PonG: Parcours on Gamification - How to Get Educators

Gamification-ready

Corinna Lehmann, Helge Fischer, Matthias Heinz and Josefin Mueller

Media Design Centre, Technische Universität Dresden, Strehlener Str. 22/24, 01069, Dresden, Germany

Keywords: Gamification Readiness, Gamification Framework, Train-the-Trainer, Game based Learning.

Abstract: This paper introduces the Parcours on Gamification (PonG), designed by the cluster Digital Learning and

Gaming Cultures of the Media Centre of the Technische Universität Dresden. The proposed concept

encompasses three main ideas. 1) It introduces the concept Gamification Readiness for educators as an

opportunity to self-reflect on the role and mindset needed to gamify a classroom. 2) It is a workshop concept

(train-the-trainer/educator) designed as a game itself that not only helps train educators but combines ideas of

game-design thinking with concepts of learner-centered frames. And 3) as a process model, it supports

educators to transfer their teaching content into gamified scenarios matched to their general conditions. PonG

is also designed to address the use of gamification in contexts independent of the educational institution. By

focusing on the trainer/teacher/educator, PonG enables them to adapt their own teaching-learning scenario

and enhance it with gamification elements. The main goal of PonG is to support educators to make their

classroom a creative playground and learning space by using game elements. As PonG is still in progress, the

paper gives an overview of its current development.

1 INTRODUCTION

Games or single game elements do not only offer

entertainment but are also suitable for teaching to

motivate the learner. However, a look at educational

practice shows that educators are hesitant when it

comes to the use of game elements in formal

education in schools or institutions of higher

education. Many teachers and lecturers are often

sceptical about the possibilities of gamification or

don’t feel gamification-ready. The Parcours on

Gamification (PonG) is a train-the-trainer-concept

that aims to rediscover play as an intuitive learning

method, to expose games as a didactical method and

to support its transfer into classrooms. To increase the

intrinsic motivation of its participants the workshop

concept is designed to enable the participants to learn

about gamification through a gamified learning

environment, divided in different stages (Parcours).

Starting with defining specific terms with regards

to gamification, this paper focuses on introducing

Gamification Readiness of educators, the change

within the mindset of educators, and essential

competencies to gamify a classroom. In the third

section the PonG is defined and delineated and

includes an examination of its didactical basis. The

last section sums up this paper and gives a short

outlook on future steps.

1.1 Play, Game, Game-based Learning

and Gamification

To begin, defining the terms play, game, game-based

learning and gamification is essential, as these terms

are to be understood very differently. The origin of

learning through playing goes way back. In 1938

Johan Huizinga introduced the concept “homo

ludens” proposing that humans develop cultural

habits and understanding through playing as well as

they discover their own personality by making

experiences through play. “In play there is something

’at play‘ which transcends the immediate needs of life

and imparts meaning to the action. All play means

something” (Huizinga, 1951, p. 1). Huizinga

therefore characterises play as follows: “The need for

it is only urgent to the extent that the enjoyment of it

makes it a need. Play can be deferred or suspended at

any time. It is never imposed by physical necessity or

moral duty. It is never a task. […] it is free, is in fact

freedom. […] that play is not "ordinary" or "real" life.

It is rather a stepping out of "real" life into a

temporary sphere of activity with a disposition all of

Lehmann, C., Fischer, H., Heinz, M. and Mueller, J.

PonG: Parcours on Gamiﬁcation - How to Get Educators Gamiﬁcation-ready.

DOI: 10.5220/0009804406870693

In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2020), pages 687-693

ISBN: 978-989-758-417-6

687

its own” (1951, p. 8). In contrary, the term “Game can

be defined as: A system in which players engage in

an abstract challenge, defined by rules, interactivity,

and feedback, that results in a quantifiable outcome

often eliciting an emotional reaction” (Kapp, 2012, p.

