Content uploaded by Bradley E. Wiggins
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bradley E. Wiggins on Mar 19, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
DOI: 10.4018/IJGBL.2016010102
Copyright © 2016, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Volume 6 • Issue 1 • January-March 2016
Bradley E Wiggins, Webster University, Vienna, Austria
This article examines the use of both game-based learning (GBL) and gamification in tertiary
education. This study focuses specifically on the use of games and/or simulations as well as familiarity
with gamification strategies by communication faculty. Research questions concentrate on the rate,
frequency, and usage of digital and non-digital games and/or simulations in communication courses,
as well as instructor familiarity with gamification. A survey was constructed with questions emerging
from the game-based learning and gamification literature. It was distributed to communication faculty
at public institutions of higher education in a southern state. In this context, the author argues that
while the term gamification is novel, the approach is not. Based on the results, current gamification
strategies appear to be a repackaging of traditional instructional strategies.
Game-based Learning, Game-design Elements, Gamification, Higher Education, Simulations
Two main perspectives on the use of games in higher education permeate the literature: game-based
learning in which actual games are used in the classroom to enhance learning and teaching, and
gamification which advocates the use of game-design elements in non-game contexts. Specifically,
game-design elements include rewards, leader boards, badges, levels, trophies, among others
(Dominguez et al., 2013; Kapp, 2012). The purpose of bringing both views together in this article is
to accomplish a thorough understanding of the uses of both game-based learning and gamification
in tertiary education.
Following a literature-based definition of both game-based learning and gamification, each term
is treated separately with respect to the current themes expressed in the literature but with specific
emphasis on the use of each within higher education. A series of research questions seek to demystify
the current use of games and game-design elements at institutions of higher education. This study
focuses specifically on the use of games and/or simulations as well as familiarity with gamification
strategies by communication faculty at public institutions of higher education in Arkansas, United
States. The impetus for this article stems from the lack of knowledge on the practical use of games and
gamification in higher education. It is important to note that many studies have focused on game-based
learning in primary education (Buckingham, 2007; Fengfeng, 2008; Huizenga, Admiraal, Akkerman,
& Dam, 2009; Kolovou & Heuvel-Panhuizen, 2010; Miller & Robertson, 2011) and secondary
education (Arnab et al., 2013; Annetta, Minogue, Holmes, & Cheng, 2009; Bourgonjon, Valcke,
Soetaert, & Schellens, 2010; Papastergiou; 2009) but few have researched the post-secondary level.
18
Volume 6 • Issue 1 • January-March 2016
19
Arguing for the need to define gamification and to describe it as “the use of game design elements in
non-game contexts” (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011b, p. 10), researchers have proposed
a direction for gamification as it pertains to the educational experience and also acknowledge the
dearth of academic investigation in the conceptual development of gamification as an element of
human-computer interaction (Deterding, O’Hara, Sicart, Dixon, & Nacke 2011a). In order to provide
semantic justification of the term Deterding et al. (2011a) demarcate play and game in a dichotomy
similar to Caillois’ terms paidia and ludus whereby paidia is a loose formalization of play (in terms
of rules, expectations, etc.) and ludus signifies games as expressed in common language (Mäyra,
2012). Borrowing from McGonigal (2011), Deterding et al. (2011b) underline the helpful quality of
the term gamefulness as a proper complement to playfulness. Thus, gamefulness is the “experiential
and behavioral quality” of a game, ostensibly as an independent form or medium (p. 11). Zicherman
(2010) called gamification a process in which people make use of the thinking and mechanics behind
games for problem solving and audience engagement. Kapp (2012) defined gamification in nearly
the same way as Zicherman but emphasized the importance of game aesthetics and the power of
gamification to motivate people. These definitions differ from the use of actual games in education
which is commonly called game-based learning.
Game-based learning is the intentional use of digital or non-digital games or simulations for the
purpose of fulfilling one or more specific learning objectives. Games in this definition refer to off-
the-shelf as well as user-generated games. However, this definition has a slight problem: it assumes
that individuals active in game-based learning do not also use game-design elements in their curricular
design. Accordingly, with the increase of perspectives about games and education it seems that one of
two possible developments is currently underway. In the first scenario gamification may be subsumed
under the greater topic of game-based learning. In that situation gamification may actually reveal itself
to be a reimagining of traditional educational strategies used to instill stronger extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation within the learner (Kapp, 2012, p. 12; 55-57) as opposed to something altogether novel.
