Research (Jon and Eric)

The term “gamification” has been around since 2008, and researchers have been investigating its impact beginning approximately 2010. On the aggregate, research has found that gamification provides positive outcomes in education and other settings (Aulia et al., 2022; Hung, 2017; Nacke & Deterding, 2017; Rapp et al., 2019; Scepanovic et al., 2015).

Game-based learning and gamification are directly connected to play. The importance of play has for some time now been recognized by psychologists as being an integral part of cognitive development and learning (Plass et al., 2015). Play activates mental structures that allow children to go beyond their immediate reality. They can pretend an object is something else, while at the same time knowing what the object is. They can hold in their mind multiple representations of the same object. This skill is required for developing symbolic thinking (Plass et al. 2015).

Game-based learning and gamification are now being looked at more carefully as ways of benefiting student learning. 21st-century learning includes critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication. More and more researchers and educational professionals are asking how digital games and gaming elements can help enhance these skills (Qian & Clark, 2016).

Select studies focused on game mechanics as a basis for determining the effectiveness of a gamified scenario. Aulia et al. (2022) found that participants responded more favourably to badges, points, and leaderboards in that particular order. Nacke and Deterding (2017) confirmed that badges, points, and leaderboards increased a participant’s performance; however, it was not through intrinsic motivation. Scepanovic et al. (2018) conducted a specific study to determine if game design elements impacted motivation or engagement. They found success overall, except for the use of avatars. In their study, they also found that badges, points, and leaderboards had positive effects.

The notion of negative impacts was also analyzed. Aulia et al. (2022) and Scepanovic et al. (2018) found that there were generally no negative impacts from using badges, points, and leaderboards. However, the competitiveness of leaderboards was a deterrent, according to An (2020). Other game elements, such as time tracking and avatars, were negatively looked upon by participants as they produced pressure or embarrassment, respectively (Scepanovic et al., 2018).

Regarding the impact of games on learning, two popular approaches are often discussed. They are the cognitive and sociocultural perspectives. Through these perspectives, games can either be motivating environments that require the learner to process excessive amounts of information, or they provide the learner with rich sources of information and human interaction needed for 21st-century learning (Plass et al., 2015).

Games are a complex genre of learning environments and cannot be understood by taking only one perspective (Qian & Clark, 2016). For games to be useful in a learning environment, cognitive, affective, motivational, and sociocultural theoretical foundations must be considered. The emphasis of each perspective also depends on the intention and design of the game (Qian & Clark, 2016).

Effective learning is situational, allows students to be active participants, and is problem-based. Effective learning also requires immediate feedback given to students in the learning environment (Qian & Clark, 2016). Well-designed educational games can support these areas and can offer opportunities for authentic collaboration (Qian & Clark, 2016).

The focus on how gamified systems produce better outcomes than non-gamified systems is shifting to how gamification can bring about certain outcomes, specifically how individual game mechanics impact individual behavioural outcomes (Rapp et al., 2019).

One of the most frequently cited reasons to use digital games in an educational context is that it allows multiple ways to engage learners. Another argument for game-based learning and gamification is that failure is expected and sometimes necessary to move forward. Failure is part of the learning process (Plass et al., 2015).

One major theme that arose was a divide between applied and theoretical research. As previously mentioned, the applied research tended to focus on game mechanics. Theoretical research was indicated to be lacking. Nacke and Deterding (2017) discussed how self-determination theory and goal setting needed further exploration. They argued the need as both theoretical approaches were tied more closely with intrinsic motivation than the external motivation of badges, points, and leaderboards. Rapp et al. (2019) also indicated that research was mainly focused on the short-term outcomes that are associated with extrinsic motivators.

Moving forward, the studies offered several paths to further gamification research. Rapp et al. (2019) suggested that researchers look into common language respective to gamification research, different ways participants can interact vis a vis human-computer interaction, and finally, into the ethics of gamification. Scepanovic et al. (2018) recommended that a teacher’s viewpoint be explored, as most research was restricted to participants' experiences. Aulia et al. (2022) directed their study toward the positive effects of gamification. They suggested further research should focus on what negative effects are generated from gamification. Finally, Nacke and Deterding (2017) argued that future research should involve the design of studies that assess both psychological and behavioural outcomes.