THE EFFECT OF INDIVIDUAL GAMIFICATION ELEMENTS IN INTRINSIC MOTIVATION AND
PERFORMANCE
Amos Peter1*, Carolyn Salimun2, Esmadi Abu Abu Seman3
1,2,3 Faculty of Computing and Informatics, University Malaysia Sabah, Labuan, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: [email protected] Accepted: 1 October 2019 | Published: 15 October 2019
________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Gamification is a growing trend that has the potential to improve user’s motivation and performance in e-learning. However, it is still heavily debated as there is an ongoing discussion within the gamification community whether individual gamification elements may actually weaken or improve user’s intrinsic motivation and performance. To date, study on the effects of individual gamification elements is still yet underexplored making it difficult to understand whether individual gamification element may prove beneficial or harmful to intrinsic motivation and performance. Based on self-determination theory and flow theory, this paper presents the results of the study on the effects of three commonly employed game elements– points, leaderboard, and badges on student’s intrinsic motivations and performances in Mandarin language quiz. The findings of the study indicate that leaderboard and badge condition significantly higher than point condition in intrinsic motivation and performance.
The findings also suggest that leaderboard condition has a significantly higher level of performance than badges and points condition. However, leaderboard and badge condition has similar levels of intrinsic motivation. Future research direction on individual gamification elements is discussed and suggested in the conclusion section.
Keywords: Gamification, individual gamification elements, game elements, intrinsic motivation, performance
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
With the current progressive technology and the introduction of the internet to the world, many things have changed in the education sector. It is believed that the current generation of students is towards digital natives that used technology from early childhood. The growth of social networking sites and video games have influenced them with a new way of thinking and different learning preferences and this requires a new educational approach (Bourgonjon, Valcke, Soetaert, & Schellens, 2009; Prensky, 2011). Although technology keeps on progressing, this, however, did not hinder educator or researcher to search for new approaches to motivate students in the education sector. One of the popular approaches in education to improve user motivation is through gamification. Gamification commonly defined as the use of game elements in non-game context (Deterding, Sicart, Nacke, O’Hara, & Dixon, 2011). It is different from a computer or digital games where gamification simply takes the essence of games design elements such as points, levels, badges and leaderboard. These game elements, when applied into the non-gaming context also known as gamification, will make learning activity more engaging and fun. Gamification structure can be referred to MDA framework (Hunicke, LeBlanc, & Zubek, 2004) which introduced three basic components of the gamification: Mechanics (M), Dynamics (D) and Aesthetics (A). Game mechanics described
the particular rules and components of the game that can drive user actions, game dynamics describe how the rule manifest during actual gameplay based on the players’ input to the system as well as interactions among players, and game aesthetics is the desirable emotional responses evoked in the player when interacting with the game system (Ruhi, 2015)
In education, gamification has been identified to have a positive outcome in terms of motivation and engagement (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014). Engaged learners are more likely to want to perform better whereas motivated learners are likely to put more effort into their learning activities in order to reach the learning goal. motivation affordance in gamification often associated with Self Determination Theory (SDT). There are two main types of motivation as suggested by SDT which is intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Intrinsic motivation can be referred to as doing something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable where else extrinsic motivation refers to doing something because it leads to a separable outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000). SDT suggests that competence, relatedness and autonomy are the need satisfaction to maintain intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). These three motivational needs when afforded through game elements, have been found to increase intrinsic motivation in people (Aparicio, Vela, Sánchez, & Montes, 2012).
Likewise, when these needs are thwarted, people will become disaffected and withdraw (Skinner & Pitzer, 2012). Competence relates to the understanding on how to attain various external and internal outcomes and being effective in performing the necessary actions, autonomy describes as the ability to being self-initiating and self-regulating of one’s own actions and relatedness is referred developing satisfying connections with others (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991). Cognitive evaluation theory (CET) which is a sub-theory of SDT, stated that external events such as reward and feedback that conduce toward feelings of competence and accompanied by a sense of autonomy can enhance intrinsic motivations (Ryan & Deci, 2000). gamification concept generally performs as external events that influence intrinsic as suggested in CET.
