SITE 2022 - San Diego, CA, United States, April 11-15, 2022

Implementing and Evaluating an Online Professional Development on

Gamification for K-12 teachers

Daisyane Barreto
Department of Instructional Technology, Foundations, and Secondary Education
University of North Carolina Wilmington
United States
barretod@uncw.edu

Jeff Ertzberger
Technology Unit
University of North Carolina Wilmington
United States
ertzbergerj@uncw.edu

Abstract: Most teachers have limited experience with digital games when it comes to integrating
them into the classroom. Literature review on teachers’ perceptions of video games have been used
to guide the design and development of an online professional development (PD) on gamification
for K-12 teachers. This study covers the implementation and evaluation of this PD to assess the
effectiveness of the program with teachers. Preliminary data on the PD evaluation is discussed in
this paper.

Introduction

Digital games have been used for educational purposes for almost forty years now (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2007; Games
& Squire, 2011). Still, most teachers have little or limited experience with digital games (Bourgonjon et al., 2013;
An, 2018), especially when it comes to integrating these technologies into the classroom. When teachers play video
games, it is usually a small number playing on a regular basis (Kenny & McDaniel, 2011; Becker & Jacobsen,
2005), which can contribute to this limited use of digital games in the classroom.

A new approach to the application of games in education has been gamification. There have been many definitions
and understanding of what gamification is (Matallaouy et al., 2017). A common definition of gamification involves
the application of game elements into non-game contexts (Detering et al., 2011), such as educational settings.
Differentiating this term from games (or video games) is important to understand that game elements (e.g., points,
levels, narrative, quests, etc.) interact within the game system, which provides the player with the game experience.
However, once these elements are extracted from the game context and incorporated in other situations, such as an
educational context, the game activity cannot be understood in the same way (Barreto & Lynn, 2018). That is, a
quest or a narrative extracted from a game and implemented into another context might not be perceived or have the
same outcomes as it would in its original context. Even though there has been concerns and issues with the
implementation of gamification in education (Hanus & Fox, 2015), when used properly, gamification can involve,
inform, and educate the learner (Kapp, 2012).

Given teachers’ lack of training in games as well as new approaches such as gamification, there is a need for future
research to explore how professional development activities could be implemented to inform and prepare them to
use these strategies in their classroom (An, 2018). Additionally, professional development (PD) could be designed
for flexibility given teachers’ busy school schedule. That is, PD could be delivered in online format as means to
reach out more teachers as well as to allow them to complete the learning at their own pace. Few studies have
examined teacher training through online courses, with teachers reporting positive outcomes, including flexibility
and control/monitor of their learning (Hadad et al., 2021).

-1776-
 SITE 2022 - San Diego, CA, United States, April 11-15, 2022

Thus, this study covers the implementation and evaluation of an online PD on gamification for K-12 teachers. The
professional development is offered to teachers in Southeastern North Carolina. Modules covered in the PD are: (1)
What is Gamification, (2) Gamification and Classroom Management, (3) Gamification and Content Delivery, and
(5) Gamification and Assessment. Each of the modules demonstrate how teachers can use gamification tools and
techniques to enhance their instruction. A preliminary evaluation from the online PD has been conducted to examine
the effectiveness of the program with a group of teachers.

Student Engagement

To understand the background for this study, it is important to discuss student engagement, first, as one of the topics
related to games and gamification as well as an area that many educators often face some problems and issues with
their students. Teachers have often experienced students who look bored or seem disengaged during their classes. A
common explanation for this issue is learning being perceived as the transmission of knowledge and information,
with the role of students being passive and consuming this information. Consequently, students feel bored or
disengaged. There are many factors that can impact student engagement, but for the purpose of this paper, the focus
will be on the ones that are appropriate for the topic and context covered. That is, the understanding of student
engagement should be examined through a classroom-based model (Barkley & Major, 2020). For example, within a
classroom setting, there are two components that will influence student engagement: (1) motivation and (2) active
learning. Motivation and active learning work together to create a state of engagement in which the elements of
motivation and active learning connect creating a state of engagement.

Students can feel motivated to engage in activity if they value the rewards and opportunities of performing that
activity as well as if they expect to be successful in performing the tasks involved in that activity. Meanwhile, active
learning provides the conditions, which will allow students to perform and think about what they are doing ( Barkley
& Major, 2020). As a dynamic product of motivation and active learning, student engagement cannot be simply
reached by using a magical formula or toolbox. Student engagement in the classroom will depend on teachers
carefully planning and using strategies and tools that will sustain students’ engagement in the learning process.
There many tools, techniques and learning principles that can be used to foster student engagement and games and
gamification is one of them.

