Gamification in Education: Real Benefits or Edutainment?

Jihan Rabah, Robert Cassidy and Robert Beauchemin

eConcordia, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Abstract: Gamification of learning—the application of game design elements to learning activities—is currently a hot, if
controversial, trend in education. Proponents of gamification, on the one hand, claim that gamification leads to learning
gains. They assert that gamification reinforces important skills in education, such as problem-solving, collaboration, and
communication. Furthermore, they maintain that need for interaction in a gamified approach to education encourages
students to play an active role in the learning process, thereby increasing student engagement in online forums, projects,
and other learning activities. Detractors of gamification, meanwhile, argue that it derails learning with aimless distractions,
adds unnecessary competition stress, and fails to take into account certain learners’ pedagogical needs. Research on
gamification is gathering momentum and promises to help adjudicate many of the issues raised in this controversy. We
therefore conducted a second-order review to examine the evidence-based discourse on this aspect of gamification. We
found that while the review literature adequately summarizes evidence in support of effectiveness in terms of cognitive,
emotional/motivational, and behavioural outcomes, certain design issues remain unaddressed. When addressing
effectiveness, a concern for how the nature of learning objectives and the quality of learning activities that are gamified is
noticeably absent in the field. Furthermore, a contextual bias towards STEM courses limits the generalizability of evidence
to other contexts. The review literature further suggests a publication bias and an over-emphasis on positive effects.
Nevertheless, recognising the general scope of the research, its theory, and evidence, will help instructors and curriculum
designers interested in gamifying courses decide how to approach gamified course designs to use in a specific context.
Highlighting current limitations in the evidence-based discourse may benefit the design of future research by drawing
attention to the types of evidence that will help advance gamification in educational settings.

Keywords: gamification in education, game design elements, learning design elements, game design principles, game
mechanics, learning outcomes

1. Introduction
Gamification has been applied in several domains, including education, business, fitness and health domains,
but the research field of gamification in education is still in its emergent stages. Despite Piaget’s early advocacy
of games as a way for children to meaningfully interact with and learn from their environments, it was not until
recently that research on games in education gained momentum. Indeed, as of 2013, only 26% of scientific
publications in gamification were about its practical application in education (Seaborn and Fels, 2013), with the
first seminal framework of gamification published only a few years ago (Deterding et al, 2011).

Despite its late arrival, its popularity has grown rapidly, largely due to expectations around its ability to solve a
perennial challenge of traditional learning environments: making learning interesting and engaging. With the
advancement of social media and online gaming, as well as the widespread use of smart devices, the task of
keeping students motivated to learn has become even more challenging. The introduction of gamification into
the classroom stems from the premise that the nature of games and what makes them fun increases students’
intrinsic motivation to engage in learning activities (Adams and Dormans, 2012). The inherent interactivity of
games is also thought to maximize students’ involvement in the learning process, thereby supporting active
learning, problem-based learning, and experiential learning (Oblinger, 2004).

Many educators hope that gamification will not only increase students’ motivation to learn but also make
participation in schoolwork more effective and meaningful. The emerging literature seems to uphold this view,
with evidence that gamification may be linked to higher numbers of passing students (de Marcos et al, 2017).
Gamification of learning environments may constitute a powerful tool for the acquisition of knowledge, and
might enhance important skills such as problem-solving, collaboration, and communication (Dicheva et al, 2015).
Critics, however, argue that gamification derails learning with aimless distractions, adds unnecessary
competition stress, and fails to take into account certain learners’ pedagogical needs. The value of gamification
in education remains controversial, despite an increasing number of empirical studies and literature reviews
that may inform this controversy. The present study aims to ascertain the extent to which literature reviews in
the field of gamification are adequately addressing relevant issues to inform this debate.

489
 Jihan Rabah, Robert Cassidy and Robert Beauchemin

1.1 Definition(s) of gamification in education

In defining the scope of our study, we build on the definitions of gaming, game design elements and gamification
set out by Deterding et al (2011). First is the differentiation between ‘gaming’ and ‘playing’. While playing is a
freeform, creative and open-ended process, gaming is a highly structured process oriented toward discrete,
clearly defined goals. Gamification, then is defined as “the use of game design elements characteristic for games
(rather than play or playfulness) in non-game contexts”(p. 13).

