Running head: GAMIFICATION FOR ENGAGEMENT 1

Gamification for Engagement:

Engaging All Learners
Jessica M. Buckle
California State University, San Bernardino
GAMIFICATION FOR ENGAGEMENT 2

Gamification for Engagement:

Engaging All Learners
SUMMARIES
Traditional pedagogical methods for secondary students are becoming increasingly

ineffective and point to outdated methods that no longer meet the needs of today’s students.

Many studies have been conducted that point out issues with motivation and engagement in the

classroom. In a time where most students have spent their formative years learning through video

games and social networks, research shows teachers may need to adapt and change their teaching

styles in order to meet the needs of students. One such method that has been growing in

popularity is gamification. According to one study, gamification can be defined as “the use of

game design in non-game contexts” (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, and Nacke 2011). This method

has many applications and has been utilized as a marketing strategy, a strategy to encourage

exercise, by businesses to increase employee productivity, and in education. The following

studies highlight the need for a new method of pedagogy to be used in the classroom and the

effectiveness of gamification as that method in increasing student engagement (Mason, 2018;

Hitchens and Tulloch, 2018; Sanchez-Mena and Marti-Parreno, 2017; Pektas and Kepceoglu,

2019).

For example, Mason (2018) points out the imperative need to find new ways to increase

and sustain student engagement in classrooms, as this directly impacts student outcomes. The

researcher identified that students with disabilities often feel frustrated with grade-level work and

tests in general education classrooms and are often lacking that engagement component. The

researcher’s study seeks to examine how the use of gamification in an elementary classroom

affects learning outcomes for struggling students. The researcher has based their study on

previous work including studies on student achievement and motivation (Harackiewicz, Barron,
GAMIFICATION FOR ENGAGEMENT 3

Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997; Elliot & MeGregor, 1999; Brunstein & Maier, 2005; Butler, 1999;

Thompson, Davidson, & Barber, 1995), using game-like components in the classroom

(Dominguez, Saenz-de-Navarrete, de-Marcos, Femandez-Sanz, Pages, C., &

Martinez-Herraiz, 2013; Lee & Hammer, 2011), constructivist versus traditional learning

theories on learning (Seimears, Graves, Schroyer, and Staver, 2012; Brooks & Brooks, 1999;

Jordan & Stack, 2008; Piaget, 2013; Vygotsky, 1978; McLeod, 2014; Slaughter, 2009; Dewey,

1938; Gutek, 2014), and the benefits of active learning through hands on experiences, role play,

and gamification (Snyder, 2003; De Corte, 2000; Raymond and Usherwood, 2013; Croley &

Rothenberg, 2007; Manrique, 2013; Zichermann, 2010; Lee, 2011; Kim 2011; Irvin, 2007; Kapp,

2014; Rughinis, R, 2013; Ghinea, Gheorghita, Mareh, 2013). The research proposes to examine

teachers’ perceptions of student motivation, self-efficacy, and achievement of their students in

order to demonstrate how integrating gamification strategies can help support higher engagement

and achievement for struggling students in elementary schools.

The study is focused on answering three questions posed by the researcher: (1) how does

traditional teacher-directed instruction compare to the implementation of gamification strategies

as they affect student motivation, engagement, and achievement; (2) to what extent does

gamification influence self-efficacy, motivation, and engagement levels of students with

disabilities; and (3) what is the relationship between gamification and students’ abilities to

engage in higher order thinking skills. The researcher used a mixed-method study where

elementary teachers in Long Island, NY were invited to participate by completing a survey. The

quantitative phase utilized a Likert-scale using the Perceptions of Student Motivation (PSM)

questionnaire developed by Harde, Havis, and Sullivan (2018) and the qualitative phase included

questions from a District Survey on Student Learning, Student Engagement, and Digital Tools
GAMIFICATION FOR ENGAGEMENT 4

