Gamification and Game Mechanics Based E-Learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

A practical implementation and its effect on user engagement
A study by Katsigiannakis Evangelos
Supervised by Houstis Catherine
Tsompanopoulou Panagiota
Karagiannidis Charalampos
June 2014
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece
Abstract
This thesis presents a practical implementation of Gamification and Game Mechanics

based E-Learning. This is an approach to E-Learning that tries to use game design elements and
game mechanics, in order to gain some of their motivational properties. Two identical E-Learning
systems were developed as web applications, and achievement Badges were implemented to one
of them. The systems were evaluated with a class of the Department of Special Education at the
University of Thessaly in Greece. The evaluation aimed to provide empirical evidence on whether
a gamified E-Learning system can make the educational process more engaging. To give context
in this thesis, the growing trend of Gamication is unveiled and explained in detail. The major
research achievement was evaluating students engagement, achievements and perception of the
system. It was discovered that the chosen game mechanic made indeed the educational content
more attractive and the educational process more engaging. Understanding the potential to
experience the same things in two ways is the first step to understanding the power of
Gamification.
Keywords: Game, Education, Gamification, E-Learning, Game Mechanic, Engagement,

Motivation, Badges, Empirical Evidence
Table of Contents
Glossary .......................................................................................................................... 9
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 11
1.1 Motivation Behind the Project ................................................................................ 11
1.2 Goal......................................................................................................................... 13
1.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 14
1.4 Limitations .............................................................................................................. 15
2. Background Theory ...................................................................................................... 18
2.1 Games ..................................................................................................................... 18
2.2 Players ..................................................................................................................... 21
2.3 Gamification ........................................................................................................... 24
2.4 Game Mechanics ..................................................................................................... 26
3. Related Research ........................................................................................................... 30
3.1 Previous Work ......................................................................................................... 30
3.2 Conclusions & Research Questions ........................................................................ 33
4. Methodology ................................................................................................................. 36
4.1 Description of the System ....................................................................................... 36
4.2 System Design & Development .............................................................................. 37
4.3 Experimental Subjects ............................................................................................ 46
4.4 Evaluation & Data Collection ................................................................................. 50
5. Experimental Results .................................................................................................... 53
5.1 Engagement............................................................................................................. 53
5.2 Student Achievement .............................................................................................. 63
5.3 Attitudinal Survey ................................................................................................... 70
6. Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 77
7. Conclusions & Future Work ......................................................................................... 82
7.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 82
7.2 Future Work ............................................................................................................ 84
8. References ..................................................................................................................... 85
List of Figures
Figure 4.1 [hierarchical tree for the SEAC200 course] ............................................................... 39

Figure 4.2 [first level of hierarchical tree for the SEAC200 course] ........................................... 39
Figure 4.3 [second & third level of hierarchical tree for the SEAC200 course].......................... 40
Figure 4.4 [level complexity for the E-Learning platform of the SEAC200 course] .................. 40
Figure 4.5 [Badges designed to impact the emotional area] ........................................................ 44
Figure 4.6 [difficulty in earning hidden Badges] ......................................................................... 44
Figure 4.7 [Badges designed to impact the social area] ............................................................... 46
Figure 4.8 [subjects division into equivalent groups based on pre-control phase1] ................. 48
Figure 4.0.9 [subjects division into equivalent groups based on pre-control phase2] .............. 49
Figure 4.0.10 [control and treatment equivalent groups] ............................................................. 50
Figure 5.1 [average Frequency per group for each week of the experiment] .............................. 54
Figure 5.2 [average Frequency per group throughout the entire experiment] ............................. 55
Figure 5.3 [average Recency for each student throughout the experiment] ................................ 56
Figure 5.4 [average Recency for each student throughout the experiment] ................................ 57
Figure 5.5 [average Recency per group throughout the entire experiment] ................................ 58
Figure 5.6 [total Duration for each student throughout the entire experiment] ........................... 59
Figure 5.7 [total Duration for each student throughout the entire experiment] ........................... 60
Figure 5.8 [average Duration per group throughout the entire experiment] ................................ 61
Figure 5.9 [average Duration per group for each week of the experiment] ................................. 61
Figure 5.10 [average Engagement per group throughout the entire experiment] ........................ 62
Figure 5.11 [total number of actions per module] ....................................................................... 64
Figure 5.12 [total number of actions per assignment module] .................................................... 65
Figure 5.13 [average actions per group for all assignment modules cumulatively] .................... 65
Figure 5.14 [total actions per tutorial module] ............................................................................ 66
Figure 5.15 [average actions per group for all tutorial modules cumulatively] ........................... 66
Figure 5.16 [average actions per group for all modules cumulatively] ....................................... 67
Figure 5.17 [average completed activities per group].................................................................. 68
Figure 5.18 [assignment completion per group] .......................................................................... 69
Figure 5.19 [quiz completion percentages per group] ................................................................. 69
Figure 5.20 [familiarity level in using the Computer and ICT tools] .......................................... 71
Figure 5.21 [attitudes on integrating an E-Learning platform to the educational process] ......... 72
Figure 5.22 [attitudes on integrating multimedia content to the educational process] ................ 72
Figure 5.23 [attitudes on integrating Video Games to the educational process] ......................... 73
Figure 5.24 [attitudes regarding the usability of the platforms] .................................................. 75
Figure 5.25 [attitudes regarding helpfulness during the particular course] ................................. 75
Figure 5.26 [attitudes regarding helpfulness during other courses] ............................................. 76
Figure 5.27 [attitudes regarding Badges] ..................................................................................... 76
Glossary
Game
Is a structured set of rules that creates a decision space, including a system

of rewards that aims to make an experience fun.
Serious Games
Games that are created with a learning objective as the primary goal, and
fun and entertainment as secondary.
Gamification
Is the process of applying elements associated with video games in nongame applications which aims to increase peoples engagement and to
promote certain behaviors.
Game Mechanic
An element of a game that is made up of a set of rules and feedback loops

used to incentivize the player. CommonGameMechanicsareItems,Levels,
and Points.
Web 2.0 Technology
Technology that facilitates production of content, sharing and

collaboration through social networks.
Learning Management System (LMS)
Administrative
E-Learning
systems
that
commonly used in educational institutions.
are
10
11
1. Introduction
1.1 Motivation Behind the Project

The idea of using games for learning is not new, and maybe nowadays this is probably
customary but the view that schools can combine playing and learning used to be at odds to typical
thinking [1]. But what is typical thinking? For the purposes of this thesis a research was conducted
to a sample of 32 students of the Department of Special Education of the University of Thessaly,
all born after 1990. The answers gathered showed difficulties for the respondents accepting Video
Games, as an equally purposeful and serious tool (for educational purposes) as typical games.
Further questions rise regarding the views of those future teachers on subjects such as the changes
in Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Such changes alter society, influencing
the way people relate, communicate, work and learn [5]. How is this going to affect the
interaction between teacher and student? For the latter, and specifically the younger generations
designated by some as digital natives [4], all these technologies always existed, and they are used
as something that was always part of their lives, providing them highly stimulating experiences,
which shape their expectations of education and learning.
Contrary to the experiences of digital natives are the existing E-learning systems that for
years have been to a large extent focused on course administration and facilitation. Typical uses
have included the teacher publishing messages and documents to the students, and students
handing assignments. The limitations of E-learning systems, from a pedagogical point of view,
are the fact that they cannot transmit emotion or engage the student as a teacher could [3]. Such
facts formed a challenge, as students might find it increasingly demotivating with old learning
processes. This challenge, over the years, led researchers suggesting various theories.
12
One such theory indicates to integrate play into education, typical or web based, in order
to increase student motivation and engagement. The motive behind this particular thesis, is the
sense that mundane activities, especially for a longer period of time, are not appealing but by
combining those activities with simple games we can create a more effective way to motivate
students. Although careful examination is required to either embrace or discard this call, an
interesting question which needs further research to be answered has already been formed: Is it
possible for students to learn from games? [Chapter 3.2]
Following the same direction, educational researchers have also pointed out Video Game
Based Learning as an attractive complement to typical E-Learning approaches. Video games are
interactive activities that continually provide challenges and goals to the players, thus involving
them into an active learning process to master the game mechanics [8]. Still, the development
and application of Video Games to real life educational settings (better known as Serious Games)
have met several challenges [Chapter 2.1]. Those challenges, and the small adoption into
classrooms, have led to a general belief that "no one has yet broken the code of successfully
utilizing games in education [3]. But what if we could adopt only some of the elements of games
to create gamified applications, in order to further engage and motivate our audiences? Serious
games are complete games with serious intentions and designed accordingly, whereas in
gamified applications only certain elements from games are used [3].
Gamification has been incorporated with commercial success into Web applications,
especially social ones, as a way to create narrow relationships between the application and the
users, and to drive viral behaviors on them to increase the application's popularity. This success
has made some researchers theorize, that it could also be used in education as a tool to increase
student engagement and to drive desirable learning behaviors on them [10]. Furthermore, the
13
infrastructure of Web applications provides the necessary tools to incorporate different