Game design elements are more difficult to define, owing to the multiple theoretical frameworks that have been
produced, each with idiosyncratic classification systems and levels of abstraction. Useful for the current study is
the synthesis by Dicheva et al (2015) of the more prominent frameworks found in the literature (e.g., Deterding
et al, 2011; Zichermann and Cunningham, 2011). Table 1 summarizes the synthesized framework, which
classifies game design elements into two levels of abstraction -- game design principles and game mechanics --
with exemplars of each.
Table 1: Game design elements: Classification framework

Design principles Mechanics

Visible status Badges

Social engagement Points
competition Levels
cooperation Rewards
collaboration Leaderboards
Freedom of choice Progress bars
Freedom to fail Currency
Rapid feedback Avatars
Goals & challenges Countdown clock
Customization
Access, unlock content

Common game design principles are those of visible status, social engagement, freedom of choice, freedom to
fail, and rapid feedback (Dicheva et al, 2015). Visible status, informs students about a task’s completion status
or else shows students how they are progressing. Social engagement feeds into purported needs for competition
against individuals or teams (O’Donovan et al, 2013) but may include team projects and group learning
opportunities (Mak, 2013), as well as cooperation and interaction with classroom peers (Landers and Callan,
2011). Freedom of choice implies that students are free to choose whichever task(s) they want to complete. For
instance, in Holman, Aguilar, and Fishman (2013), students could choose between writing an essay, a class blog,
a group project, or an individual project, while in DeShutter and Abeele (2014) options included making a
YouTube video, designing an educational game, or writing academic essays. The freedom to fail principle is
exemplified in contexts where students were given the chance to submit assignments again and to revise their
work without a penalty (Hentenryck and Coffrin, 2014). Rapid feedback refers to the gaming context enabling
students to receive feedback on their learning performance.

Commonly studies game mechanics are badges, points, levels and rewards. As the more concrete level of
elements, game mechanics are more contextualized than design principles, more adapted to the specifics of a
given learning environment. Badges generally are icons associated with a learner’s profile that signal
accomplishment and can be linked to several design principle, such as visible status, goals and challenges. Points
are generally accrued for performance or participation and are given to reward desired learning behaviours.
Again, they can be linked to and promote several design principles (e.g., visible status, rapid feedback,
competition, etc). Mechanics generally represent an instantiation of a game design principle. For example, the
principle of visible status can be instantiated through the use of a leaderboard, badges, etc. A single principle
may be operationalized by more than one mechanic. By the same token, a single mechanic can operationalize
multiple principles. For example, a leaderboard can operationalize visible status and social engagement. The
combinatorial relations among principles and mechanics raises an important caution in interpreting the
effectiveness of a mechanic without considering which principle(s) it is used to instantiate, and vice versa.

Gamification, then, is defined as “the use of design elements characteristic for games (rather than play or
playfulness) in non-game contexts”(Deterding et al, 2011, p 13). The focus on game design elements

490
 Jihan Rabah, Robert Cassidy and Robert Beauchemin

intentionally excludes the consideration of ‘serious games’ or whole educational games when referring to
gamification, as these types of games are so idiosyncratic to context as to not be generalizable and are
prohibitively resource-intensive to produce; they are exceedingly rare in educational contexts and out of scope
for the current study. Gamification in education therefore is defined as the use of game design elements in in
the context of formal higher education and with the intention of supporting the acquisition of course-specific
learning objectives. Our study aims to characterize the current state of discourse in the educational gamification
field by examining the literature review articles, each summarizing the field’s evaluation of gamification in
education.

2. Objective and methodology

The overall objective of this study is to describe the extant corpus of relevant literature reviews in order to
characterize the discourse over effectiveness of gamification of learning in higher education. The assumption
driving this second-order review is that literature reviews and meta-analyses most effectively inform evidence-
based discourse over issues of effectiveness of educational innovations, but can unwittingly introduce blindspots
into the discourse. A careful characterization of the review literature therefore will allow us to present a current
snapshot of the ‘state of the evidence’ as well as identify any blind spots or gaps that may limit the utility of that
evidence in adjudicating debates over the effectiveness of gamification. A clear understanding of the
gamification in education research field would likely help researchers and educators marshal and qualify
relevant evidence in discussions over the usefulness and impact of gamification.

