METAVERSE LEARNING HUB

Funding programme

Erasmus+ KA220-YOU – Cooperation Partnerships in Youth

Project reference

2023-2-NL02-KA220-YOU-000175409

Period

2024–2026

Coordinating organisation

Erasmus University Rotterdam (Netherlands)

Participating countries

Netherlands, Romania, Greece, Poland

Official project website

Visit official website

Metaverse Learning Hub aimed to strengthen digital and human skills among young people, particularly those with fewer opportunities, through evidence-informed educational resources, physical game-based learning and immersive digital experiences.

The project focused on supporting youth workers and youth organisations in helping young people develop transferable competences relevant to employability, social inclusion, responsible digital participation and personal development.

Its educational approach combines practical scenarios, role-playing, guided reflection, collaborative problem-solving and game-based activities.

Specific learning objectives

• Digital literacy: Develop the ability to use digital information, tools and environments critically, effectively and responsibly.
• Online safety: Strengthen awareness of cybersecurity, phishing, privacy risks and the protection of personal information.
• Information literacy: Practise identifying reliable sources, evaluating information and responding to misinformation.
• Digital collaboration: Explore effective communication, coordination and teamwork in technology-supported environments.
• Communication: Develop interpersonal communication skills, active listening, clear expression and the ability to adapt messages to different audiences.
• Empathy: Encourage participants to recognise other people’s perspectives, consider their needs and respond constructively to social situations.
• Critical thinking: Practise analysing complex situations, identifying relevant information and comparing possible courses of action.
• Problem-solving: Develop the ability to propose solutions to realistic social and digital challenges.
• Decision-making: Encourage participants to consider alternatives, anticipate consequences and justify their chosen responses.
• Leadership: Provide opportunities to explore group coordination, responsibility, initiative and the organisation of collective activities.
• Conflict resolution: Practise identifying interpersonal disagreements, understanding different interests and suggesting constructive solutions.
• Intercultural communication: Encourage respectful interaction, understanding of cultural differences and inclusive participation.
• Social responsibility: Develop awareness of responsible citizenship and participation in community initiatives, both online and offline.
• Employability: Strengthen transferable competencies relevant to professional situations, including communication, teamwork, adaptability and digital confidence.
• Self-confidence: Provide a supportive environment in which participants can experiment with decisions, receive feedback and practise responses to unfamiliar situations.
• Social inclusion: Improve access to educational opportunities for disadvantaged young people, including young refugees and participants experiencing barriers to digital learning.
• Youth worker competences: Equip youth professionals with practical methods for facilitating digital and interpersonal skills development through physical and immersive games.
• Reflective learning: Encourage participants to examine the reasoning behind their responses and identify opportunities to apply their experiences outside the game.

The project approaches digital and human skills as complementary areas of development. Its physical game presents realistic scenarios in which these competencies can be discussed and applied, while its digital learning experience offers additional opportunities for interactive practice.

The intended educational objectives should be distinguished from objectively demonstrated competence development, which requires appropriate learning assessments.

Metaverse Learning Hub developed an original physical educational board game entitled Skill Quest: Masters of Tomorrow, alongside a separate immersive digital learning experience.

The two resources share the wider objective of developing human and digital skills among young people, but they use different learning formats and should be considered separate educational interventions.

Game developed

1. Skill Quest: Masters of Tomorrow

Skill Quest is a facilitator-led cooperative educational board game in which participants move between four locations, respond to realistic social and digital challenges, apply character abilities and accumulate points.

The central objective is for every player to visit all four locations and obtain at least 12 points by completing the challenges presented during gameplay.

When all players satisfy these requirements, the group collectively achieves the title of Skill Masters.

Main game characteristics

• Number of players: 2–6.
• Playing time: Approximately 60–90 minutes, depending on group size and the depth of the discussions.
• Game type: Cooperative, scenario-based educational board game with role-playing elements.
• Game objective: Visit the four locations and accumulate at least 12 points per player.
• Board: A physical playing surface representing four thematic locations.
• Character miniatures: Each player selects a character representing their role within the game.
• Character abilities: Roles include abilities related to communication, empathy, leadership, online safety and other competencies.
• Event Cards: Cards introducing location-specific challenges requiring the application of relevant skills.
• Encounter Cards: Cards presenting additional social or digital situations that players must resolve through discussion and decision-making.
• Item Cards: Cards representing useful resources that may support the completion of challenges.
• Custom dice: A special die determines whether a player draws an Event, Encounter or Item Card.
• Personal scoreboard: Each participant records the points awarded for their responses.
• Game Master: A facilitator who presents the scenarios, asks guiding questions, interprets the players’ responses and awards points.