Gamification mechanisms, and measure their usage by students. Since creating games for learning
employs costly resources, could Gamification be a simpler yet still efficient approach, in order
to make educational content more attractive, and engender the desired state for the student? And
which is actually the desired state a student should reach? [Chapter 3.2]
1.2 Goal
The main goal of this thesis is to make a contribution to the empirical evidence in the field
of Gamification, by designing, implementing and evaluating a gamified learning experience in
tertiary education. The research attempts to apply the Gamification theory in practice, and study
the design and the consequences of this application in education.
The use of game mechanics to create an E-Learning system, targets to give a new kind of
on-line learning experience, as an alternative approach to Serious Games and typical E-Learning.
For these purposes, an E-Learning system was created, in order to make typical work including
questionnaires, assignments and grades more engaging, by utilizing Badges, a common
Gamification element, met in many organizations and Web applications, which is further presented
in Chapter 2.4.
The functional aim was to construct two identical Learning Management Systems (LMS)
by using Web 2.0 technology. The first one was created typically, without including any
Gamification elements or game mechanics. The second one was identical to the first. Additionally,
a Gamification element was implemented to it, so as to add extrinsic reward, in order to uplift the
students' motivation. The design, as well as the implementation are presented in Chapter 4.2 in
14
detail. The ultimate goal was to measure the outcome in a methodical way, which is described in
Chapter 4.4.
The gamified Learning Management System was tested in a university subject, to gain data
on the practical implementation in a real life education setting. Preliminary research has indicated
that it would be possible to test the system in the SEAC200 - IT Applications in Learning and
Special Education at SED, UTH. The research goal was to evaluate the students' response to such
system, by utilizing a system of interrelated metrics, which is being elaborated in Chapter 4.4.
The work entailed learning and designing the two Learning Management Systems, and
implementing the Gamification element to the second one. It also entailed creating and organizing
the material of the course, as well as administrating both systems and interacting with various endusers. Finally, collecting the data, measuring and comparing the engagement of the students to
each system was required, in order to gain perspective on the effect the conducted experiment had
on students. The obtained results are being presented in Chapter 5.
1.3 Methodology
This research was designed according to the model of semi-experimental design with preequivalent groups. According to this model, the students were divided into two experimental
groups, treatment and control, which were equivalent, and with a high degree of similarity in their
composition. In order to achieve the required equivalence, pre-control was conducted in the form
of questionnaires. The procedure is being explained in Chapter 4.2.
In order to properly evaluate a developed system in a real-life setting, usability issues have
to be uncovered before the actual experiment takes place. However, this particular research was
15
supported by Moodle, a popular and highly reputed Learning Management System. Therefore, no
usability tests nor pilot tests had been conducted, before the actual experiment took place.
Finally, for the purposes of this research, and in order to measure the user engagement to
both platforms, a method proposed by Zichermann and Cunningham was followed. According to
the mentioned method, there is no single metric which can sufficiently measure engagement on
the Web technology.[7] Therefore, a system of interrelated metrics proposed by the two authors
was adopted and used, in order to gain perspective on users' engagement.
1.4 Limitations
The scope of this thesis is to evaluate a gamified E-Learning system, and present and
discuss the case in this report. Considering that the work also included learning and designing the
two Learning Management Systems, setting the educational goals, as well as collecting, creating
and organizing the course's material, the scope of this thesis was already extensive. Moreover,
selecting a specific course in order to test the two Leaning Management Systems, adds certain
limitations regarding the collected data, and consequently the produced results. Therefore, there is
a certain range to what this thesis will be able to uncover.
Initially, the evaluation of engagement was performed on a tertiary educational level (the
SED at UTH in Greece). Although it might be argued that students at lower educational levels are
more responsive to motivating factors, they are not the target group for this case study. The
experiment was conducted on a total of 32 graduate students, all female, which participated in the
activities designed as the elective laboratory part of the course. The students were divided into two
groups: students using the typical E-learning system, and students using the gamified one. The
16
division was based on questionnaires filled by the students before the beginning of the experiment,
which recorded their prior knowledge and attitudes.
Moreover, the development work required for this project, was performed in the same
semester as the SED course, which was selected for the evaluation. It follows, that the testing of
the systems in the educational setting could not be done from the very start of the semester but
only after the development had reached a functional state. The time period decided to give the
students to test the system, and provide data for the evaluation was six weeks. Therefore, the
content of the course was organized accordingly. Although it is most desired to evaluate a finished
system throughout an entire semester, with ample time to integrate it well into the subject course,
and get data on its use, this is not considered feasible within the limits of this thesis.
Although it would be interesting to test all game mechanics, or a combination of several of
them, it would not be possible to separately measure the influence of each element to the students'
engagement. Gaasland in 2010 charted 47 different game mechanics, while Zichermann and
Cunningham focused on 7 primary elements, in order to discuss the way they yield a meaningful
response from the players. As mentioned before, for the purposes of this thesis, Badges, one of the
most popular game mechanics, was selected, so as to isolate and measure the influence of its
utilization in learning context.
Finally, E-Learning is an ambiguous term, used to describe a range of different types of
systems. Nowadays, some different types of E-Learning systems are CBTs (Computer Based
Training), CSCLs (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning) and LMSs (Learning
Management Systems). The latter are systems being used as administrative support tools at
educational institutions all over the world. Although it would be of great value to construct an ELearning system, which would combine characteristics from different types of E-Learning systems,
17
within the limits of this thesis, Moodle was selected, in order to create the gamified learning
experience. Moodle is a free software Learning Management System, used in more than 556
institutions all over the world, counting approximately 73,753,000 users [20]. The fact that Moodle
is the most popular LMS in the world and it is also highly reputed, in conjunction with the fact
that it is open source, and therefore free, led to the particular selection.
18
2. Background Theory
2.1 Games
Defining Games
In order to understand game mechanics, someone first needs to explore the medium from
which they originated: games. Many people have tried to define what a game is.
Salen and Zimmerman in 2004 defined game as "a system in which players engage in an
artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome" [11]. Such definition
may come into collision with the purposes of this thesis, due to the fact that accepting the
educational process among different students as engagement in an artificial conflict, can be rather
anti-educational.
Some years later, in 2010, Enzo Silva came up with a different definition. He defined game
as a series of enjoyable yet challenging, meaningful choices, a player makes throughout an
experience [12]. Although such choices are usually enjoyable, it can be argued that they are
always challenging or meaningful.
Botturi and Loh, during their attempt to explore the idea of playing and learning through a
lexical and conceptual analysis within the Western culture, connected the Greek word paideia
(education) to the word paignion (game), based on a forced claim that both words derive from the
same source. Actually, Paideia derives from the verb Paidevo (chasten), while Paignion derives
from the noun Pais (child). Consequently, Game could be defined as an autotelic activity (selfaimed activity that has no external end or purpose) a child does [1].
The informal definition given by Kim in 2009, describing game as: "a structured
experience with rules and goals thats fun" [13], in conjunction to Sid Meier's definition: a game
19
is a series of interesting choices [14], leads to a more usable definition for the purposes of this
thesis: Game is a structured set of rules that creates a decision space, including a system of
rewards, that aims to make an experience fun.
Decision space" refers to the fact that the player can choose between various options at
several different points in the game.
Rewards" means every reinforcement and benefit given to the player, but also indirect
rewards stemming from satisfying curiosity through exploring areas of the game for
instance [2].
Serious Games & Game Based Learning

At one time, particularly in the 1970s, the term Video Games meant games played in a
video arcade [1]. Nowadays, the term is used broadly to include all digital games playable on a
device with video screen, which would include Computers, game consoles, cellular phones and
mobile devices. The term Serious Games is used to distinguish Video Games that are created for
training and instruction, from those developed for entertainment purposes [1]. A useful definition
of Serious Games can be the following: Games that are created with a learning objective as the
primary goal, and fun and entertainment as secondary [2]. Using games, leisure or serious, in
schools to enhance and support learning, has become known as Game Based Learning [5].
Despite the fact that Simoes et Al stated in 2012 that the use of Video Games as learning
tools, has been gaining prominence in recent decades, this statement can be highly argued. It is a
fact that the video game industry has grown rapidly and become mainstream entertainment.
Currently, video games are the most powerful entertainment industry in economic terms, reaching
$936 million in total sales in March 2014, up 9% year-over-year.[15] On the contrary, the past
20 years, there have been no major blockbusters in educational software games and since the last
20
blockbuster hit in educational games, thousands of educational software companies have

