Principles of Gamification and their Practical Application in

Principles of Gamification and their
Practical Application in Education
Environments

Abstract:
Introduction
This research will be based the use of digital games for the purpose of digital learning in the
education system. The introduction part will provide with a background of this research.
Problem statement will be highlighted followed by the purpose of this research. In the next
sections, the methodology part will be highlighted which will indicate the methods of data
collection and analysis. In the next sections, the results and analysis will be provided based
on the data collection that will be conducted for this research. This chapter will end with the
conclusions and the discussion. The discussion part will also include the future research that
will be conducted after this research. This research will thus help in providing an overview of
the problems of digital learning games and the suitable methods that can solve the problems.
Literature Review
This chapter, we focus specifically on digital instances of gamification in line with the
purposes of the volume. This chapter also will focus on introducing basic terms and
psychological effects of popular gamification tools of today’s world. There are many sites
now that use gamification on even the most basic activities. Even things like completing your
profile can be gamified. There are also things outside of computer world that can be
gamified. The databases used for this research were the Science Direct, IEEE Xplore, and
Springer, using as keywords the terms "Gamification Education" and "Gamification
Framework", with a total of 612 articles being found. From these articles, the title, abstract
and keywords were analyzed and, after that, a screening was done using as a reference an
adaptation of the systematic mapping process.
Methodology
An exploratory research was carried out, consisting of the study of material already
elaborated so as to have a greater familiarity with the problem, with a view to the
improvement of ideas or the discovery of intuitions. The intension of this rerearch to
determine students’ views about the gamification of educational processes, Q methodology,
which contains an arrangement of quantitative and qualitative data collection processes, was
used.
1

In case of primary data, quantitative data is collective the participants of the study consisted
of 34 sophomores in elementary mathematics education in Faculty of Education, London who
volunteered to participate in the Q methodology implementation.
The qualitative data is collected from interviews conducted with professors from different
areas of research of the Digital Systems and Media program at the King's College London, in
order to have their opinion on the structure of the framework, as well as suggestions for
improving it.
In case of secondary data collection, after the screening, 145 articles were selected, which
went through a new screening involving the reading of the abstracts, introduction and
conclusion, to again apply the previous inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulting in a subset
of 110 primary studies.
Data Analysis
This chapter will focus on introducing basic terms and psychological effects of popular
gamification tools of today’s world. The present research, conducted with Q
methodology, aimed to determine how the gamification of the educational process is
perceived by students and whether the students’ views unify around a common
ground regarding the concept of gamification, and to highlight the prominent
elements of gamification.
Conclusion and Reccomendation
This research proposes a procedure for the gamification of the educational processes
according to findings. According to the findings, the participants have a collective
positive thought about the educational gamification procedure. The prominent
elements of this process are logic of the process, emotions towards the procedure,
advancement structure, achievement points, and badges. Therefore, it can be asserted
that dynamics and mechanics, like the invisible part of an iceberg, have a greater
importance in the procedure, though components are in the public eye. In other
words, the use of components alone without the dynamics and the mechanics cannot
be considered as gamification
2

Table of Contents
List of Table...............................................................................................................................4
Chapter 1: Introduction:.............................................................................................................5
1.1 Background of the research:.............................................................................................5
1.2 Problems statement:.........................................................................................................6
1.3 Research Questions..........................................................................................................7
1.4 Purpose of the research:...................................................................................................7
1.5 Perspective:......................................................................................................................8
1.6 Delimitations....................................................................................................................8
1.7 Definitions:.......................................................................................................................8
1.8 Frame of reference:..........................................................................................................8
1.9 Methodology:...................................................................................................................9
1.9.1 Research design:........................................................................................................9
1.9.2 Data collection:.........................................................................................................9
1.9.2 Data analysis:............................................................................................................9
1.9.3 Results/Empirical findings:.......................................................................................9
1.9.4 Analysis:..................................................................................................................10
1.10 Structure of the Research.............................................................................................10
1.11 Conclusions:.................................................................................................................10
Chapter 2: Literature Review...................................................................................................11
2.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................11
2.2 Gamification: Definition and Delineation......................................................................12
2.3 Mechanisms of Influence...............................................................................................13
2.4 Applications in the Real World......................................................................................15
2.4.1 Educational Applications of Gamification..............................................................15
2.4.2 Gamification in training..........................................................................................17
2.5 Perspectives on Gamification.........................................................................................18
2.6 Prospects for Future Research........................................................................................19
2.7 Related work..................................................................................................................21
2.8 Conclusion and Recommendations................................................................................23
Chapter 3: Research Methodology...........................................................................................25
3.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................25
3.2 Conceptual Framework for Gamification......................................................................25
3

3.2.1 Feedback Layer.......................................................................................................26
3.2.2 Activities Layer.......................................................................................................27
3.2.3 Pedagogical Layer...................................................................................................27
3.2.4 Narrative Layer.......................................................................................................27
3.2.5 Motivational Layer..................................................................................................28
3.3 Research Design.............................................................................................................28
3.4 Data collection methods.................................................................................................29
3.5 Sample population..........................................................................................................29
3.6 Application for Q Methodology.....................................................................................30
3.7 Ethical Consideration.....................................................................................................31
Chapter 4: Data Analysis..........................................................................................................32
4.1 Quantitative Research....................................................................................................32
4.2 Qualitative Research......................................................................................................39
4.3 Summary........................................................................................................................42
Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations........................................................................48
5.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................48
5.2 Linking Objectives.........................................................................................................48
5.3 Discussion......................................................................................................................53
5.4 Recommendations..........................................................................................................55
Reference..................................................................................................................................57
Appendix 1: Q-Methodology Item...........................................................................................61
Appendix 2: Conceptual Framework.......................................................................................62
Appendix 3: Distribution schema between the edges..............................................................62
Appendix 4: Qualitative Analysis............................................................................................63
List of Table
Table 1: Q Methodology Items................................................................................................30
Table 2 : Factor Loadings Table............................................................................................32
Table 3 : Z Values and the Order of Importance of the Items..........................................33
Table 4 : The Average Z Values Concerning the Elements of Gamification.................35
4

Chapter 1: Introduction:
1.1 Background of the research:
In the recent years, use of digital games for the purpose of learning has become highly
popular among the students. With the help of digital games, it has been possible to the
lecturers to provide their students with advanced learning methods in which students are able
to visualize the environment which are required for their learning purpose (Clark, Tanner-
Smith & Killingsworth, 2016). Digital games are created on the basis of different subjects
and through which students are required to play those to understand the concepts of the
education. For example, in case of management studies, students can play these games which
help them to learn about different processes in organizations such as operation management,
supply chain management and others. According to author Kuhn (2018), these are also
considered as serious games as these games help the students to get engaged with their
studies effectively. With the help of virtual characters, they can use different techniques to
complete various tasks which are part of their education courses. Often these are considered
as the simulation techniques which can be highly beneficial in the process of learning about
different educational environment. Students playing these games are provided with different
goals and challenges which they need to tackle in the process of completing the stages of the
games successfully. They can also view the status of the results of the games which they can
make use to learn different techniques in the process of real world learning. With the help of
technologies such as augmented and virtual realities, the features of these games have been
enhanced in the recent years (Cabero Almenara & Barroso, 2016). The advance of
information and communication technologies significantly affected the current view of
pedagogical approaches used in the teaching-learning process, promoting the transformation
of repetitive and behavioral approaches to adaptive approaches that includes active
participation and collaboration between students. Because of this, the traditional model of
teaching, based on a unique approach for all cases, is no longer appropriate to meet the
growing needs of students, since the learning process does not follow this linear method. As a
way to oppose the problems mentioned, several educational approaches and support tools
were developed to increase the engagement of students regarding the process of learning,
creating a large field of research dedicated to educational games, which are not often used in
classrooms due to obstacles related to the high cost of development, use of resources and the
difficulty of balancing pedagogical and entertainment objectives. In this context,
5

gamification, usually defined as the use of game design elements in contexts that are not
games, enters as a simple low cost alternative to motivate students that are increasingly
unmotivated with the current educational system. To contribute to the development of
motivational ludic pedagogical approaches in the higher education, this work aims to develop
a conceptual framework, characterized as a non-formal structure with diverse ideas and
concepts that culminate in a series of reasons to adopt the points presented, grounded in
concepts used in different frameworks, models and case studies to guide the use of
gamification for education in the higher education. This research will analyze the different of
these digital games and these can help in enhancing the education systems for the students.
Let us take look at most common and used things in gamification. It is a so called triad with
an acronym – PBL. This acronym stands for Points, badges and leader-boards and it is
heavily associated with gamification. Some people even go as far as not considering
something as gamified unless it contains all of these elements. Points are the smallest
currency you earn for doing some predefined actions – like visiting a website, voting in a poll
or taking part in some activity. As one can accumulate these points, one can either spend
them in various ways, for example for extra privileges or virtual items. These points can also
help you to level up – meaning to gain a level. As levels increase you might get access to
some special areas or activities. On the second place – badges, these are usually an award that
serves no other purpose than to show you have accomplished something. They are a sort of
an achievement, and many times come with an exclusive fancy image. This can be to a
certain degree dangerous, because it leads people away from intrinsic motivation towards
extrinsic, and this kind of motivation does not last long. Leader-boards are rankings of
players depending on some criteria - it can be level leader-board, activity leader-board or
some other kind of leader-board. These rankings are very powerful motivators for people who
like competition. These PBLs can take various form and they are successfully used all around
the internet with new and old websites trying to adapt something from this schematic every
day. On the other hand, the users can start to lose interest, mainly in badges, when every
websites tries to drown them in activities to do with associated badges to earn.
1.2 Problems statement:
Proper application of these digital games for the purpose of learning is still a concern as the
educational institutes face challenges to get adapted with the modern technologies which
result in ineffective learning for the students.
6

1.3 Research Questions
The research questions are pointed below
 What are the principles of gamification?
 How the practical uses of gamification influence the performance of the student in
Educational Environment?
 What are the features needs to considered in application of Gamification in
educational environment to improve overall performance?
1.4 Purpose of the research:
The problems that lie in the application of these digital learning games are the basically the
efficient techniques that can be used by the students which can differ according to the choice
of the games. Universities or education institutes often fail to provide their students with the
effective games which can help them to enhance their learning processes. Along with this,
often teachers do not have the skills or knowledge to help their students to get adapted with
the new technologies that are required to play these games. Another problem lies in the fact
that many of the existing games are not efficient or useful enough to help the students learn
their subjects with efficiency. Games bring to mind fun and having a good time. Even the
thought of the word game puts smiles on people's faces. Several definitions have been made
regarding the concept of game as “an adaptation process,” “a bridge between the real and
imagined,” or “a social enterprise.” It is a significant element of human life, especially at
early ages. In fact, the findings of developmental psychology, educational psychology, and
psychology of learning reveal that the games are the most important occupation of a child
during this period of life (Koçyiğit, Tuğluk, & Kök, 2007). Although there is a prevailing
belief that games are specific to children, games are in fact played by people of all ages at all
periods of life. Examples include javelin played by the ancestors of Turks, chess played for
centuries, and football, the most popular game of the contemporary world. Johan Huizinga
draws attention with Homo Ludens to humans who play, not the ones who think. In his book,
Huizinga (1949) highlights the cultural aspect of games and their position in the evolution of
culture. As technology rapidly develops, games play an active role in the change and renewal
processes of social structures.
This research will analyze these problems through various literature based on the subject and
also make use of those to identify the suitable processes which can help in mitigating these
problems to perfection.
7

1.5 Perspective:
The problems that have been identified for this research will be analyzed through the
perspectives of different authors and their articles and journals. With the help of secondary
resources, it will be possible to collect data based on the perspectives on the problems and the
effective methods which can help in solving these problems.
1.6 Delimitations:
This research will collect primary and secondary data and therefore, the real world
perspectives of these problems will be analyzed. This research will also analyze the scientific
data based on the secondary resources. Moreover, the perspectives of the students or the
faculties of the educational institutes will not be the part of the methodology that will be
applied for this research. The delimitation of this study is based on the limited data that will
be used as the part of this research on digital games for learning.
1.7 Definitions:
In this research, the concept will be based on the modern digital learning methods which are
used as the games. In the modern concepts of learning, digital games are highly innovative
and beneficial for the students as they help them to perceive the real world experience which
is not present in the traditional modes of learning (Gros, 2015). In this regard, the definition
of the concept of gamification is highly effective and provides the principles by which these
games are used by the educational institutes for the purpose of education.
1.8 Frame of reference:
This theory is based on the design of investigation as this will investigate the main problems
associated with the application of digital games and the processes by which different steps
and strategies can be used to mitigate the problems with effectiveness. In this process, the
theory will focus on the issues that the students and teachers face while utilizing the digital
learning games and the processes that they can apply to mitigate the problems for
implementing the effective learning process.
The theory that will be used in this research will be used to interpret the data that will be
helpful in the aspect of finding different processes ore strategies which can be used for the
purpose of effective application of digital learning games in the education.
8

