Australian Educational Computing, 2016, 31(2)

The development of gamified learning activities to

increase student engagement in learning

Chanut Poondej and Thanita Lerdpornkulrat

Innovative Learning Center, Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand

Abstract

In the literature, the potential efficacy of the gamification of education has been
demonstrated. The aim of this study was to explore the influence of applying
gamification techniques to increase student engagement in learning. The quasi-
experimental nonequivalent-control group design was used with 577 undergraduate
students from six classes. The students in three of the classes were assigned to be
the treatment group whereas the students in the others were the control group.
Students in the treatment group attended a course designed for gamification, while
students in the control group attended a regular course. The results showed that in
the treatment group, student engagement in learning was significantly better than
that of the students in the control group. We provide empirical support for
gamification of education and conclude that students clearly valued the
engagement of gamified learning activities.

Keywords

Learning Activity, Gamification, Gamified Learning, Engagement

Introduction

Student engagement refers to the extent of a students active involvement, the degree of
attention, interest, and passion that students show when they take part in the learning process
(Reeve, 2012; Trowler, 2010). Student engagement is one of most important factors
associated with improved learning, and much of the research to date has indicated the
importance of student engagement leading to a positive impact on learning outcomes (e.g.
Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2006; Klem & Connell, 2004; McMahon & Portelli, 2004). The more
students are engaged in learning, the more they will learn and progress in their learning.

In contrast, disengagement had a negative impact on learning outcomes (Brint & Cantwell,
2012; Kaplan, Peck, & Kaplan, 1997; Liem, Lau, & Nie, 2008), which is not desired for
educational purposes. In addition, educators find that a lack of student engagement is a
primary problem which can create difficulties in effective learning (Heaslip, Donovan, &
Cullen, 2014). Thus, how to promote student engagement is a significant challenge for
educators.

1
Australian Educational Computing, 2016, 31(2)

In the literature, there have been many studies examining the predictors of student
engagement (e.g. Cothran & Ennis, 2000; Fullarton, 2002; Hampden-Thompson & Bennett,
2013; Handelsman, Briggs, Sullivan, & Towler, 2005; McMahon & Portelli, 2004). They
found that numerous factors influence student engagement, including institute culture and
policies, the views of students themselves, individual competence of students, qualities of
teaching or teachers, and learning activities. One of the teachers fundamental tasks is to
facilitate learning activities, which have a direct impact on student learning (Anaya, 1996;
Beetham & Sharpe, 2007). Teachers are challenged to carefully design appropriate activities.
Using serious games in education has a lot of potential, since it is an effective tool for
engaging students. Therefore, many teachers have considered integrating games into their
learning activities. However, serious games are usually hard and expensive to build. There
may be equipment costs, software costs, and there are often support- or maintenance-related
costs for a system (Ib et al., 2014). Since 2010, gamification has been regarded as a new trend
in which game mechanics and game dynamics are applied in a non-game context. It aims to
improve peoples experience, engagement, motivation, and to create a sense of playfulness
(Reiners & Wood, 2014; Schnbohm & Urban, 2014).

In the literature, research on gamification has indicated that it is effective in terms of

engaging and motivating people to drive behaviors and effect desired outcomes (Brigham,
2015; Caton & Greenhill, 2014; Cheong, Filippou, & Cheong, 2014; Leaning, 2015). There is
a growing interest in using gamification in education; many educators have attempted to
apply its concept to learning activities. Moreover, several studies have been conducted to
show the potential of gamification in teaching and learning. Nevertheless, there is still a need
for more studies that report the implications of applying gamification in learning
environments (Borges, Durelli, Reis, & Isotani, 2014).