attempted and failed to create another sensation.[7]
Video Games application in education is hindered by various issues. Their high production
costs results in games being often developed based on general market demand. Therefore, the
creation of localized content is often limited. This is even worse in countries like Greece, with a
small population (small market), and a curriculum different from the curriculum in the USA (one
of the largest markets). Finally, the difficulty of getting instructors involved in the development
process of Video Games, a required aspect in order to achieve educational value, adds another
drawback [16].
Games & Motivation
In order to create a gamified system that increases student motivation, it is necessary to
focus on the fundamental elements that make games appealing to their players. According to Lee
and Hammer in 2011, games are motivating because of their impact on the cognitive, emotional
and social areas of players [10].
In the cognitive area, a game provides a complex system of rules along with series of tasks
that guide players through a process to master those rules. These tasks are designed as cycles. A
cycle consists of a series of short-term tasks, which players repeatedly try to complete in a try and
fail process until the necessary skill level is acquired.
The impact games have on players' emotional area works mainly around the concept of
success and failure. On one hand, when players complete tasks they are expected to have positive
emotions, by their mere fact of overcoming difficulties. Games try to assure and increase those
21
feelings with reward systems. On the other hand, when players fail, they are expected to feel
anxiety. While some degree of anxiety is acceptable, it is not desirable to transform into frustration.
Finally, when multiple players interact through the game, these interactions have impact
on players' social area. Web 2.0 technology offer a wide range of multiplayer interaction
mechanisms, which can be integrated to the rules of a gamified system. These mechanisms make
it possible for players to cooperate, compete, or just interact socially by talking, flirting, trading or
gifting for instance.
2.2 Players
Games are able to get people to take actions that they do not always know they want to
take, without the use of force, in a predictable way. But in any system, the players motivation
ultimately drives the outcome. Therefore, understanding player motivation is paramount to
building a successfully gamified system [7].
Flow & Reinforcement
Flow is a cornerstone concept for the success of games. Achieving flow indicates a players
state between anxiety and boredom, where he meets his own motivational level in any given
experience. On the other hand, reinforcement is the attempt to convert a reward into a player's
action, in the process of guiding him to master the system. Reinforcement is the key to structuring
the right reward system, which in combination to a carefully designed interplay can lead the player
to achieve flow.
Game balancing is of high complexity. More precisely, players who find the challenge too
much will inevitably drop out of the game. To avoid such thing, sequences of tasks should be
carefully designed to fit players' skills at any level, and include low penalties on failure to promote
22
experimentation and task repetition. On the other hand, players who find the challenge too easy
are equally probable to drop out of the game. If the difficulty of tasks is correctly balanced, it can
drive the players to achieve a flow state which is highly motivating. Such state should be the target
of any gamified experience.
Intrinsic & Extrinsic Motivation
Another aspect in understanding player motivations is questioning where motivations come
from. There are two categories of motivations: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivations are
those that derive from our self and are not necessarily based on the world around us. Conversely,
extrinsic motivations are driven mostly by the world around us [7].
Concern about Gamification and its means has been expressed by its critics. It has been
supported that while Gamification is used to provide external motivation, the user's internal
motivation decreases. For instance, if an organization starts using gamification based upon
external rewards and then decides to stop the rewards program, that organization will be worse
off than when it started, as users will be less likely to return to the behavior without the external
reward [18].
Contrariwise, in the book Gamification by Design, the authors claim that this belief in
internal motivation over extrinsic rewards is unfounded. They further state that Gamification
works better if intrinsic motivations and extrinsic rewards are aligned, and that someone should
strive to achieve that, wherever possible. One obvious conclusion of the intrinsic/extrinsic
behavioral questions, is that once you start giving someone a reward, you have to keep them in
that reward loop forever [7].
23
Player Types
The more you know about the motivations of the players playing your game, the easier it
is to design an experience that will drive their behavior in the desired way [7]. There are four
main types of players: Explorers, Achievers, Socializers and Killers, according to Bartle's
taxonomy in 2004.
Explorers are players who like to wander throughout the system. They take pleasure of
exploring the world, and discovering new items so that they can bring them back to their
community and proclaim, I discovered this thing!
Achievers are an integral part of any competitive game. For achievers, losing at the game
will likely cause them to lose interest in playing it. On the other hand, developing a system where
everyone can win and achieve is of great difficulty.
Socializers are people who play games for the benefit of a social interaction. Games
focused on socializers comprise some of the most enduring games throughout history. To further
clarify socializers' mentality, it isnt that they do not care about the game or winning, they do. But
to them, the game is mainly a backdrop for meaningful long-term social interactions.
Killers consist the smallest population of all the player types. Although they are similar to
achievers in their desire to win, unlike achievers, winning for them is not enough. Not only they
must win but also someone else must lose.
A player can have characteristics of all four types at the same time. For the average
person, the breakdown might look something like this: 80% socializer, 50% explorer, 40%
achiever and 20% killer. If the scores were mutually exclusive, however, and a player could only
24
be one type, the vast majority of people, as much as 75%, are probably socializers. Explorers and
achievers each make up about 10% of the population, and killers account for 5% [7].
2.3 Gamification
Defining Gamification
Gamification may be a new term, but the idea of using game-thinking and game
mechanics to solve problems and engage audiences isnt exactly new [7]. The concept has been
initially explored in the marketing and military area, but the potential of its application has been
extended to other areas, raising the question of whether it could be applied to education.
Furthermore, due to the fact that Gamification started to fully gain traction during the course of
2010, there has been little academic research investigating its merits.
Various attempts have been made to define Gamification. Some researchers generically
defined it as The use of game design elements and game mechanics in non-game contexts [17]
or as The process of game-thinking and game mechanics to engage users and solve problems
[7]. For the purposes of this thesis the following definition will be used: Gamification is the
process of applying elements associated with video games in non-game applications which aims
to increase peoples engagement and to promote certain behaviors.
Engagement
The term engagement, indicates the connection between a consumer and a product or
service. There is no single metric on the Web technology that sufficiently measures engagement.
Page views or unique viewers can be considered as rather misleading methods to test who is
engaging with an application's services. Therefore, engagement should be better considered as a
series of interrelated metrics that combine to form a whole. These metrics are: Recency, Frequency,
25
Duration, Virality and Ratings [7]. Finally, it is really essential to define the importance of each
metric on a given system, as they can vary depending on the type of the application.
System of Rewards
system of rewards can be consisted of Status, Access, Power and Stuff, listed in order
from the most to the least desired, and the cheapest to the most expensive [7].
Status can be considered as the relative position of an individual in relation to others,
especially in a social group. Status benefits and rewards define a ranking system which does not
need to be based on the real world, and most importantly works perfectly in a vaguely constructed
environment, such as the environment of a game or a Web application. Some examples of status
items include Badges and Leaderboards.
Access can be considered as the reward given to a small group of users, so as to access a
certain resource, instead of offering them tangible prizes, such as giveaways or discounts. Some
ways to provide access as a reward to the players can include head starts, priority or VIP seating,
or the privilege to determine appointments in the most convenient way to them.
The process of awarding power to some players offers a modicum of control over other
players in the game. For instance, a good player might be asked to serve as a moderator on a forum.
The benefits of such reward can be double, as the player feels standing out from the rest of the
group, and at the same time offers his services to the system itself.
Finally, although stuff can be a strong incentive if players are expecting to receive free
items, once the item has been given away, the incentive to engage is finished. In other words, stuff
is only good until it is redeemed.
26
2.4 Game Mechanics

Game design is a relatively new, unaccredited discipline with roots in both psychology and
systems-thinking. When creating a gamified experience, many aspects of game design are
leveraged, while focus on the core elements that will produce the greatest impact for the players
must be maintained [7].
The MDA Framework
One of the most frequently leveraged frameworks of game design is referred to as MDA,
which stands for: Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics. The MDA framework is a postmortem
analysis of the elements of a game. It helps use systems-thinking to describe the interplay of those
game elements and apply them outside of games [7].
Mechanics make up the functioning components of the game. At their core, they allow a
designer ultimate control over the levers of the game, giving him the ability to guide player actions.
Dynamics are the player's interactions with those mechanics. They determine what each
player is doing in response to the mechanics of the system, both individually and with other players.
The aesthetics of the system are how the game makes the player feel during interaction.
Game aesthetics can be viewed as the composite outcome of the mechanics and dynamics, as they
interact with each other and create emotions.
Points
Points are important and they serve a wide range of purposes regardless of whether their
accumulation is shared among players, or even between the designer and the player. In gamified
applications it is imperative to value and track every move the players make even if those scores
27
are only visible to the game designer and not to the players. Points are a great tool in service of
that purpose.
In Gamification, we can leverage one of five point designs to form the foundation of the
experience. Zichermann and Cunningham proposed a points palette which includes the following
points options: Experience points, Redeemable points, Skill points, Karma points and Reputation
points [7].
It is important to string an Experience Points architecture around a gamified system
because it informs the designer and the players about which activities are more important.
Redeemable Points on the other hand are usable within the system in exchange for things. Skill
points are assigned to specific activities within the game and they are a bonus set of points that
allow a player to gain reward for activities alongside the core. The purpose of karma is to give
points away. Players gain no benefit from keeping their karma points, only from sharing them.
Therefore, a behavioral path for altruism and user reward is being created. Finally, Reputation
points are complex but often necessary in a system. Many web applications such as Yahoo!
Answers and Stack overflow are based on a reputation system in great extent.
Levels
In most games, levels are used to indicate progress. Designers of gamified experiences are
not going to use typical levels like those found in Video Games but understanding them can add a
powerful tool to the design. In game design, level difficulty is not linear. Difficulty increases
exponentially through each level and then decreases over time. These complex transitions from
one level to the next have proven extremely engaging [7].
28
There are several approaches to the process of designing levels for a gamified system. In
some systems, levels might define the difficulty of the game, or else they might serve as a passive
marker for players to know where they stand in the gaming experience over time.
Additionally, there are some general guidelines which can be proven quite helpful. The
best design tips for levels are to make them logical, in order to be easy for the player to understand.
Moreover, should be created extensible and flexible, so that new levels could be added as needed.
Finally, the levels should be testable and refinable [7].
Leaderboards
The purpose of a leaderboard is to make simple comparisons. Unsurprisingly, most people
do not need any explanation when they encounter a leaderboard. By default, we see an ordered list
with a score beside each name, and we understand that we are looking at a ranking system.
On the contrary, sometimes creating a leaderboard is not as obvious as it seems. In the case
that the items being compared are sensitive, leaderboards present a challenge. For instance, the
study of Dominguez et Al showed cases in which dislike and uneasiness was created by the
feeling of competition among students and the process of ranking them on a leaderboard [19].
Badges
Badges have existed for a long period of time in our world, and they are a distinctive way
of indicating status. Additionally, people desire badges for all kinds of reasons. For many people
collecting is a powerful drive. Other players enjoy the sudden rush of surprise or pleasure when an
unexpected badge shows up in a gamified system. A well designed, visually valuable badge, can
also be compelling for purely aesthetic reasons. Finally, Badges must be visible to other players in
the game, otherwise, their meaning and valuation is limited.
29
There are various successful web and mobile applications that use badges, in order to
establish long-term relationships with their users. Foursquare for instance, uses badges to represent
players progress, and to create for them a sense of delight or surprise, due to the fact that it doles
out those badges with seeming randomness [7]. Farmville on the other hand, reveals the
challenges more clearly to the player compared to Foursquare. Ribbons serve as the badging
system in this particular application but unlike the badges in Foursquare, these ribbons act in close
concert with the challenges set by the application.
In regards to education, is it feasible to create a reward system based on this particular
game mechanic, in order to uplift students motivation, and engender high levels of engagement?
More specifically, is it possible to combine the two principles behind Foursquare and Farmville,
in order to motivate students in completing a courses challenges, while pleasantly surprising them
with random trophies, so as to further engage? [Chapter 3.2]
30
3. Related Research
3.1 Previous Work

