Using introductory exercises and debrief
sessions in pedagogical role playing games
Key words
Pedagogical games, serious games, icebreakers, role playing games, debrief
Name of the author(s)
Carl Heath1
Karl Alfredsson2
Project Manager, GR Utbildning
Box 5073
402 22 Göteborg
+46-705-354176
[email protected]
Project Manager, GR Utbildning
Box 5073
402 22 Göteborg
+46-706-999450
[email protected]
Author Information
Carl Heath is the founder and manager of GR Upplevelsebaserat Lärande (GRUL, www.grul.se) .
During the past five years Carl Heath has developed a numerous games, primarily for stakeholders
within the Swedish schools system. Amongst the titles are “The Advisors, a game on European Union
issues for the National Committee on EU debate, “The Parliament game” for the Swedish Parliament
and “When you decide”, a game on elections for the Swedish National Agency for School
Development. Apart from designing games, Carl holds courses in game design and game
implementation for teachers and teacher trainers in Sweden as well as internationally.
Karl Alfredsson is a project manager at GR Upplevelsebaserat Lärande (GRUL, www.grul.se) . Prior
to his current vocation Karl Alfredsson has worked as a teacher for seven years and also as a deputy
principal for four years. Side by side with his main vocation Karl Alfredsson also has worked at Fabel
AB, a storytelling company. Karl Alfredsson designs games and holds courses in game design and
game implementation for teachers and teacher trainers in Sweden as well as internationally.
Abstract
As the use of pedagogical role playing games and simulations have spread throughout the Swedish
school system, the need for investigating the use of shorter exercises and debrief sessions that are used
prior and after a pedagogical role playing or simulation session has become important. The focus of
this paper is to investigate these questions, and to provide insights into how to implement pedagogical
role playing games and simulations as part of the syllabus in upper secondary schools. A survey was
conducted during the use of pedagogical games in upper secondary schools. Findings of the survey
indicates that players find the use of smaller exercises valuable before playing a pedagogical role
playing game, based on individual roles for players, since they start to form and define the group of
players. Debrief sessions are valuable mainly in the context of connecting the in game experience with
the topic of the game. The pedagogical aspects of a debrief session seems to be the main reason for
conducting it.
Introduction
Is there any value of shorter exercises and a debrief session, and if so, what are the
pedagogical values of them? How shall they be structured to enhance the learning objectives
and outcomes of the role playing session from a pedagogical perspective? The focus of this
paper is to investigate these questions, and to provide insights into how to implement
pedagogical role playing games and simulations as part of the syllabus in upper secondary
schools.
In order to answer the questions previously posed, a survey was conducted during the use of a
pedagogical role playing game and a simulation in upper secondary schools. The target group
of the project was students in upper secondary schools throughout Sweden, with a focus on
vocational and education training programs.
Background
Over the past decade games and simulations have become more commonplace within the
Swedish upper secondary schools (Hansson, 2004). Simulations and role playing games have
been translated from English and adapted for a Swedish setting, although our experience is
that most games used today have been designed in Sweden for a Swedish audience. The
games used are mainly pen and paper games, although there have been a large increase in the
use of computer based games over the past decade. For the purpose of this paper, the
discussion will mainly focus on non-digital games. The reason for this is that the games that
have been used in the research of this paper have been of a pen and paper character and
therefore results will relate to these to a greater extent.
Due to the lack of research in the area of Swedish simulations and role playing games, we will
give a background to the field within this paper so that the main topic of icebreakers and
debrief sessions will be possible to relate to the context in which they are applied. The
background given is mainly built upon the experience and practice of GRUL, a pedagogical
development unit with GR Education. GRUL has been active within the field of simulation
and role playing games in the Swedish school system over the last ten years, thus providing a
practitioners perspective to the field.
Here follows a brief background to the introduction of pedagogical simulations and role
playing games in Swedish schools. This introduction does not claim to be either detailed or
complete, and as stated above the perspective is of a practitioner within the field. The purpose
of the description is to place the research of this paper in a proper context, thus making it
possible to view the corresponding results from an accurate perspective.
