ArticlePDF Available

The Effect of Gamification on Motivation and Engagement

Authors:

Abstract

Purpose Gamification is the application of game features, mainly video game elements, into non-game context for the purpose of promoting motivation and engagement in learning. The application of gamification in a pedagogical context provides some remedy for many students who find themselves alienated by traditional methods of instruction. The use of gamification could provide a partial solution to the decline in learners’ motivation and engagement the schooling system is facing today. Specifically, the college environment could benefit a lot from gamifying not only their graduate recruitment strategies, but also the college course content and curricula. This critical analysis of literature on gamification is intended to be part of a sequence on the effect of gamification on motivation and engagement. A proposed methodology in the study of gamification effect on motivation and engagement in addition to an empirical study on three college courses are being finalized to complete this trilogy. Design/methodology/approach Themes covered in the literature review include: conceptualizing gamification, advantages of gamification over game-based learning, theoretical connections to gamification, motivation and engagement, connecting gamification to motivation and engagement, emotions and fun in gamification, player types and gamification features, gamification in action, and implementation guidelines. Findings The literature on the effect of gamification on motivation and gamification is still limited on multiple levels. There is a gap between theory and practice in the study of gamification. There is limited literature on the implementation guidelines of the gamified designs. Practical implications This critical analysis of literature is followed by connecting it to future research by the same author as part of a sequence on the effect of gamification on motivation and engagement. The second project, will be proposing a methodology for any successful design to provide a holistic understanding of the topic of gamification. Finally, an empirical study on the effect of gamification on students' motivation and engagement in three college courses will be submitted to complete the trilogy. Originality/value The paper is a literature review, so there is a strong connection to literature on this topic. However, the synthesis of the themes and ideas are original. The literature review is extensive and covers the different aspects of the topic of gamification and its relationship to motivation and engagement.
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
The Effect of Gamific
ation on Motivation and Engagment
Journal:
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
Manuscript ID
IJILT-02-2017-0009
Manuscript Type:
Research Paper
Keywords:
Gamification, Game-based learning
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
Running head: GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT
1
Abstract
Gamification is the application of game features, mainly video game elements, into non-game
context for the purpose of promoting motivation and engagement in learning. The application of
gamification in a pedagogical context provides some remedy for many students who find
themselves alienated by traditional methods of instruction. There is a direct link between
increased motivation and higher levels of engagement when the gamification intervention is
introduced. This is a literature review on gamification, motivation, and engagement. In the
literature regarding how gamification promotes students’ motivation and task engagement in a
college environment, some important topics are: conceptualizing gamification, advantages of
gamification over game-based learning, theoretical connections to gamification, motivation and
engagement, connecting gamification to motivation and engagement, emotions and fun in
gamification, player types and gamification features, gamification in action, and implementation
guidelines.
Keywords: gamification, game based learning (GBL).
Page 1 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
2
Gamification is a newly coined term that reflects a social phenomenon arising with a
generation of digitally literate population. Gamification has been defined as the use of “game-
based mechanics, aesthetics, and game thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote
learning, and solve problems” (Kapp, 2013, p. 125). This operational definition, which will be
used in this literature review, incorporates important pedagogical components. First, the
pedagogical application of gamification to promote learning is emphasized as contrasted to
business applications. Second, digital game mechanics, which includes, but is not limited to,
avatars, badges, points, levels, leaderboard, virtual rewards, and storyline or quests, are
highlighted. Third, there is reference to game dynamics, which is focused on game elements that
allow for social interaction between players. In addition, motivation and engagement are
included in this definition as possible effects of gamification. The fourth pedagogical component
in Kapp’s definition is the emphasis on critical thinking skills, which are essential in learning and
could be partially promoted through gamification.
Although non-digital game components have wide applications in educational contexts,
the focus of this paper is on the digital video game elements that are used in pedagogical context
to promote task engagement, increase motivation, and enforce desirable learning behaviors. The
rationale behind deploying video game elements in an educational context is that they have
already captured the attention of millions of loyal players all over the world. In the United States,
about 58% of the population played video games (Folmer, 2015). Unlike the general assumption,
the average age of video game players is thirty with almost a balanced percentage of males and
Page 2 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
3
females: “There are more females over the age of thirty playing video games than boys under
eighteen, and one-third of parents play video games with their kids regularly” (p. 2).
A significant problem that many schools and educators are facing today, as Zickermann
and Cunningham (2011) posited, is that many students are lacking the motivation and interest to
learn. If given a choice, many of them would prefer to play video games rather than reading a
book or completing a homework assignment. The solution is not, as many educators, policy
makers, and politicians suggest, resolved by creating additional educational standards or adding
more standardized tests in an endless cycle of trial and error. Prensky (2001) enthusiastically
presented the solution to learners’ disengagement through the marriage of education and
entertainment; thus, the term “edutainment:” “Great education is edutainment that has gotten the
mix right. . . . No rational person condemns the genre; we speak of good books, good plays, and
good movies as those that stand the test of time” (p. 380). Some proponents of gamification, such
as Zickermann (2010), are for more –tainment than –edu. Prensky (2001) confirmed that there is
no magical recipe, but that depends on the context and is left to teachers to design the perfect
mix of education and entertainment depending on their students’ needs.
According to Prensky (2011), game features can provide the –tainment part of the
educational design needed to engage learners. Borrowing game elements, he argued, and
incorporating them into the classroom environment can facilitate engagement. Little research has
been done on the effect of gamification on motivation and engagement of the learners. The
research literature connected to gamification is limited on multiple levels and there is a need to
explore the long-term effect of gamification in promoting and sustaining learners’ motivation
and engagement. This literature review will include studies done on the effect of gamification on
learners’ engagement and motivation.
Page 3 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
4
In this literature review, research connecting gamification to motivation and engagement
will be explored under these themes: conceptualizing gamification, advantages of gamification
over game-based learning, theoretical connections to gamification, motivation, and engagement,
connecting gamification to motivation and engagement, emotions and fun in gamification, player
types and gamification features, gamification in action, and implementation guidelines.
Conceptualizing Gamification
There is no consensus on the definition of gamification among researchers, nor is there an
agreement on the difference between game-based learning (GBL) and gamification. Kapp (2013)
discussed the definition of gamification in a pedagogical context contrasting it to game-based
learning (GBL). Based on Kapp’s view, the instructional strategy is changed to accommodate
game elements where, instead of the learning objectives, the teacher in a gamified classroom will
present a challenge or quest that the players will need to undertake leading them to the learning
experience.
Some researchers define gamification as the use of game elements, mechanics, features,
design, and structure in a non-game environment or context (Attali & Arieli, 2015; Bruder, 2015;
Dale, 2014; Davis, 2014; Deterring, 2012; Gonzales et al., 2016; Hanus & Fox, 2015; Issacs,
2015; Kapp, 2013; Powers et al., 2013; Keeler, 2015; Koivisto & Hamari, 2014; Seaborn & Fels,
2015; Sheldon, 2011; Whitton, 2012; Zickermann, 2011). This “non-game environment” is broad
enough to cover the wide application of gamification in business, thus Zickermann and
Cunningham’s (2011) definition: “The process of game-thinking and game mechanics to engage
users and solve problems” (p. xiv). Gamification, according to Simões, Redondo, and Vilas
(2013), is the utilization of game mechanics and game dynamics in “non-game applications” (p.
348). The definition of Simões et al. (2013) is focused on the social aspect of gamification, such
Page 4 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
5
as collaboration. Leaning’s (2015) definition of gamification as an experience outside of gaming
context is as broad as the previous definitons.
Other definitions are more focused on critical thinking skills that are usually used in
games and can be activated in non-game context (Farber, 2013). There are some defintions
where the pedagogical applications of gamification are emphasized. Kingsley and Grabners
(2015) posited that gamification should be understood as a combination of “ content area
instruction, literacy, and 21st century learning skills in a highly-engaging learning environment”
(p. 51). In the eyes of Hamari, Koivisto, and Sarsa (2014), gamification becomes more complex
with specific focus on “motivational affordances” and change in behavior as an outcome (p.
3026).
Folmar’s (2015) definition captured an important idea in the application of gamification
in learning and other fields: game thinking. Folmer defined gamification as “the use of game
thinking and game mechanics to meet non-game ends” (p. 2). The lack of game thinking when
using gamification in an educational context is what many gamification proponets, such as
Zickermann (2010), considered the chief reason for its occasional failure in different contexts.
Game thinking mandates rethinking teaching practices, not just adding game elements without
considering how gamification works: “Gamification is not just making a game, which imparts a
lesson; it is applying game thinking to how we impart that lesson and continuing to develop it
based on the feedback from the players” (Folmar, 2015, p. 5).
In traditional instructional methods, the students earn their grades based on a
performance of a task as they demonstarte achievement, whereas in gamification “the effort is
rewarded, with badges or points even when the objective is not completed: “that [is] what
gamification does, it rewards the effort [emphasis added], not the winning” (p.7). In other words,
Page 5 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
6
in a gamified environment the students are encouraged to engage in the process and reasoning
and are evaluated accordingly regardless of whether they succeeded in their endeavor or not. Of
course, this is not to undermine the importance of task but rather to motivate the learners to exert
effort in tackling different learning challenges. Brewer et al.’s (2013) study on children (five to
seven) has shown that the use of gamification increased the percentage of task completion from
73% to 97%.
To illuminate the different elements that comprise the meaning of gamification, it is
important to discuss the difference between gamification and game-based learning (GBL).
Advantages of Gamification over Game-Based Learning
Gamification has a lot of advantages over educational games. Before highlighting the
characteristics that make gamification superior to other digital games used in education and
otherwise, it is important to understand some game terminolgy. Game-based learning is intended
solely for education and relies on a learning game that has a beginning and an end. Serious
gaming is a broader term used to describe games intended for education, industry, training and
stimulation (Connolly, Boyle, MacArthur, Hainey & Boyle, 2012). Table 1 shows the low
frequency in the search results of the term gamification as compared to game-based learning,
serious games, and educational games. The search in the databases, Eric, Sage, ScienceDirect,
and GoogleScholar, was conducted using keywords: gamification, game-based learning,
educational games, and serious games. Other than gamification, all the search included the word
“game” to narrow down the results. GoogleScholar had the largest number of results on
gamification because it included conference proceedings, websites, and online documents. All in
all, the results reflected the recency of the topic of gamification as compared to other game-based
topics.
Page 6 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
7
Gamification and game-based learning are an area of confusion and misunderstanding for
many educators and game designers. The two concepts: gamification, and game-based learning,
are distinctively blurred for Nah, Telaprolu, Rallapalli, and Venkata (2013). They stated: “By
turning an activity or a process into a computer game, i.e. through various game design elements
such as rewards for achievement, desirable behavioral change can be induced” (p. 99).
