Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available
Available online
online at www.sciencedirect.com
at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia
Procedia Computer
Computer Science
Science 11200 (2016)41–50
000–000
Procedia Computer Science 00(2017)
(2016) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

21st
21st International
International Conference
Conference on
on Knowledge
Knowledge Based
Based and
and Intelligent
Intelligent Information
Information and
and Engineering
Engineering
Systems, KES2017, 6-8 September 2017, Marseilles, France
Systems, KES2017, 6-8 September 2017, Marseilles, France
Gamified
Gamified learning:
learning: A
A role-playing
role-playing approach
approach to
to increase
increase student
student
in-class
in-class motivation
motivation
a,∗
Alexandru
Alexandru Topı̂rceanu
Topı̂rceanua,∗
a Department of Computer and Information Technology, Politehnica University Timisoara, Bd. V. Parvan 2, 300223 Timisoara, Romania
a Department of Computer and Information Technology, Politehnica University Timisoara, Bd. V. Parvan 2, 300223 Timisoara, Romania

Abstract
Abstract
A modern and successful tackle on education is represented by new teaching techniques which imply online courses, collaborative
A modern and successful tackle on education is represented by new teaching techniques which imply online courses, collaborative
assignments, dynamic grading systems, real-time feedback and motivational inserts into the process of learning. Elearning together
assignments, dynamic grading systems, real-time feedback and motivational inserts into the process of learning. Elearning together
with massive open online courses (MOOCs) have seen a recent rise in popularity and integrate many of the aspects that enable
with massive open online courses (MOOCs) have seen a recent rise in popularity and integrate many of the aspects that enable
distant students to take part in higher levels of education. While the perspective of migrating towards a pure online environment is
distant students to take part in higher levels of education. While the perspective of migrating towards a pure online environment is
in line with the trend of the younger generations, most professional and intellectual skills can only be effectively learned through
in line with the trend of the younger generations, most professional and intellectual skills can only be effectively learned through
physical attendance and practical guided work. Yet, the main concern highlighted in this paper is the weak point of most classic
physical attendance and practical guided work. Yet, the main concern highlighted in this paper is the weak point of most classic
educational systems: the constant decreasing motivation it gives students - individuals who have grown and are embedded in many
educational systems: the constant decreasing motivation it gives students - individuals who have grown and are embedded in many
virtual realities form where they draw the needed intrinsic motivation and energy. To overcome this limitation, we introduce an
virtual realities form where they draw the needed intrinsic motivation and energy. To overcome this limitation, we introduce an
educational platform named Gamified, which simplifies the educational and grading systems in modern schools and universities.
educational platform named Gamified, which simplifies the educational and grading systems in modern schools and universities.
It relies on the fundamental aspects of the theory of Gamification, namely bringing motivational elements from (video) games
It relies on the fundamental aspects of the theory of Gamification, namely bringing motivational elements from (video) games
into non-game contexts. It does this through the abandonment of grades (seen by us as negative feedback, a demotivator), and
into non-game contexts. It does this through the abandonment of grades (seen by us as negative feedback, a demotivator), and
integration of heroes, accumulated experience, levels, level-ups, achievements, quests, guilds, and other representative elements
integration of heroes, accumulated experience, levels, level-ups, achievements, quests, guilds, and other representative elements
taken from role-playing games (positive feedback at different levels of motivation). Not only do these elements sound familiar to
taken from role-playing games (positive feedback at different levels of motivation). Not only do these elements sound familiar to
a vast majority of todays students, but they also trigger interest in the new approach to learning. We validate this technique over a
a vast majority of todays students, but they also trigger interest in the new approach to learning. We validate this technique over a
period of 3 years on different generations of college students, compare the results with control groups, a present what we believe is
period of 3 years on different generations of college students, compare the results with control groups, a present what we believe is
remarkable feedback - both in terms of grades and participation, as well as in student attitude towards learning.
remarkable feedback - both in terms of grades and participation, as well as in student attitude towards learning.
c 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
©
c 2017
2016The
TheAuthors.
Authors.Published
Publishedby byElsevier
ElsevierB.V.
B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of KES International.
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of KES International
International.
Keywords: gamification; eLearning; persuasive technology; motivation; educational platform;
Keywords: gamification; eLearning; persuasive technology; motivation; educational platform;