(an internal tool used by South Washington County Schools in St. Paul Minnesota). The study

found a significant and direct correlation between motivation and engagement and self-efficacy

and students are more engaged when provided with hands-on learning opportunities. Despite the

title of the study, little was done in the way of studying actual gamification strategies versus

reasons why educators employ gamification thus making the study incomplete since it does not

actually identify if using it is successful, rather it just identifies the need and basis for using

gamification strategies. It is also an incomplete study because the questions of the PSM survey

tool used do not include questions specific to the engagement of students with disabilities, which

is purportedly what the entire study is about. Other limitations concern geographic location (as

only Long Island, NY was focused on for respondents), the sample size (only 37 teachers from 6

districts responded to the survey); and the inability of the researcher to interview and get more

in-depth responses to support the qualitative work due to restrictions placed on the study by

district superintendents. Future studies should include an updated survey instrument and a better

qualitative approach in order to gain more information about student engagement strategies and

the implementation of gamification in meeting students’ needs.

An important aspect in the success of any teaching strategy is student buy-in. Hitchens

and Tulloch (2018) examined the attitudes of university students towards gamification, to see if

they would perceive it in a positive light. As research has shown that a positive mental attitude is

necessary for learning to be effective, the research proposed to demonstrate that gamification can

be successfully utilized tin order to encourage positive student attitudes in engaging with

academic material, improve motivation and student confidence, and make learning more

enjoyable. The researchers’ pulled from previous research on gamification to define what

gamification is (Deterding et. al, 2011; Juul, 2011), the necessary components for gamification
GAMIFICATION FOR ENGAGEMENT 5

(Mutean, 2011; Flatla, Gutwin, Nacke, Bateman and Mandryk, 2011), what makes gamification

meaningful (Becker and Nicholson, 2016), and the principles for evaluating successful elements

in gamification (Groh, 2012) before developing their study. Their research question was can

students perceive gamified learning as enjoyable and beneficial to learning. The researchers’

used an experimental research design, where they introduced gamification into university classes

to ascertain the effect of gamification on students’ attitudes towards learning and motivation.

The researchers’ used a mixed methods approach to examine the results of their study by

conducting a survey comprised of Likert-scale and open ended questions, where they collected

almost 200 responses. Based on their survey results, the researchers’ found that a majority of

students found gamification useful and enjoyable, while roughly fifteen percent of students did

not. The researchers’ also reported that “the design of gamification requires careful attention to

underlying principles which will support student participation and success” (Hitchens and

Tulloch, 2018). Despite the positive outcomes in demonstrating that gamification does result in

increased motivation and engagement, there are three limitations to this study: the study was

focused on attitudes towards gamification, not on learner outcomes; the game design elements

were chosen to frame the learning environment in a more engaging environment, the course

material itself was not gamified; and the research is limited due to the nature of the participants,

who are university students enrolled in videogame and media classes who may be predisposed to

enjoy these types of activities. The researchers’ state they would like to conduct future studies by

continuing to develop gamified activities and examine how game-like students perceive these in

class activities to be.

Just as important as students’ attitudes towards gamification, is teacher attitudes towards

its implementation, in order for it to be a successful pedagogical tool. One study examined the
GAMIFICATION FOR ENGAGEMENT 6

drivers and barriers for teachers using gamification in their classes (Sanchez-Mena and Marti-

Parreno, 2017). The researchers’ built their study on the definition of gamification (Deterding et

al., 2011; Simoes, Diaz Redondo, and Fernandez Vilas, 2013), the idea that gamification make

tedious tasks enjoyable and provide intrinsic motivation (Hanus and Fox, 2015), that it provides

immediate feedback and a visual display of progress (Kapp, 2012), and that different barriers

keep teachers from taking advantage of this strategy (Mumtaz, 2000; Goodwyn, Adams, and

Clarke, 1997). The problem the researchers’ focused on was to gain a better understanding of

teachers’ experiences and beliefs about the use of gamification. The research proposes to explore

the main drivers that encourage university teachers to use gamification in their courses and the

main barriers that prevent them from using it in order to contribute to university’s policies

regarding the adoption of gamification. Thus the research questions were written accordingly and

were twofold: (1) what are the main drivers that teachers serving in Higher Education institutions

find when using gamification in their courses; and (2) which are the main barriers that teachers

serving in Higher Education institutions find when using gamification in their courses.

