ArticlePDF Available

The Effect of Gamification on Motivation and Engagement

International Journal of Information and Learning Technology

January 2018
35(7):00-00

DOI:10.1108/IJILT-02-2017-0009

Authors:

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.

Content uploaded by Raed Alsawaier

Content may be subject to copyright.

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

Running head: GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

(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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

(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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

GAMIFICATION: MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT

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

A preview of this full-text is provided by Emerald Publishing.

Content available from International Journal of Information and Learning Technology

This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.

PERTINENCE DE L’AJOUT D’UNE COMPOSANTE SÉRIEUSE PERSONNALISÉE À UN JEU VIDÉO D’ACTION DÉDIÉ À LA RÉÉDUCATION EN LECTURE D’ÉLÈVES AYANT DES DIFFICULTÉS D’APPRENTISSAGE.

Thesis

Full-text available

Nov 2024

Francois Lewis

The study aims to understand and model knowledge relating to the design of personalized software for learning to read, dedicated to children who present dyslexic symptoms and attention deficit. Subsequently, it aims to evaluate the software created on its effectiveness for adaptive teaching according to the student’s profile. According to Cardoso-Leite and Bavelier (2014), 3D Action Video Games improve top-down attention. Top-down attention is intentional and corresponds to the individual’s internal factors, including their knowledge and goals (Katsuki & Constantinidis, 2014). Top-down attention is considered to facilitate learning (Cardoso-Leite & Bavelier, 2014). In addition, several studies have demonstrated the benefits of 3D Action Video Games in educational settings, in particular on improving concentration and motivation (Bediou et al., 2018; Blaesius & Fleck, 2015; Franceschini et al., 2013; Franceschini et al., 2017; Green & Bavelier, 2012; Rello et al., 2015). Franceschini et al. (2013, 2017) add that the use of 3D Action Video Games has a positive impact on the reading speed of dyslexic students. Our initial hypotheses are as follows: firstly, it is possible to create an educational 3D action video game while maintaining user motivation, secondly, the integration of a serious dimension personalized to the student into the game increases reading speed and decreases the number of errors during a calibrated reading test. In order to simplify the understanding of this document, we use the term “Serious Action Video Game” to name the educational object that will be created and evaluated. The research project aims firstly to develop a cognitive computer system adapted to the target audience. Secondly, it aims to integrate the serious elements proposed in a copy of the system. And finally, to evaluate the software in a natural environment to validate its effectiveness.

Impacts of different gamified problem-solving integration approaches on elementary math: an engagement and metacognitive knowledge perspective

Article

Dec 2024

Shan Li

This mixed-method study investigated the effects of two distinct gamified problem-solving integration approaches on student engagement and meta- cognitive knowledge in elementary mathematics contexts. Data collected from 59 elementary students revealed varied impacts across three types of engagement (behavioral, affective, cognitive) and metacognitive knowledge dimensions (self, task, strategy). Interviews with teachers and students pro- vided insights into these outcomes, highlighting how specific game mechan- ics influenced different types of engagement and metacognitive knowledge under the two approaches. The findings offer practical implications for future gamification integration in elementary mathematics, including con- siderations for the selection and timing of game mechanics to optimize learning outcomes.

Enhancing software development education through gamification and experiential learning with genially

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2024
SOFTWARE QUAL J

This article explores the transformative potential of gamification in software development education, aiming to address the challenges of sustaining student engagement. Traditional teaching methods, foundational yet at times lacking in dynamism, are juxtaposed against the immersive experience offered by gamification. The case study unfolds in a renewable energy degree programming class, where Genially games inject vitality into the learning environment. Students, organized into groups, embark on a virtual board game journey using coding challenges. Game formats such as hangman, 3 in a row, snakes and ladders, and Jumanji introduce basic programming concepts, strategically progressing in complexity. Genially serves as a versatile digital tool, crafting interactive board games that not only teach coding but transform learning into a thrilling adventure. Research questions delve into the impact of gamification on student accomplishment, challenge perception, competence, guidance, immersion, playfulness, and social involvement. By examining the experiential journey of a gamified programming class, the article contributes to the growing knowledge on gamification in education. This transformative approach not only teaches programming concepts but also immerses students in a dynamic and engaging adventure, addressing the evolving landscape of education with a focus on motivation and personalized learning experiences.

La gamificación en el aprendizaje cooperativo en preescolares de 4-5 años: Gamification in cooperative learning in preschoolers 4-5 years old

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2024

Este trabajo de investigación tiene como objetivo analizar la incidencia de la gamificación en las dinámicas de aprendizaje cooperativo en la educación física de preescolares en la Unidad Educativa "Los Andes". La gamificación se refiere a la incorporación de elementos de juego en el contexto educativo para fomentar la motivación, participación y cooperación entre los estudiantes. El enfoque del estudio combina métodos cualitativos y cuantitativos para proporcionar una comprensión integral del impacto de la gamificación, para la recolección de datos se ocupó tres herramientas tecnológicas como Microsoft Excel, SSPS y Microsoft Word para redactar todo el proceso, se empleó fichas de observación a 25 estudiantes y entrevistas estructuradas a los docentes con el propósito de evaluar la interacción y colaboración entre los niños durante las actividades gamificadas. Los resultados obtenidos reflejan una participación activa de la mayoría de los estudiantes en las actividades cooperativas, favoreciendo su capacidad para trabajar en equipo, resolver problemas de manera conjunta y mantener una motivación constante. Además, se destaca el uso adecuado de herramientas tecnológicas que, en conjunto con la gamificación, potenciaron el aprendizaje y el desempeño de los niños en las tareas cooperativas. La investigación demuestra que la gamificación mejora significativamente el aprendizaje cooperativo en los preescolares, facilitando no solo el desarrollo cognitivo y físico, sino también el social, al fomentar habilidades de trabajo en equipo y resolución de problemas.