1. Introduction
1. Introduction
The informal term gamification commonly refers to the use of video game elements in non-gaming systems to
The informal term gamification commonly refers to the use of video game elements in non-gaming systems to
improve user experience and user engagement 88 . The still recent introduction of gamified applications to large audi-
improve user experience and user engagement . The still recent introduction of gamified applications to large audi-
ences stems from the very broad popularity of computer games online and offline which are shaping the motivational
ences stems from the very broad popularity of computer games online and offline which are shaping the motivational
spectrum of the young generations. The science behind gamification promises new additions to the existing rich and
spectrum of the young generations. The science behind gamification promises new additions to the existing rich and

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +40-256-403261;

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +40-256-403261;
E-mail address: alext@cs.upt.ro
E-mail address: alext@cs.upt.ro
1877-0509  c 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
1877-0509  c 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of KES International.
Peer-review©under
1877-0509 2017responsibility
The Authors. of Published by Elsevier B.V.
KES International.
Peer-review under responsibility of KES International
10.1016/j.procs.2017.08.017
42 Alexandru Topırceanu / Procedia Computer Science 112 (2017) 41–50
A. Topı̂rceanu / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2016) 000–000

diverse research on the heuristics, design patterns and dynamics of games and the positive user interface they pro-
vide 8,7 . Solutions are offered to a large variety of human problem solving tasks, like business, education, return of
investment, physical exercise, and improve the perceived ease of work 1,12 . However, what is lacking for a next step
forward is the integration of this precise diversity of research endeavours. Several vendors now offer gamification
as a service layer of reward and reputation systems with points, badges, levels and leader boards. At the same time,
gamification has caught the interest of researchers as a potential means to create engaging workplaces 18 or facilitate
mass-collaboration 16 .
Gamification is not without success, as it has growing in popularity and is a common tool used in many online
classes using eLearning 17,6 . So called ”serious games” have been shown to engage and motivate individuals, and
they can be built with limited resources in mind 11 . Some of the advantages for using gamification are that students
receive instant feedback, it builds engagement, students are more loyal and attend classes more frequently, it boosts
productivity, there is more influence/control over student actions with rewards, it increases learning retention, students
are likely to spend more time learning, and it makes learning seems fun. Recent surveys show that

• Roughly 80% of students admit they would be more productive if their institution where they work or learn
would be more game-like.
• In the past 5 years, over 350 companies have launched major gamification projects, including many well-known
consumer brands.
• In the next few years. the world gamification market is estimated to surpass $5.5Bn.

Taking all of these number into consideration, we introduce the gamified platform for student motivation, by
transposing learners in a role playing game, where they are rewarded with experience, levels, achievements, take
part in guilds, and fight guild wars, for all educational activities they do in class. Gamified stands out from other
implementations with the same goal in mind because it is based on an offline system where students have to attend
class, thus promoting attendance in schools. Also, the interaction level between students - both competitive and
allegiance - is much more elaborated than other available solutions. Our study shows encouraging results, as it was
validated on different generations of students over the period 2014-2017.

2. Past, present and future in eLearning

Traditional teaching methodologies can be considered as functional procedures which focus on skill sets and ar-
eas of knowledge in isolation. We may assimilate this aspect of traditional methodologies with the fact that they
are strongly linked to the teaching of language, which is often used in certain fields related to the students life or
work. A very typical feature of traditional methodology, which represents a motivation for our proposed solution, is
the teacher-dominated interaction 3 . In other words, teaching is deeply teacher-centred. This methodology puts the
responsibility for teaching and learning mainly on the teacher, and it is considered that students who are present in
the classroom during lessons and listen to the explanations and examples, will later be able to use that knowledge.
A second important feature of traditional teaching is the essential issue that rules have to be memorized 4 . Multiple
studies agree on the lack of speaking and pronunciation practice in traditional teaching methodology 3,24 . Instead of
trying to speak and get the meaning through, students are usually suffocated with linguistic information, with classic
rules accompanied by examples, and related exercises 3 . In the view of Broughton et al., this approach has produced
generations of non-communicators 3 for many years in the past. The same authors highlight that many learners expe-
rienced significant frustration at the moment of realizing that they were not able to solve problems in common life
situations 3 .
Distancing itself from traditional methodology, modern teaching methodologies are much more student-centred.
The main role of the teacher is considered to be helping ”learning to happen, which means involving students in
what is going on, by empowering them to work at their own pace, by not giving long explanations, by encouraging
them to participate, talk, interact, and accomplish tasks 2,21 . Students are treated as the most active element in this
process. The teacher is present not to explain, but to encourage and help students to explore, try out, and make
learning interesting for themselves 2 . It is argued that argumentation through ”serious games” can promote learning,
teamwork and leadership skills, which are central to the future of both developed and developing countries 11 .
 Alexandru Topırceanu / Procedia Computer Science 112 (2017) 41–50 43
A. Topı̂rceanu / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2016) 000–000

Fig. 1. Motivational spectrum ranging from amotivation (left) to intrinsic motivation (right). The lower panel gives examples on how a student
might relate himself to education, for each category of the spectrum.

