Immersion into the World of Gaming: An Approach of Introducing

Gamiﬁcation in an Educational Context

Korbinian Otto, Corinna Kr

ohn and Barbara Sabitzer

School of Education, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Altenbergerstraße 69, Linz, Austria

Keywords:

Gamiﬁcation, STEM, Digital Education, Secondary Education.

Abstract:

The use of game elements in the real world is part of a trending topic in science, called “gamiﬁcation”.

Game developers and companies are using gamiﬁcation tools and the knowledge about player types and their

characteristics, to successfully affect the behaviour of their players or customers. The success of apps like

“Adidas Running” and “Pokemon Go” (Niantic) and their millions of constant players tell us, that gamiﬁcation

can work. But the potential of gamiﬁcation goes beyond selling healthy lifestyles or marketing strategies, it

also ﬁnds its way into the educational system. The paper takes a closer look at deﬁnitions of gamiﬁcation

and different player types. Furthermore, it investigates the topic in an educational context where the authors

concentrate on motivational aspects of learning environments as well as downsides and risks of gamiﬁcation.

In a pilot study in two classes at a secondary school, the authors investigated different gamiﬁcation tools to

motivate students to increase the participation in class, do more off-school assignments and ﬁnally improve

their grades.

1 INTRODUCTION

Playgrounds are not only found in parks and city cen-

ters, but also in kindergartens and elementary schools.

The beneﬁts of play and its role in the early child-

hood as well as in education have been acknowledged

a long time ago. But when children enter middle

school we do not ﬁnd any playground or play areas.

Suddenly unstructured play is no longer part of the

school day. Students may take part in physical educa-

tion classes or play during break periods but nothing

more (IRMA, 2018). Studies show that early adoles-

cents still have the urge to play and it is suggested that

those students continue to play, especially as they un-

dergo signiﬁcant changes during that important life-

time (Millar et al., 2010).

Another interesting detail to take a closer look

at, is the neurological change during puberty. This

period involves increased excitability and sensitivity

to dopamine and noradrenalin (IRMA, 2018). Gru-

ber, Gelman & Ranganath (Gruber et al., 2014) stated

that dopamine is also involved in curiosity, attention,

learning and memory.

All in all, schools have already installed the basic

concepts of gamiﬁcation into their classrooms. Stu-

dents get points when they complete tasks and those

points are then transferred to grades. Furthermore,

students are rewarded for desired, and punished for

unwanted behaviour. If they ﬁnish well, they “level

up” at the end of the academic year (Lee and Ham-

mer, 2011).

The paper takes a closer look at deﬁnitions of

gamiﬁcation and different player types. Furthermore,

it investigates the topic in an educational context

where the authors concentrate on motivational aspects

of learning environments as well as downsides and

risks of gamiﬁcation. Besides, section 4 outlines

different tools for educational gamiﬁcation, such as

“Classcraft”, “Kahoot!”, or “Khan Academy”. Sec-

tion 5 focuses on the pilot study that was conducted

in a secondary school in two different classes and dif-

ferent subjects.

2 DEFINITION OF

GAMIFICATION

Deterding et al. deﬁne gamiﬁcation as “the use of

game design elements in non-game context” (Deterd-

ing et al., 2011). Game elements or game mechan-

ics specify for instance different key properties of

games like goals (e.g. ﬁnite end or inﬁnite play), rules

(e.g. team playing) or settings (e.g. leaderboards

Otto, K., Kröhn, C. and Sabitzer, B.

Immersion into the World of Gaming: An Approach of Introducing Gamiﬁcation in an Educational Context.

DOI: 10.5220/0009343402450252

In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2020) - Volume 2, pages 245-252

ISBN: 978-989-758-417-6

245

or badges) of the game (Robson et al., 2015). The

use of these game elements in a learning environment

is called “gamiﬁcation of education” (Simoes et al.,

2012).

Ifenthaler (Ifenthaler, 2019) created the “ABC-

model of game design” (see ﬁgure 1) where he de-

clared three important components for designing edu-

cational games: Affect (A), Behaviour (B), and Cog-

nition (C). The affective (A) design components spec-

ify emotional engagement. Accordingly, educational

games always require features that nurture satisfac-

tion, relatedness, choice, and curiosity. This could be

integrated causing negative or positive effects: Inves-

tigation, fantasy or exploration are (A) design com-

ponents that have a positive learning effect, whereas

confusion and disappointment are (A) components as

well, but foster negative feelings. Behavioral (B) de-

sign factors refer to behavioral engagement. Those

components require real-time feedback during game-

play to maintain the students’ interest. The (C) design

component (cognition) speciﬁes declarative, procedu-

ral, strategic, and metacognitive knowledge that is re-

quired to play the game. For instance, it is very im-

portant to determine the prior knowledge of the stu-

dents to create games that are neither too easy nor too

hard. The major part of the game design literature fo-

cuses on the (A) components because if students are

emotionally involved, the intrinsic motivation rises.