Gamification is not when learning is changed into a computer game but rather when adding a
design layer of game elements to enhance learning, increase engagement, and encourage positive
behavior.
Table 1
Database Search Results
Database Gamification
Game-based
Learning
Educational
Games
Serious
Games
Eric 60 16,266 11,149 6,507
Sage 276 92,557 41,472 37,834
ScienceDirect 648 213,648 42,072 55,270
GoogleScholar
29,000 3,340,000 2,260,000 2,030,000
Keeler (2014) posited major differences between gamification and game-based learning.
Game-based learning is “when students play games to learn content,” whereas gamification is the
“application of game-based elements to non-game situations” (p. 1). Issacs (2015) also made a
clear distintion between the two approaches: “[G]amification has been integrated in a more
authentic manner as some classrooms have become a living breathing game.. . . . Unlike
gamification, game-based learning relates to the use of games to enhance the learning
experience” (pp. 1-2).
Page 7 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
8
Simões et al. (2013) elaborated upon how gamification works differently from game-
based learning in the classroom: “The gamification of education approach has the advantage of
introducing what really matters from the world of video games – increasing the level of
engagement of students – without using any specific game” (p. 347). Gamification in education
is an ongoing process that harvests the most engaging game components and applies them to
increase motivation and engagement among the learners. The results are realized on the long
term as compared to game-based learning where engagement is short-lived, usually during the
duration of the game. Once the game is completed, many learners or players do not have any
more interest in a game they have mastered and completed. Folmar (2015) described how serious
games work in contrast to gamification: “[Serious gaming] is a game with a completion stage as
compared to gamification which is meant to create ongoing and prolonged engagement” (p. 5).
On one hand, gamification works by adding elements inspired from games to the classroom
environment mainly to increase motivation, engagment, and promote desired learning behaviors.
Whereas game-based learning, on the other hand, relies on using games to meet learning
outcomes. The learning is facilitated through playing games whether digital or non-digital.
Zickermann (2010), in his support of gamification over game-based learning, emphasized
the idea that the educational games industry had produced few successful games. The last one, he
claimed to be so, was Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego which came out in 1985. Since
then, very few games have achieved similar record success. McGonigal (2011) supported
Zickermann’s argument in advocating gamification and further elaborated on why educational
games are short-lived and do not meet the needs of the schools and educational systems:
“Educational games are at best a temporary solution. The engagement gap is getting too wide for
a handful of educational games to make a significant and lasting difference” (p.128). McGonigal
Page 8 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
9
(2011) joined Prensky (2001) in recommending the gamified path in teaching and learning that
allows the students to engage in from the beginning to end.
It is important to explore the theoretical foundations to this research paper before
discussing in detail the connection between gamification, motivation, and task engagement.
Theoretical Connections to Gamification
The knowledge base connecting gamification to theoretical principles is thin and the
empirical research on gamification founded on theoretical principles is scarce. For example,
Seaborn and Fels (2015) did a review of peer-reviewed literature on gamification and
engagement of 32 studies. Only ten of them were founded on theories (five of which by the same
author) and the rest had no connection to theoretical foundations. Furthermore, there is “a gap
between theory and practice- where theory is empirically unexamined [in the context of
gamification] and applied work lacks reference to theory- which serves to limit the growth of the
field” (Seaborn & Fels, 2015, p. 27). This highlights the need of research on gamification with
strong theoretical links that bridge the gap between theory and practice. In understanding the
connection between gamification, motivation, and engagement, the three theories of self-
determination, new literacies study (NLS), and behaviorism will be deployed.
Self Determination Theory
Motivation and engagement, as a major focus of this literature review, are at the heart of
self-determination theory of human motivation. Self-determination theory (SDT) rests on the
three principles of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Seaborn & Fels,
2015). According to Baard, Deci, and Ryan (2004), competence is connected to the motivation to
overcome challenges and achieve success. The need for autonomy, they add, relates to volition
and choice-making in pursuing and being responsible for one’s actions. The need for relatedness,
Page 9 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
10
they elaborate, is about social status and a connection with others based on mutual respect and
interdependence. The three elements of SDT constitute human psychological needs to make
choices, to compete and collaborate with others; all of which can be afforded in the gamified
environment.
Many players in a gamified environment, according to Gee (2003), choose their own
avatars, choose to play the game competitively, or by working with others in affinity groups
(autonomy and volition). Many feel satisfied as the results are displayed on leaderboards of the
gamified environment they engage in highlighting the social element of relatedness. Studies have
shown that the elements of SDT positively affect intrinsic motivation: “considerable research has
found interpersonal contexts that facilitate satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for
competence, autonomy, and relatedness to enhance autonomous motivation, which comprises
intrinsic motivation and well-internalized extrinsic motivation” (Deci & Ryan, 2008, p. 14).
Researchers have established a connection between video game elements and motivation,
on one hand, and self-determination theory (SDT), on the other hand. When players engage the
gamified environment, they willingly immerse themselves in virtual challenges for the purpose
of achieving fun and play; elements deeply rooted in human beings: “Intrinsically motivated
activities are those that the individual finds interesting and performs without any kind of
conditioning, just by the mere pleasure of carrying them out (Francisco-Aparicio, Guti'errez-
Vela, Isla-Montes, & Sanches, 2013, p. 114).
The framework that can be used to research gamification is the one that best reflects the
concept of gamification and its different components. Robson et al. (2015) proposed a
framework that relies on three gamification principles of mechanics, dynamics, and emotions
which is adapted from game design literature. According to the mechanics, dynamics, and
Page 10 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
11
emotions (MDE) framework, mechanics refer to goals, rules, rewards; dynamics refer to how
players act and apply the mechanics; emotions, as the name suggests, refers to players’ feelings
during the gamified experience.
New Literacies Study (Theory)
New literacies study (NLS) is an extension of the new literacy theory with a special focus
on the digital environment as a semiotic domain for taking and processing meaning. In the NLS
theory, meaning is considered outside of language and beyond the digital tools as it “involve [s],
as well, ways of acting, interacting, valuing, believing, and knowing as well as often using other
sorts of tools and technologies” (Gee, 1997, p.10). The new literacies study is an umbrella term
for all kinds of digital literacies which include taking in and processing meaning (Gee, 1997).
Gamification is a form of digital literacy where many layers of meaning making and
processing take place. One of these modes of learning is through the affinity groups and the
many forms of social interaction in the digital game environment (Gee, 2003). Consequently,
behaviorism, with the individual learner at its center (Gee, 2005), conflicts with new literacies
study that seeks to find meaning outside of the individual through and in the social environment.
This seemingly conflicting premise of the two theories of behaviorism and new literacy studies
will be reconciled by drawing from elements of both theories as they pertain to the learning
atmosphere afforded by gamification. Chalco et al. (2015) argued that gamification allows for
learning to happen individually as the learners feel extrinsically and intrinsically motivated
through gaining points and winning awards. At the same time, the social aspect of gamification
through collaboration and competition, they added, is very important. Thus, the use of both
behaviorism and new literacies study is justified.
Page 11 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
12
Behaviorism: Relating Conditioning to Gamification
Gamification also has a strong connection to theories in human psychology, specifically
behaviorism. According to Gonzales et al. (2016), gamification can produce significant
behavioral change “from an early age using the dynamics of games” (p. 549). Some researchers
explained this connection between gamification, on one hand, and human psychology and
behavioral science, on the other hand, gamification “rests on three primary factors: motivation,
ability level, and triggers” (Dale, 2014, p. 85). Some of the basic principles of behaviorism, such
as enforcing a certain behavior by rewards and correcting a misbehavior by lack of rewards or a
form of a penalty, are parallel to gamification elements such as rewarding and penalizing through
points and badges, or upgrading and demoting in a game setting.
Skinner (1984), one of the fathers of behaviorism after Watson in the 1920s, realized the
connection between behaviorism principles and some of the elements in the simple video games:
“No one really cares whether Pac-Man gobbles up all those little spots on the screen . . . What is
reinforcing is
successful play, and in a well-designed instructional program students gobble up
their assignments” (p.952). Skinner (1937) coined the term “operant conditioning” when
discussing the premises of behaviorist principles which is the “study of reversible behavior
maintained by reinforcement schedules” (Staddon, 2003, p. 115). There are two types of
reinforcement schedules: fixed and variable. Chou (2013) posits that both fixed and variable
reinforcement schedules are used in the gamification design. However, the fixed reward, which
he named “earned lunch,” is less engaging than the variable reward schedule, which he calls
“mystery box” (p. 1). Whereas, fixed reinforcement schedule, in the context of gamification, has
resulted in low engagement levels immediately following the reward or penalty, variable
Page 12 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
13
reinforcement schedule, as the element of surprise is activated, has produced higher engagement
levels in the gamified context (Raymer, 2011).
Folmar (2015) considered the real power of gamification its ability to produce desirable
behavior change. Some researchers have defined gamification from a behaviorist-scientific
perspective: “Gamification is a designed-behavior shift through playful experiences” (Reiners &
Wood, 2015, p. vi). Based on the variable schedule of the operant conditioning, not every
positive behavior is rewarded. Consider for example how casinos function where players lose
many times for the hope of winning once, yet they still come back to gamble (Nicholson, 2015).
In the next section, motivation and engagement are explored further to see how
gamification can foster them.
Motivation and Engagement
Motivation and engagement are two closely related concepts which often overlap in areas
of intrinsic motivation and cognitive engagement (Dornyei & Ushido, 2011; Guthrie, Willinger
& You, 2012). Despite this strong link between motivation and engagement, the two terms are
not synonymous and the presence of one does not necessarily dictate the presence of the other
one. According to Brooks, Brooks, and Goldstein (2012), motivation is linked to psychological
elements that drive behavior and choice-making. Engagement, in the view of Russell, Ainley,
and Frydenberg (2005), is an “energy” linked to different actions and tasks (p. 1). Appleton,
Christenson, Kim, and Reschly (2006) highlighted the importance of both motivation and
engagement in learning, but emphasized their separation as independent constructs.
Although the separation of motivation and engagement is an “ongoing issue” (Brooks et
al., 2012, p. 548), there are some areas where the relationship between the two is nuanced.
Griffiths, Lilles, Furlong, and Sidhwa (2012) stated that engagement has evolved to include the
Page 13 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
14
psychological inner processes and the manifestation of that in human behavior in the form of
task engagement, affective, and cognitive engagement. Willms (2003) emphasized the
connection between psychological attitudes and the participation in school activities when
presenting an operational definition for engagement. Other scholars focused on the observable
aspects of engagement such as the learners’ behaviors, their effort and dedication in performing
schoolwork, and their levels of participation and attendance (Ryan, 2000).
