Gamification in Theory and Action
Abstract
The concept of gamification has attracted different professionals in various fields such as academia and business. However, the whole idea behind gamification remains unclear, and it has raised numerous controversies and caused divisions because of the divergent meanings it poses, while some believe that its theoretical development is still not yet clear. Despite a heated debate regarding its benefits and challenges, there has been a very limited study done to show the concept of gamification in other uses different from a nonentertainment angle. Also, there has been no credible research done today, or that is available to highlight the effectiveness or the merits and demerits of gamification based on a human to computer studies outlook. As such, this study purposes of reviewing the importance and usefulness of gamification from human practitioners and interactive systems. Moreover, the study will also look into the existing theoretical foundations of gamification with the view of comparing it to other approaches of the same kind such as gameful design, alternate reality games, among others. The results from this review revealed that there is a growing trend of trying to understand the real meaning of gamification as evidenced by rising efforts to have a factual understanding of the concept based on research. Despite these efforts, there is still not solid research that has been carried out to highlight or bring out the real meaning of gamification. As such, this review focuses on identifying how gamification can be improved further by ensuring that user experience is enhanced with the aim of promoting user experience by developing unique designs.
Introduction
Gamification has seen a significant increase in the past two decades with believing that this growth is spurred by the adoption of the trade by the commercial entertainment industry. While in the past gaming was mainly associated with teenagers, today’s gaming even comes with young adults such as people within their thirties. Moreover, gaming more came with males, but recent studies show that more women are now embracing the idea with an estimated 45% of the gaming population being women. Today gaming appears to be a relatively new concept, but this could be as a result of the fact that it is being exercised in the digital space unlike before where it is was practiced in other common traditional mediums. For instance, the human culture has always embraced gaming from a very early age only that it was being practiced in traditional setup. However, the recent advancements in technology particularly the digital media has played a significant role in promoting gaming into the modern human culture. Today there is a growing consensus that gaming has made a lot of inroads to become a part of today’s culture because of the growing digital media landscape. The popularization of gaming has drawn the attention of professionals in different fields who now seek to explore how gaming can be utilized in other areas other than just the entertainment industry. Today various professionals are drawing some useful concepts from the gaming industry with a view of ensuring that these ideas are applied in other areas such as education, or machine learning.
The purpose of this study is to review other research studies that highlight the emerging trends in the gaming industry with a keen focus being laid in the education sector. The first objective of the study will be to explore the theoretical ideas being advanced about gaming to identify if is established concept. Secondly, the study will seek to find out about the existing research finding of gaming from different research disciplines. And finally, this review will try to draw a link between the existing research findings of gamification and the real work of the ideas that are already in the application. The study will conclude with research finding of the future of the gaming profession to establish what the future of gamification holds in an era where digital media has taken center stage.
Research Methodology
In this survey, the major challenge in finding appropriate resources was the diverse usage of the expression “gamification,” which produced a range of false positives that described similar but distinct concepts. It is Very Likely that human participant research on what is currently called gamification function that predates the coining of this word has been overlooked. In this case, concept papers encompass both conceptual papers that attempt to define the gamification for a concept and theoretical papers proposing an explanation of their underlying character of gamification.
The theory of gamification can be described as an accumulation of possibly appropriate, already presents explanatory models from other domains which need to be analyzed concerning gamification. This is in keeping with the historical trajectory of the concept work in human-computer interaction: while the earliest work started with scientific concepts based on observation and Assessment methodology, contemporary trends in concept production consider many different disciplinary approaches (Rogers, 2012).
Reviews of the abstracts of a total of 12 papers were chosen. The expression “gamification” is new and not based as a subject or thesaurus expression; consequently, keywords ascertained how newspapers were filtered, and criteria were established to ensure that the papers included for inspection fulfilled the definition established in this paper. This selection of databases is informed by the multidisciplinary nature of human-computer interaction research: a wide variety of databases and subject areas was required to catch applicable research.
An extensive search using the search Question Assignment” gamification and reviewing sources of those types book, academic journal, report, seminar materials, dissertation, thesis, and working paper yielded a combined total of 769 results. Given the early state of gamification research the tendency in this area and computer interaction to publish to conferences first, the majority of source types were seminar papers, and to some lesser extent journal posts.