Our second-order review focuses on the evidence for effectiveness of gamification in education, framed by three
specific questions:
 What are the types of outcomes currently used to decide effectiveness?
 What are the types of game design elements used to decide effectiveness?
 What limitations can be addressed to better inform discourse over effectiveness?
We present here a second-order review -- a qualitative analysis of the review literature on gamification in
education, published in the past 5 years (2014–2018). We conducted systematic searches using specific
keywords to identify relevant reviews in the field of gamification in education and targeting higher education
populations in particular. First, we performed a Boolean AND search of key terms on the Google Scholar and
Educational Research Information Center (ERIC) databases. The terms were: review, gamification, learning,
higher education. We followed up this search with a set of inclusion/exclusion criteria where the final articles
included in this study had to satisfy the following criteria: published in the last five years, pertained to higher
education settings, used a form of gamification for education, and did not use serious games or whole
educational games when referring to gamification.

Our search yielded 54 reviews, 10 of which met our inclusion criteria and were analyzed in-depth. (Included
reviews are marked with an asterisk in the References section). Our review is descriptive in nature, synthesizing
findings around what the literature reviews uncovered with regards to patterns and interpreted findings,
theories, or recommendations on the area of gamification in education.

3. Findings
Our examination of the relevant reviews allows us to summarize the core activities, nature of evidence and
interpretations currently informing discourse in the field of gamified education.

3.1 What outcomes are currently used to decide effectiveness?

Effectiveness of gamification is often dealt with in the research literature, yet it is broadly construed around
various outcomes. For example, Martí-Parreño et al (2016) describe a theme in the literature, termed
‘effectiveness’, that includes cognitive outcomes as well as various attitudes and emotions about the
gamification experience. The authors also include a separate theme, ‘engagement’, which is also considered a
relevant outcome to decide effectiveness in a broader sense. Indeed, in addition to cognitive learning gains, the
outcomes most commonly considered for effectiveness of gamification in education are motivation and
engagement (Bell, 2017; Faiella et al, 2015; Hamari et al, 2014). We consider these outcomes in turn.

491
 Jihan Rabah, Robert Cassidy and Robert Beauchemin

3.1.1 Cognitive learning outcomes

When considered, reviews generally reported that gamification had positive effects on cognitive learning
outcomes (Bevins and Howard, 2018; Hamari et al, 2014; Kim et al, 2018). Scholars reported that learning
achievement, procedural and declarative knowledge, higher order thinking skills were enriched by adding a
gamification layer (Kim et al, 2018). Gamification, does appear to improve learning outcomes on lower-risk
assignments (e.g., quizzes and practical activities) and overall course marks but does not appear to significantly
influence performance on final exams (Bevins and Howard, 2018). In summary, the review literature supports
the claim that well-designed, properly deployed gamification can improve learning outcomes in different
conditions.

Though effectiveness in terms of cognitive learning outcomes is most closely aligned with the objectives of
higher education courses, literature reviews found a disproportionately low emphasis on this outcome. We
suggest several reasons for this discrepancy. First, the effectiveness of gamification on learning outcomes may
depend on the nature of the learning outcomes targeted (there are many frameworks to provide texture and
nuance to these, such as taxonomies elaborated by Bloom, Fink, Biggs, and others). Also critical are the nature
and design of the learning activities that are gamified to achieve these outcomes. Motivation for and
engagement with effective learning activities will more likely lead to improved learning outcomes, while
ineffective learning activities may not, no matter how much motivation and engagement is mustered. A layer of
complexity therefore arises in that the effect of gamification of learning outcomes requires contextualization
with respect to learning outcomes and is probably mediated by the effectiveness of gamified learning activities
on achieving those outcomes. Nevertheless, the most obvious reason for the lack of emphasis on cognitive
outcomes is a pervasive perception that the primary affordance of gamification is motivation and engagement.

3.1.2 Motivation and emotion

A majority of the literature reviews showed positive effects of gamification on motivation (Alsawaeir, 2018; Bell,
2017; Bevins and Howard, 2018; Dicheva, 2015; Faiella, 2015). Students perceived gamified courses to be more
motivating, interesting, and conducive to learning than other courses (Dicheva et al, 2015). Particularly,
gamification elements transform boring tasks into interesting ones (Faiella et al, 2015). Emotional outcomes
generally focused on constructs such as motivation, attitude, and enjoyment, which were investigated via
interviews or questionnaires (Alsawaeir, 2018; Hamari et al, 2014). Scholars in the field recommend further
research on the impact of gamification on motivation. To better grasp the effect of gamification on motivation
effectively, researchers need to conduct longitudinal studies or at least identify which combinations of game
design elements are most likely to stimulate intrinsic motivation (Alsawaier, 2018).

