Use Cases for Gamification in Virtual Museums

Abstract

Museums face the problem of a decreasing number of visitors. One way to solve this problem is to attract new target groups such as young people. Therefore, some museum started to develop online museums where they digitally present their exhibition artefacts to a larger audience. One way to reach this goal are virtual environments. But how can potential visitors be motivated to visit the museum continuously and how can knowledge of the artwork be transferred? Gamification is one approach that could solve both problems. This article develops a guidance based on gamification approaches for a virtual museums guide based on different use cases.

Full text

Please cite as: Döpker, A., Brockmann, T., & Stieglitz, S. (2013). Use Cases for Gamification in
Virtual Museums. In Proceedings of the Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Informatik 2013,
Koblenz, 2308–2321.
Use Cases for Gamification in Virtual Museums
Andreas Döpker, Tobias Brockmann, Stefan Stieglitz
Department of Information Systems
University of Muenster
Leonardo Campus 11
48149 Muenster
andreas.doepker@uni-muenster.de
tobias.brockmann@uni-muenster.de
stefan.stieglitz@uni-muenster.de
Abstract: Museums face the problem of decreasing number of visitors. One way
to solve this problem is to attract new target groups such as young people.
Therefore, some museums started to develop online museums where they digitally
present their exhibition artifacts to a larger audience. One way to reach this goal
are virtual environments. But how can potential visitors be motivated to visit the
museum continuously and how can knowledge of the artwork be transferred?
Gamification is one approach that could solve both problems. In this article the
authors develop gamification approaches for a virtual museum guide based on
different use cases.
1 Motivation
Museums usually exhibit artifacts such as paintings, sculptures, jewellery, mummies,
and so forth. However, exhibitions are rather passive and non-engaging [BFG05].
Especially younger visitors often feel not addressed by todays museums [STA10].
During the last years, a shift has taken place in the museums’ identity “from simple
holders of cultural objects to educational and at the same time entertaining institutions”
[LV04] to reach new target groups [GG08].
Ideally, educational techniques, which keep the “traditional museum experience” and
provide entertainment for target groups using new technologies [SC02] at the same time,
could be developed. Offering a museum in a virtual world reduces the effort, which has
to be taken by visitors: Instead of going to a museum one simply enters it via a computer
or mobile device. Generally, virtual worlds are characterized by social
interconnectedness and generation of content by users [Or07, ML07]. Virtual worlds
(VW) differ from other social media platforms [SSL08] by embedding those properties

in a virtual 3D-context and by extending them through a wide range of interaction
possibilities (bridging of geographical and physical barriers) [PC10, AK10, Wa09, Ba04,
Ca05, DM09, SB12, SL11, SLF10]. Due to this, virtual worlds offer novel possibilities
for museums to present their artwork in an innovative way while addressing a quite
larger audience. Scientific literature does not provide a single definition for VWs.
Contemporary VWs are generally characterized by several authors as graphical,
persistent, immersive environments, which facilitate interaction among users that are
represented as avatars [CFF10, Be08, SLF10].
Although communication between visitors is an advantage comparing to an ordinary
museum, visitors should also learn something about the exhibitions. In this spirit,
gamification is one approach that might help to increase engagement of users [VA12].
‘Gamification’ describes the integration of traditional game elements in a non-game
context – such as the virtual world of a museum.
Consequently, the question this paper wants to answer is, how gamification approaches
can be integrated into virtual worlds, especially in the context of a museum. For this
purpose, use cases of a gamified museum guide are designed and evaluated. The next
chapter provides an overview of the current scientific discussion, followed by a
definition of the term gamification and the theoretical background behind it. Chapter 4
contains a description of five sample use cases, which are evaluated in chapter 5. For the
evaluation, different criteria are developed and formed into a guidance for game
designers. The paper closes with a conclusion and an outlook to further research.
2 Related Work
Bartle generally defines virtual worlds as "places where the imaginary meets the real"
[Ba04]. Schroeder underlines the potentials of virtual worlds to support interaction in a
special way: "persistent environments in which people experience others as being there
with them and where they can interact with them" [Sc02].
Generally, virtual worlds can be classified into two types: (1) multi-user virtual
environment (MUVE) and (2) Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game
(MMORPG). The major difference is that in MUVEs the users do not have a certain goal
that needs to be achieved or a start-finish-character as in MMORPGs. According to
Bartle’s apprehension, virtual worlds facilitate users to witness the virtual 3D-
environment in form of an avatar and to become part of that environment conditioned by
the feeling of immersion. As a result, the user experiences a strong degree of reality even
though he/she is only using an electronic medium. This effect is called immersion
[FLH08].
Very similar to immersion is the flow principle defined by Csikszentmihalyi. He
established the term “flow” for a specific kind of happiness characterized by intense
concentration, loss of self-awareness, a feeling of perfectly challenged and a sense that
time is flying. Gamification abets both, immersion and “flow”. Due to this we focus on

