This article is licensed under CC-BY 4.

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

Gamification 2.0: Gamifying an Entire Introductory Organic

Chemistry Course Again
José Nunes da Silva Junior,* Maria do Socorro Caldas Teotônio, Antonio José Melo Leite Junior,
João Gabriel Benício Vasconcelos Pinheiro, and Lucas Lima da Silva
Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. 2025, 102, 679−687 Read Online

ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations *

sı Supporting Information
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

ABSTRACT: After analyzing the students’ opinions and performances obtained in the
previous Gamification 1.0 implemented in 2021, as well as our self-evaluation, we propose a
new set of mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics that were the basis of a new gamification�
Gamification 2.0. This article outlines this new gamification process for a Brazilian
Downloaded via 87.223.95.15 on March 31, 2025 at 19:05:38 (UTC).

university’s entire Introductory Organic Chemistry course. Its main difference from
Gamification 1.0 is related to the student assessment strategy, whose course averages are
now obtained exclusively from the total points (XPs) obtained in each gamification dynamic.
The paper also describes how we implemented these new solutions over two semesters
(2023.2 and 2024.1) in the Chemistry and Pharmacy courses as an active didactic strategy
that uses game thinking, gameplay mechanics, and game elements in nongame contexts to
engage students and enhance their knowledge of organic chemistry.

KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate, Organic Chemistry, Teaching, Gamification

■ INTRODUCTION
Gamification has attracted great interest in recent decades due
Later, after analyzing the students’ opinions and perform-
ances and our self-evaluation, we realized that we could obtain
to its potential influence on improving user engagement and better results by designing a new set of mechanics, dynamics,
enjoyment.1 It is a method where different game strategies and and aesthetics to achieve higher student engagement. Then, we
mechanics are employed in nongame contexts to promote developed a new set of mechanics (basic processes that drive
student commitment and motivation,2 seeking to engage the action forward and generate player engagement), which
students in an interactive system that motivates them to was the basis for new dynamics (basic processes that drive the
participate in several learning activities.3−7 Moreover, studies action forward and generate player engagement) and resulted
show Gamification as a didactic technique favoring students’ in new aesthetics (mechanisms for rewarding the player for
professional skills, increasing the sense of community, completing a challenge), in which is the whole change of
improving the learning process, and growing their engage- assessment of students in the course. We present the
ment.8 Gamification 2.0 below.
In 2021, we gamified the entire Introductory Organic
Chemistry Course at the Federal University in Brazil as an
active didactic strategy. We used game thinking, gameplay
mechanics, aesthetics, and game design elements for nongame
■ GAMIFICATION 2.0
The Introductory Organic Chemistry lecture at the Federal
applications to motivate students and improve their knowl- University of Ceará in Brazil is a course composed of five units:
edge. (1) structural theory of organic compounds; (2) stereo-
In the article published in this journal in 2022,9 we provided chemistry; (3) functional groups and their nomenclatures; (4)
a detailed description of the gamification process. In summary, organic acids and bases; and (5) introduction to organic
during one semester, students participated in both traditional reactions. The Introductory Organic Chemistry course is
and flipped classes, culminating in an exam at the end of the
five modules. Additionally, they participated in many other
activities during the semester to earn points, which we Received: September 23, 2024
displayed on a leaderboard. At the end of the semester, we Revised: December 28, 2024
calculated the students’ arithmetic mean from their five exam Accepted: December 30, 2024
scores, and we added additional scores (varying from 0.1 to Published: January 7, 2025
1.0) to students’ arithmetic means according to their position
on the leaderboard.
© 2025 The Authors. Published by
American Chemical Society and Division https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01183
of Chemical Education, Inc. 679 J. Chem. Educ. 2025, 102, 679−687
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