1.9 Methodology:
1.9.1 Research design:
The philosophy that will be used for conducting this research will be positivism one as the
focus will be on finding relevant data or information which can help in developing suitable
strategies to make use of the application of digital games with success. The research approach
will be deductive one as well (Antwi & Hamza, 2015). This is because with the help of the
data, the main hypothesis for this research will be deducted to receive the relevant data that
will useful to generate proper findings. Qualitative approach will be used for this research in
the process of collecting detailed perspectives which will be highly useful in the purpose of
analysis in the later stages of this research (Connelly, 2016). Quantitative approach will be
used as well which will help in collecting the data which will based on numeric data and this
will help in conducting proper analysis with that of the qualitative data.
1.9.2 Data collection:
In the method of data collection, primary and secondary resources will be used and in this
process, relevant and useful data will be collected from various articles and journals which
will be based on this topic. As discussed above, the methods of data collection will be
qualitative as well as quantitative one and this will be helpful in the process of collecting the
relevant findings.
1.9.2 Data analysis:
The data analysis of the research will be conducted with the help of proper sampling of data
that will be collected from the secondary resources. The data that will be collected will be
sampled separately by dividing the quantitative and qualitative data. These data will be
compared in the process of generating proper findings of this research.
1.9.3 Results/Empirical findings:
The result of the data collection and analysis is based on the problems that arrive during the
proper application of the digital gaming processes in the education. The problems lie from the
fact that in many educational institutes, proper infrastructures and facilities are not available
to implement the digital games efficiently and secondly, the teachers and the students do not
possess the required skills or knowledge to utilize these advanced methods of learning with
success.
9

1.9.4 Analysis:
By conducting the analysis on the collected data, it has been found that most of the collected
secondary resources focus on the efficient use of the digital education games. In the last few
years, the usefulness of these games have evolved and improved with the help of modern
technologies, however, in most of the scenarios, educational institutes have failed to utilize
these games with significance and this has brought in many constraints in the process of
application of these games for the students and the teachers.
1.10 Structure of the Research
This dissertation is divided into 5 chapters namely Introduction, Literature Review, Research
Methodology, Data Collection and Analysis, and Conclusions and Recommendations. This
structure is based on ideal dissertation structure and is the most effective for this study as it
covers a broad topic such as impact of gamification.
1.11 Conclusions:
This chapter is the introductory part of this research and provided a background of the
research. The research problem has been also derived in this chapter. The purpose of this
research has been highlighted followed by the perspectives for conducting this research. The
methodology part helped in finding the methods by which research will be conducted in this
study. In this process, the methods of data collection and analysis have been also highlighted.
In the next sections, the results and analysis of the collected data have been highlighted in
brief which will be discussed in details in the next chapters of this research.
The findings of this research will help in conducting future researches based on this topic. In
this process, the future research will be conducted on how the strategies that would be
derived from the findings will be useful in the process of making the process of digital games
useful for the students. The analysis that will be conducted will be based on the data that will
be useful in deriving proper findings of the research followed by the methods by which the
application of these games can be highly effective for the educational institutes which use the
digital learning methods for the students.
10

Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
Gamification can be well-defined as the application of gaming mechanics, such as points or
achievements, in non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011a; 2011b). By applying gaming
elements in such contexts, users’ motivation and subsequent behaviors are directed toward
desirable user–machine interactions. While the term’s origins date back to the early 2000s
(Werbach and Hunter, 2012), gamification did not gain widespread attention within
professional and academic circles until close to a decade later, when it became apparent that
game principles and techniques were growing increasingly popular in various social,
academic and professional settings; the term first appeared in Google trend indexing in late
2010 (Google, 2015). The following year, Gartner, a research and advisory firm, expected
that over 70 percent of Global 2000 companies would incorporate gamification in at least one
process by the year 2014 (Gartner, 2011) and Markets and Markets, a market research firm,
forecast that the gamification market would total $5.5 billion annually by 2018 (2011).
However, the next year brought a more dismal outlook, with Gartner predicting that 80
percent of gamified applications would flounder by 2014, failing to meet the business goals
for which they were developed. While research into the effectiveness of gamification in
meeting business and societal goals has produced mixed findings (for example, Domínguez et
al., 2013), the method has clearly maintained popularity; in 2014, Training Industry, Inc., a
market intelligence firm, estimated the revenue for gamification-related training services to
be $274 million globally (Training Industry, Inc., 2015). Further evidence comes from the
plethora of gamification examples found in business, educational and social settings. For
example, it is not uncommon to find gaming elements incorporated into popular social
networking applications (for example, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter). Moreover, gamification
has been applied in academic settings ranging from pre-kindergarten through post-
baccalaureate education (Caponetto et al., 2014). Common workplace contexts in which
gamification has been used include organizational training and development initiatives,
employee selection programs and employee engagement programs (DuVernet and Popp,
2014).
Gamification has established a diverse reviews; while some strongly praise its significance as
a renewed approach to stimulating individuals’ creativity, learning and other productive
behaviors (for example, Burke, 2013; 2014), others criticize the technique, highlighting the
11

potential for exploitation (for example, Bogost, 2011) and mixed results related to its
effectiveness. The growth of consumer electronics in daily life and the increasing amount of
time that individuals devote to various forms of game-like interaction on digital devices, such
as tablets and smartphones, suggests that the role of gamification should not be so easily
dismissed as a temporary fad. Rather, gamification must be considered seriously by both
academics and practitioners as a way to gain insights into the nature of human–computer
interaction and, more generally, into the transformative effects of the growing presence of
digital artifacts in society. This chapter aims to critically assess gamification in an era of
digital transformation, placing it in the contexts of both academic research and practical
applications. The chapter begins with a delineation of the concept, providing detail on the
defining elements of gamification.
2.2 Gamification: Definition and Delineation
The arena of gamification has agonized from a dearth of consent on the definition of its core
concept (Deterding et al., 2011a; Fuchs et al., 2014; Walz and Deterding 2014). Some
definitions limit gamification to digital applications of gaming mechanics (for example,
Domínguez et al., 2013), while others argue that this definition is too narrow (for example,
DuVernet, in press). We believe that non-digital systems can be gamified; however, for the
purposes of this chapter, we focus specifically on digital instances of gamification in line
with the purposes of the volume.
Furthermore, we can coincide with earlier works (DuVernet and Popp, 2014; Kapp, 2014),
which fact to features that separate gamification from other related conceptions (for example,
serious games and simulations). These features include the time interval in which
gamification operates, the users’ experience, and the purposes or desired outcomes of the
technique. Gamified contexts typically influence behavior through the cultivation of longterm
user engagement; in contrast, games and simulations usually include a clear beginning and
end. Users are generally cognizant of their participation in games and simulations while
gamification elements are generally less salient to users, acting as enhancements to the
context with which they are interacting. Finally, while gamification is typically layered over
an existing program or context as a motivational mechanism to encourage user participation,
games and simulation often act as the primary purpose for engagement.
12

2.3 Mechanisms of Influence
When gamification introduces elements from a game into real life, it also has to introduce
some kind of reward that people/players will earn, when they are successful in fulfilling the
objectives, or beating the challenges they will be presented with. Most of the time these
rewards have no physical form, you only earn respect or admiration if you are high-ranked on
a certain leader-board, or you can get access to special features when you have reached a high
enough level, or maybe even alter the game/site when reaching certain criteria. Not to be
dwarfed though, hunger for fame, admiration and respect is powerful motivation for the
human mind and can create the biggest intrinsic motivations there is. People want to be
famous and the competition and leader-boards in work/school can provide them with such
opportunity. Numerous motivational theories provide a supportive lens through which the
impact of gamification on behavior can be interpreted. Within the frame of these theories,
gamification acts to modify user attitudes and behaviors through a number of psychological
mechanisms including goal setting, intrinsic motivation, competition and social collaboration.
Each of the aforementioned gaming elements provide feedback, recognition of achievement,
and indications of status, creating competition amongst users and/or encouraging cooperation
and social collaboration. For example, points provide immediate feedback to users on their
performance by rewarding the user when they perform certain desired behaviors or activities.
The combination of points and leaderboards creates a competitive environment, making
users’ relative standing within groups or across the population of users salient. Similarly,
badges offer performance feedback and encourage social comparisons and competition; users
are able to view others’ badges by reviewing their user information or profiles and displaying
their own achievements in this way. Further, badges, points and leaderboards enact a goal
setting mechanism. By providing explicit or implicit details about the activities or tasks that
will result in rewards these elements serve to direct user attention to clear, specific and
difficult goals, enacting powerful motivational tools to drive user activity. In line with this,
recent research indicates that the mere presence of a leaderboard results in user behavior, goal
setting and goal commitment outcomes equivalent to those observed with classic, explicit
goal-setting initiatives (Landers et al., 2015). Level and narrative gamification elements also
serve to stimulate goal-setting behaviors by directing users’ attention and behaviors to
specific tasks necessary to complete a level or progress through the storyline. By creating sub
goals that move users through progressively more difficult levels or storyline milestones,
these elements serve to direct attention towards desired activities, successively build skills,
13

and foster self-efficacy for activity completion by users (Papastergiou, 2009; Perryer et al.,
2012; Lu et al., 2012; Popescu et al., 2012). Moreover, much research has demonstrated the
significant, positive relationships between self-efficacy for task success and both motivation
to complete the task and performance within the task (Mitchell and Daniels, 2003); thus by
positively impacting user self-efficacy, gamified contexts motivate continued interaction.
Finally, while leaderboards and badges tend to enact competitive, social comparison
mechanisms, virtual goods tend to encourage collaboration; by incorporating this element,
gamified contexts allow users to interact, barter trades, and work headed for collective
objectives in a common way.
Extrinsic motivation is driven by external factors and rewards, whereas intrinsic motivation is
driven primarily by the inherent value of completing a task, in and of itself (Staw, 1976).
Research has shown that the provision of external rewards can strengthen extrinsic
motivation at the expense of intrinsic motivation (Mitchell and Daniels, 2003). As
manifestations of accomplishments, visible rewards, such as points, virtual goods, and
badges, may serve as extrinsic motivators (Antin and Churchill, 2011), but fall short of
creating sustained effort (Mekler et al., 2013) because they in turn reduce users’ intrinsic
motivation for engaging with the system. Much work has demonstrated the superiority of
intrinsic rewards over extrinsic rewards in terms of motivating long-term behavior (Deci et
al., 1999; Deci and Ryan, 2000; Ryan and Deci, 2000). Thus, the most common features of
gamification (for example, points, badges and leaderboards) may not suffice as meaningful
long-term motivators (Deterding, 2012; Mekler et al., 2013). Some evidence has shown that
both user enjoyment and desired outcomes (for example, user behaviors, engagement) decline
with use and interaction with gamified scenarios (Koivisto and Hamari, 2014). Fleming
(2012) suggests that the two types of rewards interact in a more articulated way: extrinsic
rewards can stimulate the formation of intrinsically oriented sources of motivation, especially
when receiving an extrinsic reward for an achievement also carries a significant symbolic
meaning for the recipient. Deterding et al. (2011b) suggested that games should provide
‘situated motivational affordances’, wherein game-like features enhance motivation through
their addition to activities that are already intrinsically valuable for participants (Paharia,
2012b; Watson, 2014). If sources of motivation are properly understood, gamification design
can include inducements to amplify existing ‘signals’ (that is, genuine intrinsic interest) into
sustained attention and energy toward desired actions within the structure.
14

However alternative speculative frame from which to view the influence of gamification is
that of Csikszentmihalyi’s (2008) ‘flow theory’, which holds that individuals experience
optimal work ‘flow’ when they are involved in activities that provide an adequate balance
between challenge and skill. Excessively difficult challenges induce frustration and activity
abandonment. Activities that present an inadequate challenge with respect to individual skill
and ability levels can lead to disinterest and abandonment as well. A gamified system can
activate a ‘flow’ experience in users when the content, layering of elements, mode and style
are carefully designed to generate an ideal balance between simplicity and exertion.
2.4 Applications in the Real World
Irrespective of the apparatuses through which gamification impacts user behavior, it’s clear
that digital enterprise systems are increasingly incorporating this technique into user
interfaces. Research conducted by Hamari and Koivisto (2015a) points to the major purposes
for which gamification services are typically used, including increased utility and ease of use,
amplified user enjoyment and playfulness, and to a lesser extent, greater recognition and
social influence. Gamification has been applied in academic settings to attain each of these
drives. Companies all over the world are looking for ways to "gamify" their processes or
websites. Explanation of the term "Gamification" and "gamify" is in order. Gamification is
the act of introducing game aspects into non-game environment. For example, putting badges
or levels into a person’s management system, where people earn levels/badges for getting to
work on time. This is done in order to make everyday activities, which may be quite
mundane, a little bit more interesting and exciting. This approach is mainly interesting for the
new generation, which has been in contact with computers and computer games almost since
they were born. Gamification for these people provides motivation, easy to see challenges
and competition as well as rewards for carrying out activities. This chapter will focus on
introducing basic terms and psychological effects of popular gamification tools of today’s
world. There are many sites now that use gamification on even the most basic activities. Even
things like completing your profile can be gamified. There are also things outside of
computer world that can be gamified.
2.4.1 Educational Applications of Gamification
The usage of gamification in educational settings has grown considerably, as evidenced by
the rise in published literature citing its use in academic settings, from 206 in 2011 to 1,620
studies in 2013 (Caponetto et al., 2014). While numerous works suggest that it can result in
positive effects on learners’ motivation and performance (for example, Caponetto et al.,
15