Because modern methodology is aiming for something rather different, the way to implement and achieve the goal
has also changed. Teachers methods, courses, and books have to be adjusted to new needs of the learners to fulfil their
expectations. for example, instead of grammatical competence, communicative competence became a priority. There
are 3 principles of modern methodologies that are focused: the primary importance of speech, the emphasis on the
centrality of connected text as the heart of teaching-learning process, and an priority of an oral methodology in the
classroom 24 . Instead of memorizing rules and rare exceptions, modern methodologies prefer to present context-based
meaning and develop traits 2 .
Apart from these considerations, another important part of modern teaching is represented by different teaching
skills. The main skills are listening, speaking, reading, and writing. They can be grouped into two: being receptive
(listening and reading) and being productive (speaking and writing). The skills further consist of sub-skills. Any
given tasks should improve skills, not test memory. According to 21 , with receptive skills it is always better to assign
one task, let the students accomplish it, offer feedback, and then assign another task to them. Scrivener et al. also
point out that the assignments should be ranked from the easiest to the most difficult, or, in other words, from the
most general to the most focused one, and that the students should know what the given assignments are before the
listening or reading itself is done 21 . Roughly in the last decade, a growing body of research has been exploring
the concept of games with a purpose using game play to solve human information tasks. Furthermore, researchers
in HCI (human-computer interaction) and management sciences have identified design principles that enhance the
motivational potential of computer-based and collaborative work 13,25 conclusions which fall in line with research on
the motivational psychology of video games 15,19 .
In persuasive technology, video games and game aspects are analysed as supporting means to shape user behaviour
in directions desired by the designer of the system, or to embed required values 9 . Studies in social-psychology on
contributions in online communities, or the motivational uses of recommender systems, reach conclusions that agree
with core design properties used in video game development 15 . Similarly, it is suggested to model the reward and
reputation systems of gamified applications with economically inspired approaches such as incentive centred design.
Researchers in HCI are developing models and methods as well as heuristics for the usability or playability of
games 20,22 . An obvious matter of interest is to which degree these can be transferred to the design of gamified
information systems. Moreover, a growing body of research points to the noteworthy role of social contexts in the
constitution of video game play experience 5 , which also raises the question whether the transfer of game design
patterns into social contexts might significantly alter the way they are experienced.
44 Alexandru Topırceanu / Procedia Computer Science 112 (2017) 41–50
A. Topı̂rceanu / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2016) 000–000

Finally, the new science of gamification relies on the psychological studies of motivation, namely, it carefully
manoeuvres inside the motivational spectrum (see Figure 1), between the extrinsic and intrinsic motivation of the
players involved 23 . Intrinsic motivation occurs when we are driven by our own interest and enjoyment in the task at
hand, without any incentive or even a specific reason. It makes sense to us and that is enough: it is important that we
do it, we like it, we enjoy it, we don’t care why or how we do it, we just live to do it. Yet very few activities are in
this ideal spectrum. On the other side lies amotivation, which means a complete disagreement with a given task - we
will simply not do it. In between there is a wide spectrum called extrinsic motivation. This type of motivation is what
drives most of our daily actions. The more activities individuals do towards the right side of the spectrum, the happier,
satisfied, and less stressed they are. Education unfortunately starts for many students on the left side of the spectrum,
but in time and with confidence they can be driven towards the intrinsic side of learning until maturity. There is also
a relevant proportion of students who start off in the desirable spectrum but end up on the left side due to educational
mistakes, lack of interest and enthusiasm from teachers and discouraging grading systems 14,10 .
In this section we have presented an overview of the classic (past) versus modern (present) practices in teaching, as
well as described the third, more future-oriented practice based on gamification. While being in the modern category
as well, the latter technique takes the social psychological layer into perspective. We consider it to be a new branch
that will evolve in time to become a standard modern teaching technique.