3.1.3 Engagement and behaviour

With regards to gamification and its effect on learners’ engagement, literature reviews generally target
engagement as an outcome in itself (Alsawaier, 2018; Bell, 2017; Bevins and Howard, 2018; Dicheva et al, 2015;
Faiella et al, 2015; Martí-Parreño et al, 2016; Ortiz et al, 2016). Studies examining effects of engagement
revealed, again, mostly positive results. These included significantly greater student engagement in forums and
projects; higher rates of attendance, participation, and material downloads; increased quantity (and continued
quality) of student contributions/answers, higher passing rates, increased volunteering, and undertaking of
difficult assignments; as well as a reduction in student achievement gaps (Dicheva et al, 2015). Interestingly,
participation results in greater student engagement, particularly if individuals are free to select a preferred mode
of learning (Faiella et al, 2015). In addition, the better the alignment of coursework, core content, and game
elements, the greater the positive the effect on gamification and engagement. This is especially true if such
aspects are linked to a central narrative (Bell, 2017).

3.1.4 Relations among outcomes:

The relations among the cognitive, emotional and behavioural outcomes are likely complex and nuanced. For
example, learning gains resulting from gamification show that results are not tied to motivation and engagement
only. In fact, Sitzmann et al (2011) disclosed that gamification in education also helps self-efficacy and boosts
knowledge retention. Faiella et al (2015) revealed that gamification helps lower anxiety or worry over the
consequences of not doing well. In addition, gamification aids in building communities, where participants share
tips and celebrate accomplishments on a whole class level, not only academic high-achievers (Faiella et al, 2015).

492
 Jihan Rabah, Robert Cassidy and Robert Beauchemin

Meta-analytic studies demonstrate that gamification might be quite beneficial and help students achieve better
outcomes when certain elements are present (Garland, 2015). These include applying a gamification layer to
courses that last shorter time periods, such as short-term courses or modules within courses (Garland, 2015).
Gamified courses should include elements that demonstrate time spent on tasks since poor time management
is inversely related to positive results (Garland, 2015). Last but not least, feedback that is ongoing, immediate,
and meaningful can have a positive effect on learning outcomes (Faiella et al, 2015).

3.2 What are the types of game design elements used to decide effectiveness?

3.2.1 Game mechanics

The literature reviews reveal that the most typically used game mechanics were points, badges, and
leaderboards, (Bevins and Howard, 2018; Hamari et al; 2014; Ortiz et al, 2016). However, gamification is not only
about using game mechanics in courses, but rather using them to overcome challenges in education and meeting
objectives (Kim et al, 2018), a function that falls closer to the game design principles level in Table1. In light of
that, to better grasp the effect of gamification mechanics on engagement and motivation, researchers need to
study how game mechanics interact with design principles (see Figure 1), and which couplings work well
together, in what contexts (Alsawaier, 2018). Furthermore, these game design elements should be considered
also in light of their coupling to ‘learning design elements’, what we introduce here as the analogical
counterparts to game design elements: ‘learning design principles’ and ‘learning mechanics’. To properly inform
discourse on effectiveness of gamification in learning, the design principles and mechanics of both gamification
and learning must be considered together.

Figure 1: Illustration of the Interaction

3.3 What limitations can be addressed in order to better inform discourse over effectiveness?

3.3.1 Context
The literature reviews synthesized here show that context plays an important role in gamification (Alsawaier,
2018; Dicheva et al, 2015; Faiella et al, 2015). Gamified designs and hence their impacts differ depending on the
nature of the learning site, the subject matter, the instructor, and how gamification is to be implemented
(Alsawaier, 2018). These contextual effects make the effectiveness of gamified learning hard to synthesize
(Dicheva et al, 2015). Furthermore, the descriptive nature of most studies precludes inferential claims about the
effectiveness of gamification despite the many reports of successful implementations (Hamari et al, 2014). In
addition, gamification cannot be successfully implemented into the classroom without the support of a solid
technological infrastructure and suitable pedagogical framework (i.e., ‘learning design elements’). A generalized
description of effective gamification of learning is therefore elusive (Dicheva et al, 2015).

