Gamification of learning

The gamification of learning is an educational approach that seeks to motivate students by using video
game design and game elements in learning environments.[1][2] The goal is to maximize enjoyment and
engagement by capturing the interest of learners and inspiring them to continue learning.[3] Gamification,
broadly defined, is the process of defining the elements which comprise games, make those games fun,
and motivate players to continue playing, then using those same elements in a non-game context to
influence behavior.[4] In other words, gamification is the introduction of game elements into a
traditionally non-game situation.

There are two forms of gamification: structural, which means no changes to subject matter, and the
altered content method that adds subject matter.[5] Games applied in learning can be considered serious
games, or games where the learning experience is centered around serious stories. A serious story needs
to be both "impressive in quality" and "part of a thoughtful process" to achieve learning goals.[6]

In educational contexts, examples of desired student behavior as a result of gamification include

attending class, focusing on meaningful learning tasks, and taking initiative.[7][8]

Gamification of learning does not involve students in

designing and creating their own games or in playing
commercially produced video games, making it
distinguishable from game-based learning, or using
educational games to learn a concept. Within game-based
learning initiatives, students might use Gamestar Mechanic or
GameMaker to create their own video game or explore and
create 3D worlds in Minecraft. In these examples, the
The gamified music learning platform,
learning agenda is encompassed within the game itself.
Rise of the Rhythm

Some authors contrast gamification of learning with game-

based learning. They claim that gamification occurs only
when learning happens in a non-game context, such as a school classroom. Under this classification,
when a series of game elements is arranged into a "game layer," or a system which operates in
coordination with learning in regular classrooms, then gamification of learning occurs.[9] Other examples
of gamified content include games that are created to induce learning.[10]

Gamification, in addition to employing game elements in non-game contexts, can actively foster critical
thinking and student engagement.[11] This approach encourages students to explore their own learning
processes through reflection and active participation, enabling them to adapt to new academic contexts
more effectively.[11] By framing assignments as challenges or quests, gamified strategies help students
develop metacognitive skills that enable them to strategize and take ownership of their learning
journey.[11]
Game elements that can facilitate learning
Some elements of games that may be used to motivate learners and facilitate learning include:

Progress mechanics (points/badges/leaderboards, or PBL's)

Narrative and characters
Player control
Immediate feedback
Opportunities for collaborative problem solving
Scaffolded learning with increasing challenges
Opportunities for mastery, and leveling up
Social connection
A more complete taxonomy of game elements used in educational contexts divide 21 game elements into
five dimensions[12][13]

When a classroom incorporates the use of some of these

elements, that environment can be considered "gamified".
There is no distinction as to how many elements need to be
included to officially constitute gamification, but a guiding
principle is that gamification takes into consideration the
complex system of reasons a person chooses to act, and not
just one single factor.[9] Progress mechanics, which need not
make use of advanced technology, are often thought of as
constituting a gamified system[1] However, used in isolation,
these points and opportunities to earn achievements are not
necessarily effective motivators for learning.[1] Engaging
video games which can keep players playing for hours on end
do not maintain players' interest by simply offering the ability Gamification Taxonomy for
to earn points and beat levels. Rather, the story that carries Education[12][13]
players along, the chances for players to connect and
collaborate with others, the immediate feedback, the
increasing challenges, and the powerful choices given to players about how to proceed throughout the
game, are immensely significant factors in sustained engagement. Business initiatives designed to use
gamification to retain and recruit customers, but do not incorporate a creative and balanced approach to
combining game elements, may be destined to fail.[14] Similarly, in learning contexts, the unique needs of
each set of learners, along with the specific learning objectives relevant to that context must inform the
combination of game elements to shape a compelling gamification system that has the potential to
motivate learners.[3]

A system of game elements which operates in the classroom is explicit, and consciously experienced by
the students in the classroom. There is no hidden agenda by which teachers attempt to coerce or trick
students into doing something. Students still make autonomous choices to participate in learning
activities. The progress mechanics used in the gamified system can be thought of as lighting the way for
learners as they progress,[15] and the other game mechanics and elements of game design are set up as an
immersive system to support and maximize students' learning.[16]
Benefits
Gamification initiatives in learning contexts acknowledge that large numbers of school-aged children
play video games, which shapes their identity as people and as learners.[17][18][19] While the world of
gaming used to be skewed heavily toward male players, recent statistics show that slightly more than half
of videogame players are male: in the United States, 59% male, 41% female, and 52% male, 48% female
in Canada.[20][21] Within games and other digital media, students experience opportunities for autonomy,
competence and relatedness,[22] and these affordances are what they have come to expect from such
environments. Providing these same opportunities in the classroom environment is a way to acknowledge
students' reality, and to acknowledge that this reality affects who they are as learners.[23][24][25][26]
Incorporating elements from games into classroom scenarios is a way to provide students with
opportunities to act autonomously, to display competence, and to learn in relationship to others.[22] Game
elements are a familiar language that children speak, and an additional channel through which teachers
can communicate with their students.