The four game locations

Community Center

This location focuses on social participation, communication, leadership, empathy and responsible community engagement.

Challenges involve situations such as organising community projects, coordinating volunteers, resolving interpersonal conflicts, facilitating intercultural exchange and responding to misinformation.

Tech Hub

This location addresses digital competence, cybersecurity, online safety, information literacy and technology-supported collaboration.

Examples include responding to a cybersecurity breach, identifying phishing attempts, managing information overload, organising digital projects and addressing technical disruptions.

Social Café

This location focuses on interpersonal communication, social relationships, empathy and the management of everyday interactions.

Players encounter scenarios requiring them to consider how to communicate appropriately, respond to others’ needs and resolve social difficulties.

Digital Library

This location concerns digital information, research, responsible knowledge use and related digital literacy competencies.

Activities provide opportunities to examine how information is accessed, evaluated, organised and communicated.

Gameplay structure

1. Preparation: The facilitator places the board in the centre of the table and organises the Event, Encounter and Item Cards associated with the four locations.
2. Character selection: Each participant selects a character with a set of relevant abilities.
3. Location selection: On their turn, players choose one of the four locations they wish to explore.
4. Dice roll: The active player rolls the custom die to determine which category of card will be drawn.
5. Challenge presentation: The Game Master introduces the corresponding situation and explains its context.
6. Guided questions: For Event and Encounter Cards, the facilitator generally asks two or three questions designed to encourage reflection and the application of relevant competencies.
7. Response: The participant explains their proposed solution, optionally drawing on their character’s abilities.
8. Facilitator evaluation: The Game Master assesses the response according to criteria described in the guidebook.
9. Point allocation: The participant receives between one and three points, depending on the quality and completeness of their answer.
10. Progress tracking: Players record their scores and continue visiting locations until they meet the requirements for collective victory.

Scoring system

• 3 points: The player addresses the situation effectively, answers the guiding questions thoughtfully and demonstrates appropriate application of relevant skills.
• 2 points: The response addresses most of the required elements but remains incomplete or demonstrates only partial application of the skills.
• 1 point: The player struggles to resolve the challenge or provides an incomplete response.

Winning conditions

The game concludes successfully when all players have visited the four locations and each player has accumulated at least 12 points.

The cooperative objective emphasises collective completion rather than competition to obtain the highest individual score.

Educational integration

Skill Quest introduces digital and human skills through scenarios representing practical situations that young people may encounter in social, educational or professional contexts.

For example, a cybersecurity scenario requires the player to identify an appropriate response to a digital threat, while a community conflict scenario requires consideration of empathy, communication and constructive mediation.

The educational content is therefore directly represented in the challenges participants must address.

However, the consequences of their responses are primarily determined by the Game Master’s evaluation rather than by an autonomous simulation system.

The game’s learning process is consequently based on guided scenario resolution, discussion, role-playing and feedback, supported by a board game structure.

2. Metaverse Learning Experience – Digital Game

The project also developed an immersive digital learning experience addressing human and digital skills.

This online resource uses interactive scenarios and simulated interactions to explore communication, decision-making and professional or social situations.

The final Policy Recommendations Report describes digital challenges involving multiple-choice questions followed by role-playing interactions with avatars and immediate feedback.

The digital game is available in English, Greek, Dutch, Polish, Romanian and Ukrainian.

It should be treated as a separate digital serious game rather than as a digital adaptation of Skill Quest.

Game approach: Custom-designed physical educational board game, accompanied by a separate immersive digital serious game.

Current availability: The physical game’s guidebook, board, cards, characters and printable die remain publicly linked through the project’s official website.

Official resources:

• Metaverse Learning Hub – Results and Game Components
• Skill Quest – English Game Master Guidebook
• Skill Quest – Printable English Game Cards
• Skill Quest – Erasmus University Rotterdam Game Description

Metaverse Learning Hub adopts an experiential Board Game-Based Learning methodology combining scenario-based challenges, role-playing, guided discussion and formative feedback.

Its physical game, Skill Quest: Masters of Tomorrow, provides structured opportunities for young people to explore digital and interpersonal competencies through realistic situations presented within a cooperative board game framework.

