Gamifying Higher Education. Beyond Badges, Points and Leaderboards

Abstract

Gamification or related concepts such as serious games and playful design are discussed intensively in the field of academic education. Since 2011, gamification has continuously been recorded as a medium-term trend of online education in the annually published Horizon Report. In all areas in which engagement, participation, and motivation of individuals are the key success factors, strategies of gamification are considered. But, what are potentials of gamification in the field of higher education? How can educational technologies such as learning management systems be gamified? An essential part of this article is a study regarding the gamification of the learning management system OPAL.

Full text

1
Gamifying Higher Education. Beyond Badges, Points
and Leaderboards
Helge Fischer*, Matthias Heinz, Lars Schlenker,
Fabiane Follert
Media Center, Technische Universität Dresden
Strehlener Strasse 22/24, 01069 Dresden
E-mails: helge.fischer@tu-dresden.de, lars.schlenker@tu-dresden.de,
matthias.heinz@tu-dresden.de, fabiane.follert@tu-dresden.de
* Corresponding author
Structured Abstract
Purpose – Gamification or related concepts such as serious games and playful design are
discussed intensively in the field of academic education. Since 2011, gamification has
continuously been recorded as a medium-term trend of online education in the annually
published Horizon Report. In all areas in which engagement, participation, and motivation
of individuals are the key success factors, strategies of gamification are considered. But,
what are potentials of gamification in the field of higher education? How can educational
technologies such as learning management systems be gamified? An essential part of this
article is a study regarding the gamification of the learning management system OPAL.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on a master thesis at the faculty of educational
sciences, a study was conducted in order to investigate how the use of game elements can
increase the attractiveness of OPAL for students. OPAL is the central learning management
system at the Technische Universität Dresden. The study should answer the question:
Which game design elements increase the attractiveness of OPAL for students? The
research question was answered with a qualitative approach, while the collection of data
was carried out by a focus group and expert interviews. The sample included six master’s
students and one expert. The findings provide recommendations for redesigning OPAL.
Originality/value – Often gamification is related to tools like points, badges, and
leaderboards. But what elements exist beyond these? The contribution initially provides
conceptual foundations and refers to game mechanics as the specifics of games. Based on
this, the potential of gamification in higher education teaching was discussed.
Practical implications – The article describes the concept of gamification and how this
approach can be used in university teaching, especially for designing Learning
Management Systems.
Keywords – Online Education, Gamification, Learning Management Systems, Higher
Education
Paper type – Academic Research Paper

2
1 Introduction
The success in higher education is strongly dependent on the motivation of the students.
Therefore, gamification – as one tool which focuses on helping to increase motivation –
fits the scope of activity of higher education institutions. Furthermore, gamification is
mostly connected with the use of digital media. Today every institution of higher education
provides one or more learning management systems for organization and learning. This
situation opens a great opportunity by gamifying the existing digital infrastructure of higher
education institutions (such as universities and universities of applied sciences) to increase
student motivation in different aspects.
The current discussion about gamification is strongly connected with elements like
points, badges, or leaderboards. We want to go beyond that and show which further game
principles can play a role in student life to improve the students’ situation. Therefore,
initially the concept gamification will be discussed and afterwards it will be shown how
game design thinking can help to rethink digital learning at institutions of higher education.
Finally, a study which analyzes gamification potentials of an existing learning management
system will be presented to show the potentials of implementing gamification within the
existing digital infrastructure.
2 Theoretical Insights
“Gamification means many different things to many people” (Ramirez/Squire 2014, S.
629). But the definition that gamification is the use of game design elements in non-game
contexts is commonly accepted (Ramirez/Squire 2014). Caponetto, Earp and Ott (2014)
analyzed 119 publications with gamif* in the title between 2000 and early 2014 with the
confirming result that 75 percent define gamification as the application of gaming
mechanics and tools in non-game environments and make a clear boundary to game-based
learning. This definition of gamification from Deterding et al. (2011) is the most popular
(already cited 1461 times alone on Google Scholar (19th of April 2016, see:
http://0cn.de/scholar) – he describes gamification or gameful design as the use of design
elements characteristic for games in non-game contexts. The latest literature goes further,
now speaking about “[…] the integration of gaming elements, mechanics, and frameworks
into non-game situations and scenarios […]” (Fotaris et al. 2016). Fitz-Walter (2015) adds
the following qualities to this definition for a gamified application to contrast gamification