Game designer Jane McGonigal characterizes video game players as urgent optimists who are part of a
social fabric, engaged in blissful productivity, and on the lookout for epic meaning.[27] If teachers can
successfully organize their classrooms and curriculum activities to incorporate the elements of games
which facilitate such confidence, purpose and integrated sense of mission, students may become
engrossed in learning and collaborating such that they do not want to stop. The dynamic combination of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivators is a powerful force[22] which, if educational contexts can adapt from
video games, may increase student motivation, and student learning.

Some of the potential benefits of successful gamification initiatives in the classroom include:

giving students ownership of their learning[28]

opportunities for identity work through taking on alternate selves[29]
freedom to fail and try again without negative repercussions[28]
chances to increase fun and joy in the classroom[30]
opportunities for differentiated instruction[30]
making learning visible[30]
providing a manageable set of subtasks and tasks
inspiring students to discover intrinsic motivators for learning
Referring to how video games provide increasingly difficult challenges to players, game designer Amy Jo
Kim has suggested that every educational scenario could be set up to operate this way.[15][31] This game
mechanic which involves tracking players' learning in the game, and responding by raising the difficulty
level of tasks at just the right moment, keeps players from becoming unnecessarily frustrated with tasks
that are too difficult, as well as keeps players from becoming bored with tasks that are too easy. This
pacing fosters continued engagement and interest which can mean that learners are focused on
educational tasks, and may get into a state of flow, or deeply absorbed in learning.[32]

In gamified e-learning platforms, massive amount of data are generated as a result of user interaction and
action within the system. These actions and interactions can be properly sampled, recorded, and analyzed.
Meaningful insights on performance behaviors and learning objectives can be useful to teachers, learners,
and application developers to improve the learning. These insights can be in form of a quick feedback to
learners on the learning objectives while the learner still operates within the rules of play. Data generated
from games can also be used to uncover patterns and rules to improve the gamified e-learning
experience.[33]

In a large systematic review of the literature regarding the application of gamification in Higher
Education, benefits that were identified included positive effects in student engagement, attitude,
performance, and enjoyment although these are mediated by the context and design.[34]

Application
Common ways to integrate gamification in education is creating battles, digital games such as Kahoot or
Quizlet, or playing old-school games such as bingo or scavenger hunts.[35] With regard to language,
instead of referring to academic requirements with the typical associated terms, game-like names may be
used instead. For example, making a course presentation might be referred to as "embarking on a quest",
writing an exam might be "defeating monsters", and creating a prototype might be classed as "completing
a mission". In terms of grading, the grading scheme for a course might be adapted to make use of
Experience points (XP) as opposed to letter grades. Each student can begin at level one with zero points;
as they progress through the course, completing missions and demonstrating learning, they earn XP. A
chart can be developed to illustrate how many XP is required to earn a letter grade. For example, earning
1500 XP might translate to a C, while 2000 would earn a B, and 2500, an A. Some teachers use XP, as
well as health points (HP) and knowledge points (KP) to motivate students in the classroom, but do not
connect these points with the letter grades students get on a report card. Instead these points are
connected with earning virtual rewards such as badges or trophies.

In First-Year Composition (FYC) courses, gamification has been successfully implemented through tasks
like "Quests" and "Random Encounters."[11] Quests are designed as extended assignments that encourage
students to engage deeply with specific topics, often involving research, collaborative writing, or creative
problem-solving.[11] These tasks enable students to develop essential research and collaborative skills,
which are critical for academic success and professional growth.[11] By working on complex, multi-step
challenges, students learn to approach problems systematically and think critically about their
solutions.[11] Random Encounters are shorter, impromptu tasks that require students to apply critical
thinking and adaptability in unpredictable scenarios, such as responding to a challenging writing prompt
or analyzing an unfamiliar text.[11] Such activities help students build resilience and navigate uncertain or
complex situations, equipping them to handle dynamic challenges in academic, professional, and
everyday contexts.[11] Gamified tasks also encourage students to actively engage with course material,
fostering a sense of exploration and agency in their learning journey.[11] These examples highlight the
varied applications of gamified tasks, which also depend on the roles played by teachers and the structure
of the learning environment.[11]

The structure of a course or unit may be adapted in various ways to incorporate elements of gamification;
these adaptations can affect the role of the student, the role of the teacher, and role of the learning
environment. The role of a student in a gamified environment might be to adopt an avatar and a game
name with which they navigate through their learning tasks. Students may be organized into teams or
guilds, and be invited to embark on learning quests with their fellow guild members. They may be
encouraged to help other guild members, as well as those in other guilds, if they have mastered a learning
task ahead of others. Students tend to express themselves as one of the following game-player types;
player (motivated by extrinsic rewards), socialiser (motivated by relatedness), free spirit (motivated by
autonomy), achiever (motivated by mastery) and philanthropist (motivated by purpose).[36] The role of
the teacher is to design a gamified application, embedding game dynamics and mechanics that appeal to
the target group (i.e. students) and provide the type of rewards that are attractive to the motivation of the
majority.[37] Therefore, it is important teachers know their students so they are able to best design a
gamified program that not only interests the students but also one in which matches the specific learning
goals that hit on elements of knowledge from the curriculum.[1] The teacher also needs to responsibly
track student achievements with a web-based platform, such as Open Badges, the WordPress plug-in
GameOn or an online spreadsheet. The teacher may also publish a leaderboard online which illustrates
the students who have earned the most XP, or reached the highest level of play. The teacher may define
the parameters of the classroom "game", giving the ultimate learning goal a name, defining the learning
tasks which make up the unit or the course, and specifying the rewards for completing those tasks. The
other important role of the teacher is to provide encouragement and guidance for students as they
navigate the gamified environment.