2014; Hamari et al., 2014; Domínguez et al., 2013; Rouse, 2013), the literature is still unclear
in terms of when and how exactly gamification exerts a positive influence on academic
performance and learning. Sung and Hwang (2013), for example, found that a collaborative
educational game helped students in encouraging learning attitudes and motivation, and in
improving their learning achievements and self-efficacy. Further research has shown that
gamification can support learning through the provision of both immediate and delayed
feedback (Perryer et al., 2012; Crookall, 2010; Popescu et al., 2012). Domínguez et al.
(2013), however, provides a more tempered view: while students exposed to gamified
experiences performed better on practical assignments, their performance on written
assignments and their participation in class activities suffered. Thus, while gamification
seems functional in motivating student learning efforts and fueling additional sources of
interest towards the subjects studied, additional research work is needed to specify how
precisely gamified learning should be designed and implemented. For example, Landers and
Landers (2014) suggest certain conditions must be met in order for gamification to enhance
course performance, including the provision of time-bound leaderboard tasks that are
specific, measurable and realistically achievable.
It can be rational to ensue on the FarmVille case for a enhanced understanding in explanation
the elements of gamification. FarmVille is a game developed by Zynga Company and played
by nearly 65 million people (Farmville, 2015). In terms of dynamics, there is a story built on
farming. The player is a farmer and has to go through several steps in order to open new
fields and grow new products. These limitations constitute a advancement structure for the
game. In the game process, there are unexpected situations, which are about mechanics. In
other words, there are additional prizes, depending on the chance factor, in addition to a
certain prize that the player can earn when planting a product or doing a specific job. The
player’s earning these additional awards based on luck keeps desire alive by means of the
idea of "Do I earn again?" Furthermore, it can be explained by exchange and cooperation that
sharing a product with a friend, supplying something that he/she is in need of, and asking for
something someone needs from others. Additionally, visiting a field of a friend creates a
competitive environment. The mechanics are seen more clearly in games. The points are
earned in games, the levels are passed, the badges are received, and a ranking between friends
is presented. The exploitation of the detailed gamification structure in education emerges as a
process of gamification of education. Lee and Hammer (2011) claim that gamification and
education will be in great harmony. Gamification of education can be seen as a process of
16

affecting student achievement and their attitudes towards the courses positively and
increasing their attention and motivation by the transference of a popular games’ gamification
structure, such as that of FarmVille, to the educational processes. In this process, the course
itself becomes a game in which student achievement means completing the game.
2.4.2 Gamification in training
Conceivably the most prevalent application of gamification in the work has been in corporate
training and development. For example, research conducted at Training Industry, Inc. points
to the growing popularity of gamification in learning and development initiatives. From 2012
to 2013, organizations using gamification within sales training grew from approximately 8
percent to approximately 18 percent (Taylor, 2014). Even more evidence for the common use
of gamification in training initiatives came in 2015, when Training Industry, Inc. reported
that approximately 37 percent of organizations had embedded or were planning to embed
gamification in their learning management systems (LMS) and 36 percent were using or
planning to use gamification in training content. Thus, it is clear that gamification has
become a common application in corporate learning and development programs.
These numbers are not surprising; gamification is purported to make learning fun and
increase learner motivation and accountability. Further, e-learning has become quite
prevalent within training and development initiatives, making it convenient and feasible to
supplement learning contexts with gaming elements that are dependent on technology. These
elements serve to encourage participation and interaction in virtual training by rewarding
points or badges to learners based on their interactions with each other, the instructor or the
platform. Learners progress through hierarchical levels and are awarded points or badges to
designate the completion of learning milestones, such as specific modules and sessions, or the
successful demonstration of learned skills or knowledge. As in the educational space, the
popularity of gamification contrasts with mixed empirical results regarding its impact on
corporate learning and development outcomes. While some research has indicated that
gamification can lead to improved learner reactions (that is, affective experiences including
satisfaction and perceived utility of training; Taylor, 2014), and both engagement and
motivation to complete and apply training on the job (Dong et al., 2012), other research
provides more tempered results pointing to both context and individual differences as
moderators of those relationships (for example, Armstrong and Landers, 2015). Case
examples, however, emphasize performance, learning and motivational improvements. For
17

example, Kapp (2014) reports a 45 percent reduction in safety incidents and claims following
the introduction of gamification into Pep Boys’ training program.
2.5 Perspectives on Gamification
The opportunity to employ digital technologies in this way unleashed a proliferation of
enthusiastic consultants and software developers eager to promote this technique as an
enhancement to various managerial and marketing issues. Too many, however, the buzz
generated by gamification obfuscated the actual function of gamification, hampering a
thorough investigation and purposeful application of gamification for desired outcomes.
Setting the hype aside, a balanced approach and interpretation of gamification is warranted.
Gamification will generally not act as a ‘quick fix’ for organizations seeking to boost
employee morale and productivity, attract and retain customers, or otherwise positively
impact digital engagement goals (Juul, 2011; Robson et al., 2015). Various criticisms aimed
at this technique must be considered before choosing to implement gamification in practice.
Below, we summarize three main themes of such criticisms, including the foundations of
gamification in motivational theory, the potential for deception and exploitation in the use of
this technique, and data privacy concerns. A major critique of gamification targets its
presumed motivational effects. Motivating individuals and groups to engage in certain
desired tasks and behaviors is central to the purpose of gamification. Yet the relationship
between the introduction of game-like features and both motivation to complete activities and
actual behaviors is not straightforward. Much of the literature around gamification posits
claims that oversimplify the complex interaction between a game setting and individual
personality, attitudes and behavioral drivers. The foundation of gamification in motivational
theory is often overlooked in the research literature and, as previously mentioned, its impact
on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation remains unclear. Further, the impact of gamification on
desired outcomes has often been studied under less than rigorous experimental conditions,
leading to questions surrounding the conclusions drawn in much of the extant empirical
literature (Hamari et al., 2014; Lieberoth, 2015). Another critique emerging in the
gamification literature relates to the ethical and moral implications of its use (Bogost, 2011).
Gamification often includes some form of deception (Burawoy, 1979), and inherent in its use
is the implication that it encourages the user to engage in behaviors desired by the designer of
the context. It is clear that these desired behaviors can be positive or negative for the user. To
the extent that those behaviors are detrimental or behaviors in which users would prefer not
to engage (for example, pay-for-play applications), gamification may be unethical.
18

On the other hand, gamification often has been used to motivate healthy, self-promoting and
consensual behaviors, as detailed above (for example, Hamari and Koivisto, 2015b). Finally,
some critics fear that the introduction of game-like features into non-game activities
contributes to an unaccounted proliferation of surveillance systems that pose threats to
privacy and democracy (Whitson, 2013). When individuals – in their roles as employees,
customers or simply citizens – interact with digital systems, they are providing information
about their preferences, inclinations, skill and capabilities. The deception inherent in
presenting these activities as game-like may obscure the tracking processes that generate
stocks of data about individual conduct and patterns of group behavior (Rossi, 2014).
Concerns arise about the value of this information, access to it, and the ways in which it is
used. In the case of data collection, organizations and individuals employing gamification
must not only consider ethical and moral obligations, but also legal regulations on the
collection and use of individual data. It is likely that the legal implications of gamification
and the use of data collected therein will continue to evolve.
2.6 Prospects for Future Research
Deterding (2014), for instance, posits that it is possible to ‘establish an alternative, more
promising framing of gamification before discourses and institutions have fully solidified’.
While research has begun to unravel the impact of gamification, it is clear that a more
structured approach is needed to determine the effects, implications and best practices for the
use of gamification (for example, Deterding 2014b). Armstrong and Landers’ (2015) work
serves as an exemplar of this type of research. In their investigation, the authors adopted a
framework, the TechnologyEnhanced Training Effectiveness Mode, allowing them to test
individual differences in experience and attitudes toward technology, and to determine how
such differences impact the relationship between game design and training effectiveness.
Below, we outline several avenues of future research that we believe will advance the field
and enhance our understanding of this relatively new technique; each of these should be
studied using a systematic, theoretically rooted approach. First, more work is needed to
properly assess the outcomes of gamification. Despite its pervasive presence in social,
academic and business practices, the extant literature has done little to parcel out the separate
and combined impacts of gaming elements. Sharpening our understanding of these elements
is critical to effective game design. While scholars generally agree that effective gamification
architecture is not just a matter of assembling game-like features (for example, points,
badges, leaderboards and so on) and providing rules for interaction (for example, turn-based
19

moves or chance events; Paharia, 2012a; Werbach and Hunter, 2012; Seaborn and Fels,
2015), evidence-based best practice recommendations are still lacking. While some work has
focused on perceptions of various elements (Hsu et al., 2013), more research is needed to
move beyond affective reactions to investigate the relationships between various gaming
elements and more distal outcomes. Secondly, we must gain a better gratitude of what makes
people engage in gamified situations and how those elements relate to the withholding of
players’ interest and enjoyment over time. In this respect, the field of neuroscience can
provide clarification regarding the chemical effects of playing games on the brain and,
relatedly, on individuals’ attention, memory, drives and mood. Past studies have suggested
that the enjoyment of playing a game may be related to the production of serotonin, which is
also involved in inhibiting actions that result in punishments (Crockett et al., 2008; Emanuele
et al., 2008; Faulkner and Deakin, 2014; Sul, 2015). The compulsion to engage in gameplay
has also been linked to dopamine levels (Berridge and Kringelbach, 2008; Berridge et al.,
2009; Berridge, 2012; Lewis-Evans, 2013; Robinson et al., 2005), which play an important
role in the formation of initiative and desire. When gameplay prompts an addictive response,
it is plausible that this result from offering the appropriate inducements and signals to
stimulate the production of neurotransmitters associated with sustained desire and pleasure
(Rigby and Ryan, 2011). Research into the effects of games on brain chemistry may result in
more fine-grained explanations of user behavior than can be provided by more traditional
motivational theories (for example, Skinner’s operant conditioning, Skinner, 1938; 1971;
1974; and goal-setting theory, Locke and Latham, 2002).
As previously mentioned, research has shown that extrinsic rewards can have detrimental
effects on motivation (Deci, 1975; Deci et al., 1999; Deci and Ryan 2000; Ryan and Deci,
2000). By understanding sources of motivation, gamification architects may be better able to
align gaming elements to desired outcomes, leveraging existing intrinsic interest to create
long-term user engagement and behavioral impact (Paharia, 2012b; Watson, 2014). This is
especially relevant given evidence that user enjoyment and gamification utility seem to
decline with use (Koivisto and Hamari, 2014). To the extent that gamification enacts an
extrinsic reward system within users, it may result in short- but not long-term user motivation
and engagement. Longitudinal work is needed to investigate this possibility. Moreover,
research must also focus on the types of outcomes that may result from gamification. Other
authors have highlighted the importance of designing gamification to encourage imaginative
and creative solutions (Deterding et al., 2011b; Huotari and Hamari, 2012).
20

Gamification can vary in the extent to which the gamified activities tend to induce individuals
to perform highly structured and repetitive tasks or fairly explorative and unrestrained
undertakings. Different design principles, however, apply to games that are intended to spur
imagination and creativity, because they should create conditions that are conducive to free-
form, spontaneous and unregulated playfulness (paidia, as opposed to ludus, as per Caillois,
1961). Although devising such games may present more challenges than the gamification of
structured and repetitive tasks, the kind of intellectual effort that they require could lead to a
better understanding of gamification and its likely consequences (see for example Deterding
et al., 2011b; Huotari and Hamari, 2012).
Lastly, the probable for transformative effects from the artificial intelligence (AI) that
administers gaming systems should not be overlooked. AI has exhibited dramatic
improvements in recent years, especially in its capacity to detect, distinguish and categorize
patterns using video, audio and other sensorial data (Nilsson, 2014). AI could be leveraged to
fine-tuning algorithmic capacity to process and anticipate human behavioral patterns. As
gamification provides a venue for tracking humans’ behavior under changing conditions, it
offers the opportunity to set up a ‘virtual laboratory’ wherein AI can test hypotheses about
humans’ reactions to behavioral clues and thus produce a transformative effect in the way
that AI identifies general patterns for influencing the human side of the human–computer
interaction system.
2.7 Related work
Kahoot
Kahoot is very useful application for interaction between students and teachers. This
application is probably the best that I’ve come across in my studies. It engages students in
providing answers and shows the correct answer after each question along with how many
people voted for each answer. After that a scoreboard of all participants of the current quiz is
shown. The differences between this application and the application this thesis aims to deliver
are similar to the previous case. As great as this application is, it still doesn’t provide any
persistence between single events. What is much desired at university and education system,
is the ability to register a course and then be part of the course for whole semester. Without
the need to sign up for a new quiz each time class starts. Another point is that the questions
are in a given order and go one after the other. During university lecture, it is very important
to be able to choose questions at will in any order and even to be able to create new questions
during the lecture and present them right away, or at any given point.
21