2. Related Study
Game Elements of Points, Badges and Leaderboard
The most commonly employed game elements in several contexts including education were points, badges and leaderboard (Hamari et al., 2014; Koivisto & Hamari, 2019; Majuri, Koivisto, & Hamari, 2018; Seaborn & Fels, 2015). Points, badges and leaderboard (PBL) are also recognized as the PBL triads (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). PBLs are still considered common within the gamification as these elements consider foundation in building a gamification application. Another reason is that these elements may be inserted as additional to an existing system without undue effort (Mekler, Brühlmann, Tuch, & Opwis, 2017). Further to this, applying PBL in the right way will enhance the application in a way that these elements become practical and powerful for the user (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). One strong criticism of gamification elements study is that gamification study often grouped or combine game elements to be tested at once. Thus, there is little understanding of identifying which of the elements produced the desired effects. Previous studies have acknowledged these as a problem within the field of gamification research (Hamari et al., 2014; Koivisto & Hamari, 2019;
Seaborn & Fels, 2015). Correspondingly, it is essential to understanding PBL individually and by that understanding may lead to better design of gamification. Beside, Researcher should pay more attention to pre-determinants of gamification success (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019) where understanding individually game elements such beforehand could potentially improve gamification application significantly. Thus, the definition and role of PBL from previous
studies could be the foundation for understanding PBL. Points are the basic elements of a multitude of games and gamified application (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011). They are typically rewarded for the successful completion of certain activities within the gamified environment. Points also serve to numerically represent a player’s progress.
One of the most primary purposes of points is to provide feedback. Points allow players’ in- game behaviour to be measured and at the same time provide immediate feedback. Badges, on the other hand, are described as visual representations of achievement (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). Badges also provide feedback where they indicate how the players have performed.
Badges can be earned or collected within the gamification environment as well as an indicator to confirm the player’s achievements, symbolize their merits (Anderson, Huttenlocher, Kleinberg, & Leskovec, 2013). Beside, Badges are very helpful in maintaining user’s motivation by leading them to perform a certain task in order to collect the badges thus influence them to engage with present and future tasks (Nah, Zeng, Telaprolu, Ayyappa, &
Eschenbrenner, 2014). Finally, leaderboard is a scoreboard system that allows users to see how their result with other users (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011) in a way that helps determine who performs best. Thus, it becomes a competitive indicator of progress that relates the player’s own performances to others. The competitive environment helps to motivate users to perform better than the others and even previous literature review reported that these game elements it the most motivating one for students (Nah et al., 2014).
Intrinsic Motivation
The study of gamification on motivation and performance in e-learning is not new. In previous gamification studies, rewards and feedback such as the use of game mechanics of points, badges and leaderboard prove to be successful to increase motivation. However, there is literature from the psychology of motivation point of view suggest that intrinsic motivation can be undermined by the application of an extrinsic reward [7]. This indicates that although game mechanics might improve user motivation and performance yet does not necessarily imply on intrinsic motivation. Perhaps game mechanics perceive as an extrinsic incentive might affect negatively on user’s intrinsic motivation. A previous study agrees with this issue and suggests that game mechanics, when applied in e-learning, did not improve education outcomes and harm intrinsic motivations (Hanus & Fox, 2015). The reason behind this might because of the gamified system found to be controlling for the user and reduce user satisfaction need of autonomy which affects negatively on competence needs. Cognitive evaluation theory suggests that if the external reward perceived to be controlled, it can cause the user to be less competent and reduce intrinsic motivation. Another study stated that reward in gamification can actually bring a controlling aspect that leads to loss of internal motivations (Nicholson, 2012). However, this does not necessarily lead to a negative result where external reward could improve significantly user performance without taking consideration of intrinsic motivations. One of the few studies investigate the effects of individual game mechanics propose that game mechanics improve user performances (Mekler et al., 2017). Individual game mechanics were employed on image tagging task for their study (Mekler et al., 2017). It is also noticeable that leaderboard and levels in their study prove better outcome in terms of performances compare to points conditions. Indeed, their result shows that game mechanics successfully improve user performances however it did not affect intrinsic motivation where the participants reportedly have similar levels of intrinsic motivation. This is possibly because of the design of the task insufficient to improve the level of competence mainly because the task was not designed to be challenging enough for the user to increase their intrinsic motivation. Challenge is describing as the focal point of motivation to allow enjoyable experience for the user (Deterding, 2015) thus potentially increase intrinsic motivation. Another study on individual
game elements also suggests that game mechanics successfully improve user engagement (Huang & Hew, 2015). Their study also stated that badge and leaderboard prove better than point condition to motivate user to be more engage in learning activity. However, their study lack information on motivational affordance for each gamified condition especially on intrinsic motivation aspect to justify to what extent the user’s intrinsic motivation influence user’s engagement. further to this, their study also did not have clear information on individual game mechanics make it hard to understand the impact of individual game mechanics on motivation and engagement. Overall, current research on the effect of individual game mechanics on intrinsic motivation and performance is still scared and hard to justify individual game mechanics could increase intrinsic motivation and influence user to perform better.