The researchers’ used a non-experimental phenomenological approach using 16 online

interviews consisting of a comparative analysis text mining via Wordstats 7.0 to identify

keywords they then clustered into main themes. They used a snowball sampling wherein they

emailed the interview to colleagues and asked them to forward it to others in order to find

instructors who had used gamification in their classes at least once. Respondents’ age ranged

from 26 to 65, 56.25% were female, all were university teachers primarily teaching in Marketing

and Business, and the average years of experience in using gamification was 2.25 years.

Researchers’ found in the instance of their first research question about drivers, keywords were

students, motivation, creativity, and entertainment. These were clustered into four themes
GAMIFICATION FOR ENGAGEMENT 7

demonstrating drivers for instructors using gamification in their courses: attention-motivation,

entertainment, interactivity, and easiness to learn. Researchers’ found in the instance of their

second question about barriers, keywords were time, resources, methodology, students, and

activities. These were clustered into themes to identify main barriers for instructors using

gamification: lack of resources (time, training, classroom setting, and economic support),

students’ apathy or lack of interest, the subjects they teach, and classroom dynamics. The

researchers’ report that while previous research found positive effects on learning and the

classroom atmosphere from a student’s perspective, that from a teacher’s perspective it is a more

complex factor that might be analyzed using a multidimensional approach, which must be

analyzed before implementation can be successful. There are several limitations to this

exploratory study based on the snowball sampling which was used to gather data such as the age

of respondents, most instructors being from Marketing or Business, and that were university

instructors already open to this pedagogical approach. An individuals’ teaching style would also

affect their perceived drivers or barriers for using gamification. Researchers’ point to future

studies considering culture as a variable to examine gamification used in collectivist versus

individualistic cultures in order to gauge cultural differences that might affect the use of

gamification as an educational strategy.

In contrast to Sanchez-Mena and Marti-Parreno’s study (2017), which focused on

surveying university instructors who had experience in implementing gamification is a study

focusing on the attitudes of pre-service teachers towards gamification (Pektas and Kepceoglu,

2019). Pektas and Kepceoglu used prior research regarding the definition of gamification

(Deterding et al., 2011; Zichermann and Cunningham, 2011), previously identified positive

benefits of gamification in education (Bruder, 2015; Kapp, 2012, Zichermann and Cunningham,
GAMIFICATION FOR ENGAGEMENT 8

2011; Lee and Hammer, 2011; Gee, 2003; Lazzaro, 2004; Mutean, 2011), and how game

elements support assessment (Shute and Ke, 2012; Shute, Ventura, Bauer, and Zapata-Rivera,

2009; Kocadere and Caglar, 2015) to help them develop their study. Their research question for

the study is what do prospective science education teachers think when gamification applications

are used as assessment tools in education. The research proposes to gather and analyze pre-

service science teachers’ opinions about gamification after experiencing it as students in order to

determine their attitudes’ on the benefits, limitations, and what stage of instruction gamification

applications are most useful. This study uses an experimental research design where gamification

was introduced for four weeks into an elective course. Researchers’ then used a

phenomenological case study approach to their research and conducted an open-ended

questionnaire of purposeful sampling with 44 pre-service science teachers, four of which were

further questioned in clinical interviews.

