Beata Godejord, Per Arne Godejord, Helga Dis Sigurdardottir

Nord University
Norway

GAMIFICATION:
BEYOND BADGES AND COMPETITION

Abstract
This paper presents an example of applying agame walkthrough to educational
setting. Gamification of learning is looked upon as an engagement model where
rewards elements such as achievements badges are not in focus. We chose to pro-
mote an approach to gamification where social elements such as communication
and cooperation are encouraged, believing that such approach builds the criterion
for success of the application of game design elements to educational process. We
seek to understand how commitment to achieving learning goals may be recognized
and rewarded without employing factors associated with competition.

Keywords: cognitive and social effects of digital games, gamification of learn-

ing, computer mediated communication (CMC), sociocultural perspective, Self-
Determination Theory.

Introduction
Popular opinions that games are at most awaste of time and notably adangerous
technology that induces escalated aggression are defunct. Research has not suc-
ceeded in finding relation between games and violent behavior and games were
proved to have positive effects on gamers. Strong movement of serious games has
occurred to be the evidence the digital games have potential to motivate both
cognitive and social growth. It has been convincingly argued that games promote
student motivation and engagement ( J.P. Gee, 2007a, pp. 21-40; P.M. Greenfield,
2010, pp.1-21) as well as provide good arena to teach twenty-first century skills
(K.Squire, 2006, pp. 19-29). In abig picture, digital games are environments for
studying key processes involved in learning and developing insight into how learn-
ing occurs ( J.P. Gee 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007b). Each medium has acontribution to
make to human development and each medium has its strengths and weaknesses
74Beata Godejord, Per Arne Godejord, Helga Dis Sigurdardottir

(P.M. Greenfield, 1983, p. 5). The strength of digital games lies in their participa-
tive nature. This paper seeks to outline how engaging learning experience can be
enriched with social elements in an online environment utilizing game principles.

Cognitive and Social Perspective on Games

Core issues in the research on cognitive effects of video games were identified in
the mid-80s when the early attempts were made to introduce theoretical rigor
and research tools to understand the relation between playing video games and
development of thought. The result of this early investigation was the discovery
that the complex cognitive skills are required to play video games with success.
Furthermore, acognitive by-product of gaming was identified and defined as anew
type of literacy for the technological age (P.M. Greenfield, 1984).
Presently, after thirty years of research on the cognitive and social effects of
games, benefits of gaming are taken for granted. Repeated experiments indicate
that playing fast-paced action video games can increase players scores on tests
of visuospatial ability, including tests used within standard IQ tests (C.S.Green
& D. Bavelier, 2003, pp. 534-537; I.Spence & J.Feng, 2010, pp. 92-104). Con-
ducted studies suggest that, depending on the type of game, video games can
increase scores on measures of the ability to hold several items of information in
mind simultaneously (working memory) as well as critical thinking, and problem
solving (G.K. Akilli, 2007, pp. 1-20). Agrowing body of evidence indicates that
children who previously showed little interest in reading and writing are acquiring
advanced literacy skills through the text-based communication in on-line video
games (R.W.Black & C. Steinkuehler, 2009, pp. 271-286).
Common claims that games are socially isolating and promote violence if
they contain violent content have also been challenged. Meta-analyses of the many
studies designed to find effects of violent video games on real-world violence have
concluded that there is little or no proofs at all of such effects (C.Ferguson, 2010,
pp. 68-81). Conversely, surveys have shown that video-game players are more
socially engaged, more socially well-adjusted, and more civic minded than their
non-gaming peers (E. Wack & S. Trantleff-Dunn, 2009, pp. 241-244; D.Williams
et al, 2008, pp. 993-1018; K.Durkin & B.Barber, 2002, pp. 373-392). Research
conducted by the Pew Research Center concluded that video games are far from
being socially isolating and actually assist in connecting young people with their
peers and society (A. Lenhart). It has been qualitatively documented that in many
ways video games promote social interactions and friendships (C.K. Olson, 2010,
pp. 180-187; R.Stevens et al., 2008, pp. 41-66).
 Gamification: beyond badges and competition75