Research Design
Figure 1 describes the theoretical framework fundamental to the design of this study. The framework is based upon previous literature as well as from the current assumption that was developed in this study. Based on past theory for instances, the fundamental of gamification in influencing user motivation is game mechanics (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). In recent year, points, badges and leaderboard game mechanics were heavily examined and constantly being used in e-learning in an effort to improve user motivation and performances (Hamari et al., 2014). Game mechanics can serve as the feedback elements in an application that has the potential to enhance intrinsic motivation by supporting the psychological need for competence as suggested in cognitive evaluation theory. Each of these game mechanics could generate a different outcome that might be useful to any application to maximize its potential to improve user’s intrinsic motivation and performance. Points serve as a reward while badges can provide user progression and achievement. Leaderboard, on the other hand, allows for social comparison and user progression. Game mechanics in gamification can support intrinsic motivation if user perceived as informational which support competence motivation needs (Mekler et al., 2017). On the other hand, if the game mechanics in gamification perceived as control this can decrease intrinsic motivation (Mekler et al., 2017). However, game elements alone are not sufficient to increase intrinsic motivation, the task for gamified application should be designed to increase intrinsic motivation as well. In this study, challenge is the primary concern in designing a task where the challenge should be enjoyable, fun and support intrinsic motivation. To address these, Flow theory can be the basis for the gamification application design in this study. Flow was introduced by Csikszentmihalyi (Csikszentmihalyi, 2014) where user can achieve optimal experience when doing any activities. Flow is one of the most influential models of enjoyment (Deterding, 2015) where it’s drive user to be in an optimal experience state when performing task and senses a deep level of enjoyment. Challenge is the central precondition of flow experience and another condition of flow is immediate feedback (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). Flow proposes a concept of balance between user’s level of skills and challenges. When the tasks are too easy, user will feel bored. In contrast, when the tasks are too difficult for their level’s, they feel anxious. Challenge can bring enjoyable experience by creating a feeling of competence as suggested in flow theory and through the feeling of autonomy where user chooses to accept the challenge for the sake of fun and enjoyment. Therefore, designing a task that can support competence needs can be done through flow theory.
Figure 1: Theoretical framework for this study
3. Methodology
To investigate the effects of individual game elements on intrinsic motivation, and performances, between-subject experiment was conducted. The independent variable was the three of the most commonly game elements which are points, badges and leaderboards. The dependent variables were user performances (number of scores) and intrinsic motivation (Intrinsic Motivation Inventory questionnaire) that consists of subscales of interest/enjoyment, efforts, competence and autonomy.
Hypothesis
The study aims to expand upon existing research on individual gamification elements by investigating the effects of points, badges and leaderboards on participants’ performance and intrinsic motivations in mandarin language quiz. Hence, the following hypothesis was formulated:
H1: Badges and Leaderboard condition will have a higher significant level of intrinsic motivation compare to points condition.
H2: Badges and Leaderboard condition will have a higher significant level of performance compare to points condition.
H3: Intrinsic motivation positively predicts performance outcome.
Experiment Task
The participants were presented with a quiz application. The quiz was available for 1 hour and they were required to answer as many questions as possible. However, they can exit the task whenever they desire. The flow of the task is present in figure 2.
Start
Stage 1 Quiz
Finish
Finish Stage 2 Quiz
Stage 3 Quiz
Finish
Quit
Quit
Quit Answer
10 points awarded No points awarded
No
Continue
Continue No
Restart Game No
Correct Wrong
Figure 2: Flow experiment task
Stimuli Design
A custom application was developed using Unity game engine which runs on windows platform. The stimuli design was identical for three groups differ only in the game elements of points, badges and leaderboards. To design the stimuli, 3 essential aspects were identified:
Game design elements (Points, badges, leaderboard), feedback, and challenge.