The methodology relies on the interaction between the players, the game components and the Game Master, who facilitates the challenges and helps participants interpret their possible responses.

Methodological approach

1. Identification of learning objectives: The facilitator selects the digital and human skills most relevant to the participants, such as communication, empathy, online safety, critical thinking or teamwork.
2. Introduction to the educational setting: Participants are introduced to the four game locations and their relationship with everyday social and digital situations.
3. Game preparation: The board, character components, card decks and custom die are arranged according to the published rules.
4. Character selection: Each player chooses a character whose abilities represent competencies that can be applied during the scenarios.
5. Exploration of learning environments: Players visit the Community Center, Tech Hub, Social Café and Digital Library, encountering challenges associated with each location.
6. Scenario-based learning: Event and Encounter Cards introduce realistic situations requiring the application of digital or interpersonal competencies.
7. Guided questioning: The Game Master asks questions that encourage participants to examine the problem, consider alternatives and justify their proposed solutions.
8. Application of character abilities: Players explain how competencies associated with their characters could help them address the situation.
9. Feedback and assessment: The facilitator evaluates the completeness and relevance of the response, assigning between one and three points.
10. Individual progress within a collective objective: Each player records their score while the group works towards the shared winning condition.
11. Completion and consolidation: The game concludes when every participant has explored all four locations and achieved the required score.
12. Transfer to real-life situations: Facilitators can connect the scenarios and participants’ responses with challenges encountered in education, employment and community life.

Scenario-based learning

The educational content is organised around social and digital situations rather than isolated factual questions.

For example, a player at the Tech Hub may encounter a cybersecurity breach and be asked to identify immediate protective measures and strategies for preventing similar incidents.

At the Community Center, the player may need to resolve a disagreement between community members, organise volunteers or respond to misinformation.

These scenarios encourage participants to articulate decisions and justify their reasoning in a context resembling situations they may encounter outside the game.

Use of character abilities

Characters represent different sets of human and digital skills.

Their abilities provide a thematic and instructional framework for selecting suitable responses to challenges.

For example, a character associated with communication may be particularly relevant when resolving a misunderstanding, whereas a character specialising in online safety may be more appropriate for responding to digital threats.

The Game Master facilitates the interpretation of these abilities and their relationship with the scenarios.

Facilitator’s role

The Game Master is a central element of Skill Quest.

The published guidebook assigns the facilitator responsibility for:

• Preparing the board, cards, characters and scoring materials.
• Introducing the narrative and the educational objectives.
• Explaining each challenge and providing relevant contextual information.
• Asking two or three guiding questions for each scenario.
• Encouraging participants to examine alternative responses.
• Helping players recognise the competencies relevant to each challenge.
• Evaluating responses according to the published scoring descriptions.
• Providing feedback and supporting discussion.
• Maintaining an inclusive environment in which participants can contribute.
• Ensuring that every player has opportunities to practise the intended competencies.

Reflection and debriefing

Guided reflection is integrated into the game through the questions accompanying its scenarios.

Participants are encouraged to explain their decisions, recognise the consequences of different approaches and consider which human or digital skills would be useful.

The Game Master Guidebook includes detailed scenario descriptions, helping questions, suggested ability applications and performance criteria.

This constitutes an explicit form of reflection and formative feedback during gameplay.

The project’s final Policy Recommendations Report also identifies structured debriefing as an important aspect of the wider learning approach.

However, it does not establish that a separate, standardised post-game debriefing protocol was applied consistently to all Skill Quest sessions.

Assessment during gameplay

The Game Master assigns one, two or three points according to the participant’s response.

Three points represent a comprehensive and appropriate solution, two points indicate a partially successful response, and one point indicates a response requiring improvement.

These scores provide immediate feedback and allow players to track progression towards the game’s objective.

However, they should be interpreted as facilitator-assigned gameplay scores rather than validated measurements of the underlying competencies.

Different facilitators may evaluate the same response differently unless additional training and standardisation procedures are established.

Session structure

The project recommends approximately 60–90 minutes for a session with two to six players.

The actual duration depends on the number of participants, the length of the discussion and the complexity of the selected scenarios.

Games may be conducted in classrooms, youth centres, community organisations or professional training environments.

Participants do not need digital devices to play Skill Quest, providing an offline alternative to the project’s immersive digital learning experience.

Inclusive implementation

The availability of materials in six languages may facilitate use with culturally and linguistically diverse groups.