our research in gamification approaches utilized for a virtual museum guide to tie in the
visitors [Cs85].
Virtualization of museums started with so-called mixed reality: Göbel and Geelhar use
that term to describe their virtualization of a dinosaurs museum [FLH08]. Next to each
skeleton, there are screens providing additional information about the current species,
e.g. an animation of its way to move. Severson and Cremer describe an similar approach
with a historical reconstruction room demonstrating Cedar Rapids in the 1990s and
1920s [SC02]. Bay et al. presents an interactive museum guide [BFG05]. The visitors are
guided through the museum using tablets providing additional information.
All these approaches integrate a virtual reality into the traditional museum. Other papers
also present separated virtual museums. At the beginning of the millennium, Charitos
describes an architecture for a virtual museum – from database design to web
representation [Ch01]. On the one hand, the virtual museum is integrated into the
traditional museum; on the other hand, remote visitors are connected via customized
software. Wojciechowski and Walczak describe the ARCO project, which aims at
developing the whole chain of technology to create, manipulate, manage and present
digitalized cultural objects [WW04]. For the virtual representation, templates are used.
The previously described approaches focus on the representation of information.
Lepouras and Vassilakis point out that education through entertainment is important
[LV04]. Swartout et al. state that their main goal for their museum guide is to increase
pupils’ interest and engagement [STA10]. Approaches used to achieve this often contain
entertainment aspects. Squire and Jenkins describe how different games support the
learning process [SJ03]. Moreover, Kapp largely describes how to use gamification to
improve the learning process [Ka12].
3. Theoretical Background
Gamification is one approach to increase the entertainment and thus the motivation
factor of users [Va12]. There are many scientists trying to define the term gamification
[De11; Do12; Va12]. One central goal of gamification is the improvement of users’
engagement [De11]. Therefore, the term becomes vague. Following Deterding et al.,
“Gamification is the use of game design elements in non-game context” [De11]. Thus,
gamified applications try to motivate the user by game design elements.
Although the definition seems to be tangible, some further explanations are necessary.
At first, the term game needs to be specified: In everyday language, the terms play and
game are used interchangeably; in fact, their meaning differs. A play is a more free form
with improvisational aspects, whereas a game “is structured by rules and competitive
strife towards a goal” [De11]. Therfore, games have a desired outcome. Deterding et al.
point out that gamified applications have little space for an open, exploratory free-form
play [De11], whereas Squire and Jenkins laud games like Civilization III and Revolution
for their open game style as educational useful games, because students start to ask