3. Methods

In this section we describe the rules and usage of the educational platform used as an alternative grading system,
then describe the student dataset demographics on which it was applied.

3.1. The gamified grading platform

Combining the best of past and present trends in educational science, we propose an innovative platform that
favours student interaction, collaboration and constant rewards, over memorization, strict rules and classic grades.
With the rapid development of technology and integration with online systems, one direction that eLearning has
taken is that of providing Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). There are notable such endeavours, from the
students and educators point of view. Students may opt for online education provided mostly for free by platforms
like Coursera, edX, Udacity, or opt for paid options like Pluralsight, Udacity nanodegrees or Coursera specialized
tracks. From the teachers point of view, they can create online courses using many free platforms like Teachable,
OpenLearning, Eliademy, Alison, Udemy.
However, our approach is of a different sort as we do not strive to bridge students across the Internet in order to
access education; we merely use technology as support for computational and visualization purposes.
Inspired by the innovative approach of gamification in business and education 23,7,1 , we define the gamified platform
as a role-play-based (RPG) student class organization. Grades are eliminated as students may advance based on
accumulated experience points (XP). Students gain XP for any of four considered tasks they do: attending class
(mandatory for all others), doing their individual homework, in-class activity, and completing group quizzes. We have
translated every educational term into game elements using an appropriate vocabulary: XP, achievements, quests,
heroes, level-ups, reward chests etc. Also, to decentralize the power of the teacher, students are allowed to build
their own teams (guilds) with which they may complete semester projects and earn weekly achievements. Each guild
member receives a responsibility and will do his part, promoting skill based task repartition. This approach promotes
team work, lasting bond formation, sustained effort and also a level of competition between individuals and groups.
The rules on which Gamified is based is detailed as follows:

• All students are denoted as heroes. If a student participates at multiple courses, he will have a distinct hero for
each of them.
• A student can join one or more game worlds (as different heroes). A game world is the actual course a hero is
taking. For example, there is a game world for maths, one for databases, one for arts history etc. Every game
world applies an independent instance of the gamified platform on its heroes. A hero will not share any data
between game worlds.
 Alexandru Topırceanu / Procedia Computer Science 112 (2017) 41–50 45
A. Topı̂rceanu / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2016) 000–000

• Professors are integrated in the game concept, and are denoted as game masters.
• All heroes gain experience (XP) for in-class activities. No XP is awarded for online activities or any non-
educational related activities.
• Heroes do not share XP with other heroes, each has its own total accumulated XP.
• There is a maximum of 10000 XP to be earned in any game world, by completing all possible tasks.
• Every hero has a current level, based on the amount of XP. All begin from level 0 and level up gradually.
• There is a maximum level of 50 to be achieved, implying a hero reaches a total of 8000 XP. Level-up require-
ments increase from level to level, thus it is harder (slower) to advance, for example, from level 45 to 46, than
from 5 to 6.
• There is an additional 2000 XP that can be accumulated past the maximum level, and will grant Paragon levels.
These levels (a total of 6) may count as bonuses towards the final course grade. Actual application of the
bonuses depends on the game master. For example, each Paragon point may be translated into +0.25 points at
the final exam.
• The experience-gaining mechanism is divided into chapters. A chapter is one unit of teaching: typically a week
for University seminars or laboratories, two weeks or more for milestone-projects, or one day for highschools,
where there are daily classes of the same game world. If applied in Romanian universities, Gamified has a total
of 14 chapters (14 weeks per semester), but it can have as many as 5 x 14 chapters for schools where maths is
thought on a daily basis for 14 weeks.
• Heroes can gain XP by doing the following four accomplishments every chapter: attendance (being physically
present at the lecture/lab/seminar), homework (solving the given homework from one chapter to the next),
activity (being active during class, asking a relevant question, correcting a mistake, willingly participating at
the blackboard, spotting hidden mistakes or any other type of active accomplishment), quiz (participating and
correctly solving short group quizzes given by the game master. Heroes should be placed in ad-hoc groups of
3-5 students, depending on the task and size of classroom)
• Each chapterly accomplishment has a base XP that is awarded to heroes. By accomplishing all tasks in all
chapters a hero will earn roughly 2/3 of the total possible XP.
• The remaining 1/3 is earned through achievements. Achievements are meta-accomplishments defined outside
the linear game mechanism. Specifically, they represent the accumulation of multiple single accomplishments
over the whole chapter period. A simple example of an achievement is having a total of 6 attendances in a game
world, or solving 3 homeworks in a row.
• Additionally, there will be a number of two laboratory/seminar tests, called campaigns. While seminar tests are
considered all important for establishing a final activity grade in many educational systems, it is true that many
students like being challenged from time to time, so each campaign is optional as it only represents a percentage
of the total XP.
• Apart from the ad-hoc grouping of heroes during quizzes, heroes will also form guilds. A guild is a semester-
long group of 4-6 heroes which brings certain goals and benefits.
• Each hero must join a guild and will thus be able to do guild achievements. Unlike individual achievements,
these are unlocked only if all guild members individually accomplish given requirements in the same chapter.
Note that ”same chapter” does not oblige heroes to attend a class at the same time (same time slot) with their
guild mates. As long as the achievement is done within the same week, it will count as being in the same
chapter.
• Every guild will appoint a guild leader and a guild general.
• Each guild will participate in the guild wars at the end of the chapters. The wars are fought through the guild’s
leader and general. Guild wars offer significant XP to all guild members, but attendance is optional.
• It is suggested that the guild leader has the best presentation skills, as he will have to do a final project presenta-
tion on behalf of his guild. Grading will be done taking into consideration verbal & non-verbal communication
skills, content relevance, motivation and outlining, as well as feedback from other guilds. The guild wars can
be implemented by game master as he or she sees fit.
• It is suggested that the guild general has the best knowledge of the topics learned, as he will have to participate in
an individual knowledge battle on behalf of his guild. Each guild will prepare a set of questions from the course,
and ask opposing generals. Guilds will not ask their own generals. The contest is based on which generals gives
46 Alexandru Topırceanu / Procedia Computer Science 112 (2017) 41–50
A. Topı̂rceanu / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2016) 000–000