The presence of games in school
A plethora of various games have been produced for educational purposes within the formal
school system in Sweden. We see that games are produced by different actors inside and
outside of the school system. A large portion of the games that have been produced are either
simulations or role playing games, although card games, board games and other forms of
games have been developed too. These have been produced by actors closely associated with
the school system, such as The National Agency for School Development, Sida or GR
Education. Another group of producers of games are the teachers themselves, who often
produce various games for a given situation, when they see a need for such material. A third
group of producers are third party interest groups, who produce games which are written on a
topic of interest for the specific needs of that interest group. Examples of such games are
“Life” produced by AstraZeneca and “The world trade game” produced by the aid
organizations Forum Syd, Diakonia and DemokratiAkademin.
In our experience, a vast majority of the games produced for the formal school system contain
some form of teacher handbook or other material that explains how to set up and facilitate the
game within a formal school context. The quality of these handbooks varies a lot, but in most
cases contains a short introduction to the topic of the game, and a description of how to set up
and facilitate the game. In most cases the handbook ends with a chapter on how to organize
and facilitate a debrief session. It seems that this way of structuring a pedagogical game is
fairly general.
Over the past decades the amount of games, such as simulations and role playing games, have
increased in the formal school system in Sweden. From a practitioner’s perspective, it is clear
that the increased use of games in school depends to some extent on the greater availability of
different pedagogical role playing games and simulations. One other reason is due to a
generally raised awareness around and interest in games in general. How many different types
of games that are used vary a lot and the picture of actual usage of games in formal schools is
hard to estimate since, to our knowledge no study has been conducted that indicates a clear
measure for this.
A practitioner’s view of simulations and role playing games in Swedish schools
Under the mid 1990s there has been a raise of the use of pedagogical role playing games in
Swedish schools. The reasons for this have not been clearly studied. The increase seems to
correspond with a greater cooperation between teacher trainers and teachers in Great Britain
and Sweden. During the mid 90s, researchers and teacher trainers from Great Britain who had
actively been working with simulations and role playing games started to hold teacher
training seminars in Sweden, and the amount of teachers participating in these grew. As a
consequence of this, teacher training courses with a focus on simulations and role playing
games started to be held in Sweden on a regular basis. Over the past decade the production of
simulations and role playing games have also increased in Sweden and a large number of
games have been produced by various game designers, teachers and teacher trainers. Games
have been produced during pedagogical game design courses held by GRUL and The
National Agency for School Development (GRUL, 2007c and MSU, 2007).
A parallel development of simulations and role playing games has taken place within the
Swedish civil society and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Some of the main
developers of games are the National Council of Swedish Youth Organizations (LSU), the
Swedish Guide and Scout Association (LSU, 2007) and the Study Association Sensus
(Danielsson, 2005). Although the games produced by these actors mainly focus on informal
learning situations, much of the material produced within the framework of the civil society
has been adopted by teachers and used within a formal school setting.
Aid agencies, in Sweden and elsewhere, use simulations and pedagogical role playing games
as a part of their educational methodology. There are several seemingly successful cases, yet
to be fully documented, where these methods have been used for a wide range of topics. In
Cambodia pedagogical role playing have been used as an educational method in the ongoing
struggle to fight HIV/Aids (SIDA, 2007). In Sri Lanka simulations have been used as a
method for discussing democracy, human rights and poverty reduction with mixed groups of
Tamil and Sinhalese background. In a European context the Council of Europe has produced
a well spread and used material on human rights education, using both pedagogical role
playing and simulations as methods (COE, 2007).
Another strong factor for the relatively fast increase in the use of simulations and role playing
games in schools can be ascribed to the development of the game culture in Sweden. Several
genres of gaming have emerged from being smaller sub cultures to more mainstream
phenomena. Live action role playing games (LARPs), role playing in general and the
computer games scene have all seen an increase or have developed strongly over the past
fifteen years. In 1989 Sverok, the Swedish role playing and board gaming association was
formed and has seen a rapid growth in members. Today the organisation has 72 000 members
in 1500 clubs and is still growing (Sverok, 2007). As games in general have received a wider
audience in Sweden, more teachers and teacher trainers have an experience in the use of them,
thus making the step to use pedagogical role playing games and simulations somewhat easier.
In the late 1990s the above mentioned processes merged, as people from the different areas
mentioned above started to meet and work together. Ideas and concepts previously used in for
example the hobby games culture moved into the school areas, as did the concepts developed
for informal education purposes.
Today games are widely spread within the Swedish school system, simulations and role
playing games relating to various topics are used in schools on a regular basis. How much
games are actually used, in what subjects, age groups etcetera have not been studied in depth.