Researchers’ found both positive and negative attitudes towards gamification through

their study. Positive findings found an increase in motivation as the most significant benefit as

well as emotive responses such as having fun, serving as a quick assessment tool, and being able

to provide feedback quickly to students. Negative findings included loss of motivation if students

were not doing well or did not like the game elements, difficulty in classroom management,

technological problems, waste of time, and limitation of time. Overall, 93% thought that

gamification could be used as a summative assessment tool and 34% stated that applications

could be used in the introduction phase of instruction to attract students’ attention and increase

motivation. Participants reported overall that they enjoyed the application of gamification, that it

affected their learning experience, increased their success through positive competition, and

improved their communication, interest, and motivation. Limitations of this study surround the
GAMIFICATION FOR ENGAGEMENT 9

gamification that was used in this study. The gamification used does not correlate with the

definition of gamification at all but rather using game-based tools as an assessment tool. Other

studies surrounding gamification point to a more profound experience where game-based

elements are incorporated such as missions or quests, leaderboards, and some type of reward.

While all components are not necessary for gamification, a more inclusive gamified experience

might have led to different results. Researchers’ note that it is important to study different

teaching levels so future studies should examine teachers at different levels and subjects in order

to diversify results.

SYNTHESIS
How did the authors define the problem?
Research reveals that the lack of student motivation and engagement is a growing

problem (Mason, 2018; Hitchens and Tulloch, 2018; Sanchez-Mena and Marti-Parreno, 2017;

Pektas and Kepceoglu, 2019). This is concerning for many reasons, of which are results of lower

student outcomes, anxiety and stress, behavioral issues, attendance, and dropping out of school.

As such, several studies have examined this problem. For example, Mason (2018) says that

researchers and educational professionals are becoming concerned about students’ boredom, lack

of motivation, and disengagement from school. Hitchens and Tulloch (2018) argue that

traditional teaching methods are becoming increasingly ineffective and that teachers need to be

the ones to adapt and change their strategies. Sanchez-Mena and Marti-Parreno (2017) discuss

the need for more active methodologies that provide students with a more proactive learning

role. Pektas and Kepceoglu (2019) point to the need to adapt to new teaching methods to meet

the needs of 21st century learners. What these studies all have in common is the need to adapt and

change pedagogical methods to meet the needs of today’s students (Mason, 2018; Hitchens and

Tulloch, 2018; Sanchez-Mena and Marti-Parreno, 2017; Pektas and Kepceoglu, 2019).
GAMIFICATION FOR ENGAGEMENT 10

How did the authors state the purpose?

In order to address this problem, an examination of the use of gamification as a

pedagogical method has been conducted to determine its efficacy in increasing student

engagement, motivation, and learning outcomes (Mason, 2018; Hitchens and Tulloch, 2018;

Sanchez-Mena and Marti-Parreno, 2017; Pektas and Kepceoglu, 2019). For example, Mason

(2018) looked at the perceptions of elementary school teachers in regards to student engagement

and motivation to determine that gamification would be a beneficial strategy, especially in

helping students with disabilities who are struggling in regular education classes while Hitchens

and Tulloch (2018) looked at university students’ perceptions of gamification on engagement

and motivation. Sanchez-Mena and Marti-Parreno (2017) studied university professors who have

gamification in their classrooms to examine barriers and drivers for using this method of

instruction while Pektas and Kepceoglu (2019) studied the pre-service teachers’ attitudes and

beliefs about gamification after experiencing it. While Mason was the least successful in her

original goal, all of the studies prior research and their own studies demonstrated the need for

adapting teaching methodologies to be more student centered and provide opportunities for

communication, collaboration, and competition (Mason, 2018; Hitchens and Tulloch, 2018;

Sanchez-Mena and Marti-Parreno, 2017; Pektas and Kepceoglu, 2019).

What methodologies were utilized to explore the problem?