Gamification and Game Mechanics based E-Learning started to fully gain traction during
the course of 2010. While some researches are already in progress, currently there is still little
academic work investigating their merits. Some notable works on the field are the following:
Once Upon a Game
Botturi and Loh attempted to explore the idea of playing and learning, through a lexical
and conceptual analysis of the hidden meaning in usual words, such as game, play and
education. Based on Semiotics and Philosophy, as well as Von Neumann's Game Theory and
Mann's Dialogue Macrogame Theory, the authors came up with nine implications which
characterize games, and also explained how these characteristics affect education. Although a
theoretical background was formed, trying to provide evidence on whether to embrace or discard
the call to integrate play into education, a related methodology of how an educational application
could be gamified was not included in the study.
Raising Engagement in E-Learning through Gamification
Muntean based on Foggs Behavior Model, made a theoretical analysis of how
Gamification could be used as a tool to increase engagement in E-Learning platforms, and also
trigger desired behaviors on students. She also stated the difference between Educational Games
and Gamification of E-Learning, and provided a list of Gamification elements, explaining how
they could be integrated to an E-Learning course. Although Muntean provided a guide of how to
31
gamify an E-Learning application, no empirical research on the topic was conducted, therefore,
more work is required, in order to construct an implementation, and evaluate its effect on students.
A Social Gamification Framework for a K-6 Learning Platform
Recently, Simes et Al attempted to incorporate the distinctive elements from Social
Games, and apply them to Social Learning Environments. Social Gamification in education, as an
alternative approach to Game Based Learning, as well as the validation of such application were
the main goals of their work. To accomplish their goals they used schoooools.com, an existent K6 Social Learning Environment, whose features and tools (private social network, blogs, wikis,
etc.) could be naturally integrated to Gamification elements. The authors also presented a scenario,
in which they integrated a point-based reward system, in order to demonstrate the extensibility of
the framework but no empirical evidence about the effectiveness of this approach was provided.
Game mechanic based e-learning
One of the few empirical researches on this subject is the masters thesis Game mechanic
based e-learning by Gaasland (2011). In his work, Gaasland presented a detailed experiment, in
which he developed a web platform using Ruby on Rails, for the purposes of a Gamified ELearning experience, which was evaluated in a university class. The platform was inspired by web
applications such as Yahoo! Answers and StackOverflow, and served as a collaborative database,
where students could share knowledge by asking and answering each others questions, using the
platform as an alternative way to study and revise topics. The only Gamification mechanism
integrated to the platform was Experience Points, a classic Gamification element used to keep
track of players progression. The major research goal was to evaluate respondents perception of
the system, and create a guide on designing non-game systems, which try to achieve similar
32
motivational benefits as games. A careful Development methodology was followed, from the
designing process till the actual implementation of the platform, and several usability tests were
performed throughout the process. This methodology constructed in fact a helpful guide. On the
other hand, the results indicating that the platform was somewhat motivating, were totally based
on students' responses to questionnaires. Therefore, since such metric does not sufficiently
measures engagement on the Web technology, those results are not of great value. Further research
is needed, not only on measuring engagement more properly, but on testing other Gamification
mechanisms, and their combinations as well.
Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes
Another empirical research on this subject is Gamifying learning experiences: Practical
implications and outcomes by Dominguez et Al (2013). In an attempt to verify the theories
indicating that game mechanics can support Web Based Education, the authors designed and built
a Gamification plugin for a well-known E-Learning platform. They also conducted an experiment
using this plugin in a university course, collecting quantitative and qualitative data in the process.
In the cognitive area of the application, they created levels as a hierarchical tree, following the
course topics. The platform combined two different Gamification elements, Badges and
Leaderboards. Badges were used as a reward system in order to impact the emotional area of the
students and motivate them to complete more tasks. Leaderboards on the other hand, were included
as a competitive mechanism, related to the social area of the system. Although measuring the effect
on motivation, produced by the combination of the two Gamification elements, is of great interest,
it remains vague how each one affected the system separately. Finally, their findings suggest, that
some 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
33
assignments, and in overall score but the same students performed poorly on written assignments
and participated less on class activities, despite the fact that their initial motivation was higher.
Gamification by Design
Gamification by Design is a book written by Gabe Zichermann and Christopher
Gunningham, to help demystify some of the cores of game design. The authors indebted to the
work of notable game designers, which helped clarify the process of game design, making it a
quantifiable science. Good and bad patterns, from both famous and lesser-known case studies were
extracted and tested, and as a result a valuable guide was composed, that helps the game designer
to align his interests with the intrinsic motivations of the players. An extended theoretical
background was provided, which could be separated into two major categories. Firstly, an
extended analysis of all the powerful human motivators, and the reasons that engender people to
play, introduces the reader to the player's psychology. Secondly, a presentation of a great range of
Gamification elements, combined to various examples of their actual use in real life applications,
makes a great contribution in understanding how Gamification mechanisms can engender players
behaviors. Moreover, code for the basic game mechanics was provided, as well as a detailed guide
for developing a basic Gamification platform. Finally, the concept that describes engagement as a
series of interrelated metrics, provided helpful directions in measuring engagement in real life
gamified systems.
3.2 Conclusions & Research Questions

The research conducted on previous works done on the specific field, indicates the existence
of rich theoretical background, which provides helpful guidelines regarding the determination of
the target group an application aims at, the suitability deriving from the characteristics of each
34
Gamification mechanism, the actual process of gamifying an application, and finally, the process
of properly measuring the engagement of the applications users. In contrary, there is little
empirical evidence regarding the results of the implication of Gamification theory on a real life
educational setting, and there is even fewer evidence regarding the effect of each separate
Gamification mechanism on subjects such as the students engagement and the actual learning
process.
Therefore, throughout the research, a series of questions have risen, and they have motivated
this particular work. In this thesis an effort was made, in order for those questions to be answered.
Those questions can be categorized into two groups: the overall research questions, and the
detailed ones.
The research questions are the following:
Overall Research Questions
Question 1:
Is it possible for students to learn from games?
Question 2:
Could Gamification be a simple yet still efficient approach, in order to make

educational content more attractive, and engender the desired state for the student?
Question 3:
Which is actually the desired state a student should reach, with respect to his
interaction with an on-line experience?
Question 4:
How motivating can a simple game mechanic be, when integrated to an E-Learning
system?
35
Technical Research Questions

Question 1:
Is it feasible for a reward system, merely based on badges, to uplift students

motivation, and further engender engagement to an E-Learning system?
Question 2:
How do students respond to the gamified E-Learning system developed for for the
purposes of this research?
Question 3:
How usable and helpful do students find the gamified E-Learning system developed
for the purposes of this research?
Question 4:
To what extent are modern teachers familiar to Information and Communication

Technologies used in education? Where do they stand with regard to using such
technologies in real life educational settings?
36
4. Methodology
4.1 Description of the System

The system implemented for the purposes of this research is a web application. Therefore,
it would be equally able to run on older computers, as well as new ones, since the computation is
performed server-side, and the only requirement is a browser and an internet connection. This
approach eliminates several of the problems Serious Games have faced, and creates no special
requirement for educational institutes in order to use it. Furthermore, its content is presented online and it is not available exclusively for download.
The work presented in this thesis was supported by the Learning Management System
Moodle. Moodle disposes a range of features, which are considered typical of an E-Learning
platform, as well as a variety of specialized extensions and modules constructed by developers.
For the purposes of this research, the following typical features were integrated to the platforms:
Resource types, such as document, video and page viewers, file downloaders, assignment
submissions and on-line quizzes. Furthermore, specific collaborative modules inspired by social
application environments and Web 2.0 technology, such as discussion forums and instant
messaging, were also integrated to both platforms.
Finally, the content of the platforms was organized as a hierarchical tree, following the
topics of the course. The content was distributed to different containers created to both platforms,
which were labeled as weeks for the typical platform, and as levels for the gamified one. The
process of organizing the content in both platforms followed the guidelines for learning activities,
which were summoned up by Simoes et Al: Repeated experimentation was allowed in order for
students to achieve a goal, and rapid feedback cycles were included. Tasks were adapted to the
37
students' skill level, and their difficulty was increasing as students' skill level was improved.
Furthermore, complex tasks were broken into shorter, and different routes to achieving a goal were
created. [5] Regarding the gamified platform, recognition and reward were allowed in the form of
distributing Badges to the students, every time a set of actions was completed or a goal was
achieved.
4.2 System Design & Development