37). So game is, compared to play, a system where

rules are predefined to challenge the participant in a

pretended way. Guided by feedback a behavioural

change is the main and pre-set goal. But nevertheless,

game, as well as play, should be enjoyed by the

participant, should be able to transfer its content into

a fictional world and should activate. The evolution

of digital technologies and with it the evolution of

video games has lead to a “growing acceptance of

digital games as mainstream entertainment [and] has

raised the question of how to take advantage of the

promise of digital games for educational purposes”

(Plass et al., 2015, p. 258). This is the main idea of

Game-Based learning.

Kapp et al. define gamification as “Using game-

based mechanics, aesthetics, and game thinking to

engage people, motivate action, promote learning,

and solve problems […]” (Kapp et al., 2014, p. 410).

Whereas Deterding et al. use Gamification as “[…]

the use of game design elements in non-game

contexts” (Deterding et al., 2011, p. 9, italic in

original) and emphasize a design focus and equate

gameful design with gamification. As the proposed

Parcours aims to increase the use of game (design)

elements within educational institutions, both

definitions draw a frame around the topics educators

need to go through.

1.2 Not All that Glitters is Gold

In addition, as the Parcours on Gamification (PonG)

draws a holistic picture of its topic, it also highlights

possible side effects, e.g. the effect on the learner’s

motivation. Gamification is mostly focused on

positive effects, which makes the research gap on

negative effects visible (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019).

In a literature review of 386 papers, Majuri, Koivisto

and Hamari (2018) found that most studies on

Gamification are mainly positively oriented (297), 74

are null or equal positive and negative, and just 15 are

mainly negatively oriented. Most studies report on the

addorfance points, score, XP (52); leaderboards,

ranking (43); badges, achievements, medals, trophies

(39) and challenges, quests, missions, tasks, clear

goals (37), while the most negative quantitative were

leaderboards and ranking with 3 out of 43 (Majuri,

Koivisto & Hamari, 2018). In general, there are a lot

of studies on gamification design, but a big gap when

it comes to considering negative effects (Toda, Valle

& Isotani, 2018). There is only one study about

negative effects of gamification in an educational

context by a systematic mapping, which classifies the

negative outcomes and identifies the gamification

design (Toda, Valle & Isotani, 2018). Toda, Valle and

Isotani (2018) identified the four negative effects to

include loss of performance (identified in 12 studies),

undesired behavior (9), indifference (5) and declining

effects (5). The identified game elements influencing

negative effects are (Toda, Valle & Isotani, 2018):

Leaderboards (identified in 14 studies), badge (13),

point (12), level (9), progression (4), social status (4),

instant feedback (3), avatar (3), social interaction (2),

economy (1), challenge (1) and narrative (1). The

concentration on the Point-Badge-Leaderboard

(PBL) approach is visible and influences most of the

game designs, which makes the consideration of

individual profiles, instructional and motivational

design theories necessary (Toda, Valle & Isotani,

2018). This is what PonG has to consider as well, in

order to allow a realistic view on the potentials of

gamification in the classroom.

2 ARE EDUCATORS READY FOR

A ROLE-CHANGING GAME?

It is fundamental for educators to think about the

transition of their role before starting to gamify a

classroom. They need to be ready to gamify. This

term – Gamification Readiness – combines the

needed intrinsic motivation of educators for using

game elements, having the ability to think outside the

box and implement ideas creatively as well as the

knowledge on gamification. In a study by Mueller

(2019), four main competencies could be detected -

openness, creativity, holistic thinking and expertise -

and are explained in the following section.

Gamification Readiness relies on these competencies

as a foundation and works to expand them.

2.1 Knowledge is Power

Playful learning can create new demands in the field

of education while at the same time work to support

learning process. Therefore, educators are faced with

the challenge of designing creative game scenarios on

the one hand, and integrating the desired learning

contribution, as well as the overall educational

objective on the other. For the playful imparting of

learning content in order to keep the students

motivated and promote their learning process,

specific skills are required.

