Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes
Post on 18-Dec-2016
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
mes hame inntil thial gamtermsd thisplayer
(Gee, 2003; Rosas,eacher implication
and technological infrastructure (Facer, 2003; Squire, 2002, 2003). Recently Connolly, Boyle, MacArthur, Hainey, and Boyle (2012) presenteda systematic literature review on games-based learning and serious gaming focusing on positive outcomes. They also stress the necessity ofmore rigorous evidence of games effectiveness and real impact.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 34 918856656; fax: 34 918856646.E-mail addresses: firstname.lastname@example.org (A. Domnguez), email@example.com (J. Saenz-de-Navarrete), firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com (L. de-Marcos),
firstname.lastname@example.org (L. Fernndez-Sanz), email@example.com (C. Pags), firstname.lastname@example.org (J.-J. Martnez-Herriz).1 Factbox: A look at the $65 billion video games industry. June 6, 2011. Reuters. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-videogames-factbox-idUKTRE75552I20110606.2
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Computers & Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/compedu
Computers & Education 63 (2013) 380392Art-s in Media. http://arts.gov/grants/apply/AIM-presentation.html.formation on demand, productive learning, motivating cycles of expertise, self-regulated learning or team collaborationNussbaum, & Cumsille, 2003); but also some issues related to educative content, learning transfer, learning assessment, t2005). At the same time, video games provide a ctional context in the form of narrative, graphics and music, which if used appropri-ately, can encourage the interest of players on non-gaming topics, like for example, history (Watson, Mong, & Harris, 2011). Due to thispotential, a lot of work has been done trying to unveil how video games could be used successfully with educational purposes. In the 1980sMalone (1980) and Bowman (1982) theorized about what makes computer games so appealing to players, and how those aspects could beapplied in education to improve student motivation and engagement. Over time researchers conducted many theoretical and empiricalstudies on this subject. These studies have unveiled many potential advantages of videogames in education like immediate feedback, in-MotivationEngagemente-learning
Since the 1970s and 80s, video gawards a male audience, the video gwomen and families. But it was not uconsole system, and the Facebook socentertainment industry in economic
Education researchers have vieweprovide challenges and goals to the0360-1315/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020ave been increasing their popularity over time as a form of entertainment. Firstly oriented to-dustry has made big efforts to expand its market and reach more kinds of people, especiallye most recent years that the industry achieved this objective, with two clear examples, the Wiies, both with millions of users around the world. Currently, video games are the most powerful
,1 and are also considered an incipient form of art.2
kind of entertainment with great interest. Video games are interactive activities that continuallys, thus involving them into an active learning process to master the game mechanics (Koster,Computer gameGame mechanicand in overall score, but our ndings also suggest that these students performed poorly on written as-signments and participated less on class activities, although their initial motivation was higher.Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes
Adrin Domnguez, Joseba Saenz-de-Navarrete, Luis de-Marcos*, Luis Fernndez-Sanz, Carmen Pags,Jos-Javier Martnez-HerrizComputer Science Department, University of Alcal, Dpto Ciencias Computacin, Edicio Politcnico, Ctra Barcelona km 33.1, 28871 Alcal de Henares, Madrid, Spain
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 31 July 2012Received in revised form20 December 2012Accepted 23 December 2012
a b s t r a c t
Gamication is the use of game design elements and game mechanics in non-game contexts. This ideahas been used successfully in many web based businesses to increase user engagement. Some re-searchers suggest that it could also be used in web based education as a tool to increase studentmotivation and engagement. In an attempt to verify those theories, we have designed and builta gamication plugin for a well-known e-learning platform. We have made an experiment using thisplugin in a university course, collecting quantitative and qualitative data in the process. Our ndingssuggest that some common beliefs about the benets obtained when using games in education can bechallenged. Students who completed the gamied experience got better scores in practical assignmentsll rights reserved.
Due to mentioned issues, some researchers do not focus on using videogames to educate, but on exporting good aspects of video games
impact is online learning. Its potential benets may address well-known issues as, for example, the lack of student motivation due to the
Gaasland presents a detailed experiment inwhich she developed aweb platform for a gamied e-learning experience and evaluated it with
A. Domnguez et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 380392 381a university class. The platform served as a collaborative database where students could create and answer questions, using it as analternative way to study and revise topics. Apart from the collaborative aspect, the only gamication mechanism is Experience Points,a classic video game mechanic used to keep track of progression. Results suggest that the platform is somewhat motivating, but that muchmore research is needed to test other gamication mechanisms and their combinations.
Our objective is to continue working on the line of the previous papers from an empirical point of view, studying also the motivationalimpact of different gamicationmechanisms. For that, we have created an e-learning gamication system that includes a limited set of thosemechanisms, and we have tested it on a university course, obtaining qualitative and quantitative data from the students. This contributionwill lead to a better understanding of the effects of gamication on e-learning.
3. Videogames and motivation
To create a gamication system that increases student motivation it is necessary to focus on the fundamental elements that makevideogames appealing to their players. According to Lee and Hammer (2011), games aremotivating because of their impact on the cognitive,emotional and social areas of players; and so, gamication in education should also focus on those three areas.
In the cognitive area, a game provides a complex system of rules along with series of tasks that guide players through a process tomasterthose rules. These tasks are designed as cycles of expertise (Gee, 2003). A cycle consists of a series of short-term tasks which playersrepeatedly try to complete in a try and fail process until the necessary skill level is acquired. When the player is involved in this learningprocess, games try to assure that players always know what to do next, and that they have the necessary knowledge to do it. To make thelearning process customizable, task sequences are usually non-linear, and players have a certain degree of freedom to choose which tasks toaccomplish depending on skill and personal preferences.limited capacity of interactionwith teacher and classmates (Liaw, 2008). In addition, the monitoring and communication infrastructure of e-learning platforms provides the necessary tools to incorporate different gamication mechanisms and to measure their usage by students.
This paper will make a contribution to the empirical evidence in the eld by designing, implementing and evaluating a gamied learningexperience in tertiary education. Our research tries to bridge the gap between theory and practice and study the design and consequences ofapplying gamication in a real educational setting. The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents previous research ofgamication in education. Section 3 presents a theoretical analysis of videogames and motivation. Section 4 presents the systems designand Section 5 briey outlines the technological architecture. Section 6 presents the experimental design. Section 7 presents quantitative andqualitative results and discussion on those results. Finally conclusions and future research lines are outlined in Section 8.