the first correct answer, then a new question is asked, and so on. Each general is gradually eliminated until a
full ranking is achieved.
• At the very end of the chapters all heroes will have a level and some will have paragon levels. The hero level
is transformed into a grade (scale 1-10) using using the following rule: int(level − 1)/5 + 1, or in other words,
each interval of 5 levels represents +1 for the final grade. Grades may rounded, or kept with decimals as the
game master sees fit.
• To graduate, a hero must reach level 26 out of 50.

Additionally, to stimulate students, each set of 5 levels, corresponding to a specific grade, will have a title and an
icon/colour associated with them. The list of titles for normal levels and Paragon levels is given in Table 1, but of
course, these names can be changed to suit a different game theme. For example, in our studies we used a naming
style inspired by a medieval military ranking system. Other naming systems may be inspired from movies (e.g. Star
Wars, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings), or computer games series (e.g. Warcraft, Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect).

Table 1. Titles and experience requirements for each grade on the 1-10 grading system.
Final grade Levels Title Required XP
0 0 - 0
1 1-5 Novice 100
2 6-10 Apprentice 636
3 11-15 Initiate 1234
4 16-20 Disciple 1893
5 21-25 Guard 2614
6 26-30 Warden 3395
7 31-35 Knight 4238
8 36-40 Crusader 5142
9 41-45 Champion 6108
10 45-50 Grandmaster 7134
+0.25 Paragon 1 Earl 8333
+0.50 Paragon 2 Marquess 8667
+0.75 Paragon 3 Prince 9000
+1.00 Paragon 4 Grand Duke 9333
+1.25 Paragon 5 King 9667
+1.50 Paragon 6 Emperor 10000

We expect to stimulate students intrinsic drive to learn by offering a friendly academic experience, based on a
familiar game-like organization. Moreover, student are expected to stimulate each other to gain more XP in favour
of their guild, so that even less productive students will be driven by the guild mechanics. Nevertheless, a major
difference from the classic grading system is that there are no negative rewards, XP cannot be lost, and achievements
cannot be taken back, so students do not have to worry about being incentivized through small grades that lower they
final grade.
To implement this platform we have created a set of simple tools. First, the activity in class is recorded on a
specially formatted attendance list which consists of the following information per each row: name of the attending
student (and group, or other organizational information), and is followed by data introduced by the educator: home-
work (yes/no), activity (yes/no), quiz ranking (1, 2, 3 etc.), and an observations field. This data is then registered in
an electronic system which records four possible accomplishments of a student: attendance, homework, activity and
ranking in quiz. This data is processed automatically (hence the need for a computational system) and XP is awarded
to each student based on two criteria: weekly accomplishments, and achievements (different patterns of accomplish-
ments). A student can earn an achievement if, for instance, she earns a specific number of total attendances, or gains
a number of consecutive activities. An example for computing one’s XP is given in Figure 2.
A last important part of employing gamification is the use of proper and stimulating visual cues, so we considered
giving relevant visual feedback to students 23,17 . As such, we currently use many visual cues for representing badges
(earned through accomplishments), highlighting the earned experience and current level of the student, as well as give
a set of titles based on the students proficiency in class.
 Alexandru/ Topırceanu
A. Topı̂rceanu / Procedia
Procedia Computer Computer
Science Science
00 (2016) 112 (2017) 41–50
000–000 47