But when creating games, one must not forget to con-

sider the other design components as well (Ifenthaler,

2019).

Figure 1: ABC-Model of Game Design (Ifenthaler, 2019).

Considering game elements and motivation, it

is important to take a closer look on different

player types. Bartle identiﬁed four different player

archetypes – killer, achiever, socialiser and explorer

– and their behavioral traits in Multi User Dungeons

(MUDs) (Bartle, 1996), which describe a multiplayer

real-time virtual world. His taxonomy declares, why

different users act differently in the same game and

why players are attracted by different game elements.

The four player types are described best by consid-

ering the graph in ﬁgure 2. The axes represent the

source of the players’ interest in the game. The x-

axis describes the emphasis on players (left) to the

emphasis on the environment (right), whereas the y-

axis goes from acting with (bottom) to acting on (top).

While “killers” are playing the game to doing things

to other people, for example in acting on other play-

ers, “socialisers” are interested in interacting with

other players. “Achievers” want to act on the de-

signed world and their goal is to master the game.

They are proud if they can ﬁnish the game or reach

a high status in a short time. “Explorers” on the other

hand are interested in having the game to surprise

them, so they want to interact with the virtual world

(Bartle, 1996).

Figure 2: Players’ Interest in a MUD (Bartle, 1996).

Although those four player types are presumably

the leading ones in literature, there also exist vari-

ous other deﬁnitions. Another taxonomy is the player

satisfaction model “BrainHex”, which deﬁnes seven

different archetypes (seeker, survivor, daredevil, mas-

termind, conqueror, socialiser, and achiever) and

is based on insights from neurobiological ﬁndings

(Nacke et al., 2011).

3 GAMIFICATION IN

EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT

By adding game-design elements like rewards, leader-

boards, and badges to the classroom, it is not

only possible to provide differentiated instructions,

but also signiﬁcant challenges for learning (IRMA,

2018). The so-called “PBL-triad” (points, badges,

& leaderboards) should be found in each and every

lesson that implements educational games (Gabriel,

2018). A gamiﬁed curriculum could introduce the

freedom to fail without penalty and the opportunity

to explore multiple identities and experiences. Yet

CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

246

the evidence for these powers is lacking. What is

shown is that the application of gamiﬁcation in school

may or may not work depending on the pre-planning

phase, design, and development of the gamiﬁed les-

son. Nonetheless, gamiﬁcation enters the educational

system and with this numerous barriers result, such as

logistics of game-school integration and the lack of

support for teachers to integrate games into the cur-

riculum (IRMA, 2018).

Several studies have shown that students develop

more efﬁcient strategies to solve problems when play-

ing games compared to other classroom activities.

Games enable it to take on new personalities and

allow “learning by doing”. Furthermore, it is ob-

served that children easily gather new information

when playing games, like remembering the names of

all the characters, analyzing game-structures or con-

necting related concepts. In addition the act of cre-

ation is believed to be one of the highest varieties

of learning because students must not only remem-

ber but also apply and use newly gained concepts to

build something that does not exist yet. This concept

can also be transferred to gamiﬁed lessons (IRMA,

2018).

Another important ﬁnding is that games can com-

bine “soft skills” with social learning. Klopfer, Os-

terweil, and Salen (Klopfer et al., 2009) observed that

games naturally build up 21st century skills like meta-

cognition, development of ethical understanding and

collaboration in teams as well as positive social inter-

action.

3.1 Motivational Aspects

When we speak of gamiﬁcation we also have to take

a look at motivation. If the motivation is primarily

driven from the learner, this is called “intrinsic” mo-

tivation. Vice versa “extrinsic” motivation derives

from an external factor (Knapp, 2012) . Taylor et

al. (Taylor et al., 2014) show that intrinsic moti-

vation plays an important role in predicting school

achievements. Their ﬁndings also highlight the partic-

ular importance of intrinsic motivation for the future

academic success of high school and college students

(Taylor et al., 2014). Knapp (Knapp, 2012) applied

the four-factor “ARCS” model developed by Keller

(Keller, 1987), to examine the motivation of learners

regarding gamiﬁcation. This model represents “atten-

tion”, “relevance”, “conﬁdence”, and “satisfaction”

(Taylor et al., 2014)(Keller, 1987):

• Attention: In the world of gamiﬁcation it should

not be an issue to stimulate the curiosity of the

learner by presenting the given task as a role play

or hands-on experience. By varying the assign-

ments the learners’ attention can be maintained.

