Entrepreneurial Education Based on Physical Computing and Game Development

Authors Christian Voigt Elisabeth Unterfrauner Margit Hofer

Plaintext

Entrepreneurial Education Based on
Physical Computing and Game Development

Christian Voigt1 [0000-0001-8378-5568], Elisabeth Unterfrauner2 and Margit Hofer3
1,2,3
Zentrum für Soziale Innovation, Vienna 1150, Austria
{voigt, unterfrauner, hofer}@zsi.at

Abstract. This paper presents a pilot evaluation study, focusing on a variety of
mechanisms to successfully integrate the learning of physical computing, entre-
preneurship and game development. First, we introduce a workshop design
framework developed as part of the European project DOIT (Entrepreneurial
skills for young social innovators in an open digital world). We then reflect on
the implementation of the workshops over the course of two months, including a
group of 24 youths between 15 and 16 years old. The workshops are evaluated
by measuring students’ changing self-efficacy in a pre-post design. The interpre-
tation of these changes is further complemented by interviewing the workshop
facilitators. While we can find a small increase in students’ self-efficacy, our
findings also show the importance of facilitating students’ ability to thrive in a
project-based workshop setting, where part of their learning experience hinges
on their ability to establish their own learning goals and making design decisions
in the face of uncertain outcomes.

Keywords: Physical Computing, Entrepreneurship, Game Development, Entre-
preneurial Learning, Self-Efficacy, Games with a Purpose.

1 Introduction

According to the annual Horizon report, forecasting trends in education, experiential
learning facilitated through making and hands-on projects will gain in importance over
the coming years [1]. In this paper we investigate how students’ self-efficacy changes
when learning about game development and making prototypes [2], involving open
source hardware. Maker education, just as making [3] combines a huge variety of tech-
nologies such as low-tech tools (hot glue, cardboard or rubber bands) and more ad-
vanced components such as programmable micro-boards, sensors capturing changes in
the environment (noise, temperature, air particles, etc.).
This short enumeration of possible components for a prototype already reflects the
inherent complexity due to the sheer number of technologies and their possible combi-
nations. One strategy is to teach basic skills first and prepare learners systematically for
more complex tasks [4]. The ‘basics first’ approach relies on the hope that learners will
fill in the gaps more easily when having a broader overview of related materials. Alter-
natively, rather than having dedicated courses for physical computation, there is the

Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
2

suggestion to integrate this knowledge in established subjects such as computer science
[5]. In this paper we propose that physical computing could also be integrated with art
or entrepreneurship subjects and combine our argument with the analysis of a pilot and
the resulting evaluation of a workshop series for learners (15 to 16 years old) in a higher
vocational-technical school, specializing in business and commerce. The pilot we pre-
sent is part of the European project DOIT (Entrepreneurial skills for young social inno-
vators in an open digital world). This project runs for 3 years until October 2020 and
includes 13 partner organizations from 11 countries.
The overall objective of the DOIT project is to develop and test a program frame-
work for early entrepreneurial education. Hence on a pilot level we designed a series of
workshops to develop an entrepreneurial project addressing a societal challenge related
to either healthy lifestyles, better living conditions or environmental protection. These
umbrella topics were derived from the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) with
a particular emphasis on turning comprehensive SDGs into concrete actions [6]. En-
trepreneurship education has many objectives including the development of a diverse
set of skills, attitudes and knowledge ranging from increased self-efficacy, self-aware-
ness, resilience in face of uncertainty as well as creativity [7]. There is little doubt about
the worthiness of pursuing these objectives, however, many facets of educational sys-
tems such as highly structured and packed curricula, reliance on grades as ultima ratio
for enticing sufficient effort on students side, the message that failure is a loss of time
rather than a necessary part of learning or the focus on individual performance rather
than team results make it difficult to foster an entrepreneurial spirit among youths [8].
However, there are already many formats such as problem or project-based learning in
‘maker education’ [9, 10] that can serve as a starting point for combining physical com-
puting and other subject matters. The pilot presented in this paper combines open source
hardware programming, game development and an entrepreneurial project, planning
for the transformation of the prototype into an actual product. Technologically, the pro-
totypes developed by the students involved a system on the chip (SoC), sensors for
environmental data and user interface elements indicating the status of the gadget
(LEDs and a small displays 3 x 2 cm).