Table 1. Mechanics, Dynamics, and Rewards Used in Each Introductory Organic Chemistry Course Unit
Rewards
Unit Mechanics Dynamics XP Coins Badgesg
1-5 Points To attribute points to students for their achievements - - -
1-5 Coins To give coins to students for their achievements - - -
1-5 Badges To give badges to students for their achievements - - -
1-5 Attendancea To attend one class. 30 3 A1
1-5 Punctualitya To be punctual in class. 30 3 A2
1-5 Instagramb To post pictures related to studying. 10 1 no
1-5 Top Testc To take three short tests per unit, composed of 10 multiple-choice tests in the 100 10 no
Socrative app.
1-5 One for all and all for Students are separated into heterogeneous groups and motivated to study together. 500 50 A4
onec
1-5 Video classesd To watch video classes on YouTube, as indicated by the instructor, and comment on it. 40 4 no
1-5 Crosswordsc,e Fill a crossword with 20 words for each unit. 30 3 C5
1-5 Avatars and Levelsf To get a specific number of XP to level up and to evolve the avatar. 0 10 no
1-5 Ranking and Feedback Points earned are organized in a ranking that allows instant feedback for students. 0 0 no
1 Time Bomb Game12 To enter into the app rankings: beginner (B), intermediate (I), and advanced (A). 500−1500 50−150 B1
1 STR20 Game13 To play the board game. Awards are given for the top three positions. 500−1000 50−150 C1
1 7 to Win Game14 To play the board game. Awards are given for the top three positions. 500−1000 50−150 B4
1 Interactions 50015 To play the board game. Awards are given for the top three positions. 500−1000 50−150 B3
2 Stereochemistry Game16 To play the board game. Awards are given for the top three positions. 500−1000 50−150 C3
2 Boss Fight To Find the solution to a significant challenge. 300−2100 - A5
3 Chemical Nomenclature To enter into the app rankings:c beginner (B), intermediate (I), and advanced (A). 500−1500 50−150 B2
Game17
3 Nomenclature Bets18 To play the board game. Awards are given for the top three positions. 500−1000 50−150 C2
4 Acids & Bases Game19 To play the board game. Awards are given for the top three positions. 500−1000 50−150 B5
5 CR322 Game20 To play the board game. Awards are given for the top three positions. 500−1000 50−150 C4
Any Luck: Blind auction Students participate in a blind auction offering coins to acquire an envelope with 0 0 no
time unknown content.
Any Luck: Unlucky The top 5 students in the ranking have their names drawn back-to-back until the last 0 0 no
time one drawn receives a prize.
Any To Donate: Charity I Donate 2 kg of nonperishable food to support those in need. 500 50 no
time
Any To Donate: Charity II To raise funds for those in need by selling raffle tickets for a textbook donated by the 500 50 no
time professor.
At End Trophy To achieve the top position in the ranking and win a trophy 0 0 0
a b c d e
Thirty-four classes in semester. Limited to 50 posts. Five in semester. Thirty-eight video classes. Five in semester; 30XP and 3 coins for each
correct word. fTen milestones. gSee Figure 1.

taught to Chemistry and Pharmacy undergraduate students

who participated in both Gamification 1.0 and 2.0.
To gamify the course again, we developed a structured
approach that incorporates game elements to guide learners
through the content while preserving its integrity. This type of
Gamification uses points, badges, levels, and rankings in
educational content. It is the most highly recommended
approach for enhancing the student experience over a semester
or academic year.10 It is also more procedural and runs parallel
to professors’ practices without changing the content; it simply
organizes mechanics that motivate students to achieve learning
objectives while rewarding them. For that, we reused some
mechanics, dynamics, and awards for each unit from
Gamification 1.0 by modifying some of them, and we also
developed other new ones (Table 1). The students’ perform-
Figure 1. Badges
ances in the dynamics resulted in three types of rewards:
points, coins, and badges. The individualś total points obtained
(XP) are listed in a ranking, and the student’s grades in the which have earned them honor and status among their peers.11
course are defined. We will discuss later the relation between Besides, the student who won the highest number of badges
points and grades used in this experiment. also received a bonus in XP, corresponding to 10% of their
The coin is a virtual currency that students can use to buy total XP in the total gamification process.
products (periodic tables, food, special badges, pens, and The total number of points available for achievement is
others) in the virtual shop, and the badges (Figure 1) represent 35400 XP (Table 2), which students acquire by participating in
the students’ achievements and actions worthy of recognition, the dynamics. Many researchers define competence as the
680 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01183
J. Chem. Educ. 2025, 102, 679−687
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