LA GAMIFICACIÓN EN LA FORMACIÓN PRAGMÁTICA: INCENTIVANDO EL APRENDIZAJE EN LA EDUCACIÓN SUPERIOR

Book

Jan 2024

Measuring the Impact of Gamification on Motivation and English Language Learning Outcomes: A Case Study

Article

Feb 2024

This study investigates the impact of gamification on motivation levels, vocabularyacquisition, and speaking skills in English language learning. Employing a quantitativepre-experimental design, the research engaged 21 high school students. Mean scores werecalculated for baseline assessments and post-intervention evaluations, providing acomprehensive understanding of participants' initial proficiency and the observedenhancements. Results revealed a substantial increase in motivation levels post-gamification intervention, with a mean score rising from 3.8 to 4.7. This noteworthyimprovement underscores the positive influence of gamification on participants' overallengagement. Similarly, vocabulary acquisition exhibited significant progress, as reflectedin the increase from a baseline mean score of 4.2 to 5.2 post-intervention. The findingssuggest the potential efficacy of gamification in fostering enhanced vocabulary acquisitionamong learners. Speaking skills also demonstrated notable advancement, with a baselinemean score of 3.9 rising to 4.9 post-intervention. These improvements collectively highlightthe positive impact of the gamification strategy on specific learning outcomes, particularlyin enhancing participants' speaking skills. This study contributes valuable insights to thefield of English language education, offering evidence of the benefits of gamification inenhancing motivation and language learning outcomes. The findings can inform educators,curriculum designers, and policymakers in optimizing instructional approaches, creatingdynamic and engaging learning environments to facilitate improved language proficiencyamong students.

Effectiveness of mobile health-based gamification interventions for improving physical activity in individuals with cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (Preprint)

Article

Jul 2024

Gamification in mathematics: a secondary classroom experience

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2024

The following paper focuses on the study of a gamification proposal of the teaching-learning process and its implantation in a mathematics 4th year secondary school classroom. After analysing the current situation, a pre-post test study is carried out in two groups of students who work the same contents simultaneously, with the only difference that one group works with traditional teaching method and the other with gamification. The objective is to compare both methodologies in terms of results, motivation and interest in mathematics. The research results show that gamification as an innovative teaching-learning method has a positive impact on students since it increases their motivation, and thus their performance. In addition, gamification also encourages other aspects such as teamwork and participation.

The Role of Minecraft in STEM Education: A Study on the Development of Motivation and Spatial Abilities

Preprint

Full-text available

Dec 2024

This study examines how integrating Minecraft into STEM education impacts seventh-grade students' STEM motivation and spatial abilities. The research was conducted with 46 students during the 2021–2022 academic year and employed an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. Over an intervention period of approximately two months, weekly STEM activities were organized. Quantitative data were collected using a STEM motivation scale and a spatial ability test administered to experimental and control groups. Qualitative data were obtained through semi-structured interviews with students in the experimental group. The results indicate Minecraft-based STEM activities significantly enhanced students' STEM motivation and spatial abilities. These findings suggest that actively integrating digital games into STEM education can effectively increase students' interest in STEM fields and improve their spatial skills.

Enhancing English Proficiency in Korean Schoolchildren with Problematic Behaviors: Efficacy of Digital Game-Based Learning

Article

Nov 2024

Engaging Engineering Students with Gamification

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2013

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.

“The Sugar’d Game Before Thee”: Gamification Revisited

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2016
PORTAL-LIBR ACAD

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.

Theoretical Considerations for Game-Based e-Learning Analytics

Chapter

Full-text available

Oct 2015

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.

The Multiplayer Classroom: Designing Coursework as a Game

Book

Mar 2020

Lee Sheldon

Theories of learning and teaching

Chapter

Dec 2018

Annette M. Jinks

Flow: the psychology of optimal experience

Book

Jan 2008

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

Towards the Gamification of Learning: Investigating Student Perceptions of Game Elements

Article

Sep 2014

Games offer people engaging and motivating experiences. The process of recreating this type of experience in systems that are not typically considered games is called “gamification.” Improving engagement and motivation in a learning environment is desired by many educators as traditional approaches do not seem to be as engaging as they once were with students. Hence, gamification may be a useful tool to improve the learning environment. As a precursor to the development of a game-like learning system, we survey 51 undergraduate IT students to obtain their perceptions on game elements, which are the building blocks of what makes a game identifiable as such. All game elements that were presented to the respondents were highly rated. It was found that undergraduate students have a positive perception of systems that use game elements and are interested in its use for learning. Overall, students favoured social interaction, engagement, feedback, and increased learning, which suggests that gamification is particularly suited to learning approaches such as social constructivism. We suggest that future work should include the development of a prototype for a game-like educational system that helps to provide useful feedback for students about their learning progress.

Shaping Behaviours Through Space and Place in Gamified Virtual Learning Environments

Chapter

Oct 2015

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.

A RECIPE for Meaningful Gamification

Chapter

Jan 2015

Scott Nicholson

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.

Increasing Student Intrinsic Motivation And Self-Efficacy Through Gamification Pedagogy

Article

Sep 2014

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.

The Effect of Gamification on Motivation and Engagement

Abstract

Recommended publications

Analysis of Gamification Elements. A Case Study in a Computer Science Course

Gamification: Using game design elements in non-gaming contexts

Can cooperative video games encourage social and motivational inclusion of at-risk students?

Learning Prosody in a Video Game-Based Learning Approach