Journal of Interactive Online Learning Volume 15, Number 1, Summer 2017

www.ncolr.org/jiol ISSN: 1541-4914

A Critique and Defense of Gamification

Aaron Chia Yuan Hung

Adelphi University

Abstract
Gamification has received increased attention in education in recent years, and is seen as a way
to improve student engagement, motivation, attendance, and academic performance. While
empirical studies on gamification in higher education are showing modest gains in some areas,
this data can be difficult to interpret because of the many ways that gamification can be designed
and implemented. Gamification is also controversial for appearing exploitative, seeming over-
simplified, and having the tendency to rely on extrinsic motivation and learning analytics that
may not translate to student learning. This paper provides a brief overview of gamification in
higher education and looks at findings from recent empirical studies. It then examines its key
criticisms as well as its potential contributions to improving instructional design in higher
education. A practical example and a set of recommendations are provided to show how
instructors new to gamification and interested in implementing it can adapt it for their courses.

Gamification is the application of game mechanics in a non-gaming context (Deterding,

Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011; Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011). Typically, this involves the
use of mechanisms such as quests, levels, badges, points, leaderboards, virtual goods, avatars,
narratives, and progress bars, used in isolation or in various combinations. Other forms of
gamification draw on design principles inspired by digital games, such as giving students the
freedom to fail and retry a task without penalty, and freedom to choose activities and learning
pathways that best suit their interests. The growing interest in learning analytics (Dietz-Uhler &
Hurn, 2013; Dyckhoff, Zielke, Bültmann, Chatti, & Schroeder, 2012) and big data generated by
learning management systems (LMS) has also made gamification a potential way to leverage this
data to inform instructional design and improve student performance.
Gamification overlaps with other game-related educational interventions, including
game-based learning, serious games, and learning by design, each of which values different
aspects of games and tends to approach games and learning from different points of departure.
Game-based learning involves learning by playing games, either ones developed specifically for
education or commercial games seen to have educational value (Squire, 2005, 2011). Serious
games tend to focus on raising awareness on social issues (Sanford, Starr, Merkel, & Kurki,
2015) or improving lifestyles, for example, by teaching players how to improve health, control
addiction, and boost nutrition. Learning by design involves having students design games in
order to learn about complex issues and to promote systems thinking (Kafai, 1995, 2006). The
influence of gamification on education has been promising but controversial. On the one hand,
gamification has seen its share of success in areas such as business and marketing, for example,
57
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning Hung

with frequent flier miles and loyalty points (Burke, 2014). On the other hand, its use has been
criticized, even by game designers themselves, as a form of exploitation (Bogost, 2011b) and an
over-simplified approach to game design (Robertson, 2010). Empirical studies on gamification in
higher education have been growing, and the results have been mixed to positive (Dicheva,
Dichev, Agre, & Angelova, 2015; Nah, Zeng, Telaprolu, Ayyappa, & Eschenbrenner, 2014;
Wiggins, 2016). However, it is hard to interpret the implications of these studies because of how
broadly gamification is defined and implemented.
The present article focuses on gamification in higher education. It begins with a brief
overview of gamification and the empirical studies so far that show its impact on higher
education. It then discusses the main criticisms and concerns raised against gamification and its
implementation. The article then examines ways that gamification can improve instructional
practice when gamification is designed meaningfully with a user-centered approach, drawing on
the author’s own experience of using it as a way to inform instructional design.

A Review of Literature

Defining Gamification
Gamification, game-based learning, serious games, and learning by design can be seen as
different ways of addressing the question: What is the most effective way to use games in the
classroom? Is it the “game-ness” of the game that holds the most potential, or the encouragement
of playful behaviors that are conducive to learning?
Proponents of gamification focus primarily on game mechanics, which are the building
blocks of games. The aim is not to design a full-fledged game; instead, the goal is to harness
these mechanics to encourage and reward behaviors that support learning and foster productive
social interactions. One way is to add coherence and purpose by giving the course a narrative or
designing quests that students have to complete in order to show their competence (Kapp, 2012).
This is also to give the course a better sense of direction and relevance because the activities are
directly related to a larger storyline (Bartel, Figas, & Hagel, 2015). Ideally, there would also be
different kinds of quests that students can choose from, depending on their interests and
preferences, giving them multiple pathways to reach the same goal. For example, Sheldon (2011)
re-designed his university course by turning grades into experience points (XP) and student
groups into guilds. XP corresponded to levels, which in turn corresponded to grades. Students
were greeted on the first day of class with an F but were told they could level up by completing
required and optional assignments. Students also had the opportunity to re-do assignments for re-
scoring, just as they could with a digital game.
Gamification can also create cooperation and/or competition, where individuals and
teams compete for finite resources, levels, badges, and points. Leaderboards can further
emphasize competition by displaying how students are ranked, letting them compare themselves
against their fellow classmates (de Byl, 2013). These rewards can also serve as a form of
feedback for students to get a sense of where they are in the class. Projects such as Open Badges
extend gamification beyond the classroom by allowing students to connect their earned badges to
professional social networks such as LinkedIn for potential employees to see.

