of the
approach presented.
Ref Paper Title
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
          ] Coverage of the ISO 21500
        </p>
        <p>Standard in the Context of
Software Project
Management by a
Simulation-Based Serious</p>
        <p>
          Game
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
          ] Coverage of ISO/IEC 29110 ProDec
        </p>
        <p>
          Project Management
Process of Basic Profile by
a Serious Game
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
          ] Integrating serious games as ProDec
learning resources in a
software project
management course:
the case of ProDec
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
          ] Simulation in software SESAM
        </p>
        <p>
          engineering training
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
          ] Challenges and issues in the SPIAL
development of a Software
Engineering simulation
game
[26] Engendering an Empathy
        </p>
        <p>for Software Engineering
[23] AMEISE – A Media</p>
        <p>
          Education Initiative for
Software Engineering
Concepts, the Environment
and Initial Experiences
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">21</xref>
          ] Model Driven Game
        </p>
        <p>Development: Experience
and Model Enhancements in
Software Project</p>
        <p>
          Management Education
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
          ] A Simulation-Based Game
for Project Management
        </p>
        <p>
          Experiential Learning
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ] A Game for Taking
        </p>
        <p>Requirements Engineering
More Seriously</p>
        <p>SimjavaSP
AMEISE
The
Incredible
Manager
The
Incredible
Manager
Software
Quantum
Game</p>
        <p>Simulation
Simulation
Simulation
Simulation,
Role playing
Simulation,
Role Playing
Simulation,
Multiplayer,
Competition
Simulation,
Role Playing
Simulation,
Role Playing
Simulation</p>
        <p>Learning
Scope
Software
Project
Management
Software
Project
Management
Software
Project
Management
Software
Engineering
Software
Process
Improvement
Software
Project
Management
Software
Project
Management
Software
Project
Management
Software
Project
Management
Requirement
Engineering</p>
        <p>Game
Design</p>
        <p>Val EE
No</p>
        <p>yes</p>
        <p>No</p>
        <p>yes
yes No
Models</p>
        <p>yes yes
Models</p>
        <p>No</p>
        <p>No
Models</p>
        <p>yes No
Models</p>
        <p>No</p>
        <p>No
Models</p>
        <p>No</p>
        <p>No
Models
Models</p>
        <p>No
No</p>
        <p>
          No
No
2.4. The MDA Framework for Serious Game Development
The MDA framework [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>
          ], whose acronym comes from mechanics, dynamics, and
aesthetics, involve not only software but also player interaction (see Fig. 1) . MDA
framework is focused on bridging the gap between design and game development
(programming). To do this, this framework divides the game architecture into three
main components: mechanics, which correspond to the rules; dynamics, which
correspond to the system acting in real time; and aesthetic, which corresponds to what
makes a videogame attractive or fun, as well as the emotional response expected from
the player.
        </p>
        <p>
          Coinsidering the three MDA components for the development of a serious game,
all the teaching techniques and learning skills are involved at the mechanics level.
Hunicke in [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>
          ] states that each MDA component is a subtlety engaged isolated
game-view. This means that in the context of this work, where teaching effort
estimation concepts and their application are its focus, the Dynamics and Aesthetic
components do not need to be related to software engineering simulation. Therefore,
it is possible to present some fantasy elements to make a more attractive game, that is
aligned with the mechanics components that provide the requiered knowledge to be
transmitted to the student at the same time.
        </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-3">
        <title>2.4. The Cosmic Function Point Method</title>
        <p>
          The COSMIC Full Function Point (FFP) estimation method [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">20</xref>
          ] is oriented to
obtaining the functional size of an application by means of the identification of
functional processes and the data movements involved. For its execution, this method
considers the following phases: 1) a strategy phase in which the purpose and scope of
the measurement task is defined; 2) a mapping phase in which the functional
processes contained in the scope of the estimation are identified; and 3) an estimation
phase in which all the data movements for each functional process are identified.
Each data movement corresponds to 1 CFP (COSMIC Function Point), the sum of all
the function points of a process corresponds to the functional size of the
corresponding process. The aggregated sum of the functional size of all processes will
correspond to the functional size of the piece of software measured [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
          ].