Motivation and engagement are sometimes distinguished chronically in occurrence.
Intrinsic motivation and prior attitudes about learning can be a precursor to task engagement and
increased participation. Participation could work in the opposite direction changing negative
prior attitudes. The combination of strong motivation and high task engagement facilitate
successful learning experience (Davis & McPartland, 2012). Engagement as an observable
positive behavior (i.e. involvement in school activities) is driven by prior attitudes or as Ryan
(2000) called them “beliefs” (p. 102).
Dornyei, and Ottó, (1998) presented a comprehensive definition of motivation as “the
dynamically changing cumulative arousal in a person that initiates, directs, coordinates,
amplifies, terminates, and evaluates the cognitive and motor processes whereby initial wishes
and desires are selected, prioritised, operationalised, and (successfully or unsuccessfully) acted
out” (p. 64). Motivation is divided by some researchers into five components: intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation, task value, ability belief, and expectancies for success (Hsieh, 2014).
Intrinsic motivation is triggered by human needs for mastery, curiosity, and overcoming
challenges. Extrinsic motivation is relevant to elements not related to the task value such as
rewards, grades, “performance and competition or evaluation by others” (p. 419). Task value is
the perception and the value of the task by the learners and whether it is beneficial for them or
Page 14 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
15
not. Finally, expectancy for success is how the learners expect to perform in the future as they
engage in a specific task (Wigfield, Byrnes, & Eccles, 2006).
Engagement indicates the passion and emotional involvement in participating and
completing learning activities (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Kuh (2009) tracked the evolution of
the engagement construct throughout history from meaning the time learners spend on task, to
the outcome and achievement of learning, the quality of students’ effort, student interaction and
immersion in the learning experience, and finally, his own definition, the quality and effort
learners invest in an authentic activity. Notice that the common theme among all definitions Kuh
discussed is the visible aspect of engagement as it is manifested in the learners’ behavior towards
the learning experience and the quality and time they invest in the learning task. However, to
equal engagement to time on task is unfair in capturing the full scope of this term. Schlechty
(2001) argued that engagement is not simply synonymous with time on task, but it is “the
enthusiasm and diligence” in doing the task that makes the engagement a reality (p. 64).
Csikszentmihalyi (1997) emphasized this connection between engagement in a task and the
overwhelming deep involvement of the learners that transcends time and space.
Connecting Gamification to Motivation and Engagement
In many studies, students’ levels of engagement increased significantly following the
introduction of game elements (Table 2). The following inclusion criteria were followed in the
summary of literature review on gamification as illustrated in Table 2. Literature included
articles and conferences proceedings published after 2012. All of the studies selected employed
elements of video games and any study that did not employ them was excluded. The studies were
obtained through Washington State University (WSU) library data system and some of them
were made available through interlibrary loan network. In addition, some conference
Page 15 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
16
proceedings were obtained through GoogleScholar. All the studies were examined carefully for
theoretical foundations utilized in the study of gamification, the gamified content, the number
and age of the participants, and the results.
Researchers who conducted empirical studies on the utilization of gamification elements
agree on the positive effect on students’ engagement, motivation, and overall performance
through instant feedback and collaboration (Kingsley & Grabner, 2015; Leaning, 2015;
Papastergiou, 2009; Seaborn & Fels, 2015; Koivisto & Hamari, 2014). Some authors proposed
positive results showing higher likeability ratings when gamification features are introduced
(Attali & Arieli, 2015). These results refer to how students felt toward the introduction of the
game elements to the learning environment. Some studies showed no connection between
students’ engagement and motivation and the introduction of gamification features to the
learning environment (Hanus & Fox, 2015).
In a review of peer-reviewed empirical studies on gamification, Hamari, Koivisto and
Sarsa (2014) reviewed 24 studies, and stated that most of the studies yielded positive results of
the relationship between gamification and learners’ engagement. Seaborn and Fels (2015)
reviewed 32 studies on the utilization of digital gamification elements pedagogically. Out of the
32 studies, 20 yielded positive results connecting gamification to increased levels of motivation
and engagement. The remaining 12 studies yielded negative results showing no correlation
between students’ engagement and introduction of game elements. Some empirical studies
(Leaning, 2015; Berkling & Thomas, 2013) which produced negative or mixed results, focused
on limited features of gamification, or forced the students to work with the game options
available and failed to give them choice.
Page 16 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
17
Table 2
Summary of Literature Review on Gamification
Reference Gamification
Features Used
Results Gamified
Content
Theoretical
Connections
n Age
Barta, Gama,
Jorge,
Gonclaves
(2013)
Badges, points,
challenges,
leaderboards,
levels
Positive Computer
engineering
course
N/A 77 18-21
Berkling &
Thomas
(2013)
Levels,
leaderboards,
points
Negative Software
engineering
course
Motivational theory 90 20-21
Betts, Bal &
Betts
(2013)
Levels, choice
elements
Positive Web-based
collaborative
learning
tool called
Curatr
N/A 33 N/A
Brewer et al.
(2013)
Points and
rewards
positive Lab experiment
on children
N/A 14 5-7
de Freitas & de
Freitas
(2013)
Rewards,
points, levels
positive Computer
science
class
N/A 17 20-23
Eleftheria
et al. (2013)
Points, badges,
challenges,
virtual goods
positive Augmented
reality
science book
N/A
Following
Bartler’s player-type
model.
N/A 10-12
Gibson et al.
(2013)
Badges
positive General use of
badges as a
motivating tool
Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation.
N/A N/A
Goehle
(2013)
Levels and
points
positive Web-based
homework
Program called
WebWork
N/A 60 N/A
Hanus &
Fox (2015)
Leaderboard
and badges
positive Two college
courses
Cognitive evaluation
theory and motivational
theory
80 18-24
Kingsley &
Grabner-
Hagen (2015)
Badges, points,
quests.
Positive 3D GameLab
software.
New literacies studies 47 12
Page 17 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
18
Reference Gamification
Features Used
Results Gamified
Content
Theoretical
Connections
n Age
Kumar &
Khurana
(2012)
Badges, points,
levels
positive Teaching
programming
languages
N/A 207 25-30
O’Byrne
et al. (2015)
Badges positive Youth program
called MOUSE
New literacies studies 1 12
Leaning
(2015)
Leaderboard
and points.
non-digital
games
Mixed Undergraduate
media-studies
course.
Situated motivational
affordance
125 18-23
Todor &
Pitic (2013)
Rewards,
points, badges
positive E-learning
platform for a
course in
electronics
N/A N/A N/A
Raymer
(2013)
Rewards and
progress bars
positive e-Learning
software
Behaviorism N/A N/A
Thom,
Millen &
DiMicco
(2012)
Badges, points
And status
*Negative
Social network
service
Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation
3486 18+
Note. *The removal of gamification elements resulted in significant decline in participants’
participation.
It is important when designing a gamified course fully or partially to create a challenge,
when possible, that is appropriate to the level of the students to maintain their engagement
(Nicholson, 2015). A complicated challenge can have reverse effect on engagement and cause a
lack of interest, and even “anxiety and frustration.” (p. 13). Nicholson (2015) divided
engagement in the context of gamification into two categories: First, engagement in the form of
interaction, cooperation, and altruism between the players (in a social manner). Second,
engagement between players achieved through the utilization of game mechanics.
Page 18 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
19
Francisco-Aparicio et al. (2013) argued that higher levels of extrinsic motivation when
using gamification are not enough criteria to consider its benefits. The positive effects are
usually temporary if not combined with principles from self -determination theory: autonomy,
competence, and relatedness (Nicholson, 2015). According to Zickermann and Cunningham
(2011), one of the roles of educators is to help create circumstances that would allow for intrinsic
motivation to be born. They posited that extrinsic elements, such as points and badges for
example, could be used to lead to this outcome and critiqued not targeting intrinsic motivation in
gamification design. If no permanent positive behavior change is created in the learners, the
long-term effects of gamification cannot be fully evaluated. This can only be done using a
longitudinal study that captures the long-term effects of the relationship between gamification
and learners’ motivation and task engagement. One of the steps in understanding the long-term
effects of the gamification implementation in a pedagogical context is to combine, if data is
available, the quantitative and qualitative design.
Fun is one of the elements that attracts video game players to engage in playing activities
and keep coming back for more. Gamification borrows from video games the element of fun not
only to gain the learners’ engagement, but also to positively increase their motivation. In the next
section, this connection between the component of fun in gamification and its effect on
motivation and engagement is explored further.
Emotions and Fun in Gamification
Gamification provides the component of fun that helps in transforming the students’
attitudes towards learning. Fun can allow for better learning, a concept that Prensky (2001)
explained as he discussed the transformation in the learners’ attitude towards learning: “It
appears that the role of fun in the learning process is to create relaxation and motivation.
Page 19 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
20
Relaxation enables a learner to take things in more easily, and motivation enables them to put
forth effort without resentment” (p. 111). McGonigal (2011) discussed the essential role of fun
historically in the human experience. She refers to the story of the ancient Lydians who managed
to live through famine on very limited rations distracting themselves from hunger through
elaborate games on a state level.
Video games, for many players, produce an emotional state induced by several factors,
most important of which is fun. This feeling of fun is created in the players through their feeling
of achievement, a sense of exploration, the reward of completing a level, or simply winning a
game (Zickermann, 2010). If this element of play is incorporated into the learning experience, an
intrinsic interest in learning can follow (Liebermann, 2006). For many learners, the fun part in a
gamified environment is the product of solving problems and overcoming challenges as they
engage critical thinking skills. “Desirable difficulties,” as Yue, Bjork, and Bjork (2013) called
them (p. 266), are important qualities, according to Liebermann (2006), in the process of
learning. As learners exert their best effort and become mindful of these challenges, “close
attention and intense mental effort lead to deeper understanding [and] learning” (p. 386).
Gamification cannot be understood holistically without the essential components of video
games that can be incorporated into learning environment. In the next section, player types and
game components will be discussed.
Players Types and Gamification Features
Player types
The research about players’ types inform us about a proper gamified design for delivering
pedagogical content. In 1996, Bartle developed a test called Bartle’s Test of Game Psychology.
The test was adopted, recreated, and maintained by many game-design websites, such as
Page 20 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
21
GameDNA, and users have taken the test more than 800 thousand times (everthing2com, 2015).
Based on this test, there are four types of gamers or players:
1- Killers: those who compete and play against other gamers.
2- Achievers: those who achieve status due to a high level of performance.
3- Explorers: those who collect virtual goods and discover things.
4- Socializers: those who are good team players and collaborate with others in the
game environment.
