See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318690383

Introducing gamification into e-learning university courses

Conference Paper · May 2017

DOI: 10.23919/MIPRO.2017.7973515

CITATIONS READS

38 1,590

3 authors:

Andrija Bernik Danijel Radosevic

University North Varazdin University of Zagreb
30 PUBLICATIONS 267 CITATIONS 92 PUBLICATIONS 556 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Goran Bubas
University of Zagreb
88 PUBLICATIONS 576 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrija Bernik on 19 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Introducing Gamification into e-Learning
University Courses
A. Bernik*, D. Radošević*, and G. Bubaš*
* University of Zagreb, Faculty of Organization and Informatics, Varaždin, Croatia
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract - Research on educational e-courses that contain only About a decade ago it was demonstrated that the use of
a series of motivating elements of computer games but do not elements of computer games can have a positive impact on
include playing computer games has intensified since 2010 [1] the psychological characteristics of students and learning
[6]. This field of research is called gamification and represents behaviour (for instance, see: [22]). A review of literature
the use of game elements (mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics)
related to the field of teaching information technology (e.g.
in a field (education, marketing etc.) that is not a computer
game. A review of literature related to the field of teaching with programming, software engineering) revealed that, until
online courses in information technology (e.g. programming, recently, there have been very few empirical studies related
software engineering) shows that the topic of gamification has so to gamification of respective online courses. Also, it has not
far been inadequately explored, with the lack of theoretical and been clearly defined what all the elements of computer games
empirical research that would involve gamification are that should be specifically taken into account when
methodology. Previous studies have shown that gamification can designing online courses, as well as how they can be
have a positive impact on the pedagogical and psychological effectively implemented in the (re)design of existing online
aspects of e-learning. In this paper empirical research is learning systems.
presented regarding the use of gamification in online teaching of
In our study experimental research methodology will be
programming. A gamified e-course was designed for the lectures
in programming, and a possible positive effect was examined on used. A traditional (for the control group) and gamified (for
the usage of learning materials in an experimental group of the experimental group) online course will be designed to
students who will use a gamified e-course (online system). investigate the influence of the use of elements of computer
games on learning outcomes in an online environment.
I. INTRODUCTION When creating a gamified online course, according to Iosup
The idea of using an e-learning system with the attributes and Epema [11], teachers, designers and/or administrators of
of a computer game, but without game playing, has been a gamified online courses are expected to ensure at least one
rapidly growing trend since 2010 [2][5][6]. Recent research week for the consideration of the computer game elements
on a similar topic of serious games confirms a positive which are included in the e-course, and at least one day for
attitude of subjects (learners) who used interactive dynamic creating educational content. Furthermore, Iosup and Epema
systems (with an emphasis on learning) like computer [11] state that it is necessary to set aside at least two hours to
simulations (economic, political, military etc.) where a analyze questions for each teaching unit as well as two days
student plays according to a predefined scenario and monitors for entering the results of each knowledge assessment.
the outcomes of his/her decisions on goal realization and Finally, it is important to ensure one week for analysis of the
learning outcomes. For this purpose commercial games can transition to gamification.
be used, as well as specialized educational games designed
for specific fields of study. II. RESEARCH BACKGROUND
The term "gamification" represents the use of elements With today’s pervasive use of technology in everyday life,
(mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics) of computer games in there is a growing need for technological advancement in the
the field that is not a computer game [2][5][6]. Gamification use of online education that would be based on pedagogical
as a rising trend has been recognized by many researchers and and psychological processes which positively influence the
institutions like Gartner Research [8][14][19][24][25]. student's perception of the teaching content and their
In 2013 gamification was positioned as a technological motivation for active participation, research and cooperation
innovation whose development should be followed with the [1][6][7]. An earlier example is the use of 3D virtual worlds
exceptional importance (see: [4][9][15]). Previous studies in online learning where Second Life was the most commonly
have focused on proving that this approach gives positive used product.
results in various fields like business, marketing and Second Life enables online connectivity and
education [12][17][20]. A simple search using the scientific teaching/training in 3D virtual space with the use of
literature search engine Google Scholar (http://scholar. educational methods/metaphors that can be used in many
google.com; February 2017) reveals that in the documents other technological forms in the future.
related to the year 2010 the term “gamification” appears only A turning point for the use of gamification was the
173 times, while in those for the year 2013 and 2016 it “GSummit 2014” conference held in San Francisco with
appears 3,780 times and 8,410 times, respectively. numerous speakers, investors and members of the world's
leading companies presenting and seeking gamified solutions
for their products and systems [7]. Another conference The components of computer games (i.e. mechanics) shown in
