30

Chapter 2
A Systematic Design
Model for Gamified
Learning Environments:
GELD Model

Tugce Aldemir
Pennsylvania State University, USA

Amine Hatun Ataş

Middle East Technical University, Turkey

Berkan Celik
Middle East Technical University, Turkey & Van Yuzuncu Yil University, Turkey

ABSTRACT
This formative research study is an attempt to develop a design model for gamified
learning experiences situated in real-life educational contexts. This chapter reports
on the overall gamification model with the emphasis on the contexts and their
interactions. With this focus, this chapter aims to posit an alternative perspective to
existing gamification design praxis in education which mainly focuses on separate
game elements, by arguing that designing a gamified learning experience needs a
systematic approach with considerations of the interrelated dimensions and their
interplays. The study was conducted throughout the 2014-15 academic year, and
the data were collected from two separate groups of pre-service teachers through
observations and document collections (n=118) and four sets of interviews (n=42).
The results showed that gamification design has intertwined components that form a
fuzzy design model: GELD. The findings also support the complex and the dynamic
nature of gamified learning design, and the need for a more systematic approach to
design and development of such experiences.
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-6026-5.ch002

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

INTRODUCTION

Advances in technology and the prevalence of information and knowledge networks

have created new contexts that engage learners in different modalities, including
online social networks, video games, and various connected learning opportunities.
Games as one of these advancements have the potential of motivating learners
(Reigeluth & Squire, 1998), providing a learner-centered, entertaining and captivating
experience (Prensky, 2001). Due to their potential, there has been a great deal of
interest in educational game design especially by companies who create thousands
of games each year in search of new venues for profit maximization. However,
the cost of the educational games (Cruickshank & Telfer, 1980) and integrating
educational content into game-environments (Prensky, 2001) are considered to be
some of the problems of the serious games. An alternative is gamification, which
originated from the digital media industry in 2008 and became widely known in
the second half of 2010 (Deterding, Sicart, Nacke, O’Hara, & Dixon, 2011). The
basic idea of gamification is to provide motivating and engaging real-life activities
using the game elements (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011). Although there is no
commonly accepted gamification definition (Seaborn & Fels, 2015), there are some
definitions of gamification that are mainly accepted and practiced. For example,
Kapp (2012) defined gamification as “...using game-based mechanics, aesthetics
and game thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote learning, and solve
problems” (p. 10). Among other gamification definitions in different fields of study,
the most prevalent definition was provided by Deterding, Khaled, Nacke, and Dixon
(2011) as “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (p. 2).
The potential of gamification in educational contexts has been recognized by
several researchers (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986; Mcgonigal, 2011; Kapp, 2012; Su,
2016; Yapıcı & Karakoyun, 2017; Yıldırım, 2017). While some researchers seek
to develop new gamification models and frameworks (Werbach & Hunter, 2012;
Urh, Vukovic, Jereb, & Pintar, 2015; Liu, Santhanam, & Webster, 2017), others
have used game design models and frameworks to design gamified experience
(Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011). The studies conducted on gamification provide
both promising and disappointing results (Robertson, 2010; Bogost, 2011; Kelly,
2011; Berengueres, Alsuwairi, Zaki & Ng, 2013; Domínguez, et al., 2013; Duggan
& Shoup, 2013). Successful examples of gamified learning experience such as Khan
Academy and Quest to Learn show the potential advantages gamification can bring
to educational contexts. On the other hand, it is also highly criticized for lacking
the core game characteristics and trying to build fun by simply integrating some
game elements such as points, badges and leaderboards in non-game occasions
(Bogost, 2011; Robertson, 2010). Criticisms are raised by game designers such as
Bogost (2011), Robertson (2010), and Kelly (2011), and focus mostly on how the

31
 A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

gamified experience is designed and how people use it. Putting together the points,
badges, and leaderboards, namely PBLs, as Chou (2015), one of the gamification
pioneers, calls, it may not work to motivate learners. Similar to a successful video
game, gamification also needs its own design process. First and foremost, it is quite
important to examine what makes games so motivating and then, based on a design
model, a gamified experience could be created. Although it can be possible to follow
game design models and principles (Ferrara, 2012) while designing gamified learning
experiences, the relative absence or the inadequacies of a gamification design model
especially tailored for instructional contexts is extremely crucial. This issue has been
the main driving force behind this study.
Unlike the majority of the existing gamification studies focusing on the single
game elements, and how they impact the motivational and engaging nature of
instruction, this paper favors Brown’s (1992) arguments about synergistic nature
of classroom life. That suggests that changing one part of a systemic whole might
create perturbations in the others. Therefore, the design considerations for real-
life classroom environments should be held in a systemic approach that takes all
the aspects into account equally and holistically (Brown, 1992). This concern has
necessitated delving into an analysis of the fundamental characteristics of the
gamification process by specifically looking at the question of how to combine
its components for real-life praxis. Given that, the main purpose of this study is
to produce an instructional design model for a gamified environment and make a
humble contribution to instructional design theory by using empirical data obtained
and analyzed from undergraduate students. The model developed could probe for
further discussions about addressing complex and dynamic nature of the real-life
educational contexts in the process of designing gamified learning experiences.
On the basis of this purpose, this chapter reports on the overall model with the
emphasis of one dominant pattern: the contexts and the interactions between these
contexts. With this focus, this paper aims to posit an alternative perspective to the
existing gamification design praxis in educational contexts which mainly focus
on separate game elements and their characteristics, by arguing that designing a
gamified learning experience needs a systematic approach with considerations of
the interrelated dimensions and their interplays.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Gamification in Education

In education, researchers and practitioners all around the world showed noticeable
efforts in order to gamify learning environments and to reveal the effects of

32
A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

gamification. Particularly, gamification of learning environments has been shown to

impact achievement (Aşıksoy, 2017; de-Marcos, Domínguez, Saenz-de-Navarrete,
& Pages, 2014; Lister, 2015), attitude towards lessons (Yildirim, 2017), engagement
(Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014; Tan & Hew, 2016), enjoyment (Baxter, Holderness,
& Wood, 2015; Li, Grossman, & Fitzmaurice, 2012), learning (Alcivar & Abad,
2016; Buckley & Doyle, 2014), motivation (Abramovich, Schunn, & Higashi, 2013;
Lister, 2015), participation (Cronk, 2012; Lister, 2015), and satisfaction (Alcivar &
Abad, 2016; Armstrong & Landers, 2017). Gamification benefits from a number
of game design elements, and aligning these elements (mechanics, dynamics, and
emotions) appropriately leads to the success of gamification (Robson, Plangger,
Kietzmann, McCarthy, & Pitt, 2016). There are different pieces such as points,
emotions, challenges, progression and many more that can be put together to create
different types of game context for diverse experiences in non-game environments
(Werbach & Hunter, 2012). However, the effects of gamification and its potential
to improve learning depend on its good design and appropriate utilization because
these effects are reliant on implementation and context (Dicheva, Dichev, Agre, &
Angelova, 2015; Hamari et al., 2014). Due to the complex and dynamic nature of the
real-life educational contexts (Brown, 1992), the effective design and implementation
of gamification necessitate great effort with a systematic approach (Dicheva et al.,
2015; Huang & Soman, 2013; Domínguez et al., 2013).