Gamification in theory
The growth of gamification is thought to have been caused by several converging factors, such as cheaper technology, personal data monitoring, eminent successes, and also the incidence of the sports medium (Deterding, 2012). For this reason, the study suggests the addition of the game studies movement normally, which proceeds to develop a methodically considered framework of the character, design, and impact of matches, and particularly pertinent to gamification those essential aspects which make game experiences engaging and fun. We start by defining the class and uses. In clarifying what is meant by”gaming,” we construct a platform for creating a relative comprehension of gamification. The study then uses this foundation and thoughts to evaluate applications of the period, to determine whether or not gamification is the first concept, and differentiate the concepts.
One contribution of the paper is to describe the terminology and concepts associated with gamification. We start by defining the overarching category and uses. In clarifying what is meant by “gaming,” we construct a platform for creating a relative understanding of gamification. The gaming business has gained the note of academics, teachers, and professionals from many different domains. Even so, gamification isn’t a new concept, having roots in advertising endeavors, such as points cards and rewards memberships, educational structures, most notably scholastic degrees, grades, and levels, and office productivity (Nelson, 2012). The rise of gamification is thought to have been caused by several converging factors, including cheaper technology, personal data tracking, eminent successes, and the prevalence of the gaming medium (Deterding, 2012).
Conceptualizing “gamification.”
Despite this diverse landscape of theoretical tendencies and possibilities, the authors of these research studies agree that not all cases of gamification could be placed along these research paths, despite an increasingly cohesive whole being. Ultimately, the writers confessed, “gamification” as the accepted term for a different concept they define as “using match design components in non-game contexts” (Deterding et al., 2011). The experience is referred to by gamification, gameful interaction identifies contexts, tools and the objects that contribute to gamification experience, and design that is gameful refers to the custom of crafting an encounter.
Further, game components are hard to specify; the authors’ attempts to consolidate amounts of abstraction are highlighted in all these research studies. The authors focus on how to categorize systems that are gameful subjective. The process is is on how philosophical investigations and theoretical discourse are currently contributing factors. In contrast to games, gamification might be considered simpler to define than it is to emphasize. Most sources agree that gamification is generally defined as the utilization of game elements and mechanics, but no standard exists. But a view of gamification, including standards for training functions, and theoretical foundations, requires further development.
Criticism of gamification
Gamification has been broadly praised by professors and game designers who are knowledgeable about gamification strategies that exclusively relies on points, badges, and leaderboards ( Robertson, 2010). Game designer Margaret Robertson says such processes imply taking the thing that’s least crucial to games and representing it because of the core of the experience(Robertson, 2010). Moreover, in his thesis, Chang (2012) contends that gamification in its broadest usage is a techno-utopian dream with a complicated past that privileges the virtual and ultimately does not and cannot fulfill the promises of its proponents.
Gaming scholar Ian Bogost is a fierce critic of gamification. In one article, Bogost (claims that gamification is exploitativ e,perversive and simplification of games created by entrepreneurs and large business with the intention of easy profit. In another guide, Bogost criticizes the expression for being vague and thus offering the means where games can be reduced to their essential components and then used to provide an easy way of crafting gameful experiences. He disagrees with Zichermann whom he calls the”Dark Lord” of the gamification movement particularly concerning his conceptualization of game mechanisms (Bogost, 2011). But while gamification expressed from advertising and industry sectors and his criticism of Zichermann can withstand scrutiny, it shows a constricted lens to the gamification’s concept. For example, when Bogost claims that gamification suggests substituting actual incentives with fanciful ones(Bogost, 2011), he seems to be referring to gamification strategies that focus on extrinsic rewards, to the negligence of gamification systems which were designed with intrinsic motivation in mind. Gamification is not the exclusive property of industry or any discipline. the notion has been used, researched, discussed, and expanded in sectors outside of marketing, from, as we reveal in this paper
Outsiders of game design and game studies think about a more favorable outlook. A social psychological perspective on gamification is offered by Antin (2012), who asserts that the vacant, virtual rewards derided by members of their anti-gamification camp aren’t the driving factors behind participation motivation, even if the designers themselves do not understand it; instead, social factors like self-efficacy, peer and community endorsement reward users and encourage their continued participation. One goal of the work is to research whether these views hold by exploring how such disparaged implementations because they are within gamification research and what research reveal about the reasons behind participation motivation in gamified systems.