Empirical Studies
Most empirical studies on gamification and higher education so far have focused on
enhancing the visible status of students by displaying achievements with points, levels, badges,
58
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning Hung

and leaderboards (Dicheva et al., 2015). Other priorities include improving social engagement,
giving students the freedom to fail and re-do assignments, giving students more choice, and
providing faster feedback. Since most of these studies were conducted in computer science (CS)
or game design courses, some of the researchers were able to program customized scripts to
process data logged by the LMS and generate information based on student logins, page visits,
and so on. Gamification plug-ins for LMSs also allow instructors to gamify the LMS, for
example, by designing badges that would be automatically awarded to students who have met the
criteria set by the instructor. Third-party platforms designed with gamification in mind (e.g.
Classcraft) or have gamification plug-ins (e.g., Wordpress) have also been used in these studies.
In general, these studies suggest a positive response to gamification from the students
(Dicheva et al., 2015; Nah et al., 2014; Wiggins, 2016), with most improvements seen in
attendance, participation, and motivation (Barata, Gama, Jorge, & Gonçalves, 2013; Caton &
Greenhill, 2014; Mitchell, Danino, & May, 2013; O’Donovan, Gain, Marais, Donovan, &
Marais, 2013). Other studies show a more mixed response, with some students finding the
gamification too complex or overly competitive (Berkling & Thomas, 2013; Domínguez et al.,
2013; Haaranen, Ihantola, Hakulinen, & Korhonen, 2014). Barata, Gama, Jorge and Gonçalves
(2014) suggest that different types of students may be drawn to gamification in different ways,
with “achievers” being the most proactive and engaged, “disheartened” being those who start
strong and lose interest along the way, and “underachievers” showing low levels of participation,
least engagement, and poorer performance.
There are a few challenges in interpreting what these studies mean. Firstly, gamification
is broad. For example, badges, a common form for gamification, can be designed and
implemented in any number of ways. Game mechanics can also be implemented in combination
with other mechanics, making it hard to isolate what aspect of a gamified class had the most
impact. Furthermore, a given course can be gamified to varying degrees. Gamification can be an
additional layer or it can be deeply integrated into every part of the course. Secondly, it takes a
lot of effort to design and implement gamification, and even more to get it to work well
(Nicholson, 2013; O’Donovan et al, 2013). Even the studies that show improvements in student
motivation and engagement admit that there is little to no impact on student grades (Barata et al.,
2013). If the choice is between a class that awards badges and one that does not, it is
unsurprising that students would prefer one that does. An important question is whether the
positive student responses also translate to other improvements and/or lead to long-term benefits.
Thirdly, since most of these studies have been conducted with students in CS, game design, and
engineering schools (Dicheva et al., 2015), it is important to consider whether gamification will
have the same impact in other disciplines. Students studying to become computer programmers
and game designers are likely to be more familiar with games and systems thinking, and,
therefore, are more comfortable with gamified courses. Finally, as Berkling and Thomas (2013)
note, it is challenging to make gamification work for students who have gone through many
years of traditional schooling. For example, Nicholson (2013) designed a course based on
Sheldon’s (2011) model, having students start with a zero and acquire points by completing
required assignments and choosing from optional ones. Many of his students voted to go back to
a traditional grading scheme and felt that the use of optional assignments gave them an excuse to
procrastinate. Nicholson notes that student responses may also depend on whether the course is a
required or elective course. If students are only taking the course because it is required, and not
because they are intrinsically motivated, then the effects of gamification may be different.