entitled “Gamification World Conference 2016” was held in Table 1 are not new. It is the use of information and
Madrid, Spain, with the presence of the most famous communication technology to support a more effective and
researchers of gamification methodology and technology in visually attractive creation/application of a game that represents
the world, such as [3], [13], [16], [26], [29]. today’s novel modality for gamification. In that respect, it should
According to Souza-Concilio and Pacheco [23], the be noted that not all of the elements of computer games are
implementation of elements of computer games is getting appropriate for all types of players. However, most of those
more visible in various fields including education, health and elements can find some application in business or education
fitness, task management, environmental sustainability, systems.
science, user generated content and others. About 40 years
ago Malone et al. [15] emphasized the need to make learning III. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
more interesting. As a confirmation of their claim, it must be For this research paper only one directional hypothesis is
noted the value of gamification market had risen to 513 defined:
million dollars by 2013, with its value increasing to 980 • H: An online course which is pedagogically designed with the
million dollars in 2014, amounting to as much as 2.8 billion application of the elements of computer games (i.e. gamified)
dollars in 2016 [19][27][28]. will have a greater effect on the amount of use of online teaching
The importance of gamification can also be illustrated by materials in comparison with a course with the same
the recent EU project call in the Horizon 2020 funding educational content, but without the presence of elements of
scheme (ICT-21-2014) for research of gamification computer games.
technologies with funding opportunity of eight million euros To confirm the hypothesis H1, first a research of literature was
in total [9]. A more recent call was launched in 2016 for conducted focusing on the topic of motivation of the participants
proposals that could be funded with up to one million euros in gamified online courses and other related positive effects. The
(ICT-24-2016) [10]. focus was also placed on online courses related to information
The previously presented market value and research and communication technologies in higher education
funding opportunities indicate the relevance of gamification institutions. In the empirical phase of our research an
research. In this paper the authors will focus on the context investigation was performed of the influence of gamification on
of online education, especially in the field of informatics and the use of e-learning materials. In the analysis of empirical data
software engineering. Therefore related theoretical and the log report of participants’ activities in the Moodle LMS was
empirical analyses are presented as well as a proposal for used for both the experimental and the control group of subjects.
standardization of elements of computer games that might
come into consideration for implementation with the learning IV. CURRENT STATE OF THE USE OF ELEMENTS OF
management system (LMS) Moodle. COMPUTER GAMES IN E-LEARNING
According to Nielson [18] and Schonfeld [21], the The research that is presented in this paper began by
following 24 types of gamification mechanisms that are collecting the views of teachers in two higher education
currently recognized and accepted in practice have been most institutions (HEI) from two Central European universities. A
frequently cited in the literature (see Table 1). total of 43 correctly completed survey forms were collected
from the HEI teachers. All of the subjects/respondents used
TABLE 1. MECHANICS AND AESTHETICS IN
A GAMIFICATION SYSTEM
the Moodle LMS in their academic teaching. Their courses
were mostly delivered in the second or third year of an
Achievements Bonuses Countdown
Endless duration undergraduate study.
of the game It must be noted that our survey respondents were not using
Introduction the customization functionality of the Moodle LMS and their
Duties / Uncertainty /
with the Levels answer to the question “Do you use a special custom graphics
Challenges Detection
information template?” was “No'' or ”We have no choice”. Also, most of
Behavioural "Combo" effect the respondents (53%) were not familiar with the learning
Epic meaning Loss of aversion systems of Khan Academy, Duolingo or similar learning
momentum x3
systems. This was not a positive indicator of how broad their
Joint knowledge of e-learning was since the aforementioned
Productivity Surprise Conscious risk
collaboration
systems had received prestigious awards as well as
Regular introduced some innovative approaches to knowledge
Ownership Advancement Optimism
rewarding transfer via e-learning. Furthermore, in their response to the
"Addiction" / survey question regarding the use of external links
Tasks and (plugins/functionalities) that can be added into the Moodle
Points Status Commitment to
challenges LMS system (Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, YouTube, Gmail, G-
the game
search, Wiki) as many as 58% of respondents chose the
Each element in Table 1 can be categorized according to three response "none of the above".
attributes: (1) the mechanics of a game, (2) benefits and (3) Other questions in our survey among academic teachers
personality. Mechanics of the game can be divided into were related to the mode of presentation of learning materials
behaviour, feedback and promotion. According to the in an online course. Our survey revealed that the majority of
categorization by Bartle [3], personality can be divided into respondents preferred traditional (offline) teaching materials,
winner, wordsmith, collector and researcher subtypes, all of but in their online course material they also frequently used
which represent basic types of users or players in a game. static text that is accompanied with a PowerPoint presentation
or a PDF document/article. In the Moodle LMS system the group of students, a traditional non-gamified online course