Theory Synthesis and Gamification Research Application
While foundational underpinnings are somewhat varied, these paper findings suggest an emerging consensus in 2 areas about gamification: extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. The frameworks developed by four research studies (Aparicio et al., 2012), Nicholson (2012), Sakamoto et al. (2012), and Blohm & Leimeister (2013) are based on clinically validated and widely accepted psychological theories of inspiration. This foundation proposes that an investment in motivation mandated, or above and beyond a dependence on extrinsic, motivators. The objective behind using a gamified strategy is to encourage behavior modification in end-users, whether that behavior change involves improved functionality, increased participation, or greater compliance. Overall, the state of gamification theory asserts that the match elements can meet these goals by catering to end-users. In other words, a user-centered approach, characterized by a focus on the needs of end-users in the design of the system’s values
Findings from our review of gamification research reveal a vast range of curiosity but a playing field that is limited. While applied gamification research is located across some domains, the survey findings suggest it is largely the domain of sustainability communities, crowdsourcing, and education, and to a lesser extent health and wellness. Similarly, the limited collection of game elements suggests that points, badges, leaderboards are a gamification strategy. Perhaps limited and replication creativity in the program, a lack of consolidation among areas, and the state of gamification research promote.
The current body of gamification research indicates that success may be improved across the board in the event systems, especially motivators’ plans are advised on end-users’ intrinsic motivators. The challenge would be to accommodate individual differences in what is intrinsically motivating while also meeting the goals, requirements, and constraints of the designer (or customer ). Findings from the survey that is theoretical suggest that user-centered design methodology may help elucidate intrinsic motivators for a user population that is given. There Might Not Be an ideal gamified system or an optimal combination of game elements, mechanics, and dynamics which always works but rather, gamified systems may need to be selectively designed given the personal makeup of the end-user population or perhaps be built flexibly and inclusively, allowing for customization and customization, to accommodate human users
Approach for Future Research
Based on the finding described in this research paper, certain pints are worth noting which are likely to influence future research on gamification;
A frequent problem in the empirical studies surveyed is their layout. Specifically, most studies did not conduct statistical analyses, did not isolate the gamification effect and non-gamified systems, and also were short-term or one-off. Going forward, one-off studies need to be replicated, comparative and longitudinal designs employed, and meta-comparisons run to draw on generalizable conclusions about the value of gamification to get end-users.
A significant issue is a disconnect on gamification between applied and theoretical work. Work for explaining the possible workings of gamification although useful, hasn’t been validated about gamification work that was employed. Likewise, work that is applied may reference theory but doesn’t explore its validity empirically. We invite researchers to explore the theoretical underpinnings in work. This probably means the formulation of a group of investigators. At the very least, since our findings showed a diverse array of uses and interpretations of theories, we suggest that research teams consider involving or using the services of specialists on the theory they opt to research.
Finally, since gamification in activity is characterized by applying a limited number of match elements, future research should plan to isolate the most promising game components in specific contexts. This will only be possible after exploratory work has been done. While there was some consensus among theorists on underpinnings, there was a lack of consensus on proposed gamification-specific frameworks. Further, to the best of the understanding, the proposed frameworks have never been researched through applied research. Future research could determine their applicability and combine these frameworks if needed.
Conclusion
From the preceding, Gamification is an approach for participation boosting user motivation and enjoyment in non-gaming, computer-mediated surroundings with an early selection of empirical work. Gamification’s idea is gradually gaining focus while the term remains used: a definition of gamification is emerging, and initial frameworks based on psychological theories, such as self-determination concept and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, have been collectively proposed. A multidisciplinary effort to research gamification’s consequences on participants is nascent, but there’s a need for its exploration of a range of game components across contexts layouts, and analyses of several trajectories. Mixed methods research that employs statistical analysis and reports effect sizes for experiences, dynamics and components are necessary to substantiate the positive outcomes reported. Likewise, studies that employ controls are needed to determine what effects gamification has beyond and over other facets and compared to other approaches, such as a game that was fully fledged. In systems, few studies have investigated the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators Regardless of its theoretical grounding in motivation. This work, as does this field’s state is limited by the abstract nature of the survey filtering procedure necessary due to the inconsistent use of the term. The abstract nature in determining whether or not a system exhibits gamification is forecast to become less so to narrow down gamification for a theory involved persist. Even though a challenge for survey work, the present vitality of gamification as an area of research and practice is advantageous to its growth, possibly drawing swifter and greater attention. Only continued rigorous Assessment, playful, practical explorations, and theoretical deliberations with end-users will disclose Whether gamification is here to stay.