2 Related Work: Entrepreneurship Learning, Game
Development and Physical Computing

For our research we conceptualized learning as a self-regulated, project- and problem-
driven activity [10]. Based on this understanding, we aim to analyse learning activities
triggered by the needs of students’ projects, being interdisciplinary and collaborative in
nature [11–13]. Figure 1 (left) displays how the context of an entrepreneurial project
defines roles and activities for developing a game as a product, which is then imple-
mented as a first prototype using physical computing. Hence, learning about hardware
becomes a means to an end, embedded in prototyping an entrepreneurial game. Overall,
we find that combining different areas of expertise is also a way to engage youths with
different interests, degrees of previous knowledge as well as different support structures
at home [14], an important aspect if learning technologies are to be inclusive.

Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
3

Fig. 1. Knowledge domains required (left) and flow of activities (right)

The right side of the figure presents the more dynamic aspect of the learning process,
where there is a continuous back and forth between new ideas, game concept, technical
feasibility and economic considerations. Making development decisions subject to eco-
nomic considerations is important since entrepreneurship in itself is based on explora-
tive value creation, opposed to routine value creation [7]. Hence it is not always fore-
seeable how much investment needs to go into materials and development time. Once
more, this highlights the multifaceted range of skills future entrepreneurs develop when
facing the uncertainty inherent to messy problems.

2.1 Entrepreneurship Learning
There are different ways of conceptualizing entrepreneurship education, emphasizing
either entrepreneurial attitudes or entrepreneurial knowledge. Combining both,
Lackeus [15] suggests a progression from experiential learning (i.e. going through an
entrepreneurial learning process), to more cognitively oriented learning about entrepre-
neurship (e.g. learning about business canvas, risk management, pricing strategies) and
finally, specializing in a particular task (e.g. learning for project controlling, innovation
management etc.). In our pilot we were mostly interested in changing skills and atti-
tudes but found it necessary to outline concrete task areas for the students, such as
working on game ideas, the technical implementation of the game, elaborating a busi-
ness and marketing plan. In some teams ‘product packaging’ emerged as an additional
area due to the related effort in terms of time for designing and crafting the product
representation.

2.2 Learning through Game Development

The importance of gaming for learning or problem solving has been widely reflected in
the literature on serious games and games with a purpose (GWAPs) [16, 17]. Gaming
and game development helped to make computer science more accessible to a diversity
of learners [18] who would otherwise perceive programming as a rather dry content.
GWAPs combine the appeal of game interfaces with the power of human interpretations
to accomplish that have no automatic solution yet, e.g. image recognition or capturing
subjective perceptions of noise or air quality. GWAPs are also increasingly used for
environmental data collection tasks as envisioned in our pilot.

Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
4

Time spent in games has been steadily on the raise. In 2019 mobile devices have been
the primary gaming device and the average gamer played about seven hours per week
[19]. The question is whether this time can, at least partially, include learning compo-
nents. However, the idea that gaming can be repurposed for learning needs has to be
taken with caution, since most people engage in GWAPs because they wish to be en-
tertained and not so much because they desire to solve problems or improve the avail-
ability of data [ibid.]. Hence, it is necessary that game mechanics prompt players to test
their knowledge or to reflect upon their actions, while still preserving an entertaining
experience. Gros [16] lists 15 game mechanics and their equivalent learning mecha-
nisms. For example, typical game strategies can be based on role playing, collection of
tokens, answering riddles, managing resources or striving for the next level or a higher
status. Finally, evaluation studies have shown that game development contributes to
several literacy competencies (e.g. computer, media and information literacies) or skills
such as creativity, self-confidence and empathy [20].