3
more clearly from other terms (as serious games, game-based learning and, of course,
games in general) and to help recognize gamification research results:
 more gameful than playful
 not a complete game
 both a tool and game
 not primarily for entertainment
 not a pervasive game
While the definition of gamification seems quite clear in fundamental aspects since
2011, the list of gamification mechanics, elements, and so on is very heterogeneous and a
popular research result. Research on gamification is already common, especially literature
reviews about game design elements, where researchers explored possible gamification
mechanics and game design mechanics. The following list provides a short overview about
the quantity of these game (design) mechanics, collected over separated comprehensive
literature reviews by several researchers:
 points, leaderboards, challenges, levels, reward systems, badges, etc.
(Dabbagh et al. 2016)
 points, leaderboards, game-like graphics, levels/rank, competition, avatars,
feedback/rewards, achievements/badges, virtual currency, teamwork, mini-
game, challenge, fantasy, roleplaying, quiz, tangible rewards, narrative,
virtual pet, goals, experience points, curiosity (Fitz-Walter 2015)
 point systems, achievements, quests, challenges, narrative structures
(Ramirez/Squire 2014)
 points, levels, challenges, trophies, badges/medals and accomplishments,
virtual goods, classification table, ranking, score table
 game dynamics: reward, status, accomplishments/fulfillment, self-
expression, competition (da Rocha Seixas/Gomes/de Melo Filho 2016)
 goals, challenges, quests, customization, progress, feedback, competition,
cooperation/social engagement loops, accrual grading, visible status,
access/unlocking content, freedom of choice, choose own sub-goals,
freedom to fail, storytelling, new identities/roles, onboarding, time
restriction (Dicheva et al. 2015)

4
 points, leaderboards, achievements/badges, levels, stories/themes, clear
goals, feedback, rewards, progress, challenges (Hamari/Koivisto/Sarsa
2014).
 reward elements: achievements, awards, badges, classification, gifting,
charity, leaderboard, levels, notifications, feedback, progress bars, rewards,
virtual currency, virtual/real goods (Conger 2016).
This list shows game mechanics which support gamification as more than just points,
badges, and leaderboards. A gamification framework can help in the design of learning
scenarios.
2.1 The Octalysis Framework
Many researchers complain about a generally strong focus on elements (Werbach &
Hunter, 2015). Moreover, there are game mechanics that need to be taken into account.
Game mechanics make characteristics of games significant and in turn can be implemented
by a specific set of game elements. One concept to visualize these mechanics and put them
in an order is the Octalysis Framework.
The gamification expert Chou (2014) created a frame of reference which helps gaming
and software designers to develop strategies for a successful gaming and software design.
Following Chou (2014), gamification framework is essentially a human-centered design
theory, as a counterpoint to functional design. Based on the investigation of games and their
motivational factors, he developed the Octalysis Framework. The framework includes the
following eight core drives of gamification (Chou 2014):
 Epic Meaning & Calling – a player is doing something greater than himself
or he was “chosen” to do something
 Development & Accomplishment – making progress, developing skills, and
eventually overcoming challenges
 Empowerment of Creativity & Feedback – users are engaging a creative
process where they have to repeatedly figure things out and try different
combinations
 Social Influence & Relatedness – all the social elements that drive people,
including: mentorship, acceptance, social responses, companionship, as well
as competition and envy