Gamification by Megan Ellis
Gamification introduced in her class by Megan Ellis will be our first example. Megan is
seventh grade English teacher. She implemented a fairly simple form of gamification in her
classes. It consists of students getting points for doing their homework, bringing their books
to class and being active during lesson. They can also lose points if they disturb the lesson or
behave in other non-desired way. After they get enough points, they level up and receive a
present depending on their level. There is also a present for whole class, if they are the first
class in which everybody reaches a certain level. This encourages team spirit. Megan uses
pen and paper to keep track of the points of her students. There is no IT technology involved.
Ever since she started using this gamification, her students were more likely to bring their
books into class and pay more attention to the lecture. An anticipation of class reward also
arose when the class was close to earning a class reward and people were more likely to
encourage their more lazy classmates to try and level up, so the whole class profits. In case
some other class was first to reach a certain level with all students, the other classes could not
receive the class reward anymore. This is pretty good example, showing how easy it is to
gamifiy a lesson. The introduction of gamification to the class increased participation and
enjoyment of the lesson. It created an intrinsic motivation for the young students to try and
get more points so they can level up. The drawbacks are that the management of this is
harder, using only pen and paper, as well as manually updating the online leaderboards.
Straw Poll and other polls
Straw poll and other online polls can provide great interaction possibilities for teachers and
students during classes with more than 50 people present. As the number of students in a
class increases, it is harder and harder to get information from every student. Using a straw
poll, teacher can create a question and all the students can voice their answer. In a matter of
seconds, the teacher can see the results of the voting for example in case he asked whether the
students know about a certain technology, the teacher can see the number of students voting
for "yes" or "no". Depending on the outcome, the teacher can dedicate a few minutes to
explain the technology or skip it. There is no anxiety or fear of voting that you have not heard
about the technology, in comparison with a typical classroom where students are supposed to
raise hands, where some students may feel pressured not to express their opinion so they do
not look inexperienced. Advantage in using this tool is getting immediate feedback from
many people at once and seeing exactly how many people answered "yes" or "no". The
disadvantage is that every time you create a poll, you have to distribute the poll number to all
22

the students who have to write it into their browser. This tool uses computers or mobile
phones to work.
Event polls
Another type of polls that are already being used at events are represented by sites like:
"sli.do" [3] or "pigeonhole.at" [2]. These could very well be used at universities as well.
However they come with certain drawbacks such as the fee for using them is around 200
euros per week or being limited in number of polls one can create. Another difference
between these products and the system this thesis aims to create is the persistent nature of the
answers. These polls do not award any points to people answering the questions, so the
system is used just to generate feedback from the people at the event. System created in this
thesis will create a persistent environment where students who answer questions correctly
will get points and therefore might be motivated a little bit more in studying and getting the
answers right.
2.8 Conclusion and Recommendations
First, game elements should be aligned with desired outcomes or goals (Huckabee and
Bissette, 2014). Werbach and Hunter (2012) highlighted that a well-crafted game should
assemble the components of a game system in an appropriate way. Building on Hunicke et al.
(2004), Robson et al. (2015) emphasize the importance of distinguishing between game
mechanics (that is, rules and procedures), game dynamics (that is, the conduct and interaction
between players), and emotions (that is, the sort of emotional effects that playing a game
invokes). Second, the relative difficulty level utilized should be considered; flow theory
suggests that gamified contexts should be sufficiently but not overly challenging (Huckabee
and Bissette, 2014). Landers and Landers (2014) recommend designing gamified scenarios to
incorporate tasks that are achievable, realistic, specific and time bound. Third, gamified
contexts should be properly tested before implementation to ensure they are producing their
desired effects. Empirical results suggest that gamification does not always result in positive
user experiences, behaviors and desired outcomes. It is imperative that gamification be
implemented only after ascertaining its effects. More research is needed to provide evidence-
based recommendations on the design and application of gamification in various digital
initiatives; however, the work that has been done points to several guidelines. The increased
prevalence of gamification points to its staying power. There is some evidence to suggest that
gamification can bring about remarkable effects in the areas of selfimprovement (for
23

example, Nike+, Fitbit and so on), high-end, creative jobs (for example, TopCoder, Kaggle,
Stack Overflow, Wikistrat), workplace practices and education. In applying gamification, it is
important to consider its ethical implications as well as to ensure its design aligns well with
the desired outcomes. As digital transformations continue, our understanding of gamification
and its various applications will inevitably evolve.
24

Chapter 3: Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction
There are several academes that have employed gamification in some of its disciplines. De
Sousa Borges, Reis, Durelli and Isotani report, in their systematic mapping of work related to
gamification in education, that the great majority of studies carried out have as target
audience students of higher education, where most of those studies have as main objective to
evaluate the degree of engagement of academics through activities built according to
gamification concepts. Becker et al. (2012) believe that the freedom to choose which
contents, activities, and ways of problem solving in educational contexts is one of the factors
that best defines gamification applied correctly. In the experience that the researchers
conducted in a classroom with masters’ students, a great majority of them praised the myriad
of available choices, although it should be noted that, due to the huge amount of activities, a
combination of individualized activities with automated marking is required. Another aspect
considered as a key element for a gamified system is to allow repetition of activities with low
performance and provide a variety of paths that students can take to reach the end of the
course. In addition to the frameworks already mentioned, several others were considered for
the development of the conceptual framework for the gamification of higher education.
Frameworks from platforms such as Open Badge, BadgeOS and Open Badge Passport, which
are based primarily on the use of digital badges to validate skills and competences were
disregarded in the development of the framework presented in this paper, due to the high
dependence on a single element of extrinsic motivation.
3.2 Conceptual Framework for Gamification
The frameworks for gamification derive mainly from studies on games and psychology.
Nicholson observed in his studies developing frameworks for gamification that there is no
single system that will benefit all users, and that in order to reach as many people as possible
they need users to feel in control in order to facilitate learning and increase the sense of
mastery over the system. The author argues that gamified system designers should not start
developing a system based only on external rewards. Although not developed with gamified
systems in mind, the game design framework called Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics
(MDA) is commonly used to understand and describe particular elements of a game based on
its user visibility. Developed as a tool to help designers, researchers and scholars better
understand aspects of a game, the MDA framework seeks to narrow the gap between the
25

design, development, study, and criticism of a game, being also used as a base for gamified
applications. After analyzing case studies, concepts, models and frameworks for gamification
aimed at use in higher education, a conceptual framework was developed, divided into five
layers, containing elements and concepts used in the researched papers. These layers are
shown below.
3.2.1 Feedback Layer
It comprises components that sustenance the gamified system, providing rewards for students
(extrinsic rewards) and feedback, such as individual assessment and frequency. These
elements will be better explained below:
Powers: Single-use advantages that students can use to facilitate their progress in a
determined subject. These powers can be acquired by means of coins, badges or items;
Avatar: Digital representation of the student, which can be customized through items;
Items: Accessories used on a student's avatar that can be donated by positively reputed
students to promote a cooperative environment in the classroom. Students may also decide to
exchange items among themselves through prior negotiation between the parties involved.
Some of the accessories available for avatars should enable the acquisition of powers, or be
required to perform specific activities;
Coins: An element that relates to the amount of experience and reputation points acquired.
When you earn experience points, a percentage of the value you earn is accrued as coins. By
increasing his reputation, the student gradually increases the percentage of coins that can be
acquired, and vice versa;
Experience points: Element that can be used as substitute for marks and can also serve as a
metric for unlocking powers or for obtaining coins;
Badges: Elements that allow the student to visualize their achievements and be recognized by
them. It is expected that they will be made available to students who perform extracurricular
tasks, not to indicate how many experience points they have. It is also important that they be
associated with the powers that students can obtain, avoiding to be only an aesthetic resource;
Reputation: An element used to increase the amount of coins a student can acquire and to
allow the exchange of gifts. Students who acquire badges, or contribute in some positive way
to the progress of classes, increase their reputations;
26

Hall of fame: Students who excelled in classroom gain the chance to have their achievements
published in some digital medium, so that these students can use this recognition in their
curricula;
Levels: Element that relate to the points of experience and used to refer to a student's grade
by designating different categories depending on the number of experience points acquired;
Progress bar: Visual representation of experience points;
Leaderboard: Visual representation of the progress of all players, in order to compare their
progress;
Health: Element used as a substitute for frequency. When a student does not attend a class, a
health unit is reduced from their total amount. When it reaches zero, the student is unable to
successfully complete the discipline, even if it has the minimum amount of experience points
required. But it is possible to recover lives through special activities, or through the use of
coins to acquire it.
3.2.2 Activities Layer
It comprises the learning material and activities that will be developed, containing short and
long term goals.
3.2.3 Pedagogical Layer
Based on approaches used in association with gamification, such as:
Adaptive learning: Adaptive learning proposes to flexibilize the learning environment, either
implicitly (automatic) or explicit (according to the individual's desire), so that the content can
be presented in a personalized way;
Flipped classroom: A form of teaching where participants study prior to going to the
classroom, and there the content is deepened through practical exercises or case studies.
Information and communication technologies (ICTs): Technologies that can be used for
distance and face-to face teaching
3.2.4 Narrative Layer
Layer inspired by the framework developed by Nicholson [21]. It involves two types of
strategies:
Use of fictional narratives that deal with content related to the real world;
27

Development of scenarios that begin in the real world, but have fictional elements and can
culminate in a fantasy development
It’s important that, regardless of the strategy used, students have the power to modify the
story presented, depending on their actions and allowing them to create their own stories.
3.2.5 Motivational Layer
Layer based on the work of Suh, Wagner and Liu (2015). It involves concepts that serve as
triggers for the development of intrinsic motivation in students, such as: Collaboration;
Competition; Progression; Creativity; Personalization; Exploration; Discovery; Relationships;
Altruism; Freedom of choice and Freedom to fail.
3.3 Research Design
The intension of this rerearch to determine students’ views about the gamification of
educational processes, Q methodology, which contains an arrangement of quantitative and
qualitative data collection processes, was used. Q methodology aims to put forward
perspectives of the respondents, ideas, attitudes and beliefs instinctively and methodically in
the scientific research process (Brown, 1993). The Q methodology emerging within the
discipline of psychology and introduced into the social sciences is a method in which the
strengths of quantitative and qualitative methods are combined together and data analysis is
performed via specific software (Brown, 1996; Demir & Kul, 2011). The most important
advantages of this method are determining whether the research groups unify under a specific
theme, putting forward in what direction their common thoughts are, if this is the case, and
prioritizing common ideas. Additionally, as Watts and Stenner (2005) suggested, large
numbers of participants are not required for Q methodological studies. In this study, Q
methodology was used to determine whether the students’ views unified around a common
ground and to put forward a ranking between the subthemes. It can be asserted that a
structure revealed by means of Q methodology equals a scale development process to some
extent. Although it resembles exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in terms of the principal
component analysis procedure, it has important distinctions in principle. In a scale
development process, a survey is administered to people, and the items in different
dimensions are determined by means of principal component analysis in EFA. In Q
methodology, items are administered to people, but people are grouped by means of principal
component analysis instead of items. In other words, factors in Q methodology refer to
groups who think correspondingly.
28

3.4 Data collection methods
An exploratory research was carried out, consisting of the study of material already
elaborated so as to have a greater familiarity with the problem, with a view to the
improvement of ideas or the discovery of intuitions. The databases used for this research
were the Science Direct, IEEE Xplore, and Springer, using as keywords the terms
"Gamification Education" and "Gamification Framework", with a total of 612 articles being
found. From these articles, the title, abstract and keywords were analyzed and, after that, a
screening was done using as a reference an adaptation of the systematic mapping process
used by de Sousa Borges et al. (2014), applying some inclusion and exclusion criteria taken
from their work and others elaborated by the authors. The inclusion criteria applied were as
follows:
 Presents definitions and frameworks on gamification that can be used in academic
context, or only focused on an educational context;
 Have a major focus on the use of gamification in higher education;
 Have a main focus on the use of gamification in the study of cognition in adults;
And the following exclusion criteria:
 Aimed at the use of gamification in elementary and/or middle school students;
 Aimed at the study of gamification in the cognition of children;
 With frameworks aimed at the corporate environment;
 On game-based learning that did not focus on the use of gamification;
3.5 Sample population
In case of primary data, quantitative data is collective the participants of the study consisted
of 34 sophomores in elementary mathematics education in Faculty of Education, London who
volunteered to participate in the Q methodology implementation and had taken the
Instructional Principles and Methods course in a gamified design in the fall 2019 semester.
“Teaching Principles and Methods” was a three-credit lesson for 150 minutes. In this process,
90 minutes are allocated to face-to-face learning, while distance learning comprises 60
minutes. The qualitative data is collected from interviews conducted with professors from
different areas of research of the Digital Systems and Media program at the King's College
London, in order to have their opinion on the structure of the framework, as well as
suggestions for improving it. Altogether, 14 teachers were interviewed through semi
structured interviews, discussing six topics: Gamification concept, Analysis of the feedback
29

layer, Analysis of the activities layer, Analysis of the pedagogical layer, Analysis of the
narrative layer and Analysis of the motivational layer.
In case of secondary data collection, after the screening, 145 articles were selected, which
went through a new screening involving the reading of the abstracts, introduction and
conclusion, to again apply the previous inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulting in a subset
of 110 primary studies. From these papers, concepts and case studies related to gamification
were analyzed, including the application of frameworks and models for the educational field
in higher education.
3.6 Application for Q Methodology
The students took an active part during the process in which mechanics, dynamics, and
components of gamification were included, and they completed the game-like course as
players. Gamification principles were taken into consideration in the curriculum design. At
first, additional educational attainments about game dynamics, mechanics, and components
were determined. After that, integration of the gamification process consisting of dynamics,
mechanics, and components into the educational process began. The structural design was
used in the Q methodology implementation. In this kind of design, the items should be
formed based on the literature. A total of 18 items based on the literature were created about
game design, including both a positive and a negative statement for each of the nine main
dimensions, and they were randomly distributed.
Table 1: Q Methodology Items
Dynamics
Logic of the
process
A gamified presentation of the lesson makes the course process
more effective.
Gamification of a lesson just consists of scoring permanently.
Emotions I am pleased to participate in a lesson with gamification.
The process of gamification is boring.
Advancement
structure
It is motivating to progress by studying the issues in a specific
sequence.
It is an unnecessary obligation to review previous issues before
studying the next ones for a lesson
Mechanics Competition Being in competition keeps my excitement alive.
A competitive environment alienates me from the course.
Cooperation I put forth better products together with my friends.
I prefer working alone on a study.
Component Achievement Points awarded in the course are encouraging.
30

