Educational puzzles in the DEGSE framework are structured learning tools. Their purpose is to make competences visible through action, decision-making, collaboration, and reflection.

A puzzle is educationally effective only when solving it requires applying the targeted competence. If players can succeed without demonstrating the intended learning outcome, the puzzle must be redesigned.

In social entrepreneurship education, learning outcomes are competence-based and typically involve the ability to:

• Analyse social challenges
• Prioritise actions under constraints
• Allocate limited resources
• Evaluate stakeholder interests
• Make ethically informed decisions

The design process must therefore begin with a clearly defined learning outcome and a deliberate translation of that outcome into puzzle mechanics.

What you will define in this chapter

This section helps designers define learning outcomes, observable behaviours, mechanics and feedback structures.

Step 1 – Select ONE primary learning outcome

Puzzle design must start from educational intention, not from a theme, prop, or digital tool.

Design rule: One puzzle = one main competence focus.

Practical task:

• Learning outcome (original wording):
• Rewritten in action-based form:

If more than one competence appears in the sentence, simplify.

Step 2 – Reformulate as observable behaviour

Abstract outcomes are not directly usable for puzzle design.

Instead of: “Understanding social impact”
Use: “Choosing between initiatives to maximise social impact under budget constraints.”

Use the formula: Learners will be able to ______ under ______ in order to ______.

A well-formulated learning outcome includes: A clear action, a constraint and a purpose.

If you cannot identify a decision and a constraint, the learning outcome is still too abstract.

Step 3 – Translate the learning outcome into puzzle mechanics

Competences become educationally meaningful only when they are observable.

Define clearly:

• What must learners DO?
• What decision is unavoidable?
• What constraint creates tension?
• What trade-off must be managed?
• What does success look like?

Observable behaviours may include:

• Prioritisation logic
• Information comparison
• Strategy adaptation
• Justification of choices
• Negotiation within a group

If the puzzle can be solved by guessing or repeated trial-and-error, the competence is not being assessed.

Competence-to-mechanics mapping template

Competence:
Observable action:
Main decision required:
Constraint introduced:
Trade-off involved:
Success condition (what proves competence application):
Possible misconception (what wrong answers reveal):

1.1 From competences to in-game actions and observable behaviours

Competences must become visible through structured actions.

Step-by-step translation:

1. List 2–3 required player actions.
2. Identify at least one unavoidable decision.
3. Define one realistic misconception.
4. Design feedback that makes reasoning visible.

Example:

• Learning outcome: Allocate limited resources strategically.
• Required actions:
  • Review project options
  • Compare costs and impact
  • Assign budget tokens
• Unavoidable decision: Which project receives reduced funding?
• Misconception: Funding only high-visibility initiatives without long-term sustainability.
• Feedback: Reduced final impact score due to sustainability imbalance.
  Design tip: Feedback should clarify reasoning gaps, not punish mistakes.