The board game also provides an alternative for organisations or participants who have limited access to immersive digital technologies.

Nevertheless, the relatively extensive text on the cards and the requirement to explain responses verbally may present challenges for participants with limited literacy, language proficiency or particular support needs.

Facilitators may therefore need to simplify explanations, provide additional time or adapt communication methods.

Distinctive methodological feature

Skill Quest combines a physical board game structure with guided responses to realistic social and digital scenarios.

The game’s learning opportunities emerge primarily from interpreting situations, explaining decisions and receiving facilitator feedback, rather than from complex autonomous interactions between game mechanics.

This makes the quality and consistency of facilitation especially important for educational implementation.

Metaverse Learning Hub was implemented through an Erasmus+ cooperation partnership involving eight organisations from the Netherlands, Romania, Greece and Poland.

The project combined educational research, physical game development, immersive digital learning, international piloting, professional training and policy-oriented dissemination.

Implementation

• European consortium: The project was coordinated by Erasmus University Rotterdam (Netherlands), with Meta-Skills and MasterPeace (Netherlands), Asociația Copiii în Sânul Familiei and Ofensiva Tinerilor (Romania), Stimmuli for Social Change (Greece), and SIR and European Institute Foundation (Poland).
• Funding: EUR 400,000 under Erasmus+ KA220-YOU, according to the institutional project information.
• Project period: 1 February 2024 – 31 January 2026.
• Needs analysis: The consortium investigated youth workers’ educational needs, digital readiness, access to learning resources and the challenges involved in supporting disadvantaged young people.
• Evidence-informed handbook: A publication was developed to provide youth workers with research-informed guidance, examples of good practice and approaches to developing digital and human skills.
• Physical game development: Romanian partner organisations developed Skill Quest: Masters of Tomorrow, a board game using a physical board, characters, scenario cards, a custom die and facilitator-assigned points.
• Prototype refinement: In February 2025, the consortium reported that the physical game had been finalised following feedback from the partner organisations, with further improvements to instructions and translations.
• Multilingual resources: The board game was made available in English, Greek, Dutch, Polish, Romanian and Ukrainian.
• Digital learning development: The project also produced a separate immersive digital game addressing human and digital skills through interactive challenges and avatar-based scenarios.
• International pilot programme: Between June and October 2025, partners conducted coordinated testing activities in Romania, Greece, the Netherlands and Poland.
• Evaluation questionnaires: The final project report records 263 completed pre-test questionnaires and 236 completed post-test questionnaires.
• Romanian testing: Project communications from Arad report the participation of 48 individuals in game-testing activities, including the use of questionnaires before and after participation.
• Greek testing: Stimmuli for Social Change reported piloting both educational games with occupational therapy students, youth workers and young people from different national backgrounds in June 2025.
• Teacher training in Cyprus: In June 2025, the project coordinator delivered a three-day activity at the 11th Public Primary School of Paphos, involving 28 teachers who tested the physical card game and digital game.
• Physical resource transfer: The school in Cyprus received a printed copy of the board game for further educational use.
• International youth worker training: A three-day training activity took place in Romania on 4–6 November 2025, bringing together more than 30 youth workers from the four project countries.
• Professional development: Participants in the Romanian training explored and tested project resources and discussed their application in youth education.
• Policy recommendations: The consortium published a Policy Recommendations Report addressing the integration of digital and human skills development into youth work and education.
• Final evaluation report: The policy document includes a section presenting quantitative self-assessment results and qualitative observations from the international pilot phase.
• Project conclusion: The consortium confirmed completion of the planned activities at its final online meeting in January 2026.
• Final dissemination event: Erasmus University Rotterdam organised a public event on 28 January 2026, presenting the physical board game, the digital game, the skills handbook and the results of testing across partner countries.
• Resource preservation: The official project website continues to provide access to multilingual printable game components, pedagogical documentation and policy resources.

Evaluation approach

The project combined formative testing with a broader international pilot evaluation.

The evaluation included questionnaires administered before and after the activities, five-point self-assessment scales and qualitative reflections from participants and youth workers.

The final report describes the collection of data concerning satisfaction, perceived difficulty, willingness to recommend the activity and participants’ perceptions of their digital and human competencies.

The questionnaires were developed collaboratively by the project partners.

The evaluation was coordinated by Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, with support from Ofensiva Tinerilor.