Point
It is unnecessary to give scores in the course process.
Medals (xp) Earning medal improves commitment to the course process.
Earning medal doesn’t have any importance.
Badges It motivates me to win badges.
There is no impact of earning badges on commitment to the
process.
Level I make an effort to reach the highest level.
Levels are simple steps that everyone passes.
As shown in Table 1, three of nine dimensions are relevant to the dynamics, two of them are
related to the mechanics, and four of them are associated with the components of
gamification. Before the application stage, a pilot study was done with seven participants, and
the items were finalized. The items were placed on small piece of papers on the Q string by
the students according to their degree of participation in items, and the students views’ were
collected about the gamification design. Data were analyzed via the PQMethod 2.35
software package. As shown in Table 2, the normal distribution schema between the edges of
-3 and +3 was used in the Q string.
3.7 Ethical Consideration
The ethical aptitude that has been considered while doing this research:
 Confidentiality of the information of all the participants.
 The views of the participants are of their own, no one was being forced to take a part
in this research
 In this research all the collected data are genuine and collected through qualitative
interviews and quantitative surveys by the researchers
 The research is done solely for academic purpose, not for commercial persistence
31

Chapter 4: Data Analysis
4.1 Quantitative Research
In the data analysis of students’ views about the gamification of educational processes,
whether the students’ views unify around a common ground for the concept of gamification
at the first step was examined. For this purpose, the principal component analysis and
rotations were made in the PQMethod, and the results are presented in Table 3. The
participants are numbered as p1, p2, etc., in the table.
Part. /
Factor
1 2 3 4 5 6
p1 0.8467X -0.2121 -0.0291 0.0160 0.2592 -0.0272
p2 0.6214X -0.3192 -0.3263 0.4747 -0.0937 -0.0428
p3 0.6987X 0.3806 0.2654 -0.3393 -0.1155 0.2293
p4 0.4002 -0.3635 0.6565X 0.0701 -0.0184 -0.2794
p5 0.6236X 0.4422 0.3262 0.0422 0.2851 -0.0731
p6 0.9139X 0.0202 -0.1040 0.1176 0.0088 -0.1676
p7 0.8485X -0.1713 -0.1200 -0.1377 0.0401 -0.1090
p8 0.2510 0.6028X 0.1279 0.2873 -0.4681 -0.2287
p9 0.3264 -0.1715 -0.5401 -0.6317X 0.0584 -0.0316
p10 0.8682X -0.1580 -0.0029 -0.2427 -0.1782 -0.0071
p11 0.7749X -0.4623 0.1062 0.0483 -0.0089 0.2463
p12 0.6165X 0.3809 0.4047 0.3226 0.0445 -0.1467
p13 0.5955X -0.5231 0.0232 0.2503 0.0214 0.2565
p14 0.8120X -0.0256 -0.2936 0.2721 -0.1872 0.1479
p15 0.7614X -0.2894 0.0294 0.1343 0.1204 0.2177
p16 0.8016X -0.2362 -0.3203 0.1284 0.0998 -0.0151
p17 0.7805X 0.2321 -0.1043 -0.2239 0.0728 0.1195
p18 0.6913X 0.0088 -0.4584 0.0307 0.2247 0.2061
p19 0.7565X -0.4921 -0.0454 0.1335 0.0958 -0.1898
p20 0.7188X 0.4449 0.0278 -0.2697 -0.0072 0.2344
p21 0.7534X -0.4862 -0.1848 0.0059 0.0351 0.0755
p22 0.1858 -0.6617X 0.4163 -0.1818 -0.2293 -0.0513
p23 0.6068X -0.0891 -0.3626 0.0989 0.3262 -0.0873
p24 0.7213X 0.1122 0.1116 -0.2370 -0.3463 0.2835
p25 0.5976X 0.1758 -0.1922 -0.0551 -0.3093 -0.2745
p26 0.5656 -0.6006X 0.2323 0.1681 -0.2821 0.0349
p27 0.7608X -0.3203 -0.3413 -0.0527 -0.0735 -0.0569
p28 0.7898X -0.0495 -0.1139 -0.1738 -0.2832 0.2621
p29 0.2276 0.2018 0.2324 0.3792 0.4860 0.6472X
p30 0.7453X 0.3952 -0.1812 -0.2471 0.0620 -0.3413
p31 0.7235X 0.1718 -0.2651 -0.1312 -0.2033 0.4132
p32 0.1501 0.7726X -0.0848 0.3702 -0.1492 0.1081
p33 0.1735 0.1319 -0.4273 0.6760X -0.1655 -0.1215
p34 0.4764 0.2995 0.0991 -0.1291 0.6758X -0.2852
Table 2: Factor Loadings Table
32

The factor loadings of 34 participants in the sample are shown in the table. As a result of the
principal component analysis and rotations, the 34 participants were grouped under six
factors. The symbol X was used to demonstrate the participants involved in the relevant
factor, and the values were marked in bold. It was established that there were 25 participants
in the first factor (column), 4 participants in the second factor, 2 participants in the fourth
factor, and 1 participant in the third, fifth, and sixth factors. It can be interpreted as a general
character of the group that 25 of total participants (74% of 34 students) were grouped under
one of the dimensions in the research. In this respect, students’ views regarding the gamified
course process are similar to great extent, and it is a requisite to examine on which common
ground this similarity is and which items are considered more important. Table 4 presents the
items, Z values for the items, and Z score rankings of items in each group (factors). The items
are listed according to the participation degree of the 25 students grouped under the first
factor.
Table 3: Z Values and the Order of Importance of the Items
Points awarded in the course
are 1.35 1 -0.45 11 0.54 7 -0.21 11 1.62 2 -1.62 18
encouraging.
A gamified presentation of the lesson
makes the course process more 1.21 2 1.29 4 -0.54 14 0.86 4 0.00 11 0.54 7
effective.
I am pleased to participate in
a lesson 1.05 3 1.49 2 -0.54 14 0.34 8 0.54 7 0.00 11
with gamification.
sequence.
I make an effort to reach the
highest 0.91 6 -1.56 18 -0.00 11 -1.88 18 0.54 7 1.08 4
level.
Earning medal improves
commitment 0.54 7 -0.89 14 1.08 4 0.00 10 1.08 4 1.62 2
to the course process.
I put forth better products
together 0.53 8 0.55 5 -1.08 16 -1.08 15 1.08 4 0.54 7
with my friends.
Being in competition keeps
my excitement alive
33
Factor Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6
Item ZRank*ZRank*ZRank*ZRank*ZRank*ZRank*
It motivates me to win badges. 1.01 4 0.24 8 -0.00 11 0.06 9 0.54 7 1.08 4
It is motivating to progress by
studying the issues in a specific 0.99 5 -0.65 12 1.62 2 -0.40 12 -0.54 14 0.00 11

0.45 9 -1.03 17 -
0.00 11 0.80 5 -
1.62 18 -0.54 14
.
I prefer working alone on a study. -0.10 10 -0.93 15 1.62 2 1.41 2 0.00 11 0.00
11
Levels are simple steps that
everyone -0.12 11 0.28 6 1.08 4 0.68 7 -0.54 14 -0.54 14
passes.
Gamification of a lesson just
consists -0.87 12 -0.87 13 -1.08 16 -1.14 16 -1.62 18 -1.62 18
of scoring permanently.
Earning medal doesn’t have
any -0.98 13 -0.11 10 -0.54 14 -0.46 13 0.00 11 -1.08 16
importance.
A competitive environment
alienates -0.99 14 1.73 1 0.54 7 0.68 7 1.62 2 0.54 7
me from the course.
There is no impact of earning
badges -0.99 15 0.27 7 -0.00 11 -1.41 17 -0.54 14 -1.08 16
on commitment to the process.
The process of gamification is boring. -1.17 16 -0.98 16 0.54 7 -0.86 14 0.00 11 0.00
11
It is unnecessary to give
scores in the course process. -1.27 17 1.45 3 -1.62 18 1.41 2 -1.08 16 1.62 2
The most definitely estimated item by the 25 participants in the
group of Factor 1 is “Points awarded in the course are encouraging”
while the most negative opinions are about the item “It is an
unnecessary obligation to review previous issues before studying
the next ones for a lesson.” The instrument of the study consists of
18 items; half of them are in a positive manner, while the other half
are in negative manner. The participants under Factor 1 compiled
all of the positive items on the right side of the Q string, and the Z
values of these items are positive, meaning that these participants
have positive thoughts about the gamification of educational
processes. The evaluation of top three items in the remaining
factors (2-6) reveals that there are nine positive and eight negative
items, indicating that the other five groups comprising nine students
were almost neutral to the educational gamification process. Thus,
while Factor 1 can be named as the “group of positive thoughts,”
Factors 2-6 can be named as “group of neutral thoughts.” It has
34

been determined that all of the positive items were regarded as
necessary by the group of positive thoughts comprising 25
participants. In the group of positive thoughts, the analysis of
positive items in relation to the dimensions they relate to indicate
that the dimensions were, in order of how much effect they had on
the students, achievement point, logic of the process, emotions,
badges, advancement structure, level, medals (xp), cooperation, and
competition. In other words, cooperation and competition had less
effect on the students in the group of positive thoughts, while the
most influential elements were achievement point, logic of the
process, and sentiments.
An analysis of Z scores covering all participants in the study
would lead to a better understanding. Table 5 shows the average
Z scores calculated for each variable in the factors. The formula
of average Z scores is as follows:
Zave= (Z value of the positive item about the dimension - Z value of the
negative item about the dimension)/2
In addition, overall mean scores for the dynamics, mechanics and components
were obtained.
Table 4: The Average Z Values Concerning the Elements of Gamification
Factor 1
(25
per
)
Z av
e
Facto
r 2
(4
per
)
Z ave
Facto
r 3
(1
per
)
Z ave
Facto
r 4
(2
per
)
Z ave
Facto
r 5
(1
per
)
Z ave
Facto
r 6
(1
per
)
Z ave
Weighted 
Ave.
Logic of
35
Dynamics

Process 1.04 1.08 0.27 1.00 0.81
1.01
Emotion 1.11 1.24 -0.54 0.6 0.27
0.99 0.96
36

Advance
ment 1.26 -0.41 1.62 -0.80 0.27 0.27 0.89
Structure
Achievement 1.31 -0.95 1.08 -0.81 1.35 -1.62 0.83
Point
Badges 1.00 -0.02 0.00 0.74 0.54
0.82
Level 0.52 -0.92 -0.54 -1.28 0.54
0.22
Medals (xp) 0.76 -0.39 0.81 0.23 0.54
0.61
0.62
Competition 0.32 0.74 -1.35 -1.25 0.54 0.27 0.23
Cooperation 0.72 -1.38 -0.27 0.06 -1.62 -0.54 0.30
The investigation of total average Z scores including all participants reveals
that the dynamics (z=0.96) are the elements which had the most positive
influence, followed by the components (z=0.62) and the mechanics
(z=0.27). Logic of the process, emotions, and advancement structure were
in top three according to the analysis based on dimensions. Achievement
scores and badges came to the fore among the components. It is obvious
that cooperation had the least constructive result.
The present research, conducted with Q methodology, aimed to determine how the
gamification of the educational process is perceived by students and whether the
students’ views unify around a common ground regarding the concept of
gamification, and to highlight the prominent elements of gamification. The
participants of the study consisted of 34 sophomores in elementary mathematics
education in Faculty of Education, and they had taken the Instructional Principles
and Methods course in a gamification design. The data were collected with 18 Q
statements. In this context, the results of the study were limited to the lesson of
Teaching Principles and Methods at the undergraduate level, the gamification design
of this lesson, and the Q method data collected from the 34 sophomores in
elementary mathematics education in Faculty of Education. In addition, it was
assumed that the participants responded truthfully to the data collection tools and
that the gamification design was applied successfully as it had been planned.
37
Mechanics Components
0.27
2