most widely used functionalities by our respondents were the was developed in parallel and with equal content in the
following: Moodle system that was located on a separate physical server.
1. Forum (86%) The traditional non-gamified course had only three elements
2. Achieved current points (67%) that were set besides the educational materials: profile and
3. Questionnaires (65%) avatar area, use of forums, and nonlinear access to
4. Multimedia (58%) educational materials.
5. Bonus teaching materials (49%) To complete the development of both e-learning courses
6. Editing of profile & avatar (28%) (gamified and traditional), the teaching content and teaching
materials of all the basic teaching material that was adapted
According to the surveyed teachers, the most frequent for this research was standardized (made equal) for both e-
activities that their students performed in the LMS learning courses and reduced to HTML text accompanied by
environment were: pictures or videos. In other words, identical basic educational
1. Use of quizzes and assignments (53%) content and materials were placed in both e-learning systems.
2. Feedback from students to the professor (53%) Also, the teaching materials and topics that were used online
3. Student cooperation on problem solving tasks (26%) in both e-learning courses were not used for lecturing in
4. Individual voluntary casual tasks (26%) traditional classroom face-to-face environments, including
5. Personalization of user interface (14%) exercises in computer laboratories. Students were instructed
to use online teaching materials in the gamified and non-
Most of the teachers agreed that story and motivational gamified course completely alone, without any intervention
elements visible in computer games can have a positive from the teacher in the physical environment. In this manner,
impact on the interest of students regarding the teaching the subjective influence of teachers on students in both the
subject. Also, a considerable percent of respondents (49%) experimental and the control group was considerably
stated that they were not familiar with the flow theory, which reduced, increasing the credibility and reliability of the
is important in interpretation of gamification of e-learning, experimental procedure. It must especially be noted that the
while only 37% of them replied that they were partially teaching materials used in the course did not differ in its
informed about flow theory. content or in the order in which they were listed the Moodle
Our survey of teachers at two academic institutions in system. After the two weeks during which the students were
Croatia revealed that the variety of their implementation of involved with the online course materials their log entries were
pedagogical elements related to computer games in their e- analysed to draw conclusion regarding hypothesis H1.
learning courses was, on average, rather low. As it is The subjects in this study were students of an informatics
previously listed, the most widely used pedagogical features college in the Republic of Croatia. All of the students attended
were discussion forums, questionnaires, quizzes, the course ''Programming 2'' at the undergraduate level of study
assignments, multimedia, bonus teaching materials, as well of informatics in the winter semester of the academic year
as feedback from the instructor to students, and vice versa. 2015/2016. The total number of subjects who were voluntary
The surveyed teachers were not familiar with e-learning participants in the study was 201. The subjects were divided
systems and products for e-learning like Khan Academy or into two groups: the experimental group and the control group.
DuoLingo. It would be of great value to the teachers to be Of the total number of subjects, 44 (or 21.9%) were female and
included into an online course covering the possibilities of e- 157 (or 87.1%) were of male gender. Their average age was 20
learning and digital networking tools which are more game- years. Information on our convenience sample of subjects is
oriented. presented in more detail in Figure 1. The permission for
In the continuation of this paper the authors will try to students’ participation in the study was requested and obtained
demonstrate that the use of elements of computer games (i.e. by the relevant higher education institution authorities.
gamification) can positively affect the use of teaching and
non-teaching material that is available to students within an VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
e-learning system like Moodle. The analysis of the initial written test of prior knowledge
(pre-test) in Table 2 provides insight into the distribution of
V. PROCEDURE AND SUBJECTS the subjects/respondents in the control and experimental
For the purpose of our study a new installation of Moodle group. The data presented in Table 2 indicate that there was
2.7. LMS was used with additional gamification components. no statistically significant difference between the
The gamification elements were added in form of plugins experimental (GE) and the control (GK) group regarding the
because they were not available in the initial version of results of prior knowledge testing (pretest). The value of the
Moodle 2.7 system. A conceptual model with potentially t-test was 0.57, with p>0.56. Also, there was only a slight
useful gamification elements was created on the basis of a difference between the mean results of the two groups (about
survey of academic teachers who used e-learning, available 5% of the standard deviation). It can be concluded that the
plugins for Moodle 2.7 system, and Octalysis Gamification two groups were suitable for performing the subsequent
Framework [http://yukaichou.com/gamification-examples/ experimental research procedure.
octalysis-complete-gamification-framework/]. For the
experimental group of students a gamified e-learning course
for teaching computer programming (on the topic “Batch and
Stack”) was designed in Moodle with the use of selected
elements of computer games. Conversely, for the control
 160 149 TABLE 3. REPORT ON THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED ACTIVITY
Male Female INSTANCES (LOG ENTRIES) IN THE MOODLE SYSTEM FOR
140 EXPERIMENTAL (N=88) AND CONTROL (N=102)
NO. OF RESPONDENTS