“What if”-questions [SJ03]. Both statements seem to be antipodal, but they do not
expulse each other.
The overall goal of Civilization III is to manage economies and plan the growth of
civilizations [SJ03]. A player seems to have countless opportunities, but in fact, this
overall goal restricts a player. However, games can be defined as rule-structured plays,
which guide players towards a desired outcome [SJ03].
Secondly, the expression “non-game context” needs a further explanation. Gamification
uses game mechanisms where they are usually not expected. This expectation depends
on social, historical and cultural aspects [De11]. Consequently, there is not the non-game
context, but – depending on the target group – players will expect game elements or not.
As mentioned above, gamification is propagated by marketing, which may result in a
lack of appropriate use. Vassileva argues that gamification leads to short motivation only
[Va12]. One cannot order students to play, but one can create a space where play is
encouraged through game mechanics [Re11]. Thus, to avoid players’ short motivation,
they have to enjoy the activity, which means a game has to give experiences of
competence, autonomy and relatedness to the players [Va12].
Nicholson introduces the term meaningful gamification [Ni12] to select such elements
that contribute the player’s motivation. Meaningful gamification “is the integration of
user-centered game design elements into non-game context” [Ni12]. Nicholson modifies
Deterding et al.`s definition by adding the term user-centered and thus specifying game
design elements more precisely.
Game design elements should be meaningful to the user and result in positive change in
the user’s mind. Furthermore, the cornerstone of every design element is information:
The design element must be attached to an activity [Ni12]. The opposite of user-centered
design elements are mechanism-centered ones. Game designers often want to adopt new
and interesting design elements into their games. However, they do not integrate into the
game per se; trying to insert them may result in a lack of understanding the game play
[Ni12].
Lastly, the term game design element requires further attention. Game design elements
are incorporated elements of games [De11]. They have “accumulated a number of
patterns, rules, and feedback loops, that are motivational, and create user engagement
and loyalty” [Va12]. For example, scoring systems, avatars, group chat functionality
and so forth are game design elements. In literature, several gamification are already
identified, a sample of the most prominent ones follows: levels; inaccessible areas, boss
monsters, tools, controllers, power-ups, score, high score list, public information,
communication channels, rewards, puzzle, luck, trade-offs, randomness [BH05].
Besides the term gamification, some similar concepts exist. Firstly, serious game is a
concept for games designed for a primary purpose other than pure entertainment [Xu11].
As gamification, this concept focuses on the entertainment factor of games; thus, the
differences are slightly. However, a serious game is still a game, whereas gamification is
used in a general context [Re11].

The concept of persuasive game is used to describe the power a game may have to
change and disrupt ones social and cultural positions. An example for a persuasive game
is Anno 2070: The gamer has to choose between an economy based on fossil or
renewable energy. However, the atmosphere emphasizes that a green future looks much
brighter. Consequently, this game tries to persuade the gamer to choose the renewable
alternatives.
Lastly, gameful interaction design “defines the structure and behaviors of interactive
products and services, and the user interaction with those products and services”, to
achieve a change in the behavior of their users [Xu11].
However, so far it was not mentioned why gamification increases ones motivation. Next
to the above described game design, positive psychology is used to “create an
environment that is more challenging and rewarding which results in an increased desire
to participate and contribute” [MH13]. Positive psychology does not focus on the
diagnosis and therapy of depression but studies “what makes normal people stronger and
more productive” [MH13].
Within this theory, Csikszentmihaly established the term “flow” for a specific kind of
happiness characterized by intense concentration, loss of self-awareness, a feeling of
perfectly challenged and a sense that time is flying [Xu11]. To achieve a flow,
conditions like a clear task and feedback are pre-requirements; during a flow,
characteristics like control must be achieved [Cs91]. However, the challenges must fit
the players skills, especially as they increase over time [Xu11]. Even for the relatively
short time span of the visit of a museum the “flow-principle” appeals application. Cause
to the integration of game aspects, which enable “flow” for shorter time periods.
Figure 1. Representation of Flow-Channel; adopted from [Xu11]
To sum it up, the basis for good gamification is to put the needs and goals of users over
the needs and wishes of the game designers [Ni12]. This is basic principle for the
evaluation method developed in chapter 4.