Fig. 2. Example for computing the XP of two heroes, H1 and H2, from the same guild G12, over a period of 7 weeks, considering the highlighted
accomplishments (marked with X). Based on the individual and guild (common) accomplishments, we are able to compute the XP earned by each
hero. There is XP awarded for individual accomplishments (Acc), for cumulative and consecutive achievements (Ach), and for guild achievements
(GAch).

3.2. Dataset description

The validation of the gamified platform was done over the period 2014-2017, and was tested on 3 different gen-
erations of students, at 2 different computer science undergraduate courses: Algorithm Design and Analysis (ADA)
ADA ADA
and Computer Organization (CO). As such, we present the following data: G2014 (33 students), G2015 (27 students),
CO CO ADA
G2015 (52 students), and G2016 (36 students). For the two ADA datasets, we also have the control groups C2014 (17
ADA
students) and C2015 (25 students). These control groups represent students who followed the exact same curricula,
but were evaluated and graded using a classic 1-10 system, with weekly assignments and a lab test. Further details of
each dataset are given in Table 2.
All students who participated in the ongoing study are of Romanian nationality, except two Erasmus students with
Greek and Turkish nationality; mostly Romanian ethnicity, with very few of Hungarian, German or Polish ethnicity.
Both courses (lectures and laboratories) were taught in English language and there were no signalled communication
limitations between students and educator(s).

Table 2. Student datasets used for validation and control.

Name/id Number of students Male/female ratio Age range Type of course Control group
ADA
G2014 33 69/31% 20-21 IT, software -
ADA
C2014 17 65/35% 20-21 IT, software Y
ADA
G2015 27 41/59% 20-22 IT, software -
ADA
C2015 25 48/52% 20-22 IT, software Y
GCO
2015
52 54/46% 20-21 IT, hardware -
GCO
2016
36 72/28% 19-21 IT, hardware -
48 Alexandru Topırceanu / Procedia Computer Science 112 (2017) 41–50
A. Topı̂rceanu / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2016) 000–000

4. Results

We begin by representing the distributions of grades for the 6 datasets, using histograms, as depicted in Figure 3.
ADA ADA
The two control groups C2014 and C2015 are depicted in Figure 3d,e. The four groups of students on which Gamified
was used show a particular non-Gaussian distribution of grades, as opposed to the two control groups. The fit functions
(marked with red dotted lines in Figure 3) highlight this important aspect. On one hand, it is know for classic grading
systems to produce normal distributed grades, yet these distributions are contested in modern approaches. Using
gamification, we are able to change the distributions from concave to convex, or close to linear. The fidelity of the
fitting functions is given by the depicted R2 values which range from 0.67 to 0.93.

a b c

d e f

Fig. 3. Distributions of student grades on the six datasets, with polynomial fit functions (red) and corresponding R2 errors. The control groups on
which gamification was not applied are depicted in sub-figures d and e.

To quantify the actual motivational boost, we present the amount of accumulated accomplishments over the 14
chapters of each semester. Table 3 details the accumulated individual and guild statistics. Looking at the first four
lines in the Table, we first note an encouragingly high attendance (i.e. such values are very good for our educational
system) ranging between 77-93%. Also, the lower 77% was obtained because a group of students joined the semester
ADA
later, so all the results for G2015 are artificially lowered. Compared to the control groups, the gamified groups obtain
attendances that are +28% and +54% higher. On average, we measure the mean attendance of 86.25% (gamified) and
61% (control), mean homework completion of 56.75% (gamified) and 18.5% (control), respectively average activity
of 33% (gamified) and average quiz completion of 49.25% (gamified). Corroborated with these observations, if we
look at the last line in Table 3, we see that there are roughly 50% of students with complete attendance, which is
again a very good result for the gamified classes. Conversely, the control groups using classic teaching techniques and
grading only have around 9% students with complete attendance. This is probably the most important quantifiable
difference between the two teaching techniques.
Additionally, lines 5-8 from Table 3 further support the motivational boost brought by the gamified platform due
to the use of guilds. Namely, it is clear that being in a guild and having, for example, guild attendance achievements
(line 5) motivates students to attend as much as possible to help their peers, and likewise, authorizes them to convince
their peers to attend class even if they were unwilling. Of course, the whole process creates a bonding and allegiance
feeling that is strongly embedded in human subconsciousness.
 Alexandru Topırceanu / Procedia Computer Science 112 (2017) 41–50 49
A. Topı̂rceanu / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2016) 000–000