GonCPL 2020 - Special Session on Gamiﬁcation on Computer Programming Learning

688

To determine which competencies educators are

specifically required for the use of gamification, an

empirical study was conducted between May and

August 2019. The aim of this study was to outline an

exemplary competence profile, which provides

information about the concrete skills and abilities

educators need to develop and implement for

gamification. A qualitative method was chosen for

the empirical study, because there is little previous

knowledge on the topic in literature and research.

Therefore, expert interviews were conducted to

obtain first results based on the experience of the

experts. In interviews of about 30 minutes six experts

were interviewed for this purpose. The sample

consisted of lecturers, project leaders and academic

staff who all are experienced in the development of

game-based applications and/or whose teaching and

research focus is on gamification and game-based

learning. The basis for the interviews was a

previously designed guideline which consisting of

four guiding questions. In addition to the interviews,

which were the primary source of data, a short

questionnaire was developed, which had to be

completed immediately after the interviews. The

questionnaire was based on the Competence Atlas by

John Erpenbeck and Volker Heyse (Heyse &

Erpenbeck, 2009, p. XIII). The scientists divide

competences into four basic competences, which they

differentiate again into 64 sub-competences. Using

the Competence Atlas, respondents should explicitly

name the competences they consider important for the

use of gamification.

To analyse the data material, the interviews were

first transcribed and then evaluated using the

qualitative content analysis by Kuckartz (2018). In

seven steps, the interview texts were initiated main

and sub-categories were formed deductively and

inductively, coded at the material, differentiated and

bundled. The evaluation and analysis process was

carried out by using the MAXQDA software. Due to

the small amount of data, the questionnaire was

evaluated with Excel. For this purpose, the results

were summed up and tabulated.

Based on the experience and information

provided by the experts, the following competencies

and prerequisites for the use of gamification were

identified from the interviews and the questionnaire.

Openness, Readiness for Change: Ability to

understand change as a learning situation and to act

accordingly; Being open to change, to new forms of

teaching and learning; Replacing old learning

formats; Ability to leave room for new reference

points; Adapt its actions to the changes; Acquiring the

resources necessary for change; Learning new tasks

and dealing with new technologies; eager to try out

new things.

Creativity: Ability to develop good and preferably

novel solutions to problems; Readiness to innovate;

Creation of something new and originality.

Comprehensive/Holistic Thinking: The ability to

incorporate other aspects into one's own objectives

and decision-making on the basis of sound

knowledge; Comprehensive view; Overview of the

entire concept; Consideration of diverse

interdependencies and other persons involved.

Expertise, Interdisciplinary Knowledge: Specific

knowledge about learning and games and the ability

to apply this knowledge; Know different types of

learners and players; Knowledge about the

characteristics of the game (game mechanics, flow

experience, incentive systems, game elements);

Consider different forms of learning (situated, action-

oriented learning); Integration of different constructs

and concepts for learning transfer (learning and

motivation theories, situated and action-oriented

learning); Media didactic knowledge.

Playing is fun. Playing motivates. In this way, an

interactive playful design and transformation of the

game elements into the real world can promote the

motivation and consequently the performance of the

students. Therefore, educators should replace

traditional teaching methods and be open to new ideas

in order to create new ways of teaching and learning.

In terms of gamification, this requires not only a

comprehensive overview, but especially creativity,

e.g. in storytelling. In addition, a general basic

understanding of games and game elements is

required and how these can be used in a targeted

manner. The listed competences are the first step

towards gamification.

2.2 Introducing Gamification

Readiness

As stated before, Gamification Readiness is a

consumption of different concepts. Currently, as this

framework is still a work in progress, describing

Gamification Readiness focuses on the results of the

study by Mueller (2019) as well as on the concept of

“Visible Learning” by John Hattie as this last one

postulates the general switch within the role of

educators: “It is less what teachers do in their

teaching, but more how they think about their role. It

is their mind frames, or ways of thinking about

teaching and learning, that are most critical” (Hattie,

2015, p. 81). From his paper “Rankings and Effect-

Sizes for 195 Influences on Student Achievement”

PonG: Parcours on Gamiﬁcation - How to Get Educators Gamiﬁcation-ready

689

(Hattie, 2015) a few can be applied also to the

educators mindset needed for gamifying learning

content as shown in table 1.