3.3.2 Learner characteristics

Another common aspect of the studies was that learner and content characteristics clearly determine the impact
of gamification in education (Faiella et al, 2015; Kim et al, 2018). For example, student engagement has been
found to be particularly improved if individuals are free to select a preferred mode of learning (Faiella et al,
2015). Additionally, students’ previous exposure to video game elements, the number of games played, prior
knowledge of, and exposure to gaming play an important role on the success of gamified experiences (Alsawaier,
2018; Garland, 2018; Kim et al, 2018; Martí-Parreño et al 2016). Despite some reports, effectiveness research
has not been properly contextualized with regards to how particular kinds of learners are motivated in different

493
 Jihan Rabah, Robert Cassidy and Robert Beauchemin

gamified contexts or how personality traits like extroversion or introversion may impact the social aspects of a
gamified experience.

In sum, gamification studies tend to overlook critical contextual moderators that help explain mixed results on
effectiveness. For example, social dynamics may be moderated by personality traits like extroversion and
responses to gamified instruction may vary as a result of students’ preferences (Martí-Parreño et al, 2016). In
light of the above, evidence is needed to corroborate practitioners’ claims that newer, innovative formats can
lead to better results with different demographics (Bell, 2017; Ortiz et al, 2016). To properly assess the impact
of gamification, therefore, the field is in need of richer predictive models that include contextual variables as
mediating or moderating variables, such as students’ levels of motivation, personalities, and game preferences
(Ortiz et al, 2016).

3.3.3 Biases
Literature reviews also make evident certain biases in the corpus of primary literature. Most notable and
problematic is the evidence for a disproportionate interest in the benefits of gamification. Though not explicitly
confirmed, this may indicate a publication bias, where only positive results are reported, either due to a
disproportionate search for positive outcomes while ignoring negative outcomes, or due to the lack of interest
in publishing negative results (file drawer bias). More studies should, therefore, include a focus on the possible
negative outcomes of gamification, particularly with regard to students’ emotions. Martí-Parreño et al (2016)
found that studies largely fail to explore how gamification might cause frustration, anxiety, or negative social
comparison. Similarly, de Marcos et al’s (2017) study on social gamification reported decreased motivation and
participation as the course progressed, probably due to the fact that the duration and timing were not taken
into account during the design phase of the course.

Another contextual bias is evident in the preponderance of research focusing on computer science and IT (STEM)
courses as opposed to other fields (Dicheva et al, 2015; Ortiz et al, 2016; Kim et al; 2018). This bias might be
because implementation of gamification requires the set-up needed to integrate and envision game mechanisms
and dynamics, which are usually found the computer science and IT department faculty (Dicheva et al, 2015).
On the background of this bias, studies reveal that gamification produced better effects in these STEM subjects
than the humanities (Kim et al, 2018). It is unclear if the application of gamification in other fields would result
in the same findings.

4. Conclusions
Based on our second-order review, we offer recommendations for further research in the field, with the
objective of better informing debates on the effectiveness of gamification in learning.
 The relation between game design principles and game mechanics is important. Research studies and
reviews would benefit from unpacking game design elements and explicitly considering which game
mechanics are employed and in service of which game design principles.
 The relation between game design elements and learning design elements is important. In addition to a
clearer analysis of the game design elements employed in research studies, equally important in terms of
outcomes is the consideration of ‘learning design elements’, or the pedagogical principles, learning
objectives and learning activities that are gamified. Noticeable are the potential overlaps between the two
sets of principles. For example, ‘rapid feedback’ is a both principle of game design and pedagogy, while
‘levels’ and ‘access’ align well with ‘mastery learning’ (see e.g., Hattie, 2015), but mechanics do not overlap.
This raises the enticing suggestion that gamification of learning is most effective when the principles of
gaming and learning are shared, aligned or even equivalent and operationalized through game mechanics.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of the learning activities that are gamified seems a clear prerequisite to
effectiveness of the gamification. Finally, not all types of learning objectives may be equally effectively
gamified. More careful analysis of these factors will help understand what types of learning are effectively
gamified.
 Contextual variables are important. With a clearer view of the ‘intervention’ as defined in recommendations
1 and 2, a clearer view of the contextual models is called for.

494
 Jihan Rabah, Robert Cassidy and Robert Beauchemin

 Richer predictive models will help. Summing up the previous recommendations, predictive models that
include the relations among game design elements, learning design elements and contextual variables will
benefit our understanding of what is best gamified, how, for whom and to what end.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Wynnpaul Varela for his valuable input and feedback including reviewing
the final draft of the manuscript and the corrections that followed.