The role of a gamified learning environment may be structured to provide an overarching narrative which
functions as a context for all the learning activities. For example, a narrative might involve an impending
zombie attack which can be fended off or a murder mystery which can be solved, ultimately, through the
process of learning. Learning is the focus of each gamified system. Sometimes the narrative is related to
the content being learned, for example, in the case of a disease outbreak which can be stopped through
learning biology. In some cases the narrative is unrelated, as in a case of music students who learn to play
pieces as the means to collectively climb up to the top of a mountain, experiencing various challenges and
setbacks along the way. Other ways in which gaming elements are part of the role of the learning
environment include theme music played at opportune times, a continuous feedback loop which, if not
instantaneous, is as quick as possible, a variety of individual and collaborative challenges, and the
provision of choice as to which learning activities are undertaken, how they will be undertaken, or in
which order they will be undertaken.

History
Without adding extra gaming elements to the classroom, schooling already contains some elements which
are analogous to games.[30] Since the 1700s, school has presented opportunities for students to earn
marks for handing in assignments and completing exams,[38][39][40] which are a form of reward points.
Since the early 1900s, with the advent of psychoanalytic theory, reward management programs were
developed and can still be seen in schools. For example, many teachers set up reward programs in their
classrooms which allow students to earn free time, school supplies or treats for finishing homework or
following classroom rules.[4]

Teaching machines with gamification features were developed by cyberneticist Gordon Pask from 1956
onwards, after he was granted a patent for an "Apparatus for assisting an operator in performing a
skill".[41] Based on this patent, Pask and Robin McKinnon-Wood built SAKI – the Self-Adaptive
Keyboard Instructor – for teaching students how to use the Hollerith key punch, a data entry device using
punched cards. The punched card was common until the 1970s and there was huge demand for skilled
operators. SAKI treats the student as a "black box", building a probabilistic model of their performance as
it goes.[42] The machine stores the response times for different exercises, repeating exercises for which
the operator has the slowest average response time, and increasing the difficulty of exercises where the
operator has performed successfully. SAKI could train an expert key-punch operator in four to six weeks,
a reduction of between 30 and 50 percent over other methods. "Ideally, for an operator to perform a skill
efficiently, the data presented to him should always be of sufficient complexity to maintain his interest
and maintain a competitive situation, but not so complex as to discourage the operator".[41] SAKI led to
the development of teaching software such as the Mavis Beacon typing tutor,[43] fondly remembered by
students of touch-typing everywhere.

While some have criticized the term "gamification" then, as simply a new name for a practice that has
been used in education for many years,[44] gamification does not refer to a one-dimensional system where
a reward is offered for performing a certain behaviour. The gamification of learning is an approach which
recently has evolved, in coordination with technological developments, to include much larger scales for
gameplay, new tools, and new ways to connect people.[45] The term gamification, coined in 2002, is not a
one-dimensional reward system. Rather, it takes into consideration the variety of complex factors which
make a person decide to do something; it is a multifaceted approach which takes into consideration
psychology, design, strategy, and technology.[9] One reason for the popularization of the term
"gamification" is that current advancements in technology, in particular, mobile technology have allowed
for the explosion of a variety of gamification initiatives in many contexts. Some of these contexts include
the Starbucks and Shoppers Drug Mart loyalty programs, location-based check-in applications such as
Foursquare, and mobile and web applications and tools that reward and broadcast healthy eating,
drinking, and exercise habits, such as Fitocracy, BACtrack and Fitbit. These examples involve the use of
game elements such as points, badges and leaderboards to motivate behavioural changes and track those
changes in online platforms. The gamification of learning is related to these popular initiatives, but
specifically focuses on the use of game elements to facilitate student engagement and motivation to learn.
It is difficult to pinpoint when gamification, in the strict sense of the term, came to be used in educational
contexts, although examples shared online by classroom teachers begin appearing in 2010.