120 GROUP OF STUDENTS

100 Activity name Sum Mean

80 Learning outcomes 342 3.89
60 Activity of the
Forum 1214 13.80
38 experimental group
40 List of terms 838 9.52
20 8 6 Learning outcomes 41 0.40
0 Activity of the
Forum 252 2.47
Part-time student Full-time student control group
List of terms 22 0.22
RESPONDENTS STATUS
* Mean is calculated as Sum/N
FIGURE 1. STATUS OF THE COURSE RESPONDENTS

Table 3 provides a list of activities that were accessed by

TABLE 2. TESTING OF THE STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF students within the gamified and non-gamified online course.
DIFFERENCE IN PRIOR KNOWLEDGE (PRETEST RESULTS)
BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL (GE; N=99) AND CONTROL For the experimental group of students, the average number
(GK; N=102) GROUP of 9.07 access attempts was registered in log entries for all of
the activities listed in Table 3, while for the students in the
Group N Mean SD t p control group the average number of registered instances of
GE 99 15.57 4.17 access was only 1.03. The results in Table 3 indicate a
0.57 0.5658
GK 102 15.25 3.72 significant difference in favor of the experimental group. It
can be concluded that the experimental group showed a much
greater average interest in the available activities in the online
In the continuation of this paper a report is presented on course such as ''Forum'' (5.6 times greater), “Learning
student activities that was generated based on the log entries outcomes” (9.7 times greater) and ''List of terms'' (43.3 times
from the Moodle system. This represents the final part of our greater).
data analysis which will enable the confirmation or rejection
of our research hypothesis H1.