In order to fulfill the requirement of more studies on gamification in education, the present
study was designed as a case study, in order to explore the influence of applying gamification
techniques to increase student engagement in learning. Specifically, we designed gamified
learning activities with a combination of online and offline learning activities, and then
investigated a group of undergraduate students studying on a general education course.
Previously, there have been studies which examined the individual differences in terms of
motivational goal orientation (Gonida, Voulala, & Kiosseoglou, 2009; Poondej, Koul, &
Sujivorakul, 2013), computer self-efficacy (Busch, 1995; Cassidy & Eachus, 2002), and
perception of the classroom learning environment (R. B. Koul & Fisher, 2005). Therefore,
these factors, which can influence student engagement, were considered covariance variables
in the analysis.

My hypothesis was that gamified learning activities would increase the level of student
engagement during the learning process. Based on our findings we have provided some
recommendations for applying gamification to learning activities.

2
Australian Educational Computing, 2016, 31(2)

Background

Gamification of education

The broad use of the term gamification started in 2010. In general, this term is widely
accepted and used to refer to the use of game-based elements, such as game mechanics and
game dynamics, in non-game contexts to improve peoples experience, engagement,
motivation, and to create a sense of playfulness (Burke, 2014; Reiners & Wood, 2014;
Schnbohm & Urban, 2014). Game mechanics have some distinctive tools which play a key
role in gamification. The points-scoring system, competition with others, award of rewards or
badges for levels of achievement, and display of leaderboards are the specific elements used
in gamification application.

A number of companies have started using gamification in various applications and processes
such as: (1) Bunchball and Badgeville, which has provided game mechanics, reputation
mechanics, and social mechanics as a service to motivate, engage, and generate loyalty
among customers, partners and employees; (2) DevHub Site Stream, which has implemented
gamification strategies on the website to increase consumer engagement; and (3) Foursquare,
in which users get points for sharing their location on a social network (Ibanez, Di-Serio, &
Delgado-Kloos, 2014).

Although the concept of gamification first led to great ideas for business strategies, it is
currently receiving increasing interest from other areas, especially education. Gamification of
education is the use of game-based elements in a learning environment. It is a new approach
and has become a popular technique to enhance instructional outcomes in education. Most
studies have demonstrated the usefulness of gamification in education, particularly in
increasing students motivation and engagement (e.g. Domnguez et al., 2013; Ibanez et al.,
2014; Kim, 2013; Kuo & Chuang, 2016; O'Donovan, Gain, & Marais, 2013). Moreover,
game elements used in gamification can make learning more fun and interesting for students
(Barata, Gama, Jorge, & Gonalves, 2013; Werbach & Hunter, 2012). Thus, due to the
reasons for using gamification in education, it can be used as a potential learning process tool
to enhance students motivation and engagement, with the goal of improving the quality of
learning.

Related work

There have been a few noteworthy implementations of gamification in learning activities.

One of the purposes of those implementations was to enhance student engagement in
learning. A good example is the Ibanez et al. (2014) study. They evaluated the impact of
gamified learning activities (based on the study of C-programming language) on student
engagement. They designed the gamified learning platform (named Q-Learning-G) by
combining game elements (e.g., points, leaderboard, badges) with this platform, and then
used it with students. According to their experiment, it is indicated that a gamified learning
environment can engage students to learn.

3
Australian Educational Computing, 2016, 31(2)

Another study is by Leaning (2015), who examined the use of games and gamification to
enhance student engagement on a theory-based course of an undergraduate media degree, in
which the experimental group of students taking the gamified module enjoyed the course and
put in more effort. However, the results of this study did not find evidence that gamified
learning enhanced the students attainment.

In addition, there have been studies focused on developing the educational website or
software incorporated elements of gamification (e.g., Geelan et al., 2015; Kuo & Chuang,
2016; Nevin et al., 2014). Their findings were very consistent: the implementation of a
gamification mechanism would increase the level of user engagement.

In summary, the results of these studies indicated the potential of applying gamification in
learning activities, in order to engage students.