Effectiveness
The research of Domínguez and colleagues about gamifying learning experiences suggests that common
beliefs about the benefits obtained when using games in education can be challenged. Students who
completed the gamified experience got better scores in practical assignments and in overall score, but
their findings also suggest that these students performed poorly on written assignments and participated
less on class activities, although their initial motivation was higher. The researchers concluded that
gamification in e-learning platforms seems to have the potential to increase student motivation, but that it
is not trivial to achieve that effect, as a big effort is required in the design and implementation of the
experience for it to be fully motivating for participants. On the one hand, qualitative analysis of the study
suggests that gamification can have a great emotional and social impact on students, as reward systems
and competitive social mechanisms seem to be motivating for them. But quantitative analysis suggests
that the cognitive impact of gamification on students is not very significant. Students who followed
traditional exercises performed similarly in overall score than those who followed gamified exercises.
Disadvantages of gamified learning were reported by 57 students who did not want to participate in the
gamified experience. The most frequent reason argued by students was 'time availability'. The second
most important reason were technical problems. Other reasons were that there were too many students
and that they had to visit so many web pages and applications at the university that they did not want to
use a new one.[46]
Another field where serious games are used to improve learning is health care. Petit dit Dariel, Raby,
Ravaut and Rothan-Tondeur investigated the developing of serious games potential in nursing education.
They suggest that few nursing students have long-term exposure to home-care and community situations.
New pedagogical tools are needed to adequately and consistently prepare nurses for the skills they will
need to care for patients outside acute care settings. Advances in information and communications
technologies offer an opportunity to explore innovative pedagogical solutions that could help students
develop these skills in a safe environment. Laboratory simulations with high fidelity mannequins, for
example, have become an integral element in many health care curricula.[47] A recent systematic review
found evidence suggesting that the use of simulation mannequins significantly improved three outcomes
integral to clinical reasoning: knowledge acquisition, critical thinking and the ability to identify
deteriorating patients.[48]

In the study of Mouaheb, Fahli, Moussetad and Eljamali an American version of a serious game was
investigated: Virtual University. Results showed that learning using this serious game has educational
values that are based on learning concepts advocated by constructivist psycho-cognitive theories. It
guarantees intrinsic motivation, generates cognitive conflicts and provides situated learning. The use of
Virtual University allowed the researchers to identify the following key points: from its playfulness
combined with video game technologies, the tool was able to motivate learners intrinsically; the
simulation game also recreates learning situations extremely close to that of reality, especially
considering the complexity, dynamism and all of the interrelations and interactions that exist within the
university system. This is a major educational advantage by encouraging 1) an intense interaction that
generates real cognitive or socio-cognitive conflicts, providing a solid construction of knowledge; 2) an
autonomy in the learning process following a strong metacognitive activity; 3) an eventual transfer of
acquired skills.[49]

In another study involving an American-based school, gamification was integrated into all its subjects.
Both students and teachers indicated they derived maximum satisfaction from a gamified form of
learning. However, results from standardized tests showed a slightly improved performance, and in some
cases, below-average performance in comparison to other schools.[50] Enough evidence-based research
needs to be carried out to objectively measure the effectiveness of gamification of learning across varying
factors.[51]

Legal restrictions
Multiple legal restrictions may apply to the gamification of learning because of the difference in laws in
different countries and states. However, there are common laws prevalent in most jurisdictions.

Administrators and instructors must ensure the privacy rights of learners are protected. The use of
Personally Identifiable Information(PII) of learners and other user-generated data should be clearly stated
in a privacy policy made available to all learners.

Gamified e-learning systems can make use of existing game elements such as avatars and badges.
Educators should be aware of the copyright protection guiding the use of such elements and ensure they
are not in violation. Permission should be obtained from the creators of existing game items under
copyright protection. In some cases, educators can create their game elements for use in such gamified e-
learning systems.[52]
LeapFrog hacking controversy
LeapFrog, a corporation which manufactures e-learning toys, smart toys and games for children, was the
subject of a hacking scandal involving its product LeapPad Ultimate, a rugged gaming and e-learning
tablet featuring educational games for young users. The tablet had security errors that allowed third-
parties to message users, scrape personal information from users and get into the WiFi networks of users,
most of whom were minors. This led to concerns regarding pedophiles using the tablets as a way to
groom potential victims.[53][54][55][56]

Criticism
Gamification of learning has been criticized for its use of extrinsic motivators, which some teachers
believe must be avoided since they have the potential to decrease intrinsic motivation for learning (see
overjustification). This idea is based on research which emerged first in the early 1970s[57][58] and has
been recently made popular by Daniel Pink.[59]

Some teachers may criticize gamification for taking a less than serious approach to education. This may
be a result of the historical distinction between work and play which perpetuates the notion that the
classroom cannot be a place for games, or a place for fun.[60][61] Gameplay in some views may be seen as
being easy, irrelevant to learning, and applicable only to very young children.[62]

Teachers who criticize the gamification of learning might feel that it is not worth their time to implement
gaming initiatives, either because they themselves are stretched thin with the number of responsibilities
that they already have,[30] or because they fear that the curriculum might not be covered if any time is
spent dedicated to anything other than engagement with that curriculum. Gamification of learning has
been also criticized as ineffective for certain learners and for certain situations..[1] Videogame theorist Ian
Bogost has criticized gamification for its tendency to take a simplistic, manipulative approach which does
not reflect the real quality of complex, motivational games. Educational scenarios which purport to be
gamification, but only make use of progress mechanics such as points, badges and leaderboards are
particularly susceptible to such criticism.[63]

Gamification in education has also raised concerns over inequity in the classroom. A lack of access to
technology, students who do not like gaming, and students in large schools where the teachers do not
know each student on an individual level may affect any educational benefit to come from gamification,
and gamification may not be appropriate for every subject in school. For example, sensitive or
controversial subject matter such as racial history or human rights may not be an appropriate space for
gamification.[64]