5
 Ownership & Possession – users are motivated because they feel like they
own something.
 Scarcity & Impatience – wanting something because you can’t have it
 Unpredictability & Curiosity – wanting to find out what will happen next
 Loss and Avoidance – motivation to avoid something negative from
happening
Core drives are equal to game mechanics. Every core drive can be implemented by a
set of tools or game elements, such us points, challenges, avatars, etc. In this way the
Octalyis Framework can help in the understanding of the rules of games or playful design
and it can help to create game-like learning environments.
2.2 Gamification in (higher) education
The phenomenon of gamification is growing rapidly in the sector education
(Caponetto/Earp/Ott 2014). Since 2011 gamification has continuously been recorded as a
medium-term trend of online education in the annually published Horizon Report by the
New Media Consortium (Johnson et al. 2016). Increasing students’ motivation and
engagement as well as the efficiency of learning are the main reasons for implementing
gamification (Burke 2014; Caponetto/Earp/Ott 2014; Fotaris et al. 2016). Dabbagh et al.
(2016) discovered that a framework connecting penalty and reward increases the
attendance, performance, motivation, and the grades of students. These potentials of
gamification are very suitable to the field of higher education. Studying at university is not
a game, but that does not mean it is not possible to enhance studying efforts through game
elements or with a game design within a common learning management system. The
principles (or elements – but we define them as more concrete and smaller things)
relatedness, competence, and autonomy affect students’ motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic)
and have an impact on the engagement of students (Deterding et al. 2011). When we speak
about implementing game elements into an existing learning management system, the
difference between the terms becomes interesting again. A big difference between game,
play, serious game, simulation, and gamification is that gamification always has a result in
the real world (Herger 2014). If we understand gamification as a learning-supporting tool,
it is necessary to make clear which learning aims can be supported and how. Different game
elements serve different learning aims. Therefore, Kiesler (2014) matched the two types of
gamification to the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy levels of learning: levels 1-3 to structural

6
gamification and levels 4-6 to content gamification (see table 1). Furthermore, sample game
activities are shown in the same table.
Table 1: Gamification as a support for learning
Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
(Krathwohl 2002)
Kapp’s types of gamification
(Kiesler 2014)
Sample Game Activities
(Kapp/Blair/Mesch 2014)
Remembering (1)
structural
matching, collecting
Understanding (2)
structural
puzzling, exploring
Applying (3)
structural
role playing
Analyzing (4)
content
resources allocating
Evaluating (5)
content
strategy
Creating (6)
content
building (own game)
There are many examples of gamification in the field of (higher) education (19th of
April 2016, see: http://0cn.de/examples) and many examples already show that the
implementation of gamification elements into learning management is possible or that
learning management systems already have gamification opportunities, if didactical
reasonings can be identified (19th of April 2016, see: http://0cn.de/lms).
2.3 Gamification in learning management systems
Learning management systems play a central role in the provision of educational
content, the organization of learning processes, and the exchange between students and
teachers. The evolution of learning management systems began with a simple requirement
for file storage and sharing purposes. Over time, the developers of these learning
management systems started to introduce more features into their system to accommodate
the users’ requirements. But not everywhere learning management systems are used are
their potentials and opportunities fully exploited. There is a need to improve the students’
engagement and motivation to use learning management system in their studies. One
opportunity for improving the use of learning management systems is to integrate game-
based concepts which these students are familiar with, e.g. leveling up and gaining
experience, into the system through the process known as gamification (Azmi/Singh 2013).
What separates gamified learning management systems from conventional learning

7
management systems? The idea of implementing gamification concepts in the learning
management system depends on the game design element used. On the cognitive level this
can be a complex system of tasks and rules where the students advance step by step through
the learning process. Game mechanics can be avatars as a representation of the users, a
leaderboard for long-term motivation through the comparison of statistics, and leveling up
through gaining experience (see also table 2).
Table 2: Gamification elements in Moodle version 2.5.1. (Amriani/Aji 2013)
Gamification elements
Description
Score
Each student will receive a score for their assignment performance and
their various activities in the system.
Badge
Students will be awarded with badges by completing various actions
that are related to their activities.
Leaderboard
Top ranked students will be displayed in leaderboard based on their
scores and badges collected.
Title
Each student will get a title based on their received score. The titles are
presented in different levels and will be attached to their account name.
Completion track
Each student can see their own progress in the system, what tasks they
have finished, and what material they have viewed.
These features make learning management systems more interactive and engaging to
the users. It creates a draw for the students to spend more time with the learning
management system and builds a more fulfilling experience while using the system
(Azmi/Singh 2013). Game elements and mechanics create an active atmosphere
(Amriani/Aji 2013) and have positive effects of the emotional engagement of the students
(Souza-Concilio/Pacheco 2013). The possibility of emotional participation is important for
communication in a learning management system. Learning management systems can be
perceived as being better through an activating and emotional environment utilizing
gamification.
But studies on the gamification of learning management systems still refer to another
important aspect, namely that gamification did improve student participation. However,
these effects are not possible without the active role of facilitators which support this
process effectively. Teachers or facilitators are required to create dynamic interaction
between all involved in the learning process. Their task is to accommodate and facilitate
the needs of the students by being involved in the learning process, triggering them to be