2. Previous research
While some researchers are already working on it, currently there is still little work on this subject. Muntean made a theoretical analysisof gamication as a tool to increase engagement in e-learning platforms (Muntean, 2011). Based on Foggs Behavior Model, the author statesthat gamication mechanics can be used to motivate and trigger desired behaviors on students. Although he provides a list of gamicationelements explaining how they could be included in an e-learning course, there is no empirical research so, in our opinion, moreworkwill berequired to give an implementation and obtain evidence about its effect on students.
Silva proposes another list of gamication elements, focusing specically on social game mechanisms, that could be included in e-learning courses to increase student motivation by means of new interaction mechanisms with classmates (Silva, 2010). Customization,community interaction or leaderboards are some of the proposedmechanisms, but the author provides little guidance of how to apply themon education, so more work is needed in this area.
Recently Simes, Daz & Fernndez (2013) presented a social gamication framework for http://schoooools.com, a social learningenvironment, which aims to assist educators and schools with a set of powerful and engaging educational tools to improve studentsmotivation and learning outcomes(p. 3). This framework enables teachers to deliver contents tted to learning contexts and studentsproles by choosing the appropriate social gamication tools, based on social games mechanics and dynamics. These authors also presenta scenario describing how a specic mechanic can be integrated using a point-based reward system, thus demonstrating the extensibility ofthe framework, but there is no empirical evidence about the effectiveness of this approach.
One of the few empirical researches on this subject is themasters thesis Gamemechanic based e-learning (Gsland, 2011). In her work,to non-gaming educative contexts. This concept, which is not exclusive of education, is commonly called gamication. Some researchersgenerically dened it as the use of game design elements and game mechanics in non-game contexts (Deterding, Dixon, & Khaled, 2011),although this broad denition has been further rened to reect the most common objective of gamication: increase user experience andengagement with a system. Another relevant fact is that, like videogames, gamication is still based on technology, and its almost alwaysapplied on desktop, web or smartphone applications. Attending to these facts, it could be more narrowly dened as incorporating gameelements into a non-gaming software application to increase user experience and engagement. This last denition is the one wewill use forthe rest of the paper.
Gamication has been incorporated with commercial success into platforms,3 especially social ones, as a way to create narrow re-lationships between the platform and the users, and to drive viral behaviors on them to increase platform popularity. This success has madesome researchers theorize that it could also be used in education as a tool to increase student engagement and to drive desirable learningbehaviors on them (Lee & Hammer, 2011). Attending to its technological nature, one of the elds where gamication may have a greater3 A notable example is Badgeville. http://www.badgeville.com/.
state which is highly motivating (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008).
A. Domnguez et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 380392382Whenmultiple players interact through the game, these interactions have impact on players social area. Videogames offer a wide rangeof multiplayer interaction mechanisms which are integrated in the rules of the system. These mechanisms make it possible for players tocooperate helping each other towards a common goal, to compete trying to impair other players or to perform better than them, or just tointeract socially by talking, irting, trading or gifting for example. All these kinds of interaction let players build different in-game identitiestaking meaningful roles and obtaining recognition from other players (Lee & Hoadley, 2007).
All these three areas (cognitive, emotional and social) seem to be the base for player motivation, but their limits are blurry and gamemechanics usually cover more than one at the same time. For example, many items that are awarded to players on success are just keys tonew cycles of expertise that increase game complexity and difculty, impacting both emotional and cognitive areas. Social area is alwaysmixed with cognitive area, when a task must be solved by means of player cooperation or competition; or with emotional area, whenrewards systems have an impact on players social status.
The main objective behind gamication in education is to apply some of these ideas when designing educative initiatives and theircontents in an attempt tomake themmoremotivating. The fact that technology is necessary to implementmost of the exposedmechanismsmakes e-learning platforms an ideal environment for experimentation.
4. System design
According to elements exposed in the previous section, we have designed a gamied educative experience in which some of thoseelements are adapted and applied on an e-learning platform used as a tool in a university course. The course Qualication for users of ICT isa transversal course in which students of different grades learn how to effectively use common ICT tools. The course is aimed at promotingbasic ICT competence at user level for students. It is inspired in the well-known ECDL (European Computer Driving License),4 a de-factoThe impact on the emotional area works mainly around the concept of success and failure. On one hand, when players complete tasksthey are expected to have positive emotions by their mere fact of overcoming difculties. Games try to assure and increase those feelingswith reward systems that give immediate recognition to players success, awarding themwith points, trophies or items on task completion.On the other hand, when players fail, they are expected to feel anxiety. While some degree of anxiety is acceptable, it is not desirable that ittransforms into frustration. To avoid that, sequences of tasks are carefully designed to t players skills at any level, and include low penaltieson failure to promote experimentation and task repetition. If the difculty of tasks is correctly balanced, it can drive the players to a ow
Fig. 1. Sample of hierarchical tree for course Qualication for users of ICT.vendor-independent standard in Europe for ICT literacy, with millions of certied people. Syllabus includes modules on general ICTknowledge, basic use of operating system, word processor, spreadsheet, presentation software, database and communications skills withweb browsers and email. The course has optional exercises designed to improve the skills of students so that they perform better on nalexams. These exercises are usually downloadable from a Blackboard e-learning platform as PDFs. Instead of providing them as down-loadable text les, we have created a Blackboard plugin which provides the same exercises in a gamied way. The main objective of thisplugin is to increase student motivation towards completing optional exercises through the use of rewards and competition mechanisms. Inthe following sections we describe the design of this plugin.