4. Design of Use Cases
In this chapter, five different use cases are presented, each containing several game
design elements. Each use case represents a museum guide – at least somehow the player
discovers a museum exhibition. The used game design elements are mostly picked from
[BH05]. Every use case begins with an abstract description of it; afterwards the most
important game design elements are selected and explained more detailed. The use cases
may be somehow devised and the link to museums on the first view is weak. But
generally, they are based on established stories from well-known computer games and
modified to the context of a museum. To keep in mind, this work should provide design
samples for gamification based on virtual museums guide, which should be exemplary
proven if they generally fit to gamification principles.
Use Case 1
A thief tried to steal a valuable, ancient artifact. He was arrested in the museum already;
however, he split up the artifact in some parts and hid them within the museum. The
players are the responsible chief inspectors. During the thief’s interrogation, he does not
directly tell where to find the parts, but he gives clues or riddles. The players write them
into a notebook and consult the staff of the museum to solve them. However, the
employees do not like each player equally and therefore give different answers to their
questions. The players need to communicate with each other to collect their answers and
exchange their knowledge.
This small use case already uses some game design elements. First, the riddles and clues
given by the thief are collected in a notebook. Another used design element are
communication channels [BH05]. Here, synchronous channels are required, whether
they are audio or plain text channels is not important here. This element is used for
teaching players one another. The most important design element in this use case are the
rewards [BH05]. For each solved riddle, the players receive a part of the stolen artifact.
They have to find all to do their job properly.
Use Case 2
Two employees of the museum guide the player through the exhibition. For each item of
the exhibition, the two guides are involved in a pros and cons discussion. Although their
professional wisdom is noteworthy, they are little oblivious: They forget where the keys
for the next room or the controllers to enlighten it are. Furthermore, some rooms behave
strange: There is no gravity, they are full of water, or it rains. To enter these rooms, the
player has to find certain tools like magnetic shoes, diving gear or an umbrella. Only
with the use of these tools, keys and controllers, the player is able to enter each room and
to see the whole exhibition.
The first design pattern used in this use case is that two guides present the exhibition. As
mentioned above, the advantage of this design element is a possible, vivid discussion
[STA10]. Different opinions are transported by different characters and thus seem more
authentic. Furthermore, controllers and tools [BH05] allow players to interact with the

virtual world. The physical disorder creates further attention. With respect to meaningful
gamification, the overlaying map is introduced: It allows the player to plan where to look
next for tools and controllers [BH05].
Use Case 3:
The third use case is used for a short, broad overview of the museum. The player finds
him-/herself in an empty and closed museum. He/she does not want to get into trouble
and decides to find a way out of the museum without starting the security system. It is
deactivated for each room via playing a short game concerning the topic of the room; for
example, to puzzle an important picture in a given period of time. For each game, the
player gets points. After he escapes from the museum, the overall points are calculated
and compared with other players on a high score list.
The main design element of this use case is the stealth mode [BH05]. This element
creates tension, because the player has to focus on not being captured. The intention of
the little games in this use case is not to deliver knowledge, but to create interest in the
content of the museum. Scoring and high score lists allow comparing the results of
different players and thus create further tension [BH05].
Use Case 4:
This use case is a multi-player guide again. During the tour through the museum the
players suddenly find themselves in a different period of time. Each player receives a
different role description that enables him or her to emphasize with his or her new role.
The roles are for example a priest, a farmer, a citizen of a big city, and so on, during the
thirty years’ war. After emphasizing with their roles, a discussion starts where each
player has to behave as he expects his character to react. The computer sends messages
like “Swedish troops have captured Magdeburg”. These interrupts will influence the
players’ behaviour and thus will sensibilize them why people reacted the way they did.
The only design element introduced within this use case is the roleplaying [BH05]. This
element creates an imaginary situation and requires all players to stick to their roles. If
all players identify themselves with their roles it will deepen the emotional immersion.
This use case is adopted from the game Revolution [SJ03].
Use Case 5
In the last use case, the player becomes an avatar. The more questions the player asks or
the longer he listens to the guide, the more credit point he receives. Credit points are the
currency within the museum. For very good questions, long listening, or helping other
players, the player receives some kind reward like a ring, a jacket, a medal of honor, and
so on. He is able to show these rewards on his avatar and he is able to sell them and buy
other things.
This very short use case already contains several game design elements. Avatars [BH05]
are used to tightly connect players with their success: The rewards he receives decorates