References
Adams, E. and Dormans, J. (2012) Game mechanics: Advanced Game Design, New Riders, Berkeley.
Alsawaier, R. (2018) "The Effect of Gamification on Motivation and Engagement", The International Journal of Information
and Learning Technology, Vol 35, No. 1, pp 56-79.
Bell, K. (2017) Game On!: Gamification, Gameful Design, and the Rise of the Gamer Educator, Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore.
Bartel, A. and Hagel, G. (2014) "Engaging Students with a Mobile Game-based Learning System in University Education",
Global Engineering Education Conference Proceedings, pp 957-960.
Bevins, K. and Howard, C. (2018) "Game Mechanics and Why They Are Employed: What We know About Gamification So
Far", Issues and Trends in Educational Technology, Vol 6, No. 1, 1-21.
de Marcos, L. et al (2016) "Social Network Analysis of a Gamified e-Learning Course: Small-world Phenomenon and
Network Metrics as Predictors of Academic Performance", Computers in Human Behavior, Vol 60, pp 312-321.
Deterding, S., Dan Dixon, R. K., and Nacke, L. (2011) "From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining Gamification",
Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, pp 9-
15.
DeShutter, B. and Abeele, V. (2014) "Gradequest-Evaluating the Impact of Using Game Design Techniques in an
Undergraduate Course", Foundation of Digital Games, Society for the Advancement of the Science of Digital Games,
Fort Lauderdale.
Dominguez, A. et al (2013) "Gamifying Learning Experiences: Practical Implications and Outcomes", Computers &
Education, Vol 63, pp 380-392.
Dicheva, D. et al (2015) "Gamification in Education: A Systematic Mapping Study", Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, Vol 18, No. 3, pp 75.
Darejeh, A. and Salim S. (2016) "Gamification Solutions to Enhance Software User Engagement: A Systematic Review",
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol 32, No. 8, pp 613-642.
Faiella, F. and Ricciardi, M. (2015) "Gamification and Learning: A Review of Issues and Research", Journal of e-Learning and
Knowledge Society, Vol 11, No. 3, pp 1-12.
Garland, C. (2015) "Gamification and Implications for Second Language Education: A Meta Analysis", Unpublished
Dissertation, St. Cloud State University, Missouri.
Goehle, G. (2013) "Gamification and Web-based Homework." Primus, Vol 23, No. 3, pp 234-246.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., and Sarsa, H. (2014) "Does Gamification Work? A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on
Gamification", 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp 3025-3034.
Hattie, J. (2015) “The Applicability of Visible Learning to Higher Education”, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in
Psychology, Vol 1, No. 1, pp 79–91.
Holman, C., Aguilar, S., and Fishman, B. (2013) "GradeCraft: What Can We Learn From a Game-inspired Learning
Management System?", Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, pp
260-264.
Kapp, K. M. (2012) The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-based Methods and Strategies for Training and
Education, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Kim, S. et al (2018). Gamification in Learning and Education, Springer, Nottingham.
Law, F. L., Kasirun, Z. M., and Gan, C. K. (2011) "Gamification Towards Sustainable Mobile Application", Proceedings of the
5th Malaysian Conference on Software Engineering, pp 349-353.
Landers, R.N. and Callan R. (2011) "Casual Social Games as Serious Games: The Psychology of Gamification in
Undergraduate Education and Employee Training", Serious Games and Edutainment Applications, pp 399-423,
Springer, London.
Lee, J., and Hammer, J. (2011) "Gamification in Education: What, How, Why bother?", Academic Exchange Quarterly, Vol
15, No. 2, pp 146-155.
Losup, A. and Epema, D. (2014) “An Experience Report on Using Gamification in Technical Higher Education”, Paper
presented at Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education Conference, Atlanta, USA, March.
Martí‐Parreño, J. et al (2016) "The Use of Gamification in Education: A Bibliometric and Text Mining Analysis", Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, Vol 32, No. 6, pp 663-676.
Mak, H. W. (2013) "The Gamification of College Lectures at the University of Michigan", Gamification Corporation, Vol 8, pp
2-13.
Mora, A. et al (2015) "A Literature Review of Gamification Design Frameworks", Proceedings of Games and Virtual Worlds
for Serious Applications 7th International Conference, pp 1-8.