In the alternate scenario game-based learning and gamification are distinct areas with the former
defined as the use of actual games (digital or non-digital) in educational contexts as a part of a given
learning objective (Epper, Derryberry, & Jackson, 2012; Perotta, Featherstone, Aston, & Houghton,
2013; Squire, 2005; Van Eck, 2006) and the latter defined as the use of game-design elements in
non-game contexts (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011; Zichermann, 2010; Kapp, 2012;
Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011).
Several authors use gamification and game-based learning interchangeably. Callaghan, McCusker,
Losada, Harkin, and Wilson (2013, p. 579) use the terms gamification and game-based learning
to capture the same concept (as opposed to distinguish between the terms) in their discussion of
teaching electrical engineering in virtual worlds. Epper, Derryberry, and Jackson (2012, p. 10) do
not differentiate between game-based learning and gamification.
Digital games remain an option for enhancing educational curricula in the interest of attracting and
maintaining attention and to increase retained knowledge. Squire (2005) claims that the inclusion
of games in e-learning represents a new stage of instructional development and design, also echoed
by Clark and Mayer (2011, p.369). Green and McNeese (2007) suggest that teacher reluctance to
incorporate games into curriculum is incongruent with the influx of high school and college students
who grew up with games. Perrotta, Featherstone, Aston, and Houghton, (2013, p. 10) found in a
review of game-based learning that the “literature was split on the extent to which video games can
Volume 6 • Issue 1 • January-March 2016
20
impact upon overall academic achievement” and that while a majority of studies in their review that
examined the “impact of video games and engagement found positive results…it was unclear where
this impact could be sustained over time”.
In addition, the interest to incorporate game-based learning (GBL) in higher education reflects an
emergent awareness of the value of situated cognition to re-engage students who have lost interest in
traditional instruction. An Educause study revealed six trends that delineate the adoption of game-based
learning at institutions of higher education in the United States (Epper, Derryberry, & Jackson, 2012).
These are: student expectations, integration of games and simulations, data analytics, mobile devices,
and the increased prevalence of social media. The Educause authors argue for the development of an
institution-wide strategy to adopt game-based learning strategies in terms of resources, challenges,
and support. Van Eck (2006, p. 3) echoes the Educause study (2012) in his argument for a “synergy
between pedagogy ansd engagement in DGBL [digital game-based learning]”. He alludes to Gee’s
(2004) game-centric contextualization of situated cognition which suggests that knowing and doing
are inseparable and that games are perhaps the perfect containers of nascent situated cognition given
player interaction. Van Eck (2006) further presents three factors to explain the sudden interest in
game-based learning initiatives. These factors include: continued research on game-based learning,
digital natives and their presumed disengagement with traditional instruction, and increased popularity
of digital games.
Perrotta, Featherstone, Aston, and Houghton, (2013, p. 10) found no studies on the impact of
gamification on learning and achievement in a meta-review of game-based learning literature; their
review included literature on learning in general and not isolated to institutions of higher education.
Depending on one’s perspective, however, gamification can seem a rather hot if not trendy item at the
moment within higher education but also in the public sector. According to Johnson et al. (2013) “[g]
ame play has traversed the realm of recreation and has infiltrated the worlds of commerce, productivity,
and education, proving to be a useful training and motivation tool” and the authors proceed by boldly
predicting the adoption of gamification strategies in higher education within the next three years.
Accordingly, it is important to note that gamification has a history all its own outside of education
(Bogost, 2011; Nolan & McBride, 2013).
With gamification, game-design elements are added in the hopes of incentivizing a particular
process thereby adding intrinsic motivation in a given gamified process which invariably uses extrinsic
rewards. For example, frequent flyer programs represent a form of gamification in that an individual’s
loyalty to a particular airline by repeated business is rewarded with miles which act as a form of
gamified currency to be used for air travel, upgrades, priority booking, or other related services. A
more recent gamification example is the social media location-based network called Foursquare.
Users who have installed the Foursquare app on their mobile device can check in at a venue listed
on the app, such as a restaurant, airport, bar, stadium, etc. The app uses GPS hardware present on
the mobile device and the user is awarded with points and badges with most frequent “check ins”
rewarded by gaining the title “mayor”.