The course IT Applications in Learning and Special Education is a course in which
students learn how to effectively use ICT tools, and apply their use in learning and special
education. The course is aimed at promoting ICT competence at user level for students, and also
presenting certain tools, with a view to implement them to the creation of educational material.
Syllabus includes video capture and editing software, website building tools, as well as multimedia
content creating tools. The course was developed, so as to contain tasks and assignments, designed
to improve the skills of the students.
Cognitive Area
Initially, the cognitive area of the experience was designed. In specific, the system of rules
in which students would obtain skills was provided by the ICT tools used in the course, while the
tasks that would guide the users through the tool mastery process were the assignments integrated
to each system. In an attempt to keep the gamified platform, as similar as possible to the typical
one, a hierarchical tree was structured. The hierarchical tree was composed of three levels as it is
depicted in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.2 depicts the first level of the tree, which matches the course's list
of topics, labeled weeks for the typical platform, and levels for the gamified one, as mentioned
before.
38
Moreover, a motif which represented the lower levels of the hierarchy was structured, and
was repeated for each week or level. The motif would include the second hierarchy level,
consisting of topic-specified forums, topic's material, additional material, quizzes, questionnaires
and assignments, as well as the third hierarchy level, consisting of specific pdf and video tutorials,
url pages, and assignment descriptions and submissions. Students could freely access any topic
and its tasks once it had been introduced in lectures, and although repeated experimentation
regarding the topic's material was allowed, assignments', quizzes' and questionnaires' submissions
were allowed only once. Figure 4.3 depicts the lower levels of the related hierarchy.
In game design, level difficulty is neither linear nor exponential. Applying transitions in
the difficulty from one level to the next is how games work, and this is a process that has also
proven highly engaging. [7] Those transitions are essential, in order for the player to balance
between anxiety and boredom, and finally to achieve the state of flow. [Chapter 2.2] Motivated by
this particular notion, the weeks' or levels' difficulty, in terms of content, throughout the course
was designed accordingly, and as shown in Figure 4.4.
Another important element of this area is task evaluation. In order to be able to reward task
completion, an evaluation mechanism was required. An ideal mechanism would be integrated in
the E-Learning platform, making it possible for tasks to be auto-evaluated. Nevertheless, this is
not always possible, as in our case, where exercises had to be done using external software. The
solution was to use videos as evaluation mechanism. Students would capture and upload videos of
their work, and those videos should provide enough information to evaluate if the task was
correctly completed or not. The problem with this solution was that immediate feedback on task
completion in the form of a reward was not feasible.
39
Course
Week 1
...
Week n
course's
material
categories
course's
material
categories
course's
material
categories
specific material
per caregory
specific material
per caregory
specific material
per caregory
Figure 4.1 [hierarchical tree for the SEAC200 course]
Figure 4.2 [first level of hierarchical tree for the SEAC200 course]
Figure 4.3 [second & third level of hierarchical tree for the SEAC200 course]
Figure 4.4 [level complexity for the E-Learning platform of the SEAC200 course]
40
41
Emotional Area
The next step was to design how to impact on the emotional area of the students. A virtual
reward system should be included, so as to create positive emotions on task completion, thus
motivating students to complete more tasks. According to Zichermann and Cunningham the more
you know about who is playing your game, the easier it is to design an experience that will drive
their behavior in the desired way.[7] Dominguez et Al pointed out cases, where dislike and
uneasiness was created by the feeling of competition among students.[19] Furthermore, as
mentioned earlier, killers account for a very small proportion of the total population of players,
while socializers, explorers and achievers account for 95% of the population. [Chapter 2.2]
Therefore, after considering all those factors, and concluding that the particular students who
participated in the experiment were more likely to socialize, explore and achieve, rather than
compete, it was decided that achievement Badges was the most appropriate form of reward to
integrate to the gamified system.
In the particular gamified system developed for the purposes of this research, two major
Badges categories were designed, with a view to impact the emotional area of the students. The
first category, inspired by Farmville, [Chapter 2.4] consisted of Badges designed to act in close
concert with the challenges set by the E-Learning system. Such Badges, would be awarded to
students on assignment, quiz or questionnaire completion, in order to create positive emotions, and
would also serve students keeping track of their progress. The second category, inspired by
Foursquare, [Chapter 2.4] consisted of Badges designed to be awarded on students participation,
and after they had taken combinatorial actions. Those Badges would be awarded with apparent
randomness, in order to create for the students a sense of delight and surprise.
42
The mentioned categories, the Badges of each category, and the criteria that should be
satisfied in order for a Badge to be awarded are depicted in Figure 4.5. Moreover, in an attempt to
increase the engagement of the students, the more they progressed in the system, the more the
difficulty with which they would earn a Badge should increase. This particular notion is depicted
in Figure 4.6.
Level
Level 1
Badges awarded for assignment, quiz or questionnaire completion

Image
Name
Criteria
Love U
Awarded by manager
(Complete all three questionnaires)
Level 1
Riddlers 1st
Quiz
Awarded by manager
(Complete quiz)
Level 2
You Are a
Star!
Awarded by manager
(Complete video capture and
editing)
Level 2
Youtube
Hero
Complete: "Assign - Create a

Youtube account"
Level 3
You Are a
Web Star!
Awarded by manager
(Complete website part 1/2)
Level 4
Web Site
Developer
Certification
Awarded by manager
(Complete website part 2/2)
43
Level 5
Multimedia
Content
Gold Cup
Awarded by manager
(Complete multimedia content)
Level 6
Have a nice
summer!
Awarded by manager
(Complete final questionnaire)
Level
Level 1
Badges awarded for participation and combinatorial actions

Image
Name
Criteria
Platforms
Complete ALL of:
Master
"PDF expression encoder", "PDF web expression", "PDF Multimedia builder"
Level 1
World Wide
Web Master
Complete: "URL - Client server

model"
Level 2
Embedded
Content
Master
Complete: "PDF - Embedded

content"
Level 2
Top Class
Director
Complete ALL of: "PDF - Creating a

video", "VIDEO - Creating a video"
Level 3
Web Site
Blue Award

website 1/2", "VIDEO - Creating a
website part 1", "VIDEO - Creating
a website part 2"
Level 4
Web Site
Yellow
Award

website 2/2", "VIDEO - Creating a
website part 3", "VIDEO - Creating
a website part 4"

Level 5
Multimedia
Content Red
Award
44
Complete ALL of: "PDF - MMB
troubleshooting", "PDF - Creating
multimedia", "VIDEO - Creating
multimedia content part
1", "VIDEO - Creating multimedia
content part 2"
Figure 4.5 [Badges designed to impact the emotional area]
Figure 4.6 [difficulty in earning hidden Badges]
Social Area
The final design step was related to the social area of the system. As previously mentioned,
there are different ways of student interaction: cooperative, competitive and social. Although the
course tasks had been designed for individuals, it was decided to combine cooperative mechanisms
to the social modules that had already been utilized, in order to motivate students collaboration,
and avoid the negative impact of competitive mechanisms. [19]
45
Moodle includes a range of social modules. Moreover, in the initial design of the ELearning systems, modules such as chat rooms, general forums and questions & answers forums
had already been integrated. [Figure 4.3] Therefore, it was decided to encourage students social
interaction and collaboration, by awarding Badges for actions such as instant messaging, posting
questions and answering to classmates questions, or other minor actions such as profile updating
and photo uploading, which indicate commitment to the system. The third Badge category,
consisting of social Badges, the Badges included, and the criteria that should be satisfied in order
for those Badges to be awarded are depicted in Figure 4.7.
Level
System
Badges awarded for social interaction and collaboration

Image
Name
Criteria
Welcome in!
Complete: Update profile
Complemen
tary module
Chit Chater
Complete: Chat room"
Complemen
tary module
Socializer
Complete: General forum"
Level 1
Savior
Complete: Q&A forum
Level 2
I like to
help!
Complete: Q&A forum
46
Level 3
Hot Tips
Complete: Q&A forum
Level 4
Share the
Idea!
Complete: Q&A forum
Level 5
Lifesaver
Complete: Q&A forum
Figure 4.7 [Badges designed to impact the social area]
4.3 Experimental Subjects

This research was designed according to the model of semi-experimental design with preequivalent groups. According to this model, the students are divided into groups of physically
equivalent, with a high degree of similarity in their composition. The degree of similarity in the
composition of the students was ensured by the fact that they were all students of the same age and
the same sex, and they also had the common element that they had consciously chosen to attend
the Department of Special Education at University of Thessaly. Moreover, none of the students
had previous experience with the system.
For the purposes of this project two groups were used: control and treatment group. In
order for the groups to be formed, pre-control was conducted by distributing questionnaires, which
were answered by the initial sample. Pre-control was also divided in two phases, with the
questionnaires being distributed respectively to each phase. In phase one, questions were related
to the sample's prior knowledge on the subject of the course, as well as the familiarity and the
47
usability rates of personal computers, mobile devices and the Internet. The outcome of the first
phase was the classification of the sample into four groups depending on their answers, as it is
depicted in Figure 4.8.
In phase two, questions were related to the sample's prior attitudes regarding the usefulness
and the purposefulness of E-Learning systems and Video Games as educational tools. The outcome
of the second phase was the further classification of the resulting four groups of the previous phase
into two subgroups. The first one was composed of those students who felt positively, while the
second one was composed of the students who felt negatively on the related subject. The specific
classification is depicted in Figure 4.0.9.
Eventually, students were selected, in order to form the control and treatment groups, in
such a way as to contain equal proportions from each of the categories formed in phases one and
two. Figure 4.0.10 depicts control and treatment groups, which were formed to be equivalent. The
first group would test the typical platform, while the second would test the gamified one.
48
Figure 4.8 [subjects division into equivalent groups based on pre-control phase1]
STUDENTS
***
****
***
****
*****
***
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
GROUPS
1ST GROUP
1ST GROUP
1ST GROUP
1ST GROUP
2ND GROUP
2ND GROUP
2ND GROUP
2ND GROUP
2ND GROUP
2ND GROUP
2ND GROUP
2ND GROUP
2ND GROUP
ATTITUDES
49
2ND GROUP
2ND GROUP
2ND GROUP
3RD GROUP
3RD GROUP
3RD GROUP
3RD GROUP
3RD GROUP
3RD GROUP
3RD GROUP
3RD GROUP
3RD GROUP
3RD GROUP
3RD GROUP
3RD GROUP
3RD GROUP
4TH GROUP
4TH GROUP
***
****
****
****
****
****
A***
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
*****
*****
****
*****
Figure 4.0.9 [subjects division into equivalent groups based on pre-control phase2]
FINAL GROUPS
CONTROL
PHASE 1 GROUPS
1ST GROUP
A****
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
CONTROL
1ST GROUP
2ND GROUP
2ND GROUP
2ND GROUP
2ND GROUP
2ND GROUP
*****
CONTROL
3RD GROUP
****
CONTROL
3RD GROUP
****
CONTROL
CONTROL
3RD GROUP
3RD GROUP
****
CONTROL
CONTROL
3RD GROUP
3RD GROUP
****
CONTROL
3RD GROUP
****
CONTROL
CONTROL
TREATMENT
TREATMENT
4TH GROUP
2ND GROUP
2ND GROUP
1ST GROUP
STUDENTS
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
ATTITUDES
50
****
TREATMENT
1ST GROUP
****
TREATMENT
2ND GROUP
****
TREATMENT
TREATMENT
2ND GROUP
2ND GROUP
TREATMENT
TREATMENT
2ND GROUP
2ND GROUP
****
TREATMENT
TREATMENT
TREATMENT
3RD GROUP
3RD GROUP
3RD GROUP
****
TREATMENT
3RD GROUP
****
****
TREATMENT
TREATMENT
3RD GROUP
3RD GROUP
****
TREATMENT
4TH GROUP
****
****
****
****
****
Figure 4.0.10 [control and treatment equivalent groups]
4.4 Evaluation & Data Collection