Statistics from GRUL (2007) pedagogical game downloading area shows that approximately
900 members have downloaded about 3000 games between March 2006 and March 2007. In
what degree each game has been used hasn’t been studied, neither what games are preferred
before others. There are of course other sources for pedagogical games, such as SimNet, The
Council of Europe, and so on (Simnet, 2007; COE, 2007). The spread of these games haven’t
been fully documented either.
The use of icebreakers
As the use of pedagogical games and simulations have spread throughout the school system,
the need for investigating the use of shorter exercises and debrief sessions that are used prior
and after a pedagogical role playing session has become increasingly important.
When using a pedagogical game in a school context, teachers often use icebreakers or other
short methods before actually starting out with the game, in order to create an atmosphere in
the classroom which is suitable for playing the game. These exercises also help strengthening
group dynamics which is important since the bonds within the group works as the foundation
for the pedagogical issues deemed important to bring forth in the debrief session (Hansson,
2004).
Ken Jones (1991), has described icebreakers in a metaphorical sense;
“An icebreaker is a vessel designed to clear a passage in frozen waters and open up for new
channels of communication. In human terms icebreakers are intended to deal with frosty
situations, cold starts and nervous freezing. They aim not only to break the ice but also to
warm the atmosphere.”
In his book Icebreakers – a sourcebook of games exercies and simulations, Jones argues
extensively on the use of icebreakers. He divides them into three different categories; games,
exercises and simulations, as he defines differences in icebreakers which relate to the players
perspective or thoughts on what the activity actually is. He asks how participants are treating
the activity in order to categorize icebreakers:
(a) as a game in which players have a duty to try to win
(b) as an exercise dealing with problems, puzzles, issues
(c) as a simulation involving ‘professional’ roles and functions
He makes this division in order to clarify these perspectives for the facilitator as these
different labels create different thoughts on what type of activity actually will take place.
Jones continues by describing various icebreakers of the different kinds mentioned above, and
on how to use them. Although some of the icebreakers described are similar in style and
context as icebreakers which are used in Sweden, the categorization and style of the
icebreakers differs to some extent. Where most icebreakers designed by Jones uses various
handouts and are relatively time consuming, our experience is that icebreakers designed by
different actors (GRUL, 2007a; LSU, 2007) in Sweden tend to be shorter and contain few or
no handouts.
In the article “10 Icebreakers for school” Heath and Alfredsson (2006) gives us another
perspective on icebreakers and their use. Icebreakers are shorter and relatively simple
exercises which are used before, in conjunction to or after a larger activity. There are several
areas of use for icebreakers. As an example they can often provide to be of good use before
facilitating a larger activity (Preziosi, 1998). The icebreaker creates this focus within the
group, thus providing for a better working climate and an atmosphere more focused on the
group and the activities to come, rather than events taking place beforehand (Kirby, 1992).
Icebreakers can be especially effective when working with a newly formed group or with
participants who do not know each other. They can also be used between activities as a way
of utilizing more energy from the participants. As most icebreakers are designed in such a
way that participants have to move physically, this also provides for a good break and
focusing activity. In circumstances where icebreakers are used in this way, they are also
commonly spoken of as energizers (Heath & Alfredsson, 2006).
Since participants need to use both their body and several senses, many icebreakers can be
used in order to vitalize a discussion and stimulate the creative capacity of a group. The
inspiration for many icebreaker designs come from children’s games, drama exercises and
simple games (Jones, 1995). This being said, it does not mean icebreakers should only be
used with children or when playing. They work perfectly well in both school settings and in
boardrooms (Heath & Alfredsson, 2006). In order to get a group interested in taking part in
the icebreaker it is easiest done if the facilitator takes the lead and joins in the activity. In this
way the possible tension of trying it out tends to lower amongst the participants (LeFevre,
2002).
Jones points out that many icebreakers that have been produced are either very childish, dull
or have some other bad design quality. If using a poorly designed icebreaker one risks
creating more ice and tension within a group, instead of the opposite. He argues that this
might be a reason for a person not using an icebreaker in a situation where it might be
relevant (Jones, 1991).
The debrief session
There can be several purposes of a debrief, such as bridging the in-game context with the real
world issues, settling issues which might have been raised through the game and to relate
facts and other pedagogical material to the played game (Alfredsson& Heath 2006; Brander
et al, 2002)). The debrief is a form of discussion relating to the experience of the activity
which has taken place. Although many teachers provide for a debrief session after having
carried out a pedagogical role playing game, the way in which this is done, as well as what is
included in the debrief session seems to vary (Jones, 1995).