8
active, and providing feedback. Gamification elements and mechanics in learning
management systems are like boosters for the students. To maintain a real class-like
environment in the learning process, facilitators are needed (Souza-Concilio/Pacheco
2013).
3 Empirical study
How can the gamification approach be applied in higher education? A promising field
would be to provide this in the study introduction phase (first year), because most dropouts
occur in this time. To assist students during the introduction phase at the Technische
Universität Dresden, an innovative study support service should be developed based on
available learning technologies and providing game-elements for study relevant
information. Thus, it is intended to integrate quizzes, self-tests, challenges, points, or
badges in order to introduce study related information for new students. The whole scenario
is embedded in a narrative framework. The service is to be implemented with the learning
platform OPAL, the central learning management system at the Technische Universität
Dresden. OPAL is primarily used to support academic, administrative, and coordination
processes, such as course and student registration. But for supporting gamification, OPAL
must contain game-like tools and functions. For this reason, before starting the
implementation of the above-mentioned project, the potentials of OPAL regarding
gamification have to be analyzed. This will be the focus of a study which will be introduced
in the following chapter.
3.1 Research design
Within a master thesis at the faculty of educational sciences, a study was conducted in
2014 in order to investigate how the use of game elements could increase the attractiveness
of using OPAL for students (Rohr & Fischer, 2014). The research question was as follows:
Which game design elements increase the attractiveness of OPAL for students?
From the study recommendations, for redesigning of the learning management system
was derived. Thus, the investigation refers to a concrete object - the learning management
system OPAL. Therefore, the transferability of the findings to other learning management
systems is restricted.
The research question was answered with a qualitative approach. The collection of data
was carried out by focus groups and expert interviews. The sample included six master’s

9
students who knew OPAL from their student life and regularly work with it, and one expert.
Through two different focus group interviews, first two and then four students were
interviewed. The conversation was standardized with a questionnaire. The expert interview
(one person) was conducted afterwards. Finally the data was analyzed using a qualitative
content analysis.
The conceptual template of the questionnaire and the coding scheme for qualitative
content analysis was the above-described Octalysis framework of the American
gamification expert Yu-Kai Chou (2014). The study should find out with which elements
or tools the game mechanics can be implemented. But, to simplify the data collection and
analysis, the eight core drives of the Octalysis framework were compressed to six
categories. The final categories which were investigated within the study are shown in table
3.
Table 3: category scheme for the study
category (game mechanics)
category description
epic meaning,
narrative access
epic important task; Attention Activity by narrative access;
convey feeling of being part of something big ("Heroes
Mission")
achievements
visualization of learning progress, skill development, mastering
challenges
stimulus for creativity,
feedback
Interactivity to encourage creativity and immediate feedback
social relationships
communication and interaction between people, arranging
affiliation, competition, helpfulness (mentorship)
exclusivity
privileges & status, directing the attention to other offers
(recommendations/"Glowing Choice"), "free play" of content,
level up
loss,
prevention
avoidance of punishment, fear of losing points, privileged status
etc.
3.2 Findings
The study was carried out as follows. Within both focus group interviews, the students
were introduced to the gamification context by going through a game situation. They were
asked to watch the video "The fun theory" (19th of April 2016, see: http://0cn.de/theory).

10
Following, the students were asked to discuss the six categories. They should suggest
elements of implementing these mechanics and discuss the usefulness of these elements for
student life. Finally the students discussed limitations of gamification in a learning
management system and student life. The following table 4 presents the suggestions of the
students after conducting the interviews.
Table 4: Game mechanics and game design elements
Dimensions
Game design elements found by the study
epic meaning,
narrative access
- -Welcome Page or Welcome Movie
- -Personal Welcome and Introduction
achievements
- -Points/Badges for non-curricular achievements
- -Progress bar for status quo in the study program
- -Display of certificates
- -Tests for exam preparation
stimulus for creativity,
feedback
- -Avatar as personal profile
- -User interface customization
- -Icons for reviews, feedback
social relationships
- -Publicly visible status
- -Group quests/challenges and peer review
- -Mentorship programs
exclusivity
- -Glowing Choice
- -Privileges for usage of OPAL
- -Learning track control, level up
Loss, prevention
- should not be applied within learning
From the information of the two focus group interviews, recommendations for the
redesign of OPAL were derived. In the final stage of the investigation these
recommendations have been evaluated and commented on by an expert for online teaching
and game-didactics, who is also a teacher at the Technische Universität Dresden. Thus, the
result of the investigation was a list of recommendations for a motivation-centered redesign
of OPAL. Since these recommendations are specific to the learning platform, general
recommendations that are applicable to all learning management systems are presented
below.
 The homepage should be self-explanatory and motivationally designed to
be (for example, by personal welcome, a welcome movie, guided tour).