the avatar. The currency [BH05] as well as the trading system [BH05] additionally try to
measure a player’s experience.
5. Evaluation of Use Cases
5.1 Methodology
At first, we discussed different scales to measure the grade flow realized throughout
gamefication elements. In our literature research we identified that an appropriate
framework is the EGameFlow scale to measure learners’ enjoyment of e-learning games
developed by Fue et al. [FSY09]. They created a framework with eight factors; each
factor has about six items, in sum 56 items. The factors, namely concentration, goal
clarity, feedback, challenge, autonomy, immersion, social interaction and knowledge
improvement, are the key ingredients of a good e-learning game [FSY09] and the items
try to measure a factor is implemented (c.f. table 1): The more items are selected, the
better a factor is fulfilled.
Factor
Item No.
Content
Goal Clarity
G1
Overall game goals were presented in the beginning
G2
Overall game goals were presented clearly
G3
Intermediate goals were presented clearly
Table 1. Excerpt from questionnaire [FSY09]
These factors and items worked well for Fue et al.’s framework, but not all of them fit
the requirements for the upcoming evaluation. Fue et al. used their framework for
students and afterwards calculated means and standard deviations for every item and
factor. However, such a big inquiry is not the intention here. This paper aims to provide
game designers a first, easy, to be verified method to evaluate their game design
elements to prove meaningful gamification. Factors and items that are just reasonable
with a certain sample space have to be left out. As mentioned above, game designers
tend to use mechanism-cantered design elements. Due to this, game designers should
focus on a user-centered perspective, but take the technical restrictions into account.
Thus, the framework needs to be adjusted to the given purposes (c.f. table 2).
Factor
Item No.
Content
Concentration
C1
Player is not distracted from tasks that the player should
concentrate on
C2
Player is not burdened with tasks that seem unrelated
Goal Clarity
G1
Goals were presented at the beginning of the game or
during the game
G2
Goals were presented clearly
Feedback
F1
Player receives immediate feedback
F2
Player receives information on his success or failure
immediately

Challenge
H1
The game provides “hints” in the text that help the
player overcome the challenge(s)
H2
The game provides video and audio auxiliaries that help
to overcome the challenge
H3
The difficulty of challenges increases as the player’s
skills improve
H4
The difficulty is tailored to the player’s abilities
Autonomy
A1
Player knows the next step in the game
A2
Player is guided to the overall goal (maybe unnoticed)
Social
Interaction
S1
Players cooperate with each other
S2
The cooperation in the game is helpful to the learning
S4
The game supports social interaction between players
Technical
Restrictions
T1
Game engine is able to build the design elements
T2
Server / infrastructure resources are sufficient
T3
Player’s hardware is expected to be sufficient (average
hardware assumed)
T4
Further licences or hardware is required
Effort
E1
Difficulty to implement use case
E2
Time required to implement
Table 2. Adjusted Framework for Evaluation (according to [FSY09])
The factors knowledge improvement and immersion are very subjective; to measure
them here is not purposeful. The same goes for some of the items. They are just
reasonable with a bigger sample space. Thus, many items are left out. The remaining
items can be evaluated by the game designer himself or in a group of game designers, at
least as a first hint.
On the other hand, factors like technical restrictions and required effort are important for
game designers. The factor technical restrictions is measured with the items ability to
implement elements with the given engine, server and client hardware restrictions, as
well as required licenses. These items should remind the game designer to restrict
himself to an achievable design. The required effort is measured with an approximated
difficulty to implement the use case and with the expected amount of time required.
The use cases were evaluated by six students who developed a virtual museum using
gamification approaches. They were presenting the use cases and asked to rate whether a
factor of the framework is fulfilled or not. For the evaluation, the items of each factor are
summed up. Each item is measured on a scale with four different entries to allow a more
differentiated evaluation for each item1. The sum of items und participants for each
factor is then divided by the amount of items for a factor. Thus, the result is between 0
and 1. It is not possible to compare the results between factors or even between cases –
the result can merely indicate whether the implementation abets the proposed utilization
of gamification in museums.
1 In Fue et al.‘s questionnaire this differentiation is reached by taking the mean of all answers. This approach of
using a scale tries to avoid black and white answers.