There are growing concerns about ethical constraints surrounding implementation of gamification using
ICT tools and e-learning systems. Gaming elements, like points and badges, can encourage collaboration
and social competition but can also encourage aggression amongst learners. More so, the policies guiding
the privacy and security of data produced in gamified e-learning systems needs to be transparent to all
stakeholders including students and administrators.[65] Teachers and students need to be aware and accept
to participate in any gamified form of learning introduced in the curriculum. Any possible risks that may
arise should be made available to all participants prior to their participation. Also, educators should have
an understanding of the target audience of the learners to maintain fairness. Educators need to ensure
gaming elements and rules integrated in gamification design do not impair learners' participation because
of their social, cultural or physical conditions.[66]

See also
Educational game
Game studies
Gamification
Incentive-centered design

References
Caravella, Elizabeth. 2022. "Back in My Body, or, Heuristics for Embodied Gameful Course
Design." Computers and Composition, vol. 65 [Special Issue: Games and Materiality].
doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2022.102728.
deWinter, Jennifer, and Stephanie Vie. 2015. "Sparklegate: Gamification, Academic
Gravitas, and the Infantilization of Play." Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and
Pedagogy, vol. 20.1. URL: http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/20.1/topoi/dewinter-vie/index.html
1. Kapp, Karl (2012). The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-based Methods and
Strategies for Training and Education. Pfeiffer. ISBN 978-1118096345.
2. Shatz, Itamar (2015). Using Gamification and Gaming in Order to Promote Risk Taking in
the Language Learning Process (https://web.archive.org/web/20160307170229/http://itamar
shatz.me/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Using-Gamification-and-Gaming-in-Order-to-Promote
-Risk-Taking-in-the-Language-Learning-Process.pdf) (PDF). MEITAL National Conference.
Haifa, Israel: Technion. pp. 227–232. Archived from the original (http://itamarshatz.me/wp-co
ntent/uploads/2015/09/Using-Gamification-and-Gaming-in-Order-to-Promote-Risk-Taking-in-
the-Language-Learning-Process.pdf) (PDF) on 7 March 2016. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
3. Huang, Wendy Hsin-Yuan; Soman, Dilip (10 December 2013). A Practitioner's Guide To
Gamification Of Education (https://web.archive.org/web/20140226161626/http://inside.rotma
n.utoronto.ca/behaviouraleconomicsinaction/files/2013/09/GuideGamificationEducationDec2
013.pdf) (PDF) (Report). Research Report Series Behavioural Economics in Action. Rotman
School of Management, University of Toronto. Archived from the original (http://inside.rotma
n.utoronto.ca/behaviouraleconomicsinaction/files/2013/09/GuideGamificationEducationDec2
013.pdf) (PDF) on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
4. Deterding, Sebastian; Dixon, Dan; Khaled, Rilla; Nacke, Lennart (2011). From game design
elements to gamefulness: defining 'gamification' (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2181037.
2181040). 15th International MindTrek Conference. New York: ACM. pp. 9–15.
doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F2181037.2181040).
ISBN 9781450308168. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
5. Kapp, Karl (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and
strategies for training and education. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. ISBN 9781118096345.
6. Lugmayr, Artur; Suhonen, Jarkko; Hlavacs, Helmut; Montero, Calkin; Suutinen, Erkki;
Sedano, Carolina (2016). "Serious storytelling – a first definition and review". Multimedia
Tools and Applications. 76 (14): 15707–15733. doi:10.1007/s11042-016-3865-5 (https://doi.
org/10.1007%2Fs11042-016-3865-5). S2CID 207219982 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/C
orpusID:207219982).
 7. Borys, Magdelena; Laskowski, Maciej (19–21 June 2013). Implementing game elements
into didactic process: A case study (http://www.toknowpress.net/ISBN/978-961-6914-02-4/p
apers/ML13-326.pdf) (PDF). Management, Knowledge and Learning International
Conference. Zadar, Croatia. pp. 819–824. ISBN 9789616914024. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
8. Borges, Simone; Durelli, Vinicius; Reis, Helena; Isotani, Seiji (24–28 March 2014). A
systematic mapping on gamification applied to education (https://doi.org/10.1145/2554850.2
554956). ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. pp. 216–
222. doi:10.1145/2554850.2554956 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F2554850.2554956).
ISBN 9781450324694. Retrieved 4 December 2020.
9. Werbach, Kevin; Hunter, Dan (2012). For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize
Your Business. Philadelphia, PA: Wharton Digital Press. ISBN 978-1613630235.
10. Kapp (2012), p. 200: "result of the brainstorming process ... is the creation of a gamification
design document outlining the design of the game ..."
11. Dwyer, Sarah. (2018). Gameful Engagement: Gamification, Critical Thinking, and First-Year
Composition. Double Helix: A Journal of Critical Thinking and Writing, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–13.
DOI: [1] (https://doi.org/10.37514/DB-H-J.2018.6.1.07)(https://doi.org/10.37514/DB-H-
J.2018.6.1.07).
12. Toda, Armando; Klock, Ana; Oliveira, Wilk; Palomino, Paula; Rodrigues, Luiz; Shi, Lei;
Bittencourt, Ig; Gasparini, Isabela; Isotani, Seiji; Critea, Alexandra (2019). "Analysing