Table 2. Total Points (XP) and Coins Available Per Top Test and One for All and All for One. Students
Introductory Organic Chemistry Course Unit must take three knowledge tests per unit. The tests comprised
ten multiple-choice questions covering the unit’s content, as
Unit XP %
seen in the last class. Test dates were not announced in
1 - Structural Theory 9540 26.95 advance, and test takers took the tests using the Socrative
2 - Stereochemistry 5800 16.38 Student app. We created this dynamic to encourage students to
3 - Functional Groups 7560 21.35
study regularly. The students’ average score was 4.3, of a
4 - Acids and Bases 6400 18.08
maximum of 10 in the Top Test.
5 - Introd. Org. Reactions 6100 17.24
Aiming to improve student performance, we associated the
Total 35400a 100.00
a
Top Tests with a cooperative dynamic - One for All and All for
Not including the 2100 XP from the Boss Fight mechanic. One (OFAAFO). We separated students into heterogeneous
groups composed of participants with different performances
integrated whole of knowledge, attitudes, and skills (attitudinal, in the course. This way, we encouraged students to study
cognitive, and socioemotional) and postulate that integration together to foster the knowledge exchange between group
should be measured as a learning process and competence as a members.
learning product.21 Although students’ scores in the Top Tests were individual,
The luck factor is also present in some mechanics. Table 3
we calculated the arithmetic means and standard deviations for
shows the total points related to each kind of mechanics, skill,
each group in the three tests in each unit. The winners would
be the groups that obtained the lowest dispersion value (α) −
Table 3. Total Points (XP) Related to Each Kind of which was calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the
Mechanics, Skill, and Whether the Luck Factor Is Present or
arithmetic mean−and had a mean higher than or equal to 6.0.
Not
Unfortunately, only one group reached this average once and
Mechanic Total of XP % XP Skilla Luck Factor won the prize. Each member of the winning group received
Attendance 1020 2.88 A no 500 XP and 50 coins, and the participant with the highest
Punctuality 1020 2.88 A no average also won a badge (A4 in Figure 1). At the beginning of
Instagram 500 1.41 A no the next unit, the students were separated again into new
Top Test 15000 42.37 C no groups, taking into consideration their performance at that
OFAAFOb 2500 7.06 C, S no point in the course.
Video classes 1360 3.84 A no Video Classes. We believe that one way to promote
Crosswords 3000 8.47 C no student learning is through video classes. Therefore, we used
Game App 3000 8.47 C no video classes that we recorded in the past and posted on
Board Game 7000 19.77 C, S yes YouTube as a part of the mechanics involved in Gamification
Solidarity 1000 2.82 S no 2.0. We motivated the students to watch these video classes
Total 35400 100.00 and register comments about the content covered. They
a
(A) = attitudinal, (C) = cognitive, and (S) = socioemotional skills. received 40 XP and four coins for every comment left as a
b
One for All and All for One. reward.
We suggest educators who do not have recorded video
and whether the luck factor is present. We must highlight that lectures use online videos for this purpose. This approach can
most points (72.75%) given as rewards require students’ help reinforce video classes’ importance and promote a more
cognitive skills, 16.32% rely on social skills, and 11.01% depend interactive and engaging learning environment.
on attitudinal skills. The luck factor in the mechanics involving Ranking and Feedback. The gamification process
board games is 19.77%. To calculate the percentages for One motivates students to achieve their learning goals by offering
for All and All for One (OFAAFO) and board game rewards and feedback.23,24 Some usual methods to gamify an
mechanics, we evenly divided the values presented in Table educational experience include awarding points for completing
3 between cognitive and social skills. tasks or demonstrating mastery of concepts. These elements
Mechanics Used in Gamification 1.0 and 2.0 encourage students to participate more frequently, work
Attendance and Punctuality. Successful learning out- harder, and persist in the face of challenging tasks.25
comes are highly dependent on the interactions between Furthermore, rankings promote social interactions by
students and instructors. Face-to-face or virtual interactions cultivating a community centered on social engagement and
with classmates and teachers in the classroom can develop healthy competition through self-comparison with classmates.
essential skills entirely, such as critical thinking, teamwork, Ultimately, this comparison fuels their “desire to win,” making
leadership, and networking. When students are absent, valuable them feel successful and uplifted. In this context, we used a
learning opportunities may be missed, resulting in lost time digital ranking as an easy way for students to control their
and potential growth. points, ratings, awards, levels, and prizes.
Regarding punctuality, it is just as crucial as attendance for However, managing the ranking may have been the most
students. Arriving late to class can often cause distractions for challenging task that we experienced in the first gamification
other students and interrupt the instructor’s flow of process in 2021. To address this challenge, we utilized the app
explanation.22 Therefore, we rewarded students who attended Gamefik26 (Figure 2) in Gamification 2.0. This digital tool is
classes and were punctual with 30 XP and three coins in each designed to assist instructors in managing their gamified
class. We also rewarded students who always attended all classes, including mechanics, dynamics, levels, coins, XP, and
classes and never arrived late by giving them badges (A1 and virtual shop. This app simplified the way teachers registered
A2 in Figure 1). occurrences, by automatically generating rankings.
681 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01183
J. Chem. Educ. 2025, 102, 679−687
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