TABLE 4. COMPARISON OF THE FREQUENCY OF ONLINE ACCESS TO BASIC EDUCATIONAL AND BONUS MATERIALS
REGARDING THE LEARNING MATERIAL OF THE GENERAL E-COURSE TOPIC “BATCH AND STACK”

Experimental group Control group

Activity name (learning content and bonus materials) Sum Mean Sum Mean
Teaching section 1a: Batch 430 4.89 184 1.8
Teaching section 2a: Charging and implementation of piles using fields 391 4.44 135 1.32
Teaching section 3a: Deleting a root and implementation of piles using integer fields 358 4.07 94 0.92
Teaching section 4a: Charging stacks 359 4.08 84 0.82
Teaching section 5a: Sequential deletion root piles (Heap Sort) 354 4.02 71 0.70
Bonus teaching content: Old and new names of standard C++ library 301 3.42 64 0.63
Teaching section 1b: Stack 251 2.85 108 1.06
Teaching section 2b: Adding (PUSH), reading and deleting the top of the stack (POP) 236 2.68 77 0.75
Teaching section 3b: Print whole and therefore deallocation 234 2.66 76 0.75
Bonus teaching content: The relationship between C and C ++ 159 1.81 72 0.71
Total sum for all activities 3073 34.92 965 9.46

In case of this research, bonus learning materials were and bonus materials on 34.92 occasions on average, while the
present in both e-courses. Table 4 shows the access frequency same kind of materials were accessed by the control group
/ number of instances of access to course materials by only on 9.46 occasions on average. Therefore, it can be
respondents in the experimental and the control group with calculated that regarding the data in Table 4 the summative
regard to core learning content and bonus materials. The indicators of frequency of access to all of the listed learning
experimental group of respondents used both the basic activities and bonus materials were 3.69 times higher in favor
teaching materials and bonus materials which were added to of the experimental group of respondents. In other words, the
the course to motivate students for additional learning and to students of the experimental group, who were involved with
access content more frequently. It can be seen in Table 4 that the gamified e-course, used learning and bonus materials 3.69
the experimental group of respondents accessed the teaching
times more often than the control group, which was involved for both the experimental and the control group were almost
in the use of the conventional non-gamified e-course. identical.
The data presented in Figure 2 demonstrate that the From the indicators that are presented in Table 3 and Table
experimental group of respondents had continuous access to 4 as well as in Figure 2, it can be concluded that the
learning materials with decreased motivation in subsequent experimental group of respondents, which used the gamified
topics and learning activities (also see Table 4) as the version of the online course in computer programming (on
e-course was approaching its end. A similar trend in the topic “Batch and Stack”), had a significantly greater
accessing learning materials is visible for the control group motivation to access and use the online learning material,
of respondents, but to a somewhat lesser extent. It must be which is visible by the analysis of the registered log entries.
emphasized that, at one moment, the experimental group of In fact, the experimental group had a greater frequency of
respondents had nearly 5 times higher access frequency to access within the Moodle e-course to all available teaching,
teaching materials in comparison to the control group, which non-teaching and bonus materials. The conclusion is that
is a substantial indicator of the effect of gamification on hypothesis H1 is confirmed and that an online course which is
student activity and motivation in e-learning. pedagogically designed with the application of elements of
However, it must be noted that some of the results of computer games (i.e. gamified) will have a greater effect on the
comparison presented in Figure 2 could be attributed to the amount of use of online teaching materials in comparison with a
greater visual quality of the gamified e-course, which had a course with the same educational content, but without the
more appealing appearance to the experimental group of presence of the elements of computer games.
respondents. Still, in other aspects the core learning materials

Programming 2
500 430
391
358 359 354
400 301
251 236 234
300
184 159
200 135 108
94 84 71 77 76 72
64
100
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Experimental group Control group