11
 Reward systems such as badges or points earned for additional learning
activities or bonus systems should be considered as an alternative option to
marks or grades.
 Punishment mechanisms such as losing points or badges for non-fulfillment
of a performance should not be used in learning situations.
 For the award of points and badges, clear rules for a fair evaluation should
be defined.
 In social scenarios (study groups), the status and activity of all participants
should be visible.
 Assessment and feedback symbols for postings or course content enable
fast and immediate quality measurement/evaluation.
In the last step of investigation, risks of gamification have been discussed and
evaluated by both the students and the expert. Mainly, the following risks should be
considered for gamification of learning management systems or learning arrangements:
 Workload: For gamification of learning arrangements, the high workload
for teachers has to be considered.
 Level of abstraction: During gamification the serious nature of learning
must not be lost. The correlation between game-element and learning
process must be clear.
 Rules for reviews and assessment: Feedback rules should be developed,
with the peer review or peer assessment process designed to treat all
students with respect. This assessment process requires a high monitoring
effort on the part of teachers.
 Data security/Privacy: For gamification, user data is collected and
evaluated. The compliance with privacy requirements must be ensured.
Students believe that the optional anonymization of their own profiles
should be possible and the public display of one's status should be
voluntary.
 Punishment mechanisms: As already mentioned, the surveyed students
and the expert criticized the possible use of punishment mechanisms in the
learning process.

12
3.3 Limitations
The study findings provide valuable information for gamification in higher education,
but are limited in their expressiveness due to context and limited in their significance based
on methodical specifics:
 The investigation focused on the learning platform OPAL. The statements
of the students and the experts are therefore only valid in this context. The
transferability of the findings to other learning management system is
limited.
 The sample consisted of six students from the master’s studies and an
expert. The influence of the expert view is very limited. In addition,
variance among students is missing. In subsequent studies, students of
different disciplines and phases of study should be interviewed in order to
capture the views of students more comprehensively.
 The study does not allow conclusions about the possible effects of
gamification. Respondents were asked to evaluate elements in advance. To
what extent they would also use them in student life or whether this could
be technically implemented into OPAL cannot be determined.
4 Conclusion
The present article deals with the gamification of learning management systems. It
became clear that gamification goes far beyond the use of points, badges, and leaderboards.
Rather, gamification refers to a mindset which puts motivation, engagement, and emotions
at the center of the design of learning technologies and learning scenarios. However, for
the implementation of game elements within learning scenarios, matching technologies are
needed. The purpose of this article is to show what kind of elements or functions for
gamification are required and what students expect from this trend.
References
Amriani, A., Aji, A. F., Utomo, A. Y., and Junus, K. M. (2013): An Empirical Study of Gamification
Impact on E-Learning Environment. In: Proceedings of 2013 3rd International Conference on
Computer Science and Network Technology, IEEE, October, pp. 265–269 (doi:
10.1109/ICCSNT.2013.6967110).
Azmi, M. A./Singh, D. (2015): Schoolcube: Gamification for Learning Management System through
Microsoft SharePoint. International Journal of Computer Games Technology, pp. 1-5.