Engagement
As mentioned before, and for the purposes of this thesis, engagement is considered as being
comprised of a series of interrelated metrics that combine to form a whole. These metrics are:
Recency, Frequency, Duration, Virality and Ratings. However, it is mandatory to realize, that the
relative proportion, or importance, of each of these metrics will vary depending on the type of the
application.
For the purposes of this research, the proportions which considered appropriate in the
context of an E-Learning system are the following: 40% Recency, 40% Frequency, 20% Duration,
0% Virality and 0% Ratings. In an attempt to explain the choice regarding the proportions of each
metric, the reasoning that led to the specific percentages is being elaborated.
Duration, also called time on site, is one way of measuring visit quality. If users spend long
time visiting a website, it is probable to be interacting extensively with it. However, time on site
51
can be misleading, due to the fact that users often leave browser windows open while they are not
actually viewing or using the site. Therefore, it was considered appropriate to assign to Duration
half the proportion assigned to Frequency and Recency respectively.
Moreover, although Ratings is a popular mechanism, used by many successful web
applications, and although it can also be combined to gamification elements in order to uplift
motivation, such mechanism was not integrated to the E-Learning systems presented by this thesis.
Therefore, Ratings was a metric excluded from the proportions used to measure engagement.
Finally, Virality is an ambiguous term. It is widely used to describe social distribution, or
more commonly, how many additional new users a system will get, given one new user. Therefore,
since the number of the enrolled users of our system was predefined, and the system was confined,
there was not any point in measuring Virality.
Although it is really important to extract the proportions of engagement in the context of a
system, it is also of great importance to properly measure each and every one of the metrics used
to form the proportions. In order to achieve this, Google Analytics' definitions of those metrics
were adopted as part of this research, so as to calculate statistics per unique user.
Frequency measures how frequently users return to a website within a time frame, while
Recency measures how many days go by before users return to a website. The time frame selected
in this particular research, so as to measure Frequency and Recency was one week, due to the fact
that the content of the course was organized respectively. Duration is calculated as the average
session length of all users. Session length is the sum of the average time spent on site's page, for
all web pages. The time frame selected in order to measure Duration was the same as the one
selected before.
52
Attitudes & Student Achievement

To answer the research questions and further evaluate the system, statistical information
which resulted from Moodle's report tools was gathered and evaluated, and an additional survey
including on-line questionnaires was conducted.
Initially, the data collected from Moodle's report tools included general course participation,
as well as specific activity participation and activity completion. Statistical information regarding
students' performance in tests was also included, as well as information related to the users' general
interaction with the system. The information gathered from Moodle's report tools was evaluated
complementary to the users' engagement.
Moreover, the additional survey was performed in the form of questionnaires, served as a
post test, which aimed to investigate potential changes on students' attitudes, and to determine the
extent they had broadened their knowledge. The survey also targeted to uncover facts, such as the
system's usefulness in the context of the specific course, the manner in which the system was used,
and the most desired functionality for future implementation.
53
5. Experimental Results
The experiment was conducted on the class of SEAC200 during the 2013/2014 spring
semester. Outcome data collected from the typical and the gamified E-Learning platforms, as well
as additional data, that resulted from the survey conducted in the form of questionnaires, are being
presented in this section.
5.1 Engagement.
Frequency
Figure 5.1 depicts the average Frequency per group, for each week of the experiment. As
shown, initially the two groups have similar Frequency rates. More precisely, an average of 1.333
and 1.375 log-ins per week are noted for the users of the typical, and the users of the gamified
platform respectively. Equal initial rates were expected, since the two groups had been selected to
be equivalent, as explained in Chapter 4.2.
Moreover, although during the second week the Frequency rates of the treatment group
decreased for unknown reasons, it seems that by the third week and on they constantly rise, in
contrast to the control group, whose Frequency rates range indistinctly. This fact is particularly
encouraging, since the users of the gamified platform tend to return more often to the system over
time. By the fifth week, the Frequency rates have been formed to an average of 1.333 and 2.583
log-ins per week for the users of the typical, and the users of the gamified platform respectively.
The slight decrease in the Frequency rates for the users of both platforms during the last week is
justified, due to the fact that the specific topic's material that was uploaded to both platforms had
been designed limited, and therefore, the work that the students had to make during this particular
week was less.
54
Finally, Figure 5.2 depicts the total average of the Frequency rates for the users of each
platform, throughout the entire experiment. As shown, an average of 1.407 and 1.516 log-ins are
noted for the users of the typical, and the users of the gamified platform respectively. It is indicated
a greater Frequency rate up to 7.2% on average, for the users of the gamified platform.
TRADITIONAL
GAMIFIED
AVERAGE LOG-INS
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
1
WEEKS
Figure 5.1 [average Frequency per group for each week of the experiment]
TRADITIONAL
55
GAMIFIED
1.8
1.6
AVERAGE LOG-INS
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
GROUPS
Figure 5.2 [average Frequency per group throughout the entire experiment]
Recency
Recency for the typical platform is shown in Figure 5.3, while the same magnitude for the
gamified platform is shown in Figure 5.4. In specific, Figure 5.3 depicts the average number of
days passed before a student returned to the system, for all the students of the control group, during
the six weeks that the experiment lasted. Figure 5.4 depicts the average number of days passed
before a student returned to the system, for all the students of the treatment group.
In an attempt to generalize the amount of time that had gone by before a student returned to
each system, is being reported that for the typical platform, the students would return to the system
every 7.896 days on average, while for the gamified one they would return every 6.461 days on
average. The period of time is sorter up to 18.2% for the students of the gamified platform,
compared to the students of the typical one, as it is depicted in Figure 5.5.
56
TRADITIONAL
45
40
35
NUMBER OF DAYS
30
25
20
15
10
0
1
10
11
12
13
14
STUDENTS
Figure 5.3 [average Recency for each student throughout the experiment]
15
57
GAMIFIED
45
40
35
NUMBER OF DAYS
30
25
20
15
10
0
1
10
11
12
STUDENTS
Figure 5.4 [average Recency for each student throughout the experiment]
13
TRADITIONAL
58
GAMIFIED
10
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS
GROUPS
Figure 5.5 [average Recency per group throughout the entire experiment]
Duration
Figure 5.6 and Figure 5.7 depict the sum of the time spent for each student on each platform,
during the six weeks that the experiment lasted. Although the amount of time devoted by a student
to an educational activity does not necessarily enclose pedagogical value, the fact that the students
of the gamified platform obviously spent more time on it, compared to the students of the typical
platform, is particularly encouraging in respect to the purposes of this research.
More precisely, students of the treatment group, spent an average of 6 hours and 11 minutes
on the gamified platform throughout the entire experiment, which is up to 123.5% higher,
compared to the average of 2 hours and 46 minutes that the students of the control group spent on
the typical platform, as it is depicted in Figure 5.8.
59
Finally, as it is shown in Figure 5.9, the Duration that the treatment group interacts with
the gamified E-learning system constantly rises throughout the experiment, except for the last
week for the same reasons that were explained before. Contrariwise, the Duration that the control
group interacts with the typical E-Learning system, ranges indistinctly, as Frequency did. This
particular fact, captures as well the increasing user engagement to the gamified platform.
TRADITIONAL
8:24
7:12
TIME (HOURS)
6:00
4:48
3:36
2:24
1:12
0:00
1
10
11
12
13
14
STUDENTS
Figure 5.6 [total Duration for each student throughout the entire experiment]
15
60
GAMIFIED
12:00
10:48
9:36
TIME (HOURS)
8:24
7:12
6:00
4:48
3:36
2:24
1:12
0:00
1
10
11
12
STUDENTS
Figure 5.7 [total Duration for each student throughout the entire experiment]
13
TRADITIONAL
61
GAMIFIED
7:12
AVERAGE TIME ( HOURS)
6:00
4:48
3:36
2:24
1:12
0:00
GROUPS
Figure 5.8 [average Duration per group throughout the entire experiment]
TRADITIONAL
GAMIFIED
2:24
2:09
AVERAGE TIME ( HOURS)
1:55
1:40
1:26
1:12
0:57
0:43
0:28
0:14
0:00
1
WEEKS
Figure 5.9 [average Duration per group for each week of the experiment]
62
Engagement
Collectively, Frequency, Recency and Duration have been amalgamated as an engagement
score. In order to form this score, the relative importance of each of these metrics have been used
as explained in Chapter 4.4. In an attempt to qualitatively depict the difference in the engagement
rates between the two groups, the average engagement of the control group was considered, as the
overall average engagement rate, for any typical group given. The results of this process are shown
in Figure 5.10, and suggest higher engagement up to 19.7% for the treatment group which engaged
to the gamified platform, compared to the control group which engaged to the typical one.
100%
TRADITIONAL
GAMIFIED
90%
80%
ENGAGEMENT
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GROUPS
Figure 5.10 [average Engagement per group throughout the entire experiment]
63
5.2 Student Achievement