According to the findings, the participants have a collective positive thought about
the educational gamification procedure. The prominent elements of this process are
logic of the process, emotions towards the procedure, advancement structure,
achievement points, and badges. Furthermore, the sum of the Z scores of dynamics
and mechanics were doubles that of components. Therefore, it can be asserted that
dynamics and mechanics, like the invisible part of an iceberg, have a greater
importance in the procedure, though components are in the public eye. In other
words, the use of components alone without the dynamics and the mechanics cannot
be considered as gamification. Kim (2015) also highlights that components such as
points, badges, and ranking are just the feedback mechanisms of the procedure. The
Z values for the dynamics of the gamification procedure are high, showing that they
are vital in this process. The Z scores for the logic of gamification alone were over
one, pointing out the importance of logic of the process. Nevertheless, the Z values
for the mechanics were not that high. This result may have arisen from the fact that
cooperation and competition were the driving forces for the students. In other words,
competition and the idea of putting forward a product together as a group drove them
to achieve a desired outcome, while all the other factors, such as achievement scores
and advancement structure, had a positive impact to attain favorable results. The
outstanding elements of components were achievement points and badges, while
experience points and levels were subsidiary ones.
Numerous studies have showed that gamification has a positive influence on student
achievement (Buckley & Doyle, 2014; Faghihi et al., 2014) and motivation (Buckley
& Doyle, 2014). On the other hand, in their study, De-Marcos et al. (2014)
concluded that grade point averages and attendance levels of the students in the
experimental group were relatively low, although they had positive attitudes towards
gamification compared to the control group. In their study examining 24
experimental studies on gamification, Hamari, Koivisto, and Sarsa (2014) examined
24 experimental studies on gamification and they found out that gamification does
have a positive effect on student outcomes. In the present study, it was extrapolated
that the students have positive attitudes towards gamification, and the result is in line
with the relevant literature. It has been determined that achievement scores and
badges are the foremost elements among gamification components. Attali and Arieli-
Attali (2015) reached the conclusion that achievement scores alone have no effect in
38

the gamification process. Antin and Churchill (2011) asserted that it would be
difficult to say that using badges solely has any kind of effect, while Botra,
Rerselman, and Ford (2014) stated that the use of badges positively affects the
gamification procedure. These studies support the idea that the operation of the
gamification process as a whole is a requisite; otherwise, it will not produce the
anticipated results.
It has also been perceived that the present research on gamification in education aims
to create a literature (Deterding et al., 2011; Xu, 2011; Zicherman & Cunningham,
2011); make suggestions on how it can be used more effectively (Lee & Hammer,
2011; Muntean, 2011; Wongso et al., 2014); study its effects on student
achievement, motivation, attitudes, and habits (Buckley & Doyle, 2014; De-Marcos
et al., 2014; Faghihi et al., 2014); or study the effect of a game component alone,
such as badges or achievement scores (Antin & Churchill, 2011; Attali & Arieli-
Attali, 2015; Botra et al., 2014). There is lack of a study with the objective of
establishing a relationship or ranking between the elements of the educational
gamification procedure. According to Dicheva, Irwin, Dichev, and Talasila (2014),
this lack of a clear road map for educational gamification procedure is a significant
deficiency. Werbach and Hunter (2012) created a pattern for gamification consisting
of a six-step procedure. In the present study, ranking the elements of educational
gamification procedure has revealed the most important and outstanding items.
Therefore, this study can contribute to the understanding about gamification of the
educational process—that is to say; it provides a general framework for teachers
about where to start and to which aspects to attach more importance when gamifying
their lessons.
This research proposes a procedure for the gamification of the educational processes
according to findings. For this purpose, the related context should be clarified first.
In other words, one must determine how old the students are, what kind of an
environment they have grown up in, what their genders are, learning domain, time
needed, etc. The next step is to initiate a design process suitable to the present
conditions. At the first stage of a design progress, an advancement structure should
be identified, restrictions should be introduced, and the structure should be narrated.
To exemplify, a map showing the process might be hung on the board, and the way
everyone should follow (the teaching process) can be marked with a red pen. The
39

conditions would be determined to move forward, and the students would be
informed that it is impossible to move without fulfilling compulsory tasks (project,
problem solving, etc.). Then, the components (e.g., achievement points, badges,
experience points, levels) would be defined to be used in the process. Finally,
balance between cooperation and competition would be maintained with cooperation
promoting activities and extra points. In addition, a needle or another object on
which the name of each student would be written would be attached to the level at
which the students are in the process. In this way, students would clearly become
aware of their and their friends’ levels. Hence, educational process would have a
basic level of gamification. It would develop further in time and would become more
fun. Regarding suggestions for researchers, the meaningful gamification can be
redefined in light of this procedure. Namely, researchers can design the effective
gamification process according to prominent game elements.
4.2 Qualitative Research
After delimiting the layers of the initial version of the conceptual framework for the
gamification, interviews were conducted with professors from different areas of research of
the Digital Systems and Media program at the King's College London, in order to have their
opinion on the structure of the framework, as well as suggestions for improving it.
Altogether, 14 teachers were interviewed through semi structured interviews, discussing six
topics: Gamification concept, Analysis of the feedback layer, Analysis of the activities layer,
Analysis of the pedagogical layer, Analysis of the narrative layer and Analysis of the
motivational layer. The duration of the interviews ranged from 20 minutes to 1 hour, totaling
6 hours. In this topic, the interviewees were asked about their knowledge of gamification. In
case of unfamiliarity, a brief explanation of the concepts most used to define gamification
was made and, in case of previous knowledge about the term, it was asked which definition
the interviewee knew. 79% of the professors had some kind of prior knowledge about what
gamification is. Regarding the definitions presented, seven interviewees used the definition
proposed by Deterding et al. (2005) where gamification is seen as the use of game design
elements in contexts other than games. Three interviewees defined it as the development or
use of a game with a more serious tone, a definition that is more related to serious games,
which, in a digital context, can be characterized as games developed to be more than
entertainment. After the initial questioning, the layers of the conceptual framework developed
were presented.
40

Analysis of the Feedback Layer
After explaining the elements of the feedback layer, the interviewees were asked about the
possibility of using these elements in the classroom, more specifically about some type of
impediment that could exist for their use, whether for reasons of infrastructure, university
rules, or disinterest to apply them. Two interviewees said that at first glance they saw no
problem in the above mentioned elements, but would need to do further research to confirm it
accurately. I3 acknowledged that it would need to see a practical application of the elements
before making a decision, questioning how these elements would be used, while I4 asked
how these elements would be visualized by both participants and external people. The biggest
obstacle reported in the interviews was the use of confidential information from the students,
where six interviewees showed great concern about the use of this information (notes and
names of the students) in the framework developed, and the element mentioned by four
interviewees that relates to this problem is the leaderboard. Other issues mentioned regarding
this layer include:
 University bureaucracy;
 How to provide automated feedback to students;
 Prejudice by university and students of not perceiving the idea as something serious;
 University not accepting a modification of their frequency system;
 Need for many resources and people to develop a virtual environment based on the
framework;
 Extra dedication to the development of the aesthetic part of the system;
 Dependence on extrinsic motivators
At the end of this topic, the interviewees were asked to suggest new elements to be inserted in
this layer. Guilds, quests and challenges were mentioned by two of the interviewees. I5
thought about the same idea of the challenges but calling it Player vs. Player (PVP), yet
admits that it would be difficult to deploy this idea of direct competition in an academic
setting, even if it was made available on an optional basis. I2 suggested the addition of a
mentoring element, in which high-performing students could choose to tutor classmates who
requested support related to the discipline. In this case, the tutor would earn a gratification. I9
thought about creating a channel for sharing experiences, such as strategies and materials
used to progress the discipline, and even reports of strategies that did not work out to prevent
41

other students from making the same mistakes. As a bonus, participating students could
receive coins or powers.
Analysis of the Activities Layer
The interviewees were asked about the types of activities they used to support their teaching
methods. The activities mentioned were:
 Collaborative assignments involving the whole classroom;
 Tasks with responses shared by the class, through online platforms;
 Written assignments;
 Practical assignments;
 Exams;
 Oral presentations;
 Seminars;
 Classroom activities;
 Homework;
 Debates;
 Elaboration of scientific papers
Analysis of the Pedagogical Layer
The aspirants were asked about innovative pedagogical approaches that could be used in a
gamified classroom. In this case, approaches that are not limited to lectures are considered
innovative. If the interviewee had no idea of any specific approach, they were asked to
explain how their teaching method was. The pedagogical approaches cited by the
interviewees were: Flipped classroom; Adaptive learning; Problem-based learning (PBL);
Role-playing and Collaborative learning. Three interviewees stress the importance of always
using a mix of different approaches, since different students react in different ways. I8
emphasizes that innovation in today's education should be directed to the methodology and
not to the use of technology, as the technologies currently used become obsolete quickly.
Analysis of the Narrative Layer
The participants were asked their opinions about the inclusion of interactive narratives in the
classroom. Twelve interviewees see the use of narratives in the classroom as positive and
interesting, and four interviewees have never seen an example of using interactive narratives
in an educational context. After the answers to the first question, the interviewees were asked
42

about what would positively or negatively influence the use of interactive narratives in their
teaching methods. Positive aspects mentioned include:
 Make the class more attractive;
 Promotion of student interaction with the developed narrative;
 Improvement of the relationship between teachers and students;
 Contextualization of a subject
Regarding the negative aspects, three interviewees see as difficult the balance of the play
aspect of the narrative (fun) with the serious aspect (learning), in addition to the high demand
of time. I14 points out as a problem the impossibility of student autonomy in predefined
scenarios, where professors could not accept divergent opinions.
Analysis of the Motivational Layer
The interviewees were asked if some of the concepts presented in the motivational layer were
not adequate for their pedagogical approaches and if they would add other concepts. Eight
interviewees stated that all concepts are appropriate, while three stressed the importance of
freedom to make mistakes without being heavily punished. Two interviewees saw as
problematic the inclusion of competition and collaboration concomitantly, because they could
not visualize these two antagonistic concepts working in the framework. It is suggested that
these two concepts could work in a context where teams compete with each other.
4.3 Summary
After the feedback from the participating professors, all proposed suggestions were taken into
account in the development of a conceptual framework for gamification adjusted for the
university environment.
Modification of the Feedback Layer
The following elements were modified:
Powers: The acquisition of powers by obtaining points of experience (which relates to
obtaining a specific level) could be done in a fixed or random way. In addition to single use
powers, students can develop powers of limited duration. It is important that there is a
limitation on the use of powers in certain situations;
Achievements: Can be taken into consideration for a future master's degree and used as a
prerequisite for entering the Hall of Fame;
43

Leaderboard: It is important that students have the choice to participate or not in the
competition, having their names removed from the public ranking if they wish;
Reputation: It is important to mention that there is a limit on the amount of reputation that
can be lost or acquired, in which all students start with 3 reputation and can increase to 6 or
decrease to 0;
Items: It would be interesting to make it possible to donate to random students. It is also
necessary to set limits on the sending of items among students, to avoid abuses;
The following elements were added:
Mentoring: High-performing students may become available to tutor students struggling to
learn a subject, serving as an extracurricular activity;
Tavern: Channel for sharing experiences among students. As an example, students could
share strategies and materials used to progress in a determined subject, and even reports of
things that did not work so well, to prevent other students from making the same mistakes;
Skills tree: An element that works in association with the experience points, which can be
distributed in branches of a skill tree, allowing the acquisition of powers of a specific
category. Students can divide their points into the various branches available in order to
obtain powers of different categories, or they can focus on a single branch to achieve all the
powers that exist in it;
Guild: Representation of teams formed in a discipline, who may cooperate or compete with
others, having their own leaderboard;
Quest book: An interface where students can check which quests have already been
performed, their performances, which optional quests are available and which compulsory
quests are not yet completed.
Modification of the Activities Layer
The following elements were added: Firstly Challenges where Classroom activities where a
guild should respond to some kind of challenge by an opposing guild, all through professor
mediation; Secondly Quests where Compulsory or optional activities that students must take
to progress in the discipline and thirdly missions: Optional collaborative activities that relate
to the interactive narrative used in the discipline, and necessary for the advancement of the
story.
44

Modification of the Pedagogical Layer
The PBL approach was included, where one or several students are presented with a real
problem that must be solved using previous knowledge, as well as the acquisition and
integration of knowledge acquired during the problem solving process.
Modification of the Narrative Layer
The following observations were added: Firstly Students must decide in advance whether
they wish to participate in the interactive narrative, with the possibility of completely
ignoring this factor in the subject without any kind of loss; Secondly it is important that
students are not passive spectators, but there must also be a limit to the freedom given to
participants so that the narrative does not become a distraction.
Modification of the Motivational Layer
The title of the layer was changed to "Layer of Motivation and Mobilization", including both
concepts related to intrinsic motivation and mobilization. The added concepts were: Privacy;
Sharing; Responsibility; Autonomy; Recognition and Persistence.
In order to facilitate the understanding of the conceptual framework and the way the layers
are related, a graphical representation of the framework was developed. Figure 1 shows that
the layers placed at the sides of the framework are influenced by the principles of the layer of
motivation and mobilization. As a way to create more engaging and motivating
environments, gamification comes as a strategy that can be used in a variety of contexts,
whether in business, training, or education. In the educational environment, this strategy
comes as a way to improve students' motivation and their learning process, in order to
balance pedagogical goals with entertainment. Through the use of mechanisms commonly
found in games such as experience points, badges and leaderboard, it is expected the creation
of an environment conducive to the active participation of students. It is essential that these
elements be used to provide the same experience that motivates a player to solve problems on
his own. But a careful approach is necessary with how rewards (extrinsic motivators) will be
addressed in a gamified system, especially in the educational environment, which, applied
indiscriminately, can have a negative effect on learning. Ethical issues, such as the use of
sensitive student data and the possibility of encouraging inappropriate behavior, must also be
taken into account. From the papers analyzed and the variety of results, it is possible to
observe that strategies of gamification in education can be influenced by several factors, such
45