Table 1: Influences on Student Achievement according to

Hattie transferred to Gamification Readiness.

Influences on Student

Achievement

Transformation to

Gamification Readiness

Teacher estimates of

achievement

Define the goal of game

Classroom discussion

Solving a task together while

playing

Teacher clarity Give clear rules/goals

Creativity programs

Being creative in transferring

learning outcomes

Gamification Readiness, therefore, emphasizes the

following summarized characteristics:

 Being able to describe clearly the rules of a game

as well as the intended learning outcome

including the impact for the student is evident.

 Being able to not show the learning path but to

guide learners on their self-chosen paths. Being

able to let go of past ways of teaching.

 Being able to communicate that mistakes are

good.

 Being able to think creatively.

 Being able to give individual and prompt

feedback.

As Gamification Readiness is an important part of the

PonG, future work will lead to more detailed

competencies and descriptions.

3 CREATING A PLAYGROUND

PonG is all about being able to experience these

competencies through playing as well as getting to

know detailed information on how to use them for the

gamification of classrooms. In summary:

 PonG is intended for train-the-trainer

qualifications.

 It leads educators through steps of gamification,

e.g. how to create a gamified lesson or lecture.

 One of the main characteristics of PonG is that it

inherently gamified as well. Hence, educators are

able to gain gaming experiences

(positive/negative) in the sense of a guided self-

reflection. This is needed for a learner

(participant/student/pupil) centered perspective

during their own conception process.

 PonG is broad reaching, i.e. expandable.

Participants get to know the basic paradigms,

phases and steps to gamify a classroom, but there

is room left for individual extensions, e.g. the use

of special technologies, for instance a specific

learning management system.

 PonG is a meta-framework, which takes up and

integrates existing frameworks and concepts or

their elements.

3.1 There is No Reason to Reinvent the

Wheel

According to a non-representative literature review

on gamification of classrooms, game-based learning

models and gamifying learning content, structural

models as well as process models were researched.

For instance, the Mechanics, Dynamics and

Aesthetics (MDA) Framework “attempts to bridge

the gap between game design and development, game

criticism, and technical game research” (Hunicke et

al., 2004, Abstract). It is a structural model where

games are to be seen as artefacts designed to create

behaviour via interaction. Therefore, the MDA

framework “formalizes the consumption of games”

into three components: rules, system and fun and

establishes “design counterparts” for each:

Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics (Hunicke et al.,

2004, section MDA). As a result, the MDA

framework also points out two perspectives: the

designer´s perspective and the one of the player.

Designers have a look at mechanics first, the other

two (dynamics and aesthetics) are their product.

Whereas, players experience the aesthetics first which

“set the tone” (Hunicke et al., 2004, section MDA in

Detail). Other models that also follow the direction of

a structural model are, for example, the frameworks

by Chou and Kapp, as you can find in the systematic

review of gamification design frameworks by Mora

et. al (2017)

In contrary, the Learning Mechanics-Game

Mechanics (LM-GM) framework can be classified

between a pure structural and a pure process model as

it points out a “set of pre-defined game mechanics and

pedagogical elements” that help designers and

analysts to “identify and highlight […] main

pedagogical and entertainment features [of the

game]” (Lim et al., 2013, Abstract). Resulting in a

map, all learning mechanics and gaming mechanics

are matched, therefore be identified and help analyse

their relationships. It works as a basis for further steps

and for a process of creating a game.

In contrast Baldeon et al. introduced A LEarner-

centered GAmification Design Framework (LEGA),

which takes into account that “game-based thinking

and game mechanics within the classroom” needs to

focus on “educational aspects such as intended

GonCPL 2020 - Special Session on Gamiﬁcation on Computer Programming Learning

690

learning outcomes [...], learning styles […], learning

activities […] and learning mechanics […] (Baldeon

et al., 2016, Abstract). Unlike the LM-GM framework

LEGA aims to guide teachers through a process

starting with their intended learning outcomes and

learning activities and transfer these into “suitable

gamified learning mechanics” (Baldeon et al., 2016).