ranking. They drew four names of students; the one whose

name was not drawn (the unluckiest) won the chocolate.
Blind Auction. In the second half of the course, some
students still had many coins in their virtual wallets after
buying products from the virtual shop. Therefore, we used the
luck factor again by developing a particular dynamic to
promote interaction among the students, making them spend
their coins. We placed “prizes” into envelopes numbered from
1 to 5. The prizes were chocolate, 500 XP, a used old comb,
two theater tickets, and cookies. Then, the students bid for
each envelope whose prize was unknown until the highest
bidder won it. The activity was enjoyable, and the students
loved it.
Figure 2. Gamefik’s screens: a) main, b) ranking. Charitable Actions. Gamification 2.0 incorporated game
aspects into activities that are not traditionally considered
games, like fundraising. Gamification’s psychological under-
pinnings can be very interesting. The fundamentals of
Game-Based Applications. As in the previous gamifica- gameplay are making a task look enjoyable and having a low
tion process,9 we used two game-based applications as risk, and it is. Donors perceive a time of instant gratification
mechanics of Gamification 2.0. The Time Bomb Game12 was when they see their contributions recognized or even
used in Unit 1, while the Chemical Nomenclature Game17 was celebrated as “wins.” Therefore, we may use gaming
used in Unit 3. In both cases, the dynamic consisted of components to inform, engage, and, most crucially, encourage
motivating the students to play/study by playing the games our audience to act, whether that action is raising money,
until reaching one of three rankings available: Beginner (B), enlisting new donors, or raising awareness.
Intermediate (I), and Advanced (A). The players would So, we planned a specific dynamic in Gamification 2.0 in
receive different rewards based on the ranking they achieved which all students who donated two kilograms of non-
−1500 XP and 150 coins (advanced), 1000 XP and 100 coins perishable food to be given to those in need were rewarded
(intermediate), 500 XP and 50 coins (beginner). All students with 500 XP and 50 coins.
who reached the Advanced ranking also received a badge (B1 The second charitable action occurred when the professor
and B2, Figure 1). donated a textbook from his private library for a student-
We highlight that both digital games, in the format of apps organized raffle. The funds raised were then used to purchase
mentioned in this section, are free of cost and available only to food, which was donated to economically vulnerable people.
Android devices. We chose these applications because our We rewarded all students who participated in the raffle with
research group developed them, and their contents cover 500 XP and 50 coins.
exactly the subjects taught in the classroom. New Mechanics Used Only in Gamification 2.0
Game-Based Learning. In the last decades, educational
games have been used as innovative teaching strategies to Avatars and Levels. An avatar is a digital representation of
achieve more effective learning and have an impact that tends a player within a game that can be customized to some degree,
to be very good in the learning process. Besides, using and levels are a system of progression in which players must
educational games has become a popular teaching method that complete specific tasks or reach certain milestones to advance
offers an innovative approach to enhance learning outcomes by to the next level.
acting on students’ motivation and understanding of chemistry In Gamification 2.0, players could progress through ten
concepts.24 levels. Each time they achieved a new milestone, they advanced
Since 2017, our research group has designed educational to the next level, their avatar evolved, and they won 10 coins as
board games13−16,18,19 as alternative methods to traditional a reward. Figure 3 shows the landmarks with their respective
problem-solving classes and to aid students in reviewing several values of XP and avatars.
contents in fun and cooperative ways. So, we introduced Crosswords. Compared to our previous work,9 the
innovation by choosing to incorporate seven of those games as crosswords are a brand-new feature of Gamification 2.0. At
mechanics in Gamification 2.0. Students were then stimulated the end of every unit, students received a crossword with 20
to play these games in groups of four in the classroom and, words and had to fill it out in 20 minutes. All 20 words were
sometimes, online from their homes. All players received related to content seen in the unit. As a reward, students
points and coins according to their final positions in the match: receive 30 XP and three coins per word found. The students’
first (1000 XP/100 coins), second (700XP/70 coins), third average percentage score was 89.7%. The crosswords used are
(500XP/50 coins), and fourth (250 XP/25 coins). Addition- available in Supporting Information.
ally, the winners also received badges corresponding to each Boss Fight. Boss Fight is a difficult task that comes at the
board game (B3−B5 and C1−C4, Figure 1). end of a level and offers a unique mastering experience. During
Again, all the digital board games mentioned in this section this dynamic, players find a formidable obstacle that they can
were chosen for the same reason described above. hardly overcome, leading to the burst of joy that is referred to
The Unluckiest Student. By aiming to motivate students as an “epic win” in gaming terminology. In other words, their
to reach the top positions in the ranking, we planned a primary driving force in gamified classes is a desire to compete
dynamic by using the luck factor as a mechanic in Gamification with and measure themselves against the instructor.27,28
2.0. The professor held a weekly draw to give a chocolate to So, we used the “Boss Fight” as a new mechanic in
the “unluckiest” student among the first five placed in the Gamification 2.0, aiming for students to participate in a specific
682 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01183
J. Chem. Educ. 2025, 102, 679−687
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

Therefore, we rewarded the members of each group

differently. Students in lower positions in the ranking received
higher values of XP than their groupmates who were in higher
positions. (Figure 4). The students had no objection regarding
the different awards; after all, everyone received additional
points that were not foreseen. Besides, all group members who
first discovered the unknown drug also received the badge A5
(Figure 1).
Trophy. At the end of the semester, we rewarded the
student at the top of the ranking with a trophy (Figure 5).

Figure 3. Landmarks and avatars for each level.

challenge to unveil the structure of an unknown drug by using

their chemical knowledge acquired throughout the course.
We developed this dynamic by separating 14 Pharmacy
undergraduate students into three pregroups (1−3), following Figure 5. Student with the best performance in Gamification 2.0 in
their order in the ranking at that time. Afterward, we randomly 2024.1.
divided the students into four heterogeneous groups (A-D)
composed of one member from each pregroup (1−3) (Figure
4).
We used the “Boss Fight” dynamic immediately after the end
■ THE GAMIFICATION AND THE STUDENTS’
GRADES
of unit two by rewarding the students with extra points (XP), In the original gamification process in 2021, we calculated the
which ranged between 300 and 2100 XP. These additional students’ grades in the course by using the arithmetic mean of
points were not included in the initial overview of the three exams. Subsequently, extra points were added to these
gamification mechanics and dynamics provided to the students. means, ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 depending on the student’s
The mechanic “Boss Fight” consisted of identifying the position in the ranking.
molecular formula of the unknown from a set of tips. The After the end of this gamification process, we investigated
description of the dynamic is available in the Supporting whether there was a positive correlation between the
Information. arithmetic mean of students’ grades from two classes in 2023
We aimed to motivate those students at lower positions in and their ranking scores using the Pearson correlation
the ranking during that point of the semester to remain coefficient, which measures the linear correlation between
engaged in the Gamification process by using this mechanic. two data sets. It is essentially a normalized covariance

Figure 4. Scheme of Boss Fight dynamic.