Gamification Frameworks

Gamification has been applied in several fields including business, healthcare,

information systems, and education. As a result, some frameworks or models for
gamification have appeared in these fields. Mora, Riera, Gonzalez, & Arnedo-Moreno
(2015) conducted a literature review of gamification frameworks, and revealed 18
design frameworks trying to formalize the gamification design process. These design
frameworks were classified into two distinct categories as generic frameworks and
business-specific frameworks which were sorted by time, background, and scope.
Another review of gamification design frameworks on relevant publications from
diverse areas was carried out by Mora, Riera, González, and Arnedo-Moreno (2017).
They reviewed 40 frameworks, and they grouped framework application areas into
generic, business, learning, and health. Of the generic frameworks, some researchers
have preferred to use MDA (Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics) (Zichermann &
Cunningham, 2011), DMC (Dynamics, Mechanics and Components (Werbach &
Hunter, 2012), and 6D (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). 6D framework, which was also
adapted in this study, consists of 6 iterative phases all of which start with the letter D:
1. Define business objectives, 2. Delineate target behaviors, 3. Describe your players,
4. Devise activity loops, 5. Don’t forget fun, and 6. Deploy the appropriate tools.

33
 A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

Simões, Redondo, and Vilas (2013) expressed a social gamification framework

for a K-6 learning platform in the form of social gamification guidelines and
main features in order to assist educators and schools to increase motivation of
students and learning outcomes. According to authors, social gamification is seen
as the use of game mechanics and game-thinking from social games which will
be implemented in non-game contexts (e.g., social learning environments). Game
elements are considered in a social gamification of education instead of games by
themselves. Furthermore, Nah, Telaprolu, Rallapalli, and Venkata (2013) proposed
a gamification framework for computer educational games. The components of the
gamification framework are gamification principles, system design elements for
gamification, and engagement/cognitive absorption of users. The framework aims
to provide guidance and recommendations for software designers and researchers
in order to gamify educational applications. Kotini and Tzelepi (2015) presented a
student-centered gamification-based framework to develop activities for teaching
computer science, especially computational thinking based on intrinsic motivation.
Due to the student-centered nature of the framework, students are given chances
to fail experiment and to learn at their own pace based on their own rules so that
students’ involvement in the learning process could be enhanced. In the framework,
game design elements are introduced and readjusted in a learning context. These
game design elements are the core points on which the learning activities for
computational thinking will be built based on constructivist learning theory. Mora,
Zaharias, Gonzalez, & Arnedo-Moreno (2016) presented a framework for agile
gamification of learning experiences (FRAGGLE). The conceptual framework aims
to contribute to gamifying learning experiences, especially in higher education via
Agile methodologies for the purpose of reaching a fast Minimum Viable Product
(MVP) ready for testing. The structure of the framework follows four phases which
are declaration, creation, execution, and learning.

Gamification Models

There are a limited number of gamification models in the field of education. Huang
and Soman (2013) provided a linear model to apply gamification. They simplified
gamification into a five-step process which are understanding the audience and the
surrounding context, specifying learning objectives, structuring the experience,
identifying resources, and implementing gamification elements. The authors
recommended to follow these steps to apply gamification elements accurately and
effectively to achieve various learning objectives. Appiahene, Asante, Kesse-Yaw,
and Acquah-Hayfron (2017) proposed a model called Appiahene Gamification Model
(AGM) in order to raise students’ programming skills. The proposed model places
users in the middle, and users are connected to each component of the model which

34
A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

are understanding the target audience and context, stating the learning objectives,
constructing the experience, preparing the content, identifying the needed resources
and materials, designing and applying gamification element, and evaluating and
taking feedback.
Of the models in the literature, some were proposed for e-learning. Utomo,
Amriani, Aji, Wahidah, and Junus (2014) proposed the gamified e-learning model
based on the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model. The model consisted of four
main components which are the user, learning process, goal, and environment. In
order to reach the learning objectives, the user is required to handle the learning
process in an environment that is facilitated by a gamified e-learning system.
Various gamification elements are applied in each process of the CoI model in a
way that they could motivate students. In this way, they could be more active and
create community of learning. Moreover, Klock and da Cunha (2015) presented a
conceptual model for the gamification process of e-learning environments. The model
aims to help identify the elements involved in the gamification process in order to
guide the application of gamification in e-learning contexts. The model consists of
four main dimensions focusing on information of who (actors of the system), why
(possible desired behaviors), how (which game elements), and what (data involved
in gamification process) should be involved in the gamification procedure.
When compared to other fields, the number of learning specific design frameworks
in the field of education is limited. In practice, majority of the studies lack sound
application of gamification following a formal design process. The procedures and
features in these studies are difficult to be implemented in other studies that will
be carried out by researchers or educators. What is more, the existing learning
specific frameworks do not take stakeholders (educators, students, etc.) into account
even though their argument is to improve the learning experience for these actors.
Without identifying the characteristics, needs and the preferences of these main
actors to inform the design and implementation of learning activities and tools, one
cannot posit deliberate claims regarding to why a particular gamification design
framework is needed (i.e. need analysis) and how it will address those needs. For
these reasons, it is essential to devote more effort to personalization and to integrating
motivational and instructional design into gamified environments (Mora et al.,
2017). Furthermore, aforementioned frameworks or models do not completely guide
the process of gamifying learning environments. How the models or frameworks
were constructed and how the steps or components were related are not explained
thoroughly in the relevant studies. Therefore, there is still need for design models and
frameworks which guide the process of gamifying a learning environment following
a systematic approach that acknowledges the complex and dynamic nature of the
real-life educational contexts.