Table 3. Accumulated accomplishment statistics for all students over the 14-week duration of each semester, expressed as percentages. The first
four lines represent statistics for individuals, while the next four lines represent accumulation of accomplishments done together with all guild
members. The last line displays the percentage of students with full (14 week) attendance.

Activity type ADA

G2014 ADA
G2015 GCO
2015
GCO
2016
ADA
C2014 ADA
C2015

(1) Accumulated attendance 92% 77% 93% 83% 72% 50%

(2) Homework 67% 48% 61% 51% 17% 20%
(3) Activity 33% 22% 35% 42% - -
(4) Completed quizzes 66% 33% 52% 46% - -
(5) Guild attendance 77% 58% 77% 69% - -
(6) Guild homework 48% 31% 35% 33% - -
(7) Guild activity 7% 7% 14% 28% - -
(8) Guild quiz wins 17% 5% 22% 14% - -
(9) Students with full attendance 61% 19% 51% 47% 12% 6%

Finally we introduce an intuitive metric to measure how impactful gamification is compared to classic grading in
terms of acquired high grades. High grades are considered 9s and 10s in this scenario. The metric h is defines as
follows:
h = |Mh | / |Ma | (1)
where Mh is the set of all grades ≥ 9, and Ma is the set of all grades. The results of the h metric are shown in Table
4. The improvement ratios of the two ADA groups compared to their respective control groups (2014, 2015) are: 3.77
and 8.33 times more high marks when using gamification.

Table 4. The h-metric measured on all datasets quantifying the ratio of high student grades (i.e. ≥ 9). The last two entries represent the control
groups, with notably lower ratios of high grades.
ADA
G2014 ADA
G2015 GCO
2015
GCO
2016
ADA
C2014 ADA
C2015

h-metric 0.667 0.333 0.481 0.361 0.176 0.040

5. Conclusions

This project was started back in 2013 with the belief that gamification can foster the appearance of a new avant-
garde teaching system which could rise the intrinsic drive to learn, so that students and educators may benefit from
it. This paper presents a detailed snapshot of this project, and the obtained results prove the impact of our proposal,
which is further backed up by feedback offered at the end of each semester by participants. Gamification is indeed
a powerful tool which, if used correctly, promotes satisfaction in education, and brings students in class together to
work, learn and compete. Nevertheless, technology, in this context, is presented not as the indispensable drive of
education, but merely as facilitator for the necessary visual cues and automated computation; the educator remains
in our view the true drive of meaningful education. He only has to enrich his techniques with the use of custom
motivators with whom young people emphasize, namely game elements in an educational context, without sacrificing
any of the academic context.
In this paper we have first detailed the rules with which gamification is applied, how students are perceived as
heroes in a role-playing game, and the complex mechanism through which experience points are accumulated. Then,
we presented the 4 generations of students on which the testing was done, two of them with control groups. Further,
we present the results on the 6 datasets, namely the distribution of grades, the accumulation of accomplishments, and
the percentage of high marks. A comparison to the control groups, which relied on classic grading schemes, shows
that in the gamified groups all metrics are in favour of the more modern approach. For instance, we obtain an overall
attendance boost from 50-72% to 77-93%, the percentage of students with full attendance rises from 6-12% to > 50%,
and the amount of high marks is increased by a factor of roughly 4-8 times.
50 Alexandru Topırceanu / Procedia Computer Science 112 (2017) 41–50
A. Topı̂rceanu / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2016) 000–000

With the introduction of our original gamified platform, we hope to foster both research in the areas of educational
science, and data mining from student social networks, as well as motivate other readers to adopt game elements in
their educational practice. By adopting our platform, we believe that the goal of educators will shift from making
the young just realize they have to learn, or accept they must learn, and transcend to making the young incapable of
quenching their thirst for knowledge, and so, making them teach others in their turn.