        </p>
        <p>
          Since the functional size of the piece of software is given in an abstract unit (CFP),
for effort estimation purposes, it is necessary to translate this measure to a human
effort-related value. For this purpose, the data collected by the International Software
Benchmarking Standards (ISBSG) Group is used [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">21</xref>
          ]. The ISBSG database collects
data from software projects from different domains, and we use this data to estimate
the size of the software products and the effort required to complete the software
development project.
Back to Penelope is a videogame that was developed with the Unity game
development engine, which uses C# as scripting language. Unity provides free
packages to compile videogames for different platforms, such as Windows, OSx,
Linux, iOS, or Android operating systems. In particular, Back to Penelope was
developed for desktop platforms, and it is available for Windows, Mac, and Linux
operating systems. Adobe’s Photoshop was largely used for asset creation, and
Steinberg’s Cubase DAW was used for musicalization. The game is available at
http://backtopenelope.me
        </p>
        <p>Development of the first iteration of the game took between 18 and 20 weeks, and
approximately 220 hours of programming. It is important to consider that character
and graphic design was not included in these programming hours.</p>
        <p>For the design of the serious game, we use fantasy elements in the dynamics and
aesthetic components in order to provide a more attractive way to practice the
measurement concepts, and therefore the effort estimation from conceptual models.
Thus, in Back to Penelope, the player must take the role of Ada, a young girl astronaut
on an exploration mission of a new solar system as part of the Odyssey project, whose
mission is to find new planets. Ada travels in a recognition spaceship that is designed
to travel large distances among planets; however, it is not designed to land on or
launch from a planet itself since it does not have enough power to break the eventual
planet gravity.</p>
        <p>As part of her mission, Ada is orbiting the planet Omicron-IV, when suddenly, her
ship is trapped by the planetary gravity causing Ada to force land on Omicron-IV.
After the crash of her personal spaceship, she is trapped by the high gravity of this
mysterious planet. This situation forces Ada to fix her ship in order to return to her
mothership, which is named Penelope. To fix the ship, she must use the disposable
Utilities Droids (dUD), which require the indication of the functional size of each task
that needs to be accomplished.</p>
        <p>We created the Back to Penelope videogame to help in the learning process of
effort estimation through the application of the COSMIC measurement method. To do
that, in each of the Back to Penelope scenes, the player has challenges that correspond
to tasks to be performed, which are represented by one or more class diagrams. In
order to perform these tasks, the player must assign a dUD to each of the classes
presented in the diagrams, indicating the required CFP size of the selected class. This
is measured by applying the COSMIC method. After the player has done this, the
selected dUD will be in a working state, in which it will remain for the number of
seconds that the player calculated, taking into account the amount of CFP estimated
for the class assigned to the dUD. This conversion from CFP to time is done
considering the following constant: 1 CFP corresponds to 3 seconds of
implementation time for a dUD (namely 1 CFP = 3 dud-seconds). We use a ratio from
the information of ISBSG regarding the time required to develop a project with the
functional size of the project. Once the player has measured the size of the piece of
software, it is possible to calculate the effort estimation using the data provided by
ISBSG.</p>
        <p>During the tutorial section of the Back to Penelope game, the player is guided
through an estimation process for a simple class diagram. This tutorial shows the user
a guide for the interaction of the player with the game, and it also shows details about
how the estimation process works: i.e., it shows a simple definition of the COSMIC
measurement method considering its three phases, how to identify data movements of
the pieces of software, and how to obtain the size in COSMIC Function Points.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-4">
        <title>3.1. Back to Penelope Mechanics</title>
        <p>In Back to Penelope, each scene presents to the player a set of challenges in terms of
support systems that must be implemented for fixing the spaceship. These support
systems are represented by class models. In order to complete a task, the player must
assign a dUD to each class of each system (or sub-system) so it can fix its part of the
spaceship. This is done by estimating the corresponding size for the corresponding
class to be implemented. The size estimation is performed by applying the COSMIC
method.</p>
        <p>The difficulty related to estimation increases from one scene to another by adding
new features such as different kinds of associations, more complex class methods, etc.</p>
        <p>The first scene of the game provides a tutorial where the player can learn how to
perform a proper effort estimation by using the COSMIC measurement method. After
this, during each scene execution, the player can access a help view, which shows
details about the game context as well as the application of the COSMIC method. At
the end of each estimation process of the work that must be performed by each dUD,
the game provides feedback to the player about the estimation performed, indicating if
it is right or wrong. In case that the estimation made by the player is lower than what
the task requires, the player has the possibility of correcting the initial estimation
performed. Nevertheless, in case that player makes a higher estimation in regard to
the task time, the player must wait for the dUD to finish the task in the time originally
estimated.