4.1. Cognitive area
The rst step was the design of the cognitive area of the experience. In this case, the system of rules in which students must obtain skillsis provided by the ICT tools used in the course, and the tasks that guide the player in the tool mastery process are the optional exercises. Dueto our research objectives, we decided that the gamication impact on this aspect should be limited in order to keep gamied tasks assimilar as possible to traditional optional exercises. Our solution was to create a hierarchical tree following the course topics and optionalexercises structure (Fig.1). First level of the treematches subjects list of topics; second levelmatches optional exercises for each topic, calledchallenges; third level matches specic tasks in each challenge, called trophies or challenge activities; and fourth level matches specic
steps in each stage that provide students with a detailed description of the work they have to do in order to obtain the trophy. Students canfreely access any topic and its challenges once it has been introduced in lectures. Trophies in a challenge are designed to be increasing indifculty and based on the previous ones, so they are sequentially unlocked as the student completes them. In order to make this hierarchyclear for the students, we included two challenges per topic intermediate and advance and at most four trophies per challenge copper,silver, gold and platinum, each elementwith an appropriate visual representation (Fig. 2). Although these tasks are presented in video game-like fashion, they are exactly the same as their traditional counterparts presented in PDF format.
Another important element of this area was task evaluation. Traditional exercises were not evaluated at all, but in order to be able toreward task completion, we required an evaluationmechanism. An ideal mechanismwould be integrated in the e-learning platform,makingit possible for student to auto-evaluate their tasks. Nevertheless, this is not always possible, as in our case, where exercises had to be doneusing external software. The solution we came through was to use screenshots as evaluation mechanism, as we thought that it was simplefor students to capture and upload screenshots of their work while they were completing a task, and that those screenshots could provideenough information for teachers to evaluate if the task was correctly completed or not. The problem with this solution is that if studentsneeded to wait for teacher to evaluate their work, it would be impossible to give immediate feedback on task completion in the form ofa reward (more about rewards in the following section). To avoid this, we decided to immediately accept any uploaded screenshot as correct,leaving the evaluation as a verication mechanism to see if students were being honest and if their work was correctly done. In futureinitiatives we may consider computer-based testing (Santos, Hernndez-Leo, Prez-Sanagustn, & Blat, 2012; Santos, Prez-Sanagustn,Hernndez-Leo, & Blat, 2011) to overcome these problems.
messages, plot animations, and game content (Wang & Sun, 2011). Most of these rewards cannot be easily incorporated in gamication
A. Domnguez et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 380392 383systems. The lack of virtual worlds, avatars and stories make it difcult to include experience points, items, resources, plot animations orunlockable game content. Instant feedback messages seem to be great to create positive emotions, but such a reward system is not feasiblebecause it would require to be integrated within the external software used by students to complete tasks. After examining the remainingreward systems, points and achievements, we decided that achievements were the most appropriate form of reward for us. According toWangs denition, achievement systems consist of titles that are bound to player accounts; users collect them by fullling clearly statedconditions (p. 4). In our gamied experience students will have to complete tasks in order to obtain achievements. Although a score systemmay also t in our design, we left it out to keep design as simple as possible.
Achievements may generate a wide range of positive emotions. One possible emotion is related to the fact of being immediatelyrewarded on task completion, as students will feel that they are performing well. To increase this feeling, we decided to represent somespecial achievements as medals, a typical representation of excellence (Fig. 3). Another one is related to the fact of achievements beingcollectables. Non-completed achievements are shown to the player as a list of tasks to perform, with an empty space for the correspondingmedal. Players motivated by collectables will be tempted to continue working in order to get all medals. Finally, some achievements havebeen designed as hidden; they are awarded by surprise when some special conditions are met. In addition to being surprised with an award,these achievements may also serve to promote exploration of system features in order to discover the secret medals.
4.3. Social area
The nal design step is related to the social area of the system. As previously exposed, there are different ways of student interaction:cooperative, competitive and social. Due to the individual design of course exercises, cooperative interaction didnt have sense in our system.Between the remaining two, we decided to include only competitive mechanisms to be able to study their effect over students in isolation;4.2. Emotional area
Next step was to design how to impact on the emotional area of students. Our proposal was to include a virtual reward system that couldcreate positive emotions on task completion, thus motivating students to complete more tasks. According toWang and Suns work on gamereward systems, there are eight forms of rewards: score systems, experience points, items, resources, achievements, instant feedbackFig. 2. Screen capture showing a challenge and its four trophies. Copper, silver and gold trophies are completed, while platinum trophy is unlocked but not yet completed (inSpanish). (For interpretation of the references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
thus leaving social mechanisms for future works. The most basic mechanic of competition in many videogames is a leaderboard or ranking,so we opted to include this mechanic in our system. Usually leaderboards are score based, but due to the lack of a score system in our designwe used achievements instead, ranking players by the number of achievements they own (Fig. 4). This leaderboard let students compete toobtain higher ranking by completing more exercises and by participating in the overall experience. This could be a source of motivation forcompetitive students. Additionally two other competition mechanisms are provided. One of them lets a player view a comparison betweenhis achievement list and the achievement list of any other classmate. Comparison view could drive more direct competition between two
data, and in consequence, dont require user authentication. Although the e-learning platform database could supposedly be used to storeplugin data, several problems were found at developing time, mainly related with the amount of documentation available, so we decided to
2. Word processor3. Spreadsheets
Fig. 3. Sample of some special achievements represented as medals.
A. Domnguez et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 3803923844. Presentation software5. Databasesexplore alternative solutions. We decided to create a cloud-based web service in Microsoft Azure platform linked to an SQL Azure database.This service was consumed from client-side using AJAX. It was designed using the RESTful principles, and programmed in C# usingWindows Communication Foundation. Lastly, Amazon EC3 cloud based persistent storage services were used to store screenshots and useravatars.
6. Experimental design
In order to assess the effectiveness of the gamied approach and to evaluate the attitude of students we designed an experiment for twodifferent groups of the course Qualication for users of ICT (6 ECTS, 150180 h of student work). This course is based on the ECDL cer-tication syllabus and has the following modules:
1. Introduction to the computer, the operating system, networks and communication.specic players who are trying to beat each other. The other included mechanism shows a list with all the achievements in the platform,along with the percentage of total users who own it. This lets players challenge themselves to obtain the most exclusive achievements.
5. System architecture
In this section we will briey describe system architecture. While Qualication for users of ICT course used Blackboard 8 (BB8) ase-learning platform for online content, custom plugin support was made available only since Blackboard 9 (BB9) version. We solved thisproblem by implementing a gamication plugin for the BB9 platform and deploying it on a parallel course to the BB8 one. Students could usethe same login credentials in BB8 and in BB9 platforms; traditional content was available in the former and gamied content in the latter.