gamification elements in educational environments using an existing Gamification
taxonomy" (https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs40561-019-0106-1). Smart Learning Environments.
6 (1): 1–14. arXiv:2008.05473 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.05473). doi:10.1186/s40561-019-
0106-1 (https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs40561-019-0106-1). S2CID 256393610 (https://api.sem
anticscholar.org/CorpusID:256393610).
13. Toda, Armando; Palomino, Paula; Oliveira, Wilk; Rodrigues, Luiz; Klock, Ana; Gasparini,
Isabela; Critea, Alexandra; Isotani, Seiji (2019). "How to Gamify Learning Systems? An
Experience Report using the Design Sprint Method and a Taxonomy for Gamification
Elements in Education" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rGqyPLHyv5NqctFxFwc5i4hIq9Oyhf
MJ/view). Educational Technology & Society. 22 (3): 47–60. Retrieved 29 December 2020.
14. Pettey, Christy; van der Meulen, Rob (27 November 2012). "Gartner Says by 2014, 80
Percent of Current Gamified Applications Will Fail to Meet Business Objectives Primarily
Due to Poor Design" (https://archive.today/20140226143613/http://www.gartner.com/newsro
om/id/2251015) (Press release). Gartner, Inc. Archived from the original (http://www.gartner.
com/newsroom/id/2251015) on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 5 August 2016.
15. Kim, Amy Jo (August 2011). "Smart Gamification" (https://www.slideshare.net/amyjokim/sma
rt-gamification). SlideShare. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
16. Hamari, J.; Koivisto, J.; Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review of
empirical studies on gamification (http://people.uta.fi/~kljuham/2014-hamari_et_al-does_ga
mification_work.pdf) (PDF). Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE
Computer Society. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2014.377 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FHICSS.2014.3
77). ISBN 978-1-4799-2504-9. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
17. Zichermann, Gabe (19 November 2011). "How Games Make Kids Smarter" (https://www.te
d.com/talks/gabe_zichermann_how_games_make_kids_smarter). TED (conference).
Retrieved 14 February 2014.
18. boyd, danah (2014). It's Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens (https://web.arc
hive.org/web/20160929221007/http://www.danah.org/books/ItsComplicated.pdf) (PDF). New
Haven: Yale UP. Archived from the original (http://www.danah.org/books/ItsComplicated.pdf)
(PDF) on 29 September 2016. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
19. Ito, Mizuko; et al. (2012). Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out (https://mitpress.
mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/free_download/9780262013369_Hanging_Out.pdf) (PDF).
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning.
20. Essential Facts about the Canadian Video Game Industry (https://web.archive.org/web/2015
1208012833/http://theesa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESAC_2015_Booklet_Version02_
14_Digital.pdf) (PDF) (Report). Entertainment Software Association of Canada. 2015. p. 14.
Archived from the original (http://theesa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESAC_2015_Bookl
et_Version02_14_Digital.pdf) (PDF) on 8 December 2015. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
21. Essential Facts about the Computer and Video Game Industry (https://web.archive.org/web/
20170217140923/http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Essential-Facts-201
6.pdf) (PDF) (Report). Entertainment Software Association. 2016. p. 3. Archived from the
original (http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Essential-Facts-2016.pdf)
(PDF) on 17 February 2017. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
22. Ryan, Richard M.; Deci, Edward L. (2000). "Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being". American Psychologist. 55 (1): 68–
78. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.529.4370 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.5
29.4370). doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0003-066x.55.1.68).
PMID 11392867 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11392867).
23. Gee, James Paul (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy
(2nd ed.). St Martin's Griffin. ISBN 9781403984531.
24. Gee, James Paul (2012). Video Games: What They Can Teach Us About Audience
Engagement (https://web.archive.org/web/20140224223142/http://nieman.harvard.edu/repor
ts/article/102418/Video-Games-What-They-Can-Teach-Us-About-Audience-Engagement.as
px) (Report). The Neiman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard. Archived from the original
(http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102418/Video-Games-What-They-Can-Teach
-Us-About-Audience-Engagement.aspx) on 24 February 2014. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
25. Whitaker, Jody L.; Bushman, Brad J. (2012). "Remain calm. Be kind. Effects of relaxing
video games on aggressive and prosocial behaviour" (https://research.vu.nl/ws/files/696442/
303794.pdf) (PDF). Social Psychological and Personality Science. 3 (1): 88–92.
doi:10.1177/1948550611409760 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1948550611409760).
S2CID 54941085 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:54941085).
26. Green, C. Shawn; Bavelier, Daphne (2012). "Learning, Attentional Control and Action
Videogames" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3461277). Current Biology. 22
(6): 197–206. Bibcode:2012CBio...22.R197G (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012CBio...