Methodology

Participants

The quasi-experimental nonequivalent-control group design was used with 577

undergraduate students from six Information Literacy Skills classes, in a university located in
Thailand. The students in three of the classes were assigned to be the treatment group
whereas the students in the others were the control group. Students in the treatment group (N
= 304, Males = 28.3%; Females = 71.7%) attended a course designed for the gamified
learning activity, while students in the control group (N = 273, Males = 20.9%; Females =
79.1%) attended a regular course. Both the treatment group and the control group had the
same subject matter and materials. The only thing that differed was the treatment groups
learning activities which were created from gamification concepts.

Measurement and data collection procedure

For the purpose of the investigation, a self-reported questionnaire was given to students in
both the treatment group and the control group, at the end of the semester. The questionnaire
was written in Thai and divided into three parts. The first part of the survey asked for general
information on sex, academic year, faculty, and major. Part two of the survey assessed
student engagement in learning, adapted from instruments developed by Arbaugh (2000),
Athiyaman (1997), Cunningham (2007), Vernadakis, Giannousi, Tsitskari, Antoniou, and
Kioumourizoglou (2012), and Wang and Holcombe (2010). The 20 items of this part are five-
point Likert scale statements. All the scale points of the first twelve items were labelled,
ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) (sample items: I enjoyed going
to class; The class activities were engaging). The scale points of the remaining items were
labelled, ranging from 1 (Almost never) to 5 (Almost always) (sample items: How often
do you have trouble in class because it is hard for you to sit in your seat for a long time?;
How often do you have trouble in attending a class?).

4
Australian Educational Computing, 2016, 31(2)

In order to avoid influences caused by students individual differences, the motivational goal
orientation, computer self-efficacy, and perception of meaningfulness in the classroom
learning environment were considered covariate variables. The last part of the survey,
therefore, was designed to measure and assess these variables. There were three sections;
each section used the 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5
(Strongly agree). The first section of this part assessed students motivational goal
orientation, based on instruments developed and validated by Poondej et al. (2013). This 18-
item section measures three dimensions of motivational goal orientation, namely the mastery
goal (focused on mastering tasks, learning, and understanding) (e.g., I feel satisfied when I
learn new things in my class), the performance-approach goal (desiring to demonstrate
ability, and wanting to be superior to others) (e.g., The most important thing is that other
people should think of me as excellent), and the performance-avoidance goal (avoiding
failure or looking incompetent in comparison to others) (e.g., I avoid asking questions
because I dont want to look stupid).

The computer self-efficacy scale (Papastergiou, 2008) made up the second section. Samples
of the scales 10 items include, I am very confident in my ability to use computers, and I
enjoy working with computers. The last section, which was used to assess the students
perception of meaningfulness in the classroom learning environment, was adapted from Koul,
Roy, and Lerdpornkulrat (2012). This section included five items (sample items: In this
class, new learning is connected with what you have learned previously, and In this class,
what you learn is important to you).

The internal consistency of the scales measuring student engagement in learning, mastery
goals, performance-approach goals, performance-avoidance goals, computer self-efficacy,
and perception of meaningfulness in the classroom learning environment was good (alpha =
.872 for engagement in learning scale, alpha = .658 for mastery goal scale, alpha = .805 for
performance-approach goal scale, alpha = .729 for performance-avoidance goal scale, alpha =
.864 for computers self-efficacy scale, and alpha = .774 for perception of meaningfulness in
classroom learning environment scale).

Experimental design

In this study, we carried out an experiment in which an information literacy skills course
was gamified, and student engagement was compared between a gamified group (treatment
group) and non-gamified group (control group). The course is an undergraduate course that
covers the principles, concepts, and practices of information literacy, including the critical
thinking skills necessary to navigate, evaluate and use the many kinds of information
resources available today.
Within the learning activities of the treatment group, we implemented a points system, levels,
achievement badges, and leaderboards, which are all common elements of gamification
mechanics. We used the CourseSites system (www.coursesites.com), which is a free online
learning management system. This system allowed students to check their course activities,