Within this category Marczewskis (2014)

frameworks can be named as well, because it is a

useful guide to approach the topic of gamification.

Other models that need to be considered in future

work are shown in Kim and Lee (2015) as well as in

Wongso, Rosmansyah and Bandung (2014).

3.2 Using Design Thinking as Core of

PonG

The frameworks mentioned above represent three

thematic focuses that are to be addressed in the PonG:

1) developing a game or incorporating game

elements, adopting different perspectives (designer

and player/learner), 2) creating a balance between

playing and learning, and 3) instructions for

implementing learning goals through play (as a whole

game or using game elements). As this paper shows

the state-of-the-art, these subjects will be extended

within the future work.

In order to put these thematic focuses into a

creative workshop-context, the method of design

thinking will serve as a template for the stations of the

PonG. Design thinking is a creative and problem-

solving method, which focuses on collaborative

works and triggers solutions by changing the points

of view. This method helps educators to get into a

creative process where they get to experience the

switch into the role of the learner (dSchool, 2010).

Design thinking also helps educators to identify their

own learning goals and define learning outcomes as

well as to creatively discover how to meet them. A

peculiarity of design thinking results from its

dynamics. The rigid sequence of linear development

processes becomes an iterative procedure, with the

learner in the center, as for instance the use of design

thinking methods for learner experience in game

based learning projects (Schade et. al (2019). The

development of gamification scenarios should not

only convey knowledge, but also arouse positive

emotions, which require a strong orientation of

development processes to the individual requirements

of the learner and the characteristics of the learning

environment. Therefore, the current work is to

translate the stages of design thinking into the

intended Workshop stations and to gamify them.

As follows, the six stages are introduced as well

as methods/items are listed that are to be taught to

educators during PonG. Cited research works

exemplify the scientific basis for every stage.

Understand: An effective method can only be found

if the learning situation has really been understood.

That is why the first step in design thinking is to

understand the situation. Methods/Items:

Stakeholders and their relation; learning environment

and technical equipment; needs and expectations.

Example for scientific basis of this step: user analysis

(Morschheuser, Werder, Hamari & Abe, 2018)

Empathize: In the second phase, the aim is to find out

the needs, fears, perspectives and emotions of the

people involved in the learning situation.

Methods/Items: Player type and learning style

(learner); teaching style, Gamification Readiness,

resources (teacher). Example for scientific basis of

this step: Marczewski, 2014. Gamification

Framework.

Define: In this phase, the most important insights

from the first two phases "understand" and "empathy"

are merged to derive requirements. Methods/Items:

Learning goals and learning journey; curriculum and

learning content. Example for scientific basis of this

step: Bloom's Revised Taxonomy.

Ideate: The systematic development of ideas is one of

the most important phases in the development of

gamified learning arrangements. Methods/Items:

Game elements and game strategies; balance between

game and learning mechanics; tools and

infrastructure. Example for scientific basis of this

step: GameFlow (Sweetser & Wyeth, 2005); Key

Characteristics of a Learning Game (Malone, 1981).

Prototype: Prototyping is at the heart of the creative

process. The results of the previous phases in that

stage are converted into a tangible product.

Methods/Items: Visualisations and role play; paper

and digital Prototypes; learner feedback. Example for

scientific basis of this step: Prototype development

(Schade, Heinz, Fischer & Schulz, 2019).

Implement: The implementation phase is about trying

out the gamified learning scenario in practice and

getting feedback from learners. Methods/Items: User

tests and user statistics; Evaluation and assessment;

Observation and reflection. Example for scientific

basis of this step: Evaluation and user statistics of a

gamified service (Heinz, Fischer, Heitz &

Breitenstein, 2018).