3.2.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-5">
        <title>Back to Penelope Dynamics</title>
        <p>The dynamics are those user-interaction components that bring the game closer to the
player. In Back to Penelope, the main menu of the game initiates this interaction (see
Fig. 2). The scene selection screen shows the available scenes and those that are
locked until the player achieves a certain level of progress (see Fig 3). During the
game execution, each scene is divided into three stages, which are related to a section
of the class diagram that represents the system to be developed through the scene (see
Fig. 3).</p>
        <p>The player can assign one of the dUDs to the implementation of each class of the
systems of the Ada spaceship (Fig. 2). Once a dUD is assigned, the player estimates
the functional size of the class, which is translated into the effort that is necessary to
implement the class. The estimation performed by the player is compared to the
estimation already calculated for each class to determinate if the player has over- or
underestimated the functional size of the class, with a fault tolerance of +3 to -3
Cosmic Function Points. The fault tolerance level can be increased or reduced in
order to change the difficulty level of the game by the teacher.
The main aesthetic aspect used in this game is the narrative. We create a fantasy story,
which could motivate engineering students to play rather than merely simulate office
tasks. The aesthetics of the game include fantasy aspects that are directly related to
the story represented in each scene. For instance, the player is Ada, a time bar for
each scene, different difficulty levels in the class diagram of each scene, feedback that
is given to the player when the implementation of a class has been under- or
overestimated, among others. The scenes of the story, explained below, are called
Crash Landing, Motion, Hard Cut, and Escape Velocity.</p>
        <p>Scene 1. Crash Landing: As a consequence of the collision, Ada's cargo cabin door
gives way, causing materials and equipment to fall on the Omicron-IV’s surface,
which seems to be a deserted planet, without traces of life. When Ada wakes up after
the collision, the her suit sensors indicate that the atmosphere is not breathable and
that her oxygen reserves are at 30% of its capacity. The scene starts at the moment
that one of the dUDs starts to operate, apparently by error. During the three stages of
this scene, Ada must to implement the control panel to operate the dUDs, to mount
the vital support dome, and to configure a telemetric system to locate where Penelope,
the mothership, is located.</p>
        <p>Moreover, in the first scene there is also an initial tutorial stage that is used by
students to understand how to interact with the dUDs, and it is also used to explain
how effort estimation can be performed by using an example class diagram.
Scene 2. Motion. At the sunset, Ada sees a metallic glow on the horizon, just over
one of the rock formations that surrounds the place where she landed. Using the
longdistance function of her helmet’s viewfinder, she sees a small group of humanoids,
native aliens probably. They look muscular and are poorly dressed in rags. Their skin
resembles the rocks of Omicron-IV. They carry primitive weapons in their hands, like
spears. At the same moment, the leader of the group, who carries the largest spear,
throws its weapon, hitting the side of the Ada’s spaceship. Ada must use her dUDs to
quickly implement a defense system, with activity sensors, shooting towers, and a
centralized defense control to get through the night safely in the ship.
Scene 3. Hard Cut. The next morning, Ada notices that the aliens were smart enough
not to approach the spaceship during the night. She only has two days to launch her
spaceship and escape from the planet’s gravity; otherwise, she would be too far away
to reach Penelope. To achieve the necessary escape velocity, Ada uses a trick that she
learned in the Astronaut Academy; she constructs a small nuclear reactor with one of
the sources of power of her ship. The main problem with this solution is the radiation
emitted by the nuclear reactor. Hence, she must be able to develop a mechanism to
deactivate the reactor once the necessary speed to escape from the planet’s gravity is
achieved, and to use an alternative propulsion system for the rest of the journey.