Folmar (2015) commented in detail on the four types of players and how their needs should be
considered in an effective pedagogical gamification design. He noted that killers rely on badges
and points displayed on a leaderboard to gain public recognition in the game environment.
Achievers track their achievements through badges and points and are keen to know the status of
their progress. Scoializers interact with others through mutual support. Finally, explorers are
independent and are more interested in pursuing a quest rather than impressing others.
Bartle’s test was modified in 2010 to become pedagogically friendly (Farber, 2013). Kim
(2014) changed the semantics to describe different learners and added verbs to reflect diffrerent
methods of student interactions in the gamified envrionmnet which is silmilar to Bloom’s (1956)
Taxonomy. These verbs can be used by teachers in the creation of lesson plans and activities.
Some of these verbs created by Kim (2014) are: build, design, customize , challenge, explore,
comment, and share. The meaning embedded within these verbs is intended to facilitate learning
in the gamified environment.
In the following section, some digital gamification features will be discussed including:
avatars, quests and challeneges, badges, points and levels.
Gamification features
Page 21 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
22
avatars.
Avatars are representative of players in the sense that they reflect their aspirations,
vulnerabilities, and the different roles they play in life. Players need to choose or create their
avatars as manifestations of their autonomy needs: “Avatar spaces indisputably involve choice in
the creation of one’s avatar; there is substantial scope in which to exercise choice and create
meaning” (Wilson, 2003, p. 2). Gee (2003) indicated that avatars mimic human identities such as
parents, workers in different professions, religious or areligious people, and different social
classes. He referred to how gaming software allows the players to design their avatars with
different costumes, powers, complexions, and in some settings, heroes or leaders as opposed to
foot soldiers or workers. He added that avatar creation goes beyond segregation, racism, sexism,
and many other social illnesses as it introduces virtual and fictional characters. Between the real
and the avatar, lies a third “projective identity” where the real character projects its own
aspirations and desires unto the virtual character (Gee, 2003, p. 55). Waggoner (2009) discussed
the philosophy of representation in the creation of avatars. He cited findings showing that the
real-world identities “continually informed” the virtual ones (p. 1).
Wilson (2003) created an elaborate definition of an avatar as a: “Virtual, surrogate self
that acts as a stand in for our real-space selves that represents the user. The cyberspace avatar
functions as a locus that is multifarious and polymorphous displaced from the facility of our real-
space selves” (p. 2). Another definition that adds the real-life element to avatars as “models
driven by humans in real time” (Bailenson, Yee, Blascovich, & Guadagno, 2008, p. 78). Avatars
represent an opportunity for players to venture into a risk-free world (Boss, 2009). The freedom
to choose or design their own avatars creates an atmosphere where students can “find their own
Page 22 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
23
voice” (p. 4). After choosing an avatar, the learners will be faced with the next challenge: to
pursue a quest.
quests and challenges.
Quests are a series of challenges that require players to solve mystery engaging critical
thinking skills (Whitton, 2010). When students embark on a quest or accept a challenge, they
engage in a story line that usually embeds a time-sensitive pattern. Quests and challenges give
players a sense of direction or a purpose in a gamified environment (Zickermann &
Cunningham, 2011). Adding story components or beginning a course with a form of a challenge
are more engaging than a list of course objectives; both strategies recommended and applied by
gamification proponents (Sheldon, 2011; Kapp, 2011). Employing quests in this manner
“provides context or activities that are used within games and adds them to the content being
taught” (Kapp, 2011, p. 126). Quests and challenges support the sense of adventure and activate
critical thinking skills by setting the exploration and discovery elements ( Dale, 2014; Powers,
Brooks, Aldrich, Palladino & Alfieri, 2013).
There are several learning elements unique to the gamified environment as it pertains to
the quest or challenge story line (Kiang, 2014). In the virtual world of gamification, failure does
not have the same negative connotations as in the real world. Consequently, the failure or death
of an avatar character is a chance to contemplate, learn from mistakes, and restart again as the
concept of failure is fragmented to small failed attempts. Kiang (2014) recommended that the
teacher “try providing ways for the students to ‘fail’ frequently in many small ways, rather than
in one big high-stakes test” (p. 2). In a gamified context, there is no single way to achieve
success or accomplish a goal and students are empowered by this diversification or “flexibility
dynamic [to] take a personalized path to success” (p. 2).
Page 23 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
24
Quests can offer students the opportunity to work cooperatively and develop teamwork or
they can choose to work individually where their achievements will “roll up to a group”
(Zickermann & Cunningham, 2011, p. 65). This sense of unity is one of Gee’s (2003) 36
pedagogical principles called “affinity group” principle that the gamified environment fosters.
He explained: “learners constitute an ‘affinity group,’ that is, a group bonded primarily through
shared endeavor, goals, and practices and not shared race, gender, nation, ethnicity, or culture”
(p. 212). This affinity group principle is manifested in many types of video games including
massively multiplayer online games (MMOG). These games typically support hundreds or even
thousands of players coming from different geographical, social, and racial backgrounds contrary
to the stereotypical image of a video game player as White, reclusive teenage male who is
typically overweight (Bergstrom, Fisher, & Jenson, 2014). The power of this virtual social
environment can be employed allowing for learners to interact and collaborate instead of
competing against other.
As players advance in the stages of their epic quests, they start gaining badges; one of the
oldest game elements used to boost motivation and engagement.
badges.
Badges have a long history in many fields outside of gamification. Antin (2012) dated the
history of badges back to 1911, where the Boy Scouts of America “understood the motivational
power of goals, mastery seeking, reputation, and identity signaling with valued
accomplishments” (Social Mediator, p. 3). Digital badges are a “validated indicator of an
accomplishment, skill, quality, or interest that can be earned in various learning environments
(Grant, 2013, p. 1). In the context of education, badges are chosen in a gamified environment to
accommodate different learners considering their motivation levels and capabilities
Page 24 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
25
(Abramovich, Schunn, & Higashi, 2013, p. 217). As students advance through different levels
and accumulate badges associated with different achievements, badges then serve as an “online
record of a learner’s achievement” (Devedžić & Jovanović, 2014, p. 603).
According to Nicholson (2015), players who earned badges feel inner satisfaction as
their status is announced publicly in the gamified environment. He added that badges not only
serve as “signposts” signaling the players progress, but also indications of past achievements.
Richter, Raban and Rafaeli (2015) argued that badges serve as a record of an individual’s past
and present successes. On a social level, they added, badges establish the reputation of an
individual in the game environment. Whether individually or socially, badges help enhance
qualities such as “self-competence and self-efficacy” (p. 34).
Not only will badges represent the learners’ achievement, but also points and levels are
important signs of their progress. (p. 10).
points and levels.
Points have a significant place in a gamified environment. Some game proponents
consider points as an essential part of a gamified world or an “absolute requirement for all
gamified systems” (Zickermann & Cunningham, 2011, p. 36). Attali and Arieli (2015) used
points as the main gamification component that they included in their study of performance
measuring fluency and understanding of math concepts. Gamification opponent Bogost (2011),
critiqued the dependency on and exclusiveness of many gamified designs to points, which he
thought were the least significant part of video games.
Rewards in the form of points are not necessarily permanent, contrary to what
Zickermann and Cunningham (2011) stated: “Once you start giving someone a reward, you have
to keep her in that reward loop forever” (p. 27). Rewards reinforce desirable learning behaviors
Page 25 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
26
and once these learning behaviors are established, rewards have no purpose. They have little
effect on highly motivated learners and sometimes that effect could be negative. Nicholson
(2015) stated: “As the subject will continue to use the skill for the real-world value, the rewards
are no longer needed” (p. 3). He elaborated further on the idea that rewards do not work with
everyone, certainly not for ones with strong intrinsic motivation: “This use of incentives to
motivate someone to do something when they have no other reason to do so is a very common
use of rewards and for tasks that do not require creative thinking, incentive program can improve
performance” (p. 3).
Modern games usually have scaffolding techniques where players are introduced to
simple levels to start with to encourage their progress. The players cannot advance to the next
level until they have achieved mastery in the previous level (Kiang, 2014; Kolb, 2015). Players
usually need “frequent rewards not penalties” as rewards signal skill mastery (Prensky, 2001, p.
135), although critics might think of this idea as limited to learners or players who are only
driven by extrinsic motivation symbolized by virtual rewards. According to Zickermann and
Cunningham (2011), we should not wait for the birth of intrinsic motivation. By creating
conditions which are extrinsically motivating, “we shift the focus of responsibility from hoping it
happens to a structure and process for making it happen” (p. 28). According to Hanus and Fox
(2015), the groups of students who seem to be most engaged in a gamified classroom
environment are low achievers or learners with weak intrinsic motivation. For those types of
learners, “rewards and incentives might increase intrinsic motivation” (p. 160).
Sheldon’s case study and Quest to Learn school are some of the many examples of fully
gamified learning experiences that will give help explore the gamification implementation..
Page 26 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
27
Gamification in Action
The Sheldon Case Study
Sheldon (2011) gamified a college course by, among other strategies, assigning points to
reward the students’ academic work who would advance in level as they accumulate enough
points. Sheldon (2011) considered his experiment as successful in promoting the students’
engagment and improve their retension but with mosdest changes in their “overall performance”
(p. 178). Sheldon focused on the non-digital aspects of gamification as he announced this in the
introduction to his book (p. xiv). In Sheldon’s design, indiviual points carried less importance
than scores. Sheldon(2011) assigned hundreds of points total for the gamified course activities he
created. Kolb (2015) suggested that teachers engaging gamification points should be generous in
using them where 100 points is no longer the equivlent of grade A. Sheldon tried to foster
intrinsic motivation by incorporating gamification elements other than points and levels which
are both symbols of extrinsic motivation. He establsiohed guilds where students can collaborate
and manifest altruism in helping “guild mates” (p. 119). He expanded the concept of rewards to
include knnowledge and practice which he called “intrinsic rewards” (p. 166).
Stott and Neustaedter (2013) critiqued Sheldon’s gamified design for “implementing
game components by simply trading out the partance of pedagogy for that of game culture” (p.
1). Sheldon (2011) overly focused on points and levels in his experiment as manifested in the
multiple syllabi he presented for his courses. Lawley (2012) stated that going beyond surface
characteristics of gamification, in reference to points and levels, is essential in the game design.
She advocated creating an interactive game design which is aligned with pedagocial principles
and conductive to collaboration. She added that a faulty or superficial gamified design can
“damage existing interest or engagment” (p. 16).
Page 27 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
28
In the next section, a more immersive gamified experience will be explored as in the
Quest to Learn example.