Game Elements
Point’s Condition: The user received 10 points for each task was completed. The points score was reflected on the top left of the screen as shown in figure 3. The points score given acted as completion of the task and serve to give direct feedback for incentive purpose. This provides a clear and, immediate and unambiguous link between incentive and performance.
Figure 3: Points condition interface
Badge’s Condition: The user received same points incentive with the point condition. The badge will display after participants complete the requirement to unlock a badge as shown in figure 4. Badge status as shown in figure 5 displayed top right of the screen showing current badge unlocked as well as an indication of how many points needed to progress to next badge.
Figure 6 shows a list of badges that can be earned in the experiment. Badge acted as an
indication of achievement and progress, and points scores needed to progress from one badge to the next badge.
Figure 4: Awarded badge interface when complete certain task
Figure 5: Badge condition interface
Figure 6: List of badges in the experiment
Leaderboard’s Condition: The user received some point incentives as with the point’s condition but were able to compare their current scores to other participants scores. The leaderboard as shown in figure 7 displayed on the right side of the screen showing the list of scores of the participants. The leaderboard’s condition added an incentive for social comparison and competition.
Figure 7: Leaderboard condition interface
Immediate Feedback
For each question, the participants answer, immediate feedback was pop up to show whether it is a correct or wrong answer. The answer was provided for the incorrect answer to encourage
participants to learn from their failure. Table 1 describes the immediate feedback in this experiment.
Table 1: Immediate feedback
Answer Immediate feedback interface
Correct answer
Incorrect answer
The quiz experiment will potentially create fluctuation between boredom and anxiety inside the flow channel, therefore equalizing measures were taken during the experiment. Thus, 3 stages of difficulty were implemented to keep the player in the desired flow channel. Each stage consists of a series of quizzes from certain chapters in the syllabus from the course. Table 2 shows the stage of difficulties. The quiz starts with stage 1. The system will automatically move to stage 2 once the participants earned 100 points. Likewise, the system will move to stage 3 when the participants earned 300 points.
Table 2: Difficulty stages
Stage Chapter
Stage 1 Chapter 1, Chapter 2 Stage 2 Chapter 2, Chapter 3
Stage 3 Chapter 3, 4
Procedure
90 students of faculty of Computing and Informatics in University Malaysia Sabah, Labuan International Campus were invited to participate in this experiment. All the participants were brief by the researcher about the experiment. Firstly, participants completed demographic questions. Then, they received instructions for the experiment. All the participants received a small token for participating in the experiment. Participants are required to earn as many scores from the system by answering the quiz in the application. The experiment was performed in 1 hour. 3 groups were divided in this experiment. At the end of this experiment, participants required to answer a questionnaire for the purpose of data gathering on intrinsic motivation.
Scores from the experiment were gathered for the purpose of performances measurement.
Measurement
Experimental research was performed to gather data quantitatively. Table 3 shows that performance was measured by the number of scores earned when participants answer correctly in the quiz while intrinsic motivation was accessed with intrinsic motivation inventory (7- points Likert Scale, 1= not at all true, 7 = very true).
Table 3: Data collection
Performance Intrinsic Motivation
Scores Questionnaire from the existing instrument of
Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (Ryan, Mims, &
Koestner, 1983).
4. Result
A one-way ANOVA followed by Turkey post hoc test was used to analyze the data from the experiment. Pearson correlation and linear regression were also used to analyze the relationship between the data.
Investigate the effect of performance: Score
H1: Badges and leaderboard condition will have a higher significant level of performance to points condition.
Figure 8 shows that there was a significant different between groups as determined by one-way ANOVA (f (2,87) = 93.480, p = 0.00). A turkey post hoc test (table 4) reveals that leaderboard condition have a significant higher level of performance than points (p = 0.00) with an average of 689.67 more than points condition. Badges condition also have a significant higher level of performance than point (p = 0.10) with an average of 158.67 more than points condition. It is also stated that leaderboard condition has a significant higher level of performance than badge (p = 0.00) with an average of 531 more than badges condition.