PonG: Parcours on Gamiﬁcation - How to Get Educators Gamiﬁcation-ready

691

3.3 Learning about Games by Playing

Them

The PonG is designed as a Parcour of games, so

participants learn about gamification while they play

games. To illustrate this, the station empathize is

taken as example. “Empathy is the foundation of

human-centered design. The problems you´re trying

to solve are rarely your own, they´re those of

particular users. Build empathy for your users by

learning their values” (dSchool, 2010). Supported

with papers, scissors, pens, glue, etc. participants of

PonG will design personas, including their identity

and information about their life (age, profession,

hobbies, favourite food, needs, fears, etc.). In role-

plays one participant puts himself/herself in a persona

and can be interviewed by the others. The aim is to

get a detailed picture of the target group and its

environment, probably some inside information that

help to understand the learners, including their needs

and difficulties. Another option is to introduce

participants to the Gamification Player/User Types

HEXAD Model by Marczewski (2014) and

characterise every player-type in detail. Afterwards

the participants play the well-known board game

"Mensch ärgere dich nicht" (board game “Ludo”),

whereby each person embodies a different player-

type and lives it out in the game.

4 CONCLUSIONS

The use of game elements in non-gaming contexts

allows new didactical and motivation horizons that

promise a high potential also in the education sector,

independent of the educational institution. In order to

exploit this potential, the PonG will focus on

educators as the “executing” stakeholders. The aim of

PonG is to give them the opportunity to learn about

gamification while experiencing a gamified

workshop. PonG tries to go a new way, in which

different topics (also critical points concerning

gamification) are explored by the educators

themselves using the creative method of design

thinking. The special focus on Gamification

Readiness allows teachers to reflect on whether the

needed competencies, mindset and change of role can

be carried into the classroom. Future tasks will be to

develop more items for all stages, relate scientific

approaches to each item as well as to transfer every

stage into games. In the second half of 2020 the

concept will be tested in pilot workshops, e.g. at the

Hochschuldidaktisches Zentrum Sachsen (didactic

centre for institutions of higher education in Saxony,

a German federal state). The evaluation after every

trial will show, if the concept is working and what to

improve. By this iterative process, with the scientific

literature on frameworks and within the cluster

Digital Learning and Gaming Cultures it should be

possible to create an adequate workshop for educators

to sensitive them for the use of game elements in

learning environments, and as a consequence, to

make them gamification ready.

REFERENCES

Baldeon, J., Rodriguez Santiago, I., Puig, A. (2016). LEGA:

A LEarner-centered GAmification Design Framework.

Retrieved January, 15 2020 from https://

www.researchgate.net/publication/311317334_LEGA

_A_LEarner-

centered_GAmification_Design_Framework

(15.01.2020)

d.school (2010). An introduction to design thinking process

guide. Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford.

Retrieved February 7, 2020 from https://

static1.squarespace.com/static/57c6b79629687fde090a

0fdd/t/5b19b2f2aa4a99e99b26b6bb/1528410876119/d

school_bootleg_deck_2018_final_sm+%282%29.pdf

Erpenbeck, J., Heyse, V. 2007. Die Kompetenzbiographie:

Wege der Kompetenzentwicklung (2. Ed.).: Waxmann.

Münster, Germany.

Hattie, J., 2015. The applicability of Visible Learning to

higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and

Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79–91.

Heinz, M., Fischer, H., Heitz, R. & Breitenstein, M. 2018.

Gamified Study Assistance - Motivational Design For

First-Year-Students. Proceedings of IAC in Dresden

2018. Prague. Czech Institute of Academic Education

z.s., S. 111-117.

Huizinga, J., 1951. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-

Element in Culture. Retrieved February 7, 2020 from:

http://art.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/1474/homo_lude

ns_johan_huizinga_routledge_1949_.pdf

Hunicke, R., Leblanc, M.G., & Zubek, R., 2004. MDA: A

Formal Approach to Game Design and Game

Research. Retrieved January, 10 2020 from

https://users.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf

Kapp, K.M., 2012. The gamification of learning and

instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for

training and education. Pfeiffer. San Francisco, USA.