Quest to Learn
Established in June of 2008 and funded by MacArthur and Bill and Melinda Gates
foundations, Quest to Learn is a New York-based school that has adopted gamification and
game-based learning throughout its entire curriculum from grades six to twelve (Quest to Learn,
2008). It is the result of collaboration between game designers from the Institute of Play (2007)
and educators for the hope that this school will work as a model for other schools around the
world. McGonical (2011) commended the process of learning in this unique and pioneer school:
“It is how they learn that is different: students are engaged in gameful activities from the moment
they wake up to the moment they finish up their final homework assignment at night” (p. 129).
O’Keefe (2012) explained how the curriculum is designed as a result of coordination between the
teachers and the game designers based the needs of the students. The school assignments are far
from traditional and involve students facing different challenges and engaging in quests that start
before the beginning of a school day. The creators of Quest to Learn commented on its mission:
“Each trimester students encounter a series of increasingly complex, narrative challenges, games
or quests, where learning, knowledge sharing, feedback, reflection and next steps emerge as a
natural function of play” (Quest to Learn, 2008, p. 1).
The founders of Quest to Learn describe the learning experience in their school as
“immersive” and “narrative-based” (Quest to Learn, 2008, p. 1). Craven (2015) emphasized the
nature of gamification as an immersive experience which creates engagment for the user. This
implies approaching the implementation of gamification holistically in a manner that
incorporates effective elements such as quests and challenges. Wood and Reiners (2015)
Page 28 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
29
connected the immersive experience to story-telling elements in gamification where the “virtual
environment for visualization” is activated (p. 316).
The examples of Sheldon’s case study and Quest to Learn, in addition to many other
gamification models and studies in business and education, are unique but not in the sense that
they cannot be adaptable. In the next section, some of the guidelines for implementing
gamification will be discussed.
Implementation Guidelines
Some proponents of gamification suggested using 20% of class time for gamification
following Mclaughlin’s (2011) Google model where employees were given 20% of work time to
do anything they were passionate about (Bruder, 2015). Between full gamification of the
classroom and 20% quota suggestion, gamification is a tool to aid in achieving learning
objectives and not vice versa. Employing game features, or any kind of educational technology,
is not the goal at the expense of students’ learning.
Simões et al. (2013) suggested utilizing “distinctive characteristics of good games,
particularly social games in order to understand what makes sense to apply to teaching
processes” (p. 346). The principles to incorporate in gaming are intended to be “equally relevant
to learning in video games and learning in content areas in classrooms” (Gee, 2003, p. 41).
Kolb (2015) outlined four principles necessary in any gamified design with learning
content. First, she recommended that the learning objectives be well-stated and explicitly-
presented prior to engaging gamification elements, and preferebly embedded within the gamified
design. Second, she highlighted considering practical steps when applying gamification design in
the learning environment, such as the use of reliable gamification software that allows for full
deployment of gamification features. Few companies produced that kind of software such as
Page 29 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
30
3DGamelab, Gradecraft, and Classcraft. Third, game designers and educators. According to Kolb
(2015), need to prepare quests to increase motivation and engagement. Fourth, the gamified
design should allow for modding (shortened from modification). Modding, in a gamified context,
means to allow users to make their own game choices. Students should be empowered to choose
their own avatars, create quests, and decide to engage the gamified content individually or by
working in teams.
Research has shown that intrinsically motivated students experience gradual
disengagement and loss of motivation when forced to use game features (Hanus & Fox, 2015).
Gisbson and Jakl (2015) connected choice in the gamified experience to the autonomy of self-
directed learning. Autonomy as one of the three principles of SDT is connected to intrinsic
motivation (Nicholson, 2015). He added that allowing the learner to make choices in the
gamified experience will allow for meaningful gamification to happen.
According to Gee (2003), the game design elements should allow for collaboration and
team work through the use of leaderboards or “guilds.” Zhang and Clear (2015) emphasized that
any successful gamified design need to support collaboration among the students. They added
that successful gamified designs which incorporate collaboration help the emerging of positive
learning behaviors. Kim, Glassman, and Williams (2015) stated that as the players collaborate,
they “engage in a shared, relevant, goal oriented activity” (p. 333).
Successful game design allows the players to try multiple times to achieve success. In the
gamified environment, failure is redifined where it is no longer a set back but rather “an
opportunity to learn from mistakes and correct them” (Hanus & Fox, 2015, p. 3). Research
showed that players who received constructive feedback following failure in the gamified
environmnet expressed positive emotions about their experience (Herzig , Ameling, Wolf &
Page 30 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
31
Schill, 2015). Gee (2014) considered failure in the gamified world as a “path to success” (p.
186).
Researchers suggested studying the deployment of full game features over a longer
period to evaluate its full potential (e.g. Attali & Arieli, 2015; Hanus & Fox, 2015; Gonzales et
al., 2016). Employing limited game features in isolation to an existing course may not produce
desirable or measurable effect (Whitton, 2010). The limited use of gamification in the form of
employing some features of games into the learning experience produced mixed or adverse
results on performance and motivation (Attali & Arieli, 2015).
Researchers who engaged the learners with limited game features reported the
participants asking for more elements of gamification (Papastergiou, 2009). There is srong
evidence to suggest a direct link between the effective use of gamification elements and meeting
basic psychological human needs. Many of these needs are connected to self-determination
theory. Francisco-Aparicio et al. (2013) highlighted the importance of a gamification design that
meets the inner psychological needs of the learners. These inner psychological needs intersect
with principles of self-determination theory of relatedness, competence, and automomy. For
example, relatedness, according to Francisco-Aparicio et al. (2013), could be supported by
online interaction and collaboration. Competence needs, in their view, can be supported through
“practice activities” (p. 183). They posit that offering learners choices and allowing them to take
control in the gamified environment fulfills the autonomy needs.
When presenting her proposed guideline for a full gamified experiece, Kolb (2015)
suggested allocating 10-25 minutes for each traditional assignment to be transformed into a quest
in the gamified environment. This length of time for quest development, among other
gamification components, might not be practical for many teachers. For example, Matera (2010)
Page 31 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
32
spent, based on his own testimony, more than 100 hours just to prepare a leaderboard table for
his six-grade gamified class with outstanding results (https://twitter.com/mrmatera).
Although many teachers, as Gee (2003) suggested, are gamers themselves, they are often
reluctant to use methods not directly related to their professional practice. Many teachers have no
difficulty introducing game elements into the classroom with the help of supporting and useful
software such as Classcraft, for example. Watching the software tutorials and experimenting with
it is not beyond the skills and abilities of many teachers. Lee and Hammer (2011) argued that
gamification can give teachers the necessary tools to direct and motivate their students
transforming the learning experience into a joyful one.
Conclusion
Between the zealots in support of full gamification of the curriculum and the educational
system and opponents who think gamification is a distraction from the learning objectives, there
remains a need for further exploration of the full impact of gamification on engagement and
motivation. Further empirical research need to be conducted to examine the potentials of
gamification. In addition to deploying full gamification features to study its impact, longitudinal
studies need to be conducted in order to develop a full nderstanding of the effect of gamification
on the learners’ engagment and motivation. There is a need to research the most effective
components of game elements that could create proper conditions for the birth of intrinsic
motivation. Furthermore, the learners’ perceptions of the gamification intervention need to be
researched using mixed method design to help understand the relationship between gamification,
engagement, and motivation in a holistic way.
Page 32 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
33
References
Abramovich, S., Schunn, C., & Higashi, R. M. (2013). Are badges useful in education? It
depends upon the type of badge and expertise of learner. Educational Technology
Research and Development: A Bi-monthly Publication of the Association for Educational
Communications & Technology, 61(2), 217-232. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9289-2
Andre, S. (2013). Tips and techniques for incorporating team-based learning (TBL) methods into
a college classroom. The Exchange, 2(2). Retrieved from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2395502
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and
psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of
School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
Attali, Y. &.-A. (2015). Gamification in assessment: Do points affect test performance?
Computers and Education, 83, 57-63. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.012
Bailenson, J. N., Yee, N., Blascovich, J., & Guadagno, R. E. (2008). Transformed social
interaction in mediated interpersonal communication. In K. Elly A, U. Sonja, T. Martin,
& B. Susan B, Mediated interpersonal communication (p. 78). N.Y.: Routledge.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic Need Satisfaction: A Motivational
Basis of Performance and Weil-Being in Two Work Settings1. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 34(10), 2045–2068.
Barata, G., Gama, S., Jorge, J., Goncalves, D. (2013). Engaging engineering students with
Page 33 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
34
gamification. 5th International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious
Applications, Greece (pp. 1–8).
Bergstrom, K., Fisher, S., & Jenson, J. (2016). Disavowing that guy: Identity construction and
massively multiplayer online game players. Convergence: The International Journal of
Research into New Media Technologies, 22(3), 233–249.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856514560314
Berkling, K., Thomas, C. (2013). Gamification of a software engineering course. International
Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning, United Kingdom (pp. 525–530).
Betts, B.W., Bal, J., Betts, A.W. (2013). Gamification as a tool for increasing the depth of
student understanding using a collaborative e-learning environment. International
Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning 23(3-4), 213–228
Bartle, R. (1996, August 28). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDS.
Retrieved from http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds: http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Biopac. (2009, April 30). Biopac. Retrieved from Biopac.com:
http://www.biopac.com/application/fnir-functional-near-infrared-optical-brain-imaging/
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives; the classification of educational
goals (1st ed.]. ed.). New York: Longmans, Green.
Bogost, I. (2011, May 3). Persuasive games: Exploitionware. Retrieved from Gamustura:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134735/persuasive_games_exploitationware.php
Boss, S. (2009, May 27). Edutopia. Retrieved from Avatars teach teens about self-image:
https://www.edutopia.org/avatars
Page 34 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
35
Boss, S. (2012). Bringing innovation to school: Empowering students to thrive in a changing
world. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Brewer, R., Anthony, L., Brown, Q., Irwin, G., Nias, J., Tate, B. (2013). Using gamification to
motivate children to complete empirical studies in lab environments. 12th International
Conference on Interaction Design and Children, New York (pp. 388–391).
Brooks, R., Brooks, S., & Goldstein, S. (2012). The Power of Mindsets: Nurturing Engagement,
Motivation, and Resilience in Students. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie
(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 541–562). Boston, MA:
Springer US. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_26Bruder, P.
(2015). Game on: Gamification in the classroom. Education Digest, 80(7), 56.
Challco, C. G., Moreira, A.D., Bittencourt, I., Mizoguchi, R., & Isotani, S. (2015).
Personalization of Gamification in Collaborative Learning Contexts using Ontologies.
Latin America Transactions, IEEE (Revista IEEE America Latina), 13(6).