59
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning Hung

Criticisms
Rhetorical Questions
In an address at the Design, Innovate, Communicate, Entertain (DICE) conference, game
designer Jesse Schell (2010) gave a presentation entitled “Design Outside the Box” that has often
been dubbed as “the most disturbing presentation of the year” (Peck, 2010). In this presentation,
he imagines a world where every activity and choice we make on a daily basis – how we brush
our teeth, what cereal we eat for breakfast, how we perform at school, what books we read for
leisure – would be measured by sensors and gamified, with the goal to change our behavior for
the better. In McGonigal’s (2011) book, Reality is Broken, which has become seminal reading in
gamification, she argues that the world is broken and filled with problems, but that it can be
perfected if game mechanics are added and used to solve problems and score “epic wins.” Game
designer Ian Bogost (2011a, 2011b), who usually comes out strongly against gamification
(Bogost, 2015), suggests that McGonigal’s optimism is welcome but cautions against the view
that games can solve problems on their own. Instead, he suggests that games might be a good
way of conceptualizing and understanding problems. Morozov (2013) calls McGonigal’s
approach, as well as other innovations such as big data and learning analytics, a form of
“technological solutionism,” where people jump to technology as solutions to problems before
the nature of the problem is properly defined and understood.
Many of the criticisms have to do with the term “gamification” itself. McGonigal and
Sheldon both avoid the term, despite being key figures associated with the movement. Deterding
et al’s (2011) definition, widely cited in gamification research, note that gamification is not
aimed at designing coherent games and point out that “whereas serious games fulfill all
necessary and sufficient conditions for being a game, ‘gamified’ applications merely use several
design elements from games” (p. 12). This is precisely the issue that critics like Bogost (2011a,
2011b) and Robertson (2010) have indicated as the fundamental flaw of gamification. Robertson
(2010) argues that gamification should be called “pointsification” because it often reduces the
gamified system to points and badges. She notes that:
[Points and badges are] great tools for communicating progress and acknowledging
effort, but neither points nor badges in any way constitute a game…They are the least
important bit of a game, the bit that has the least to do with all of the rich cognitive,
emotional and social drivers which gamifiers are intending to connect with. (para. 4)
Bogost (2011b) argues that gamification has gained popular attention because it is framed
in a way that simplifies the difficulty of the process. By presenting the “gam(e)-” part of the
concept upfront, the complex work that goes into designing a workable solution is rendered
opaque by the “-ification.” Addressing commercial uses of gamification in particular, Bogost
(2011b) suggests the term “exploitationware” instead because:
gamification proposes to replace real incentives with fictional ones. Real incentives come
at a cost but provide value for both parties based on a relationship of trust. By contrast,
pretend incentives reduce or eliminate costs, but in so doing they strip away both value
and trust. (Exploitationware section, para. 5)

Gamification by Learning Analytics

Gamification takes a lot of work. Unlike grades, which may be updated a few times a
semester with major assignments and projects, gamification needs to be kept alive on a more
regularly basis. While it may be possible for the instructor to monitor how gamification
60
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning Hung

manifests in a small class, this becomes increasingly cumbersome as the class size starts to
exceed 15 students. In larger classes, some have relied on quantifiable data collected by the LMS
to inform gamification rules. Presently, learning analytics can give instructors some insights into
their courses, such as seeing what resources are accessed most often or which discussion forums
are most active (Dyckhoff et al., 2012), but not how resources are used or how much thought
went into a discussion post. A student can click on a resource or download a slideshow but not
read it. Basing gamification around superficial measures such as the number of clicks, file
downloads, and page views runs the risk of reifying learning profiles that do not correspond to
actual learning. In their study, Song and McNary (2011) note that the number of posts students
made on discussion forums did not correlate with their final grades. As Dietz-Uhler and Hurn
(2013) point out:
If one considers the types of data that are mined for learning analytics, such as the
number of course tools accessed in an LMS, or the number of posts “read” on the
discussion forum, are these really proxies for learning? This is not to suggest that
learning analytics cannot boost learning, but we need to be clear about what we are
measuring and predicting. (p. 24)
To illustrate, consider Figure 1, which shows the number of total logins, forum visits and
resource views from nine students (selected out of 24 students) in one of my courses whose
grades and participation varied from excellent to poor. Can the reader extrapolate how the
students performed based on these statistics gathered from the learning analytics alone?