• Relevance: There are different methods to iden-

tify what is relevant for the learner and what is

not. One suggests that the goal is presented to

the learner beforehand, to increase his or her mo-

tivation. This is a common concept in gamiﬁca-

tion, too. Another method is to provide famil-

iar elements during the studying phase, like coins,

awards or lives in game playing.

• Conﬁdence: This represents the learners’ expecta-

tion to achieve success. One way to help the learn-

ers in this, is to clearly state the tasks and require-

ments beforehand. In gamiﬁcation this would rep-

resent for example a map that has to be followed,

where users can see the way to reach their ﬁnal

destination.

• Satisfaction: Learners have to get the opportunity

to apply their new knowledge in a real or sim-

ulated setting, to experience positive encourage-

ment and maintain intrinsic motivation.

According to the self-determination-theory the

most self-determined form of behavioral regulation

is intrinsic motivation (Dicheva et al., 2019) (Ryan

and Deci, 2000). According to this theory humans

have three fundamental psychological needs: auton-

omy, competence (ability to perform behavior), and

relatedness (social connections). If all of those three

factors are satisﬁed, intrinsic motivation is very high

(Dicheva et al., 2019).

In summary, it can be stated that if teachers gam-

ify their lessons they should consider these theories to

increase the motivation of their students.

3.2 Downsides and Risks

Gamiﬁcation is just a framework that offers a variety

of possibilities. But like every other framework it just

offers the tools. How to use them lies in the responsi-

bility of the person who wants to use it. Gamiﬁcation

platforms may give a preset of tools and target a spe-

cial audience. But if the developers or teachers are

not aware of the possibilities and limits of gamiﬁca-

tion, it is not hard to make wrong decisions (Cugel-

man, 2013). Without a careful monitoring and con-

trolling process, there is a chance to avoid unwanted

side effects, caused by the usage of the wrong game

elements or the wrong settings, like lowering the self-

esteem by choosing goals that are too difﬁcult (Ste-

fanidis et al., 2018).

Andrade et al. identiﬁed three problems by adding

game elements without the appropriate consideration

(Andrade et al., 2016). If the gamiﬁcation system of-

fers mechanics, which are unassociated to the educa-

Immersion into the World of Gaming: An Approach of Introducing Gamiﬁcation in an Educational Context

247

tional outcome, the student could get distracted. The

possibility to customize the own avatar or to commu-

nicate with the group members via built-in chat can

help that users spend more time playing on the plat-

form or interacting with the system, but it increases

the possibility for spent time without learning and

leading to off-task behavior.

Leaderboards are one of the favourite gamiﬁca-

tion elements and used often. Commited and gifted

students may get a motivation boost to keep the ﬁrst

place or to reach it, which can help to increase produc-

tivity. But when the light of the ﬁrst places vanishes,

the darkness of the last places appears. Students with

low performance are forced into a competition with

their peers at the far end of the leaderboard. This un-

desired competition can reduce their engagement and

interest on the system. Systems that try to change the

players’ behavior with rewards, can also create de-

pendence. Furthermore, addiction in gamiﬁed learn-

ing systems could lead to loss of the ability to learn

without getting extrinsic motivation.

4 TOOLS FOR EDUCATIONAL

GAMIFICATION

The tool used in the pilot study was “Classcraft”

which is a cloud-based platform that requires no in-

stallation. It operates on a real-time web engine

like any other online video game. With this tool

the teacher can transform the classroom into a role-

playing game where students can create their own

avatars (see ﬁgure 3) (Crx4Chrome, 2019).

Figure 3: Screenshot from Classcraft Avatar (Crx4Chrome,

2019).

Inspired by the popular role-playing game “World

Of Warcraft”, the avatars are placed in teams by four

to six players that divide into Mages, Warriors, or

Healers (see ﬁgure 4). Warriors are equipped with

more Health Points (HP) than the other characters and

have powers to protect other players. Healers have

less HP than Warriors but more than Mages but are

the only ones that can reﬁll other players HP. Mages

have the least HP but the most dominant powers.