Gamification of learning: 2 in 1?
The history of the term gamification goes back to the year 2002 when British
consultant Nick Pelling created it as adeliberately ugly word to describe ap-
plying game-like interface design to make electronic transactions enjoyable and
fast. The term, now used for describing something different, reached the critical
mass needed to appear on Google Trends in the second half of 2010. In the 2011
gamification was selected by Oxford Dictionaries as arunner-up word of the
year (B. Burke, 2014, p. 5-6). Growing interest in gamification is reflected in the
increasing number of academic publications. Figure 1 presents an overview of the
increase of academic texts on the topic. The appearance of the term gamification
in paper titles has been increasing even faster than general search hits ( J. Hamari
et al., 2014). This statistical occurrence indicates that gamification is not apass-
ing fad but something to be treated with attention as aphenomenon, an approach
and amethod.
Most generally, gamification is defined as game-based mechanics, aesthet-
ics, and game thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote learning, and
solve problems (K.M. Kapp, 2012, p. 280). Gamification is amotivational model.
In pedagogical perspective it is natural to focus on factors that are potentially im-
pactful in terms of enhancing motivation to perform actions leading to achieving
defined goals. Successful solutions for engaging in action, in principle, are within
the interests of educational design.
In its early stages, gamification strategy based its motivational mechanisms
on rewards system, which utilized points, leaderboards and digital badges as rep-
resentations of skills earned. Rewarding and recognition are important factors
for encouraging commitment. However, acritical approach is needed when it
comes to choosing areward system. In educational setting, motivational property
of areward system should support standards encouraging balanced directions to
behavior where individual motives and socially constructive orientation go together.
As emphasized in the German tradition of self-cultivation, aharmony is needed
in the process of personal and cultural maturation so that individual and social
unification takes place (W.H. Brunford, 1975).
We seek to encourage utilizing gamification approach in the way in which
knowledge processes are combined with social processes. In the light of sociocul-
tural learning theory, we become ourselves through others. In this perspective,
learning is asocial and dialectical process occurring within and through avariety
of social events (L.S. Vygotsky, 1978). According to social information processing
theory, participants involved in computer mediated communication adapt to the
medium and use it to develop social relations comparable to those developed in
face-to-face situations ( J.B. Walther, 1992, pp. 52-90). With these two theories in
76Beata Godejord, Per Arne Godejord, Helga Dis Sigurdardottir

Figure 1. Search hits for gamification

Source: Hammari et al., 2014.

the background we made an assumption that the combination of gamification and

social interaction would provide students with an empowering element in their
effort to master the content of the course Gaming Culture.

Using agame walkthrough

for designing work within the course Game Culture
This section describes the use of agame walkthrough for designing work in the
course SPO1510 Gaming Culture, realized in the spring semester 2015 as
apart of the 1th year bachelors degree program in Game and experience tech-
nology, at Nord-Trndelag University College, now Nord University. The course
walkthrough was based on chosen principles that govern the design of video games
walkthroughs. The walkthrough concept was chosen not in order to create agame
like system of external rewards nor emulate the badge-system of areal game, but
to help students find adeeper connection to the underlying topics. This aim was
achieved through the specific game element, which focused on the how to concept
of play, and explained the course and the focus on portfolio work by giving students
awritten step-by-step guide, designed the same way as walkthroughs for digital
games. In order to create as much likeness to agame and agame walkthrough as
possible, the work in the course was divided into seven acts and each of them was
equipped with aspecific objective. The technique of flipped classroom was applied
and the focus was placed on using social media for discussions on various topics
within the obligatory tasks that were to be delivered as part of digital portfolio. The
evaluation system used in the course was portfolio assessment. Students were given
fixed dates for delivering the products of their work for evaluation and guidance
before the final submission and exam.
All course-related lectures contained multimodal elements (video lectures
and SoundCloud broadcasts) made available online on aspecifically designed
lecture blog. This dispersion of learning content enabled more room and time for
directing students towards creation of their own online content covering course-
related topics as well as guiding them towards discussions on issues they were
working with.
 Gamification: beyond badges and competition77