Our experience tells us that a clear line can often be drawn between the activity itself and
what takes place afterwards. When participating in a pedagogical role playing game or a
simulation they tend to have a clear ending. This ending can either be built into the game
design, or the facilitator chooses to end the game at a given time. In either case, it tends to be
fairly clear for a participant when the activity is over. This point is crucial, as the discussion,
or debrief, taking place after the activity is of importance for the pedagogical process
(Hansson, 2004). One can relate to other experiences, such as going to the movies or enjoying
an activity in a theme park. When the activity is over, the people who participated in it are
anxious to share with each other their personal experience and feelings toward what they have
experienced (GRUL, 2007:b). The participants are usually also interested in knowing what the
others thought and felt. We can see from our practice that the same situation arises when a
successful simulation or role playing game has ended. The participants are anxious to discuss
their experience with each other. This first phase of the debrief is important from a
pedagogical perspective, as it is during the discussion after the activity that the facilitator has
the possibility to share thoughts, ask questions and delve more deeply into what has taken
place (Brander et al 2002). It is also possible to relate the experience of the activity with the
general topic and area in which the activity is staged (Hansson, 2004). From our experience
facilitators sometimes chooses to take a break between the activity and the debrief session.
The effect of this is that the spontaneous discussion that the participants have of their
experience of the activity might take place outside of the context where the facilitator has the
possibility of taking part. In order for the facilitator to manage the discussion and to get the
most out of it, a brake should therefore be considered somewhat later than directly after the
activity has ended.
When the participants of the activity have discussed their personal experiences and shared
thoughts on them, it is possible to generalize this discussion to the wider area in which the
simulation or role playing game is placed. This second phase of the discussion brings the
experience of the activity together with the general content of the area which the simulation or
role playing game centers around. It is thereby possible to relate and interpret situations and
experiences in the activity to situations which have taken place, or might take place, in our
everyday lives (Hansson, 2004; GRUL, 2007b).
Jones (1995) states that debrief sessions often are missed opportunities, as the debrief is:
(a) too brief
(b) too dictatorial
(c) too routine and unimaginative; and
(d) follows so closely on the event that mature reflection is excluded.
Jones describes the importance of holding a debrief session in direct connection with the
activity as “[it] allows people to get things of their chests, and this is important otherwise
dissent and band temper can spill over inside and outside of the classroom.” (Jones, 1995).
Jones can also find it of value to hold the main part of the debrief session later, possibly on
some other day. The reason for this being that it might be possible to “allow passions to cool
and mature reflection to occur”(Jones, 1995). These thoughts are shared by Hansson, who
also states that the option of holding the discussion directly after the activity, or to hold it at a
later time “depends on what has happened [during the activity], the facilitators knowledge of
the participants and the professionalism of the facilitator”(Hansson, 2004).
Studying the value of icebreakers in a formal school system
We conducted a survey using a questionnaire which was handed out in direct connection to a
course held on European Union issues. Between September and November 2006 GRUL
carried out 26 role playing sessions on European Union issues, using two different kinds of
pedagogical games. These where a pedagogical role playing game called “The Collective”
and a simulation called “The Advisors” (GRUL, 2007d). Each course took approximately
three hours. The aim of the courses where to start a discussion on issues pertaining to the
European Union, as well as to provide the students with more facts and background on EU
related issues. The course was organized in the following way;
•
Introduction. A brief presentation on the three hour course was given. (approximately
10 minutes)
•
Icebreakers. Two short icebreakers were carried out. (approximately 10 minutes)
•
Game 1. The Collective was played. (approximately 70 minutes including a debrief
session)
•
Break (approximately 10 minutes)
•
Game 2. The Advisors was played (approximately 60 minutes including a debrief
session)
•
Round up and evaluation (approximately 20 minutes)
The same icebreakers where used on all courses. These where “The counting exercise” and
“Zip, Zap, Boing” (GRULa, 2007).
The questionnaire was handed out to all 462 students who participated in the course. The
target respondents were students in upper secondary schools throughout Sweden. The classes
were chosen as a result of interest shown from the schools to participate in the course which
was a part of a wider project focusing on European Union issues in upper secondary schools
throughout Sweden.