Chou, Y.-K. (2015, November 11). yukaichou.com. Retrieved from Yu Kai Chou: Gamification
and Behavioral Design: http://yukaichou.com/marketing-gamification/six-context-types-
rewards-gamification/
Clements, J. (2015). Gamification: Freshman English can be a game. Edutopia, 1-3. Retrieved
from http://www.edutopia.org/discussion/gamification-freshman-english-can-be-game
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic
literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games.
Computers & Education, 59(2), 661–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004
Page 35 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
36
Craven, D. (2015). Gamification in virtual worlds for learning: A case study of PIERSiM for
business. In T. Reiners, & L. C. Wood (eds), Gamification in education and business (pp.
385-401). Switzerland: Springer.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Dale, S. (2014). Gamification: Making work fun, or making fun of work? Business Information
Review, 31(2), 82–90. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/0266382114538350
Davis, V. (2014, March 20). Gamification in education. Edutopia, 1-4. Retrieved from
http://www.edutopia.org/blog/gamification-in-education-vicki-davis
Davis, M. H., & McPartland, J. M. (2012). High School Reform and Student Engagement. In S.
L. Christenson, A. L. Rashly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student
Engagement (pp. 515–539). Boston, MA: Springer US. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_25
de Freitas, A.A., de Freitas, M.M. (2013). Classroom live: A software-assisted gamification tool.
Computer Science Education 23(2), 186–206
Deci, E. L. (1976). Notes on the theory and metatheory of intrinsic motivation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 15(1), 130–145.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being
across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(1), 14–23.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14
Deterding, S. (2012, July). Social Mediator. Retrieved from Forum:
https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/courses/compsci747s2c/lectures/paul/p14-deterding.pdf
Page 36 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
37
Devedžić, V. &. Jovanović, J. (2015). Developing open badges: A comprehensive approach.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(4), 603-620. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9388-3
Dornyei, Z., & Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation.
Retrieved from http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/39
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2
nd
ed.). Pearson
Education Limited.
Eleftheria, C.A., Charikleia, P., Iason, C.G., Athanasios, T., Dimitrios, T. (2013). An Innovative
Augmented Reality Educational Platform using Gamification to Enhance Lifelong
Learning and Cultural Education. 4th International Conference on Information,
Intelligence, Systems and Applications, Greece (pp. 1–5).
everthing2com. (2015, November 27). everything2. Retrieved from everything2:
http://everything2.com/title/Bartle+Test
Farber, M. (2013). Beyond badges: Why gamify? Edutopia, 1-4. Retrieved from
http://www.edutopia.org/blog/beyond-badges-why-gamify-matthew-farber
Folmar, D. (2015) Game it up: Using gamification to incentivize your library. Maryland:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Francisco-Aparicio, A., Guti'errez-Vela, F., Isla-Montes, J., & Sanches, J. (2013). Gamification:
Analysis and application. In V. Penichet, New trends in Interaction, Virtual Reality and
Modeling, Human Computer Interaction Series (pp. 113-126). London: Springer-Verlag.
Page 37 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
38
Gee, J. P. (2014). Games, passion and “higher” education. In Tierney, W.G., Corwin, Z.B.,
Fullerton, T., Ragusa, G. (eds), Postsecondary play: The role of games and social media
in higher education (pp. 171-189). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Gee, J. P. (2005). The new literacy studies: From’socially situated’to the work. Situated
Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context, 2, 177–194.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York,
N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gee, J. P. (1997). Situated sociocultural mind. In D. Kirshner, & J. Whiton, Situated cognition:
Social, semiotic and psychological perspectives (p. 10). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Gibson, D., Jakl, P. (2015). Theoretical considerations for game-based e-Learning analytics. In
T. Reiners, & L. C. Wood (eds), Gamification in education and business (pp. 403-416).
Switzerland: Springer.
Gibson, D., Ostashewski, N., Flintoff, K., Grant, S., Knight, E. (2013). Digital badges in
education. Education and Information Technology. Springer, New York
Goehle, G. (2013). Gamification and web-based homework. Problems, Resources, and Issues in
Mathematics Undergraduate Studies 23(3), 234–246.
González, C. S., Gómez, N., Navarro, V., Cairós, M., Quirce, C., Toledo, P., & Marrero-
Gordillo, N. (2016). Learning healthy lifestyles through active videogames, motor games
and the gamification of educational activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 529–
551. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.052
Page 38 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
39
Grant, S. (2013, March 6). Digital badges. Retrieved from hastac:
https://www.hastac.org/collections/digital-badges
Griffiths, A.-J., Lilles, E., Furlong, M. J., & Sidhwa, J. (2012). The Relations of Adolescent
Student Engagement with Troubling and High-Risk Behaviors. In S. L. Christenson, A.
L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 563–
584). Boston, MA: Springer US. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-
2018-7_27
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional Contexts for Engagement and
Achievement in Reading. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 601–634). Boston, MA: Springer
US. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_29
Hamari, J. K., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review of
empirical studies on gamification. IEEE, 3025–3034. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377
Hanus, M. D. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal
study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic
performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152–161. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019
Heick, T. (2011, December 15). The gamification of education: What schools can learn from
video games. Edutopia, 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/gamification-
education-terrell-heick
Herzig, P., Ameling, M., Wolf, B., & Schill, A. (2015). Implementing gamification:
Page 39 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
40
Requirements and gamification platforms. In T. Reiners, & L. C. Wood (eds),
Gamification in education and business (pp. 431-471). Switzerland: Springer.
Hsieh, T.-L. (2014). Motivation matters? The relationship among different types of learning
motivation, engagement behaviors and learning outcomes of undergraduate students in
Taiwan. Higher Education, 68(3), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9720-6
Issacs, S. (2015). The difference between gamification and game-based learning. Edutopia, 1-8.
Retrieved from http://inservice.ascd.org/the-difference-between-gamification-and-game-
based-learning/
Jang, B. G., Conradi, K., McKenna, M. C., & Jones, J. S. (2015). Motivation: Approaching an
Elusive Concept Through the Factors That Shape It. The Reading Teacher, 69(2), 239–
247. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1365
Kapp, K.M. (2012). Games, gamification, and the quest for learner engagement. Training and
Development 66(6), 64–68
Kapp, K. (2013). The gamification of learning and instruction fieldbook: Ideas into practice.
N.Y.: Wiley.
Keeler, A. (2014). Beyond the worksheet: Playsheets, GBL, and gamification. Edutopia, 1-3.
Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/beyond-worksheet-playsheets-gbl-
gamification-alice-keeler
Keeler, A. (2015, April 22). Gamification: Engaging the students with narrative. Edutopia, 1-3.
Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/gamification-engaging-students-with-
narrative-alice-keeler
Page 40 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
41
Kiang, D. (2014, Oct 14). Edutopia. Retrieved from Using gaming principles to engage students:
https://www.edutopia.org/blog/using-gaming-principles-engage-students-douglas-kiang
Kim, A. J. (2014, January 15). Innovate with game thinking. Retrieved from Amy Jo Kim:
http://amyjokim.com/blog/2014/02/28/beyond-player-types-kims-social-action-matrix/
Kim, Y., Glassman, M., & Williams, M. S. (2015). Connecting agents: Engagement and
motivation in online collaboration. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 333–342.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.015
Kingsley, T. L. & Grabner-Hagen, M.M. (2015). Gamification: Questing to integrate content,
knowledge, literacy, and 21st-century learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
51-61. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.426
Koivisto, J. &. (2014). Demographic differences in perceived benefits from gamification.
Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 179–188. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.007
Kolb, L. (2015). Epic fail or win? Gamifying learning in my classroom. Edutopia, 1-5. Retrieved
from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/epic-fail-win-gamifying-learning-liz-kolb
Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical
foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 5–20.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.283
Kumar, B., & ParulKhurana. (2012, December). Gamification in education: Learn computer
programming with fun. International Journal of Computers and Distributed Systems,
2(1), 46-53.
Page 41 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
42
Lawley, E. (2012, July). Social Mediator. Retrieved from Forum:
https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/courses/compsci747s2c/lectures/paul/p14-deterding.pdf
Leaning, M. (2015). A study of the use of games and gamification to enhance student
engagement, experience, and achievement on a theory-based course of an undergraduate
media degree. Journal of Media Practice, 16(2), 155-170. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1080/14682753.2015.1041807
Lee, J. J. & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in education: What, how, why bother? Academic
Exchange Quarterly, 15(2).
Lieberman, D. A. (2006). What can we learn from playing interactive games? In P. Vorder, & J.
Bryant, Playing video games, responses, and consequences (p. 397). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Matera, M. (2010, November). Twitter.com. Retrieved from twitter: https://twitter.com/mrmatera
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is Broken: Why games make us better and how they can change
the world. New York: Penguins Press.
McLaughlin, K. (2011, August 14). Steps in learning and teaching. Retrieved from Kevin
McLaughlin: http://www.ictsteps.com/2011/08/20-time.html
Nah, F. F.-H., Telaprolu, V. R., Rallapalli, S., & Venkata, P. R. (2013). Gamification in
education using computer games. In M. J. Smith, Human Interface and the Management
of Information. Designing Information Environments (pp. 99-107). Las vegas, NV: HCI
International.
Page 42 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
43
Nicholson, S. (2015). A recipe for meaningful gamification. In T. Reiners, & L. C. Wood (eds),
Gamification in education and business (p. 1). Switzerland: Springer.
O’Byrne, I., W., Schenke, K., WillisIII, J. E., & Hickey, D. T. (2015). Digital badges
recognizing, assessing, and motivating learners in and out of school contexts. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(6), 451–454. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.381
O'keefe, D. (2012). Quest to Learn. School Library Journal, 58(12), 22.
Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computes science
education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers &
Education, 52(1), 1-12. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.004
Penichet, V. M. (2013). New trends in interaction, virtual reality and modeling. London:
Springer London. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4471-5445-7
Pensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw Hill.
Powers, K. L. Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., Palladino, M. A., & Alfieri, L. (2013). Effects of
video-game play on information processing: A meta-analytic investigation. Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 20(6), 1055–1079. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-
0418-z
Quest to Learn. (2008, June). Institute of Play. Retrieved from Quest to Learn:
http://www.instituteofplay.org/work/projects/quest-schools/quest-to-learn/
Raymer, R. (2011, September). Gamification: Using game mechanics to enhance eLearning.
Retrieved from eLearn Magazine: http://elearnmag.acm.org/featured.cfm?aid=2031772
Reeves, C. (2000). Alternative assessment approaches for online learning environments in higher
education. Journal of Education Computing Research, 1, 101-111.