Reported quantitative results

• Pre-test responses: 263.
• Post-test responses: 236.
• High or very high satisfaction: 77% of respondents.
• Willingness to recommend the activity: 82% of respondents.
• Average perceived difficulty: 2.9 on a five-point scale.
• Post-test digital competencies: Mean self-assessment score of 3.79 out of 5.
• Post-test human competencies: Mean self-assessment score of 3.89 out of 5.
• Reported improvement in digital skills: 14.2%, where comparable pre-test and post-test data were available.
• Reported improvement in human skills: 9%, where comparable pre-test and post-test data were available.

Interpretation of the evaluation

The results provide evidence of positive participant experiences and increases in self-perceived competencies following the educational activities.

However, the report describes the evaluation primarily in relation to the immersive digital game and associated pedagogical materials.

It does not provide sufficiently disaggregated results to establish the specific contribution of the physical Skill Quest board game.

Consequently, the percentage improvements reported in the final evaluation should not be attributed exclusively to Skill Quest.

Qualitative findings

Participants described the digital learning experience as engaging and relevant to realistic social and professional situations.

Educators emphasised the importance of facilitated discussion and structured reflection for connecting simulated experiences with everyday competencies.

The project also identified multilingual materials and accessible learning options as important factors for the participation of disadvantaged young people.

The physical game testing in Greece and Cyprus provides additional descriptive evidence that Skill Quest could be implemented with students and educators.

However, separate quantitative learning outcomes specifically associated with those physical game sessions were not identified.

Evidence classification

Game development: Original physical board game and immersive digital serious game completed and publicly documented.

Physical game implementation: Testing with students, youth workers and teachers documented, including activities in Greece and Cyprus.

International pilot evaluation: 263 pre-test and 236 post-test responses across four countries reported for the wider digital learning intervention and associated materials.

Participant experience: Positive satisfaction and recommendation rates reported.

Self-perceived competence development: Project-level improvements reported for digital and human skills.

Physical board game effectiveness: No disaggregated controlled outcome evaluation demonstrating learning gains attributable specifically to Skill Quest was identified.

Long-term outcomes: No independently verified evidence of sustained improvements in employability, professional performance or social inclusion attributable to the physical game was identified.

Methodological limitations

The evaluation relied substantially on self-report scales developed by the project consortium.

The reviewed report does not establish that these instruments were independently psychometrically validated or that changes corresponded to objective improvements in performance.

The different numbers of pre-test and post-test responses also require careful interpretation. The report does not provide enough detail to determine whether every response was linked to the same participant across both measurements.

No randomly assigned control group or equivalent non-game comparison condition was identified.

The published percentage improvements therefore cannot be interpreted as causal effects of the intervention.

Most importantly for a Board Game-Based Learning observatory, the wider evaluation does not clearly separate outcomes associated with the physical game from those associated with the digital experience.

The gameplay scoring system presents an additional limitation because points are awarded through facilitator judgement rather than through standardised tests of digital or interpersonal competence.

Evidence status: Strong documentation of game production and resource availability, international physical game testing and project-level evaluation. Direct educational effectiveness of the physical board game remains unverified.

Metaverse Learning Hub provides an extensive collection of educational resources designed to strengthen digital and human skills among disadvantaged young people.

The project combines a complete physical board game, an immersive digital learning experience, pedagogical guidance and policy recommendations.

Available educational resources

• Skill Quest: Masters of Tomorrow: An original physical educational board game combining social and digital scenarios, character abilities, facilitator-guided discussion and cooperative progression.
• Game Board: A printable playing surface representing the Community Center, Tech Hub, Social Café and Digital Library.
• Game Master Guidebook: A 35-page English-language document describing the game objective, setup, rules, scoring system, facilitator responsibilities and detailed learning scenarios.
• Event Cards: Printable cards presenting challenges related to the four locations and their corresponding competencies.
• Encounter Cards: Additional situations requiring participants to analyse problems, consider alternative responses and explain their decisions.
• Item Cards: Cards representing tools or resources that participants may obtain during gameplay.
• Character Cards: Printable materials describing game characters, their roles and their abilities.
• Character Components: Printable resources allowing players to represent their selected characters during the game.
• Custom Die: A printable die used to determine the type of card drawn during a turn.
• Multilingual Game Materials: The board game components are provided in English, Greek, Dutch, Polish, Romanian and Ukrainian. The printable die is presented as a shared language-independent component.
• Metaverse Digital Learning Experience: A separate online game involving interactive challenges, digital scenarios and simulated avatar interactions.
• Digital User Guide: Instructions supporting access to the online learning experience.
• Digital Game Translations: The immersive learning experience is accessible in English, Greek, Dutch, Polish, Romanian and Ukrainian.
• Handbook on Digital and Human Skills: An evidence-informed publication containing research, good practices and pedagogical recommendations for youth workers.
• Pedagogical Methods: Supporting guidance addressing educational approaches suitable for developing digital and interpersonal competencies.
• Policy Recommendations Report: An 80-page publication presenting the project’s rationale, needs analysis, pilot evaluation and recommendations for integrating digital and human skills into youth work.
• International Implementation Documentation: Public articles describing testing in Romania, Greece and Cyprus, youth worker training and dissemination activities.
• Institutional Game Description: Erasmus University Rotterdam provides a dedicated Skill Quest webpage describing the game’s objectives, mechanics, participants and educational uses.