Figure 1. Learning analytics from sample students showing number of logins, forum visits and file downloads.

61
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning Hung

The top students were A, B, and G; the average students were D, E, and H; and the lowest
performing students were C, F and I. Graphing these activities by week or by day did not reveal
any patterns either. There are simply too many variables that may affect how often a student
chooses to log into the LMS. Even if identifiable patterns were to emerge from these analytics,
one must ask, as Uhler and Hurn (2013) do, whether these patterns are meaningful proxies for
learning? A gamified system based only on the number of logins, forum visits, or resource views
will not capture students’ performance accurately and cannot be used as a useful tool to inform
gamification. This does not mean learning analytics are meaningless, and more sophisticated
tools are currently in development that may be able to dig more deeply into what students do, but
until these tools are properly evaluated and made widely available, the utility of learning
analytics as a tool for gamification remains limited.

In Defense of Gamification
Despite the criticisms above, gamification research is still in its infancy and its potential
should not be written off. In the remainder of this article, some promising directions for
gamification research are discussed, drawing on both insights from other scholars as well as
personal experience.

Meaningful Gamification
One thing that all approaches to gamification share is the focus on giving feedback to
users/players/students to let them know how they are doing. However, the feedback should be
meaningful; that is, it should help students know how they are doing in the class. Nicholson
(2015) suggests that reward-based gamification, such as using badges and points to reward good
behavior, has, limited, short-term effectiveness at best. If an airline stops giving out frequent flier
miles or a retailer stops honoring loyalty points, the customer is unlikely to continue the
relationship in the same manner. Instead, Nicholson suggests “meaningful gamification” as a
more humanistic approach that allows students to demonstrate mastery in different ways.
Nicholson (2015) uses Deci and Ryan's (1985, 2004) self-determination theory, a
framework that describes how intrinsic and extrinsic sources of motivation, as well as social and
cultural conditions sustain or thwart an individual's sense of motivation. Deci and Ryan argue
that every individual has the need to feel in control (i.e., self-determining) and connected to their
environment. With learning, students who are primarily motivated intrinsically have less need for
external motivation because they are driven by the activity itself. On the other hand, those who
prefer extrinsic motivation are more driven by incentives that are external to the activity, for
example, getting good grades or receiving scores and badges. Finally, they argue that learners are
not only intrinsic or extrinsic; instead, the source of motivation depends highly on the context
(Hartnett, 2016). Likewise, any given approach to gamification will not benefit every learner the
same way and that students should be allowed to choose how they want to demonstrate their
competencies and understanding of what they learned (Nicholson, 2015). Nicholson also draws
on Universal Design for Learning (UDL), a set of design principles that guides instructional
design for all learners (Rose & Meyer, 2002). These design principles can be grouped broadly
under three main goals: to provide multiple means of conveying information to students, to
provide multiple means of letting students demonstrate their understanding, and to provide
multiple means of engaging students. In online courses, this involves instructors providing
course material using different media, giving students choice in how they participate, and finding