Figure 4: Characters in Classcraft (Classcraft, 2019).

Students are able to gain Action Points (AP) or

Experience Points (XP) by their behaviour in school

or during classes. These points help students to

level up or acquire powers. They even earn Gold

Pieces (GP), to customize their avatars (Sanchez et al.,

2017).

Figure 5: Screenshot from Classcraft Tools (Classcraft,

2019).

Classcraft comes with a built-in set of class tools

(see ﬁgure 5), which gamiﬁes different situations in

class. The “Wheel of Destiny” randomly picks one

student or one group. The “Riders of Vay” chooses

an event (like one team gets 200 XP or all students

loose 10 HP) randomly of a pre-built list. Each event

appears just once and the list can be changed by the

teacher. “Makus Valley” shows the current volume.

This tool requires a microphone, hence it was not used

during the pilot phase, because there was no micro-

phone at the computer in class. “Boss Battles” are

revisions of subject matters wrapped in a battle ver-

sus a big boss. If the students know the answer to

the given question, the boss will be destroyed. If they

do not know the answer, each student looses health.

“White Mountain” is a built-in timer. The stopwatch

“Forest Run” and the grade converter “Treasures of

Tavuros” were not used during the pilot phase (Class-

craft, 2019).

Classcraft uses maps (see ﬁgure 6), to guide the

students on their journey to knowledge. The teacher

CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

248

Figure 6: Screenshot from Classcraft Map (Classcraft,

2019).

sets quests and determines possible ways between

those quests. The quests also form a guideline

through the lessons and contain the major part of the

background story to form a game.

5 PILOT STUDY USING

“CLASSCRAFT”

5.1 Methodology

This pilot study was part of the PhD Thesis of one

of the authors who is also a teacher. The research

question, leading to this experimentation is deﬁned as

the following: Can gamiﬁcation improve the lessons

in school? The tested hypothesis was: Gamiﬁcation

can improve all parts of the lessons (e.g. the grades,

participation during the lesson and the presence of the

students) and can maintain these improvements over

a longer trial period.

The experiment was conducted in a secondary

school in Austria in two different classes and different

subjects. Group one consisted of 25 male students at

the age between 12 and 14. The ﬁnal group decreased

to 23 students, hence one student left school during

the ﬁrst semester and one did not take part in the sec-

ond test and the major part of the lessons in second

semester. The two subjects taught were history and

political education and the lessons were held twice a

week for one teaching unit (50 minutes) each. Group

two consisted of 12 male students at the age between

13 and 15. The subject taught was computer science

and was held once a week for two teaching units.

The study concentrated on the ﬁrst group and

was divided into three parts. Part one was a ques-

tionnaire to determine the “BrainHex” player types

and the frequency, how often students play computer

games in their spare time. The second part consisted

of one semester of gamiﬁcation gentriﬁed teaching.

The third and last part was a second questionnaire

to determine the “BrainHex” player types again and

a subjective grading of the students, if gamiﬁcation

helped them. The pilot phase lasted the whole sec-

ond semester of the school year. As mentioned in

section 3, the platform “Classcraft” was chosen to be

used in this phase. Every student could choose an

avatar and was part of a self-chosen group. During

the lessons, the students could win XP (Experience

Points), AP (Action Points) or GP (Gold Pieces) for

predetermined actions and use the special power of

their avatar. Other elements of Classcraft were used

as well.

In the following subsections the active coopera-

tion, homework and grades are discussed. Active co-

operation was recorded every lesson and classiﬁed in

three categories: 1 (active cooperation), 0 (no coop-

eration) and -1 (disrupted class). Homework was also

rated in these three categories, 1 (great work and sub-

mitted in time), 0 (homework with some mistakes or

submitted too late) and -1 (not submitted or wrong).

In Austria, there are ﬁve different grades: very good

(1), good (2), satisfying (3), sufﬁcient (4), and insuf-

ﬁcient(5). Hence the classiﬁcation was made in these

ﬁve categories.

5.2 First Results

Figure 7: Active Cooperation in Class.

Figure 7 shows the active cooperation in class dur-

ing the whole school year. In the ﬁrst semester, ap-

proximately every third student had a good and ac-

tive cooperation during the lessons. About two out of

three students did not participate actively during class.