683 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01183
J. Chem. Educ. 2025, 102, 679−687
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

Figure 6. Distribution of students’ grades after participating in the Gamification 2.0 in 2023.2 and 2024.1 (N = 27).

measurement, with the result−usually represented by “ρ”−

always falling between −1 and +1. It is the ratio between the
covariance of two variables and the product of their standard
deviations. Like covariance, the measurement can only account
for linear correlations between variables and ignores numerous
connections or correlations. In a straightforward illustration,
the age and height of a sample of high school students should
have a Pearson correlation coefficient that is significantly more
than 0 (which would mean there would be no correlation) but
less than 1 (because 1 would signify an erroneously perfect
correlation).29
The statistical analysis of the two classes of Pharmacy
undergraduate students in 2021 showed moderate and strong
positive Pearson correlation coefficients (ρ = 0.66 and 0.74).
These findings motivated us to eliminate the traditional three
exams in semesters 2023.2 and 2024.1 of the Introductory
Organic Chemistry course. So, we designed Gamification 2.0,
in which we related the points earned by students directly to
their grades in the course (Table S6).
Figure 6 shows the distribution of students’ grades after
Figure 7. Distribution of student responses to survey statements after
participating in the Gamification 2.0 in 2023.2 and 2024.1. Of participating in the Gamification 2.0 in 2023.2 and 2024.1 (N = 27)
the total of Pharmacy undergraduate students in two The percentages represent students’ responses on a five-point Likert-
consecutive semesters, 46.7% and 93.3% got grades equal to type scale that ranges from “disagree totally” to “agree totally”.
or higher than 5.0 in 2023.2 and 2024.1, respectively. Although
we do not have more data to formulate a hypothesis based on
statistics, we believe that the improved results in 2024.1 were percentages reflect students’ answers on a five-point Likert
due to a class of more dedicated students and the professor’s scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”
greater experience in implementing Gamification 2.0 during Based on students’ opinions from the first four statements
this second time. However, we know that more results from (S1−S4), we can affirm that Gamification 2.0 is an innovative
the following classes will be necessary to explain the difference teaching strategy (S1, 85.2%) that promotes student engage-
between the results of the two classes. ment (dedication of time and study) in the subject (S2,
92.6%). Besides, the absence of conventional exams did not
■ EVALUATION OF THE GAMIFICATION 2.0
To evaluate Gamification 2.0, we invited all the twenty-seven
interfere with their learning (S3, 70.3%), but the students
disagree that having no exams reduces their stress (S4, 62.9%).
They also consider that although there were no traditional
Pharmacy undergraduate students who participated in 2023.2 exams, they had to study to get good results from the
and 2024.1 to respond to an electronic form divided into three gamification process (S5, 96.3%).
parts: (i) eight statements (S1−S8) using a Likert-type scale30 Regarding the last three statements (S6−S8), we found that
and one question with multiple options to students to choose 44.4% of the students did not believe that replacing traditional
from, (ii) 12 statements (S) using a Likert-type scale, and (iii) tests with points earned through gamification during the
six other questions. The form is available in Supporting semester was beneficial. (S6). The same percentage of
Information. Figure 7 shows the distribution of student’s participants also disagreed that they developed an internal
responses to the eight statements from the first part. The motivation that kept them engaged during gamification. (S7).
684 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01183
J. Chem. Educ. 2025, 102, 679−687
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

Table 4. Students’ preferences regarding the teaching methodology, gamification rating, and UES average
Semester Coursea Gamification Used Preference for Traditional (%) Preference for Gamification (%) Rating UES Averageb
2022.2 Pharmacy (N = 18) 1.0 16.7 83.3 8.1 ± 1.6 3.98
2022.2 Chemistry (N = 24) 1.0 25.0 75.0 7.9 ± 1.6 3.63
2023.1 Pharmacy (N = 15) 1.0 6.7 93.3 9.2 ± 0.8 4.18
2023.2 Pharmacy (N = 14) 2.0 50.0 50.0 7.2 ± 2.0 3.52
2024.1 Pharmacy (N = 13) 2.0 53.8 46.2 7.0 ± 2.0 3.13
a
N = number of students. bvalues ranged 0 to 5.