In one of the few empirical studies testing gamification, Gåsland (2011) examined the
incorporation of collaborative opportunities and the progression strategy known as experience points
in a web-based platform for an e-learning class. Her results suggest that the platform is moderately
motivating and suggest the need for further research. Dominguez et al. (2013) created a Blackboard
plug-in which served to gamify text-based exercises and quizzes. Other game elements used in the
experiment include rewards, leader boards, badges, and trophies. Results show that the social and
emotional areas highlighted by Lee and Hammer (2011) are supported by empirical data from this
study but that the cognitive area is not as supported.
Adding game-design elements to the classroom, be it one that meets face to face or online or any
variation thereof, allows for differentiated instruction and adds the potential for rewards as well as
Volume 6 • Issue 1 • January-March 2016
21
significant challenges for learning and teaching. Gamification seems to be ameliorative to educational
contexts yet the evidence for these powers is lacking. Klopfer, Osterweil, and Salen (2009) highlight
the positives gained from a gamified curriculum including the freedom to fail without penalty and
the freedom to explore multiple identities and experiences. However, they also delineate numerous
barriers to the adoption of games (or ostensibly gamification) in education such as the logistics of
game-school integration, absence of evidence suggesting that learning games are effective, and
the lack of support for teachers to integrate games into curriculum. Lee and Hammer (2011, p.4)
acknowledge the possible challenges of a gamified curriculum by stating that it “…might absorb
resources, or teach students that they should learn only when provided with external rewards”. Lee
and Hammer view gamification as an option to improve a system pending the right adjustments are
made for application. This perspective represents sound advice tinged with a temperament seldom
found in the gamification literature which largely seeks to praise game-design elements as a kind
of panacea. In seeking to understand which game-design elements are effective or best choices for
inclusion in an educational curriculum, Stott and Neustaedter (2012) conducted a series of three case
studies on post-secondary applications of gamification. They identified four specific characteristics
present in game design and whose application in learning environments consistently leads to success,
freedom to fail, rapid feedback, progression, and storytelling. While Lawley (2012) cautions against
reducing a game to a short list of surface characteristics (such as badges or experience points), Stott
and Neustaedter (2012, p. 1) emphasize the importance of a deep understanding of “the foundations
of good game design”. Their case studies revealed that success in applying game-design elements to
education is relative to the context but that adding the four game mechanics gave the user a sense of
agency. Applying gamification to education may or may not work depending on the pre-planning,
design, and development of the gamified solution. From the literature it is apparent that little is known
about the current use of games and simulations in classrooms at institutions of higher education.
Consequently, more evidence is needed on the use of games and simulations in communication
classrooms.
This study points to a series of research questions that seek to uncover knowledge on the use of digital
and non-digital games and/or simulations in the communication classroom at institutions of higher
education. Additionally, this study includes questions about the knowledge of and familiarity with
gamification and related strategies.
RQ1: What is the rate of usage of digital and non-digital games and/or simulations?
RQ2: In which courses have digital or non-digital games and simulations been used?
RQ3: What is the likelihood of using digital and non-digital games/or simulations in the 2013-14
academic year?
RQ4: How common is knowledge of gamification?
RQ5: With which gamification strategies are communication instructors most familiar?
RQ6: How have digital or non-digital games or simulations been used as graded assessments?
Given the absence of an instrument designed to gather descriptive information about the use of games
and/or game-design elements in the communication classroom at institutions of higher education,
the online survey was designed based on the literature. Results offered important empirical and
qualitative data on this timely topic. The survey consisted of twenty possible questions (depending
Volume 6 • Issue 1 • January-March 2016
22
on respondent answers) and was distributed between October and November 2013 to all four-year
universities and four community colleges in Arkansas.
The first part of the survey featured questions emerging from the game-based learning literature.
Questions asked separately whether respondents have used digital or non-digital games in the
classroom in the previous academic year. Digital games were operationalized as computer, game-
console, or online based games or simulations, while non-digital games were defined as card games,
board games, or other non-electronic games or simulations. If respondents indicated that they have
used either a digital or non-digital game in the classroom they were prompted to specify the type of
course (traditional or face-to-face, web enhanced, or full online).