In every lesson, there was in total just one out of the

23 students who actively disrupted the class. In the

second semester the distribution changed. Every sec-

ond student participated actively and in a positive way

in the lessons, while every other remained quiet dur-

ing class. On average two out of 23 students disrupted

class. The classiﬁcation into the three categories 1, 0

and -1 enables the opportunity to calculate the average

participation. Taking a look at the ﬁrst semester and

the individual lessons, there was not even one lesson

with a negative average.

Immersion into the World of Gaming: An Approach of Introducing Gamiﬁcation in an Educational Context

249

Furthermore, ﬁgure 8 shows that all lessons, ex-

cept ﬁve, got an average value of active cooperation

in class between 0.5 and 0.

Figure 8: Average Active Cooperation in Class – 1st

Semester (without Gamiﬁcation).

Figure 9 shows, that during the second semester,

there were eight lessons above 0.5 and two below 0.

Figure 9: Average Active Cooperation in Class – 2nd

Semester (with Gamiﬁcation).

Figure 10 shows the overview of homework dur-

ing the whole school year. Both values for “not

handed in or bad” as well as “too late or not good”

decreased over the year, whereas homework graded

with “in time and good” increased.

Figure 10: Overview Homework.

Figure 11 shows the quantity of submitted vol-

untary homework. Since each submitted voluntary

homework was rated “very good”, there were no qual-

itative differences.

During the ﬁrst and second semester, there was

one test each. Figure 12 shows the test grades. In the

Figure 11: Voluntary Homework.

ﬁrst semester without gamiﬁcation 3 out of 23 stu-

dents reached “very good”, 3 students “good”, 7 stu-

dents “satisfying”, 6 students “sufﬁcient” and 4 stu-

dents failed. Whereas in the second semester that im-

plemented gamiﬁed lessons, 5 out of 23 students got

“very good”, 10 students “good”, 5 students “satis-

fying”, 2 students “sufﬁcient”, and only one failed.

Concluding, the arithmetic mean went from around

3.22 (ﬁrst semester) to 2.30 (second semester). The

median rose from 3 (satisfying) to 2 (good).

Figure 12: Test Grades in 1st and 2nd Semester.

5.3 Discussion

During the ﬁrst semester, the class split into a mix of

active students, non-active students, and students that

disrupted class. While few students were actively dis-

rupting the lessons, most of the students were passive

recipients and only few clever students were enriching

the lessons with their questions and corresponding an-

swers. In the second semester the biggest part of the

students (passive recipients) split up. One third of the

group could catch up on the active students with bet-

ter grades by active cooperation. Two thirds stayed

in the same peer group. For the most part of the ﬁrst

semester, the active cooperation kept stable. Beside

two weeks during the general exam time, the average

active cooperation rose in the second semester and de-

creased only slowly during the rest of the semester.

The number of noticeable positive grades in-

creased from one third of the group in the ﬁrst

semester to half of the group in second semester. The

lessons changed more and more from a teacher cen-

CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

250

tered speech to a conversation, where the students ex-

plored the new topics.

The results have to be interpreted with caution.

On the ﬁrst glance one can summarize that the intro-

duction of gamiﬁcation in the second semester lead to

the improvements of grades and active cooperation in

class. But there are also various other factors to con-

sider. First, the teacher was new both in school and

in class and students need time to adapt to a teaching

style. Furthermore, most of the students’ grades in-

crease towards summer, because they want good end

results.

6 CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK

In summary, it can be stated that there is no one-size-

ﬁts all design for the successful installation of gamiﬁ-

cation into a lesson. Diverse player types have various

traits and react different to the used game elements.

Pedro et al. show that game mechanics in a par-

ticular game have different effects for students with

different genders (Pedro et al., 2015). They stud-

ied female and male students in standard educational

systems versus virtual learning environments (VLE).

While girls felt more pressure during the the gamiﬁed

lessons, boys were more motivated and received bet-

ter scores compared to the standard educational sys-

tem. Overall, one can summarize that in educational

context it is important to consider gender differences

to draw better conclusions about the impact on mo-

tivation and learning (Pedro et al., 2015). There was

not a single female student in both of the classes of the

pilot study. This is why in future research we have to

concentrate on female students as well.

As it turned out, the concepts of gamiﬁcation

helped this particular class in the pilot study to en-

hance their grades. The next step will be the evalu-

ation of the “BrainHex” player types and the possi-

ble correlation of the player type and the educational

achievements of the corresponding student. Further-

more, it is planned to take a closer look at the sec-

ond group of the pilot phase as well. Those students

had their lesson just once a week and the group was

signiﬁcant smaller. A detailed analysis of their par-

ticipation in class and grades, as well as the compar-

ison of both groups may provide further information

of how ﬂexible the applied gamiﬁcation platform and

game elements are and how they perform on different

player types.