Gamification: a strategy for engagement

After understanding the main concepts associated with student engagement, it is important to discuss the strategies
and tools that can be incorporated to promote student engagement, specifically gamification. As the name implies,
gamification is grounded in games. There are many definitions out there on games, such as what they are and what
they are not. A classic definition from Salen and Zimmerman (2004), which includes some of the core elements
about games, especially in relation to gamification, is that “a game is a system in which players get involved in a
designed conflict, characterized by a set of rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome” (p. 80). First, games are
systems, which means that they have many parts and elements that interrelate to form the whole. Secondly, they
usually have a designed conflict, such as a problem, situation, or scenario that the player must resolve. There are
also set of rules that guide the game and how the player will interact with it. Lastly, the end of a game usually results
in a quantifiable outcome such as a score, points, percentage, ranking, etc.

Just like games, there are many definitions for gamification. A popular definition of the term is the application of
game elements (e.g., reward system or game narrative) into non-game contexts (Detering et al., 2011). For example,
a course or lesson could be gamified by including levels and badges when students complete a task or an activity.
When considering the benefits and drawbacks of implementing gamification in educational contexts, some of the
benefits include increasing engagement and participation as well as student motivation (Hanus & Fox, 2015; Maican
et al., 2016). Meanwhile, depending on how gamification is designed, like in solely competitive approach (e.g., use
of leaderboards) and reward-based contexts (e.g., points and virtual coins), it can be detrimental to the learning
goals, motivation, and student satisfaction (Hanus & Fox, 2015; Maican et al., 2016). The reason for these issues is
based on the focus of the gamified approach, which is the external motivation instead of internal motivation.

-1777-
 SITE 2022 - San Diego, CA, United States, April 11-15, 2022

Implementation and Evaluation of the Online PD for Teachers

To design and develop a set of e-Learning modules for K-12 teachers, the ADDIE framework has been adopted for
this project. This framework can be defined as an informal label for a systematic approach for instructional design,
i.e., a generic instructional systems development process (Morrison, Ross & Kemp, 2007). Additionally, this
framework has been implemented following Stavredes and Herder’s (2014) guidelines for the design of online
course/program. ADDIE has five distinct phases followed by an instructional designer or a team (Seels & Glasgow,
1998). In the initial phase (i.e., Analysis), previous data collected by the authors on the teachers’ perceptions on
video games as well as other existing data has informed learner needs on the topic. Meanwhile, the Design phase
describes the process of planning the learning goals and objectives as well as the instruction of the e-Learning
modules for teachers. During the development phase, a set of four e-Learning modules has been created using
Google Slides for prototyping and formative evaluation, and later was developed using Articulate 360 software. The
actual implementation of the online PD was conducted during the Spring of 2021. In the evaluation phase, data will
be collected to determine the effectiveness of the learning objectives of the e-Learning modules.

Research Methods

This study is designed to examine teachers’ perceptions on an online gamification PD. Quantitative data will be
collected through online surveys. Participants (pre-service and in-service teachers) will be asked to complete a pre-
and post-survey that examines their knowledge and experiences with the PD. Surveys will be analyzed using
quantitative statistical methods to provide summaries and any changes on participants’ perceptions and practice.
Initial reviews suggest that the professional development provides teachers with new strategies for using games in
their classrooms and their perception of gamification is more favorable after the conclusion of the professional
development.
Opportunity to participate in the study was sent to teachers who were working in schools that were a part of a
regional Professional Development System. This included over one hundred public K-12 schools. In addition, pre-
service teachers were also invited to participate in the study.

Teachers who desired to participate followed a link to an online information page. The information page described
the contents of the course along with information about the study. Teachers who wanted to participate completed a
pre-survey that contained four questions. Answering these four questions also served as the participants' registration
for the course. Two of the four questions were on a Likert scale. Using an “agree or disagree” scale these two
questions were 1) I feel confident using Gamification techniques in my classroom, 2) I feel confident about my
knowledge of gamification. A third Likert scale question asked participants to rate their perception of gamification
from positive to negative. A fourth and final question was open ended and asked the participants to describe what
motivated them to learn more about gamification.

Once registered, participants could access all five of the gamification course modules. Once all five modules were
completed the participants returned to a post-survey where participants were again asked the same two “agree or
disagree” questions from the pre-survey. The post-survey also included an open-ended question regarding how we
could improve the training.