35
 A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

The aim of this chapter is to report a model entitled “Gamified Enhanced

Learning Design” that probes for further elaboration for the need of a systematic
approach in designing gamified learning environments and experiences in real-life
educational contexts.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study was designed according to the principles of formative research which is
based on the Yin’s (1984) case study approach and has an iterative nature (Reigeluth
& Frick, 1999). Designed Case as one of the subcategories of the formative research,
in which the theory/model is purposefully initiated, was utilized through the study.
The five steps followed are listed below:

1. A case, including game elements and components integrated into a course,

was created to generate design model.
2. Formative data were collected and analyzed on the instance.
3. The instance was revised.
4. Data collection and revision cycle was repeated.
5. Tentative model was developed.

Participants

The participants were 118 undergraduate level students, including 81 volunteers

of 112 Foreign Language Education (FLE) department students and 37 volunteer
students of Early Childhood Education (ECE) department (see Table 1). Convenience
sampling was utilized due to the instructor’s willingness to integrate a new method
and her expertise in educational games. The observation and documents data were
collected from all the students participated in the study. However, for the interviews
purposeful sampling method was utilized with information-rich students (See Table
2) (Patton, 2002).
Participants were from different levels. FLE students were mostly sophomores,
and ECE students were mostly juniors (See Table 3).

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected and triangulated through observations, documents and semi-
structured interviews to ensure consistency. Observations were done to note the

36
A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

Table 1. Demographics (n =118)

Observation & Documents

Cases Female Male
n % n %
FLE 66 55.9 15 12.7
ECE 37 31.4 0 00.0
Total 103 87.3 15 12.7

Table 2. Interviewee numbers

Implementation time FLE ECE

Mid-term 17 8
End-term 7 16 (4x4)*
Total 24 24
*Focus groups

Table 3. Education Levels

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

n % n % n % n %
FLE (n =80*) 6 7.4 51 63 23 28.4 - -
ECE (n = 37) - - 2 5.4 31 83.3 4 10.8
*1 missing

phenomena in its natural context. Documents including e-mail logs, Edmodo

comments, and online activities were archived and analyzed. In order to get in-depth
information, semi-structured and focus-group interviews were done. Two sets of
interviews (mid-term and end-term) were done in each semester, for gathering data
about the iterations of elements and the process, and about game elements and the
overall experience respectively. Focus groups were formed purposefully based on
the house in which group of students studied collaboratively through the semester.
An interview protocol was prepared according to gamification, game design, and
model and framework development literature. Interview questions and probes were
piloted and examined by two peer experts and revised according to their feedback.
Data analysis were done iteratively throughout the two semesters according
to Miles and Huberman’s (1994) guidelines. The data, gathered via observations,
documents and interviews were transcribed and read several times to have a general

37
 A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

idea about students’ perceptions, and then coded based on open coding method
(Merriam, 2009). Another expert also coded the same data set, and the emerged
codes and categories were compared and discussed until reaching consensus on
them. Concerning transferability issue, the instance of the study was repeated with a
group of students from two different departments so as to identify “situationalities”,
which refers to the fact that some elements might work in some situations but may
not be suitable in other situations, and to reach a data saturation point (Reigeluth
& Frick, 1999, p. 15).

Procedure of the Study

The study was held during two semesters with FLE and ECE groups respectively.
Through all process in each semester, 6D gamification design framework was
adapted to gamify the two courses (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). 6D gamification
design framework was chosen by taking expert opinion and due to its suitability for
procedural instructional design. The arrangements regarding each dimension of the
6D framework are given below:

1. Define Objectives: Course objectives were revised and modified by considering

learner group and content and enriched by including fun element.
2. Delineate Target Behavior: Game elements were taken from Werbach and
Hunter (2012) dynamics, mechanics and components pyramid. For more
information about the game dynamics, mechanics, and components applied,
and how they were applied, please refer to authors’ previously published
article that mainly focused on the design, development, evaluation and
iteration processes of the game elements (Authors, 2018, p. 251). A narrative
from a well-known film, Harry Potter was inspired and adapted into to the
study. Students target behavior was delineated as improving themselves from
apprentice level to master level in their predetermined groups (houses). Each
instructional component (syllabus, grading, policy, course presentation) were
modified. For example, course syllabus was modified into Virtues of Apprentice
comprising of task (quests) to be accomplished, varying challenge points to
be a master. Online sessions were also embedded into the course to create a
collaborative environment and provide students to follow their progress through
leaderboards. Course presentations were enriched with challenges (multiple
choice, true/false questions) and fun elements (funny videos, pictures).
3. Describe Your Players: Students in each group were asked to take Bartle
(1996) test at the beginning of each semester to be categorized as one of
players; Achievers, Explorers, Killers and Socializers. Each player type was
associated with one of four groups (houses); Centaurs (Achievers), Leocampuses

38
A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

(Explorers), Salamanders (Killers), and Sphinxes (Socializers) based on the

association between player type and mythological creature representing the
house.
4. Devise Activity Loops: In order to ensure the progress of the action and
structure the main characteristics of progression and engagement activity loops
were used (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). Parallel with the purpose of engagement
loops, students were informed what they should be doing, why they should
be doing so and what the system’s reactions would be. Engagement loops
included three steps as motivate, action and feedback. To motivate students,
elements like narratives to create curiosity and fantasy, presenting different
level of challenge, providing collaborative online environment to enhance
belongingness were utilized. According to students’ actions; badges and
leaderboards were shown as a way of providing feedback. Parallel with role
of progression loops, an instructional environment in which students could
feel that they have a continuous change of experience as they move along
the gamified environment was created. That is, difficulty level of the quests
(activities) were increased gradually, and students were informed about their
progression via both individual and house (group) level feedback. Badges and
varying challenge levels were also utilized as indicators of student progress
through the process.
5. Don’t Forget the Fun: In order to include fun elements into the study, Lazzaro
(2012)’s Four Key Model (Easy Fun, Hard Fun, Altered Fun and People) was
integrated. Acceptance letters, leaderboards and badges were used to create easy
fun to let student appreciate the experience rather than winning. Different types
of quests and challenges were applied for hard fun so as to overcome obstacles,
beat challenges and solve puzzles. In order to create altered fun, mental breaks
such as funny story, personal anecdotes were told. For people dimension of the
model, opportunities to enhance player competition, cooperation performance,
and spectacle were utilized through varying level of challenges, group work
in houses.
6. Deploy Appropriate Tools: Three technology; Edmodo, Blendspace and
Weebly, were integrated into the courses. Edmodo was used due to having
game elements like avatar and badges and also having a familiar interface.

FINDINGS: GELD MODEL

The findings of the study are classified under five main themes: Gamification
Related General Issues and Perceptions, Gamified Course Related General Issues
and Perceptions, People Related Issues, Design-Related Issues, Game Elements.