The respondents were promised anonymity. We did not ask the respondents to identify
themselves apart from what school and program they attended. The questionnaire contained
20 questions on various aspects of the two games which were played, as well as the use of
icebreakers and debrief session. The statements in the questionnaire used a scale from 1 to 6,
where 1 was “I disagree completely” and 6 where I agree completely. The main portion of the
statements relates to the two games played during the course and this will be subject to further
studies. For this paper the statements relating directly to icebreakers and debrief are in focus.
These statements where:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The aim of the course was presented clearly
The icebreakers in the beginning of the course created a good atmosphere in the group
The course has provided me with more facts on the European Union
All participants where active in the debrief
I wish more lessons where organized using these methods
Result
Figure 1. Results from questionnaire on Icebreakers and debrief session.
The first question, asking if the aim of the course was presented clearly, had an average of 4,7
(median 4,8). This gives a clear indication that most students clearly understood the aim of
the course, which was stated for them directly as the course started.
In the second question, asking if the icebreakers in the beginning of the course created a good
atmosphere in the group, the average response was an average of 4,9 (median 5,0). It is
evident that a vast majority of the students participating in the courses found icebreakers to be
of value during the course.
The third question relates to the debrief session, as this was the part of the course where most
facts on European Union issues where introduced and discussed. The results on the question if
the course has provided me with more facts on the European Union is an average of 4,2
(median 4,4) . This gives an clear indication that there is a value in organizing a debrief
session in direct connection with the game.
The fourth question asked if the participant thought that most participants where active in the
debrief session, it does not say anything on the quality of the activity, but rather if the debrief
had a high amount of participation. The result from this question was an average of 3,4
(median 3,5), indicating that the students impression was that not all of the students
participated actively in the debrief session, although most seem to have. This result is vague
and does not give a clear indication.
The fifth question gives an indication on what the general experience of the course was from a
student perspective. On the question I wish more lessons were organized using these methods,
the students answered on average 4,6 (median 4,7). This shows that a majority of students
find the methods, in this case the use of icebreakers, games and a debrief session, as a
meaningful and interesting way of having a lesson on European Union issues.
Discussion
From our survey it is clear that the students find the use of icebreakers to be valuable when
using games as a pedagogical method. Although only two specific icebreakers where used on
the courses, we can see that the results of the survey correlate to the prior experience of our
work, as well as to the experiences of icebreakers described by Jones and LeFevre (Jones,
1995; LeFevre, 2002).
It is harder to find a clear result on debrief sessions from the results of the survey. It seems
reasonable that the results from question tree, four and five that the students find the general
methodology and the use of debrief sessions after the game to be relevant and that their
understanding of facts on subject issues has expanded. But as the questions posed does not
delve fully into the various aspects of the debrief session, this isn’t a clear case. Our findings
from the survey relates to our prior experience within the field, as well as Hanssons and Jones
descriptions on the use of a debrief session (Jones, 1995; Hansson, 2004).
In general the survey indicates that players find the use of icebreakers valuable before playing
a pedagogical role playing game as this exercise creates a good atmosphere within the group.
Debrief sessions are valuable mainly in the context of connecting the in game experience with
the topic of the game. The pedagogical aspects of a debrief session seems to be the main
reason for conducting it. As the players find the shorter exercises valuable, these should be
conducted prior to playing a pedagogical role playing game. The debrief session provide for a
possibility to reflect upon what happened during the game, as well as giving time to introduce
new facts and aspects of the game topic, thus making it possible to generalize the experience
of the in game context with issues relating to topic.
The use of icebreakers and debrief sessions as a part of pedagogical role playing games and
simulations strengthens the overall experience and learning situation. Icebreakers are
sometimes ignored due to issues such as time, will or competence of the facilitator. Raising
attention and building knowledge about icebreakers is important, especially as the use of
games and simulations spreads throughout the school system. As both Jones (1995) and
Hansson (2004) describes the use of icebreakers have a place in a pedagogical environment
not only when using games and simulations, but at other times when a good working
environment is needed or the energy of a group starts to run out.