Page 43 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
44
Reiners, T., & Wood, L. C. (Eds.). (2015). Gamification in Education and Business. Cham:
Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-
3-319-10208-5
Richter, Ganit, Raban , Daphne, & Rafaeli, Sheizaf. (2015). Studying gamification: The effect of
rewards and incentives on motivation. In T. Reiners, & L. C. Wood (eds), Gamification
in education and business (pp. 21-46). Switzerland: Springer.
Robson, K. & Plangger, K. & Kietzman, J. H. & Mccarthy, L. & Pitt, L. (2015). Is it all a game?
Understanding the principles of gamification. Business Horizons, 58(4), 411–420.
Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2015.03.006
Russell, J., Ainley, M., & Frydenberg, E. (2005). Issues Digest: Motivation and engagement.
Australian Government: Department of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved
from Australian Government: Department of Education, Science, and Trading
website:
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/schooling_
90 issues_digest/
Ryan, A. M. (2000). Peer groups as a context for the socialization of adolescents’ motivation,
engagement, and achievement in school. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 101–111.
Saeed, S., & Zyngier, D. (2012). How Motivation Influences Student Engagement: A Qualitative
Case Study. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(2).
https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v1n2p252
Schlechty, P. C. (2001). Shaking up the schoolhouse: How to support and sustain educational
innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Page 44 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
45
Seaborn, K. & Fels. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal
of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14-31. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006
Sheldon, L. (2011). Multiplayer classroom: Designing coursework as a game. Boston, MA:
Cengage learning.
Simões, J., Redondo, R. D. & Vilas, A. F. (2013). A social gamification framework for a K-6
learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 345-353.
Skinner, B. F. (1937). Two types of conditional reflex: A reply to Konorski and Miller. Journal
of General Psychology. 16, 272-279.
Skinner, B. F. (1984). The shame of American education. American Psychologist, 39(9), 947-
954.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of
teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85(4), 571.
Staddon, J. E. R., & Cerutti, D. T. (2003). Operant Conditioning. Annual Review of Psychology,
54(1), 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145124
Stott, A., & Neustaedter, C. (2013). Analysis of gamification in education. Surrey, BC, Canada,
8. Retrieved from http://clab.iat.sfu.ca/pubs/Stott-Gamification.pdf
Thom, J., Millen, D., DiMicco, J., 2012. Removing gamification from an enterprise SNS. In:
Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work.
Presented at CSCW'12. ACM, Seattle, WA, pp. 1067–1070.
Todor, V., & Pitică, D. (2013). The gamification of the study of electronics in dedicated e-
Page 45 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
46
learning platforms. In Proceedings of the 36th International Spring Seminar on
Electronics Technology (pp. 428–431). IEEE. Retrieved from
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6648287
Waggoner, Z. (2009). My Avatar, my self: Identity in video role-playing games. North Carolina:
McFarland & Company.
Whitton, N. & Moseley, Alex. (2010). Using games to enhance learning and teaching: A
beginner's guide. London: Taylor and Francis.
Wigfield, A., Byrnes, J. P., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Development during early and middle
adolescence. In P. Alexander, & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology
(2nd Ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation:
Results from PISA 2000. Publications de l’OCDE.
Wilson, L. (2003). Interactivity or interpassivity: a question of agency in digital play. In Fine Art
Forum (Vol. 17). Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/download/8517885/wilson.pdf
Yue, C. L., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Reducing verbal redundancy in multimedia
learning: An undesired desirable difficulty? Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2),
266–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031971
Zhang, D., Clear, T. (2015). Shaping behaviours through space and place in gamified virtual
learning environments. In T. Reiners, & L. C. Wood (eds), Gamification in education and
business (pp. 331-354). Switzerland: Springer.
Zichemann, G. & Cunningham, Christopher. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing
game mechanics in web and mobile apps. CA: O'Reilly Media Inc.
Page 46 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
47
Zichermann, G. (2011, July 6). Mashable. Retrieved from Mashable.com:
http://mashable.com/2011/07/06/7-winning-examples-of-game-mechanics-in-
action/#PkEftCunR8qz
Zickermann, G. (2010, October 26). Fun is the future: Mastering gamification. Google Tech
Talk. San francisco, CA, U.S.A.: Google Tech Talk. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O1gNVeaE4g
Page 47 of 47
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/cwis
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
... For instance, gamification does not deal directly with the game design, but it is more to the techniques that are developed to be used in non-game contexts. Similarly, the concept of gamification applies the game elements for the purpose of motivating people to conduct certain activities (Alsawaier, 2018). Shang and Lin (2013) affirmed that gamification technology can potentially change intention and behaviour of users by way of manipulating social and individual factors. ...
... The gamification technique stimulates students' interest and allows the students to have direct interaction that will significantly develop their cognitive, curricular, and their social competencies. Alsawaier (2018) stated that the gamification technique engages people, motivates their action, as well as promotes learning process and problem-solving skills. These values generate the students will power to achieve tasks' objectives, making projects to be more attractive and also promotes cooperative work, and team effort (Trigueros et al., 2020). ...
... Kedua, gamifikasi adalah permainan yang dinamis yang terfokus pada berbagai elemen yang memungkinkan adanya interaksi sosial antar pemain. Ketiga, gamifikasi akan dapat membangun motivasi dan keterikatan (Alsawaier, 2018). Keempat, definisi tersebut menekankan pada keterampilan berpikir kritis (Kapp, 2012). ...
... Karakteristik dari boardgame adalah menyenangkan, menantang, dinamis dan memungkinkan adanya interaksi sosial serta kerjasama sesama peserta. Selain itu pula, gamifikasi dapat memuncukan motivasi dan keterikatan pada program atau aktivitas pelatihan (Alsawaier, 2018). Hal ini semua merupakan keuntungan dari boardgame. ...
Article
Full-text available
Pengembangan SDM memerlukan adanya perubahan pendekatan sebagai dampak dari Revolusi Industri 4.0. Dalam hal ini setiap individu haruts mau dan mampu meningkatkan kompetensinya untuk dapat beradaptasi dengan kondisi saat ini serta berkompetisi dengan sehat. Pada era revolusi Industri 4.0 kompetensi merupakan hal yang esensial, sehingga setiap individu harus memelajari kompetensi baru. Meskipun demikian, proses pembelajaran merupakan proses yang kompleks, tidak dapat demikian saja dilakukan. Dalam hal ini, boardgame dapat digunakan sebagai salah satu cara untuk membantu individu, khususnya orang dewasa dalam memelajari kompetensi baru maupun meningkatkan keterampilan yang sudah dimilikinya. Studi ini menggunakan 120 partisipan yang terdiri dari 60 partisipan karyawan dan 60 partisipan mahasiswa. Studi ini bertujuan untuk memberikan gambaran mengenai efektivitas boardgame sebagai salah satu alat/metode pelatihan bagi orang dewasa. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa boardgame adalah suatu metode yang dapat digunakan untuk orang dewasa memelajari hal-hal baru dengan menyenangkan, dan memeroleh hasil pembelajaran yang efektif.
... Gamification is an innovative and engaging technique for enhancing student motivation and the learning process (Martí-Parreño et al., 2016). These statements are also supported by Alsawaier (2018) that gamification is the integration of game aspects, often video game characteristics, into non-game contexts to increase motivation and engagement in learning. The indicators of students' motivation to learn increase including students enthusiastically asking questions and preparing to learn. ...
Article
Full-text available
This research describes the use of gamification in the teaching and learning process. This research is library research. The findings show that gamification improves students' motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes. Besides, gamification makes learning fun and interactive creates more desire to learn, allows seeing real-world applications, offers real-time feedback, encourages students to complete their learning activities, helps students focus and understand the material being studied, provides opportunities for students to compete, explore and excel in class, improve competitive traits, making learning addicted, etc. As educators, we may face students with multiple conditions in terms of motivation, interest, intelligence, group size, environment, family background, and so on. Therefore, game-based learning is designed to give positive impacts on students by incorporating game elements into training strategies. Of course, there are various steps in applying gamification in the learning process that can be applied in the classroom, including integrating educational video games into the curriculum, encouraging independent learning in the gamification of homework, gamification in scoring, implementing a broader class reward system, ensure that the lessons are interesting from the beginning, making gamification part of the evaluation, selecting gamification in the form of multiple choice, giving rewards like badges, etc. However, implementing gamification requires a system or platform to be successful. Therefore, we need concern about the main features such as game elements (point system, level system, badges system, and leaderboard system and templates. Abstrak Penelitian ini mendeskripsikan penggunaan gamifikasi dalam proses belajar mengajar. penelitian ini adalah penelitian kepustakaan. Temuan menunjukkan bahwa gamifikasi meningkatkan motivasi, keterlibatan, dan hasil belajar siswa. Selain itu, gamifikasi membuat pembelajaran menyenangkan dan interaktif menciptakan lebih banyak keinginan untuk belajar, memungkinkan melihat aplikasi dunia nyata, menawarkan umpan balik secara real-time, mendorong siswa untuk menyelesaikan kegiatan belajarnya, membantu siswa fokus dan memahami materi yang dipelajari, memberikan kesempatan kepada siswa untuk berkompetisi, bereksplorasi dan berprestasi di kelas, meningkatkan sifat kompetitif, membuat ketagihan belajar, dll. Sebagai pendidik, kita mungkin menghadapi siswa dengan berbagai kondisi dalam hal motivasi, minat, kecerdasan, ukuran kelompok, lingkungan, latar belakang keluarga, dan sebagainya. Oleh karena itu, pembelajaran berbasis permainan dirancang untuk memberikan dampak positif bagi siswa dengan memasukkan unsur-unsur permainan ke dalam 2 strategi pelatihan. Tentunya terdapat berbagai langkah penerapan gamifikasi dalam proses pembelajaran yang dapat diterapkan di dalam kelas, antara lain dengan mengintegrasikan video game edukasi ke dalam kurikulum, mendorong belajar mandiri dalam gamifikasi pekerjaan rumah, gamifikasi dalam penilaian, menerapkan sistem reward kelas yang lebih luas. , pastikan pelajarannya menarik dari awal, jadikan gamifikasi bagian dari evaluasi, pilih gamifikasi dalam bentuk pilihan ganda, berikan reward seperti badge, dll. Namun implementasi gamifikasi membutuhkan sistem atau platform agar berhasil. Oleh karena itu, kita perlu memperhatikan fitur-fitur utama seperti elemen permainan (sistem poin, sistem level, sistem lencana, dan sistem serta template papan peringkat.
... Alsawaier, R.S. (2018), "The effect of gamification on motivation and engagement", International Journal ofInformation and Learning Technology, Vol. 35 No. 1,. ...