Ashift towards learner-generated content has the potential to change educa-

tion for the better, among other things, by increasing student engagement ( J. Sener,
2007). Products created by students in the course where online newspapers based on
Twitter accounts (Paper.li), and originally-created audio resources (SoundCloud),
all of them related to communication process. This way, the walkthrough for the
course became away of structuring the course content according to the mandatory
tasks and defined goals. At the same time the social nature of created products
combined the process of work in the course with the process of social interaction.
This approach helped students develop aclear understanding of the goals in the
course, and enhanced social dimension of learning as well.
In their work, students were using three types of social media: Twitter,
Paper.li and SoundCloud. Specified media were to be used in an interconnected
way for solving tasks related to the requirements in the course. The assumption
was that the demand for online communication will contribute to raising the level
of interaction between students outside the classroom. The content of tweets was
to be connected to cultural, ethical and design aspects of games. It was obligatory
to follow Twitter accounts of video games suppliers, developers, gamers, fellow
students, and the lecturer. Editions of Paper.li based on gaming Twitter profiles,
were to appear daily on each students Twitter. Mandatory task also specified the
number of course-related recordings to be uploaded to the SoundCloud profiles.
Instruction for each act was complemented by an illustration which highlighted
the focus in each Act. In each illustration ascreenshot from agame was used as
abackground. Figure 2 shows the illustration for Act 2. The assumption was that
the instruction would be more impactful if it was visually stimulating.
The course walkthrough started with the outline of expectations and de-
mands concerning the requirement to be present, both in the classroom and on-
line. Furthermore, the grading system was introduced in acomparable way as the
reward system in agame. The demands on students presence both in classroom
and online as well as the grading system, were presented as the first level titled
Act 1 Everywhere Always. Instructions within introductory act were formulated
as follows:
ACT 1
-- Everywhere Always
Objective: Showing your presences, both in classrooms and online
The game begins in the spring semester and has an 80% mandatory presence.
You may play this at the Rookie level in which you as an absolute minimum have
to be present 80% of the time given to case discussions (Tuesdays 11:30 to 1:15
p.m., Room C101) and work with mandatory assignments (Thursdays 8:30 to
12:15, Room A239). If you play it at the Elite level you also have to show avery
high level of presence online, mainly on Twitter, where your lecturer often will
78Beata Godejord, Per Arne Godejord, Helga Dis Sigurdardottir

try to engage you in dialogue. The strategy you choose in this level depends on the
presence requirements defined by a lecturer. At present, the lecturer is lenient as for
classroom presence as long as you are active online.
The following levels of the course walkthrough focused on the defined tasks,
and tools for solving them. Level 2 focused on establishing presence within three
social media. Instruction for Act 2 was formulated as follows:
ACT 2
-- Nailing the Bird in the Paper Cloud
Objective: Create a profile on Twitter, and then use it to create a Paper.li account,
and create a profile on SoundCloud.
Like Act 1, Act2 is fairly easy to complete. All you have to do is create a twitter
profile, aPaper.li account and aSoundCloud profile. Playing at Rookie difficulty
level might not necessarily lead to a low grade, but Elite and Veteran players might
be in abetter position for Act 3. The trick here is to choose aTwitter nick that sig-
nals to the world that you are someone who one day might be agame developer.
So stay away from nicks that are sexual in nature or otherwise you may make one
think of you as ateenage kid instead of up and coming professionals. On the other
side, you might use ateenage nick but it is important that your tweets are seri-
ous and content related. In this way you may create an impression that the nick
was meant as irony, i.e. its not the profile nick that matters but the content of the
tweets.
You have to follow your fellow students, the lecturer and as many game de-
velopers, game suppliers, and gamers as you can find. Having these profiles and
accounts are of course mandatory, and if you dont, the game is over.

Level 3 introduced arequirement to communicate via social media (CMC)

and encouraged social interaction around course related topics. Instruction for Act3
was formulated as follows:
ACT 3
-- Words in the cloud
Objective: Make three 3 content related tweets a day
This level is acontinuation of Act 2 and requires that you to choose actively
between the three levels of difficulty. Playing at Elite and Veteran difficulty level
you will have to make your tweets content related, i.e. tweets about gaming culture,
game and ethics, game reviews and game development. The trick here is to read the
lecture blog SPO1510 Gaming Culture at https://spo1510.wordpress.com/. Here
you will find an abundance of topics to tweet about. Tweeting reviews of your
favourite games, or games you have just completed is also awise strategy. Making
 Gamification: beyond badges and competition79

Figure 2. Illustration for Act 2

Source: prepared by the lecturer.