2.3 Physical Computing and Learning
Similar to digital game development, designing and programming physical computing
systems has been mainly researched in the context of engineering or computer science
education [5]. There is a huge variety in how physical computing can be understood,
ranging from programmable bricks in the 1980s (e.g. LEGO/Logo) to more sophisti-
cated systems such as the Lilypad, Arduino kits for e-textiles or Computer on a Board
products such as the RaspberryPi. This trajectory has been analyzed by Blikstein [21],
the author highlighted a number of important developments in how learning with and
through physical computing was approached over the last 40 years. First, understanding
the ‘medium’ was always part of learning the ‘message’ in that choosing a medium
would inherently enhance learners’ expression in some ways while limiting them in
others [22]. For example, programming on a PC is limited to the peripheral devices of
that PC; keyboard, mouse, camera etc., whereas the programming experience of micro-
boards is more readily enhanced by connected sensors, LEDs or motors. Blikstein
[ibid.] makes the point that physical computing provides learners with a new way of
expressing themselves; learners design their own devices. Katterfeld et al. [23] argue
that digital fabrication and physical computing contribute strongly to the development
of self-efficacy, creativity and the experiential unity of body and mind, much like we
need to ride a bike rather than hear about riding a bike. Similar to Blikstein, these
authors emphasize the facilitating nature of an ‘object-to-think-with’.

3 Research Objectives and Methodology

In line with our focus on integrating various field of knowledge (entrepreneurship, mak-
ing and game development), our research objective was to explore the effects of multi-
disciplinary project work on entrepreneurial skills and attitudes. Our project looked into
eight evaluative dimensions: self-efficacy, creativity, teamwork and collaboration

Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
5

skills, dealing with uncertainty, perseverance, empathy with others and their needs, mo-
tivation and sense of initiative and planning and management skills. The first two were
assessed quantitatively following a pre-post data collection design and the remaining
six were evaluated qualitatively. Similar dimensions are also assessed within the entre-
preneurship competence framework [24].
Since reporting on all dimension would go beyond the space available in this publi-
cation, we focus on the analysis of self-efficacy, measured before and after the work-
shop series through a survey. For the complementary analysis of changes in learning
processes over time we used the transcripts of facilitator interviews.
The survey was constructed based on published scales [25–28] with adaptations on
the item level. Self-efficacy was conceptualized as students’ judgements of their own
capabilities, their problem-solving capacities and how they saw themselves in compar-
ison to others.
The interviews took about 45 min and focused, among other things, on how well the
overall workshop structure (presented in the next section) supported the elaboration of
a socially relevant problem statement providing the foundation for prototyping a solu-
tion. These interviews provide valuable insights on workshop dynamics (‘How would
you describe the motivation over the course of the workshops?’, ‘How would you de-
scribe teamwork among students? Or ‘How well did students deal with roadblocks and
persevered in their efforts to overcome them?’ etc.).
Overall, we followed a case study evaluation method, where a single site provides
the data as described above. Case studies are suitable methods when the phenomenon
to be researched, is complex and the number of potentially relevant variables is prohib-
itive for an experimental design or when there is value in obtaining a more fine-grained
understanding of the phenomenon under research [29]. Next we describe shortly the
design and implementation of the workshop series and present then our findings eval-
uating changes in self-efficacy as well as related qualitative remarks.

4 Designing the Workshop Series

Physical computing education has been researched in a variety of contexts; one distinc-
tion often made, is the degree of embeddedness and interdisciplinary perspectives taken
when learning through physical computing [30]. This distinction has also framed the
design of our workshop series, combining entrepreneurship, game development and
physical computing. Since most youths have an emotional link with playing games,
making a game was a suitable context to present workshops involving entrepreneurship,
environmental thinking and physical computing in a compelling way. The entrepre-
neurship dimension of the workshops was already a relatable topic for them, since they
were attending a school with an orientation on commercial subjects, so that product
design and marketing were tasks where they could benefit from skills they already had
gained. As outlined in section 2.1, our workshops are based on Lackeus’ [7] model of
early entrepreneurial education, adapted in Table 1. The table presents each step by step
its objectives and some example activities, specific to our pilot study.

Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
6

Table 1. Program elements of early entrepreneurial education (EEE), based on [9]
EEE Objectives Short description
elements

1. Sensi- - build up confidence - learners were shown working prototypes from pre-
tize (Do it among youths vious workshops
because - showcase possibili- - discuss the use of games outside the entertainment
you can) ties and leisure sector
- students analyze existing games in a holistic way
(ease of learning the game, target market etc.)
- build and test a first open hardware setup on a
breadboard, flashing the microcontroller (MCU)

2. Ex- - explore links be- - brainstorming exercise (e.g. quantity over quality,
plore tween sensor data no criticism, speculations are welcome)
(Do what and social or envi- - mind map with a problem statement at the center
matters) ronmental problems and related keywords and dot points
(e.g. noise or air - identify different rules for winning a game (i.e. de-
pollution) fining the winning conditions)
- explore basic types
of games

3. Work - structure the teams’ - clarifying different possible roles within a team,
together internal collabora- working on game ideas, technical implementation,
(Do it to- tion business plan and marketing as well as packaging
gether) - integrate the - as external experts we had a professional game de-
knowledge of exter- signer and a game producer joining some of the
nal experts workshops

4. Create - make a first proto- - at the core of this step is the testing of the game
& Iterate type and aim for with specific hypotheses in mind (flow, functionali-
(Start it multiple revisions ties, engagement, duration etc.)
now)

5. Reflect - reflect upon experi- - sharing information, i.e. synchronizing the status of
(Do it bet- ences the product in its various dimensions (business as-
ter) - improve future de- pects, new features, marketing etc) at the beginning
sign- and collabora- of each workshop
tion decisions - continuously aligning students’ expectations with
the time they had left to finish the product

6. Scale up - test the assumptions - present final prototypes and associated business
and share behind the business plans at the school
it (Inspire model - collect feedback from potential users, e.g. regard-
others) ing game idea, features and envisioned price

There were six workshops in total. Steps 1 and 2 were addressed in the first two work-
shops, steps 3 to 5 (collaborate, iterate, reflect) were simultaneously addressed in
workshops 3 to 5 and the last step (sharing) was part of a school presentation during

Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
7

the last workshop. Although attempting to scale a solution is an important part of en-
trepreneurship education, this last step was little addressed due to the limited time avail-
able for the workshops. The following two sections provide a more in-depth account of
game and gadget development.

4.1 Game Development
Starting point for our game development were mobile and social game concepts [31].
The mobile aspect refers to the wearable nature of the game gadget which allows play-
ers to move outside the classroom and the social aspect is given by developing a col-
laborative game that is played in a group. Furthermore we also opted for ‘social play’
since the group experience provides a more positive, fun experience, compared to solo-
play, where more competitive game concepts dominate [32]. For our purpose we kept
all the data on the game device, however sensor data and associated locations could
have been shared with a cloud application so that the data as a by-product of gaming
could be visualized and interpreted by players. Students were introduced to various
game mechanics (cf. section 2.2) and could adopt elements that fitted best their initial
game scenarios. Together with the support of a game developer, students discussed how
they wanted to go about four game elements:
(1) Roles: A role describes a personality within the game that symbolizes a
core aspect of the game (e.g. roles associated with light or clean air).
(2) Behavioral modes: ‘Behaviors’ describe possible actions attached to a role.
Behaviors included attacking, defending, escaping or changing the status
of other players.
(3) Datafication: Since the game was to make use of sensors, eventually lead-
ing to the collection of environmental data, player activities should gener-
ate data or be influenced by data. For example, one group used the amount
of solar energy captured by a device to determine the speed of the catcher
when playing tag.
(4) Winning condition: The ultimate goal of the game is described by the win-
ning condition. For example, in a game of tag the game is over when there
is nobody left to be caught.

4.2 Gadget Development

For developing the gadget, we chose a mix between instruction and experimentation:
(1) we used two introductory sessions on open source hardware components and the
Arduino IDE; and (2) each team had access to a tutor they could approach for specific
hard- or software related changes they wanted to make. Additionally, during the first
session, students got to play first with fully assembled gadgets (involving distance sen-
sors, microphones and smart LEDs). The purpose of seeing finished gadgets was to set
some expectations about what would be possible throughout the workshop series and
what not. They then learned about changing code snippets in the Arduino IDE and
flashing the gadget, which would show a different behavior as a consequence.

Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
8

During the second workshop student groups would then assemble their own gadgets in
small teams and at this stage they were also introduced to voltages and currents and
why some of the components had to be protected by resistors. Later on, the tutors guided
student groups in their approaches to specific developments, i.e. if a desired change was
unlikely to be finished in one workshop, the team had to decide whether this was worth
it and what consequences this delay might have on other tasks to be accomplished.
Hence the teams would often attempt to find a simpler approach or drop the desired
feature altogether. The facilitators’ task was then to moderate that process as part of the
entrepreneurial learning experience, i.e. the management of human resources and time
as a limited input variable to every entrepreneurial project. However, beyond facilitat-
ing entrepreneurial learning, facilitators had also an important role in presenting them-
selves as partners in a dialogue rather than as a source of authority, cutting short the
explorations of youths.

5 Evaluation Results: Self-efficacy and Learning
Experience

Our workshop series included 6 events over the course of 2 months. 25 students partic-
ipated (38% male and 62% female) and 24 students gave their consent to use their data
for research purposes. The workshops took close to 3 hours with the exception of the
fifth workshop dedicated to testing and iterating the game, which took 5 hours. All
workshops were supported by three to four facilitators. The self-efficacy survey (cf.
section three) was handed to the students during the first and last workshop in order to
measure any changes in the perception of their self-efficacy. The result was a very
moderate increase by 0.95 of the sum of means and a decrease of the standard deviation
by 0.95. A paired sample t-test showed that the difference of pre- and post means was
not at a significant level. Figure 2 shows the individual means of the items asked in the
self-efficacy survey. Numbers 1 to 5 on the y-axis indicate the level of (dis-)approval
with the statements listed on the x-axis. The ‘3’ indicates the ‘undecided level’, every-
thing above means approval and every value below implies disapproval.

Fig. 2. Items on the self-efficacy questionnaire (N=22)

Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
9

The small changes are also reflected on the item level. The largest changes of 0.4 and
0.3 can be observed for the first and the penultimate item, referring to a decrease in ‘not
being afraid of new things’ and a less pronounced disapproval of ‘rather not having to
learn many new things’. Although these are positive developments as they go in the
right direction of becoming a self-confident, skilled entrepreneur, we would have hoped
for a more distinct showing of differences. Further analysis is needed to better under-
stand the multitude of influencing factors. One hypothesis we have is related to the
number of successful experiences students have had, i.e. actually mastering the chal-
lenge of the workshop in a way they felt satisfied with.

5.1 Facilitators’ Critical Reflection on Student’s Self-efficacy
Both facilitator interviews were transcribed, and their content was analyzed according
to a set of emerging categories such as ‘Prototyping’, ‘Embracing new things’, ‘Perse-
verance’ or ‘Collaboration’ and ‘Co-design’.

Embracing New Things. Although students had experience with board games or play-
ing catch in general, none of them had previous knowledge with the Arduino IDE,
MCUs or systematic game development. Still, with support, they made amendments to
their game gadgets and produced their own game accompanying play cards (Figure 3).
However, in light of the results on self-efficacy in figure 2, open source hardware and
game development can be complex so that students might have perceived their work as
small contributions compared to what experts could do.

Fig. 3. Game gadget with solar shield (left), gadget with wind sensor (middle)
and game cards (left)
So, in some instances the facilitators needed to stop ongoing work on one component
(e.g. game design) so that there was enough time left for actually testing the game and
get a first affective feedback. The students were continuously seeing things they could
improve further, however, the facilitators stressed that the actual testing of their game
prototypes, even though still very raw, would help them to prioritize which shortcom-
ings had to be addressed and which ones could be postponed.