Book
Full-text available
“Pedagogi Kemasyarakatan” adalah judul yang dipilih untuk merangkum isi keseluruhan buku ini. Apa yang hendak diterangkan dari judul pedagogi kemasyarakatan? Jika dilihat makna kata, pedagogi berarti metode yang dipakai untuk menyiapkan anak- anak agar mereka dapat menjadi anggota masyarakat yang baik. Sementara masyarakat, walaupun memiliki makna yang kompleks, namun secara umum dicirikan oleh adanya kumpulan orang dalam jumlah banyak yang tinggal dalam waktu relatif lama di suatu daerah tertentu, serta memiliki perangkat norma atau aturan untuk menjaga kepentingan dan tujuan mereka bersama. Jadi pedagogi sebenarnya merupakan bagian dari upaya menjaga agar suatu masyarakat tetap eksis melalui proses edukasi bagi anak-anak dan generasi mudanya. Dengan demikian pedagogi memiliki keterkaitan dengan edukasi (dari kata Bahasa Latin: educare, yang merupakan gabungan dua kata: ex: keluar; dan ducere: menuntun, mengantar, membimbing). Perbedannya, jika pedagogi lebih bersifaf teoritis- refleksif, karena berbicara tentang filosofi pendidikan, sedangkan edukasi (pendidikan) lebih bersifat praktis-aplikatif. Namun, orientasi substantif keduanya adalah sama, yakni manusia dan hal-hal yang berhubungan dengan pendidikannya secara utuh.
... Smart glasses and VR devices offer immersive experience and entertainment. Gamification or serious gaming can be an entertaining way of maintaining motivation during execution of tasks [75]- [77]. Especially children and patients needing sustained rehabilitation process can benefit from such technology. ...
Article
The updated range of models of smart glasses has expanded the availability of augmented reality (AR) technology in a way that opens them up to several applications. The first prototypes have been replaced by new models and vendors offer off-the-shelf solutions. E-health and medical applications have been in focus from the start. Furthermore, the roll-out of 5G technology would enable almost real-time, high-speed and low-latency communication, which would expand the potential uses and ideas. This paper gives a short overview of the current state, focusing on medical applications using smart glasses. The HoloLens glasses were evaluated regarding latency and data rates by using WiFi and the 5G campus network of the university. Results show that the HoloLens may be used in education, training and teleassistance; however, assisting latency-sensitive tasks that require a reliable network connection, ergonomic design, and privacy issues still remain a problem.
Chapter
This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the phenomenon of review bomb, which occurs when an abnormally large amount of information is submitted to a rating system in a very short period of time by an overtly anonymous mass of accounts, with the overall goal of sabotaging the system's proper functioning. Because review bombs are frequently outbursts of social distress from gaming communities, gamification theories have proven useful for understanding the behavioral traits and conflict dynamics associated with such a phenomenon. A prominent case is analysed quantitatively. The methodology is discussed and proposed as a generalized framework for descriptive quantification of review bombs. As a result of the study, considerations for technological improvements in the collection of rating data in systems are proposed too.
Article
This article explores how skills and knowledge from the field of science fiction and fantasy (SFF) creative writing can be applied in technology foresight, especially for workshops with transdisciplinary research teams. The practical model introduced here, Story Thinking, builds upon and complements existing models for combining elements of storytelling with foresight, and highlights the contributions of writing practitioners. It offers four benefits for transdisciplinary teams: (1) it provides effective and straightforward techniques to inhabit possible futures (2) it encourages researchers to empathise with the humans who may have an impact on the uses of new technology; (3) it allows these researchers to envision plausible, possible and preferable chains of cause and effect; and (4) it works to engage researchers across disciplines in a shared vision, developing affinities to see them through the complex dimensions of large research projects. This article offers a rationale and background for this model, articulates it as it currently stands, and analyses a case study emerging from an ongoing collaboration with the University of Queensland and the Australian Defence Forces (ADF).
Article
Full-text available
The use of Information & Communication Technology (ICT) tools to support foreign language teaching and learning has become very common nowadays and makes learning more enjoyable. This study focused on students’ perceptions of using Blooket in teaching and learning English vocabulary. The study case and questionnaires were used to survey (72 non-English major students) and face-to-face interviews (7 students and 3 teachers) to collect data at Long An College of Education (LACE), Vietnam. Data collection was conducted for two months at this site. The data were obtained from the questionnaires sent to students via Google Forms, then analyzed by SPSS software version 26. From the data analysis, the author found that students were very interested in learning vocabulary through http://blooket.com, a classroom game website, which offers a wide variety of interactive and innovative games. The disadvantage is that this site does not allow audio and video to be inserted into the questions and answers; images cannot be inserted into the answer either; and there is a limit of 60 participants if using a free account. Furthermore, with an older version of the phone, you must download the Firefox browser in order to join the game. These disadvantages can all be easily solved. Therefore, it is evident that Blooket is an effective learning medium that helps to increase students' vocabulary when used in online or offline classes by teachers or when learners use it themselves at home to learn vocabulary. Based on data analysis, findings and conclusions were drawn along with some pedagogical advice. Article visualizations: </p
Article
Full-text available
Physical inactivity, the fourth leading cause of death worldwide, can harm the economy, national growth, community welfare, health, and quality of life. On the other hand, physical activities (PA) have numerous advantages, including fewer cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and diabetes, fewer psychological disorders, and improved cognitive abilities. Despite the benefits of PA, people are less likely to participate. The main factor is a lack of entertainment in exercise, which demotivates society from engaging in healthy activities. In this work, we proposed a hardware-software symmetry that can entertain people while performing PA. We developed a step-box with sensors and a gamified music application synchronized with the footsteps. The purpose of this study is to show that incorporating appropriate gamification allows participants to engage actively in tedious and economic exercises. Participants (N = 90) participated in 20-min daily exercise sessions for three days. A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction following exercise sessions. The results show that the gamified sensor step-box increased efficiency, effectiveness, and participant satisfaction. The findings suggest that gamification fundamentals in simple exercises increase excitement and may help people to maintain PA.
Article
Full-text available
Well-designed games are good motivators by nature, as they imbue players with clear goals and a sense of reward and fulfillment, thus encouraging them to persist and endure in their quests. Recently, this motivational power has started to be applied to non-game contexts, a practice known as Gamification. This adds gaming elements to non-game processes, motivating users to adopt new behaviors, such as improving their physical condition, working more, or learning something new. This paper describes an experiment in which game-like elements were used to improve the delivery of a Master’s level College course, including scoring, levels, leaderboards, challenges and badges. To assess how gamification impacted the learning experience, we compare the gamified course to its non-gamified version from the previous year, using different performance measures. We also assessed student satisfaction as compared to other regular courses in the same academic context. Results were very encouraging, showing significant increases ranging from lecture attendance to online participation, proactive behaviors and perusing the course reference materials. Moreover, students considered the gamified instance to be more motivating, interesting and easier to learn as compared to other courses. We finalize by discussing the implications of these results on the design of future gamified learning experiences.
Article
Full-text available
Gamification, the application of game elements to nongame contexts, was recently a subject of great interest in the library literature, inspiring a number of articles. That interest tapered off in tandem with gamification’s wider decline, but signs point to its reemergence. Anticipating renewed interest in gamification, the authors reviewed the literature to determine what has—and has not—been examined by librarianship’s proponents of gamification. They found serious concerns regarding gamification’s practical and ethical limitations. Moreover, the authors believe that the purported benefits of gamification are more readily found in its progenitor—games.
Chapter
Full-text available
In an interactive digital game or gamified e-learning experience, mapping a learner’s progress, problem-solving attempts, self-expressions and social communications can entail highly detailed and time-sensitive computer-based traces that capture the context, actions, processes and products. New educational measurement and analysis considerations are needed to address the challenges of finding patterns and making inferences concerning what someone knows and can do. Methods based in data-mining, machine learning, model-building and complexity theory are discussed as theoretical foundations for dealing with time sensitivity, spatial relationships, multiple layers of aggregations at different scales, and the dynamics of complex performance spaces. Examples of these considerations in game-based learning analytics are presented and discussed in the hope of making a contribution to the development and refinement of theoretical approaches to measurement.
Chapter
A critical incident of avatar harassment which occurred in our early gamified virtual learning environment is re-examined in this chapter. Lessons learned subsequently lead us explore understanding and shaping people’s behaviours in gamified virtual environments (VEs). In this study, we develop a theoretical model for elaborating people’s behaviours within VEs through the notions of ‘space’ and ‘place’, then proceed to build a coherent set of policies to govern the VEs and produce a framework for incorporating gamified designs into VEs, based on the model.
Chapter
Meaningful gamification is the use of gameful and playful layers to help a user find personal connections that motivate engagement with a specific context for long-term change. While reward-based gamification can be useful for short-term goals and situations where the participants have no personal connections or intrinsic motivation to engage in a context, rewards can reduce intrinsic motivation and the long-term desire to engage with the real world context. If the goal is long-term change, then rewards should be avoided and other game-based elements used to create a system based on concepts of meaningful gamification. This article introduces six concepts—Reflection, Exposition, Choice, Information, Play, and Engagement—to guide designers of gamification systems that rely on non-reward-based game elements to help people find personal connections and meaning in a real world context.
Article
The aim of this study was to assess gamification as a method of experiential learning theory (ELT) on student motivation and self-efficacy to perform System Engineering/Information Assurance (IA) tasks. The study was a basic qualitative method, whereby data was collected via semi-structured interview and then analyzed for recurring themes and patterns. The students involved in the study were undergraduate students enrolled in system administration and security courses. We introduced ELT in early stages of curriculum in place of commonly used didactic methods of delivering theory. We compared the themes found in increased ELT classes with past didactic sections of the same courses. Data analysis revealed that increasing ELT in IA coursework at all levels of the curriculum increased both student intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy. This paper outlines gamification pedagogy used in 200 and 300 level postsecondary courses of system administration. Gathered results indicated high intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy from the students 96 interviewed. The paper will also present examples of gamification ELT lessons at each level of undergraduate study.
Chapter
Computational thinking resembles a new philosophy in order to approach not only scientific problems but also challenges of everyday life. In recent years, computational thinking reveals more and more as a fundamental skill for everyone. Observing that, the educational community has been interested in the designing of appropriate teaching and pedagogical strategies by incorporating procedures for the cultivation and development of computational thinking during the learning process. In this context, the utilization of gamification aims at activating the participation of students. In particular, a common application of gamification is the empowerment of extrinsic motivation through the integration of grading characteristics comparable with those of video games, such as points, levels, and achievements. However, the activation of external motives, while disregarding the internal ones, may lead to the declination of interest in learning. This work defines a student-centered framework for strengthening the active participation of students using intrinsic motivation for learning and develops a framework for designing educational activities. As a guide to framework application, three prototype scenarios and the corresponding correlations to the computational thinking, gamification and constructivist learning theory goals throughout the learning activities are presented.