tweets that consists of just meaningless letters or word, or overly personal in tone
will quickly mark you as aRookie and might give you problems in later levels of
the game. Those who want to get the A and B rewards should try and engage other
serious gamers and if possible game developers in conversation or at the very least
get retweeted and/or favourite by such Twitter users. This is difficult! To secure the
C reward it is enough to just tweet content related stuff, but if you do it all the time
and is totally and completely focused on professional matters, you might get the B
reward. Stay focused! The sole point of this exercise is to train you in professional use
of Twitter; using Twitter as a tool to get in touch with fellow developers, potential
customers or who knows? potential employers.
Motivational affordances used in the course walkthrough were levels, clear
goals, challenges, feedback and rewards (grades). The idea behind the particular
levels was to enable students to see the connections between the various tasks given
in the course, and motivate them to high performance in the consecutive sets of
tasks. Challenges were designed as differentiation of difficulty degree within par-
ticular levels. The requirement of participation in social interaction was intended
to provide social context and feedback for the process of work on the assignments.
The assumption was that the presence of social elements (CMC) would enhance
students motivation to progress with work on the learning content and at the same
time contribute to thinking of the learning content in acollaborative way.
80Beata Godejord, Per Arne Godejord, Helga Dis Sigurdardottir

Discussion and conclusion

Research shows that Gamification provides positive effects, however, the effects
are greatly dependent on the context in which gamification is being implemented
as well as on the users using it ( J. Hamari et al., 2014). In the presented example,
the users were students acquainted with game mechanics through the profile of
their studies and their interests. This allowed assumption that the process of work
with the learning content in the course would be arelevant context for applying
game design elements (gamification), understanding the context of gamification
is an activity being gamified. By encouraging social networks and social discovery,
students work took form of asocial enterprise, and in this way asocializer type
of gamification was promoted.
Psychologists point out that people by their nature are curious, vital, and
self-motivated. At their best, they strive to learn and develop their talents. Yet, it
happens that individuals reject growth, become passive and alienated instead of
being active and engaged. In educational setting it is important to build ahigh
level of engagement so as to make students intrinsically motivated to learn. Re-
search guided by self-determination theory (SDT) shows that peoples sense of
volition and initiative is co-catalyzed by social context. People can be proactive
and engaged if three of their innate psychological needs are satisfied. These are the
sense of autonomy, competence and relatedness (E.Deci & R.Ryan, 2002). The
state of being motivated is reached when aself-regulated and proficient action
(autonomy and competence) is accompanied by the feeling of belonging to asocial
group and being apart of agroup culture (relatedness). In the presented example,
gameful experience provides framework for satisfying all three needs specified
within self-determination theory of motivation. Furthermore, social component,
i.e. the requirement of communication on social media, makes social dimension
braided into individual aspects of learning. The three needs are being satisfied
not in isolation but in the context of social interaction. The sense of competence,
achieved by progressing through the specified levels, is communicated to others.
Communication is self-initiated, which increases the sense of autonomy. Feedback
from abroader audience helps sustaining the sense of relatedness through recogni-
tion and inspiration.
Social skills are located among key competencies for the twenty first cen-
tury. Ability to work with diverse teams and communicate effectively in virtual
environments is essential in the highly digitalized and connected world. Our belief
is that the way we understand and implement gamification of learning promotes
communicative aspects of knowledge and dialogical approach to learning process.
 Gamification: beyond badges and competition81