as tools used, support offered by the university, profile of students, and therefore a same
strategy used in two different classrooms can have completely opposite results In order to
approach the concepts established in the conceptual framework developed and the limitations
of the professors (infrastructure and general rules of universities), semi-structured interviews
were conducted with professors from the different areas of research, in order to obtain
suggestions for improvements, culminating in the development of a framework adapted to the
university environment. As future work, it would be interesting to have a more detailed study
to include other layers relevant to the framework. A layer of student’s profiles would be
important and would aim to provide a more personalized experience according to the profile
of a particular student. Existing researches use profiles developed for videogame players to
refer participants to a gamified system, but often the profiles specified are not enough to
compose the rich range of personalities in a classroom. Another layer suggested would be the
social layer, which would serve to identify elements used to promote sociability and
interactivity among students. From the interviews, it was considered the development of a
layer of conflict resolution, both between professors and students as well as between the
students themselves. Finally, the creation of a virtual environment that supports the presented
ideas is very important to facilitate, encourage and make accessible the application of the
developed framework.
The question that has to arise from this discussion is of the benefit that this game culture that
was established in the gamified classroom has for the pupils that are participating in it. Are
they learning anything, and if so, what are they learning? How is the learning performance
improved? The data from my research project provides some answers to this. It shows that
the pupils have had different experiences with how the gamified classroom has been
beneficial for their learning. A couple of the pupils claimed to have learned some new words
in the course of the lessons. Some pupils claimed to not experience the acquisition of new
learning, but that they learned to use their knowledge in new ways. This is another benefit
that can be extracted from the lessons: How the gamified classroom and the game culture
facilitated for the learning to be used for meaningful communication in the lessons. There are
several benefits to communicatively oriented teaching. As we have seen in the theoretical
framework, the communicative approach is an approach to teaching that emphasizes the
learners’ use of learning for communicative purposes. It is also about being able to
spontaneously and creatively produce learning in different settings where it is appropriate.
The communicative approach can be used in two different ways. One way focuses on the
46

acquisition of learning through communicative use. The other values being able to
communicate as a skill, and focuses on using the target language to teach this to learners. One
could argue that the ideal learning situation happens when these two approaches work in
unison. Learning is a very complex process, and there are many different elements at play
when a learner is acquiring a new learning how to use it. Earlier in this chapter I have argued
how gamification can facilitate use of digital game for meaningful communication as well as
some degree of learning acquisition through situated language learning. This setting is a good
place for learning appropriately for the purpose of meaningful communication, which is
something that is emphasized in the curriculum. These are some of the benefits that the
gamified classroom brings teaching that can work towards improving the oral activity of
pupils.
Another important topic to discuss when it comes to gamified classrooms is whether they are
beneficial for everyone, meaning all pupils. Is the gamification of classroom adding
something that can benefit all pupils, or is it something that is reserved for those who are
interested in video games? As it is mentioned a few times in this thesis, one of the pupils in
the selection for this study was purportedly not interested in gaming or games in general. This
pupil reported, throughout the data material, that the activities the gamified classroom
provided were not something that he/she was very comfortable with. An example of this can
be found in one of the logs produced by this pupil: “I can answer questions that have a true
answer, but it cannot be creative and imaginative”. This indicates that this particular pupil has
recognized the activities that were typical for the gamified classroom, and come to the
conclusion that these activities are not beneficial for his or her use. This pupil responds better
to using digital games in order to provide answers. This is more in line with traditional
classroom activity for teaching. One of the biggest challenges of designing teaching schemes
is to recognize the fact that pupils learn and respond to teaching differently. When looking at
the data provided by this one pupil, the argument could be made that the activities of the
gamified classroom, as I designed it, can alienate pupils who do not respond well to settings
where spontaneous and creative language production is the focus of the activities.
47

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1 Introduction
The aim of this study is to explore the benefits of gamification that can be used in academic
context. This results in the following research question: “How can a gamified classroom
improve student performance?” A longer definition of gamification will follow in the
theoretical framework, but for the sake of this introduction it will provide a shortened
version: Gamification is the use of gamemechanics and game principles in contexts that are
usually not associated with games. Over the course of this study, I aimed to implement
gamification in classroom to create a gamified classroom and study the effects of Practical
Application in Education Environments. My research is placed within the field of game-
based learning. This is an extremely varied field that includes many different perspectives
and theories regarding how games can be beneficial to a learning process. I also turn to the
concept of gamification and present some different perspectives that help inform the concept.
The research present some theoretical perspectives regarding learning and teaching, with a
focus on principle of gamification and activity. Together, these theoretical perspectives
helped to create a framework for exploring my research question.
5.2 Linking Objectives
 Objective 1: Presents definitions and Principles on gamification
It is observed that the concept of game-based learning has attracted much attention lately
among many educators who are interested in progressive ways of teaching and learning. The
origin of this concept is the notion that games and play is an integral part of every culture in
the world, and is starting to be regarded as an integral part of learning as well. From this
notion, researchers and educators have begun to explore the potentials for learning that exits
in games. The field of game-based learning is very wide and includes all games, from digital
to non-digital and everything in between. Game-based learning is less interested in the nature
of the game itself, it is more interested in the game as a facilitator for learning. It assumes that
good games create spaces for learning.
From the survey it is clear that Gamification is a concept where elements associated with
video games (game mechanics or game dynamics and principles) are applied to non-game
contexts. It has mostly been explored in the areas of marketing and business, but its potential
is starting to be noticed in other areas, such as Health, Government, Environment and
48

Education. The application of gamification in the educational environment has mostly been
related to motivation, and creating incentives for investing effort. Video games all have their
own mechanics implemented to keep the player involved and invested in the game, to keep
the player playing. Upon completing objectives in a game, the player is often rewarded in
different ways. The type of reward depends upon the style of game. The reward systems
included in this study were points, badges, levels, leader boards and virtual goods. All of
these systems are commonly found in traditional video games. Many who work within the
field of game-based learning are reluctant to use the term gamification within the same areas
as game-based learning. They claim that it is too limiting for both terms games and learning.
However, I choose to use gamification as the term that is most befitting of teaching scheme.
The reason for this is that the teaching scheme that implementing does not necessarily
conform to any sort of expectations of what a game is or what a game should be. The scheme
is first defined by the principles that is choosen to implement in to the teaching, secondly by
how the pupils react to these principles. It is observed that gamification is a term that is
subject to change in the field of education and can be used alongside game-based learning as
an additive to teaching contexts.
 Objective 2: Impact of Practical use of gamification in educational environment;
According to the survey, it is observed that gamification is a term that can be subject to a
change in definition, based on how it is used and what it is informed, defines gamification as
“using game-based mechanics, aesthetics and game thinking to engage people, motivate
action, promote learning and solve problems”. This is a much broader definition than the one
provided earlier in that it, in addition to mechanics, includes the aesthetics of games and
game thinking. It also expands on what gamification can be beneficial for, to include learning
and problem solving, which is where my use of gamification stems from. This is also where
gamification can be viewed in similar terms as game-based learning, where the two concepts
can draw from each other to be beneficial to teaching contexts. The design of teaching
scheme using gamification has more of a focus on narrative (which also includes aesthetical
elements such as genre), player interaction, problem solving and action in context than
external motivation and creating incentives, though these mechanics also have a place in the
scheme. Most games will allow for some level of customization of the gaming experience.
This depends on the design of the game. One way of implementing this is allow problems to
be solved in different ways. Choices that players make with regards to their character and
play style will affect how they will want to attack a problem or situation (Gee, 2005). In a
49

teaching context, facilitating a setting where the pupils can customize their own experience
can contribute to the level of ownership and agency that the pupils will have with the
teaching. Many games encourage creative and varied problem solving. The problems or
challenges that a game offers should facilitate a situation where the players are able to use the
tools at their disposal in order to solve the problem in an efficient way. More importantly, the
player has to choose the appropriate tools to use based on the task at hand. The opportunity
for creativity in problem solving comes when the game allows for a problem to be solved in
many different ways, depending on the players’ choices and play style. In an educational
context, one can draw certain parallels between problem solving in games and the tasks that
are used in task-based learning. In other words, the task needs to have an objective that is
situated in some form of context. This makes it so that using the target learning is not the
main objective of the activity; it is the tool that the pupils use to achieve something that
appears tangible and meaningful. Examples such tasks that are often used in classrooms is
calling customer service, shopping at the grocery store or getting car repaired. An important
part of the process in task-based learning is to determine what type of language that is most
relevant for the situation; figuring out what tools that are needed for solving the particular
task at hand.
It is also observed that motivating people to engage in gamified content is very important that
is why the types of motivation will be addressed early on. Scientist as well as common sense
tells us that there are two types of motivation. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic
motivation is motivation that comes from outside world. For example one can be motivated
by an external factor like money, awards, scholarship or even negative types like cleaning
your room so that you avoid punishment. This kind of motivation does not spark inner
interest in the activity one is undertaking. Extrinsic motivation does not motivate you to
continue doing said activity, when the reward/punishment disappears – you get paid to take
out the trash this week, the next week you will not take out trash, because the reward is not
there anymore. On the other side, there is intrinsic motivation which comes from inside a
person. Participating in a game because you find it fun, doing a sport because it makes you
feel excited about it. This kind of motivation makes you do an activity without any kind of
reward, because you yourself find it fun, exciting or challenging to do the activity. Intrinsic
motivation is way more powerful than extrinsic motivation, but on the other hand, it is harder
to generate intrinsic motivation. All that can be done is provide the environment and tools for
50

people to engage in an activity, which will be hopefully rewarding them with good feelings
and excitement instead of virtual rewards.
Objective 3: Application of Gamification in educational environment to improve overall
performance of the students;
The tasks that are completed in the game reward the player with an increase in level, which is
beneficial for the player in some way. Very often, the player is given access to new skills or
attributes that helps the player progress in the game as a reward in addition to the level
increase. This is also attributed to the principle of unlocking content. Motivation is large
factor in these types of reward mechanics. The reward mechanics of good and engaging
games involves elements of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Having reward mechanics
in classroom teaching can have its benefits. One approach to this is to simply reward positive
behavior with something that the pupils can attach some value to within the classroom
context. An example of this could be awarding stars or other symbolic imagery for
completing homework or doing something positive. These types of reward systems can to a
large extent be attributed to principles of extrinsic motivation and behavioristic learning
theories, with regards to principles of stimulus/response and reward/punishment. Another
way of thinking about rewards in teaching is to embed the rewards in the content and context
of the situation. The rewards could then consist of things that are applicable to the design of
the teaching, something that the pupils have an actual use for. This builds upon the principles
of intrinsic motivation, where the reward is the activity itself.
From the survey, it can be claimed that learning is situated, that it is embedded within
activity, context and culture. It is based on participation in cultural and social processes, and
therefore is often unconscious and unintentional. This a process of “legitimate peripheral
participation”. Within these social practices, the learning that occurs is part and parcel of the
context in which it is presented, the activities that are available within that context and the
culture in which all the participants are evolving as members. The traditional school learning
is “often about disembodied minds learning outside any context of decisions and actions”.
With this, referring to the traditionalist view of learning as a matter of skill and drill, along
with what can be considered shallow understandings of subject-related terms. According to
survey, good and efficient learning must be considered a cultural process, as opposed to a
natural or instructed process of attaining knowledge, because we seldom learn anything
outside of our role as a member of some form of culture. Furthermore, the learning as a
51

cultural process involves having specific experiences that facilitate learning. Video games, as
a form of cultural process, facilitate these experiences very efficiently and, in the case of
good video games, without the use of overt instruction. Learning occurs through the
situations that the player is presented with and the skills and knowledge that they are asked to
employ are situated within the context of the game.
When participating in any part of traditional schooling, pupils are engaging in the activities
and behaviors of a specific culture. A problem that traditional school activity has is that it
takes place within one culture, but is often attributed to another. For example, solving math
problems in a maths book takes place within the culture of a school, but is attributed to the
culture and practices of mathematicians. This can be aid about most of the classroom activity
that happens within the culture of schools. A major consequence of this is that the pupils
seldom experience activity related to the culture that they are actually participating in. This is
called authentic activity, which is defined as “the ordinary practices of a culture”. The
meaning and purpose of these activities are socially constructed by the members of the given
culture. The notion of authentic activity has a significant implication. If we follow the logic
of the definitions given in the paragraph above, pupils who are participating in lessons, orally
or in writing, are members of a specific culture. This culture can be defined as a culture of
people who use the English language in some form or another. With this in mind, one could
make the argument that the activities that are usually implemented in traditional Teaching are
attributed to the culture of schools, not to the culture of people who use the English language.
Classroom tasks that are designed within the culture of schools, often associated with testing
and mapping, can fail at providing the contextual features that allow for authentic activity to
happen. The context of activity is a complex network of elements from which practitioners of
a culture draw essential support. The source of this support is often not recognized by the
designers of classroom tasks. In order to achieve authentic activity in a classroom setting, the
teacher will need to successfully establish a culture in the classroom that the activities of the
lesson can be attributed to.
5.3 Discussion
In today’s school students are mostly motivated by grades. This type of motivation is of
course extrinsic. Before joining a school and from time to time, students are reminded by
teachers/parents that they are studying for themselves, so that they have better opportunities
in the future. This could lead to sparking intrinsic motivation, but it isn’t performed often
enough to have the desired effect. To make things even worse, high-achieving students are
52