Open access and licensing

The physical game materials are publicly linked from the official project website and can be accessed individually.

The resource listing supports reproduction of the game’s principal components for educational use.

However, no single explicit Creative Commons licence covering every game component was independently confirmed in the reviewed files.

Users should therefore verify the applicable copyright and reuse conditions before redistributing, publishing adaptations or incorporating the components into new products.

Transferability

The physical game does not depend on access to immersive technologies, special software or digital devices.

It can be prepared through the printing and assembly of the board, cards, characters and die.

This makes it potentially suitable for schools, youth centres, community organisations and non-formal learning programmes with limited technological infrastructure.

The multilingual versions may also support implementation in culturally diverse groups, particularly those including young refugees or participants with limited English proficiency.

The separate Game Master Guidebook provides practical guidance for facilitators who are unfamiliar with the game.

However, educators may need additional preparation to assess answers consistently, manage discussions and adapt scenarios to the participants’ actual digital and interpersonal experiences.

Relationship with the wider toolkit

Skill Quest can be used independently as an offline educational activity.

It can also complement the project’s immersive digital experience, allowing learners to explore related competencies through different forms of participation.

The handbook provides research-informed information that educators may use to prepare activities and contextualise the skills addressed by the games.

The Policy Recommendations Report offers additional evidence and guidance concerning inclusion, accessibility, ethical technology use and the professional development of youth workers.

Replicability assessment

The physical game offers a high level of practical reproducibility because the core rules and printable components remain accessible through an operational project website.

The game can be reconstructed with its board, card decks, character resources and custom die, supported by the Game Master Guidebook.

Nevertheless, the large format of some production files may complicate printing and preparation.

Independent replication of the project’s learning-effectiveness evaluation would also require more detailed information about the specific Skill Quest participant sample, assessment instruments, exposure duration and results separated from the digital game.

Replicability status: High for physical game reproduction; partial for educational implementation standardisation; limited for independent replication of game-specific learning outcomes.

Official resources:

• Metaverse Learning Hub – Complete Project Results
• Skill Quest – English Game Master Guidebook
• Skill Quest – Printable Game Board
• Skill Quest – English Game Cards
• Skill Quest – Printable Die
• Skill Quest – English Character Cards
• Erasmus University Rotterdam – Skill Quest
• Metaverse Learning Hub – Policy Recommendations and Evaluation Report

Metaverse Learning Hub represents an interesting example of Board Game-Based Learning focused on the development of digital and interpersonal competencies among young people.

Its principal contribution lies in combining a reproducible physical board game with realistic social and digital scenarios, facilitated discussion and a complementary immersive digital learning experience.

Skill Quest: Masters of Tomorrow offers opportunities to practise decision-making, communication, empathy and critical thinking within an organised game framework.

However, its learning model depends heavily on facilitator-led assessment and the content of the challenges rather than on a complex autonomous system of game mechanics.