Scene 4. Escape Velocity. After the launch, Ada observes that the metallic cover of
the ship is cracking due to the damage caused by Omicron-IV’s. The only alternative
to impede the ship’s collapse is to redirect part of the ship’s energy to create an
energy shield at the top of the ship. Moreover, while the escape speed is approaching,
the radiation is also dangerously increasing. Thus, Ada must develop and activate an
alternative ionic propulsion system, while she shuts down the nuclear reactor before it
is too late.</p>
        <p>As example of the game aesthetics, Fig. 4 shows the first scenario and the class
model involved in the three stages of this scenario.</p>
        <p>It is important to mention that each scene of the game has a time limit. This is of
importance because the dUDs need different amounts of time to develop their tasks,
depending on the effort involved. During the game, the time element is represented in
different manners, depending on the scene involved. For instance, in Scene 1, time is
related to the oxygen available; in Scene 4, it is related to the time needed to achieve
the escape speed without being affected by the nuclear reactor radiation.</p>
        <p>Other aesthetic elements that are important to mention are the penalties that the
player obtains when he or she incorrectly estimates the time needed for a task to be
done by a dUD. In fact, the player can unblock more scenes as a reward for making
good estimations, but the player also receives penalties when the estimation is wrong.
Thus, when the player estimates more effort than the necessary for performing a
specific task, the dUD will stay in a stand-by state until the difference between the
time proposed and the real time required by the task is achieved.
The validation of Back to Penelope considered two aspects: usability and
effectiveness. We understand the usability as the perceived ease of use of the game,
and the effectiveness is related to the estimation made by the student with regard to
the correct estimation. The validation process was performed on two occasions with
students that have previously taken software development and software engineering
courses.</p>
        <p>
          The usability aspect has been validated by means of a UMUX survey (Usability
Metric for User Experience) [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref22">22</xref>
          ], which use a 5-point Likert scale to be answered
(values go from 1: totally disagree to 5: totally agree). The UMUX survey presents 4
questions to evaluate the perception of usability of a system, which applied to Back to
Penelope results in regard to the following four questions:
1) Perceived Effectiveness: Does Back to Penelope allow you to learn how to
estimate by using the COSMIC method?
2) Perceived Satisfaction: Is playing Back to Penelope a frustrating
experience?
3) General vision: Is Back to Penelope easy to use?
4) Perceived Efficiency: Do you spend too much time making corrections with
        </p>
        <p>Back to Penelope?</p>
        <p>On the other hand, the validation of the effectiveness of Back to Penelope has been
evaluated by means of a metric that considers the number of tries that are necessary
by a player to perform a correct estimation. This measure is obtained from the results
of the following two questions:
1) How many tries (on average) did it take to obtain a correct estimation of the
functional size of a class?
2) What was the highest number of tries you had to do in order to estimate the
functional size of a class?</p>
        <p>Both questions have as possible answer 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or more tries. These metrics
allows to validate the effectiveness of the game as well as the perceived difficulty of
the game.</p>
        <p>The number of times that a player correctly answers a game challenge and the time
used by each player session are registered once the player stops playing.
4.1 Results obtained from the first validation experience
In the first empirical trial, 10 subjects participated, which corresponds to graduate
students from the Engineering major of Information Technology and
Telecommunications. This is a five-year course. During this trial, only the UMUX
survey was applied since the effectiveness measures were not implemented yet. Fig. 5
shows the results obtained from the survey application.</p>
        <p>According to the results presented in Fig. 5, 70% of the players is agreed or totally
agreed with the fact that Back to Penelope allowed them to learn how to the estimate
by using the COSMIC method. Only 10% did not agree with this affirmation.</p>
        <p>For the second question, only 10% of the students agreed that using Back to
Penelope was a frustrating experience; that is, 90% of the players showed a tendency
to not feel frustrated when using the game.</p>
        <p>Regarding the question of whether Back to Penelope was easy to use, 20%
disagreed, and 80% of the players agreed or totally agreed.</p>
        <p>Finally, regarding the question about if they spent too much time making
corrections with Back to Penelope, 80% is disagreed.</p>
        <p>These results are positive and suggest that this method for learning estimation
using COSMIC is a motivating experience for students.
4.2 Results obtained from the second validation experience
The second validation trial was carried out with 4th year Engineering students
majoring in Information Technology and Telecommunications (a five-year course).
This trial had 30 subjects, which were divided into two groups. It is important to
mention that this activity was not associated with a grade. The link to download the
game Back to Penelope http://backtopenelope.me was given to the students in a
computer lab, along with a brief 5-minute introduction.</p>
        <p>For these students, Back to Penelope is the first time that they have to use the
COSMIC method for effort estimation.</p>
        <p>Furthermore, only five players agreed to register the time that they spent on a
scene. Thus, only 27% of the players have a register, and we cannot use it in the
analysis about playing time. Despite this, the time spent for each group to complete
the different scenes was registered (see Table 3). As we can observe, passing from
one scene to another takes a few minutes for the player, so that it is not boring for the
student to wait until the dUD finishes the implementation of classes of the systems of
each scene.</p>
        <p>With the data obtained from the second trial, it is observed that student estimations
were 17.6% higher than the real value, with an average of 9.5% over the real value.