22.R197G). doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.02.012 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cub.2012.02.012).
PMC 3461277 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3461277). PMID 22440805
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22440805).
27. McGonigal, Jane (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can
change the world (https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780143120612). New York: Penguin
Press. ISBN 9780143120612.
28. Pavlus, John (2010). "The Game of Life". Scientific American. 303 (6): 43–44.
Bibcode:2010SciAm.303f..43P (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010SciAm.303f..43P).
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1210-43 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fscientificamerican1210-4
3).
29. Klopfer, E.; Osterweil, S.; Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward (http://educatio
n.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/MovingLearningGamesForward_EdArcade.pdf)
(PDF) (Report). The Education Arcade / Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved
4 August 2016.
30. Lee, J.; Hammer, J. (2011). "Gamification in education: What, how, why bother?" (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20110516005227/http://www.gamifyingeducation.org/files/Lee-Hammer-A
EQ-2011.pdf) (PDF). Academic Exchange Quarterly. 15 (2). Archived from the original (htt
p://www.gamifyingeducation.org/files/Lee-Hammer-AEQ-2011.pdf) (PDF) on 16 May 2011.
31. Kim, Amy Jo (20 December 2014). The Player's Journey (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v
=82m29j1JhWI). Gamification 2013. University of Waterloo Stratford Campus. Retrieved
4 August 2016.
32. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1997). Finding Flow: The psychology of engagement with
everyday life (https://archive.org/details/findingflowpsych00csik). New York: Basic Books.
ISBN 978-0465024117.
33. Reiners, Torsten; Wood, Lincoln (2015). Gamification in Education and Business.
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. pp. 404, 414. ISBN 978-3-319-10208-5.
34. Subhash, Sujit; Cudney, Elizabeth A. (2018). "Gamified learning in higher education: A
systematic review of the literature" (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.028).
Computers in Human Behavior. 87: 192–206. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.028 (https://doi.org/
10.1016%2Fj.chb.2018.05.028). ISSN 0747-5632 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0747-563
2). S2CID 51873322 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:51873322).
35. "5 ways to gamify your classroom" (https://iste.org/blog/5-ways-to-gamify-your-classroom).
ISTE. Retrieved 11 November 2024.
36. Marczewski, Andrej (2013). Gameification: A Simple Introduction and a Bit More. Self-
published on Amazon Digital Services.
37. Kim, Bohyun (2015). "Designing Gamification in the Right Way" (https://journals.ala.org/ltr/ar
ticle/view/5632). Library Technology Reports. 51 (2). Retrieved 5 August 2016.
38. Reisner, Edward H. (1922). Nationalism and Education since 1789: A Social and Political
History of Modern Education (https://archive.org/details/cu31924032694006). Macmillan.
39. Pierson, George (1976). C. Undergraduate Studies: Yale College. A Yale Book of Numbers.
Historical Statistics of the College and University 1701. Yale Office of Institutional Research.
p. 310.
40. Postman, Neil (1992). Technopoly The Surrender of Culture to Technology (https://archive.or
g/details/technopolysurren00post_270). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 13 (https://archive.org/
details/technopolysurren00post_270/page/n25). ISBN 9780394582726.
41. US patent 2984017 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US2984017A/en), Gordon Pask,
"APPARATUS FOR ASSISTING AN OPERATOR IN PERFORMING A SKILL", issued 16
May 1961
42. Phil Husbands; Owen Holland; Michael Wheeler (2008). The Mechanical Mind in History (htt
ps://books.google.com/books?id=csTaAAAAMAAJ). MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-08377-5.
43. Andrew Pickering (15 April 2010). The Cybernetic Brain: Sketches of Another Future (https://
books.google.com/books?id=812nOTkxabwC). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-
226-66792-8.
44. Kirk, Terry; Harris, Christopher (2011). "It's all fun and games in the library" (http://www.ala.o
rg/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslpubsandjournals/knowledgequest/docs/GuestEdC
olumn_SeptOct2011.pdf) (PDF). Knowledge Quest. 40 (1): 8–9. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
45. Rughiniş, Răzvan (2013). Gamification for productive interaction: Reading and working with
the gamification debate in education. Iberian Conference on Information Systems and
Technologies (CISTI). Information Systems and Technologies (Cisti), Iberian Conference on.
Lisboa: IEEE. ISSN 2166-0727 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/2166-0727).
46. Domínguez, Adrián; Saenz-de-Navarrete, Joseba; de-Marcos, Luis; Fernández-Sanz, Luis;
Pagés, Carmen; Martínez-Herráiz, José-Javier (2013). "Gamifying learning experiences:
Practical implications and outcomes". Computers & Education. 63: 380–392.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.compedu.2012.12.020).
S2CID 12261939 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12261939).
47. Petit dit Dariel, Odessa J.; Raby, Thibaud; Ravaut, Frédéric; Rothan-Tondeur, Monique
(2013). "Developing the Serious Games Potential in Nursing Education". Nurse Education
Today. 33 (12): 1569–1575. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2012.12.014 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ne