5.2 Discussion and Results
In the following chapter the results of the evaluations are discussed for each of the use
cases. We found out that use case 1 has a high support for concentration, goal clarity,
autonomy and social interaction. The goal is easy to understand and a quest book
simplifies the recapitulation of sub-goals and it also guides the players through the game.
However, this use case misses a feedback functionality. The players only receive
feedback via finding parts of the artifact; an intermediate feedback is missing.
The second use case suffers on the factor challenge: This use case is about finding tools
and controllers, but there is no story or character development that guides the player to
an overall goal. As this is a single player use case, there are obviously no points for
social interaction.
Use case 3 especially shows weaknesses for the factor autonomy. Again, a simple
permutation of the same idea, namely winning games to deactivate the security system,
does not provide a challenge.
Use cases 4 and 5 have many weak aspects: the factors feedback, challenge and
autonomy are low ranked. In contrast to the other use cases, these use cases are not
integrated into an overall story like a robbery. This could be a reason, why challenge and
autonomy do almost completely fail. Without a story in the background, an overall goal
seems also difficult to define and thus feedback is hard to give.
No use case has problems with technical restrictions. However, the effort differs –
surprisingly it increases with bad results in the other factors. This may additionally
indicate that wisely used game design elements – in sense of meaningful gamification –
do not only give a reasonable and good gamified application, but also decreases the
effort of implementation.
The evaluation shows that all presented use cases have weaknesses for the factor
challenge; especially all items concerning an adjusted game behaviour to the player’s
abilities are classified as low. Thus, there is a need for integrating game design elements
concerning this aspect for all use cases. To sum up, the results of the evaluation, table 3
emphasizes immediately, which factor is insufficient fulfilled by which use case.
UC 1
UC 2
UC 3
UC 4
UC 5
Concentration
High
High
High
Medium
Low
Goal Clarity
High
High
High
High
Medium
Feedback
Low
High
High
Low
Medium
Challenge
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Autonomy
High
High
High
Low
Low
Social Interaction
High
Low
Low
High
Medium
Technical Restrictions
High
High
High
High
High
Effort
Low
Low
Low
Medium
High
Table 3. Evaluation Results

6. Conclusion
In conclusion, one could state that for a good meaningful gamification one has to select a
context at first, e.g. museum guide, and afterwards to develop a coherent background
story, limiting the game design elements. They can be chosen from a game within the
same genre as the background story, different games, or pattern books [BH05]. Choosing
a background story, the game designer focuses on elements that do fit in the context with
respect to meaningful gamification.
During the evaluation some weaknesses of the evaluation method appeared: Firstly, there
is no measure for knowledge creation. In chapter 5.1 it is argued that the factor
knowledge improvement is left out, because it is not possible to measure objectively
whether there is an improvement or not. However, without this factor the evaluation
does not measure the overall goal for the non-game context museum guide at all. A
factor with one item called “required improved knowledge” could be integrated. The
scale for this item needs to be further specified. Unfortunately, the results of this item are
very vague, because they are subjective to some extent.
The same goes for entertainment. There is no criterion mentioned that covers the
player’s enjoyment to play directly. As this aspect is very subjective, there was no
solution found by now to measure it without a bigger sample space. Thus, game
designers have to have this aspect always in mind, although the presented questionnaire
does not give any hints on this aspect.
However, this research depends on limitation. First al all, this paper focuses on
developers and just represents their point of view. The user’s point of view is not
considered. The sample of the asked developers is small and the evaluation of the use
cases need to be carefully interpreted. Nevertheless, this paper contributes knowledge to
the usage of gamification elements in virtual worlds for museums.
Further research may be conducted by an intensive literature analysis of adopted
gamification approaches in museums or a web analysis to figure out, which gamification
approaches are already used and established in practice. Furthermore, the described use
cases should be implemented and a user-test might prove the findings of this paper
derived from the experiences of the game developers. Based upon these results, the
adopted framework by Fue et al. could be proved.
References
[AK10] Arora, V., Khazanchi, D.: Sense of Place in Virtual World Learning Environments: A
Conceptual Exploration. MWAIS 2010 Proceedings. (2010).
[Ba04] Bartle, R.: Designing virtual worlds. New Riders (2004).
[BFG05] Bay, H.; Fasel, B.; Gool, L.: Interactive museum guide. Proceedings Ubiquitous
Computing. pp. 1–4 ACM Press, Tokyo (2005).
[Be08] Bell, M.: “Virtual Worlds Research: Past, Present & Future” July 2008. Journal of Virtual
Worlds Research. 1, 1, (2008).
[BH05] Björk, S., Holopainen, J.: Patterns in Game Desing. CharlesRiver Media, Boston (2005).