Perseverance. There were several points in the development of the gadget where we
realized that a change was needed. For example, they only found out in practice that
the air quality sensor did not work reliably if moved or that the noise sensor had only a

very limited range within which noise levels could be captured meaningfully. As a con-
sequence, we replaced the air quality sensor with a wind sensor and the team working
with the noise sensor had to keep in mind that their game should only make use of close
range sources of noise (e.g. a motor, speakers in front of a shop or air conditioning
units) rather than aiming at ambient or background noise. Figure 4 (left) shows two
students taking notes on the energy absorption of the solar shield under different light
conditions. According to the amount of energy caught by the device, players were al-
lowed to switch from walking to running and hence be more efficient catchers. How-
ever, finding suitable thresholds took a number of iterations: updating and testing the
new game modalities (Figure 4, right).

Fig. 4. Exploring the solar gadget (left) and testing game modalities (right)

Entrepreneurship and Management Skills. During the first workshop students
started with drawing a mind map in order to catch the ‘every day meaning’ of the data
they were collecting with the device. For example, in the case of sunlight, the mind map
resulted in the following concepts: sun supports the generation of vitamin D, light is a
precondition for oxygen production via plants, sun lets evaporate water and causes rain,
too much sun can cause skin cancer or solar cells transform sun light into electrical
energy. These thoughts had an immediate impact on the emerging game structure, with
students postulating (1) monsters thrive in dark places such as parking houses, tunnels,
subways or narrow alleys; (2) monsters’ power growths or shrinks according to expo-
sure to light, (3) the equivalent of exposure to light is the sun light captured by the game
gadget, only available to hunters of monsters.
From the facilitators’ point of view, it was important that students also became aware
of using games not just for entertainment but also as a vehicle to create social awareness
of a societal challenge. They also recognized that game development is a whole industry
and that some of the business skills they had learned at school could be applied there.
Towards the end they also understood various ways in how data can be valuable in
themselves, as a side-product of the game.

6 Conclusion

With this paper we emphasized the importance of embedding even simple things such
as the basics of electronics or programming in a meaning-providing framework such as
an entrepreneurial project or developing a game with a purpose. We started our paper

arguing that if 21st century skills (critical thinking, creativity, communication and col-
laboration) and an entrepreneurial spirit are core objectives of today’s education, then
this needs to be reflected in the way education is conceived and facilitated. This is not
necessarily something new, since project-based learning has heralded interdiscipli-
narity and a focus on practice since its beginning. Our experiences confirmed that the
bigger picture of a project is more motivational than an isolated skill or fact. However,
in practice this bears the cost of losing a useful structuring mechanism when a system-
atic introduction to the foundations of a technology would be a natural scaffold for
teaching physical computing. Implicit to changing the way we introduce youth to new
technologies is the need to support learners in using their own evolving problem under-
standing as a guide to self-organize their learning.
For future work we are looking into further optimizing the workshop experience by
experimenting with what Blikstein [21] calls ‘selective exposure’, i.e. consciously de-
ciding which aspects of a technology to show or to hide and thereby managing the
growing complexity of multi-level systems such as physical computing gadgets.

Acknowledgment

DOIT has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and in-
novation programme under grant agreement No 770063.

References

1. Becker, S.A., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall, C.G., Ananthanarayanan, V.:
NMC horizon report: 2017 higher education edition. The New Media Consortium (2017).
2. Halverson, E.R., Sheridan, K.: The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Re-
view. 84, 495–504 (2014).
3. Voigt, C., Montero, C.S., Menichinelli, M.: An empirically informed taxonomy for the Maker
Movement. In: International Conference on Internet Science. pp. 189–204. Springer, Flor-
ence. IT (2016).
4. Alimisis, D.: Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science
and Technology Education. 6, 63–71 (2013).
5. Przybylla, M., Romeike, R.: Physical Computing and Its Scope--Towards a Constructionist
Computer Science Curriculum with Physical Computing. Informatics in Education. 13, 241–
254 (2014).
6. Leal Filho, W., Manolas, E., Pace, P.: The future we want: Key issues on sustainable devel-
opment in higher education after Rio and the UN decade of education for sustainable devel-
opment. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. 16, 112–129 (2015).
7. Lackéus, M.: Entrepreneurship in education: What, why, when, how. Background Paper.
(2015).
8. Voigt, C., Schön, S., Hofer, M.: Innovation management in schools: Barriers and enablers to
making as educative practice. In: Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (MKWI). , Lüne-
burg, GER (2018).