Several technologies were used to implement the system (Fig. 5). Blackboard 9 plugins are JSP web applications that can access studentFig. 4. Leaderboard sample, each row shows players photo, ladder position, number of achievements, and percentage of total achievements.
The nal score of the course is computed based on the following evaluation items:
Initial activity (5%). Midterm assignment (30%) Final assignment (30%) Final examination (30%) Participation (5%)
The initial activity (week 1) is designed to introduce the course to the students, to get them used to the course stuff and classdynamics, including the e-learning platform, and also to collect basic information about them. Students are asked to complete theirpersonal prole, ll two surveys about their knowledge and their usage of ICT, and also to complete a short interactive test to assesstheir initial knowledge about modules 26 (word processor, spreadsheets, presentation software and databases). Questions in this testcover just basic initial topics about each module but they turn out to be interesting for two reasons: rstly, students get a rst glimpseof the overall contents and skills required to pass the course, and secondly, initial scores for each module are collected given usefulinformation to both student and teacher. Teachers consider that this score is an indicator of the initial motivation of the student insteadof being a precise score of her initial knowledge. Activities are designed to motivate the student to participate and complete the course.In the midterm assignment (week 10) students have to hand in two exercises which correspond to modules 2 (word processor) and 3(spreadsheets). On the nal assignment (week 14) students submit their exercises of modules 4 (presentation software) and 5 (data-bases). The nal examination (week 15) is a written test comprised of multiple choice as well as open-ended questions. Finally studentscan get up to a 5% of the nal score based on their participation on the activities that take place in classroom as well as on the virtual
Fig. 5. System architecture diagram.
A. Domnguez et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 380392 385classroom (e-learning platform). This score is computed semi-automatically taking the number of interactions on the e-learningplatform (posts in the forum, elements opened, activities completed, messages read, etc. and also challenges, trophies, achievements,leaderboard, etc.) and a subjective assessment of the lecturer based on the student attendance and participation in classroom. Withthis system of evaluation it is possible to have 7 scores per student (initial activity, word processor, spreadsheet, presentation software,databases, nal examination and participation) as well as the nal score. All scores can be used to compare the performance of differentgroups. None of the evaluation instruments was gamied.
During the spring semester the course Qualication for users of ICT is given to two distinct groups. As it is a transversal course, it isoffered to a wide range of students majoring different specialties. The control group consists of 1st and 2nd year university students(freshmen and sophomores) majoring construction engineering, nursing, tourism, infant education, primary education or businessadministration andmanagement. 80 students enrolled initially and 73 completed at least one assignment so that they have a nal score. Theexperimental group consists of 1st year university students (freshmen) majoring economics, business administration and management,accounting and nance, or economics and international business. 131 students enrolled initially and 123 completed at least one assignmentso that they have a nal score. Both groups have separated spaces in the virtual classroom so that a student of one group does not knowabout the activities on the other group. Groups are also physically distant as teaching takes place in different campuses and cities. The sameinstruments and evaluation criteria were used to compute scores of students of both groups. The experimental and control groups werechosen randomly. Unfortunately we were not able to assign individual students to each group as they freely enroll in the group that theyprefer. This decision is mostly made based on their major as the faculties/buildings schedule the groups for their students.
The gamied version of the course includes 36 challenge achievements (grouped in 9 challenges/activities), from which students gettrophies after completion, and 7 participation achievements fromwhich participants get medals. All content challenges were created usingexactly the same contents of the activities available in the traditional non-gamied version of the course. Students in the experimentalgroup have access to both versions of every activity. Traditional activities are delivered using PDF les. Students of the experimental groupreceived an introduction of 1 hour to the gamication plug-in by the teacher. After that, they have the opportunity to decide freely which setof activities they prefer to use and also to combine them as theywant. If they want to use the gamied version they are just asked to register
and upload their own avatar (a picture) the rst time they connect. On rst connection students are shown an introductory screen witha text based tutorial that highlights plug-in features and explains how to use it. Technical support was also available during the course.
The plugin conveniently registers the activities of students on the gamied version. 58 students of the experimental group registered touse the gamied version of the course. 27 students got 8 or more trophies and medals (i.e. completed 8 or more achievements). Teachersindicated that 8 is the minimum number of achievements that a student must complete to consider that she followed the gamied version.This is just to be sure that she completed activities of at least 3 different modules, but it will also offer a new dimension for analyzing theresults as it permitted researchers to distinguish between those students who followed the gamied experience and those who did not. Theplugin also permitted getting information on academic results as well as quantitative data and qualitative impressions about studentsinteraction both with gamied activities and with traditional courseware. The decision to made participation on the gamied experienceoptional was partly based on this but also on institutional requirements. Making participation mandatory would have supposed to do so for
ditional courseware. This conclusion was also drawn by previous work and it has even been identied as a trend by Kes (2009) meta-
reducing their overall interaction with other students and systems. It is worth mentioning that Heidegger (1977) perspective is that
A. Domnguez et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 380392386technology is not alienating per se, but only when enframing (i.e. when the other is treated as an object, rather than as a subject) occurs as
Table 1Scores in the initial activity for each module. Signicance was computed using independent-2-sample t-tests.
Evaluation item Group n Mean Std dev Signicance
Word processor Control 62 44.13 17.68 F 2.20p .141Experimental 111 49.92 16.53
Spreadsheet Control 62 53.32 17.68 F 0.62p .432Experimental 111 56.27 12.95
Presentations Control 62 44.52 13.14 F 0.49p .487Experimental 111 46.54 12.17
Databases Control 62 52.76 17.19 F 1.36analysis who suggested that learning games foster high-order thinking more than factual knowledge.As for participation, this item was assessed mostly in an objective way based on the number of interactions with the learning platform,
contributions to forums and other participative media, and attendance and exercises completed both online and in the classroom. It istempting to argue that the lower marks got by students in the experimental group are due to the alienating nature of videogames. This isaligned not only with popular culture but also with heideggerian philosophy on alienation through technology. Defendants of thisstandpoint will argue that the gamied activities while fostering competence acquisition also split in or separate students from reality thusall students in all groups thus hindering experimental design.