Methodological strengths

1. Verified physical board game structure. Skill Quest includes a board, character resources, several types of cards, a custom die, scoring and collective victory conditions. These elements justify its classification as a physical educational board game.
2. Realistic learning scenarios. The game presents situations resembling challenges participants may encounter in community, educational, digital and professional environments.
3. Clear connections with employability skills. Communication, digital literacy, teamwork, leadership and problem-solving are explicitly addressed through the situations players must analyse.
4. Structured thematic environments. The four locations organise the learning content into recognisable contexts, making it easier for facilitators to introduce different types of challenges.
5. Opportunity for perspective-taking. Role-playing and character abilities encourage participants to consider different responses and recognise the relevance of interpersonal competencies.
6. Explicit guided reflection. The Game Master Guidebook provides helping questions that invite participants to analyse situations, justify their decisions and consider appropriate strategies.
7. Immediate formative feedback. The facilitator’s response and scoring provide participants with information about the completeness and relevance of their proposed solutions.
8. Collective winning condition. All participants must visit the four locations and achieve the required score. This reduces the emphasis on outperforming other players and creates a shared completion objective.
9. Inclusive project focus. The initiative explicitly prioritises young people with fewer opportunities, including young refugees, and develops resources intended for youth workers supporting these populations.
10. Offline accessibility. The physical board game can be used without requiring access to the digital platforms and equipment associated with immersive technologies.
11. Multilingual resources. The availability of game materials in six languages, including Ukrainian, provides opportunities for use with linguistically diverse participants.
12. Professional facilitator guidance. The 35-page Game Master Guidebook supplies scenario descriptions, guiding questions and examples of performance assessment.
13. International implementation. The project documents testing of both physical and digital resources with students, teachers and youth workers in different countries.
14. Published project-level evaluation. The Policy Recommendations Report provides detailed information about the wider pilot programme, participant perceptions and changes in self-reported competencies.
15. Preservation of educational materials. The project continues to host the rules and printable game components after the funded activities have concluded.

Methodological limitations

1. Limited intrinsic integration of competencies into autonomous game mechanics. The most important limitation is that successfully demonstrating digital or interpersonal skills depends primarily on responding to scenarios and receiving points from the Game Master.

The underlying mechanics organise the experience but do not independently model the social or digital consequences of player decisions.

For example, a player may be asked how to respond to a cybersecurity breach, but the game does not necessarily simulate a digital system in which different protective decisions produce different operational consequences.

The educational content is therefore highly relevant to the challenges, but only partially integrated into the game’s autonomous mechanics.

2. Heavy dependence on the Game Master. The facilitator presents the situations, asks questions, interprets character abilities, evaluates the answers and awards points.

This gives the educator substantial influence over the learning experience and makes consistent implementation dependent on appropriate training.

3. Subjectivity of the scoring system. The published rules use a three-level scoring framework based on the quality of the player’s response.

Although the guidebook provides examples, different facilitators may disagree about whether a response deserves one, two or three points.

Without additional assessment rubrics and inter-rater reliability evidence, the resulting scores should not be interpreted as standardised competency measures.

4. Limited strategic depth. Players may choose locations, use character abilities and receive different cards, but the principal gameplay action consists of analysing situations and explaining suitable responses.

The available rules provide limited evidence of sustained strategic planning, resource constraints or interactions in which previous decisions create lasting consequences for subsequent turns.

5. Cooperation mainly expressed through the collective objective. Although all players must complete the game, the central challenges are largely addressed by individual participants with facilitator support.

The rules do not clearly establish a strongly interdependent cooperative system in which each player’s success depends mechanically on the coordinated actions of the others.

6. Possible guaranteed progression. The standard scoring description awards between one and three points for responses, including those requiring improvement.

Consequently, players may be able to reach the required threshold through repeated participation even without consistently demonstrating successful problem-solving.

This may be appropriate for an inclusive learning activity, but it weakens the relationship between the game’s victory condition and demonstrated competence.

7. Inconsistent use of character abilities. Characters are described as possessing differentiated competencies and special abilities, but their practical influence on game outcomes depends considerably on how the Game Master interprets and applies them.

A more explicit mechanical connection between abilities, player decisions and consequences could improve consistency.

8. Limited separation between reflection and assessment. The Game Master’s helping questions serve both to guide learning and to establish the basis for scoring.

Although this may support formative feedback, it can also make it difficult to distinguish what participants knew independently from what they were able to explain after receiving facilitator guidance.

9. Limited game-specific evaluation evidence. The project published a substantial pilot evaluation involving pre-test and post-test questionnaires.

However, the final report primarily describes the evaluation of the digital game and accompanying pedagogical materials.

Its results cannot automatically be attributed to the physical Skill Quest board game.

10. Reliance on self-perceived competencies. The reported improvements in digital and human skills are based on self-assessment questionnaires rather than independently verified performance measures.

Self-perceived progress may reflect increased familiarity, confidence, awareness of the intended objectives or social desirability.