sometimes bullied by their classmates, who do not have that good grades. This further
demotivated the students that maybe had their intrinsic motivation and interest in studying
and puts them before a decision - continue to be high-achieving student and run the risk of
not being liked by the rest of the class or underachieve so you are not picked on for your
good grades.
The possibilities one can use when communicating with teachers are usually face-to-face
(either on lecture or after class) or email (if they use one). Students can communicate with
their teacher during class by rising their hand, that gives their teacher a signal that they want
to interact with the teacher, either by asking a question or giving an answer to a question
asked by a teacher. This is overall a good system, but it does not motivate every single
student in the class to think about the question, because only one student will answer it and
get possibly recognized. In most cases it doesn’t reward even the student who answered.
Using the current IT world technology, one application could allow the teacher to ask a
question to all students and each student could answer the question by themselves, earning
points if gamification was included in the mix. This would motivate all the students to
actively think about the question. Another problem arises when it comes to feedback.
Sometimes it can be hard to get feedback from the students. Teachers have the option to ask
students for feedback after lesson, but here arises the same problem as with asking questions.
Students usually do not think much about giving feedback, because they think somebody else
will give feedback. The second approach is to ask all students at the same time, using IT
technology. Although when a university asks students to fill out feedback questionnaire after
the course is over, most students don’t feel any incentive or motivation to do so. Although
they might feel some intrinsic motivation to help improve the course, but without if their
feedbacks were good or not, they will soon lose this motivation. Gamification could provide a
valuable feedback for the students filling out feedbacks about the course, while also
motivating them a bit to continue doing so.
A notion that occurred a number of times in the data was that medium was used for
communication and collaboration. The participants emphasized that communication between
the players was essential within the context of the game, especially in instances where in-
game elements needed to be discussed. These instances were highly represented in the game,
and the clearest example was the meeting of the faction that occurred in association with
quests. Some pupils expressed having experienced collaboration between them in the game.
The categorical statement from the pupil logs sums this up appropriately: “We worked
53

together a lot, and everyone contributed”. This ties into the element of communication, and
more specifically what communication was used for. Communication was employed in order
to work together towards the common goals that the game facilitated. The participants
produced statements, particularly during the interviews that speak to the validity of this. As
we have seen, Rayudu (2010) defines communication as “the transmission and interacting of
facts, ideas, opinions, feelings and attitudes”. It is obseved the aspects of opinions, feelings
and attitudes particularly interesting in this discussion. In order for meaningful
communication of these aspects to occur in an interaction, the participants need to have a
vested interest in what is being said. Opinions, feelings and attitudes are deeply situated
within the individual, and are therefore difficult, if not impossible, to truly simulate in order
to facilitate communication in a teaching context. A very common practice in the classroom,
in my experience, is to attempt to engage pupils in a communicative interaction by asking
them to talk about and discuss topics from textbooks or other teaching aids.
According to survey, meaning in a dialogue is negotiated when the tension and conflict
between the participants´ standpoints create new opportunities for interpretation and
understanding. Additionally, meaning and understanding are as much dependent on the
response that a statement elicits, as it is on the statement itself. It refers to this as “the
activating principle”. In the interviews, the pupils were asked if they felt that the
conversations they had with other participants had an impact on the game. They were also
asked if what they said during the game elicited meaningful responses from other
participants. One pupil brought up a very interesting example of this, as mentioned in the
findings chapter. This pupil stated having experienced in one of the lessons that something he
presented as a solution to a problem in the game was met with negative responses from the
other pupils. These negative responses were motivated by the fact that the first pupils’
solution would impact them negatively in the context of the game. This led to a dialogue
between the participants that resulted in a solution that was suitable for everyone. This
dialogue was a negotiation of new meaning and understanding within the context that the
participating were operating in, which was the game that they were playing. Because of
choices that were made earlier in the game, with regards to customization of main traits,
locations and resources, the pupils had very different standpoints before going into the
aforementioned problem solving. This is what created the tension between participants that
facilitated a dialogue where meaning and understanding was negotiated. The tension was
54

created through the elements of the game, and was beneficial to the communication that
occurred in the classroom.
In both the pupil logs and the interviews, the pupils stated that they experienced being able to
make choices and decisions throughout the game. Also, they saw that their choices had an
impact on how the game progressed. This can be an indicator of the notion that pupils find it
beneficial in some way to have a producer-like role in settings where they are asked to use
their game. For some pupils, this creates an incentive for an increased level of participation in
lessons. According to survey, having principles like this integrated into teaching can also add
to the sense of agency with which they are participating and the ownership they have with the
material. The gamified classroom is beneficial for creating this kind of setting, as the data
shows.
5.4 Recommendations
Learning occurs when people act as members of a specific culture. Learning is part and parcel
of the activities that are available in the social practice that happen within these cultures. This
is referred to as situated learning theory. The culture of schooling is no different. Pupils are
active members of this culture and are participating in activities that are supposed to facilitate
learning. The gamified classroom can improve academic activity in pupils by facilitating
active, extensive, creative and spontaneous. Additionally, the pupils have a producer-like role
with the teaching, which gives them a sense of agency and ownership with what they are
doing. The benefits of the gamified classroom in terms of oral activity can be attributed to the
fact that pupils are operating within a culture of learning where the activities are attributed to,
and valued within, the culture in which they are happening. This makes the gamification that
is used feel necessary. It is used as a tool to achieve problem solving within a context where
the outcome is valued. As it is seen through this research project, the pupils consider playing
a game as an activity that is worth putting effort into and participating in. The elements that
have been described here can contribute to both an increase in effective learning, as well as
contribute to the content of what is being said in the classroom. It is difficult to say, based on
this research project, whether the gamified classroom can be considered a universal tool that
can be beneficial for all pupils. This could possibly have influenced the results that I got from
the group, as they responded very positively to the principles of the gamified classroom and
its activities. Further studies can explore ways of implementing gamification into other areas
of classroom teaching, as well as work towards the possible universality of these principles.
In order for the gamified classroom to be considered a legitimate teaching tools, there needs
55

to be evidence that it can be beneficial for the greater population of pupils, not just those who
have gaming as a hobby.
56

Reference
Antin, J. and Churchill, E.F. (2011). Badges in social media: a social psychological
perspective. CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop. Accessed at
http://gamificationresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/03-Antin-Churchill.pdf.
Bogost, I. (2011). Gamification is bullshit: my position statement at the Wharton
Gamification Symposium. Accessed at
http://www.bogost.com/blog/gamification_is_bullshit.shtml
Bogost, I. (2011). Gamification is bullshit: my position statement at the Wharton
Gamification Symposium. Accessed at
http://www.bogost.com/blog/gamification_is_bullshit.shtml
Burke, B. (2013). The gamification of business. Forbes, 21 January. Accessed at
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gartnergroup/2013/01/21/the-gamificationof-business/.
Burke, B. (2013). The gamification of business. Forbes, 21 January. Accessed at
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gartnergroup/2013/01/21/the-gamificationof-business/.
Burke, B. (2014). Gartner redefines gamification. 4 April. Accessed at
http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_burke/2014/04/04/gartner-redefinesgamification
Burke, B. (2014). Gartner redefines gamification. 4 April. Accessed at
http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_burke/2014/04/04/gartner-redefinesgamification/.
Caponetto, I., Earp, J. and Ott, M. (2014). Gamification and education: a literature review. In
Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Games Based Learning (ECGBL) (pp.
50–57). Berlin: Academic Conferences & Publishing International.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–68.
Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: designing for motivation. Interactions, 19, 14–17.
Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: designing for motivation. Interactions, 19, 14–17.
57

Deterding, S. (2014a). Eudaimonic design, or: six invitations to rethink gamification. In M.
Fuchs, S. Fizek, P. Ruffino and N. Schrape (eds), Rethinking Gamification (pp. 305–
31). Lüneburg: Meson Press.
Deterding, S. (2014b). Gamification absolved? 5 August. Accessed at
http://gamificationresearch.org/2014/08/gamification-absolved-2/.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. and Nacke, L. (2011a). Gamification: toward a
definition. CHI 2011 Workshop Gamification Research Network, 7 May, Vancouver.
Deterding, S., O’Hara, K., Sicart, M., Dixon, D. and Nacke, L. (2011b). Using game design
elements in non-gaming contexts. CHI 2011 Workshop Gamification Research Network,
7 May, Vancouver.
Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C. and
Martínez-Herráiz, J-J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: practical implications
and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380–92.
Dong, T., Dontcheva, M., Joseph, D., Karahalios, K., Newman, M.W. and Ackerman, M.S.
(2012). Discovery-based games for learning software. Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, Austin, Texas, 5 May.
DuVernet, A.M. and Popp, E. (2014). Gamification of workplace practices. The
IndustrialOrganizational Psychologist, 52(1), 39–44.
Fogel, G. (2015). Will 80% of gamification projects fail? Giving credit to Gartner’s 2012
gamification forecast. Accessed at
http://www.gameffective.com/gamificationbasics/will-80-of-gamification-projects-fail/
Gartner, Inc. (2011). Gartner predicts over 70 percent of Global 2000 organisations will have
at least one gamified application by 2014. 9 November. Accessed at
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1844115.
Hamari, J. and Koivisto, J. (2015a). Why do people use gamification services? International
Journal of Information Management, 35, 419–31.
58

Juul, J. (2011). Gamification backlash roundup. The Ludologist, 2 April. Accessed at
http://www.jesperjuul.net/ludologist/gamification-backlash-roundup.
Kapp, K.M. (2014). What L&D professionals need to know about gamification. Training
Industry Magazine, Spring, pp. 16–19. Accessed at
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/trainingindustry/tiq_2014spring/.
Landers, R.N. and Callan, R.C. (2011). Casual social games as serious games: the psychology
of gamification in undergraduate education and employee training. In M. Ma, A.
Oikonomou and L.C. Jain (eds), Serious Games and Edutainment Applications (pp. 399–
424). Surrey: Springer
Mekler, E., Bruhlmann, F., Opwis, K. and Tuch, A.N. (2013). Disassembling gamification:
the effects of points and meaning on user motivation and performance. In Proceedings of
the CHI 2013 Conference: Changing Perspectives (pp. 1137–42). Paris
Paharia, R. (2012a). Gamification can work – just don’t hire a game designer, TechCrunch, 8
December. Accessed at http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/08/bad-gamificationdesign-leads-
to-failure/.
Papastergiou, M. (2009). Exploring the potential of computer and video games for health and
physical education: a literature review. Computers & Education, 53, 603–22
Perryer, C., Scott-Ladd, B. and Leighton, C. (2012). Gamification: implications for
workplace and intrinsic motivation in the 21st century. AFBE Journal, 5(3), 371–81.
Popescu, M., Romero, M. and Usart, M. (2012). Using serious games in adult education
serious business for serious people-the MetaVals game case study. In Proceedings of 7th
International Conference on Virtual Learning (pp. 125–34). Bucharest, 25 October.
Rossi, B. (2014). Gamification: where did it all go wrong? Information Age. Accessed at
http://www.informationage.com/industry/software/123458673/gamification-where-did-
it-all-go wrong
Staw, B.M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: a study of escalating commitment to a
chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(1), 27–
44.
59

Taylor, K. (2014). Tracking trends. Training Industry Magazine, Spring, 52–3. Accessed at
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/trainingindustry/tiq_2014spring/.
Werbach, K. and Hunter, D. (2012). For the Win: How Game Thinking Can revolutionize
Your Business. Philadelphia, PA: Wharton Digital Press.
Whitson, J.R. (2013). Gaming the quantified self, Surveillance and Society, 11(1/2), 163–76.
Antwi, S. K., & Hamza, K. (2015). Qualitative and quantitative research paradigms in
business research: A philosophical reflection. European Journal of Business and
Management, 7(3), 217-225.
Cabero Almenara, J., & Barroso, J. (2016). The educational possibilities of Augmented
Reality.
Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games, design, and
learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of educational research,
86(1), 79-122.
Connelly, L. M. (2016). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Medsurg Nursing, 25(6),
435-437.
Gros, B. (2015). Integration of digital games in learning and e-learning environments:
Connecting experiences and context. In Digital Games and Mathematics Learning
(pp. 35-53). Springer, Dordrecht.
Kuhn, J. (2018). Review of Serious play: Literacy, learning, and digital games. Language
Learning & Technology, 22(2), 42-45.
60

Appendix 1: Q-Methodology Item
Dynamics
Logic of the
process
A gamified presentation of the lesson makes the course process
more effective.
Gamification of a lesson just consists of scoring permanently.
Emotions I am pleased to participate in a lesson with gamification.
The process of gamification is boring.
Advancement
structure
It is motivating to progress by studying the issues in a specific
sequence.
It is an unnecessary obligation to review previous issues before
studying the next ones for a lesson
Mechanics Competition Being in competition keeps my excitement alive.
A competitive environment alienates me from the course.
Cooperation I put forth better products together with my friends.
I prefer working alone on a study.
Component Achievement
Point
Points awarded in the course are encouraging.
It is unnecessary to give scores in the course process.
Medals (xp) Earning medal improves commitment to the course process.
Earning medal doesn’t have any importance.
Badges It motivates me to win badges.
There is no impact of earning badges on commitment to the
process.
Level I make an effort to reach the highest level.
Levels are simple steps that everyone passes.
61

Appendix 2: Conceptual Framework
Appendix 3: Distribution schema between the edges
Disagree Neutral Agree
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
62

Appendix 4: Qualitative Analysis
Number of professors Area Discussing Topics
6 Multimedia systems  Gamification concept;
 Analysis of the
feedback layer;
 Analysis of the
activities layer;
 Analysis of the
pedagogical layer;
 Analysis of the
narrative layer;
 Analysis of the
motivational layer.
2 Interactive digital design
2 Digital games
2 Education
1 Audiovisual
1 Business management
63