All the experiments and grading were conducted during the 2011/2012 spring semester. Outcome data collected of the experimental andcontrol group is presented and discussed in this section. It must be borne in mind that teachers provided a grade for each evaluation item ofeach student along with a nal mark for the whole learning experience. Students opinions were also appraised in an attitudinal survey. Allgrades were normalized in the range 0100 for statistical analysis.
7.1. Achievement of students
Independent-2-sample t-tests indicate that there is no signicant difference in the initial knowledge of students in each of the fourmodules that was assessed (Table 1). Post-test results suggest that there is signicant difference in six scores (Table 2). Students of theexperimental group get scores that are signicantly higher in the initial activity (p .004) and also in the practical exercises aboutspreadsheets (p .007), software presentation (p .000) and databases (p .000). On the contrary, students of the experimental group getsignicantly lower scores on the nal examination (p .006) and on the participation score (p .000). Finally there is no signicant ev-idence to support that the experimental group performs better on the exercise on word processing (p .090) and on the nal score(p .090). Results of the most signicant scores are also presented graphically in Fig. 6.
One-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) are used to determine the existence of signicant differences considering three groups: thecontrol group, the experimental non-gamied group, the experimental gamied group. Results (Table 3) are similar to those obtaineddistinguishing just two groups. The difference in the nal score is now statistically signicant in at least one of the groups. Condenceintervals (Fig. 7) show this graphically and suggest that students who get 6 or more achievements in the gamied system also get sig-nicantly higher nal scores. Interval plots for the nal examination score (Fig. 8) and for the participation score (Fig. 9) also suggest that thenon-gamied experimental group have signicantly lower scores than the other two groups and consequently there is no evidence that canconrm that the gamied experience yields worse results inwritten examinations or somehowprevents students from participating in classactivities.
Students on the experimental group performed better on all the items that were concerned with practical application of concepts. On theother hand students in the experimental group performed lower than the control group on the written examination and participation. Wethink that such differencesmay be caused by the distinctive nature of the elements being assessed on these items and by the kind of learningfostered by each instrument. In the written examination students are asked mainly about concepts and about the relation of these conceptsto practice. On all other evaluation items (except participation) assessment is based on competencies and students are required to knowhow to complete different tasks using a given application. Considering the results obtained, we can argue that gamied activities help todevelop practical competences but somehow they also hinder the understanding of underlying theoretical concepts in contrast with tra-p .244Experimental 111 56.01 17.75
Table 2Final scores for the experimental and control groups. Signicance was computed using independent-2-sample t-tests.
Evaluation item Group n Mean Std error Std dev Signicance
Initial activity Control 73 77.29 2.41 20.63 F 8.43p .004Experimental 123 88.46 2.59 28.75
Word processor Control 64 56.33 2.34 18.73 F 2.90p .090Experimental 113 64.01 2.63 27.98
Spreadsheet Control 64 62.70 3.21 25.67 F 7.48p .007Experimental 110 73.94 2.52 26.40
Presentations Control 66 64.59 1.52 12.38 F 178.48p .000Experimental 110 89.86 1.15 12.01
Databases Control 65 40.25 2.84 22.86 F 56.12p .000Experimental 106 69.65 2.53 26.09
Final examination Control 68 64.12 1.66 13.67 F 7.78p .006Experimental 106 58.05 1.38 14.21
Participation Control 73 86.53 2.42 20.67 F 97.47p .000Experimental 123 48.13 2.63 29.15
Final Control 73 56.27 2.17 18.58 F 2.90p .090Experimental 123 61.57 2.02 22.41
Fig. 6. Boxplots of the most signicant scores.
A. Domnguez et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 380392 387
Table 3Final scores for the control, experimental non-gamied and experimental gamied groups. Signicance was computed using one-way ANOVA tests.
Evaluation item Group n Mean Std error Std dev Signicance
Initial activity Control 73 77.29 2.41 20.63 F 5.85p .003Experimental non-gamied 96 86.25 3.12 30.62
Experimental gamied 27 96.30 3.70 19.25Word processor Control 64 56.33 2.34 18.73 F 2.53
p .083Experimental non-gamied 88 61.70 3.06 28.68Experimental gamied 26 69.36 5.41 27.60
Spreadsheet Control 64 62.70 3.21 25.67 F 4.46p .013Experimental non-gamied 83 72.25 2.90 26.37
Experimental gamied 27 79.14 5.06 26.29Presentations Control 66 64.59 1.52 12.38 F 93.13
p .000Experimental non-gamied 84 89.11 1.40 12.58Experimental gamied 26 92.31 1.67 8.53
Databases Control 65 40.25 2.84 22.86 F 28.17p .000Experimental non-gamied 80 68.77 2.91 26.05
Experimental gamied 26 72.37 5.21 26.55Final Examination Control 68 64.12 1.66 13.67 F 3.99
A. Domnguez et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 380392388a consequence of technological mediation. Our point is that such questions have a very strong philosophical underpinning and that furtherresearch and enquiry shall be performed before drawing unsustained conclusions. Particularly, studying approaches that circumventenframing by carefully addressing social interaction seems promising. Furthermore, a closer examination of data when considering threegroups (experimental gamied, experimental non-gamied and control) reveals that the real difference is between the non-gamiedexperimental (M 40.52, SD 24.64) and the control group (M 86.53, SD 20.67) and it is very substantial. The experimental gami-ed group also performs lower (M 75.19, SD 28.20) than the control group but there is no statistical signicance. To be honest we have tosay that we do not nd any explanation for such an important difference. Courseware and methodology were exactly the same forexperimental and control groups. The only difference was in the participating teachers as the number of students and groups required theparticipation of different teachers. Regular meetings were kept to ensure consistency between groups. So in our opinion we can only inferthat either the teachers of the control group managed to keep their students participant or the students of the experimental group werereally under-participative.