39
 A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

The evolving model is not composed of distinctive categories as the elements

are intertwined; therefore, the lines between the categories have fuzzy borders. The
model does not provide procedural and linear phases; rather, it provides a dynamic
structure for the design process. The model has also adopted a broader perception of
the gamification phenomenon in education contexts as the findings of the research
has revealed a strong mutual influence between the gamified learning experience and
this broader context. In the lights of the findings, the model is named as Gamified
Environment and Learning Design (GELD).
The model has a dynamic characteristic as such iterations in any element may
cause a difference in the other elements of the model. Therefore, rather than building
the model with separate circles and squares with arrows showing the relationships,
overlapping shapes are used and the lines are drawn as dashes to show the fuzziness
of the borders. The overall GELD model is depicted in Figure 1 below.
In our previous study, students’ perceptions of game elements in the gamified
learning experience along with the design process have been scrutinized in detail
(Aldemir, Celik, & Kaplan, 2018). This study builds upon those findings, and
reports on the overall model with the emphasis of one dominant pattern obtained
from the findings: the contexts and the interactions between these contexts. Findings
have shown that there are some factors that might not be necessarily in a gamified
learning environment but it might be affecting the learning experience systematically.
Therefore, an outlying circle to represent broader gamification-context is added
to the model, and within this outlying setting, there is the gamified course where
there are gamified course elements and further actors in play that consist of: people,
design and game elements. The fuzzy borders between the different layers of settings
depict the dynamic relationships and continuous interactions between these contexts.

Figure 1. General structure of the GELD model

40
A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

1. Gamified Environment

This category contains the characteristics of the gamified environment (experience)

in general, which might not be specific to the course of interest.
The age of the target group was found to be an element to consider while designing
a gamified environment. Furthermore, some participants stated that the format needs
to be changed according to the content. These opinions might be due to the design of
the applied gamified course; and as some of the participants emphasized this was the
first gamified course that they had come across. Therefore, their experiences shaped
their assertions. Considering this limitation and the statements of the participants, it
would be safe to conclude that gamification is an age-bounded and content-bounded
process. The findings of the current study cannot support that every content can be
gamified for all people from all ages. Koivisto, Hamari, and Sarsa (2014) proposed
a contradicting result, as they found that age does not have a direct effect on the
perceived benefits of the gamification. They supported the idea that different age
groups drive benefits from different mechanics. Similarly, according to Kapp (2012),
gamification can be used for all kinds of contents and fields; yet, it is important how
it is designed. These researchers support that participants’ opinions on the impacts
of age and content in gamification might be due to the current design.
Beside the age and content debate, almost all participants had a positive attitude
towards gamification. Participants said that they directly associated fun element
with the course when they heard the name of the gamification. Actually, the current
literature on gamification supports this contention by claiming that the basic aim
of the gamification procedure is to make the serious activities fun (Deterding, et
al 2011, Zicherman & Cunningham 2011; Zicherman & Linder, 2010; Werbach &
Hunter, 2012). Similarly, a psychologically safe environment where participants are
free to share their opinions, and free to fail and try again is appreciated in a gamified
environment. Therefore, it can safely be claimed that a gamified environment should
be psychologically safe where students are given the freedom to fail without getting
punished. The freedom to fail, is actually a crucial game element according to Stott
and Neustaedter (2013) and Kapp (2012) as they emphasized that all games enable
this element by providing players with multiple opportunities to try repeatedly until
mastery. Despite a demand for such an environment, a balance between the fun and
seriousness was also emphasized by many participants. Kapp (2012) supported this
finding and underlined the balance between the fun and seriousness in a gamified
learning experience. Therefore, it would not be inappropriate to conclude that a
gamified environment should bring serious fun.
The majority of the participants underlined the motivational characteristic of the
gamification, supporting the findings in existing literature (Deterding et al., 2011).
Another characteristic of the gamification, findings suggested, is the immersiveness.

41
 A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

According to some participants, gamified experiences can put the target group in
an immersive state only if it is designed well, which is an idealized situation for
gamification designers (Kapp, 2012).
The results also suggest that a gamified environment should be collaborative
and interactive. The fact that these two elements as the participants thought to be
valuable and essential to be in a gamified environment can easily be interpreted that
involving such social features as interaction and collaboration might intensify the
gamification experience. A similar finding was provided by Koivisto and Hamari
(2014) who stated that integrating social features can create an engaging gamified
experience.
Another metric of an engaging experience, as Zichermann and Cunningham
(2011) state, is virality. Correspondingly, three participants in the study stated that
the gamified experience should cause a spill-over effect, i.e. virality; and the current
gamified environment certainly contained that element as the students shared the
course elements with their social networks on social media tools.
The results also show that there should be a level 0 where novice players are
introduced to the gamified environment. This level should be easy, short, unevaluated
and done with the support of instructors. Kapp (2012) calls this level as free-play,
where players are asked to play the game without any guidance in order to learn the
experience by hands-on experience. Yet, as opposed to free-play, the learners in our
study preferred to be guided. The process including this level is called onboarding in
the literature (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011), which suggests that at this stage
the players in the gamified experience should be guided step-by-step and the task
should be easy. The onboarding stage should also eliminate the possibility of failure
and requires minimum reading-information to be able to proceed (Zichermann &
Cunningham, 2011), supporting the findings of the study. Creating such an easy
experience might ease the adaptation as the majority of the participants stated
that they needed time to adapt to the gamified experience. In order to shorten this
span, scaffolding and continuous guiding by the instructor are needed. Pulling all
these together, in order to ease the adaptation span of the participants in a gamified
environment, it can be claimed that the onboarding stage should be short, easy and
unevaluated, and guidance should be given continuously up to players/learners’
mastery.
Furthermore, in order to create an immersive experience, coherence of the elements
is essential in a gamified environment. For that, small details are important as they
come together and build a coherent whole, and the narrative is the game element
that would ensure this coherence. Therefore, in light of these findings, it can be
said that the coherence of the game elements around a narrative is important. This
is consistent with the finding of the literature (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011;
Kapp, 2012; Werbach & Hunter, 2012).

42
A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

The final issue to discuss about a gamified environment is cheating. According

to the results, the participants found it easy to cheat in the online part of the course.
Zichermann and Cunningham (2011) name this situation as gaming the system and
assure that all players try to exploit the system; however, it is possible to limit cheating
by having proper control mechanisms or policies introduced by the administrators.
In the current study, control by the instructor to ensure whether the participants read
the online content was not possible due to the lack of interface support.