FIGURE 2. FREQUENCY OF ACCESSING EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS IN 10 SUBSEQUENT COURSE TOPICS

(LISTED IN TABLE 4) FOR EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUP

VII. CONCLUSION subtopics with teaching and bonus materials which were
Use of the elements of computer games (gamification) can available to students for a period of 14 days.
be a meaningful way to increase student motivation and The hypotheses H1 for our study stated the following: An
improve the educational effectiveness of online courses. The online course which is pedagogically designed with the
authors of this study conclude that the pedagogical design application of elements of computer games (i.e. gamified) will
based on gamification places greater emphasis on student have a greater effect on the amount of use of online teaching
motivation in the learning process and makes an online materials in comparison with a course with the same
course more interesting, as well as increases students’ educational content, but without the presence of elements of
willingness to learn and their engagement with course computer games.
materials. In the central empirical part of our study it was confirmed
In our study an experimental research procedure was used that the e-learning course which is designed by applying
since two separate and equivalent groups of students were elements of computer games (i.e. gamified) can have a
engaged in learning equal core learning material in two positive effect resulting in greater frequency of use of
pedagogically different online learning environments. teaching materials compared to the course with the same
At the beginning of our empirical procedure, the educational content, but without the presence of elements of
experimental and the control group of students were computer games. Therefore, the hypotheses H1 was
subjected to a written test of prior knowledge. Based on these confirmed. This is clearly evident in the graphical analysis of
results (average number of points) the students were assigned objective indicators of online activity of experimental and
to either the experimental or the control group. Since the control group of subjects regarding their frequency of access
‘Programming 2’ course has a total of 14 groups in computer to learning materials placed in the Moodle system (see Figure
labs, seven of them were treated as control and the other 2).
seven as experimental study groups. Online learning The main contribution of this paper is related to the
materials related to the topic “Batch and Stack” were created verification of the hypothesis that gamification can lead to
within the ‘Programming 2’ course with a total of 10 greater usage of the gamified e-course educational materials
measured by objective indicators that are present within the
Moodle system in terms of participants’ activity logs.
 LIMITATIONS [13] J. M. Kumar, M. Herger, “Gamification at Work: Designing Engaging
Business Software” [Online book], Interaction Design Foundation,
Denmark, 2013, URL: https://www.interaction-
The main limitations of our study are related to the following: design.org/literature/book/gamification-at-work-designing-engaging-
• Students' obligations. Our research was conducted during business-software, Accessed 1 February 2017.
regular classes at the higher education institution. In addition [14] H. LeHong, J. Fenn, “Key Trends to Watch in Gartner 2012 Emerging
to having to use the experimental e-learning system, students Technologies Hype Cycle”, Gartner Inc. 2012, URL:
had obligations in other courses. It is important to emphasize https://www.forbes.com/sites/gartnergroup/2012/09/18/key-trends-to-
watch-in-gartner-2012-emerging-technologies-hype-cycle-2/,
that participation was voluntary. Conducting the experiment Accessed 1 February 2017.
was planned at a time when students did not have a mid-term
or final exam. Individual tasks and obligations at the level of [15] T. W. Malone, M. R. Lepper, “Making learning fun: A taxonomy of
intrinsic motivations for learning”, In Snow, R. & Farr, M. J. (Eds.),
the study program could not be included in the analysis of Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction, vol. 3: Conative and Affective
each student workload, but it is highly possible that students Process Analyses, pp. 223-253, Hillsdale, NJ, 1987.
had other obligations related to other courses during the use [16] A. Marczewski, “A New Perspective on the Bartle Player Types for
of the experimental system. Gamification”, 2013, URL: http://gamification.co/2013/08/12/a-new-
• Time period of the use of online courses. Research perspective-on-the-bartle-player-types-for-gamification, Accessed 1
activities for each course were planned with particular regard February 2017.
to the academic syllabus and other educational assignments. [17] J. McGonigal, “Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and
It was decided that the measurement should be carried out in How They Can Change the World”, New York, NY: Penguin Press,
2011.
a short time-period during the two to three weeks after the
students had gained access to learning materials in the online [18] B. Nielson, “Gamification Mechanics vs. Gamification Dynamics”,
courses that were designed for the experiment. Your Training Edge, 2013.
[19] P. Petridis, K. Hadjicosta, I. Dunwell, P. Lameras, T. Baines, V. Guang
Shi, K. Ridgway, J. Baldin, and H. Lightfoot, “Gamification: Using
REFERENCES gaming mechanics to promote a business”. Proceedings of the Spring
Servitization Conference, Aston University, Birmingham, UK, 2014.
[1] J. M. Adeel, “The Benefits of Game Based Learning”, Microsoft [20] M. Rauch, “Gamification is Here: Build a Winning Plan”, STC
Partners in Learning, 2014. Intercom, Society for Technical Communication, pp. 7–12, 2012.