REFERENCES

Andrade, F., Mizoguchi, R., and Isotani, S. (2016). The

bright and dark sides of gamiﬁcation. volume 9684,

pages 1–11.

Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players

who suit muds.

Classcraft (2019). Classcraft - komplette plattform f

bildungs-gamiﬁzierung. Available at https://www.

classcraft.com/de/.

Crx4Chrome (2019). Classcraft 1.0 screenshot. Available

at https://www.crx4chrome.com/screenshot/ 36962/ .

Cugelman, B. (2013). Gamiﬁcation: What it is and why it

matters to digital health behavior change developers.

JMIR Serious Games, 1(1):e3.

Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L., and Dixon, D. (2011).

Gamiﬁcation: Toward a deﬁnition. pages 12–15.

Dicheva, D., Irwin, K., and Dichev, C. (2019). Gamifying

with oneup: For learning, grades or fun? In Gentile,

M., Allegra, M., and S

obke, H., editors, Games and

Learning Alliance, pages 343–353, Cham. Springer

International Publishing.

Gabriel, S. (2018). Was Schule von digitalen Spielen lernen

kann. Open Online Journal for Research and Educa-

tion, pages 259–264.

Gruber, M. J., Gelman, B. D., and Ranganath, C.

(2014). States of Curiosity Modulate Hippocampus-

Dependent Learning via the Dopaminergic Circuit.

Neuron, 84(2):486–496.

Ifenthaler, D. (2019). The abc-model of game-design.

Available at https:// www.researchgate.net/ﬁgure/

The-ABC-model-of-game-design-Ifenthaler-in-press

ﬁg1 328465807.

IRMA, I. R. M. A. (2018). Gamiﬁcation in education:

Breakthroughs in research and practice. IGI Global.

Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the arcs model

of instructional design. Journal of instructional devel-

opment, 10(3):2.

Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., and Salen, K. (2009). Moving

learning games forward. The Education Arcade.

Knapp, K. M. (2012). The Gamiﬁcation of Learning and

Instruction: Game-based Methods and Strategies for

Training and Education - Karl M. Kapp - Google

Books. ASTD, New York, 1 edition.

Lee, J. and Hammer, J. (2011). Gamiﬁcation in education:

What, how, why bother? Academic Exchange Quar-

terly, 15:1–5.

Millar, D., Roshan Patel, H., and Hornsby, A.-J. (2010).

Solving Preadolescent Anti Socialism Through Play.

Technical report.

Nacke, L., Bateman, C., and Mandryk, R. (2011). Brainhex:

Preliminary results from a neurobiological gamer ty-

pology survey. volume 6972, pages 288–293.

Pedro, L. Z., Lopes, A. M. Z., Prates, B. G., Vassileva, J.,

and Isotani, S. (2015). Does gamiﬁcation work for

boys and girls?: An exploratory study with a virtual

learning environment. In Proceedings of the 30th An-

nual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC

’15, pages 214–219, New York, NY, USA. ACM.

Immersion into the World of Gaming: An Approach of Introducing Gamiﬁcation in an Educational Context

251

Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J., McCarthy, I., and

Pitt, L. (2015). Game on: Engaging customers and

employees through gamiﬁcation. Business Horizons,

59.

Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic

Motivations: Classic Deﬁnitions and New Directions.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25:54–67.

Sanchez, E., Young, S., and Jouneau-Sion, C. (2017). Class-

craft: from gamiﬁcation to ludicization of classroom

management. Education and Information Technolo-

gies, 22(2):497–513.

Simoes, J., D

ıaz Redondo, R., and Vilas, A. (2012). A social

gamiﬁcation framework for a k-6 learning platform.

Computers in Human Behavior, 29.

Stefanidis, A., Phalp, K., and Ali, R. (2018). Conceptualis-

ing gamiﬁcation risks to teamwork within enterprise.

In The Practice of Enterprise Modeling: 11th IFIP

WG 8.1. Working Conference, PoEM 2018, Vienna,

Austria, October 31–November 2, 2018, Proceedings,

volume 335, page 105. Springer.

Taylor, G., Jungert, T., Mageau, G. A., Schattke, K., Dedic,

H., Rosenﬁeld, S., and Koestner, R. (2014). A self-

determination theory approach to predicting school

achievement over time: The unique role of intrinsic

motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,

39(4):342–358.

CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

252