2. Gamified Course

The results indicate that the overall attitude towards the gamified course is positive
yet, in tandem with the emotional changes the participants might go through, this
attitude might change along the positive-negative line. Therefore, it is clear that the
emotional state is an important element that should be considered while designing
a gamified course. On the basis of the emotions such as boredom, stress, joy,
disappointment, fear and curiosity that the participants said they felt during the
course, it can be possible to evaluate the game elements or the gamified experience.
Emotional states are emphasized in the MDA model as well. The letter A in the
acronym of MDA stands for Aesthetics that means the emotional responses received
from the players while playing game, and according to Hunicke et al. (2004), games
should be designed on the basis of the desirable emotional responses from the
players. However, most of the emotional responses the participants showed were not
the desired ones, and they were mainly because of the management and guidance
issues. Curiosity was a desired emotional response at the beginning of the course;
for that, a narrated acceptance letter was sent to the participants. Several students
stated that this narrated teaser made them curious about the course in a positive way.
Building curiosity at the beginning of a gamified experience would give students
a reason to try the experience. This idea is also supported by Chou (2015) who
presents curiosity as one of the eight core drives for desirable actions in a gamified
environment. Chou (2015) further contends that building curiosity would be the first
step in the discovery phase before the onboarding phase in a gamified experience.
This step is also emphasized by Keller (2010) in his well-known ARCS motivational
model. On the other hand, some participants were uncomfortable with the narrated
teaser as they did not understand it. Therefore, it might be better to get to know
the learners first, and then attempt to design a curiosity building method based on
their interests and background information. After all, as Keller (2010) emphasized,
creating curiosity by ambiguous channels for the learners might not work well.

43
 A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

For the negative emotional states that the participants experienced throughout
the gamified course, most of them underlined the necessity of continuous guidance
and scaffolding. The participants expressed their dislike of the ambiguity. They
wanted to be informed about all the procedures and the elements used. This has
been one of the most criticized issues throughout the study. The participants seem
to be especially in need of guidance as the course was different from what they had
previously experienced. Therefore, strict scaffolding until they adapted to the course
is found to be needed. They also emphasized that the principles and the elements
used in the course should be presented by an instructor in a face-to-face environment
during the onboarding phase. Until the participants earn their mastery of the process,
a face-to-face scaffolding should be provided by the instructor, and throughout the
process the guidance should continue, which is also reiterated by Kapp (2012).
Another mostly demanded element was feedback. The results indicate that
continuous, immediate, direct, progressive and personal feedback is a critical
element in a gamified learning experience. The works of Kapp (2012), McGonigal
(2011), Werbach and Hunter (2012) and Ferrara (2012) support the importance
of feedback. The scalability in this notion stands as a problematic issue since the
number of the participants and the activities should be manageable by the instructors
and the designers. Yet, in this study, due to the large numbers of participants and
the activities, giving continuous and immediate feedback was not always possible.
For this, an interface that could produce and give automatic feedback to students’
input might be a solution.
According to the majority of the participants, both in-class and online sessions
were needed for a gamified course. They stated that using both the online and
face-to-face sessions can provide the following features: flexibility, ubiquity of
materials, self-paced learning along with social interactions in the class, presence
of and direct interaction with the instructor. The participants either criticized the
face-to-face sessions for not recognizing individual learning preferences or criticized
the online sessions for design of the materials and the lack of online community
building. Considering these findings, integrating online sessions into in-class sessions
for a gamified course might be a necessary element as long as these problems are
addressed in design. Anderson (2001) supports this conclusion by saying that using
online and face-to-face sessions can offer the best of both methods. Integrating online
sessions into in-class sessions can offer a good advantage as students can get the
content through online platform, and class time can be used for resolving problems
and offering personalized guidance.

44
A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

The turn and the balance between the face-to-face and the online sections is an
important design decision according to the findings. Some participants wanted to take
the face-to-face session first, and the online session later in order to understand the
content more easily. On the other hand, more participants stated they would prefer
the online session to be first in order to be prepared for the class. The first opinion
might be due to the lack of self-regulation of the participants. For the balance issue,
some participants wanted less online activities while few others preferred less face-
to-face meetings. Since the numbers of the participant with different demands about
the balance were close, it is not possible to come to a certain conclusion. Therefore,
it might be a better idea to ask students about their preferences at the beginning of
the semester.
Throughout the gamified course, contents were distributed in small chunks,
gamified and uploaded to the online system. Such a step-by-step approach, according
to the majority of the participants is a required element in a gamified course. Kapp
(2012) provides the concept of progressive disclosure for such an approach. For a
progressive disclosure, the chunk of the information or the difficulty level should
increase as students become more experienced with the content. However, the size
of the content and the difficulty level of the challenges in the study were stable.
This, according to the participants, led them feel bored. Therefore, step-by-step
approach with progression is suggested for the gamification design. That is not
a surprising finding as the progression is an important game element that gives
players the feeling of development and growth (Werbach & Hunter, 2012), and
it is an important element in the engagement loop (Ferrara, 2012; Zichermann &
Cunningham, 2011). In tandem with the progression demand of the participants,
all of the students also wanted to see their progressions, their teams’ progressions
and peers’ progressions through accessible and visible tools. Therefore, progression
bars making personal, teams’ and peers’ progressions visible should be designed
and implemented in order for learners to keep the track of the progression, which
is consonant with the existing game design literature (Ferrara, 2012; Kapp, 2012;
McGonigal, 2011).
The findings also showed that the instructor continuously needs to ensure
students that the main goals of the gamified course are fun and learning rather than
grading. Unfortunately, it was rather a hard task to do since the participants were
in a grade-oriented educational system. No matter how many times the instructor
encouraged the students to focus on having fun and learning rather than their grades,
most of them could not manage it and kept asking about the grades. Resistance
to such changes at first was a pre-considered situation; therefore, only solution to
this issue might be instructors’ continuous reminders about the goals of the course
being fun and learning. Therefore, we argue that the main purpose of instructional