dt.2012.12.014). PMID 23332500 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23332500).
48. Lapkin, Samuel; Levett-Jones, Tracy; Bellchambers, Helen; Fernandez, Ritin (2010).
"Effectiveness of Patient Simulation Manikins in Teaching Clinical Reasoning Skills to
Undergraduate Nursing Students: A Systematic Review". Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 6
(6): e207 – e222. doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2010.05.005 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ecns.2010.0
5.005).
49. Mouaheb, Houda; Fahli, Ahmed; Moussetad, Mohammed; Eljamali, Said (2012). "The
Serious Game: What Educational Benefits?" (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.sbspro.2012.06.4
65). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 46: 5502–5508.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.465 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.sbspro.2012.06.465).
50. Corbett, S (2010). "Learning by playing: Video games in the classroom. The New York
Times" (https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/magazine/19video-t.html). The New York
Times.
51. Connolly, Thomas M.; Boyle, Elizabeth A.; MacArthur, Ewan; Hainey, Thomas; Boyle, James
M. (September 2012). "A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer
games and serious games" (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004). Computers
& Education. 59 (2): 661–686. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004 (https://doi.org/10.101
6%2Fj.compedu.2012.03.004). ISSN 0360-1315 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0360-131
5). S2CID 6586554 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6586554).
52. Kim, Sangkyun; Song, Kibong; Lockee, Barbara; Burton, John (2018). Gamification in
Learning and Education. Springer International Publishing AG. pp. 109, 111. ISBN 978-3-
319-47283-6.
53. Newcomb, Alyssa. "Security Researchers Find 'Worst Case Scenario' in LeapFrog Kids
Tablet" (https://fortune.com/2019/08/07/security-researchers-find-worst-case-scenario-in-lea
pfrog-kids-tablet/). fortune.com. Fortune. Retrieved 12 February 2023.
54. Komando, Kim (9 August 2019). "This scary flaw in a tablet for kids exposes their location"
(https://www.komando.com/security-privacy/this-scary-flaw-in-a-tablet-for-kids-exposes-their
-location/586784/). www.komando.com. KimKomando. Retrieved 12 February 2023.
55. Hautala, Laura. "Tablet for kids had flaws that exposed info, location" (https://www.cnet.com/
news/privacy/tablet-for-kids-had-flaws-that-exposed-info-location/). www.cnet.com. CNET.
Retrieved 12 February 2023.
56. O'Donnell, Lindsey (7 August 2019). "Black Hat: LeapFrog Tablet Flaws Let Attackers Track,
Message Kids" (https://threatpost.com/black-hat-leapfrog-tablet-flaws-let-attackers-track-me
ssage-kids/146822/). threatpost.com. Threatpost. Retrieved 12 February 2023.
57. Deci, Edward (1971). "Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation" (https://
repositorio.udes.edu.co/handle/001/7741). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 18
(1): 105–111. doi:10.1037/h0030644 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0030644).
58. Deci, Edward; Koestner, Richard; Ryan, Richard M. (2001). "Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic
Motivation in Education: Reconsidered Once Again". Review of Educational Research. 71
(1): 1–27. doi:10.3102/00346543071001001 (https://doi.org/10.3102%2F003465430710010
01). S2CID 11589745 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:11589745).
59. Pink, Daniel (2009). Drive: the surprising truth about what motivates us (https://archive.org/d
etails/drivesurprisingt0000pink). Riverhead. ISBN 9781594484803.
60. Thomas, Keith (1964). "Work and Leisure in Industrial Society". Past and Present (30): 50–
66. doi:10.1093/past/30.1.96 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fpast%2F30.1.96).
61. Schultz Colby, Rebecca; Colby, Richard (2008). "A Pedagogy of Play: Integrating Computer
Games into the Writing Classroom". Computers & Composition. 25 (3): 300–312.
doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2008.04.005 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.compcom.2008.04.005).
62. Rieber, Lloyd P. (1996). "Seriously Considering Play: Designing Interactive Learning
Environments Based on the Blending of Microworlds, Simulations, and Games". Educational
Technology Research and Development. 44 (2): 43–58. doi:10.1007/bf02300540 (https://doi.
org/10.1007%2Fbf02300540). S2CID 40729990 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4
0729990).
63. "Gamification is Bullshit" (http://bogost.com/writing/blog/gamification_is_bullshit/).
Bogost.com. 8 August 2011. Retrieved 28 April 2024.
64. Michaels, Lisa (8 March 2021). "When is Gamification in Education Not a Good Idea?" (http
s://www.emergingedtech.com/2021/03/when-is-gamification-in-education-not-a-good-idea/).
www.emergingedtech.com. EmergingEdTech. Retrieved 10 February 2023.
65. Schulz, Renee; Isabwe, Ghislain Maurice; Reichert, Frank (August 2015). "Ethical issues of
gamified ICT tools for higher education" (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7403481).
2015 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e). Melaka,
Malaysia: IEEE. pp. 27–31. doi:10.1109/IC3e.2015.7403481 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FIC3
e.2015.7403481). ISBN 978-1-4673-9437-6. S2CID 39365314 (https://api.semanticscholar.o
rg/CorpusID:39365314).
66. Kim, Sangkyun; Song, Kibong; Lockee, Barbara; Burton, John (2018). Gamification in
Learning and Education. Springer International Publishing AG. p. 113. ISBN 978-3-319-
47283-6.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamification_of_learning&oldid=1291828963"