Bibliography
Akilli G.K. (2007), Games and simulations: Anew approach in education? [in:] D. Gibson,
C. Aldrich & M. Prensky (eds), Games and simulations in online learning: Research and
development frameworks, Information Science, Hershey, PA.
Black R.W. & Steinkuehler C. (2009), Literacy in virtual worlds [in:] L. Christenbury,
R.Bomer & P.Smargorinsky (eds), Handbokk of adolescent literacy research, Guilford,
New York.
Brunford W.H. (1975), The German Tradition of Self-Cultivation. Bildung from Humboldt
to Thomas Mann, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Burke B. (2014), Gamify: How Gamification Motivates People to Do Extraordinary Things,
Bibliomoton, Brookline, MA.
Deci E., Ryan R. (eds) (2002), Handbook of self-determination research, University of Roch-
ester Press, New York.
Durkin K. & Barber B. (2002), Not so doomed: Computer game play and positive adolescent
development, Applied Developmental Psychology, 23.
Ferguson C. (2010), Blazing angels or resident evil? Can violent video games be aforce for
good? Review of General Psychology, 14.
Gee J.P. (2003), What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy, Palgrave/St.
Martins, New York.
Gee J.P. (2004), Language, learning, and gaming: Acritique of traditional schooling, Rout-
ledge, New York.
Gee J.P. (2005), Why video games are good for your soul: Pleasure and learning, Common
Ground, Melbourne, Australia.
Gee J.P. (2007a), Learning and games [in:] K. Salen (ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting
youth, games, and learning, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Gee J.P. (2007), Good Video Games + Good Learning Collected Essays on Video games, Learn-
ing and Literacy, Peter Lang, New York.
Green C.S. & Bavelier D. (2003), Action video game modifies visual selective attention, Na-
ture, 423.
Greenfield P.M. (2010), Video games revisited [in:] R. van Eck (ed.), Gaming and cognition:
Theories and practice from the learning sciences, IGI Global, Hershey, PA.
Greenfield P.M. (1984), Mind and media: Effects of television, video games, and computers,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hamari J., Koivisto J., Sarsa H. (2014), Does Gamification Work? ALiterature Review of
Empirical Studies on Gamification, Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Con-
ference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, January 6-9, doi:10.1109/HICSS.2014.377.
Hung W. & van Eck R. (2010), Aligning problem solving and gameplay: Amodel for future
research and design [in:] R. van Eck (ed.), Interdisciplinary models and tools for serious
games: Emerging concepts and future directions, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 227-263.
Kapp K.M. (2012), The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Bame-Based Methods and
Strategies for Training and Education, Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA.
82Beata Godejord, Per Arne Godejord, Helga Dis Sigurdardottir

Lenhart A. et al. (2008), Teens, video games and civics: Teens gaming experiences are di-
verse and include significant social interactions and civic engagements, Report of the Pew
Research Center, http://www.pewinternet.org/files/oldmedia//Files/Reports/2008/
PIP_Teens_Games_and_Civics_Report_FINAL.pdf.pdf [18.04.2016].
Olson C.K. (2010), Childrens motivation for video game play in the context of normal develop-
ment, Review of General Psychology, 14.
Sener J. (2007), In Search of Student-Generated Content in Online Education, E-mentor,
No. 4 (21), http://www.e-mentor.edu.pl/artykul/index/numer/21/id/467 [15.04.2016].
Sheldon L. (2012), The Multiplayer Classroom: Designing Coursework as aGame, Course
Technology Cengage Learning, Boston, MA.
Spence I. & Feng J. (2010), Video games and spatial cognition, Review of General Psychol-
ogy, 14.
Stevens R. et al. (2008), In-game, in-room, in-world: reconnecting video game play to the rest
of kids lives [in:] K. Salen (ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learn-
ing, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and
learning, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Squire K. (2006), From Content to Context: Video Games as Designed Experience, Educational
Researcher, 35/8, Sage Publications.
Vygotsky L.S. (1978), M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, E. Souberman (eds), Mind
in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Wack E. & Trantleff-Dunn S. (2009), Relationship between electronic game play, obesity, and
psychosocial functioning in young men, CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12.
Walther J.B. (1992), Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction: ARelational
Perspective, Communication Research, 19 (1), doi:10.1177/009365092019001003.
Williams D. et al. (2008), Who plays, how much, and why? Debunking the stereotypical gamer
profile, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13.

About the authors

Beata Godejord
beata.j.godejord@nord.no
Beata Godejord, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the Department of ICT, Business
School, Nord University, Norway. She teaches courses in media theory and educational
use of digital media study program ICT and Learning. Her research interests focus on
pervasive learning, digital game-based learning and knowledge networks.

Per Arne Godejord

per.a.godejord@nord.no
Per Arne Godejord, Cand.Polit, is an Associate Professor at the Department of ICT,
Business School, Nord University, Norway. He is amember of several review boards of
international journals, as well as international conferences, within the field of e-learning.
His professional and research interests are focused on Blended Learning in Computer
Science and Pedagogical Informatics studies.
 Gamification: beyond badges and competition83

Helga Dis Sigurdardottir

helga.d.sigurdardottir@nord.no
Helga Dis Sigurdardottir is aPhD student at Faculty of Business, Social and Environmental
Sciences. She received aB.A. in Social Anthropology and aM.A. in Educational Program
Evaluation from The University of Iceland. Since 2011 she has been aPhD candidate/
research fellow at The Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim.
Her research focus is digital game-based learning.