Scores Based on these results, we noticed a higher preference for

The definition of the XP values is an instructor’s prerogative Gamification 1.0 than traditional teaching methodology.
and must be well-planned. There is no perfect set of values. It However, we noticed no predominant preference between
is part of the gamification process, implementing it, evaluating the two teaching methodologies when we applied Gamification
it, and making changes if necessary. 2.0. Moreover, the students rated Gamification 1.0 with higher
50.7% of students agreed that the scores awarded for each scores than Gamification 2.0. Finally, we also noticed that the
activity were fair, considering the difficulties in obtaining UES average for Gamification 1.0 was higher, indicating higher
points for each dynamic (S8). However, the ideal scores student engagement.
awarded for each activity according to students are not So, we believe many students preferred Gamification 1.0
significantly different from those applied (lower than 5%), as because an additional score, based on their participation in
shown in Tables S7 and S8 in Supporting Information. Gamification, was constantly added to the average obtained in
Based on students’ opinions, we can notice that they would their traditional exams. We realized that by eliminating
like to increase the XP values attributed to the mechanics traditional exams in Gamification 2.0, students who are not
involving attitudinal skills (+3.53%) and reduce the XP values used to being very engaged can feel pressured by the imposed
related to cognitive (−4.77%) and social skills (−2.51%). dynamics.
In addition, students’ oral feedback demonstrated they To try to get more data to support this thought, we also
disagreed with the percentages used to convert their total asked students from class 2024.1 to justify their choices.
points (XP) into course grades. Then, we also asked them to Twelve of 13 students justified their choices, and their
justifications are listed below.
suggest percentages they consider ideal for the conversion. The
Traditional Methodology. “I prefer the traditional
percentages used and suggested by students are listed in Table
methodology because I didn’t like certain methods within the
S9. By analyzing the percentages suggested by students and
gamif ied discipline.”
comparing them with those implemented in Gamification, it is
“I prefer the previous model (traditional) because it has
evident that students prefer using lower percentages (an
been extensively tested and is reliable. In contrast, the new
average of −24.36%) for conversions, making it easier to pass
model may have unexpected f laws or problems that have
the course. Assessing the students’ learning may be the most
not yet been identif ied or resolved.
difficult challenge. The instructors must exhaustively plan the
“The gamif ied proposal is exciting and innovative, but I
gamification process to be the fairest possible. Again, there are
didn’t find it very inclusive. I believe that organic chemistry
no “magic formulas”. As educators, we must pay attention to all
is a subject that needs to be solved with pen and paper in
variables, test them, and adequate them as necessary.
hand and with a little extra time to think. Ten minutes on a
Students’ Engagement cell phone shouldn’t evaluate my knowledge of the content
As we were interested in investigating students’ engagement because I’m sure I could have done better using the
more deeply, in the second part of the form, we assessed user traditional method.”
engagement using the short form of the User Engagement “The pace of gamification is intense and of ten conf licts with
Scale (UES-SF), which has been proven to be effective.31,32 other subjects, as well as with the course itself. For instance,
Table 4 presents the rates obtained from participants of in the same week, students had to learn new content and
Gamification 2.0 across the four domains of the UES-SF. take tests, which I believe signif icantly impacts their
Significantly, the overall engagement UES-SF average score performance.”
reached 3.52 in 2023.2 and 3.13 in 2024.1, which are scores Gamification. “With the gamif ied methodology, there
close to 5 (the maximum possible UES-SF score), suggesting is no way to accumulate content, and it serves as a great tool
good levels of engagement. for review.”
It is important to highlight that after the publication of the “It is interesting to link technology and games to teaching. In
article about the Gamification of an entire course of Organic games, cards help a lot in reviewing the content.”
Chemistry in the Journal of Chemical Education,9 we “I think it is a benef icial and interesting method, and it
continued to apply the same Gamification 1.0 approach in stimulates students a lot.”
the subsequent semesters of 2022.2 and 2023.1 across three “The gamified subject does not focus only on traditional
different classes at the Federal University of Ceará in Brazil. As tests, but allows the student to be rewarded for the
said before, in the semesters 2023.2 and 2024.1, we applied dedication they give to the subject throughout the semester,
Gamification 2.0, in which there were no traditional exams as a encouraging them to participate more in the proposed
grading tool. At the end of each of those semesters, we asked activities.”
students to choose either Gamification or Traditional Teaching “With it (gamification), you have more time and chances to
as their preferred methodology. The results are listed in Table study the content.”
4.
685 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01183
J. Chem. Educ. 2025, 102, 679−687
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