9. Unterfrauner, E., Voigt, C., Schön, S.: Towards a Model of Early Entrepreneurial Education:
Appreciation, Facilitation and Evaluation. In: 8th International Conference in Methodologies
and Intelligent Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning. , Toledo (SP) (2018).
10. Suero Montero, C., Voigt, C., Mäkitalo-Siegl, K.: From Digital Fabrication to Meaningful
Creations: Pedagogical Perspectives. In: Edurobotics 2018. Springer, Rome, IT (2018).
11. Bell, S.: Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House.
83, 39–43 (2010).
12. Kaltman, G.S.: Hands-on learning. Childhood Education. 87, S7–S7 (2010).
13. Bruffee, K.A.: Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority
of knowledge. ERIC (1993).
14. Voigt, C., Seebacher, L.M., Vana, I.: Overcoming inequalities in informal science learning.
Presented at the The International Conference of the Learning Science , Nashville, US
(online) (2020).
15. Gibb, A.: Entrepreneurship and enterprise education in schools and colleges: Insights from
UK practice. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education. 6, 48 (2008).
16. Gros, B.: Game dimensions and pedagogical dimension in serious games. In: Handbook of
Research on Serious Games for Educational Applications. pp. 402–417. IGI Global (2017).
17. Von Ahn, L., Dabbish, L.: Designing games with a purpose. Communications of the ACM.
51, 58–67 (2008).
18. Wolz, U., Barnes, T., Parberry, I., Wick, M.: Digital gaming as a vehicle for learning. In:
Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education. pp.
394–395 (2006).
19. Limelight.com: The state of online gaming - 2019, https://www.limelight.com/re-
sources/white-paper/state-of-online-gaming-2019/#spend, last accessed 2019/12/24.
20. Eow, Y.L., Baki, R.: Computer games development and appreciative learning approach in
enhancing students’ creative perception. Computers & Education. 54, 146–161 (2010).
21. Blikstein, P.: Gears of our childhood: constructionist toolkits, robotics, and physical compu-
ting, past and future. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction De-
sign and Children. pp. 173–182. ACM (2013).
22. Voigt, C., Unterfrauner, E., Aslan, T., Hofer, M.: Design Thinking with Children: The Role
of Empathy, Creativity and Self-Efficacy. In: FabLearn 19. ACM Press, New York, US
(2019).
23. Katterfeldt, E.-S., Dittert, N., Schelhowe, H.: Designing digital fabrication learning environ-
ments for Bildung: Implications from ten years of physical computing workshops. Interna-
tional Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. 5, 3–10 (2015).
24. Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., Van den Brande, G.: EntreComp: The entrepreneur-
ship competence framework. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.
(2016).
25. Boyd, N.G., Vozikis, G.S.: The Influence of Self-Efficacy on the Development of Entrepre-
neurial Intentions and Actions. In: Kuhl, J. and Beckmann, J. (eds.) From cognition to behav-
ior. pp. 11–39. Springer, Heidelberg (1994).
26. Deusinger, I.M.: Die Frankfurter Selbstkonzeptskalen:(FSKN). Hogrefe, Verlag für Psychol-
ogie (1986).
27. Krampen, G.: FKK Fragebogen zu Kompetenz-und Kontrollüberzeugungen. Göttingen:
Hogrefe. (1991).

28. Midgley, C., Maehr, M.L., Hruda, L.Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K.E., Urdan,
T.: Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor. 1001, 48109–1259 (2000).
29. Yin, R.K.: Case study research : design and methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks Calif. (2003).
30. Valls, A., Albó-Canals, J., Canaleta, X.: Creativity and Contextualization Activities in Edu-
cational Robotics to Improve Engineering and Computational Thinking. In: International
Conference on Robotics and Education RiE 2017. pp. 100–112. Springer (2017).
31. Spallazzo, D., Mariani, I.: Location-Based Mobile Games: Design Perspectives. Springer
(2018).
32. Koster, R.: Theory of fun for game design. O’Reilly Media, Inc. (2013).