Course Participation
Complementary to the data collected, so as to measure the student engagement to each
platform, data was collected from Moodle's report tools, in order to measure the general course
participation, and therefore further evaluate the two E-Learning systems. Figure 5.11 depicts the
total actions per module students have performed, while interacting with each system.
More precisely, as shown in Figure 5.12, students of the gamified platform tend to perform
more actions on modules regarding assignments, compared to the students of the typical platform.
A total of 864 actions were performed on all five assignment modules of the gamified platform
throughout the experiment, which corresponds to an average of 72 actions per student for all
modules cumulatively, while a total of 473 actions were performed on the same modules of the
typical system, which correspond to an average of 31.533 actions per student on the respective
modules. As depicted in Figure 5.13, up to 128.3% more actions on the assignment modules of the
gamified platform were performed, compared to the same modules of the typical one. This
particular fact can be connected to the external motivation created by awarding accomplishment
Badges to the students who completed those assignments on the gamified platform, which resulted
in students making larger effort to complete assignments, compared to the effort made by the
students of the typical one.
On the other hand, as depicted in Figure 5.14, students of the typical platform tend to
perform more actions on modules regarding tutorials, compared to the students of the gamified
platform. A total of 587 actions were taken on all tutorial modules of the typical platform
throughout the experiment, which corresponds to an average of 39.133 actions per student for all
modules cumulatively, while a total of 394 actions were taken on the gamified platform, which
64
correspond to an average of 32.833 actions per student for the respective modules. As depicted in
Figure 5.15, up to 16.1% more actions on the tutorial modules of the typical platform were
performed, compared to the same modules of the gamified one.
Collectively for all modules integrated to the systems, and as shown in Figure 5.16, an
average of 92.066 actions per student were performed on the typical platform, while an average of
132.166 actions per student were performed on the gamified one. Therefore, up to 30.3% more
actions per student were performed on all modules cumulatively of the gamified platform.
TRADITIONAL
GAMIFIED
300
NUMBER OF ACTIONS
250
200
150
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
MODULES
Figure 5.11 [total number of actions per module]
TRADITIONAL
65
GAMIFIED
300
200
150
100
50
0
1
ASSIGNMENT MODULES
Figure 5.12 [total number of actions per assignment module]
TRADITIONAL
GAMIFIED
80
70
AVERAGE NUMBER OF ACTIONS
NUMBER OF ACTIONS
250
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
GROUPS
Figure 5.13 [average actions per group for all assignment modules cumulatively]
TRADITIONAL
66
GAMIFIED
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
TUTORIAL MODULES
Figure 5.14 [total actions per tutorial module]
TRADITIONAL
GAMIFIED
50
NUMBER OF ACTIONS
70
40
30
20
10
GROUPS
Figure 5.15 [average actions per group for all tutorial modules cumulatively]
18
TRADITIONAL
67
GAMIFIED
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
GROUPS
Figure 5.16 [average actions per group for all modules cumulatively]
Activities Completion
Furthermore, an additional way to measure students' accomplishments, and to evaluate how
they interacted with both E-Learning systems, is to examine the data collected from Moodle's
report tools, regarding the activities completed by the students.
As shown in Figure 5.17, an average of 16.333 activities per student are completed in the
typical platform, while an average of 24.25 activities per student are completed in the gamified
one, which results in 32.7% more activities completed in the gamified E-Learning system. More
precisely, Figure 5.18 depicts the students' percentages on each platform, which completed each
of the five assignments throughout the experiment. While the percentages for the students of the
gamified platform range from 75% to more than 91%, the respective percentages for the students
68
of the typical platform range from 20% to 60%. Moreover, as depicted in Figure 5.19, only 60%
of the students of the typical platform completed the first quiz, while all of the students of the
gamified one completed it. The same percentage maintained for the second quiz at the typical
platform, while 75% of the students of the gamified platform completed it.
TRADITIONAL
GAMIFIED
AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMPLETED ACTIVITIES
30
25
20
15
10
GROUPS
Figure 5.17 [average completed activities per group]
Figure 5.18 [assignment completion per group]
Figure 5.19 [quiz completion percentages per group]
69
70
5.3 Attitudinal Survey

The survey was conducted in the form of questionnaires, and the gathered responses came
from the students of both platforms. Generally, the respondents were asked to answer various
questions by either filling with a sort text, choosing true or false, or choosing a value from 1 to 5.
The scale represented various statements from not at all, a little, somewhat, to very and
totally, for 1 to 5 respectively.
Moreover, the survey ought to uncover issues, such as the students' familiarity level
accomplished in using the computer, as well as using the ICT tools they were taught throughout
the experiment, their attitudes regarding the use of E-Learning platforms, Video Games and
multimedia tools during the educational process, and finally, issues regarding the general usability
and usefulness of the E-Learning systems they used throughout the experiment.
Quantitative Analysis
As depicted in Figure 5.20, students of the typical platform encountered the process of
installing new software tools on the computer, and using the specific tools they were taught,
somewhat easy, while the students of the gamified platform felt closer to very easy. Students
of both platforms, when asked the same question in the pre-test, responded that they considered
the specific procedure from not at all to a little easy, as it is shown in the same figure. Therefore,
it is considered that there has been improvement in students' attitudes, regarding the specific issue.
Furthermore, the students responded to hypothetical scenarios, such as whether they would
find it useful to include an E-Learning system or a multimedia content software in order to assist
students during the educational process. Users of the typical platform ranged between somewhat
and very useful regarding the use of both the E-Learning system and the multimedia content
71
software, while users of the gamified platform were closer to very useful regarding the ELearning system, and they ranged between very and totally regarding the multimedia content
software, as shown in Figure 5.21 and Figure 5.22.
Another hypothetical scenario users of both platforms were asked to respond, was whether
they would find it useful to include Video Games in order to assist students during the educational
process. As depicted in Figure 5.23, users of both platforms were rather skeptical towards the
specific subject during the pre-test. However, during the post-test, users of the typical platform
ranged between somewhat and very useful, while users of the gamified platform were closer
to very useful.
pre-test
GAMIFIED
TRADITIONAL
4.5
4.5
ATTITUDES (NOT AT ALL - VERY)
TRADITIONAL
post-test
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
GAMIFIED
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
GROUPS
GROUPS
Figure 5.20 [familiarity level in using the Computer and ICT tools]
72
pre-test
GAMIFIED
TRADITIONAL
4.5
4.5
TRADITIONAL
post-test
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
GAMIFIED
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
GROUPS
GROUPS
Figure 5.21 [attitudes on integrating an E-Learning platform to the educational process]
pre-test
GAMIFIED
TRADITIONAL
4.5
4.5
ATTITUDES (NOT AT ALL -VERY)
TRADITIONAL
post-test
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
GAMIFIED
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
GROUPS
GROUPS
Figure 5.22 [attitudes on integrating multimedia content to the educational process]
73
pre-test
GAMIFIED
TRADITIONAL
4.5
4.5
TRADITIONAL
post-test
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
GAMIFIED
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
GROUPS
GROUPS
Figure 5.23 [attitudes on integrating Video Games to the educational process]
Qualitative Analysis
Finally, students provided feedback about their perceptions towards the E-Learning
systems and the learning experience as a whole. In general the responses were positive. More
specifically, students stressed the importance of teachers keeping up with the changes in ICTs:
..of course it is required for a teacher to keep up with such developments, particularly a teacher
in special education, an area where information technologies provide access to SEN pupils, who
otherwise may not have had it.
The questionnaires included questions to indicate whether or not the students found the
systems useable. Responses to those questions by the users of the typical platform ranged between
a little and somewhat useable, while responses by the students of the gamified platform ranged
74
between somewhat and very useable, as depicted in Figure 5.24. The differences between the
responses of control and treatment groups regarding the usability of the platforms are particularly
interesting, due to the fact that besides the existence of Badges, the two platforms were identical.
The students also responded to the questions of whether or not they found the system
helpful during the specific course, and whether or not they would find a similar system helpful
during other courses. Responses to both questions by the users of the typical platform were close
to somewhat helpful, while responses to both questions by the students of the gamified platform
ranged between somewhat and very helpful, as depicted in Figure 5.25 and Figure 5.26
respectively.
Specifically, users of the gamified platform responded to whether or not they found the use
of Badges motivating or disturbing. Responses to the first question were close to very motivating,
while responses to the second question ranged between not at all and a little disturbing, as
depicted in Figure 5.27. Moreover, students responses indicate, that Badges in general, have been
positively received. Students of the treatment group characteristically reported: ..it was nice to
watch the Badge popping up, every time you somehow managed to earn it. or ..i liked watching
on my profile page the badges I had earned, and also comparing them to the Badges of my
classmates. However, some of those students reported that they did not pay much attention to the
Badges: They did not really aect my studying at all.
TRADITIONAL
75
GAMIFIED
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
GROUPS
Figure 5.24 [attitudes regarding the usability of the platforms]

TRADITIONAL
GAMIFIED
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
GROUPS
Figure 5.25 [attitudes regarding helpfulness during the particular course]
TRADITIONAL
76
GAMIFIED
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
GROUPS
Figure 5.26 [attitudes regarding helpfulness during other courses]
disturbing
motivating
GAMIFIED
4.5
4.5
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
GAMIFIED
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
0.5
0.5
Figure 5.27 [attitudes regarding Badges]
77
6. Discussion
The results derived from the evaluation give measures to discuss and answer the research
questions put forward by this thesis. Each question will be viewed in the light of the most important
ndings of this research.
Technical Research Questions
Question 1:
Is it feasible for a reward system, merely based on badges, to uplift students

motivation, and further engender engagement to an E-Learning system?
The results provided by this particular research indicate increased engagement for the
students of the gamified platform, compared to the students of the typical one. Precisely, for the
treatment group, greater Frequency rate up to 7.2% was noted. Moreover, lower Recency rate up
to 18.2% was noted, compared to the control group. Finally, students of the gamified platform
spent up to 123.5% more time on the system, compared to the students of the typical one. Therefore,
this particular study proved higher motivational level engendered by accomplishment Badges, to
undergraduate female students of the Special Education Department of the University of Thessaly
in Greece.
Question 2:
How do students respond to the gamified E-Learning system developed for the
purposes of this research?
Students of treatment group responded positively to the gamified E-Learning system by

committing more to it, than the students of the typical system did. Not only have they noted higher
engagement rates but they have also accomplished more, compared to the students of control group.
More specifically, students of the gamified platform performed up to 30.3% more actions on all
modules cumulatively, throughout the entire experiment, while they completed up to 32.7% more
78
activities, compared to the students of the typical platform. Finally, treatment group perceived
Badges as very motivating, and between not at all and a little disturbing.
Question 3:
How usable and helpful do students find the gamified E-Learning system developed
for the purposes of this research?
The generalized response of the students of treatment group, towards the gamified ELearning systems usability and helpfulness has been rather positive. Students perceived the
system between somewhat and very useable, while they found it between somewhat and
very helpful within the context of the specific course. Students also believe, that a respective
system would also be between somewhat and very helpful within the context of other courses.
Question 4:
To what extent are modern teachers familiar to Information and Communication

Technologies used in education? Where do they stand with regard to using such
technologies in real life educational settings?
During the particular research, an unexpected statistic was revealed, which indicated low
familiarization levels of students of the Special Education Department, regarding the ICT tools
and new technologies used in education. Pre-control indicated, that the initial attitudes of the
sample were negative towards the specific technologies, faced with hesitation during the beginning
of the experiment. However, after the end of the experiment, post-tests revealed a shift in students
attitudes, regarding the specific subject. The majority of the students responded, that they would
find between somewhat and very helpful the integration of Video Games or E-Learning
systems during the educational process, while they would find very helpful the use of multimedia
content creating tools.
79
Overall Research Questions