Jones (1995) discusses the possibility of postponing the debrief session to some other time,
later on, instead of holding the debrief session in direct connection to the activity. From our
experience in GRUL, and more specifically from the experiences of our study, it seems
evident that holding the debrief session in direct connection to the game experience makes
sence. When choosing to postpone the debrief session valuable experiences might not be
drawn to attention, as this experience will be discussed amongst the participants outside of the
formal learning environment. One possibility is of course to hold two debrief sessions, one in
direct connection to the activity and another one at a later time, thus making it possible to
reflect between these two sessions. As the debrief session provides the opportunity to reflect
upon the experience of the activity, and to relate the experience to facts and other situations, it
is important to let the debrief session take time and be structured in a way so that it actually
brings up to discussion the relevant issues of the game. The debrief session should be planned
and organized in connection to the preparations of the activity, so that these connect both in
method and content.
As the debrief session is of great importance when working with pedagogical games and
simulations, it might also be of use when working with other forms of games. This is nothing
we have studied, but might be of interest for the future.
Conclusion
When using pedagogical role playing games and simulations in schools one should place it
inside a larger pedagogical context which also includes the use of icebreakers and a debrief
session. Although this means that the time used will increase, as further elements are
included, it is beneficial from a learning perspective. Earlier publications on icebreakers, as
well as the practical experience of GRUL, shows that it is important to have a clear aim and
goal when using an icebreaker and when planning and running a debrief session. The reason
for this when using icebreakers is, as shown above, to create a better atmosphere and focus
within the group. When it comes to the debrief session it is important to provide for a place to
discuss and develop the participants experiences of the game, so that these can be placed in
relationship with the overall purpose and topic of the game session.
Acknowledgment
This paper was funded by GR Education. We would like to thank the following people for help in our
work on this paper; Maria Åresund, Karin Stenqvist, Staffan Björk and Jonas Linderoth.
Bibliography
Björk, s & Holopainen, J. (2004) Patterns in game design. Hingham, MA, USA: Charles
River Media Inc
Brander et al (2002) Compass – A manual on human rights education with young people.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing
Danielsson, Åsa (red.) MOD – Mångfald och dialog- Ledarhandledning. (2005):
Stockholm:Studieförbundet Bilda och Sensus studieförbund
Fullerton, T. & Swain, C & Hoffman, S. (2004) Game design workshop: Designing,
Prototyping and playtesting games. San Fransisco, CA, USA: CMP Books
GRULa. (2007). Retrieved May 15, 2007, from http://www.grul.se/download.php?list.9
GRULb. (2007). Retrieved May 15, 2007, from
http://www.grul.se/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.122
GRULc. (2007). Retrieved May 15, 2007, from
http://www.grul.se/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.57
GRULd. (2007). Retrieved May 15, 2007, from http://www.grul.se/download.php
COE. (2007). Retrieved May 15, 2007, from http://www.coe.int/compass
Hansson, Y (2004) Simuleringar - för lärande och insikt. Stockholm, Sweden: Gothia
Alfredsson, K & Heath, C (2006) Upplevelsebaserat Lärande – att handleda spel, rollspel och
simuleringar i klassrummet. Stockholm, Sweden: Liber distribution
Jones, K. (1995). Simulations: A handbook for teachers and trainers. London, Great Britain:
Kogan Page Limited
Kirby, A (1992) A Compendium of Icebreakers, Energizers, and Introductions. Amherst, MA:
HRD Products
Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall Inc.
Koster, R. (2005) A theory of fun for Game Design. Scottsdale, Arizona, USA: Paraglyph
Press Inc
LSU. (2007). Retrieved May 15, 2007, from http://kunskapsbanken.lsu.se
Mossberg, L. (2003). Att skapa upplevelser - från ok till WOW!. Lund, Sweden:
Studentlitteratur
MSU. (2007). Retrieved May 15, 2007, from
http://www.skolutveckling.se/internationellt/den_globala_skolan/
Nilsson, B & waldemarson, A. (1988). Rollspel i teori och praktik. Lund, Sweden:
Studentlitteratur
Prezioski, R.C (1998) Icebreakers. USA: American Society for Training & Development
Salen, K & Zimmerman, E. (2004) Rules of Play: Game design fundamentals. USA: MIT
Salen, K & Zimmerman, E (eds). (2006) The Game Design Reader. USA: MIT
Sida. (2007). Retrieved May 15, 2007, from
http://www.sida.se/sida/jsp/sida.jsp?d=427&a=29625
SimNet. (2007). Retrieved May 15, 2007, from http://www.simnet.se/
Sverok. (2007). Retrieved May 15, 2007, from http://www.sverok.se/forbundet.html