5
Australian Educational Computing, 2016, 31(2)

points, levels, achievement rewards, and leaderboards. We set up each activity as a mission
that students had to complete. Students earned experience points (often shortened to XP) after
they completed the mission. Within each mission, students had options for reaching XP
requirements for a particular level, and could select missions of interest, rather than
completing missions in a fixed, linear progression. There were various types of mission
assigned to this course (see Figure 1). The following examples will illustrate some of the
different types of mission:

G1: Profile update (25 XP): whenever students complete the update of their
profile, they will earn 25 XP.
G3: Taking a training course (25 XP): students will be assigned to take at least
one training course program provided by the central library of the university.
L1: Introduction to information literacy (165 XP): students will be asked to read
an article and then take a quiz in the CourseSites system.
C1: Attendance, participation, and section requirements (25 XP / time): students
who attend the regular class or any special section will earn 25 XP.

The scoring processes of the missions that couldnt be used with the CourseSites feature were
carried out manually by directly entering scores into the CourseSites system.

Figure 1. Screen capture showing all missions within the course.

In order to move up a level, students had to earn the required amount of XPs, which they
could see on the online system. Furthermore, we developed the leaderboard webpage, which
provided an entry point to the gamified experience and displayed the various levels in it.
In addition, we also included achievement rewards, which are badge icons displayed publicly
on the online system. Students can see which achievement rewards they have earned and
what is required to receive additional rewards (see Figure 2).

6
Australian Educational Computing, 2016, 31(2)

Figure 2. Screen capture showing students XP, level, and achievement reward.

Data analysis

Due to the characteristic differences between participants in the control group and treatment
group, we used the propensity score matching (PSM) approach to estimate the unbiased
treatment effect in this study. PSM is a technique used to select control cases who are
matched with treated cases, based on controlled background covariates. We considered
motivational goal orientation (mastery goal, performance-approach goal, and performance-
avoidance goal), computer self-efficacy, and perception of meaningfulness in the classroom
learning environment to be potential covariate variables, then matched cases based on these
baseline variables.

To perform the PSM procedure, we used the Matchlt in R package. We chose to use nearest
neighbor matching, and since in our case there were more treatment cases than control cases,
we used the replacement=TRUE option, so that a control case could be used more than once.
Results using the PSM procedure indicated a good improvement in all controlled covariates
(see Table 1).

After performing PSM, only the matched data (n = 273 for data in the control group and n =
273 for data in the treatment group) were used in analysis. A One-Way ANCOVA was
conducted to determine a statistically-significant difference between students in the treatment
group and students in the control group, based on their engagement in learning. The
covariates of motivational goal orientation (mastery goal, performance-approach goal, and
performance-avoidance goal), computer self-efficacy, and perception of meaningfulness in
classroom learning environment were controlled in this analysis.

7
Australian Educational Computing, 2016, 31(2)

Table 1
Summary statistics of matching success
Mean Difference Percent Balance
Controlled covariates
Before matching After matching Improvement
Mastery goal -.1289 -.0733 43.182
Performance-approach goal .0098 .0044 54.9963
Performance-avoidance goal .1222 .0641 47.5332
Computer self-efficacy -.0958 -.0619 35.4013
Meaningfulness -.1481 -.0821 44.6113

Results

To test the important assumptions in ANCOVA, the homogeneity test of regression slopes
was performed, and the results revealed that each interaction between the independent
variables and covariance was not significant. This confirms that ANCOVA could be applied.
Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and ANCOVA results, in which there were statistically-
significant differences between the treatment and control groups with regard to engagement
in learning. A partial eta-squared measure, used for the effect size, was computed; the result
was .152, indicating a large effect size. As the interpretation of the effect size is based on the
recommendations by Cohen (1988), the specific values are .01, .06, and .14 for a small effect,
medium effect, and large effect, respectively.

Results also showed that those variables (computer self-efficacy, meaningfulness, mastery
goal, performance-approach goal, and performance-avoidance goal) were positively
associated with engagement in learning. In addition, both the observed and adjusted means
(shown in Table 2) indicated that students in the treatment group had a higher engagement in
learning than students in the control group.