Question 1:
Is it possible for students to learn from games?
Brain scientists over the world agree that games challenge-achievement-reward loop
promotes the production of dopamine in the brain, reinforcing our desire to play [7]. The same
challenge-achievement-reward loop proved increased desire on the part of students, to further
engage to the E-Learning system. Therefore, it could be deduced, that games and game mechanics
are potential tools, which could accommodate students to learn, by further motivating them. On
the other hand, judging by the state of the educational software industry, children will not learn
from a game, if it is not fun. In other words, balanced design of the educational and the fun aspects
of the experience is of great importance, in order for the learning experience to work effectively.
Question 2:
Could Gamification be a simple yet still efficient approach, in order to make

educational content more attractive, and engender the desired state for the student?
Students need to get value for the time spent on a learning experience, and be efciently
driven towards further engaging, and accomplishing better grades. The main importance to
applying Game Mechanics based E-Learning is that the intrinsic motivations of students needs to
be supported. The results of this research prove that Gamification elements have engendered
students to further engage to educational content up to 30.3%. It could be assumed, that earning
reward for engaging to educational content makes the content itself show more attractive to
students. Furthermore, the methodology adopted in the attempt to create the learning experience,
did not include any costly resources, as the development of a Serious Game would had, and
therefore, it can be considered a simpler, yet still efficient approach, compared to Serious Games.

Question 3:
80
Which is actually the desired state a student should reach, with respect to his
interaction with an on-line experience?
The desired state, regarding a player of a Game, is the state of flow, where the player
balances between boredom and anxiety, and meets his own motivational level. For the purposes of
this research, based on the notion that the same motivational level could be met in any given
experience, by achieving the state of flow, the gamified E-Learning system was designed
accordingly. The results indicate students of the treatment group engaging, participating and
accomplishing more, compared to the students of the control group. Moreover, results indicate that
the users of the gamified platform felt more comfortably while using the system, and also perceived
it as more useful and helpful, compared to the users of the typical one. Therefore, it could be
deduced that the general higher participation and performance of the students of the gamified
platform, lies to the fact that they approached the state of flow more than the users of the typical
one.
Question 4:
How motivating can a simple Game Mechanic be when integrated to an E-Learning

system?
Quantitative and qualitative data provided by this particular research, indicate high impact
on students behavior, caused by a simple game mechanic. However, previous research on the field,
indicated that the impact of a simple game mechanic integrated to an E-Learning system is rather
moderate. More specifically, Gaasland, who integrated a point system to a learning experience,
noted that A simple Game Mechanic is not as motivating in itself as if it aligns with the overall
goal of the student [2]. Moreover, Dominguez et Al, who integrated achievement Badges to a
learning experience, stated that Although gamification impact on the cognitive aspects of
educative content is limited, we still think that changing content design and structure to make it
81
more fun can have great motivational impact [19]. Therefore, further research is needed on
testing isolated Gamification mechanisms, and their combinations as well.
82
7. Conclusions & Future Work
7.1 Conclusions
Although Gamification in E-Learning systems seems to have potential to increase student
engagement, it is not trivial to achieve such effect. Gamification is not the tool to fix a products
core problems. Instead, careful design and implementation of the learning experience is required,
in order to further apply Gamification elements and motivate the students. In this thesis, an attempt
to explore the merits of Gamification and Game Mechanic based E-Learning has been made.
Moreover, this thesis has:
Introduced and charted the growing trend of Gamication, which is discussed to have
potential societal impacts.
Discussed some of the central elements of games, the basic theoretical aspects of player
motivation, and introduced some of the basic Game Mechanics.
Elaborated the challenges faced by Serious Games.
Introduced the potential of using Game Mechanics based E-Learning as an alternative

approach to Serious Games which would exclude a range of problems.
Presented a practical implementation for Game Mechanics based E-Learning, and the
methodology that was followed for the purposes of the development.
Evaluated the use of achievement Badges within E-Learning, and presented the
methodology that was followed for the purposes of the evaluation.
83
Furthermore, the main goal of this thesis was to contribute to the limited empirical evidence
existing on the field, by the time of its writing. The results indicate differentiation between the way
the two groups perceived the learning experience, as well as different proportions of engagement
noted by them. More specifically, the research findings can be summarized as follows:
Students of the gamified E-Learning system noted higher Frequency rates, compared to the
students of the typical E-Learning system.
Students of the gamified E-Learning system noted lower Recency rates, compared to the
Students of the gamified E-Learning system noted higher Duration rates, compared to the
Students of the gamified E-Learning system performed more actions to the modules
integrated to the platform, compared to the students of the typical E-Learning system.
Students of the gamified E-Learning system completed more activities integrated to the
platform, compared to the students of the typical E-Learning system.
Finally, it must be highlighted, that in the process of gamifying an application, regardless

of the topic this application might be related to, the core work is unchanged, and nothing is
fundamentally shifted in the mechanics of designing the particular application. The applications
developed for the purposes of this research are not an exception. The core work done in designing
and implementing both platforms was totally unchanged. Only the perceptions of students have
been altered for the better. Understanding the potential to experience the same things in two ways
is the first step to understanding the power of Gamification [7].
84
7.2 Future Work

In future work there are several aspects of Gamification and Game Mechanic based ELearning that could be researched. For the particular system presented in this thesis, it would be
very interesting to test the system over an entire semester. Consequently, more data would be
available, so as to ensure the effect of Badges on user engagement. Moreover, it would be
important to test the same E-Learning system with different experimental subjects, as well as test
it in different learning context, in order to validate the results presented in this thesis or turn to a
different direction.
A different option would be to choose an entirely different game mechanic, and evaluate
its potential to increase student engagement. However, it would be more valuable to evaluate each
game mechanic on its own, and create a comparative overview of their individual motivational
effect. Furthermore, several game mechanics could be combined in the same E-Learning system,
so as to teste and compare, which combinations have a larger impact on student engagement.
Finally, it would be an interesting project to design, develop and implement a gamified ELearning system from scratch. Such system would combine characteristics from different types of
E-Learning systems, and it would also obtain a great range of Gamification elements, so as it could
be fully gamified. It could also draw inspiration from popular Web applications and Social
Networks, in order to further motivate the students, and also appear familiar to them.
85
8. References
[1] Botturi, L. & Loh, C. S. (2009). Once Upon a Game: Rediscovering the Roots of Games in
Education. In C. T. Miller (ed.), Games: purpose and potential in education, New York: Springer,
1-22 [chapter 1].
[2] Gaasland, M., 2011. Game Mechanic based E-Learning. Science And Technology, Master
Thesis (June 2011).
[3] Muntean, C.I., 2011. Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. The 6
International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL 2012, 323-329
[4] Prensky, M. (2000). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[5] Simes, J., Daz Redondo, R. & Fernndez Vilas, R., 2012. A social gamification framework
for a K-6 learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, In Press, Corrected Proof.
[6] Silva E., 2010. Gamifying learning with social gaming mechanics. In: Payne, N & F. Masie,
eds. The Masie Learning Center Perspectives 2010, 61-62.
[7] Zichermann G. & Cunningham C., 2011. Gamification by Design: Implementing Game
Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps. Published: O'Reilly Media. Released: August 2011.
[8] Koster, R. and Wright, W. (2004). A theory of fun for game design. Paraglyph press.
[9] Squire, K., Barnett, B., Grant, J. M., & Higginbotham, T. (2004). Electromagnetism
Supercharged! Learning physics with digital simulation games. In Proceedings of the international
conference on Learning sciences, 6, 513520.
[10] Lee, J., Hammer, J. (2011) Gamification in Education: What, How, Why Bother? Academic
Exchange Quarterly.
[11] Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. The MIT
Press.
[12] Silva, E., (2010). Gamifying Learning with Social Gaming Mechanics. Learning Perspectives:
pages 61-62. Published by: The MASIE Center & The Learning CONSORTIUM.
86
[13] Kim, A. J. (2009). Putting the Fun in Functional: Applying Game Mechanics to Functional
Software.
[14] Camargo, C., Approach, K., and Service, S. (2006). Interesting Complexity : Sid Meier and
the Secrets of Game Design. Civilization.
[15] www.statista.com
[16] Torrente, J., Moreno, P., Fernndez, B., Luis Sierra, J., Instructor-oriented Authoring Tools
for Educational Video Games. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Facultad de Informtica.
[17] Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, N., Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Toward a definition.
CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop Proceedings, 12-15.
[18] Deci, E., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivations in
education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1). 1-27.
[19] Domnguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernndez-Sanz, L., Pags, C.,
Martnez-Herriz, J.J. Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes.
Computers & Education. 63. pp. 380-392.
[20] www.capterra.com

Gamification and Game Mechanics Based E-Learning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gamification and Game Mechanics Based E-Learning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gamification and Game Mechanics Based E-Learning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the goal of the study?

What is the goal of the study?

What methodology was used in the study?

What methodology was used in the study?

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

This thesis presents a practical implementation of Gamification and Game Mechanics

Keywords: Game, Education, Gamification, E-Learning, Game Mechanic, Engagement,

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Figure 4.1 [hierarchical tree for the SEAC200 course] ............................................................... 39

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Is a structured set of rules that creates a decision space, including a system

An element of a game that is made up of a set of rules and feedback loops

Web 2.0 Technology

Technology that facilitates production of content, sharing and

Learning Management System (LMS)

commonly used in educational institutions.

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

1.1 Motivation Behind the Project

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

infrastructure of Web applications provides the necessary tools to incorporate different

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Serious Games & Game Based Learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

blockbuster hit in educational games, thousands of educational software companies have

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

2.4 Game Mechanics

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

3.1 Previous Work

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

3.2 Conclusions & Research Questions

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Is it possible for students to learn from games?

Could Gamification be a simple yet still efficient approach, in order to make

Gamification & Game Mechanics based E-learning

Technical Research Questions