Respondents were then asked questions about the likelihood of their use of either digital or non-
digital games in the following academic year and whether they have used games as a form of graded
assessment. If used as a graded assessment, respondents were asked to elaborate on the assessment.
The second part of the survey featured questions from the gamification literature. Respondents
were asked of their familiarity with the term gamification which was operationalized in the survey
as “using game-design elements in non-game situations” with an example describing the corollary
of levels in games and their use by some instructors. Regardless of yes or no responses respondents
were then prompted to indicate whether they have used any gamification strategy.
Each strategy (levels, points, badges, feedback, storytelling, multiple attempts, goals, rules,
leaderboards, sandbox, and time) was defined in an educational context. For example leaderboards
were defined as “a public display of student performance to motivate students to compete with one
another to be at the top of the leaderboard” and sandbox as “allowing risk-taking without penalties to
the student for incorrect or undesirable performance”. These gamification strategies were specifically
taken from Kapp (2012) as they represent the most commonly named or referenced strategies in
the burgeoning gamification literature. A final section of the survey asked for information about
employment status, academic rank if full-time, and lastly an optional question on the respondent’s age.
Surveys were sent to full and part-time communication instructors (N=151) at all four-year and four
two-year institutions of higher education in Arkansas, United States. Completed surveys were received
from educators (n=48) representing a response rate of 32%.
Percentages and counts show the (a) rate and frequency of using digital and/or non-digital simulations
in the classroom, (b) the likelihood of using digital and/or non-digital games or simulations in the 2013-
2014 academic year, and (c) knowledge of the term “gamification” and familiarity with gamification
strategies. Qualitative data included (a) the courses in which respondents used digital or non-digital
games and simulations and (b) games or simulations as forms of assessment.
Generally, the results suggest that non-digital games and simulations enjoy a much greater frequency
of usage in the sample as opposed to their digital counterparts. It is not surprising to learn that
instructors use non-digital games and simulations with greater frequency. It is likely that non-digital
options seem more accessible to instructors given that board games, cards, role play, flash card games,
etc. demand less technical proficiency that digital games and simulations. Alternatively, non-digital
options may be preferred due to technological limitations at a given institution.
Volume 6 • Issue 1 • January-March 2016
23
RQ1: What is the rate of usage of digital and non-digital games and/or simulations?
Figure 1 demonstrates the overall usage of digital vs. non-digital in the sample. The survey
included two questions of classroom usage of digital and non-digital games and simulations and
included an operationalized definition of each term in order to maintain clarity among responses. The
digital question asked whether the respondent used a digital game or simulation as part of a class.
Digital referred to computer, game-console, or online based games or simulations. The non-digital
questions essentially asked the same but with emphasis on non-digital games and simulations. Non-
digital referred to card games, board games, or other non-electronic games or simulations.
Interestingly, 17% indicated the use of neither digital nor non-digital. As digital games and
simulations become a more salient topic in research, undergraduate and graduate seminars, and at
academic and professional conferences – such as the recent addition of the Games Studies Division
at the National Communication Association in the United States as of January 2015 – it is reasonable
to anticipate that more people may explore game options in the classroom. Whether they will explore
digital or non-digital is up for further research to reveal. As students, classrooms, and instructors
increasingly carry smart phones, tablets, and more, the movement from “neither” to “digital” seems
a likely outcome only to be determined by more research.
RQ2: In which courses have digital or non-digital games and simulations been used?
Traditional, web-enhanced, and full-online courses were popular choices within the sample for
the use of non-digital games and simulations. A traditional course was defined as one that meets face
to face in a classroom. A web-enhanced course was one that meets face to face but is complemented
by an online learning management system such as Blackboard, WebCT, Moodle, Desire2Learn, etc.).
Finally, a full online courses was defined as one that meets online only with no face to face meetings
for class purposes and which may operate through an online learning management system such as
Blackboard, WebCT, Moodle, Desire2Learn, etc.). The course type terminology is common to higher
education institutions in Arkansas and was therefore appropriate for use in the survey. The sole use
of digital games and simulations in traditional classrooms suggests that digital still has room to grow.
Figure 1. The frequency of digital vs. non-digital usage in the classroom
Volume 6 • Issue 1 • January-March 2016
24
Curiously, a few respondents indicated the use of non-digital games and simulations in full online
courses. It is included here simply to illustrate the findings.