8
Australian Educational Computing, 2016, 31(2)

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and ANCOVA results for students engagement in learning by the type
of group, and controlling for motivational goal orientation (mastery goal, performance-
approach goal, and performance-avoidance goal), computers self-efficacy, and perception of
meaningfulness in classroom learning environment.
Students engagement in learning
Type of group
Observed Mean Adjusted Mean SD n
Control 3.41 3.46 .40 273
Treatment 3.76 3.75 .41 273
Total 3.58 3.60 .44 546
Partial Eta
Source SS df MS F
Squared

Computer self-efficacy 1.029 1 1.029 8.745** .016

Meaningfulness 6.288 1 6.288 53.419*** .090

Mastery goal 9.497 1 9.497 80.687*** .130

Performance-approach goal 1.452 1 1.452 12.339*** .022

Performance-avoidance goal .815 1 .815 6.927** .013

Type of group 11.398 1 11.398 96.840*** .152

Error 63.442 539 .118

Note. R2 = .401, Adjusted R2 = .394. Homogeneity of regression tested and not significant for
each of the covariate by dependent variable interactions.
**
p < .01; *** p < .001

Discussion

The aim of this study was to evaluate the learning engagement of gamified learning activities.
These activities targeted the learning on an information literacy skills course that is a core
course in a general education program. We designed gamified learning activities with a
combination of online and offline learning activities. The points system, levels, achievement
badges, and leaderboards, which are gamification elements, were used in these learning
activities.

We found that there was a significant difference in effects on learning engagement between
the two groups of students, after controlling the individual difference factors (motivational
goal orientation, computer self-efficacy, and perception of meaningfulness in the classroom
learning environment). Students in the treatment group had a higher engagement in learning
than students in the control group. These results implied that a gamified learning activity
generates higher levels of engagement in learning.

9
Australian Educational Computing, 2016, 31(2)

Our findings align with existing literature on the positive effects of gamified learning
activities on student engagement (Geelan et al., 2015; Ibanez et al., 2014; Kuo & Chuang,
2016; Leaning, 2015; Nevin et al., 2014). A possible explanation of why gamified learning
activities can affect student engagement is the benefits of using game mechanics.

The points and levels systems, in which points are generally awarded for the completion of
tasks and then accumulated, were used in the gamified learning activities of the treatment
group. As suggested in the game and gamification design literature, points and levels are
indicators of self-performance (Cheong et al., 2014), so they are important tools for students
tracking their achievement. Not only were the points and levels systems used in the gamified
learning activities, but badges were also used. In this study, we used digital achievement
badges, one of the game mechanics, as symbols or indicators of the accomplishment of
various achievements in the learning task. Also, we used them to serve as student goals, so
that students would need to be committed to pursuing them, and would think of badge
achievement as obtaining a reward. Gamification studies have found that achievement badges
can be used to affect students behavior and as a promising method to increase user
engagement (e.g. Hakulinen, Auvinen, & Korhonen, 2015; Hamari, 2015).

Moreover, in the gamification context, points (Attali & Arieli-Attali, 2015) and badges
(Abramovich, Schunn, & Higashi, 2013) are considered as types of formative feedback to
students in two ways. The first way is that they provide students with their competency level.
The second way is that they allow students to reflect on how much effort, motivation, or
engagement they should invest into their learning. From a theoretical perspective, feedback
will have a positive effect on learning when it is related to the process of learning and it can
be done through both cognitive processes and affective processes (Hattie & Timperley, 2007;
Sadler, 1989, as cited in Attali & Arieli-Attali, 2015). Thus, the effect of providing instant
feedback is likely to be a key mediator between the use of game mechanics (points and levels
systems, and digital achievement badges) and increased student engagement.