62
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning Hung

ways for students to connect with the content meaningfully and reflectively (Novak &
Thibodeau, 2016).
Nicholson's (2015) recipe for meaningful gamification synthesizes these theories of
learning and instructional design, as well as concepts from other gamification scholars into six
elements: play, exposition, choice, information, engagement, and reflection.
“Play” gives students a chance to explore, try things out, and fail without penalty. Such a
space is more flexible because it evolves based on the learner's interest and is not shaped by a
pre-determined set of criteria. A playful space gives students more control over their learning
and allows them to make decisions about which learning pathways they want to pursue.
Nicholson suggests that, if such a space is properly created, then students will not need external
rewards because they are able to decide what "fun" means to them.
“Exposition” is the representation of the narrative layer that gives students a way to
connect the course with their world. Nicholson cautions against using narratives situated in
fantastical settings because they may take the students out of the real world and make it difficult
for them to connect their learning to the ultimate goals of the course, which is to acquire skills,
gain knowledge, and develop competencies they can use in their lives. Using self-determination
theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2004), Nicholson suggests giving students control over challenges
and goals they want to pursue and/or what narrative layer they want to use as an overlay.
“Choice” is a key part to both self-determination theory and UDL, and refers to giving
students control over what they want to learn, how they want to learn, and what assignments they
want to complete. For self-determination theory, choice is important because it gives students a
sense of autonomy over their environment; for UDL, choice helps remove barriers to learning. In
the context of gamification, choice refers to giving students control over the end product of their
work and providing guides along the way that help students arrive at that goal. In this case,
external rewards, such as badges and points, may serve as the signposts that guide the path.
“Information” communicates the rationale behind the gamified course, and not simply
how many points an achievement or badge is worth. By emphasizing the rationale, this approach
to gamification moves it out of behaviorism, which focuses on reward, and towards a more
humanistic approach that informs students why they were rewarded and how it moves them
down the path to mastery. Information can and should be conveyed in a variety of ways. An
informative graphic display would also help in giving students real time information about their
progress or it can be tied in with the exposition layer, helping them connect with the real world.
"Engagement" refers to a student's engagement with other students as well as with the
gamified mechanics. In online courses, social engagement can be managed through the use of
leaderboards or student profiles, although these should not be imposed on the student. The
gamified system itself has to offer increasing and/or differing levels of difficulty in order to
reduce or avoid boredom from setting in. Both engagement with students and system can be
enhanced with solo or team-based cooperative and competitive encounters.
Finally, “reflection” gives students a chance to think about their learning experiences,
connect these experiences with their lives, and share these insights with their peers. UDL
suggests using reflection and self-assessment to help students develop a better sense of their
learning. Nicholson (2015) suggests three components to reflection: description, analysis, and
application. During reflection, students think about the activity and share these thoughts with
their peers (describing), analyze it by making connections to their lives (analysis), and apply
what they learned to a different context (application).

63
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning Hung

A Practical Example
Although Nicholson (2015) suggests that not every element of his framework needs to be
part of a gamification system for it to be successful, the more elements it contains, the more
likely the system would offer different ways of engaging students. The present example is based
on multiple iterations of a design that draws on aspects of meaningful gamification. While it is
not the most sophisticated example, it is one that has been adapted to fit into a higher education
context. This example comes from a graduate level, fully online course on instructional design,
with 16 students coming from a variety of backgrounds. Table 1 summarizes how each of the
elements of meaningful gamification has been addressed in the example.

Table 1.
Applying Nicholson's (2015) gamification elements to an online course on instructional design
Element Application
Play • Students are allowed to revise and re-submit assignments up until
the end of the semester; early attempts are not penalizing, giving
them the freedom to explore
Exposition • The course does not have a "storyline" per se, but students can
follow three pathways, each relating to their career goals: pre-
service K-12 teachers, in-service K-12 teachers, and private/higher
education; this ties the course objectives more closely with their real
world identities
Choice • Students have choice regarding the final projects: 1) pre-service
teachers are encouraged to choose to do a unit plan; 2) more
experienced teachers are encouraged to do a deep investigation of a
technology they can integrate into a unit; and 3) students interested
in higher education are encouraged to get hands-on experience with
a university faculty, designing a technology-rich unit for their
courses
• Every week, students have choice regarding which discussion
question to address
• Certain weekly readings are assigned based on their project choices
Information • Students see a progress bar that shows where they are in the course
(see Figures 2 and 4)
• Progress report also includes all the rubrics and comments,
including suggested improvements for revisions
• Students submit drafts of their final projects for peers and myself to
review before submitting their final product
• Effort made to make their progress visually appealing and easy to
interpret
Engagement • Students are assigned to collaborate with partners on a presentation
about learning theories
• Students are required to interact with their peers every week using
VoiceThread

64
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning Hung

Reflection • Weekly responses often ask students to reflect on their own learning
and teaching experiences, during which they are asked to make
connections between theory and practice; final projects require them
to apply what they read and discussed in class to a real world
problem
• Weekly discussion prompts are adjusted based on their responses,
requiring them to be more reflective and to make more connections
from week to week

Figure 2 shows a sample progress report that was created using Google Sheets and shared with
each individual student. Like the students in Sheldon’s (2011) class, everyone is greeted with

Figure 2. Progress report at the beginning of the semester.