45
 A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

design should be creating a fun learning experience instead of measurement of the

content acquisition.
The participants further asserted that they prefer active roles that enable them to
engage in hands-on practices in authentic tasks. However, a considerable number of
the participants were not comfortable with the extensive active role assigned to them
as they claimed that they are lack of self-regulation and competence in technology.
For that, a balance between the active and the passive role of the participants can be
proposed. This could be achieved by gradually decreasing level of instructor control.
For learners to adapt to such as an environment and gain self-efficacy, a more strict
control can be provided by the instructor at first, and as the participants gain their
self-efficacy, the control can be decreased. The majority of the participants stated that
they developed self-efficacy after a while but until that time, they needed instructor’s
control. This is a parallel finding to the scaffolding process in the onboarding stage
of the gamification aforementioned. Kapp (2012) supports this conclusion by saying
that if the players’ self-efficacy is not high enough that s/he believes s/he succeeds,
s/he may not even try to do the task. A participant especially emphasized on this
issue and stated that she skipped the first few challenges as she thought she could
not do it. Therefore, building learners’ self-efficacy is an important element in the
design process of the gamified learning experiences.
Originality is another element that a gamified course should possess according to
the findings of the study. Even though some participants expressed their fear about
the originality, most of them seemed to be pleased with it. In fact, some of them
asked for each week to be different from each other. For this, individualized weekly
designs were proposed by the participants. This might suggest that a gamified course
should be creatively and originally designed with sufficient guidance and scaffolding.
A similar element obtained from the data analyses is customization. All of
the participants emphasized the importance of the customization of the gamified
experience, context and the elements according to the learners’ characteristics. An
interface providing several designs- templates for delivering the content might be
an option for customization. Learners can choose their templates to customize their
online learning experience. For the classroom environment, it can be decorated
according to the narrative selected for students. However, providing individual
customization might not be applicable in all cases as the large number of students
and classroom settings may pose some impediments. In the face-to-face sessions, as
the findings suggest, the number of the learners affects the participation, interaction
and management. Therefore, smaller groups might be better option for a gamified
classroom experience. For the classroom settings, according to the findings, a
large classroom with a U shape seating arrangement in which participants can
easily communicate and collaborate is preferable. Additionally, grouping the
teammates together is a preferable option. Hence, it could be hypothesized that

46
A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

seating arrangement, size of the class and number of learners are important design
considerations that play role in the generation of better collaboration and interaction
in a gamified learning environment.
Furthermore, when the results of the study were examined, all of the participants
underlined the value of meaningful learning. Throughout the course, they kept asking
about the value of the content taught, the methodologies applied, and challenges
assigned. This conclusion is coherent with the studies of Kapp (2012), McGonigal
(2011) and Ferrara (2012). An interesting finding as a contribution to this literature
might be that the participants stated the technology integration in the course is
very essential even though the majority of them were afraid of the technology at
the beginning of the course. They stated that they needed to learn technology as
they will use it widely when they become teachers. This result might suggest that
learners attach great importance to meaningfulness.
Another element the participants stated to have great importance is the repetition
of the content. The results showed that uploading the content to the online system,
and asking the learners to read the content and solve the challenges, and then asking
them to participate in-class competitions based on the online materials helped them
to repeat the content, and according to their statements, increased the retention. This
is a rather promising finding, which suggests that a gamified learning environment
may increase retention, depending on the design.
The results further showed that the participants appreciate a flexible environment,
mental breaks and social appraise in the gamified learning experience. For the flexible
environment, the participants emphasized the flexibility of the instructor. For the
mental breaks, in-class anecdotes and funny or do you know types of videos and
pictures placed in the random places in online content were appreciated. These mental
breaks, according to the participants, helped them to re-engage in the content. For the
social appraise, participants underlined having a high social statue among the peers
is rather important for them. Considering this, game elements addressing the social
statue such as leaderboards should be used in the gamified learning environment.
The participants’ demands to see peers’ progress as discussed above might be due
to identify their own social status among the peers. Social status is considered
as an extrinsic motivator by the researcher, and as a characteristic of an extrinsic
motivator it can be limited (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). However, according to the
data analyzed, the participants seemed to enjoy being given social appraise/status as
they liked being on the leaderboard. Yet, about the continuity of the motivator, the
findings showed parallelism with the literature as in both the participants wanted
to be listed on leaderboard all the time. Finally, the results indicated that the whole
process needs to be managed meticulously as participants tend to build negative
feelings as soon as they face a management-related problem.

47
 A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

3. Actors in Play: Design, Game Elements, and People

The findings of the study necessitated the creation of three interrelated sub-categories
with fuzzy borders: Design, Game Elements and People. These sub-categories
both influence and get influenced by the settings and the overall gamified learning
experience. As the current chapter addresses the patterns of contexts and the
interactions between these contexts, it does not delve into details regarding to the
actors in play within these settings. As an attempt to depict a fuzzy map for the design
process of the gamified learning experiences in authentic educational contexts, the
chapter provides a brief summary of the components and the characteristics of design
and people categories. The category of game elements, however, is not addressed
in this chapter as unpacking it would require delving into profoundly deep corners
of game mechanics, dynamics and components, and game design strategies situated
in the research praxis of gamification domain. As the main premise of the chapter
is to introduce a design model that promotes an iterative and systematic design
process, the examination of game elements was conducted in a subsidiary study as an
initial attempt to develop a design model based on game elements and game design
strategies, which is the normalized research approach to contemporary gamification
design praxis in educational contexts. In order to obtain further information, we
would like to encourage the readers to read our recently published paper that unpacks
the game elements category in-depth (Authors, 2018).

a. Design-Related Issues

This category has three main sub-categories: Interface design, material design, and
feedback design. The interface is the online system integrated into the gamified course,
and the results suggest that ubiquitousness and usability of the interface designed or
implemented are essential characteristics as they may impact students’ approach to
the gamified experience and their online course-related or off-task interactions. The
results suggest that technical problems are most likely to occur regardless of their
sources, and the novelty of the interface design might yield negative implications on
students’ adaptation to the gamified learning experience; thus, immediate, direct and
continuous technical and emotional support is critical. What is more, the students
expressed the importance of an appealing interface design and basing all design
decisions concerning the interface on the narrative selected as the overarching theme
of the gamified learning experience. Lastly, the results posit that the interface design
should accommodate three functions: (1) Chat function to increase collaboration,
peer-to-peer learning and to build an online community, (2) Push notifications to
elicit students’ attention to corresponding tasks, and (3) Visibility of peers’ works to