Another theoretical perspective which can explain the effect of the points system, the levels
system, and digital badges, in this context, is that of extrinsic motivation. According to self-
determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), extrinsic motivation refers to doing something
because it leads to the attainment of a desired outcome. Collecting points and collecting
badges also function as extrinsic rewards for the students. They are motivated to perform a
behavior or engage in learning activities to earn rewards. Thus, extrinsic motivation is
another possible mediator between using points and levels systems, and digital achievement
badges. An additional game mechanic used in these gamified learning activities was a
leaderboard system. The purpose of the leaderboard in this study was to visually show
students where they rank among the top 20 students in the class, during the experimental task.
In the context of gamification, leaderboards usually motivate users by making ones personal
performance visible, and allowing users to see how well they are doing compared to their
friends. Many theories can explain the effect of leaderboards on users behavior, such as
Maslows hierarchy of needs, Alderfers ERG theory, McClellands need theory, and
acquired need theory. These theories point out that in a social environment, most humans

10
Australian Educational Computing, 2016, 31(2)

have the need to socialize, and seek social recognition and status (Vassileva, 2012). They also
desire reputation, respect of others, and value a feeling of fame (Oh, 2012).

On the other side, according to the social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954, as cited in
Hamari, 2015), it is stated that individuals are more likely to compare themselves with others
and engage in behaviors that they perceive others are also engaged in. Then, they need to
engage themselves in activities to satisfy these desires. It seems that the theories mentioned
above can be served by using leaderboards. When students checked their reputation status in
the visualization, and compared their ranking with others, it might have been the trigger to
persuade students to take part in the learning activities.

To sum up, the game mechanics used in these gamified learning activities have proven to be
useful for increasing student engagement in learning. They are driven by many theories
behind them. These theories can be the mediators between using game mechanics and student
engagement in learning.

Conclusion

Gamification of education is an educational approach to which game mechanics are applied.

The main objective is to motivate students to participate and engage in learning. This study
contributes to education literature by demonstrating the influence of applying gamification
techniques to increase student engagement in learning. Our study indicates that gamified
learning activities increase student engagement in learning. The results of this study suggest
that gamified learning activities should be considered a serious strategy to promote student
engagement. Furthermore, elements of gamification points, badges, and leaderboards
(called PBL) should be integrated into the existing framework of engaged learning, because
they are the key factors that influence students behavior.

However, the study contains some limitations. Firstly, since self-reported methodologies
were used in this study to collect information from students, the results may not reflect the
full truth of their manner because of the possibility of response distortions. Secondly, due to
the limitation of budgets for learning management software, we used the free online learning
management system which did not provide all of the gamification functions, such as
leaderboards. Then, we had to make a website and set it up as a leaderboard, which was
updated once a week. Students could not see real-time updates on the leaderboard after
finishing the tasks. This may have caused a lack of motivation in competition and diminished
the benefit of using leaderboards.

This presents a valuable opportunity for future studies to be conducted. In future work, other
data collection methods, such as observations and interviews, should be considered in the
study design. Also, future work should examine the other dependent variables that might
result from implementation of gamified learning activities, especially the perception of
gamification elements and learning outcomes.

11
Australian Educational Computing, 2016, 31(2)

References

Abramovich, S., Schunn, C., & Higashi, R. M. (2013). Are badges useful in education?: it
depends upon the type of badge and expertise of learner. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 61, 217-232.

Anaya, G. (1996). College experiences and student learning: The influence of active learning,
college environments and cocurricular activities. Journal of College Student
Development, 37(6), 611-622.

Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with

internet-based MBA courses. Journal of Management Education, 24(1), 32-54. doi:
10.1177/105256290002400104

Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the case
of university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 528-540. doi:
doi:10.1108/03090569710176655

Attali, Y., & Arieli-Attali, M. (2015). Gamification in assessment: Do points affect test
performance? Computers & Education, 83, 57-63. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.012

Barata, G., Gama, S., Jorge, J., & Gonalves, D. (2013). So fun it hurts Gamifying an
engineering course. In D. D. Schmorrow & C. M. Fidopiastis (Eds.), Foundations of
Augmented Cognition: 7th International Conference, AC 2013, Held as Part of HCI
International 2013, Las Vegas, NV, USA, July 21-26, 2013. Proceedings (pp. 639-
648). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2007). Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and
Delivering E-Learning: Taylor & Francis.