“Gamif ication encourages keeping up to date with the

content.”
■
*
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
sı Supporting Information
“I found the gamif ied method very exciting, as it made me
learn in a new and f un way. It certainly made me study The Supporting Information is available at https://pubs.ac-
more intensely and try to focus more and more to reach the s.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01183.
top positions”. Percentage of students’ agreement (Likert scale), UES
form, scoring the US-SF, Person correlation coefficients,
■ FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Over the last few decades, there has been a considerable
Boss Fight description of the challenge, percentage XP
values implemented and suggested by students,
correlation between of total XP and students’ grades,
change in the approach to chemistry education research, dynamics, and enjoyments most preferred by students,
moving away from a teacher-centered pedagogy toward a more and crosswords (PDF, DOCX)
learner-centered approach.24
Traditional education focuses on the teaching and learning
processes based on stimulus and responses, where the learner
■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
watches and listens to the teacher. So, learning is viewed
José Nunes da Silva Junior − Departamento de Química
predominately in the cognitive domain, and learners only see
Orgânica e Inorgânica, Universidade Federal do Ceará,
what the teacher teaches, which is predictable and often 60451-970 Fortaleza, Ceará, Brasil; orcid.org/0000-
tedious. On the other hand, the learner-centered approach 0002-6631-4382; Email: [email protected]
focuses on the experience-based framework in which socio-
emotional and physical environments mediate knowledge. Authors
Besides, the students actively work collaboratively, analyze Maria do Socorro Caldas Teotônio − Departamento de
problems, and develop critical thinking through simulations, Química Orgânica e Inorgânica, Universidade Federal do
games, role-plays, case studies, group encounters, multimedia, Ceará, 60451-970 Fortaleza, Ceará, Brasil
and, most recently, Gamification. These approaches are more Antonio José Melo Leite Junior − UFC Virtual, Universidade
fun, challenging, relevant, and engaging than those that offer Federal do Ceará, 60440-454 Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil
only books, articles, and lectures to students.32,33 João Gabriel Benício Vasconcelos Pinheiro − UFC Virtual,
Universidade Federal do Ceará, 60440-454 Fortaleza, Ceará,
In this sense, the gamification process presented in this
Brazil
article appears to be an excellent strategy for engaging students Lucas Lima da Silva − Universidade Federal do Cariri,
in the Introductory Organic Chemistry course, which aims to 63180-000 Barbalha, Ceará, Brasil
improve student learning, as demonstrated by the results we
Complete contact information is available at:
obtained.
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01183
Although Gamification 2.0 has been implemented only in
two small classes, a limitation of this study, the results obtained Funding
motivate us to continue in this pathway by testing and
The Article Processing Charge for the publication of this
improving it through the following semesters. For example, we research was funded by the Coordination for the Improvement
intend to test Gamification 1.5, which will be a hybrid of Higher Education Personnel - CAPES (ROR identifier:
gamification process between Gamification 1.0 and 2.0. We will 00x0ma614).
maintain the traditional tests and all mechanics, except for the Notes
Top Tests. In this way, the students’ final grades will be
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
defined by the arithmetic mean between the average of the
traditional tests and the grade obtained through the
gamification 2.0 process.
We recommend that readers of this article who still need to
■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors appreciate the Gamefik Platform for supporting
this work.
gain experience in Gamification start using fewer mechanics
initially, probably working with Gamification 1.09 and later
adopting Gamification 2.0, but constantly adapting processes ■ REFERENCES
(1) Zahedi, L.; Batten, J.; Ross, M.; Potvin, G.; Damas, S.; Clarke, P.;
as necessary. In this manner, the best approach is known as Davis, D. Gamification in education: A mixed-methods study of
“Baby Steps”, whereby teachers apply something they already gender on computer science students’ academic performance and
understand how it works and feel comfortable working with. identity development. J. Comput. High. Educ. 2021, 33, 441−474.
So, they analyze the results, explore what can be done, get new (2) Attali, Y.; Arieli-Attali, M. Gamification in assessment: Do points
affect test performance? Comput. Educ. 2015, 83, 57−63.
ideas (always including students’ opinions), and prototype and (3) Seaborn, K.; Fels, D. I. Gamification in theory and action: A
test various possibilities in their class. survey. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2015, 74, 14−31.
Finally, we asked students to choose from a list of (4) Rodríguez Simon, A. I.; Regina López, S. Strategies of teaching
gamification dynamics and enjoyment factors that they in the mediated environments: Results of the experience of the virtual
believed would enhance their engagement, which we presented educational performance. Rev. Educ. Distancia 2017, 17, 55.
(5) Sailer, M.; Hense, J. U.; Mayr, S. K.; Mandl, H. How
to them in the first part of the electronic form. Figure S3 shows Gamification motivates: An experimental study of the effects of
the students’ opinions, which can aid readers in designing their specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction.
Gamification processes. Comput. Human Behav. 2017, 69, 371−380.

686 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01183
J. Chem. Educ. 2025, 102, 679−687
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