48
A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

help students engage in peer-to-peer learning and self-assess their works comparing
to a pool of collective performance standards.
The materials designed for the gamified course entail any learning content and
activity, and any means for discourse among students and between teachers and
students. As expected, it was emphasized that all the materials need to be designed
in a way that delivers concise amount of information and induces crystal clear
understanding. This request however might raise some practical concerns especially
with the huge amount of content teachers in formal school context are generally
expected to deliver. The results further reveal that students prefer interactive online
content populated with diverse multimedia. A related interesting finding suggests that
multimedia design and integration in the online content do not have to focus on the
content-delivery. Instead, off-task videos, images, graphics and etc., integrated into
content might function as a short mental break and help channel students’ attention
back to the content. Using popular culture references as the off-task mental break
content was especially quite popular among the students. This interesting finding
needs further investigation at wider scope as it might yield practical implications for
online course design. Another interesting result indicates that students did not like
the linear structure of the online content, and preferred game-alike design which
creates a leveling-up system that gives students limited access to the amount of
content and challenges but as they complete the challenges and master the content,
new levels delivering more content and challenges with gradually increasing
difficulty are unlocked.
The final category in the design-related issues is the feedback design, and the
results show that feedback should be immediate, clear, constructive and personalized.
In addition to these findings that repeat what existing literature suggests, the study
also yields interesting findings such as: (1) feedback should be designed based on
the narrative selected/created, (2) audio-based feedback might be a good alternative
to the text-based feedback in online courses, and (3) visibility of peers’ works
brings a new design approach to the peer-to-peer feedback and creates a collective
pool of models of competencies at different levels for students to compare their
performances and progresses.

b. People Related Issues

This category has two main sub-categories: Learners related issues and instructor
related issues. It became clear from the analysis of the data that learner’s characteristics
do play an important role in a gamified course, as they were suggested to be focus
before the course design and during the course delivery. Participants emphasized on
four main issues in terms of the learner characteristics: learners’ background, learning
preferences, learners’ (perceived) technology competence and learners’ interests. The

49
 A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

results suggest that students thought they learn better when the content addresses
to their emotions. The most interesting finding among these was that the majority
of the participants stated that they were not good in using the computer thus were
scared of the gamified course at first. However, most of those expressed that their
competence with the technology got better throughout the course. Furthermore,
the results show that the majority of the students prefer to have the control in a
gamified course. What is meant by control is the possibility of being able to choose
from a variety of options from which the participants can select the ones they want
to. Volunteerism was the main focus concerning to this issue. What is more, the
results indicate that building good communication among teammates and tracking
peers’ progress are critical factors to consider as one makes design decisions about
seating arrangement, size of the classroom, visibility of peers’ progress online,
and team formation. We applied Bartle’s Player Type test to classify students into
groups. Students’ reactions to this strategy were mixed as some of them enjoyed
forming teams according to their motivation of play while some of them found the
test boring, long and confusing. This result might suggest that further research to
develop and validate a scale that could help identify students’ motivational patterns
can be instrumental.
Second, instructor related issues such as instructor characteristics, communication,
presence of instructor, tracking and support were highlighted by the participants.
All students emphasized that instructor in a gamified environment should be funny,
flexible and open-minded. The novelty and the complex and dynamic nature of
the gamified learning experience necessitated physical, cognitive and emotional
dedication of the instructor. Students emphasized the need for strong instructor
presence, face-to-face communication, and instructor tracking the process of students
and providing support when needed.

CONCLUSION

This study is an attempt to develop a design model for gamified learning environments.
This chapter reports on the overall evolving model with the emphasis of one dominant
pattern: the contexts and the interactions between these contexts. With this focus,
this paper aims to posit an alternative perspective to the existing gamification
design praxis in educational contexts which mainly focus on game elements and
their characteristics, by arguing that designing a gamified learning experience needs
a systems approach with considerations of the interrelated dimensions and their
interplays. As the findings suggest, gamification process is not solely about game
elements and how they are designed and implemented in educational contexts. It
rather entails systematic and iterative consideration of different design decisions

50
A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

rooted in the theoretical arguments from various related fields such as education,
game-design, psychology, human-computer interaction and so forth. Even though
the findings are already supported by the existing literature in different fields, this
chapter aims to emphasize a multi-disciplinary theoretical framing and an iterative
and systematic design process to gamification design to better address the complex,
rich and constantly changing nature of classroom environments. The evolving
model suggests that a deductive strategy to identify the dynamic characteristics
and components of the settings and their interplays with the inner categories, and
making the design, development and iteration decisions accordingly might help solve
the criticisms raised to gamification praxis in education field. Such approach might
probe for further examination of gamification design that might yield answers for
how to utilize gamification phenomenon to its full potential. An interesting future
research direction could be examination of the proposed approach in the design and
implementation of fully-fledged educational game in a real-life educational context.

REFERENCES

Abramovich, S., Schunn, C., & Higashi, R. M. (2013). Are badges useful in education?:
It depends upon the type of badge and expertise of learner. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 217(2). doi:10.100711423-013-9289-2
Alcivar, I., & Abad, A. G. (2016). Design and evaluation of a gamified system
for ERP training. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 109–118. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2015.12.018
Aldemir, T., Celik, B., & Kaplan, G. (2018). A qualitative investigation of student
perceptions of game elements in a gamified course. Computers in Human Behavior,
78, 235–254. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.001
Anderson, T. (2001). The buzzword ‘blended learning’ has real meaning. The Central
New York Business Journal, 15(46), 12.
Appiahene, P., Asante, G., Kesse-Yaw, B., & Acquah-Hayfron, J. (2017). Raising
students programming skills using appiahene gamification model. In ECGBL 2017
11th European Conference on Game-Based Learning (pp. 14-21). Academic Press.
Armstrong, M. B., & Landers, R. N. (2017). An evaluation of gamified training:
Using narrative to improve reactions and learning. Simulation & Gaming, 48(4),
513-538. doi: 10.1177/1046878117703749

51
 A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

Aşıksoy, G. (2017). The effects of the gamified flipped classroom environment

(GFCE) on students’ motivation, learning achievements and perception in a physics
course. Quality & Quantity, 1–17. doi:10.100711135-017-0597-1
Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit muds. Retrieved
from http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Baxter, R. J., Holderness, D. K. Jr, & Wood, D. A. (2015). Applying basic gamification
techniques to IT compliance training: Evidence from the lab and field. Journal of
Information Systems, 30(3), 119–133. doi:10.2308/isys-51341
Berengueres, J., Alsuwairi, F., Zaki, N., & Ng, T. (2013). Gamification of a recycle
bin with emoticons. Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 8th ACM/IEEE International
Conference on, 83-84. 10.1109/HRI.2013.6483512
Bogost, I. (2011). Gamification is bullshit [Web log post]. Retrieved on October 10,
2017 from http://bogost.com/writing/blog/gamification_is_bullshit/
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges
in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 2(2), 141–178. doi:10.120715327809jls0202_2
Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2014). Gamification and student motivation. Interactive
Learning Environments, 24(6), 1162–1175. doi:10.1080/10494820.2014.964263
Chou, Y. (2015). Actionable Gamification Beyond Points, Badges, and Leaderboards.
Leanpub.
Cronk, M. (2012). Using gamification to increase student engagement and
participation in class discussion. In T. Amiel & B. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of
EdMedia: World conference on educational media and technology 2012 (pp. 311-
315). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Cruickshank, D. R., & Telfer, R. (1980). Classroom games and simulations. Theory
into Practice, 19(1), 75–80. doi:10.1080/00405848009542875
de-Marcos, L., Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., & Pages, C. (2014). An
empirical study comparing gamification and social networking on e-learning.
Computers & Education, 75, 82–91. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.012
Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O’Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011, May).
Gamification: Toward a definition. Proceedings of the CHI 2011 Gamification
Workshop.