495
 Jihan Rabah, Robert Cassidy and Robert Beauchemin

Ortiz, M., Chiluiza, K., and Valcke M. (2016) "Gamification in Higher Education and STEM: A Systematic Review of
Literature", Proceedings of Edulearn 2016: The 8th Annual International Conference on Education and New Learning
Technologies, pp 6548-6558.
Oblinger, D. (2004) "The Next Generation of Educational Engagement", Journal of Interactive Media in Education, Vol 8, No.
1, pp 1-18.
O'Donovan, S., et al (2013) "A Case Study in the Gamification of a University-level Games Development Course",
Proceedings of the South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists Conference, pp 242-
251.
Pirker, J., Riffnaller-Schiefer, M. and Gütl, C. (2014) "Motivational Active Learning: Engaging University Students in
Computer Science Education", Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science
Education, pp 297-302.
Simões, J. et al (2013) "A Social Gamification Framework for a K-6 Learning Platform", Computers in Human Behavior, Vol
29, No. 2, pp 345-353.
Seaborn, K. and Fels, D. (2015) "Gamification in Theory and Action: A Survey", International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, Vol 74, pp 14-31.
Sitzmann, T. (2011) “A Meta-analytic Examination of the Instructional Effectiveness of Computer-based Simulation Games
Personnel Psychology, Vol 64, No. 2, pp 489-528.
Van Eck, R. (2006) “Digital Game-based Learning: It’s Not Just the Digital Natives Who Are Restless”, Educause, Vol 41, No.
2, pp 16–30.
Van Hentenryck P. and Coffrin, C. (2014) “Teaching Creative Problem Solving in a MOOC”, Proceedings of the 45th
Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pp 677-782.
Werbach, K. and Hunter, D. (2012) “For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business”, Wharton Digital
Press, Philadelphia.
Zichermann, G., and Cunningham, C. (2011) Gamification by Design: Implementing Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile
Apps, O'Reilly Media, Sebastopol.

496
Robert Beauchemin is President and CEO of eConcordia/KnowledgeOne, an award-winning learning solutions
company headquartered in Montreal. Through his 30 years of professional experience in information
technology, including the management of several large-scale computer learning development projects, he
acquired a strategic vision, as well as leadership, negotiation, and change management skills in a
multidisciplinary environment.

Anders Henrik Bendsen, VIA University College, Denmark researches in online and blended learning at VIA
University College, Bachelor of Education Programme of Teacher Training. I take an interest in learning assisted
by digital means, which has taken me from learning for dyslectics into upgrading colleagues in digital networks
for classes, and recently into a national MOOC for Teacher Training Colleges.

Marcus Bjelkemyr is head of the masterprogram Innovation and design and lecturer at Maelardalen University
. He has a civil engineering degree within Production systems, and wrote his Ph. D. thesis on system-of-systems
issues in production, both at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)

Konstantinos Bourdas works as a primary school teacher and I have many years of experience in the
application of learning technologies to education. My work as a postgraduate student in e-learning, in the
Department of Digital Systems, at University of Piraeus, focuses on gamification and how it can be used to
foster engagement and motivation.

Pavel Brebera works as Senior Lecturer at the Language Centre of the University of Pardubice, Czech Republic.
In his current job, he focuses mainly on teaching English for Specific Purposes, eLearning and mLearning. His
other professional activities include, for example, providing in-service teacher training at private language
schools.

James Brunton Dr has a BA (Hons) in Applied Psychology from University College Cork and a PhD in
Social/Organisational Psychology from Dublin City University (DCU). He is Chair of the DCU Connected BA in
Humanities (Psychology Major) programme in Dublin City University. Working within DCU’s National Institute
for Digital Learning his research interests include the psychology of identity formation, socialisation/induction
processes for ‘off-campus’ higher education students, and digital assessment.

Mie Buhl is Professor in Visual Culture, IT and Learning design. Head of research Center Visual Studies and
Learning Design, (ViLD) Department of Communication and Psychology, Aalborg University Copenhagen.
Research Interests: Visual Culture, Media and ICT with an emphasis on University Education, Teacher Training,
Primary School and with the focus on visual learning. Her methodology draws on action and Design-Based-
Research approaches in studies of the visual’s learning potentials. She has several publications in this field.

Amelia Calonge Professor at University of Alcalá (Spain), leading a multidisciplinary research team working on
Geology teaching. Most of her research over the last years has been concentrated in Educational resources
and strategies in Secondary and University Teaching. She also has active with other experimental centers as
the Centers for Secondary Teacher's Background or GEO-Schools (European Union project supported by the
Lifelong Learning Programme). Currently,, she is the Dean of the Faculty of Education since 2013.