Most of the research that has explored the use of gamification as a pedagogical strategy

for increasing engagement and motivation has been done using a qualitative or mixed methods

approach (Mason, 2018; Hitchens and Tulloch, 2018; Sanchez-Mena and Marti-Parreno, 2017;

Pektas and Kepceoglu, 2019). For example, Mason (2018) used a mixed-method study using a

Likert-scale and open ended questions to study elementary school teachers’ perceptions of

student engagement, motivation, and achievement in Long Island, NY. Hitchens and Tulloch
GAMIFICATION FOR ENGAGEMENT 11

(2018) used a mixed-method study composed of a Likert-scale and open ended questions to gain

perspective on students’ attitudes towards gamification in learning. Sanchez-Mena and Marti-

Parreno (2017) used a phenomenological approach through 16 online structured interviews to

determine drivers and barrier to university instructors using gamification in their classes. Pektas

and Kepceoglu (2019) used a case study approach and conducted an open ended survey with 44

pre-service science teachers as well as clinical interviews with four of the participants.

What were the results of the study?

Results from Mason (2018) were that student engagement, motivation, and self-efficacy

are integral for positive learning outcomes as well as the role of the teacher and the teachers’

methodologies in achieving engagement, motivation, and self-efficacy. This is congruent with

the findings of Hitchens and Tulloch (2018) who found that a positive attitude toward the

learning strategies is important for effective learning. Hitchens and Tulloch (2018) also found

that students had a positive view on gamification and found it useful and enjoyable. Their study

did find a minority of students who thought it was a waste of time and not beneficial, which

would correspond to one of the barriers to using gamification as found by Sanchez-Mena and

Marti-Parreno (2017) but overall in both instances, there was more positive results surrounding

gamification than negative (Hitchens and Tulloch, 2018; Sanchez-Mena and Marti-Parreno

2017). Pektas and Kepceoglu (2019) also had a more overwhelmingly positive response to the

use of gamification than negative and results showed pre-service teachers found that

gamification was beneficial as an engagement strategy and an assessment strategy. All of the

studies found that when the instructor is intentional and meaningful in planning out a gamified

classroom that the likelihood of success is amplified versus teachers who do not put a lot of time

or thought into its implementation (Mason, 2018; Hitchens and Tulloch, 2018; Sanchez-Mena

and Marti-Parreno, 2017; Pektas and Kepceoglu, 2019). Another correlation from all studies is
GAMIFICATION FOR ENGAGEMENT 12

that gamification provides a safe way for students to learn from failure, and while there is some

disagreement to the degree students will bounce back from that failure, there is no research that

proves gamification has a negative effect on learning.

What were the limitations of the studies?

The overarching limitation of the studies summarized above was the sample pool the

surveys were conducted with (Mason, 2018; Hitchens and Tulloch, 2018; Sanchez-Mena and

Marti-Parreno, 2017; Pektas and Kepceoglu, 2019). For example, Mason (2018) only had 37

responses from elementary school teachers from 6 districts (out of 10) in Long Island, NY and

depended on superintendents of districts to share the survey with teachers. Sanchez-Mena and

Marti-Parreno (2017) similarly had a small sampling (just 16 surveys) and they were sent to

colleagues and then asked their colleagues to pass them on so they were dependent of a network

of professors who used gamification in their university classes and of those they were mainly

Business and Media classes. Hitches and Tulloch (2018) had a much larger survey pool (200),

however the students were all from videogame and media classes and might have a bias towards

game-like activities. Similarly, Pektas and Kepceoglu (2019) were narrow in their focus as they

only looked at science pre-service teachers with 44 respondents and only 4 of which they

interviewed in more depth.

What were the recommendations of the studies?