52
A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education:
A systematic mapping study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3),
75–88.
Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés,
C., & Martínez-Herráiz, J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical
implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380–392. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2012.12.020
Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human
intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: The Free Press.
Duggan, K., & Shoup, K. (2013). Business gamification for dummies. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.
Ferrara, J. (2012). Playful design. Creating game experiences in everyday interfaces.
New York: Rosenfeld Media.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? - A literature
review of empirical studies on gamification. In System sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th
Hawaii international conference on (pp. 3025e3034). IEEE.
Huang, W. H. Y., & Soman, D. (2013). Gamification of education. Research
Report Series: Behavioural Economics in Action. Rotman School of Management,
University of Toronto.
Hunicke, R., Leblanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game
design and game research. Paper presented at National Conference of Artificial
Intelligence: Challenges in Games AI Workshop.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based
methods and strategies for training and education. San Francisco: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc.
Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS
model approach. Springer Science + Business Media, LLC.
Kelly, T. (2011). Gamification: Avoiding the fate of ARGs [Web log post]. Retrieved
from http://www.whatgamesare.com/2011/01/gamification-avoiding-the-fate-of-
args-meta.html
Klock, A., & da Cunha, L. (2015). Gamification in e-learning systems: A conceptual
model to engage students and its application in an adaptive e-learning system. In
Learning and collaboration technologies (Vol. 9192, pp. 595–607). Berlin: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20609-7_56

53
 A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2014). Demographic differences in perceived benefits

from gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 179–188. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2014.03.007
Kotini, I., & Tzelepi, S. (2015). A gamification-based framework for developing
learning activities of computational thinking. Gamification in Education and Business;
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_12
Lazarro, N. (2004). Why we play games: Four keys to more emotion without story.
Retrieved from http://www.xeodesign.com/xeodesign_whyweplaygames.pdf
Li, W., Grossman, T., & Fitzmaurice, G. (2012). GamiCAD: A gamified tutorial
system for first time AutoCAD users. In R. Miller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th
Annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology (pp. 103-112).
New York, NY: ACM Press. 10.1145/2380116.2380131
Lister, M. C. (2015). Gamification: The effect on student motivation and performance
at the post-secondary level. Issues and Trends in Educational Technology, 3(2).
Liu, D., Santhanam, R., & Webster, J. (2017). Toward meaningful engagement: A
framework for design and research of gamified information systems. MIS Quarterly,
41(4), 1011-1034. doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.4.01
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they
can change the world. London: Penguin.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook
of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Mora, A., Riera, D., Gonzalez, C., & Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2015). A literature
review of gamification design frameworks. In Games and virtual worlds for serious
applications (VS-Games), 2015 7th international conference on (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
10.1109/VS-GAMES.2015.7295760
Mora, A., Riera, D., González, C., & Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2017). Gamification: A
systematic review of design frameworks. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,
1–33.
Mora, A., Zaharias, P., Gonzalez, C., & Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2016). FRAGGLE:
A framework for agile gamification of learning experiences. Berlin: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40216-1_57

54
A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

Nah, F.-H., Telaprolu, V., Rallapalli, S., & Venkata, P. (2013). Gamification of
education using computer games. In S. Yamamoto (Ed.), Human interface and
the management of information. Information and interaction for learning, culture,
collaboration and business. JOUR, Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-
3-642-39226-9_12
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 2. A
new paradigm of instructional theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Squire, K. D. (1998). Emerging work on the new paradigm of
instructional theories. Educational Technology, 38(4), 41–47.
Robertson, M. (2010). Can’t play, won’t play [Web log post]. Retrieved from June
7, 2015 from http://hideandseek.net/2010/10/06/cant-play-wont-play/
Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J. H., McCarthy, I., & Pitt, L. (2016). Game
on: Engaging customers and employees through gamification. Business Horizons,
59(1), 29–36. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2015.08.002
Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 7414–7431. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhcs.2014.09.006
Simões, J., Redondo, R. D., & Vilas, A. F. (2013). A social gamification framework
for a K-6 learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 345–353.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.007
Stott, A., & Neustaedter, C. (2013). Analysis of gamification in education (Technical
Report 2013-0422-01). Surrey, BC: Simon Fraser University, Connections Lab.
Su, C. (2016). The effects of students’ motivation, cognitive load and learning anxiety
in gamification software engineering education: A structural equation modeling
study. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 75(16), 10013–10036. doi:10.100711042-
015-2799-7
Tan, M., & Hew, K. F. (2016). Incorporating meaningful gamification in a blended
learning research methods class: Examining student learning, engagement, and
affective outcomes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5).

55
 A Systematic Design Model for Gamified Learning Environments

Urh, M., Vukovic, G., Jereb, E., & Pintar, R. (2015). The model for introduction of
gamification into e-learning in higher education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 197, 388-397. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.154
Utomo, A. Y., Amriani, A., Aji, A. F., Wahidah, F. R., & Junus, K. M. (2014).
Gamified e-learning model based on community of inquiry. In Advanced Computer
Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS), 2014 International Conference on
(pp. 474-480). IEEE.
Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize
your business. Wharton Digital Press.
Yapıcı, İ. Ü., & Karakoyun, F. (2017). Gamification in biology teaching: A sample
of Kahoot application. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 8(4), 396–414.
doi:10.17569/tojqi.335956
Yildirim, I. (2017). The effects of gamification-based teaching practices on student
achievement and students’ attitudes toward lessons. The Internet and Higher
Education, 33, 86–92. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.02.002
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing
game mechanics in web and mobile apps. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Zichermann, G., & Linder, J. (2010). Game-based marketing: Inspire customer
loyalty through rewards, challenges, and contests. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

56