an F at the beginning of class. Since the students come from a variety of backgrounds and follow
different career paths – some are teachers in K-12 classrooms, others are instructional designers
in higher education and the private sector – there was no coherent narrative or quest design that
would work for everyone. As such, grades are kept as grades and not replaced with experience
points or levels. The progress report contains multiple tabs, each displaying the rubric for an
assignment. The rubrics not only show students how they are evaluated, it also feeds its points to
the main sheet (Figure 2). With this progress report, students see where every single point comes
from.
A survey was sent out to the students a few weeks before the course began to gather
information about their background knowledge, interests, and experience. The final project

65
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning Hung

choices were designed around this information. Students who were pre-service teachers and new
to instructional design and unit planning were invited to do the unit plan project, students who
were already experienced teachers were encouraged to do the deep dive and explore a technology
they might find useful in their future classes, and students who were planning to work in higher
education or the private sector were suggested to choose the hands-on project, which focused on
needs assessment and instructional design for adult learners. Throughout the semester, discussion
prompts were also differentiated. Every week, there were some prompts that everyone had to
address and others that were for particular students only, although everyone was welcome to
respond to any of the prompts.
The participation grade was also assigned on a weekly basis on a 0-4 scale, where 0
meant they missed a week, 1 meant they were late or only fulfilled part of the assignment, 2
meant they completed the assignment satisfactorily, 3 meant their input was particularly
insightful, and 4 meant their contribution was outstanding. Students were told that getting a 3
and 4 were rare, but they were sometimes given “Bonus” activities (for example, an extra
reading or response prompt) that would help them get additional points. Assigning their
participation grades weekly made their grade a lot less arbitrary, for them and for myself. Instead
of being a chunk of points they would receive at the end of the semester, students could see their
weekly progress. Their participation was also presented as a percentage so that it was
immediately clear how well they were doing. Figure 3 shows the “participation multiplier” for
this sample student as 89%, which means she would receive 89% of the full participation grade
(i.e., 89% of 25). The participation was set to a maximum of 27, so that students could not end
up with, for example, 40 participation points and then be able to skip the other assignments.

Figure 3. Participation grade calculator.

66
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning Hung

Conditional formatting (i.e., having the cell background change based on its contents) was added
to the cells containing grades so that their percentages go from red to green. This simple
aesthetic may seem trivial but, as Kapp (2012) pointed out, the visual component is important.
The goal was to make their progress clear and precise so that they have an instant snapshot of
their progress.
By the end of the semester, their progress report should begin to resemble Figure 4, with
the progress bar building towards 100% or A. In addition to this progress report, students were
given the chance to re-do all their assignments (except participation). This was not only for
gamification purposes but also to give them a sense of how they were graded. Since instructors

Figure 4. Progress report at the end of the semester.

differ in how leniently or harshly they grade and what they look for, it is important for students
to know that ahead of time without penalty. It also made the feedback they received more useful;
if the only feedback they received on a major assignment was after it had been submitted and
they were not allowed to improve upon it, then the feedback served little purpose. Students were
given a temporary grade on their progress reports to show what they would receive if they chose
not to re-do an assignment. They were also told that only substantial revisions would be re-
evaluated, so as to avoid students only making surface changes just to get an extra point or two.
To make this easier to manage, a central spreadsheet was created that contained all the
important categories, such as student names, assignments, percentage breakdowns, deadlines,
and rubrics. All the progress reports pulled information from this central spreadsheet, making it
easier to adjust items such as deadlines and rubric criteria from one location instead of having to
adjust each spreadsheet individually after they have been shared. Participation grades were also

67
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning Hung

assigned from this central spreadsheet. This is important because gamification can become
burdensome if it has to be managed and sustained regularly over the entire semester.
In my implementation, I have found that students pay a lot more attention to their
performance when they know exactly how they are graded. On the one hand, this can be a little
tedious because some students would inquire why their participation grades were not updated,
thinking that this was automated or forgetting that the grades were only updated after I have had
a chance to look at them. On the other hand, it was valuable to hear students justify why they
deserved a certain grade, especially when they were able to rationalize it in a way that reveal
what they learned and what effort they expended. This rationale also exemplifies Nicholson's
(2015) notion of reflection. Instead of finding this a nuisance, this can be an insight into their
learning. In my experience, students who paid close attention to their progress reports almost
always ended up with better grades. The weekly participation updates also communicated to
them that I was paying attention to their progress, and showed that the participation grade was
not an arbitrary number that was assigned at the end of class. By showing them where every
single point they earned comes from, students had a better sense of their performance. It also
made us (instructor and student) mutually accountable to one another.
This is a fairly tame example of gamification that emphasizes the importance of visual
information, feedback, choice, and freedom to fail. Since our students do not come from
computer science or gaming backgrounds, the course did not integrate more complex forms of
gamification (although they are being prototyped in other courses).