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Inno-
vation, CNCS - UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4-2040: NOVAMOOC - Development and innovative
implementation of MOOCs in Higher Education.
The author (A.T.) would like to thank the generations of students (of the English CTI section from the Department
of Computers) who have been willingly part of this project during the period 2014-2017, and have provided invaluable
feedback and motivation to the educators. Also, A.T. would like to thank Cezar Fleşeriu, Andrei Sı̂rbu and Alex
Grozav for providing meaningful development ideas to this platform.

References

1. J. Hamari, “Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading
service,” Electronic commerce research and applications, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 236–245, 2013.
2. V. Boumová, “Traditional vs. modern teaching methods: Advantages and disadvantages of each,” Ph.D. dissertation, Masarykova univerzita,
Filozofická fakulta, 2008.
3. G. Broughton, C. Brumfit, A. Pincas, and R. D. Wilde, Teaching English as a foreign language. Routledge, 2002.
4. R. D. Cole, Modern foreign languages and their teaching. D. Appleton and Company, 1931.
5. Y. A. De Kort and W. A. Ijsselsteijn, “People, places, and play: player experience in a socio-spatial context,” Computers in Entertainment
(CIE), vol. 6, no. 2, p. 18, 2008.
6. L. De-Marcos, A. Domı́nguez, J. Saenz-de Navarrete, and C. Pagés, “An empirical study comparing gamification and social networking on
e-learning,” Computers & Education, vol. 75, pp. 82–91, 2014.
7. S. Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, and L. Nacke, “From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification,” in Proceedings of
the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments. ACM, 2011, pp. 9–15.
8. S. Deterding, M. Sicart, L. Nacke, K. O’Hara, and D. Dixon, “Gamification. using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts,” in CHI’11
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2011, pp. 2425–2428.
9. B. J. Fogg, “Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do,” Ubiquity, vol. 2002, no. December, p. 5, 2002.
10. T. R. Guskey and J. M. Bailey, Developing grading and reporting systems for student learning. Corwin Press, 2001.
11. M. Hatzitaskos and N. Karacapilidis, “Fostering learning through the use of argumentative serious games,” in International Conference on
e-Infrastructure and e-Services for Developing Countries. Springer, 2009, pp. 1–10.
12. P. Herzig, S. Strahringer, and M. Ameling, “Gamification of erp systems-exploring gamification effects on user acceptance constructs,” in
Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik. GITO Braunschweig, 2012, pp. 793–804.
13. J. Jung, C. Schneider, and J. Valacich, “Enhancing the motivational affordance of information systems: The effects of real-time performance
feedback and goal setting in group collaboration environments,” Management Science, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 724–742, 2010.
14. J. D. Krumboltz and C. J. Yeh, “Competitive grading sabotages good teaching,” Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 78, pp. 324–326, 1996.
15. K. Ling, G. Beenen, P. Ludford, X. Wang, K. Chang, X. Li, D. Cosley, D. Frankowski, L. Terveen, A. M. Rashid et al., “Using social
psychology to motivate contributions to online communities,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 00–00,
2005.
16. J. McGonigal, Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. Penguin, 2011.
17. C. I. Muntean, “Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification,” in Proc. 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL,
2011, pp. 323–329.
18. B. Reeves and J. L. Read, Total engagement: How games and virtual worlds are changing the way people work and businesses compete.
Harvard Business Press, 2013.
19. R. M. Ryan, C. S. Rigby, and A. Przybylski, “The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach,” Motivation and
emotion, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 344–360, 2006.
20. N. Schaffer, “Heuristic evaluation of games,” K. Isbister and N. Shaffer, Game Usability. Morgan Kaufman, Amsterdam et al, pp. 79–89,
2008.
21. J. Scrivener, Learning teaching. Heinemann Oxford, 1994.
22. P. Sweetser and P. Wyeth, “Gameflow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games,” Computers in Entertainment (CIE), vol. 3, no. 3,
pp. 3–3, 2005.
23. K. Werbach and D. Hunter, For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Wharton Digital Press, 2012.
24. R. V. White, “Curriculum studies and elt,” System, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 83–93, 1989.
25. P. Zhang, “Technical opinion motivational affordances: reasons for ict design and use,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 51, no. 11, pp.
145–147, 2008.