[CFF10] Cahalane, M.; Feller, J.; Finnegan, P.: Investigating Collaborative Development Activities
in a Virtual World: An Activity Theory Perspective Investigating Collaborative
Development Activities in a Virtual World: An Activity Theory Perspective. ICIS 2010
Proceedings. (2010).
[Ca05] Castronova, E.: Synthetic worlds: The business and culture of online games. University of
Chicago Press (2005).
[Ch01] Charitos, D.: Designing a virtual museum within a museum. In: David B. Arnold, Alan
Chalmers, D.W.F. (ed.) Proceedings of the 2001 conference on Virtual reality,
archeology, and cultural heritage - VAST ’01. p. 284 ACM Press, Glyfada (2001).
[CL00] Charitos, D., Lepouras, G.: An approach to designing and implementing virtual museums.
Proceedings of the …. 1–8 (2000).
[Cs85] Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. Das Flow-Erlebnis. Ed. Hans Aebli. Klett-Cotta, 1985.
[Cs81] Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. Flow: the psychology of optimal experience: Steps towards
enhancing the quality of life. Haper Collins Publishers 1991
[DM09] Davis, A., Murphy, J.: Avatars, People, and Virtual Worlds: Foundations for Research in
Metaverses. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 10, 2, 1 (2009).
[GG08] Göbel, S., Geelhaar, J.: Digitale Museumsanwendungen (Digital Museum Appliances). I-
Com. 7, 2, 26–31 (2008).
[FLH08] Franceschi, K., Lee, R. and Hinds, D.: “Engaging E-Learning in Virtual Worlds:
Supporting Group Collaboration”, In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, 2008
[Ka12] Kapp, K.M.: The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and
strategies for training and education. Pfeiffer (2012).
[LV04] Lepouras, G., Vassilakis, C.: Virtual museums for all: employing game technology for
edutainment. Virtual Reality. 8, 2, 96–106 (2004).
[MH13] Marshburn, D.G., Henry, R.M.: Improving Knowledge Coordination in Early Stages of
Software Development Using Gamification. Proceedings of the Southern Association for
Information Systems Conference, Savannah, GA, USA March 8th–9th, 2013
[ML07] McLoughlin, C., Lee, M.: Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices
with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. ICT: Providing choices for learners and
learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007. (2007).
[Ni12] Nicholson, S.: A User-Centered Theoretical Framework for Meaningful Gamification.
scottnicholson.com. (2012).
[Or07] OReilly, T.: What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next
generation of software. Communications & strategies. (2007).
[PC10] Poian, M., Cagnina, M.R.: Business Models and Virtual Worlds: The Second Life
Lesson. SSRN Electronic Journal. 1–24 (2010).
[SSL08] Schneider, A. M., Stieglitz, S., & Lattemann, C. (2008). Social Software as an Instrument
of CSR. Transparency, Information and Communication Technology (pp. 124-138).
Virginia: Philosophy Documentation Center.
[SC02] Severson, J., Cremer, J.: Exploring virtual history at the National Museum of American
History. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on virtual sys-tems and
multimedia (VSMM 2002), Korea (2002).
[SJ03] Squire, K., Jenkins, H.: Harnessing the power of games in education. Insight. 3, (2003).
[SB12] Stieglitz, S., Brockmann, T.:Virtual Worlds as Environments for Virtual Customer
Integration. In: Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (HICSS) Hawaii, Maui, 1013-1020 (2012).
[SL11] Stieglitz, S., Lattemann, C.: Experiential Learning in Second Life. In: Proceedings of the
17th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) Detroit, USA (2011).
[SLF10] Stieglitz, S., Lattemann, C., Fohr, G.: Learning Arrangements in Virtual Worlds.
Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS)
(2010).

[STA10] Swartout, W.; Traum, D.; Artstein, R.: Ada and Grace: Toward realistic and engaging
virtual museum guides. Intelligent Virtual Agents. pp. 286–300 Springer (2010).
[Va12] Vassileva, J.: Motivating participation in social computing applications: a user modeling
perspective. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction. 22, 1-2, 177–201 (2012).
[Wa09] Warburton, S.: Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the
barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British Journal of
Educational Technology. 40, 3, 414–426 (2009).
[WW04] Wojciechowski, R., Walczak, K.: Building virtual and augmented reality museum
exhibitions. Proceedings of the ninth …. 1, 212, 135–145 (2004).
[Xu11] Xu, Y.: Literature Review on Web Application Gamification and Analytics. CSDL
Technical Report 11-05 (2011).