[2] F. Aparicio, F. L. G. Vela, J. L. G. Sánchez, J. L. Isla, “Analysis and [21] E. Schonfeld, “SCVNGR's Secret Game Mechanics PlaydeckQ”, 2010.
application of gamification”, ACM Interaccion’12, pp. 113-126, Elche, URL: http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/25/scvngr-game-mechanics,
Alicante, Spain, 2012. Accessed 1 February 2017.

[3] A. R. Bartle, “Players Who Suit MUDs”, Journal of MUD Research, [22] M. Sharples, P. McAndrew, M. Weller, R. Ferguson R., E. FitzGerald,
vol. 1, no. 1, 1996. T. Hirst, M. Gaved, “Innovating Pedagogy 2013: Exploring New
Forms of Teaching, Learning and Assessment to Guide Educators and
[4] B. Bruke, “Gartner says get gamification working for you”, Gartner Policy Makers”, Open University Innovation Report 2, 2013.
Report, Report ID:G00245563, URL:
http://thisiswhatgoodlookslike.com/2013/03/24/gartner-says-get- [23] I. A. Souza-Concilio, B. A. Pacheco, “Games and Learning
gamification-working-for-you/, Accessed 1 February 2017. Management Systems: A Discussion About Motivational Design and
Emotional Engagement”, SBGames, 2013.
[5] S. Deterding, “Gamification: Designing for motivation”, interactions,
vol. 19, no. 4, 14–17, 2012. [24] J. Van der Meulen, R. Rivera, “Gartner's 2013 Hype Cycle for
Emerging Technologies Maps Out Evolving Relationship Between
[6] S. Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, L. Nacke, “From game design Humans and Machines”, Stamford, 2013.
elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification”, MindTrek ‘11,
Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: [25] E. N. Webb, “Gemification in enterprise: Gartner Hype Cycles 2013”,
Envisioning Future Media Environments, pp. 9-15, Tampere, Finland, Gartner Inc., 2013., URL: http://gartner.com/newsroom/id/2575515,
28-30 September 2011. Accessed 1 February 2017.

[7] “Gamification Summit”, San Francisco, CA 2014, URL: [26] K. Werbach, D. Hunter, “For the Win: How Game Thinking Can
http://sf14.gsummit.com/, Accessed 1 February 2017. Revolutionize Your Business”, Wharton Digital Press, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 2012.
[8] “Gartner Says By 2015, More Than 50 Percent of Organizations That
Manage Innovation Processes Will Gamify Those Processes”, Gartner [27] Xu Y., “Literature Review on Web Application Gamifcation and
Press Release, Egham, UK, 2011, URL: Analytics”, Collaborative Software Development Laboratory
www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1629214, Accessed 1 February 2017. Technical Report, 11-05, University of Hawaii, 2011.

[9] ICT 2014 - Information and Communications Technologies, Sub call [28] M. Yana, “Applicability of the Concept “Gamification” Within
of: H2020-ICT-2014, URL: http://ec.europa.eu/research/ Business Organizations”, Master Thesis at University St. Kliment
participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/90-ict-21- Ohridski, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Sofia,
2014.html#tab2, Accessed 1 February 2017. 2013.

[10] ICT 2016 - Information and Communications Technologies, Sub call [29] G. Zichermann, C. Cunningham, “Gamification by Design:
of: H2020-ICT-2016, URL: https://ec.europa.eu/research/ Implementing Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps”, O'Reilly
participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/5088-ict-24- Media, Inc., 2011.
2016.html, Accessed 1 February 2017.
[11] A. Iosup, D. Epema, „An Experience Report on Using Gamification in
Technical Higher Education“, CM Technical Symposium on Computer
Science Education, pp. 27-32, USA, 2014.
[12] J. T. Kim, W. H. Lee, “Dynamical model for gamification of learning
(DMGL)”, Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 74, no. 19, 8483-
8493, 2015.

View publication stats