This shows that the students estimated the functional size of the class diagrams with
adequate accuracy even though this is the first time that they used the COSMIC
method. This provides preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of using serious
games for teaching effort estimation.</p>
        <p>Fig. 6 shows the results obtained in the questions related to perceived
effectiveness. As we can observe, 70% of the students answered that they use the
maximum number of tries needed to perform a correct estimation. For instance,
Student1 tried 3 times to correctly estimate a class, and this student also thought that
the maximum attempts to obtain the correct measurement was 3. Twenty percent of
students responded that they perceived that they were more effective in the
measurement since their number of tries was lower than expected. Only 10% of
students perceived that they were ineffective in the measurement exercise.</p>
        <p>Fig. 6. Results of the perceived effectiveness in the second validation trial.</p>
        <p>From the answers of the UMUX survey (see Fig. 7), it is possible to observe that
players agreed that Back To Penelope allows them to learn to estimate using
COSMIC. However, questions 2, 3, and 4 of the questionnaire do not indicate a
positive or negative trend. This can be explained because it is the first time that
students used a method for effort estimation, and this may cause nervousness at the
time of playing. Also, there are some other factors related to the interaction with the
game; for instance, the game is designed to be used with a mouse and keyboard, and
the students indicated that they would prefer a touch interaction.</p>
        <p>In relation to the effectiveness measures, the average number of tries to obtain a
correct estimation is close to the maximum. This means that the players were required
to correct their estimation at least once. This is also related to the fact that this is the
first time that this group of students used the COSMIC method.</p>
        <p>Despite the promising results obtained during the validation trials, we consider that
replication is needed to corroborate and strengthen the results. To do that, we plan to
conduct an experiment in order to compare traditional learning with gamified learning
of the COSMIC method, applying both learning strategies in realistic settings. In this
future experiment we plan to collect qualitative and quantitative data to measure the
effectiveness of using a serious game for learning COSMIC method.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>5 Conclusions and Future Work</title>
      <p>Effort estimation is of paramount importance for properly planning the activities that
must be performed in the development of software projects. In order to teach how to
estimate the effort needed in development activities, theoretical lectures of the
estimation methods are traditionally used in classroom. However, taking into account
the lack of concentration of students of the XXI century, new techniques are needed
to motivate students to focus on the content presented in the classroom. Thus, in this
paper we present a serious game, which has an interesting story to attract students to
practice the COSMIC measurement method.</p>
      <p>The serious game, Back to Penelope, has been carefully designed in order to take
into account the developer’s viewpoint as well as the player’s viewpoint. With this
game, we provide a new way to practice how to measure the function points using
class diagrams. We validated this game obtaining promising results. Future work
includes engaging in new empirical studies to evaluate the F-measure, precision and
recall of the measurements using the game Back to Penelope. Future work should
consider expanding this game to use other measurement methods and estimation
approaches that are commonly used in software development projects.
Acknowledgment. This work was funded by CONICYT project ENSE REDI170020,
20172019.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1. Standish Group:
          <source>CHAOS Report</source>
          .
          <article-title>(</article-title>
          <year>1994</year>
          ). Available at URL http://www.standishgroup. com/sample_research/chaos_1994_
          <article-title>1</article-title>
          . php, (
          <year>1994</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>McGarry</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Practical software measurement: objective information for decision makers</article-title>
          . Addison-Wesley
          <string-name>
            <surname>Professional</surname>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2002</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Peixoto</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.E.L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Audy</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.L.N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Prikladnicki</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>The importance of the use of an estimation process</article-title>
          .
          <source>Proceedings of the 2010 ICSE Workshop on Software Development Governance</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>13</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>17</lpage>
          . ACM (
          <year>2010</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Shaw</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dermoudy</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>Engendering an empathy for software engineering</article-title>
          .
          <source>Proceedings of the 7th Australasian conference on Computing education-</source>
          Volume
          <volume>42</volume>
          , pp.