Recommendations
This progress report is a simple example of how gamification has inspired my approach
to instructional design. It is far from perfect and continues to go through improvement. Each
summer, a few weeks are devoted to reimagining how instructional design can be improved. This
includes the progress reports, the syllabus design, and the course content itself. These redesigns
are based on reflections from the previous year, ongoing feedback from students, and new
research that may have emerged since the last design.
For instructional designers interested in gamification in general, the following
recommendations may help:
• Focus on the students: Think of how the gamification is intended to improve the
students’ experience of the course. This can be to improve their learning or to give
them a better sense of their progress through better, more timely and useful feedback.
• Start small: Pick one or two game mechanics that you are comfortable with.
• Don’t put the technology at the center: The technology is important, especially in
relation to the LMS and what the institution includes a part of the delivery platform
package, but it should not be the starting point.
• Don’t over-rely on learning analytics: Learning analytic data is interesting to look at
but can be misleading if used improperly.
• Consider scalability: No matter how well a class is gamified, it quickly becomes
cumbersome if the work to keep it going takes too much effort. Designing with
scalability in mind, such as having a centralized place from which to control and
make changes, makes the gamification run a lot smoother.
• Revise and reiterate: Gamified designs should go through continuous improvement as
new research emerges and more data is accumulated.

68
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning Hung

• Play and have fun: Gamification should be about having fun, not just for the students
but for the instructor too. If neither party is having fun, then gamification serves no
purpose.
Google Sheets is a good tool to use because many institutions are already integrated with its
email system. With the use of formulas, Sheets can be a robust gamification platform that gives
instructors more control over how the gamification works, as opposed to having it dictated by a
third-party platform. While it does take some time to play with the formulas, there is a large
community of novice and expert users who can provide support.

Conclusion

This article has highlighted some criticisms that others have raised against gamification
and also defended its role as a tool to improve instructional design through meaningful
gamification. Gamification, like many other educational innovations, is not intrinsically good or
bad. A lot depends on how it is designed and used. Gamification embraces many principles of
good instructional design and is a useful tool to use in an online course because of the
availability of digital tools and platforms that support it directly or through plug-ins. Other tools,
like Google Sheets, can be appropriated for the purpose. Future research on gamification should
involve more instructors and researchers from across the disciplines in order to see how it affects
other students and whether certain designs work better than others for different disciplines.

69
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning Hung

References

Barata, G., Gama, S., Jorge, J., & Gonçalves, D. (2013). Improving participation and learning
with gamification. In L. Nacke, K. Harrigan, & N. Randall (Eds.), Proceedings of
International Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications (pp. 10– 17).
Stratford, Canada: ACM Press.
Barata, G., Gama, S., Jorge, J., & Gonçalves, D. (2014). Identifying student types in a gamified
learning experience. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 4(4), 19–36.
doi:10.4018/ijgbl.2014100102
Bartel, A., Figas, P., & Hagel, G. (2015). Towards a competency-based education with
gamification design elements. In R. Bernhaupt & L. Nacke (Eds.), Proceedings of the
2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (pp. 457–462). New
York, NY: ACM Press.
Berkling, K., & Thomas, C. (2013). Gamification of a software engineering course and a detailed
analysis of the factors that lead to its failure. In M. E. Auer (Ed.), Proceedings of
International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (pp. 525–530).
Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Bogost, I. (2011a, January 11) Reality is alright. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from
http://bogost.com/writing/blog/reality_is_broken
Bogost, I. (2011b, May 3). Persuasive games: Exploitationware. [Web log comment]. Retrieved
from
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6366/persuasive_games_exploitationware.php
Bogost, I. (2015). Why gamification is bullshit. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The
gameful world (pp. 65–80). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Burke, B. (2014). Gamify: How gamification motivates people to do extraordinary things.
Brookline, MA: Gartner, Inc.
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, 4(3), 1–12.
doi:10.4018/ijgbl.2014070101
de Byl, P. (2013). Factors at play in tertiary curriculum gamification. International Journal of
Game-Based Learning, 3, 1–21. http://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2013040101
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.) (2004). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester,
NY: University of Rochester Press.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to
gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” In A. Lugmayr, H. Franssila, C. Safran, & I.
Hammouda (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek
Conference (pp. 9–15). New York, NY: ACM.
Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A
systematic mapping study. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 75–88.
doi:10.1109/EDUCON.2014.6826129.
Dietz-Uhler, B., & Hurn, J. (2013). Using learning analytics to predict (and improve) student
success: A faculty perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(1), 17–26.
70
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning Hung

Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., &
Martínez-Herráiz, J.-J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications
and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380–392.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020
Dyckhoff, A. L., Zielke, D., Bültmann, M., Chatti, M. A., & Schroeder, U. (2012). Design and
implementation of a learning analytics toolkit for teachers. Educational Technology and
Society, 15(3), 58–76.
Haaranen, L., Ihantola, P., Hakulinen, L., & Korhonen, A. (2014). How (not) to introduce badges
to online exercises. In J. Dougherty, & K. Nagel (Eds.) Proceedings of the 45th ACM
technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 33–38). New York, NY: ACM.
Hartnett, M. (2016). Motivation in online education. Singapore: Springer.
Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children’s learning.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist
perspectives for game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 36–40.
doi:10.1177/1555412005281767
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and
strategies for training and education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken. New York, NY: Penguin.
Mitchell, N., Danino, N., & May, L. (2013). Motivation and manipulation: A gamification
approach to influencing undergraduate attitudes in computing. In P. Escudeiro & C. V. de
Carvalho (Eds.), Proceedings of European Conference on Game-Based Learning (pp.
394–400). Porto, Portugal: ACPL.
Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. New
York, NY: PublicAffairs.
Nah, F. F.-H., Zeng, Q., Telaprolu, V. R., Ayyappa, A. P., & Eschenbrenner, B. (2014).
Gamification of education: A review of literature. In F. F.-H. Nah (Ed.), Proceedings of
1st International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Business (pp. 401–409).
Crete, Greece: LNCS Springer.
Nicholson, S. (2013, June). Exploring gamification techniques for classroom management. Paper
presented at Games+Learning+Society 9.0, Madison, WI.
Nicholson, S. (2015). A RECIPE for meaningful gamification. In T. Reiners & L. A. Wood
(Eds.), Gamification in education and business (pp. 1–20). New York, NY: Springer.
Novak, K., & Thibodeau, T. (2016). UDL in the cloud!: How to design and deliver online
education using universal design for learning. Chicago, IL: CAST Professional
Publishing.
O’Donovan, S., Gain, J., Marais, P., Donovan, S. O., & Marais, P. (2013). A case study in the
gamification of a university-level games development course. In P. Machanick & M.
Tsietsi (Eds.), ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (pp. 242–251). New
York, NY: ACM.
Peck, M. (2010, March 30). The most disturbing presentation of the year. [Web log comment].
Retrieved from https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/consumer-electronics/gaming/the-
most-disturbing-presentation-of-the-year.
Robertson, M. (2010, October 6). Can’t play, won’t play. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from
http://www.hideandseek.net/2010/10/06/cant-play-wont-play.

71
 Journal of Interactive Online Learning Hung

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for
learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Sanford, K., Starr, L. J., Merkel, L., & Kurki, S. B. (2015). Serious games: Video games for
good? E-Learning and Digital Media, 12(1), 90–106. doi:10.1177/2042753014558380
Schell, J. (2010, February). Design outside the box. Presentation at DICE Summit, Las Vegas,
NV.
Sheldon, L. (2011). The multiplayer classroom: Designing coursework as a game. Boston, MA:
Cengage Learning.
Song, L., & McNary, S. W. (2011). Understanding students’ online interaction: Analysis of
discussion board postings. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 10(1), 1–14.
Squire, K. (2005). Changing the game: What happens when video games enter the classroom?
Innovation, 1(6).
Squire, K. (2011). Video games and learning: Teaching and participatory culture in the digital
age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Wiggins, B. E. (2016). An overview and study on the use of games, simulations, and
gamification in higher education. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 6(1),
18–29. doi:10.4018/IJGBL.2016010102
Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly
Media.

72