Figure 8: The mean performance
Table 4: Turkey post hoc test for performance (I) Groups (J) Groups
Mean Difference (I-J)
Std.
Error Sig.
Points Badges -158.667* 52.832 0.010 Leaderboard -689.667* 52.832 0.000
Badges Points 158.667* 52.832 0.010
Leaderboard -531.000* 52.832 0.000 Leaderboard Points 689.667* 52.832 0.000 Badges 531.000* 52.832 0.000
440.33 599.00
1130.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Points Badges Leaderboards
Investigate the effect of intrinsic motivation (IM): Questionnaire from intrinsic motivation inventory (IMI)
H2: Badges and leaderboard condition will have a higher significant level of intrinsic motivation compared to points condition.
Figure 9 shows that there was a significant different between groups as determined by one-way ANOVA (f (2,87) = 37.083, p =0.00). A turkey post hoc test (table 5) reveal that leaderboard condition have a significant higher level of intrinsic motivation than points (p = 0.00) with an average of 18.47 more than points condition. Badges condition also have a significant higher level of performance than point (p = 0.00) with an average of 16.83 more than points condition.
It is also stated that there is no significant different between leaderboard and badges condition (p = 0.77).
Figure 9: The mean intrinsic motivation Table 5: Turkey post hoc test for intrinsic motivation (I) Groups (J) Groups
Mean Difference (I-J)
Std.
Error Sig.
Points Badges -16.833* 2.374 0.000
Leaderboard -18.467* 2.374 0.000
Badges Points 16.833* 2.374 0.000
Leaderboard -1.633 2.374 0.771
Leaderboard Points 18.467* 2.374 0.000
Badges 1.633 2.374 0.771
Investigate the relationship between intrinsic motivation and performance.
H3: Intrinsic motivation positively predicts performance outcome.
A Pearson correlation analysis was conducted in this study to access the relationship between the level of intrinsic motivation and performance. Table 6 shows that there was a positive relationship between two variables, r = 0.386, n = 90, p = 0.00. A scatterplot summarizes the results (Figure 10). Overall, there was a weak, positive correlation between intrinsic motivation and performance. Increase in intrinsic motivation was correlated with increases in performance.
69.47
86.30 87.93
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Points Badges Leaderboards
Table 6: Pearson correlation of intrinsic motivation and performance
IM Score
IM Pearson
Correlation
1 .386**
Sig. (2-
tailed)
0.000
N 90 90
Performance (Score)
Pearson Correlation
.386** 1
Sig. (2-
tailed)
0.000
N 90 90
Figure 10: Scatter plot of intrinsic motivation and performance
Result Summary
The result of this experiment can be summarized in table 7
Table 7: Summary of results Result Summary
H1 Badges and leaderboard condition will have a higher significant level of intrinsic motivation compared to points condition
Supported
H2 Badges and leaderboard condition will have a higher
significant level of performance compared to points condition
Supported H3 Intrinsic motivation positively predicts performance outcome. Supported – Weak
positive predictor.
5. Discussion
The findings show that points condition was the lowest among the 3 game elements in terms of intrinsic motivation and performances. A possible explanation is that points alone do not add any additional measures of performances feedback, comparison or competition, thus do not enhance competence that might affect intrinsic motivation and performance. Badges as suggested in the literature review add progression and achievement that possibly increase participant’s level of competence thus increase intrinsic motivation. Besides, additional rewards such as progression and achievement which give more incentive and provide clear goal rather than points alone potentially influence participant’s external motivation thus increase performance. Although badges did increase performance still it did not surpass leaderboard.
Most of the participants stop answering the quiz when they achieved the final badges which possibly indicate that they reach their main goal by earning all the available badges. When they are no badges to earned, it may reduce a sense of competence and thus decrease intrinsic motivation leading to lack of enjoyment to the participants. In addition, points alone did not serve any purpose besides progression for the participants to do more. The leaderboard condition had significantly higher scores than badges and point conditions. Leaderboards promote competition among others and could be used to enhance a sense of competence.
Participants tend to do more quiz in hope to compete with others and determine to be at the top of the leaderboard rank. This further suggests that social or status comparison could also provide a clear goal for the participants to target their goal to the top or near-top goals presented on the leaderboard. Interestingly, leaderboards also potentially enhance user behaviour to continuously perform the task as leaderboard feedback reward with no end status which possible be the reason why participants in leaderboard condition have the highest performance.