11. Absence of a documented control group. No controlled comparison was identified that would allow the educational contribution of Skill Quest to be distinguished from ordinary discussion of the same scenarios, equivalent non-game instruction or the digital learning experience.

12. Participant heterogeneity. The target population includes young people with different educational experiences, digital abilities, cultural backgrounds and language proficiency.

Although multilingual materials are available, the requirement to formulate relatively complex verbal responses may create participation barriers for some learners.

13. Limited evidence of long-term transfer. The reviewed sources do not demonstrate that participation in the physical game produces sustained improvements in employability, digital behaviour or interpersonal competencies outside educational sessions.

14. Incomplete research reproducibility. The physical game is publicly reproducible, but the available documentation does not provide sufficient board-game-specific data to independently replicate an evaluation of its educational effectiveness.

Ludus Magnus assessment

Metaverse Learning Hub is a relevant project for the European Board Game-Based Learning Observatory because it offers a complete, publicly accessible physical board game addressing important transversal competencies.

Skill Quest provides a structured and potentially engaging approach to exploring realistic challenges relating to communication, cybersecurity, empathy, teamwork and responsible citizenship.

The use of four thematic locations allows educators to organise these competencies into different situations and provides an accessible narrative framework for group activities.

The Game Master Guidebook is particularly valuable because it does not leave the facilitator entirely responsible for inventing educational content.

Instead, it provides scenarios, guiding questions and suggested performance descriptions that can support consistent implementation.

Nevertheless, the game illustrates a distinction that is central to Board Game-Based Learning research: educational content can be meaningfully connected to the questions and scenarios presented during gameplay without necessarily being integrated into a complex system of game mechanics.

In Skill Quest, the principal activity consists of interpreting a situation and proposing an appropriate response.

The physical board and scoring system provide progression and structure, while the facilitator determines how successfully the participant has addressed the challenge.

This approach is closer to scenario-based learning supported by board game elements than to a simulation in which social or digital competencies are represented by interconnected mechanical relationships.

For example, a board game designed to explore cybersecurity might include limited protective resources, competing risks, consequences of security decisions and interdependent player responsibilities.

In that case, participants would need to apply cybersecurity concepts to make successful decisions within the game’s system, rather than explain what they would do in a hypothetical situation.

Both approaches can be educationally valuable, but their learning processes differ and should be evaluated separately.

Another interesting feature is the coexistence of the physical and digital resources.

The project provides an opportunity to compare different forms of game-based learning addressing similar competencies.

The physical game offers direct interpersonal interaction and facilitator-guided discussion, while the digital experience introduces simulated conversations, interactive scenarios and automated feedback.

A comparative study could investigate whether these formats produce different outcomes in digital knowledge, empathy, communication, participant engagement or confidence.

Such research would be especially valuable because the project already developed both formats and published extensive educational guidance.

The project’s existing evaluation represents a useful starting point but does not answer this comparative question.

The reported improvements in self-perceived competencies should not be treated as evidence that the physical game independently improved participants’ skills.

Future research could compare Skill Quest with an equivalent workshop using the same scenarios and facilitator questions but without the board game structure.

This would help determine whether characters, locations, card selection, points and the collective objective provide additional benefits beyond conventional scenario-based instruction.

A second comparison could examine the physical game and digital experience using equivalent content, matched intervention durations and validated assessment instruments.

Such a design could provide evidence about the distinctive educational contributions of physical and digital game-based learning.

The project’s attention to multilingual availability and the needs of disadvantaged young people is an additional strength.

The offline format may be particularly relevant for organisations that lack the devices, connectivity or infrastructure needed to deliver immersive learning experiences.

However, successful inclusion also depends on accessible language, flexible facilitation, opportunities for different forms of participation and appropriate support for learners with varying previous experiences.

Finally, Metaverse Learning Hub provides a positive example of preserving educational resources after completion of an Erasmus+ project.

The availability of the game components and facilitator guidance through an operational website significantly increases the opportunity for independent use and future educational research.

Transferable methodological lesson: Physical board games can provide structured environments for practising digital and interpersonal competencies through realistic scenarios, character roles and guided reflection. However, the educational value of scenario-based activities should be distinguished from intrinsic mechanical integration, facilitator-assigned game scores should not be confused with validated learning measures, and project-level evaluation results should not be attributed to a specific game without appropriate disaggregated evidence.