RQ3: What is the likelihood of using digital and non-digital games/or simulations in the 2013-14
academic year?
Gauging the likelihood as to whether instructors plan on using digital or non-digital games and
simulations during the 2013-2014, results revealed that non-digital options supersede their digital
counterparts. Again, and as in the case of Figure 1, non-digital options may inhere a lower accessibility
threshold and therefore are used more frequently in the classroom. An equal portion of the sample
(49%) indicated an unlikelihood of using either digital or non-digital games. The non-digital option
seems again more popular and therefore more accessible to 47% of the sample compared with 37%
of the respondents who indicated a likelihood of using digital games and simulations. The undecided
portion suggests, as in Figure 1, that those individuals have not yet made up their minds regarding
the use of games and simulations in the classroom – whether digital or non-digital. Future studies
should be conducted to identify any movement away from or toward likelihood of use for both digital
and non-digital categories.
Figure 2. Use of digital vs. non-digital games and simulations in traditional, web-enhanced, and full online classes
Table 1. Likelihood of use during the 2013-14 academic year
Volume 6 • Issue 1 • January-March 2016
25
Respondents were asked about their knowledge of gamification which was operationalized as using
game-design elements in non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011a). The following contextualized
example was included as a further explanation of the concept: “Most games and simulations have
levels. As you progress through a game, you move from one level to another by accumulating points,
bonuses, etc. Some instructors have used game-design elements in their course design.”
RQ4: How common is knowledge of gamification?
While the question on the survey emphasized gamification in educational contexts, it is possible
that respondents were familiar with the concept due to its use in marketing and promotional campaigns
(Kapp, 2012; Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011).
RQ5: With which gamification strategies are communication instructors most familiar?
Regardless of whether respondents knew of the term “gamification” they were asked to indicate
familiarity with any of the gamification strategies, i.e. levels, points, badges, feedback, storytelling,
multiple attempts, goals, rules, leaderboards, sandbox, and time defined following Kapp (2012, p.
26-46). Curiously, the same portion of the sample (57%) who marked no familiarity with gamification
indicated knowledge of a total of 111 strategies. The remaining portion of the sample (43%) with
prior knowledge of gamification marked familiarity with a total of 93 gamification strategies
This apparent discrepancy between those familiar/unfamiliar with gamification and its
strategies is relatively easy to explain. While we can call levels, points, badges, storytelling, rules,
etc. gamification strategies we must also acknowledge their existence (if not also use) prior to the
emergence of gamification. Assigning points, using storytelling, explaining rules, using time limits,
giving feedback, as well as incorporating levels of difficulty, for example, are not new developments
in education. Gamification strategies are novel within the context of viewing them as game-design
elements and further by seeing the class experience as a game. It is their connection to game design
which arguably offers ways to be innovative given examples from digital games and simulations.
Figure 3. Respondents indicated a nearly split familiarity with gamification as a concept
Volume 6 • Issue 1 • January-March 2016
26
Courses from instructors who responded to the survey seem to fit in one of three categories.
These categories include (a) direct reference to games; (b) production course; and (c) courses that
emphasize interaction with individuals or groups.
Two open-ended questions asked respondents to identify the specific names of courses in which
they used either a digital or non-digital game/simulation. Respondents were not asked to be specific
whether they used a game or simulation. Digital and non-digital games appear to have a fairly equal
representation in terms of the number of courses which were identified by the respondents. The
most dominant category centered on those courses which emphasized some form of interaction with
individuals or groups. Perhaps the element of interactivity invites the use of games and simulations,
regardless of whether they are digital or non-digital, precisely because interactivity defines the nature
of games and simulations. The least dominant category originally featured only one course (Digital
Games and Society Seminar) which specifically references games. Two other courses (Visual Gender
and Immersive Media; Multimedia Storytelling) were included in the same category given that each
course could reasonably be expected to include some discussion of digital games and simulations.
Sitting between the least and most dominant categories is the theme that emphasizes technology and/
or the stages of production as the primary course topic. It is possible that more courses did not fit
this category as production often demands hands-on experience with cameras, lighting, storyboards,
editing software, and more.
RQ6: How have digital or non-digital games or simulations been used as graded assessments?