Furthermore, the finding also stated that intrinsic motivation can positively influence performance, yet it is weak positive which indicate intrinsic motivation could only slightly improve performance. Badges and leaderboard condition did not have significant different in terms of intrinsic motivation yet did have significant different in performances which could be the possible reason behind. Furthermore, achievement motivation (badges and leaderboards) and intrinsic challenge (task design) are where people derive pleasure from, improving the level of competence (Carbonneau, Vallerand, & Lafrenière, 2012; Francisco, Luis, González, & Isla, 2012). This means both badges and leaderboards in this study consider having similar effects on intrinsic motivation which might give different performance outcome thus possibly slightly influence performance.
6. Conclusion
This study contributed to the body of knowledge of gamification by showing that the individual gamification elements have different effects on intrinsic motivation and performance. Badges and leaderboard in this study contribute to a higher level of intrinsic motivation and performance than points alone. Badge and leaderboard, however, have a similar level of intrinsic motivation. On the other hand, Leaderboard claim to be the highest level of performance follow by badges and leaderboards. The findings of this study aid towards understanding the potential of individual gamification elements that consider vital in addressing the research gap.
7. Limitation and Recommendation for Future Work.
The participants interacted with the experiment for a short period of time. The results may differ if the experiment were to run for an extended period. Testing the long-term effects of gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and performance would be recommended. The experiment was limited to only three gamification elements which are points, badges, and leaderboard. Investigating other types of gamification elements would be beneficial in better understanding effects of other types of gamification elements. The experiment also limited to measure intrinsic motivation and performance. Future studies could investigate exploring another measurement such as qualitative measurement.
References
Anderson, A., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Leskovec, J. (2013). Steering user behavior with badges. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web, 95–
106. ACM.
Aparicio, A. F., Vela, F. L. G., Sánchez, J. L. G., & Montes, J. L. I. (2012). Analysis and application of gamification. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Interacción Persona-Ordenador, 17. ACM.
Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., & Schellens, T. (2009). Exploring the acceptance of video games in the classroom by secondary school students. 17th International Conference on Computers in Education, 651–658.
Carbonneau, N., Vallerand, R. J., & Lafrenière, M.-A. K. (2012). Toward a tripartite model of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality, 80(5), 1147–1178.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Toward a psychology of optimal experience. In Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 209–226). Springer.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education:
The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 325–346.
Deterding, S. (2015). The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: A method for gameful design. Human–
Computer Interaction, 30(3–4), 294–335.
Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O’Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification. using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. CHI’11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2425–2428. ACM.
Francisco, A., Luis, F., González, J. L., & Isla, J. L. (2012). Analysis and application of gamification. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Interaccion Persona- Ordenador. ACM.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work?–a literature review of empirical studies on gamification. 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 3025–3034. IEEE.
Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152–161.
Huang, B., & Hew, K. F. (2015). Do points, badges and leaderboard increase learning and activity: A quasi-experiment on the effects of gamification. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computers in Education, 275–280.
Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, 4, 1722.
Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. International Journal of Information Management, 45, 191–210.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013
Majuri, J., Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2018). Gamification of education and learning: A review of empirical literature. Proceedings of the 2nd International GamiFIN Conference, GamiFIN 2018. CEUR-WS.
Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K. (2017). Towards understanding the effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and performance.
Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 525–534.
Nah, F. F.-H., Zeng, Q., Telaprolu, V. R., Ayyappa, A. P., & Eschenbrenner, B. (2014).
Gamification of education: A review of literature. International Conference on Hci in Business, 401–409. Springer.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The concept of flow. In Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 239–263). Springer.
Nicholson, S. (2012). A User-Centered Theoretical Framework for Meaningful Gamification.
Prensky, M. (2011). A huge leap for the classroom. Educational Technology.
Ruhi, U. (2015). Level up your strategy: Towards a descriptive framework for meaningful enterprise gamification.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of Reward Contingency and Interpsonal Context to Intrinsic Motivation: A Review and Test Using Cognitive Evaluation Theory (1).pdf. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 736–750.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.736
Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14–31.
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21–44).
Springer.
Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Wharton Digital Press.
Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by Design: Implementing Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps. O’Reilly Media, Inc.