Nathalie Cazaux A French native, I have been living in Dublin (Eire) since 1992. I lecture at Third-Level in the
Institute of Technology, Blanchardstown. I teach French for Business (Year 1 to Year 4). I am interested in
Education and Technology. Currently working on Game-Based Learning and Gamification with a keen interest
in UDL too.

Dr. Ivana Cechova is Head of the English Department at The Language Training Centre of the University of
Defence, Brno, Czech Republic. She has attended many specialist programs to broaden her professional
expertise in Europe, Canada and the United States. In her current research work, she focuses on ICT in
teaching languages, E-learning and Blended Learning as well as Applied Linguistics

Paula Charbonneau-Gowdy is Associate Professor and researcher in English as a Foreign Language Teacher
Education at the Universidad Andres Bello in Santiago, Chile. She received her PhD in Education from McGill
University Canada in 2006. She was formerly Senior Advisor in Learning and Technology to the Government of

xiii
Dimitra Pappa holds a degree in Electrical Engineering, and an MBA. Working for the National Centre for
Scientific Research(NCSR) “Demokritos” in Greece, she has taken part in numerous European and national R&D
projects in the fields of e-learning, e-health, e-government and e-commerce, as project coordinator, scientific
supervisor, project manager and member of the work team.

Teemu Patala is the Principal of AirportCollege.com Online Academy and co-founder of AirportCollege
International which is the leading provider of online training services for the global aviation industry. Teemu
has co-founded 3 other EdTech companies during his career and worked in digital learning design and aviation
training since the late 1990s.
Paula Peres has an aggregation in the doctoral area of Education: Online Education and eLearning, a post-PhD
and a PhD in Education technologies area. Master in computer science and graduate in Math Computer. She
has a Post-graduation in adult education.

Marianne Pickles is a Senior Assessment Manager at Cambridge Assessment English. She has a Master’s in
Language Testing and specialises in testing the reading and listening ability of learners with an elementary or
intermediate level of English. Marianne is an avid console and PC gamer with a particular interest in RPGs with
a strong narrative.

Tatiana Prextova works as Assistant Professors at the Department of ICT, University of Ostrava in the Czech
Republic. She teaches Mathematics, Pedagogical Software, Algorithms. Her research field was adaptive testing,
adaptive learning and now she is involved in projects for education – learning with digital technology,
development of information thinking at elementary school and kindergarten.

Jihan Rabah Dr. is currently Chair for the Doctoral Students’ Research Committee at the Centre for the Study of
Learning and Performance and Director, Research and Analysis at eConcordia, Concordia University. She is the
author of several publications and co-principal investigator on several projects that are related to education
and digital technologies.

Maria Rigou holds a Diploma in Computer Engineering and Informatics (1997, University of Patras), an MSc in
Computer Science (2000), a PhD (2005, web personalization), as well as a Master in Arts (2011, Graphics
design). Her research interests concern interaction design and web mining technologies and has published
results in scientific journals, books and conferences.

Dmitry Rudenkin. PhD in Sociology. Associate Professor at the Department of Integrated Marketing
Communications and Branding. Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N.Yeltsin
Rachel V Staddon is a PhD student in the School of Education at the University of Sheffield, where she also
teaches on the Foundation programme. Her research interests include technology enhanced learning, mature
students, and reducing maths anxiety. More specifically, her work involves designing age-inclusive resources,
and driving forward innovative pedagogies such as flipped learning.

Ser Zian Tan is currently a lecturer in the School of Communication, Taylor’s University, Malaysia, as well as a
part-time PhD student. Tan started her career in education since 9 years ago. In addition to teaching, she
devotes passion in research and her areas of study include consumer behaviour, positive youth development,
e-learning and advertising impacts.

Chun Meng Tang Dr has actively conducted research in the area of business information systems. His major
research areas include IS evaluation, strategic IS, and IS business alignment. He has received research grants,
published journal papers, conference papers and book chapters, as well as edited various books.

Florica Tomos Researcher, Economist, Lecturer, and Teacher. Fellow of Higher Education Academy; member of
BERA, ISBE, ACPIL, WERA and British Academy of Management. Reviewer & author of academic papers, articles
and book chapter. Expertise in entrepreneurship education for women entrepreneurs, communities of practice
and networks, e-learning, new emerging technologies, strategic management and entrepreneurship,
globalization, inequalities, gender, andragogy and pedagogy. Background is economics, education, accounting
and business management.

xix
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.