(6) Alsawaier, R. S. The effect of Gamification on motivation and (22) Baartman, L. K. J.; de Bruijn, E. Integrating Knowledge, Skills,
engagement. Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol. 2018, 35, 56−79. and Tittudes: Conceptualising Learning Processes Towards Voca-
(7) Koivisto, J.; Hamari, J. The rise of motivational information tional Competence. Educ. Res. Rev. 2011, 6, 125−134.
systems: A review of gamification research. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 45, (23) Lee, J. J.; Hammer, J. Gamification in education: What, how,
191−210. why bother? Acad. Exch. Q. 2011, 15 (2), 1−5.
(8) Jurgelaitis, M.; Ceponiene, L.; Ceponis, J.; Drungilas, V. (24) Yıldırım, I.; Sen, S. The effects of Gamification on students’
Implementing Gamification in a university-level UML modeling academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. Interact. Learn. Environ.
course: A case study. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2019, 27, 332−343. 2021, 29 (8), 1301−1318.
(9) da Silva Júnior, J. N.; Castro, G. d. L.; Melo Leite Junior, A. J.; (25) Antonaci, A.; Klemke, R.; Specht, M. The Effects of
Monteiro, A. J.; Alexandre, F. S. O. Gamification of an entire Gamification in Online Learning Environments: A Systematic
introductory organic chemistry course: A strategy to enhance the Literature Review. Inform. 2019, 6 (3), 32.
students’ engagement. J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99 (2), 678−687. (26) https://gamefik.com/ (accessed July 2024).
(10) Eugenio, T. Aula em Jogo. Descomplicando a Gamificaçaõ para (27) Syahidi, A. A.; Supianto, A. A.; Hirashima, T.; Tolle, H.
Internat. J. Eng. 2022, 3 (1), 11−29.
Educadores; É vora: 2020.
(28) Byusa, E.; Kampire, E.; Mwesigye, A. R. Game-based learning
(11) Imran, H. Evaluation of awarding badges on Student’s
approach on students’ motivation and understanding of chemistry
engagement in Gamified e-learning systems. Smart Learn. Environ.
concepts: A systematic review of literature. Heliyon 2022, 8,
2019, 6 (1), 17. No. e09541.
(12) da Silva Júnior, J. N.; Santos de Lima, P. R.; Sousa Lima, M. A.; (29) Benesty, J.; Chen, J.; Huang, Y.; Cohen, I. Pearson Correlation
Monteiro, A. C.; Silva de Sousa, U.; Melo Leite Júnior, A. J.; Vega, K. Coefficient. In: Noise Reduction in Speech Processing. Springer Topics in
B.; Alexandre, F. S. O.; Monteiro, A. J. Time Bomb Game: Design, Signal Processing, vol 2, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009.
Implementation, and Evaluation of a Fun and Challenging Game DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-00296-0_5.
Reviewing the Structural Theory of Organic Compounds. J. Chem. (30) Likert, R. A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Arch.
Educ. 2020, 97 (2), 565−570. Psychol. 1932, 22 (140), 55.
(13) da Silva Júnior, J. N.; Winum, J.-Y.; Basso, A.; Gelati, L.; Moni, (31) Brooke, J. Sus: a “quick and dirty” usability. Usability Evaluation
L.; Melo Leite Júnior, A. J.; Mafezoli, J.; Zampieri, D.; Alexandre, F. S. in Industry, v. 189. 1996.
O.; Veja, K. B.; Monteiro, A. J. STR120: A Web-Based Board Game (32) ISO. 9241-11. Ergonomics of Human-system Interactionpart 11:
for Aiding Students in Review of the Structural Theory of Organic Usability: Definitions and Concepts. 2018. https://www.iso.org/
Compounds. J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99 (9), 3315−3322. (accessed 2021-06-25).
(14) da Silva Júnior, J. N.; Melo Leite Júnior, A. J.; Alexandre, F. S. (33) Schreurs, J.; Dumbraveanu, R. A shift from teacher centered to
O.; Monteiro, A. J.; Vega, K. B.; Basso, A. Design, Implementation, learner centered approach. Int. J. Eng. Pedagogy. 2014, 4 (3), 36−41.
and Evaluation of a Web-Based Board Game for Aiding Students
Review the Resonance of Organic Compounds. J. Chem. Educ. 2024,
101 (3), 1341−1347.
(15) da Silva Júnior, J. N.; de Sousa Oliveira, J. M.; Winum, J.-Y.;
Melo Leite Junior, A. J.; Alexandre, F. S. O.; do Nascimento, D. M.;
Silva de Sousa, U.; Pimenta, A. T. A.; Monteiro, A. J. Interactions 500:
Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Hybrid Board Game for
Aiding Students in the Review of Intermolecular Forces During the
COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97 (11), 4049−4054.
(16) da Silva Júnior, J. N.; Uchoa, D. E. d. A.; Sousa Lima, M. A.;
Monteiro, A. J.; Melo Leite Junior, A. J.; Winum, J.-Y.; Basso, A.
Addition to “Stereochemistry Game: Creating and Playing a Fun
Board Game To Engage Students in Reviewing Stereochemistry
Concepts - The Online Version”. J. Chem. Educ. 2021, 98 (9), 3055−
3057.
(17) Sousa Lima, M. A.; Monteiro, A. C.; Melo Leite Junior, A. J.; de
Andrade Matos, I. S.; Alexandre, F. S. O.; Nobre, D. J.; Monteiro, A.
J.; da Silva Júnior, J. N. Game-Based Application for Helping Students
Review Chemical Nomenclature in a Fun Way. J. Chem. Educ. 2019,
96 (4), 801−805.
(18) da Silva Junior, J. N.; Sousa Lima, M. A.; Nunes, F. M.; Melo
Leite Junior, A. J.; Alexandre, F. S. O.; de Oliveira Assis, D. C.; Janô
Nobre, D.; Winum, J.-Y.; Monteiro, A. J.; Ferreira de Lima, D. T.
Addition to “Nomenclature Bets: An Innovative Computer-Based
Game to Aid Students in the Study of Nomenclature of Organic
Compounds - Version 2.0”. J. Chem. Educ. 2022, 99 (5), 2208−2212.
(19) da Silva Júnior, J. N.; Zampieri, D.; Melo Leite Junior, A. J.;
Alexandre, F. S. O.; Winum, J.-Y.; Basso, A.; Monteiro, A. J.; da Silva,
L. L. A Virtual Game-Based Tournament to Engage Students in
Reviewing Organic Acids and Bases Concepts. J. Chem. Educ. 2022,
99 (5), 2190−2197.
(20) da Silva Júnior, J. N.; Melo Leite Junior, A. J.; Alexandre, M. C.;
Oliveira Alexandre, F. S.; da Silva, L. L.; Winum, J.-Y. CR322: A Web-
Based Board Game for Aiding Students in Reviewing Chemical
Reactivity. J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100 (12), 4866−4871.
(21) Swacha, J. State of Research on Gamification in Education: A
Bibliometric Survey. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11 (2), 69.

687 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01183
J. Chem. Educ. 2025, 102, 679−687