7.2. Attitudinal survey
p .020Experimental non-gamied 81 57.67 1.60 14.39Experimental gamied 25 59.27 2.77 13.84
Participation Control 73 86.53 2.42 20.67 F 82.14p .000Experimental non-gamied 96 40.52 2.51 24.64
Experimental gamied 27 75.19 5.43 28.20Final Control 73 56.27 2.17 18.58 F 4.85
p .009Experimental non-gamied 96 58.99 2.39 23.43Experimental gamied 27 70.71 2.99 15.52The students of the experimental group were also asked to answer a questionnaire of 10 items designed to evaluate their attitude to-wards the learning tool and their satisfaction level. The instrument used was a questionnaire based on a ve-point Likert scale with all thesentences scored in a positive scale. Similar instruments have been used by other researchers (Garrido, Grediaga, & Ledesma, 2008). Thesurvey was answered anonymously. 45 students claimed to have followed the gamied experience and provided feedback. Questions andresults are summarized in Table 4. The average for these questions is 3.64 on the ve-point scale, indicating that the students attitude to thisexperience was positive. The highest rated statements are items 6 and 7 suggesting that the activities were successfully designed accordingto students perception. The ratings of items 2, 9 and 10 are especially signicant because they provide a general positive estimation of
Fig. 7. Interval plot of the nal score (95% CI for the mean). 0Control group, 1Experimental non-gamied group, 2Experimental gamied group.
Fig. 8. Interval plot of nal examination score (95% CI for the mean). 0Control group, 1Experimental non-gamied group, 2Experimental gamied group.
A. Domnguez et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 380392 389studentsmotivation and students attitude towards learning with this tool, not only during the learning experience but also in the future. Incontrast, the lowest rated statement is item 4 which suggest that additional work to improve the usability of tool should be undertaken.Authors can only conjecture towhat extent the integration of the tool in the BlackBoard system has an important role in this rating. Low rateon statement 8 indicates a low level of involvement. Regarding this, students were also asked to provide a percentage (0100) estimating towhat level they have completed the gamied activities. Results return a mean of 55.56 (SD 21.56). We can contrast this with real data asthe tool records every challenge and achievement completed by students. If we consider all the students who completed at least onegamied activity (N 58) the mean is 22.65 (SD 26.74) and considering only the students (N 27) who completed 8 or more gamiedactivities (18.6%) the mean is 40.91 (SD 29.59). So in our opinion students estimation about their own work is (very) optimistic andparticipation rates are really low.We think that both researchers and teachers shall try to ndways to design new experiments and learningactions in which participation and its promotion play a central role since this is critical to evaluate learning activities and also to fostermeaningful and efcient learning.
Answers variability in the attitudinal survey is low since overall SD is 0.96, which represents less than 1/4 of the mean. So it can be saidthat the answers are homogeneous. Item correlations are examined to determine the relevance of each item in relation to the other itemsand the entire survey. All items returned correlation coefcients larger than 0.4 suggesting coherence in responses. A factor analysis returnsa cumulative explanation percentage of variance of 68.5 suggesting that the instrument also presents factorial validity. However, we have tobe careful with this values concerning validity since the sample size (45) is considerably lower than the recommendations of standardbenchmarks. To complete the analysis, Cronbachs alpha score is computed to measure the internal consistency of the survey. The overallCronbachs alpha is 0.8629, which is higher than a commonly used benchmark value of 0.7. This suggests that the items measure the sameconstruct.
57 students acknowledged to have not used the gamied version andwere asked about the reason/s that prevented them from taken partin the gamied experience. Results are summarized in Table 5. Time availability is the most frequent reason argued by students. Technicalproblems are the second most important reason. The reason argued less frequently is the difculty to use or understand the system, inmarked contrast to the attitudinal survey in which tool ease-of-use is the lowest rated item. Under other reasons, students point outadditional problems. Some examples are: Too many students, I have to visit too many web pages and applications in the university and Idid not want a new one and I do not like competition between students and that everyone can see it.
Another informal questionnaire was included in the e-learning platform asking students whether they found it more motivating tocomplete gamied activities in contrast with the traditional version, and about which specic elements of the plugin have the biggestFig. 9. Interval plot of the participation score (95% CI for the mean). 0Control group, 1Experimental non-gamied group, 2Experimental gamied group.
perceptions and motivations.
Table 4Questions and results of the attitudinal survey. Answers were provided in a ve-point Likert scale (1Strongly disagree, 2Disagree, 3Undecided, 4Agree, 5Strongly agree).
Item N Mean Std error Std dev
#1 Content was presented effectively 45 3.64 0.13 0.89#2 I learned about the course topic 45 3.76 0.13 0.86#3 I enjoyed the experience 45 3.49 0.15 0.99#4 Using the tool was easy for me 45 3.24 0.18 1.15#5 The proposed practical activities were useful 45 3.56 0.15 0.99#6 There was a sufcient number of exercises 45 3.91 0.13 0.90
A. Domnguez et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 380392390In general we get numerous positive responses. The following comment can be taken as an example. It stresses the importance of theleaderboard and also the fact that, as for all activities, completing themwas away to contribute to the participation score: I have completedthe gamied activities because by means of the leaderboard, global statistics,.; I can know what is the amount of work that I have donewith respect to other students. The fact that my activities were also contributing to the participation score also inuenced me. The fol-lowing reection is representative of the possibility to choose between both versions of the activities. The student asserted that he hadcompleted the gamied activities because the leaderboard was motivating for me, and also as I was going to complete the activities in anycase, I preferred the gamied version. Another student interestingly commented: I preferred to make the gamied ones. Decision that Ihave taken for the simple reason that by completing them, but previously done them in the traditional way as the instructions are better, andthen submitted to the new virtual platform towin new points as it is fun andmotivating in many ways, be it for the graphics, the trophies.and it is even more colorful and encouraging. Here the student is presenting his experience as a combination of both approaches (tra-ditional and gamied). He prefers the traditional approach to go through the activities, but nally he completes them in the gamied versionbecause he nds it motivating, encouraging and even colorful. These as well as similar comments stress the importance that competitionhas for some students as well as the chance to have the same contents in different formats which can be combined to createmeaningful andmotivational impact. 91 students provided feedback using this instrument. Concerning motivation students were asked if they found thegamied activities more motivating, if they found the traditional activities more motivating or if they found the gamied activities neithermore nor less motivating that the traditional ones. 29 students (31.87%) found the gamied activities more motivating, 56 students (61.54%)found the traditional activities moremotivating and 6 students (6.59%) felt no differences in their motivation. We can consider these guresto be consistent with the previous ones since the number of students that found it motivating is similar to the number of students (27) thatcompleted a reasonable number of gamied activities. Thus, students that followed the gamied course seem to be motivated but furtherquestions remain unanswered about students that did not start or quitted. The reward-based system programmed on the e-learning pluginis designed to improve extrinsic motivation. Although it can be a powerful force to drive intrinsic motivation, several problems have beenreported concerning extrinsic motivation. First, participants can feel manipulated. Second, little or no transfer can occur if behavior is onlydriven by rewards. And nally, if the reward vanishes so does the behavior. In this way, the learner may become too dependent on thereward or she may be not interested at all on it (Lepper, 1988). We conjecture that students who did not follow the gamied approach orquitted were partly not attracted by the rewardmechanics implemented. Nonetheless, we think that this was not the only reason but ratherthat the other reasons argued by students and the lack of immediate feedback also contributed to the low motivation level observed.