Table 2. Themes in course types where digital or non-digital games were used
Volume 6 • Issue 1 • January-March 2016
27
Lastly, a question was asked regarding assessment. Specifically, the researcher asked what kind
of assessment was given, digital or non-digital, and whether the instructor would use the game or
simulation again. A total of six respondents indicated the use of either digital or non-digital games or
simulations as a graded assessment. Of those six, four responses elaborated on the type of assessment.
The majority used a non-digital assessment primarily to cover general knowledge and comprehension.
One of the respondents used the games as a formative assessment, while two others discussed the
motivation of students when put into teams for a non-digital game, claiming that the game encouraged
interaction and competition.
The results from this study suggest that for the communication instructors in the sample digital is
under-utilized or still novel. Indeed it appears that non-digital games and simulations are far more
common or in some way more accessible than their digital counterpart. The preference for non-digital
games and simulations suggests not that games are a less tenable educational asset, but rather that
awareness and implementation of their digital version is still gaining ground at least in terms of the
given sample. The use of digital games and simulations in the communication classroom seems to
assume a laggardly adoption rate reflecting the spread of knowledge about game-based learning as
well as gamification in the context of higher education. The dearth of coverage on this area in the
literature evinces this assertion. In the same way the majority of respondents who are more likely to
use non-digital as opposed to digital games and simulations also suggests a latent preference for that
which is known, familiar, more accessible, or perhaps more permissible by administrative functionaries.
Gamification strategies continue to invite discussion and disagreement on which should
be included as a strategy type or which strategies simply do not delve deeply enough into their
effectiveness as idealized by gamification enthusiasts. However, our results suggest that communication
instructors who indicated no knowledge of gamification as a term went on to indicate familiarity
with strategies identified by numerous gamification enthusiasts as core game-design elements. This
suggests that the strategies may not be as novel as previously assumed and lauded. On the contrary,
it may also be that the current gamification strategies are a re-working of previous traditional
instructional strategies. The point here is to determine whether gamification in its application and
usage is unlike previous instructional strategies. The argument that gamification in education is merely
a repackaging of established strategies remains a consistent criticism. De Byl (2012) acknowledges
that gamification aspects are not completely new in terms of current strategies to encourage extrinsic
motivation in burgeoning gamified curricula (Dominguez, 2013; Kapp, 2012; Lee & Hammer, 2012;
Stott & Neustaedter, 2012).
Games and simulations as used within educational contexts arguably represent experimental
experiences for the typical student. Students mostly reported that games and simulations were used in
one class or on one specific occasion and not as part of a resource apparatus for the school system. It
seems from their sample and also from our own data that eagerness to introduce educational solutions
by means of digital games and simulations has not been massively adopted in US institutions of higher
education. At this time, the National Survey of Student Engagement (2013), addresses only the usage
of and role of technology in the course. Without specifically outlining GBL and simulations as a type
of software or online tool, 96% of all students used technology in their courses.
At this juncture, gamification deserves further inquiry especially within the realm of education.
This study has shown that familiarity with the concept exists within the sample but familiarity does
not suggest application. Future studies should examine the motivations behind the use of game-design
elements in educational contexts. Furthermore, it may be helpful to analyze the presence of games
and/or game-design elements in publisher produced learning management systems. Will games
migrate to online spaces only or will they have a place in the classroom as well? In certain fields
such as intercultural communication non-digital games and simulations are dominant with few digital
Volume 6 • Issue 1 • January-March 2016
28
counterparts (Wiggins, 2012). Are certain fields or subjects more accessible for digital vs. non-digital
games and simulations? Further research will reveal answers to these and other questions. In the
meantime, it falls to administrators and educators to determine the effective application of games
and simulations, whether digital or non-digital, in educations contexts. Limitations to digital games
such as expense or technical knowledge may decrease as game-design engines continue to develop
online. Finally, gamification and game-based learning are not only areas worthy of further inquiry but
may reveal a way for higher education to combat declining enrollments through the innovative use of
interactive games and simulations within the classroom and the overall tertiary educational experience.