Participants who completed both the pre- and post-survey had the option to submit their name into a drawing to win
$100 dollars' worth of school supplies. It was hoped that by providing an incentive, participants would be
encouraged to fully complete the modules and surveys.

Results

Unfortunately, the survey was unable to produce a large enough sample to be able to report specific data. Over a six-
month period of calls for participation, we were only able to produce an “n” of <10. While there were significant
numbers of teachers who took the pre-survey and began the professional development, a very small portion of those
completed the training modules and the post-survey. In reflection, the researchers believe that the length of the

-1778-
 SITE 2022 - San Diego, CA, United States, April 11-15, 2022

modules was a contributing factor to the retention rate of participants. Having five modules each lasting
approximately thirty minutes in duration was a large time commitment for our target audience. In addition, feedback
from participants noted that the modules were very elementary in nature. This was referring to the fact that the
modules were made to allow participants to experience gamified content. They implemented a frog as the main
character and did have a perceived appearance of being made for an elementary audience. It is possible that the
length and theme of the modules contributed to the teacher's low retention rate. Anticipated revisions of the modules
include compressing the five modules into one and changing the theme of the modules to look more in line with
traditional professional developments for adults.

Summary

Gamification can make a significant impact in education and beyond. However, teachers need to be trained on how
to use these technologies and new approaches effectively in their classroom before implementation. Additionally,
the level of customization that gamification provides for learners can allow for a more personalized learning and
even a culturally situated learning design. The impact of this online gamification PD can inform practitioners and
researchers who plan to implement these strategies in their own classroom or conduct similar studies. It is hoped that
the results of this study can contribute to future design and development of online PD for teachers as well as the
body of research on the use of digital games and gamification.

References

An, Y. (2018). The effects of an online professional development course on teachers’ perceptions, attitudes, self-
efficacy, and behavioral intentions regarding digital game-based learning. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 66(6), 1505-1527.

Barreto, D., & Lynn, C. A. (2018). Gamificação: uma estratégia emergente para sua caixa de ferramentas em cursos
a distância. Revista Tecnologias na Educação, 10(26). Edição Temática VIII – III Congresso sobre Tecnologias na
Educação (Ctrl+E 2018) https://tecedu.pro.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Art5-vol.26-EdicaoTematicaVIII-
Setembro2018.pdf

Barkley, E. F., & Major, C. H. (2020). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty. John Wiley
& Sons.

Becker, K., & Jacobsen, M. (2005). Games for learning: Are schools ready for what's to come?. DiGRA 2005 2nd
International Conference, “Changing Views: Worlds in Play” Vancouver, B.C. June 16-20, 2005.

Bourgonjon, J., De Grove, F., De Smet, C., Van Looy, J., Soetaert, R., & Valcke, M. (2013). Acceptance of game-
based learning by secondary school teachers. Computers & Education, 67, 21-35.

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. & E. Nacke, L. (2011). Gamification: Toward a definition. Gamification
Workshop Proceedings, Vancouver 2011. Pp 12-15.

Egenfeldt-nielsen, S. (2007). Third Generation Educational Use of Computer Games. Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 263-281.

Games, A., & Squire, K. D. (2011). Searching for the fun in learning: A historical perspectives on the evolution of
the educational video games. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 17-46).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Hadad, S., Shamir-Inbal, T., Blau, I., & Leykin, E. (2021). Professional development of code and robotics teachers
through small private online course (SPOC): Teacher centrality and pedagogical strategies for developing
computational thinking of students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(4), 763-791.

-1779-
 SITE 2022 - San Diego, CA, United States, April 11-15, 2022

Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on
intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & education, 80,
152-161.

Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training
and education. John Wiley & Sons.

Kenny, R. F., & McDaniel, R. (2011). The role teachers' expectations and value assessments of video games play in
their adopting and integrating them into their classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 197-
213.
Maican, C., Lixandroiu, R., & Constantin, C. (2016). Interactivia. ro–A study of a gamification framework using
zero-cost tools. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 186-197.

Matallaoui, A., Hanner, N., & Zarnekow, R. (2017). Introduction to gamification: Foundation and underlying
theories. In S. Stieglitz, C. Lattemann, S. Robra-Bissantz, R. Zarnekow, & T. Brockmann (Ed.), Gamification:
Using game elements in serious contexts (pp 3-18). Switzerland: Springer, Cham.

Seels, B., & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making instructional design decisions. Merrill.

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. (2007). Designing effective instruction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley& Sons.

Stavredes, T., & Herder, T. (2014). A guide to online course design: Strategies for student success. John Wiley &
Sons

-1780-