7.3. Qualitative analysis
Finally students had different opportunities to provide additional feedback about their perceptions and attitude towards the system andthe learning experience. In the anonymous attitudinal survey there was an open question in which students were asked to provide anycomment or suggestion. 17 students provided feedback using this mechanism. The e-learning platform also provided a source of permanentcommunication between teachers, researchers and students. Forums were used as a source of feedback and a specic feedback form wasalso available in the e-learning platform. Teachers and researchers analyzed all elements to create also a qualitative appraisal of students
#7 There was sufcient time to complete the exercises 45 3.98 0.15 0.99#8 My level of involvement was high 43 3.40 0.13 0.85#9 I would like to learn more about the course topic 44 3.63 0.15 0.99#10 This was a worthwhile learning experience 45 3.76 0.15 0.98Average 3.63 motivating learning experiences.Contrasting with positive comments, we also found opposing opinions. We found especially interesting those that reect about the
dislike and uneasiness created by the leaderboard and the feeling of competition among students. For instance, this student states I prefertraditional activities because I dont think that leaderboards are a good representation of who gets more knowledge about the course oranother student who states I think that it would be more interesting to improve the traditional version, instead of making competitions.
Table 5Reasons for not using the gamied version (N 57). Students could point more than onereason.
I do not know about them 9I am not interested in them 6I do not have time to complete the activities 34I nd technical problems 13The system is difcult to use/understand 3Other reasons 17
We mentioned above that similar statements were argued among the reasons for not using the gamied system. All other negative per-
A. Domnguez et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 380392 391ceptions can be categorized in three groups: (1) preference for traditional-like activities because they are easier or I feel more comfortablewith them, (2) I did not have time, and I didnt know what difculties I was going to nd, and (3) By having the option of the normalsystem, the game I thought it would take longer.
8. Conclusions and future work
Gamication in e-learning platforms seems to have potential to increase student motivation, but its not trivial to achieve that effect, anda big effort is required in the design and implementation of the experience for it to be fully motivating for participants.
On the one side, experiment qualitative analysis suggests that gamication can have a great emotional and social impact on students, asreward systems and competitive social mechanisms seem to be motivating for them. Reward systems suppose an innovative, fun andencouraging way to represent progress within an online educative experience. Leaderboards also serve as a source of motivation becausestudents see their work publicly and instantly recognized, and because they can compare their progress with other classmates. These goodresults dont happen for everyone though. For many, the system was not motivating enough to participate along the course. In some casesthe system was even discouraging, as some students dont nd it fun to compete with their classmates for a rank in the leaderboard. Ourwork is inuenced by studies on the proles of players who foster competition. For instance Heeter, Lee, Medler, and Magerko (2011)identify four types of players based on performance and mastery levels of achievement goals, namely: performance-only players,mastery-only players, non-achievers and super-achievers. Arguably, other styles of players, like socializers or explorers, have to be con-sidered. Our future work will try to address these issues, reducing the overall importance of competition and rewards, and introducingcooperative and social mechanisms which are currently being used in the so called social games (Hicks, 2010). Wewill also try to nd newways of gamication that aremoremeaningful to the students, not limiting the system to extrinsic rewards like achievements and badges, assuggested by Deterding in his presentation Meaningful Play: Getting gamication right,5 and by Nicholson in his User-Centered Theo-retical Framework for Meaningful Gamication (Nicholson, 2012).
On the other side, quantitative analysis suggests that cognitive impact of gamication over students is not very signicant. Students whofollowed traditional exercises performed similarly in overall score than those who followed gamied exercises. From our point of view,cognitive characteristics of videogames that create the so called cycles of expertise (Gee, 2003) that further derive into ow experiences(Csikszentmihalyi, 2008) are in the very nature of the medium, and cannot be exported to traditional educative content by any waywithoutentering in the eld of edutainment or serious games. Although gamication impact on the cognitive aspects of educative content is limited,we still think that changing content design and structure to make it more fun can have great motivational impact. One suggestion is todesign educative exercises embracing from the very beginning the concept of gameful design (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011) tomake them more interesting for students. Additionally we shall consider a more systematic approach for the design and evaluation ofgamied learning. We shall take previous work on evaluation frameworks in game-based learning, e.g. (de Freitas & Oliver, 2006), asa starting point. This will enable us to extract more solid conclusions about the reality of gamication in education.
Apart from exposed lines, students reported other design and technical issues that should be addressed in future works. Some of themcomplained about the Blackboard plugin because it was hard to use or didnt work well. Although students were introduced to the plug-inby the teacher and by a textual tutorial, it seems that those introductions were not good enough for all students to be able to use the plug-inprociently. On future versions, we might consider including an interactive introduction which not only explains, but also guides studentsstep by step on plug-in features usage. Some important technical problems may be related to the Blackboard platform, as it introducesnetwork overload that slowed down screenshot uploading, making it tiring and time consuming. The proprietary code of Blackboardplatform made it impossible for us to x this, and we didnt manage to nd a workaround solution. Other potential issues may have risenwith an appropriate usability and software testing process. An important conclusion that students reports suggest is that a good testingprocess is essential when developing a gamication system; otherwise its motivational effects can be dramatically diminished by unad-dressed usability and technical issues.