Kim, J.T., Lee, W. 2015. Dynamical model for gamification

of learning (DMGL). Multimedia Tools Appl. 74,

8483–8493.

Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J., 2019. The rise of motivational

information systems: A review of gamification

literature. International Journal of Information

Management, 45, 191-210.

Kuckartz, U., 2018. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden,

Praxis, Computerunterstützung (4. Ed.).: Beltz

Juventa.Weinheim, Germany.

GonCPL 2020 - Special Session on Gamiﬁcation on Computer Programming Learning

692

Lim, T., Carvalho, M.B., Bellotti, F., Arnab, S., Freitas,

S.D., Louchart, S., Suttie, N., Berta, R., & Gloria, A.D.,

2013. The LM-GM framework for Serious Games

Analysis. Retrieved January, 10 2020 from

https://seriousgamessociety.org/wp-

content/uploads/2016/09/lmgm_framework.pdf

Majuri, J., Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J., 2018. Gamification of

Education and Learning: A Review of Empirical

Literature. In Proceedings of the 2nd International

GamiFIN conference (pp. 11-19). (CEUR Workshop

Proceedings; Vol. 2186). CEUR-WS.

Malone, T.W. 1981. Toward a Theory of Intrinsically

Instruction. COGNITIVE SCIENCE, Vol. 5, Issue 4,

October 1981 (333-369).

Marczewski, A. 2014. Gamification Framework. Retrieved

February 27, 2020 from https://www.gamified.uk/

gamification-framework/

Morschheuser, B., Hassan, L., Werder, K., & Hamari, J.

2018. How to design gamification? A method for

engineering gamified software. Information and

Software Technology, 95, 219-237. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.infsof.2017.10.015

Mora, A., Riera, D., González, C. & Arnedo-Moreno, J.

2017. Gamification: a systematic review of design

frameworks. Journal of Computing in High Education,

29, 516–548.

Mueller, J., 2019. Konzeption eines Kompetenzprofils für

Spiel- und Lerndesigner. Unpublished master thesis.

Technische Universität Dresden. Dresden, Germany.

Plass, J. L., Homer, B.D., Kinzer, C. K., 2015. Foundations

of Game-Based Learning. Educational Psychologist,

50:4, 258-283. Retrieved February 7, 2020 from:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/004615

20.2015.1122533?needAccess=true.

Sweetser, P., Wyeth, P. 2005. GameFlow: a model for

evaluating player enjoyment in games. ACM

Computers in Entertainment. Vol. 3, No. 3, July 2005.

Toda, A., Valle, P. H. & Isotani, S., 2018. The Dark Side of

Gamification: An Overview of Negative Effects of

Gamification in Education. In Cristea, A., Bittencourt,

I. & Lima, F. (Eds.), Higher Education for All. From

Challenges to Novel Technology-Enhanced Solutions.

Proceedings of the First International Workshop on

Social, Semantic, Adaptive and Gamification

Techniques and Technologies for Distance Learning,

HEFA 2017, Maceió, Brazil, March 20–24, 2017,

Revised Selected Papers (pp. 143-156).

Communications in Computer and Information

Science, vol. 832. Springer. Cham, Germany.

Schade, C., Heinz, M., Fischer, H. & Schulz, S. 2019.

Between Learning Objectives and Learning

Experience: Methods for the Development of Game

Based Learning Scenarios. In L. Elbæk, G. Majgaard,

A. Valente & S. Khalid (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th

European Conference on Games Based Learning, 3-4

October 2019, The University of Southern Denmark

Odense, Denmark (S. 605-613). Reading, UK: ACPI.

Wongso, O., Rosmansyah, Y., & Bandung, Y. 2014.

Gamification framework model, based on social

engagement in e-learning 2.0. 2nd International

Conference on Technology, Informatics, Management,

Engineering & Environment, 10-14.

PonG: Parcours on Gamiﬁcation - How to Get Educators Gamiﬁcation-ready

693