          <fpage>135</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>144</lpage>
          . Australian Computer Society, Inc. (
          <year>2005</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Marín</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Frez</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cruz-Lemus</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Genero</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>An Empirical Investigation on the Benefits of Gamification in Programming Courses</article-title>
          .
          <source>ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 19</source>
          ,
          <issue>1</issue>
          (
          <year>2019</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kenny</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gunter</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Endogenous fantasy-based serious games: Intrinsic motivation and learning</article-title>
          .
          <source>International Journal of Social Sciences 2</source>
          ,
          <fpage>8</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>13</lpage>
          (
          <year>2007</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Marín</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pastor</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>O.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Abran</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Towards an accurate functional size measurement procedure for conceptual models in an MDA environment</article-title>
          .
          <source>Data &amp; Knowledge Engineering</source>
          <volume>69</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>472</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>490</lpage>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Caponetto</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Earp</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ott</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Gamification and education: A literature review</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Games Based Learning</source>
          (pp.
          <fpage>50</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>57</lpage>
          ).
          <source>ISBN 978-1-910309-55-1</source>
          , (
          <year>2014</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>de Sousa Borges</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Durelli</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V.H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Reis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Isotani</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A systematic mapping on gamification applied to education</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 29th annual ACM symposium on applied computing (SAC)</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>216</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>222</lpage>
          . ACM, (
          <year>2014</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dicheva</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dichev</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Agre</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Angelova</surname>
          </string-name>
          , G.:
          <article-title>Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study</article-title>
          .
          <source>Educational Technology &amp; Society</source>
          <volume>18</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>75</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>88</lpage>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Landers</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Developing a theory of gamified learning: Linking serious games and gamification of learning</article-title>
          .
          <source>Simulation &amp; Gaming</source>
          <volume>45</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>752</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>768</lpage>
          (
          <year>2014</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kitchenham</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Charters</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering</article-title>
          . (
          <year>2007</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Drappa</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ludewig</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Simulation in software engineering training</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software engineering</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>199</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>208</lpage>
          . ACM (
          <year>2000</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Calderón</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ruiz</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>O</given-names>
            <surname>'Connor</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>R.V.</surname>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Coverage of the ISO 21500 standard in the context of software project management by a simulation-based serious game</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>399</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>412</lpage>
          . Springer (
          <year>2017</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          15.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dantas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , de Oliveira Barros,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Werner</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>C.M.L.</surname>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>A Simulation-Based Game for Project Management Experiential Learning</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Software Engineering &amp; Knowledge Engineerin (SEKE)</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>19</volume>
          , pp.
          <volume>24</volume>
          (
          <year>2004</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          16.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Peixoto</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Resende</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pádua</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.I.P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Evaluating software engineering simulation games: The UGALCO framework</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>9</lpage>
          . IEEE (
          <year>2014</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          17.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Knauss</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Schneider</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stapel</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>A game for taking requirements engineering more seriously</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Multimedia and Enjoyable Requirements Engineering-Beyond Mere Descriptions and with More Fun and Games</source>
          , pp.
          <fpage>22</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>26</lpage>
          . IEEE (
          <year>2008</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          18.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Barros</surname>
          </string-name>
          , M.d.O.,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dantas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Veronese</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.O.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Werner</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Model‐driven game development: experience and model enhancements in software project management education</article-title>
          .
          <source>Software Process: Improvement and Practice</source>
          <volume>11</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>411</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>421</lpage>
          (
          <year>2006</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <mixed-citation>
          19.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hunicke</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , LeBlanc,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Zubek</surname>
          </string-name>
          , R.:
          <article-title>MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI</source>
          , vol.
          <volume>4</volume>
          , pp.
          <volume>1722</volume>
          (
          <year>2004</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref20">
        <mixed-citation>
          20.
          <string-name>
            <surname>COSMIC-Group: The COSMIC Functional Size Measurement Method - Measurement Manual</surname>
          </string-name>
          , version
          <volume>4</volume>
          .0.
          <issue>2</issue>
          ,
          <year>December 2017</year>
          ,
          <volume>115</volume>
          pages. (
          <year>2017</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref21">
        <mixed-citation>
          21. isbsg.org: ISBSG (International Software Benchmarking Standards Group).
          <source>(</source>
          <year>2019</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref22">
        <mixed-citation>
          22.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Finstad</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>The usability metric for user experience</article-title>
          .
          <source>Interacting with Computers</source>
          <volume>22</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>323</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>327</lpage>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>