Another important problem was task evaluation. Many students didnt complete gamied exercises because they thought that it wasa waste of time to capture and upload screenshots of their work. This may also be related to the technical issues that slowed downscreenshot uploading, but it was not the only problem. Participants also reported that they could upload empty screenshots to obtainachievements in an attempt to cheat. Finally, teachers had to do additional efforts to correct all the screenshots in order to validate studentsachievements. All these facts indicate that gamication has some limitations when tasks cannot be automatically evaluated by the e-learning platform as a conict arises between immediate feedback, fair rewards and teacher effort. We think that immediate feedback willincrease students motivation yielding better results. This is a critical aspect of videogames that makes them compelling and engaging sogamied initiatives must address it (Kapp, 2012). As future work we have to design newmethods to automate the work that teachers mustdo, and also develop the tools to enable them to create and modify the gamied learning experiences easily, making the underlyingtechnological infrastructure transparent. Unsupervised scoring systems (Goldberg & Song, 2004) may also be an interesting solution to thisproblem, and response-driven feedback approaches (Fernndez-Alemn, Palmer-Brown, & Jayne, 2011) can help teachers to producemeaningful and rapid feedback.
Bowman, R. F. (1982). A Pac-Man theory of motivation. Tactical implications for classroom instruction. Educational Technology, 22(9), 1417.Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games.
Computers & Education, 59(2), 661686.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins.Deterding, S., Dixon, D. & Khaled, R. (2011). Gamication: toward a denition. In The ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2011 (pp. 1215).5 Meaningful Play: Getting Gamication Right. http://www.youtube.com/watch%3fv%3d7ZGCPap7GkY.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: dening gamication. In Proceedings of the 15th International AcademicMindTrek Conference (pp. 915).
Facer, K. (2003). Computer games and learning. Screen, 6, 3546, December 2007. Available at http://admin.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/discussion_papers/Computer_Games_and_Learning_discpaper.pdf Accessed 17.12.12.
Fernndez-Alemn, J. L., Palmer-Brown, D., & Jayne, C. (2011). Effects of response-driven feedback in computer science learning. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54, 501508.de Freitas, S., & Oliver, M. (2006). How can exploratory learning with games and simulations within the curriculum be most effectively evaluated? Computers & Education,
46(3), 249264.Garrido, P. P., Grediaga, A., & Ledesma, B. (2008). VisualJVM: a visual tool for teaching Java technology. IEEE Transactions on Education, 51(1), 8692.Gsland, M. (2011). Game mechanic based e-learning. Science And Technology, Master Thesis (June 2011). Available at: http://ntnu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:441760/
FULLTEXT01. Accessed 27.07.12.Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 2020.Goldberg, K. & Song, D. (2004). Unsupervised scoring for scalable internet-based collaborative teleoperation. In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation (pp. 45514556).Heeter, C., Lee, Y. H., Medler, B., & Magerko, B. (2011). Beyond player types. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on video games Sandbox 11. New York, New
York, USA: ACM Press, 4343.Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. New York: Harper & Row.Hicks, A. (2010). Towards social gaming methods for improving game-based computer science education. In Proceedings of the Fifth international Conference on the Foundations
of Digital Games FDG 10 (pp. 259261). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamication of learning and instruction. San Francisco: Wiley.Ke, E. (2009). A qualitative meta-analysis of computer games as learning tools. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Effective electronic gaming in education (pp. 132). Hershey: Information
Science Reference.Koster, R. (2005). A theory of fun for game design. Scottsdale, Arizona: Paraglyph Press.Lee, J. J., & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamication in education: what, how, Why Bother? Denitions and uses. Exchange Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal, 15(2), 15.Lee, J. J., & Hoadley, C. (2007). Leveraging identity to make learning fun: possible selves and experiential learning in massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs). Journal of
Online education, Available at http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php%3fview%3darticle%26id%3d348 Accessed 08.10.12.Lepper, M. R. (1988). Motivational considerations in the study of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 5(4), 289309.Liaw, S. (2008). Investigating students perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: a case study of the Blackboard system. Computers &
Education, 51(2), 864873.Malone, T. W. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? Heuristics for designing instructional computer games. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSMALL symposium and the rst
SIGPC symposium on Small systems SIGSMALL 80 (pp. 162169). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.Muntean, C. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamication. In The 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL 2012 (pp. 323329).Nicholson, S. (2012). A user-Centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamication GamesLearningSociety 8.0. Available at: http://scottnicholson.com/pubs/
meaningfulframework.pdf Accessed 08.10.12.Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., & Cumsille, P. (2003). Beyond Nintendo: design and assessment of educational video games for rst and second grade students. Computers &Ed-
ucation, 40, 7194.Santos, P., Hernndez-Leo, D., Prez-Sanagustn, M., & Blat, J. (2012). Modeling the Computing Based Testing domain extending IMS QTI: framework, models and exemplary
implementations. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 16481662.
A. Domnguez et al. / Computers & Education 63 (2013) 380392392Santos, P., Prez-Sanagustn, M., Hernndez-Leo, D., & Blat, J. (2011). QuesTInSitu: from tests to routes for assessment in situ activities. Computers & Education, 57, 25172534.Silva, E. (2010). Gamifying learning with social gaming mechanics. In N. Payne, & F. Masie (Eds.), The Masie learning center perspectives 2010 (pp. 6162), Available at http://
www.icde.org/lestore/Resources/Handbooks/Learningperspectives.pdf.Simes, J., Daz Redondo, R., & Fernndez Vilas, R. (2013). A social gamication framework for a K-6 learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 345353.Squire, K. (2002). Cultural framing of computer/video games. Game Studies, 2(1), Available at http://gamestudies.org/0102/squire/%3fref%3dHadiZayia Accessed 27.07.12.Squire, K. (2003). Video games in education. International Journal of Intelligent Games & Simulation, 2(1), 4962.Wang, H., & Sun, C. T. (2011). Game reward Systems: gaming experiences and social meanings. In C. Marinka, K. Helen, & W. Annika (Eds.), Proceedings of the DiGRA 2011
Conference: Think design play, Available at http://www.digra.org/dl/db/11310.20247.pdf.Watson, W. R., Mong, C. J., & Harris, C. A. (2011). A case study of the in-class use of a video game for teaching high school history. Computers & Education, 56(2), 466474.
Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes1. Introduction2. Previous research3. Videogames and motivation4. System design4.1. Cognitive area4.2. Emotional area4.3. Social area
5. System architecture6. Experimental design7. Results7.1. Achievement of students7.2. Attitudinal survey7.3. Qualitative analysis
8. Conclusions and future workReferences