Borges, S. d. S., Durelli, V. H. S., Reis, H. M., & Isotani, S. (2014). A systematic mapping on
gamification applied to education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 29th
Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea.

Brigham, T. J. (2015). An introduction to gamification: Adding game elements for

engagement. Medical reference services quarterly, 34(4), 471-480.

Brint, S., & Cantwell, A. (2012). Portrait of the disengaged.

Burke, B. (2014). Gamify: How gamification motivates people to do extraordinary things:

Bibliomotion, Incorporated.

Busch, T. (1995). Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes toward computers. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 12(2), 147-158. doi: 10.2190/h7e1-xmm7-gu9b-
3hwr

12
Australian Educational Computing, 2016, 31(2)

Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student Engagement and Student Learning:
Testing the Linkages*. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32. doi:
10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9

Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2002). Developing the computer user self-efficacy (Cuse) scale:
Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender and experience
with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(2), 133-153. doi:
10.2190/jgjr-0kvl-hrf7-gcnv

Caton, H., & Greenhill, D. (2014). Rewards and penalties: A gamification approach for
increasing attendance and engagement in an undergraduate computing module.
International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 4(3), 1-12.

Cheong, C., Filippou, J., & Cheong, F. (2014). Towards the gamification of learning:
Investigating student perceptions of game elements. Journal of Information Systems
Education, 25(3), 233.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale:
NJ: Erlbaum.

Cothran, D. J., & Ennis, C. D. (2000). Building bridges to student engagement:

Communicating respect and care for students in urban high schools. Journal of
Research & Development in Education, 33(2), 106-117.

Cunningham, G. B. (2007). Development of the Physical activity class satisfaction

questionnaire (PACSQ). Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science,
11(3), 161-176. doi: 10.1080/10913670701326443

Dickey, M. D. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer

and video games can inform instructional design. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 53(2), 67-83. doi: 10.1007/bf02504866

Domnguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernndez-Sanz, L., Pags, C., &
Martnez-Herriz, J.-J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications
and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380-392. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020

Fullarton, S. (2002). Student engagement with school: Individual and school-level influences
Longitudinal surveys of Australian youth research report (pp. 27).

Geelan, B., de Salas, K., Lewis, I., King, C., Edwards, D., & O'Mara, A. (2015). Improving
Learning Experiences Through Gamification: A Case Study. Australian Educational
Computing, 30(1).

Gonida, E. N., Voulala, K., & Kiosseoglou, G. (2009). Students' achievement goal
orientations and their behavioral and emotional engagement: Co-examining the role of
perceived school goal structures and parent goals during adolescence. Learning and
Individual Differences, 19(1), 53-60. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.002

13
Australian Educational Computing, 2016, 31(2)

Hakulinen, L., Auvinen, T., & Korhonen, A. (2015). The Effect of Achievement Badges on
Students' Behavior: An Empirical Study in a University-Level Computer Science
Course. iJET, 10(1), 18-29.

Hamari, J. (2015). Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on the effects of
gamification. Computers in Human Behavior. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.036

Hampden-Thompson, G., & Bennett, J. (2013). Science teaching and learning activities and
students' engagement in science. International Journal of Science Education, 35(8),
1325-1343. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.608093

Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college
student course engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184-192.
doi: 10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192

Heaslip, G., Donovan, P., & Cullen, J. G. (2014). Student response systems and learner
engagement in large classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 11-24. doi:
10.1177/1469787413514648

Ib, M. B., x00E, x00F, ez, x00C, Di, S., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Gamification for
engaging computer science students in learning activities: A case study. IEEE
Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(3), 291-301. doi:
10.1109/TLT.2014.2329293

Ibanez, M.-B., Di-Serio, A., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Gamification for engaging
computer science students in learning activities: A case study. Learning Technologies,
IEEE Transactions on, 7(3), 291-301.