The overarching recommendations of the studies summarized above was to get a wider

sample size, to get a cross discipline sample, and to involve more qualitative questions where

teachers can describe the gamifications methods they use and describe to what degree those

strategies are effective (Mason, 2018; Hitchens and Tulloch, 2018; Sanchez-Mena and Marti-

Parreno, 2017; Pektas and Kepceoglu, 2019). Three of the four studies had relatively small

sample populations (Mason-37, Sanchez-Mena and Marti-Parreno-16, Pektas and Kepceoglu-

GAMIFICATION FOR ENGAGEMENT 13

44), where only one had a fairly large surveyed population (Hitches and Tulloch-200). Mason

(2018) only surveyed elementary school teachers, which were predominantly K-3, while Pektas

and Kepceoglu (2019) only surveyed pre-service teachers. A wider range of disciplines is also

recommended as Hitchens and Tulloch (2018) only surveyed students in videogame and media

classes, the participants of Sanchez-Mena and Marti-Parreno (2017) were mainly Business and

Marketing professors, and all of the pre-service participants in Pektas and Kepceoglu (2019)

study were future science teachers. Additionally none of the surveys involve partipant’s

describing in-depth what gamification strategies are being used and why they find these

strategies effective(Mason, 2018; Hitchens and Tulloch, 2018; Sanchez-Mena and Marti-

Parreno, 2017; Pektas and Kepceoglu, 2019).

APPLICATION TO A PROPOSED STUDY

Did you think of any additional ways to explore this problem that would contribute
something new to the studies you have read thus far?
A survey of the studies summarized above indicates that gamification is a useful

pedagogical strategy in increasing student engagement and motivation in the classroom (Mason,

2018; Hitchens and Tulloch, 2018; Sanchez-Mena and Marti-Parreno, 2017; Pektas and

Kepceoglu, 2019). Mason (2018) examines gamification benefits in terms of benefitting students

with disabilities struggling in general education classes. Hitchens and Tulloch (2018) look at

gamification’s benefits from the perspective of a university student. Sanchez-Mena and Marti-

Parreno (2017) look at its benefits from a college professor’s perspective and Pektas and

Kepceoglu (2019) look at it from the prospective of pre-service teachers. Of these four studies,

none of them look at how gamification affects the engagement, motivation, or behavior of

minority students in secondary schools. This type of approach would add to current literature on

the topic of gamification in its application in classrooms as well as demonstrate if gamification is

GAMIFICATION FOR ENGAGEMENT 14

beneficial for all types of learners. At this point, a more in-depth search of the literature is

necessary to examine whether this topic has been the focus of other studies or dissertations.

Problem statement for your own proposed study

Research has demonstrated that traditional teaching methods are not meeting the needs of

today’s students and is creating apathy, lack of motivation, and disengagement in the classroom.

This leads to further issues such as poor student achievement, attendance, behavioral issues, and

dropping out altogether. The purpose of this study is to discover to what degree gamification as a

pedagogical strategy is effective in increasing engagement, motivation, and lessening behavioral

issues amongst minority students in a secondary educational setting. This study will use an

experimental mixed methods approach to determine students’ and teachers’ perceptions on the

effectiveness of gamification in aiding engagement, motivation, and behavior and provide

successful strategies to teachers interested in using gamification in their classroom.

 GAMIFICATION FOR ENGAGEMENT 15

References
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. and Nacke, L. (2011), “From game design elements to

gamefulness: defining gamification”, Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek

Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, ACM, Tampere, New York, NY, pp. 9-

15.

Hitchens, Michael, and Rowan Tulloch. “A Gamification Design for the Classroom.” Interactive

Technology and Smart Education 15, no. 1 (January 1, 2018): 28–45.

Mason, Dawn. “An Exploratory Case Study of Gamification: The Impact on Learning for Students.”

Ed.D., St. John’s University (New York), 2019.

http://search.proquest.com/docview/2268337614/abstract/9CD974A6581346EEPQ/1.

Pektas, Murat, and Ibrahim Kepceoglu. “What Do Prospective Teachers Think about Educational

Gamification?” Science Education International 30, no. 1 (January 1, 2019): 65–74.

Sánchez-Mena, Antonio, and José Martí-Parreño. “Drivers and Barriers to Adopting Gamification:

Teachers’ Perspectives.” Electronic Journal of E-Learning 15, no. 5 (January 1, 2017): 434–43.