13
Burke, B. (2014): Gamify: how gamification motivates people to do extraordinary things. Brookline,
MA: Bibliomotion.
Caponetto, I./Earp, J./Ott, M. (2014): Gamification and Education: A Literature Review. In: Busch,
C. (Ed.): Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Game Based Learning – ECGBL 2014.
Reading, UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited, pp. 50-57.
Chou, Yu-Kai (2014): Octalysis: Complete Gamification Framework. URL:
http://www.yukaichou.com/gamification-examples/octalysis-complete-gamification-
framework/#.U7KSWPb9BTI (14.04.2016).
Conger, S. (2016): Gamification of Service Desk Work. In: Lee, J. (Ed.): The Impact of ICT on Work.
Singapore/Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London, pp. 151-173.
da Rocha Seixas, L./Gomes, A. S./de Melo Filho, I. J. (2016): Effectiveness of gamification in the
engagement of students. In: Computers in Human Behavior 58, pp. 48-63.
Dabbagh, N./Benson, A. D./Denham, A./Joseph, R./Al-Freih, M./Zgheib, G./Fake, H./Guo, Z.
(2016): Learning Technologies and Globalization. Pedagogical Frameworks and Applications.
Cham/Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer.
Deterding, S./Dixon, D./Khaled, R./Nacke, L. (2011): From game design elements to gamefulness:
defining "gamification" In: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek
Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (MindTrek ’11), New York, NY, USA:
ACM, pp. 9-15.
Dicheva, D./Dichev, C./Agre, G./Angelova, G. (2015): Gamification in Education: A Systematic
Mapping Study. Educational Technology & Society, 18 (3), pp. 75–88.
Fabricatore, C./López, X. (2014): Using Gameplay Patterns to Gamify Learning Experiences. In:
Busch, C. (Ed.): Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Game Based Learning –
ECGBL 2014. Reading, UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited, pp.
S. 110-117.
Fitz-Walter, Z. (2015): Achievement Unlocked: Investigating the Design of Effective Gamification
Experiences for Mobile Applications and Devices. PhD thesis. URL:
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/83675/1/Zac%20Fitz-Walter%20Thesis.pdf (14.04.2016).
Fotaris, P./Mastoras, T./Leinfellner, R./Rosunally, Y. (2016): Climbing up the leaderboard: An
empirical study of applying gamification techniques to a computer programming class.
Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 14 (2). URL: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/28598 (14.04.2016).
Hamari, J./Koivisto, J./Sarsa, H. (2014): Does Gamification Work? – A Literature Review of
Empirical Studies on Gamification. In: Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, January 6-9, 2014, pp. 3025-3034.
Herger, M. (2014): Enterprise Gamification - Engaging people by letting them have fun. EGC Media.
Johnson, L./Adams Becker, S./Cummins, M./Estrada, V./Freeman, A./Hall, C. (2016): NMC Horizon
Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas, USA: The New Media Consortium.
Kapp, K. M./Blair, L./Mesch, R. (2014): The Gamification of Learning and Instruction Fieldbook.
Ideas to Practice. San Francisco, CA, USA: Wiley.
Kiesler, N. (2014): Lernst du noch oder spielst du schon? URL:
http://medienbildung.hypotheses.org/5474 (14.04.2016).
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002): A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4),
pp. 212–218.
Ramirez, D./Squire, K. (2014): Gamification and Learning. In: Walz, S. P./Deterding, S. (Eds.): The
Gameful World. Approaches, Issues, Applications. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA/London,
England, UK: The MIT Press, pp. 629-652.
Rohr, F./Fischer, H. (2014): Mehr als Spielerei! Gamedesign-Elemente in der digitalen Lehre. In:
Proceeding, Workshop on E-Learning, Hochschule Zittau/Görlitz.

14
Souza-Concilio, I. d. A./Pacheco, B. d. A. (2013): How to make Learning Management Systems more
exciting and entertaining: Games, interaction and experience design. In: Proceedings of IEEE
Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services, pp. 18-23.
Werbach, K./Hunter, D. (2015): The Gamification Toolkit: Dynamics, Mechanics, and Components
for the Win. Warton Digital Press.
Authors’ Biographical Notes
Helge Fischer PhD is researcher, project manager, and lecturer at Technische Universität
Dresden. His research activities are focused on the fields of online education, digital
transformation and gamification.
Fabiane Follert M.A. is a freelancer in the field of culture, media, and education.
Furthermore, she is a project member at the Technische Universität Dresden.
Matthias Heinz M.A. is a researcher and project member at the Technische Universität
Dresden. His research focuses on (scientific) further training, digital enhanced learning,
and gamification within the higher education area.
Lars Schlenker, Dr. phil. holds an Engineer Diplom in Architecture from the Technische
Universität Dresden and a Master of Arts in Educational Media from the University of
Duisburg-Essen. He earned his Ph.D. at the Duisburg Learning Lab while researching
communication and collaboration processes in online worlds. His research topics are
technology enhanced learning and environmental design for teaching and learning spaces.