Kaplan, D. S., Peck, B. M., & Kaplan, H. B. (1997). Decomposing the academic failure
Dropout relationship: A longitudinal analysis. The Journal of Educational Research,
90(6), 331-343. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1997.10544591

Kim, S. (2013). Effects of the gamified class in engineering education environments. Journal
of Convergence Information Technology, 8(13), 253.

Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to
student engagement and achievement. Journal of school health, 74(7), 262-273.

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A
historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254

Koul, R., Roy, L., & Lerdpornkulrat, T. (2012). Motivational goal orientation, perceptions of
biology and physics classroom learning environments, and gender. Learning
Environments Research, 15(2), 217-229.

Koul, R. B., & Fisher, D. L. (2005). Cultural background and students perceptions of science
classroom learning environment and teacher interpersonal behaviour in jammu, India.
Learning Environments Research, 8(2), 195-211. doi: 10.1007/s10984-005-7252-9

14
Australian Educational Computing, 2016, 31(2)

Kuo, M.-S., & Chuang, T.-Y. (2016). How gamification motivates visits and engagement for
online academic dissemination An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior,
55, Part A, 16-27. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.025

Leaning, M. (2015). A study of the use of games and gamification to enhance student
engagement, experience and achievement on a theory-based course of an
undergraduate media degree. Journal of Media Practice, 16(2), 155-170. doi:
10.1080/14682753.2015.1041807

Liem, A. D., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement
goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and
achievement outcome. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 486-512. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.08.001
=
McMahon, B., & Portelli, J. P. (2004). Engagement for what? Beyond popular discourses of
student engagement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(1), 59-76. doi:
10.1076/lpos.3.1.59.27841
Nevin, C. R., Westfall, A. O., Rodriguez, J. M., Dempsey, D. M., Cherrington, A., Roy, B.,
Willig, J. H. (2014). Gamification as a tool for enhancing graduate medical education.
Postgraduate Medical Journal. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2013-132486

O'Donovan, S., Gain, J., & Marais, P. (2013). A case study in the gamification of a university-
level games development course. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the South
African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists Conference,
East London, South Africa.

Oh, S. (2012). The characteristics and motivations of health answerers for sharing
information, knowledge, and experiences in online environments. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 543-557. doi:
10.1002/asi.21676

Papastergiou, M. (2008). Are computer science and information technology still masculine
fields? High school students perceptions and career choices. Computers &
Education, 51(2), 594-608.

Poondej, C., Koul, R., & Sujivorakul, C. (2013). Achievement goal orientation and the
critical thinking disposition of college students across academic programmes. Journal
of Further and Higher Education, 37(4), 504-518. doi:
10.1080/0309877X.2011.645463

Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement Handbook

of research on student engagement (pp. 149-172): Springer.

Reiners, T., & Wood, L. (2014). Gamification in education and business: Springer
International Publishing.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions
and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

15
Australian Educational Computing, 2016, 31(2)

Schnbohm, A., & Urban, K. (2014). Can Gamification Close the Engagement Gap of
Generation Y?: A pilot study from the digital startup sector in Berlin: Logos Verlag
Berlin.

Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy,
11, 1-15.

Vassileva, J. (2012). Motivating participation in social computing applications: a user

modeling perspective. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 22(1), 177-201.
doi: 10.1007/s11257-011-9109-5

Vernadakis, N., Giannousi, M., Tsitskari, E., Antoniou, P., & Kioumourizoglou, E. (2012).
Comparison of student satisfaction between traditional and blended technology course
offerings in Physical education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(1).

Wang, M.-T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents perceptions of school environment,

engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational
Research Journal, 47(3), 633-662.

Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize
Your Business: Wharton Digital Press.

16