Annetta, L. A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S. Y., & Cheng, M. T. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games
on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education, 53(1), 74–85.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.020
Arnab, S., Brown, K., Clarke, S., Dunwell, I., Lim, T., Suttie, N., & de Freitas, S. etal. (2013). The development
approach of a pedagogically-driven serious game to support Relationship and Sex Education (RSE) within a
classroom setting. Computers & Education, 69(11), 15–30. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.013
Bogost, I. (2011). Persuasive games: Exploitationware. Gamasutra. Retrieved from http://www.gamasutra.com/
view/feature/6366/persuasive_games_exploitationware.php
Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., & Schellens, T. (2010). Students’ perceptions about the use of video
games in the classroom. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1145–1156. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.022
Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond technology: Children’s learning in the age of digital culture. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
De Byl, P. (2012). Can digital natives level-up in a gamified classroom? Paper presented at the Ascilite 2012
Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011b, September). From game design elements to
gamefulness: Defining “gamification”. Paper presented at MindTrek 2011, Tampere, Finland.
Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O’Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011a, May). Gamification: Using game design
elements in non-gaming contexts. Paper presented at CHI 2011 in Vancouver, CA. doi:10.1145/1979742.1979575
Dominguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernandez-Sanz, L., Pages, C., & Martinez-Herraiz, J.
(2013). Gamifiying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63,
380–392. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020
Epper, R. M., Derryberry, A., & Jackson, S. (2012). Game-based learning: Developing an institutional strategy.
Educause: Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/game-based-
learning-developing-institutional-strategy
Gee, J. P. (2004). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Green, M., & McNeese, M. N. (2007). Using edutainment software to enhance online learning. International
Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 5–16. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/6317
Huizenga, J., Admiraal, W., Akkerman, S., & Dam, G. T. (2009). Mobile game-based learning in secondary
education: Engagement, motivation and learning in a mobile city game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
25(4), 332–344. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00316.x
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC Horizon
Report: 2013 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium; Retrieved from http://
www.nmc.org/publications/2013-horizon-report-higher-ed
Ke, F. (2008). A case study of computer gaming for math: Engaged learning from gameplay? Computers &
Education, 51(4), 1609–1620. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.03.003
Volume 6 • Issue 1 • January-March 2016
29
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward: Obstacles, opportunities,
and openness. The Education Arcade: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://www.
educationarcade.org/
Kolovou, A., & Panhuizen, M. V. D. H. (2010). Online game-generated feedback as a way to support early
algebraic reasoning. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 20(2),
224–238. doi:10.1504/IJCEELL.2010.036817
Lawley, E. (2012). Games as an alternate lens for design. In S. Deterding (Ed.), Gamification: Designing for
Motivation Interactions, 19 (4), 14-17.
Lee, J. J., & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in Education: What, How, Why Bother? Academic Exchange
Quarterly, 15(2). Retrieved from http://www.gamifyingeducation.org/files/Lee-Hammer-AEQ-2011.pdf
Mäyra, F. (2008). An introduction to games studies: Games in culture. London: Sage.
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New
York: Penguin.
Miller, D. J., & Robertson, D. P. (2011). Educational benefits of using game consoles in a primary classroom:
A randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 850–864. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2010.01114.x
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2013). A Fresh Look at Student Engagement—Annual Results 2013.
Indiana University. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2013_Results/pdf/NSSE_2013_Annual_Results.pdf
Nolan, J., & McBride, M. (2013). Beyond gamification: Reconceptualizing game-based learning in early childhood
environments. Information Communication and Society, 17(5), 594-608. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.808365
Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based Learning in high school Computer science education: Impact
on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2008.06.004
Perrotta, C., Featherstone, G., Aston, H., & Houghton, E. (2013). Game-based learning: Latest evidence and
Future Directions (NFER Research Programme: Innovation in Education). Slough: NFER.
Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom? Innovate: Journal
of Online Education, 1(6), 1–20.
Stott, A., & Neustadter, C. (2013). Analysis of gamification in education (Technical Report 2013-0422-01).
Connections Lab, Simon Fraser University.
Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. Educause,
41(2), 16–30.
Wiggins, B. E. (2012). Toward a model of intercultural communication in simulations. Simulation & Gaming,
43(4), 550–572. doi:10.1177/1046878111414486
Zichermann, G. (2010). Fun is the future: Mastering gamification [YouTube Video]. Google Tech Talk. Retrieved
from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O1gNVeaE4g
Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and
mobile apps. Hoen, NJ: Wiley.