References
Antin, J., 2012. Gamification is not a dirty word. Interactions 19, 14.
Aparicio, A.F., Vela, F.L.G., Sánchez, J.L.G., Montes, J.L.I., 2012. Analysis and application of gamification. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Interacción Persona-Ordenador. Presented at INTERACCION’12, ACM, Elche, Spain, p. 17
Avedon, E.M., Sutton-Smith, B., 1971. The Study of Games. John Wiley, New York, NY.
Azadegan, A., Riedel, J.C.K.H., 2012. Serious games integration in companies: a research and application framework. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. Presented at ICALT 2012, IEEE, Rome, Italy, pp. 485–487.
Bagley, K.S., 2012. Conceptual Mile Markers to Improve Time-to-value for Exploratory Search Sessions (Ph.D.). University of Massachusetts Lowell, Ann Arbor.
Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T., Miller, J.T., 2008. An empirical Assessment of the system usability scale. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 24, 574–594. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/10447310802205776
Barlet, M.C., Spohn, S.D., 2012. Includification: A Practical Guide to Game Accessibility [WWW Document]. Includification. URL: /http://www.includification. com/AbleGamers_Includification.pdfS (accessed 09.10.14).
Berengueres, J., Alsuwairi, F., Zaki, N., Ng, T., 2013. Gamification of a recycle bin with emoticons. In: Kuzuoka, H., Evers, V., Imai, M., Forlizzi, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction. Presented at HRI 2013. IEEE, New York, pp. 83–84
Blohm, I., Leimeister, J.M., 2013. Gamification: Design of IT-based enhancing services for motivational support and behavioral change. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 5, 275–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12599-013-0273-5.
Bouca, M., 2012. Mobile communication, gamification and ludification. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference. Presented at MindTrek 2012. ACM, pp. 295–301
Cramer, H., Rost, M., Holmquist, L.E., 2011. Performing a check-in: emerging practices, norms and “conflicts” in location-sharing using foursquare. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. Presented at MobileHCI’11. ACM, pp. 57–66
Denny, P., 2013. The effect of virtual achievements on student engagement. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Presented at CHI13′. ACM, pp. 763–772.
Depura, K., Garg, M., 2012. Application of online gamification to new hire onboarding. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Third International Conference on Services in Emerging Markets. IEEE, pp. 153–156
Deterding, S., 2011. Situated motivational affordances of game elements: a conceptual model. In: Gamification: Using Game Design Elements in Non-Gaming Contexts, a Workshop at CHI. Presented at CHI 2011. ACM, Vancouver, BC, pp. 1–4.
Deterding, S., 2012. Gamification: designing for motivation. Interactions 19, 14–17.
Downes-Le Guin, T., Baker, R., Mechling, J., Ruyle, E., 2012. Myths and realities of respondent engagement in online surveys. Int. J. Mark. Res. 54, 613–633. http: //dx.doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-54-5-613-633.
Eickhoff, C., Harris, C.G., De Vries, A.P., Srinivasan, P., 2012. Quality through flow and immersion: gamifying crowdsourced relevance assessments. In: Presented at SIGIR’12. ACM, Portland, OR, pp. 871–880.
Fernandes, J., Duarte, D., Ribeiro, C., Farinha, C., Pereira, J.M., da Silva, M.M., 2012. iThink: a game-based approach towards improving collaboration and participation in requirement elicitation. In: DeGloria, A., DeFreitas, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications (vs-Games’12). Presented at VS-GAMES’12, pp. 66–77.
Fitz-Walter, Z., Tjondronegoro, D., Wyeth, P., 2012. A gamified mobile application for engaging new students at university orientation. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Australian Computer–Human Interaction Special Group. Presented at OZCHI’12. ACM, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 138–141.
Foster, J.A., Sheridan, P.K., Irish, R., Frost, G.S., 2012. Gamification as a strategy for promoting deeper investigation in a reverse engineering activity. In: Proceedings of the 2012 American Society for Engineering Education Conference, pp. AC 2012–AC 5456.
Manna, R., Saha, R., Geetha, G., 2012. Complexity analysis of image-based CAPTCHA. In: Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Computing Sciences. Presented at ICCS 2012. IEEE, Phagwara, pp. 88–93.
Mason, A.D., Michalakidis, G., Krause, P.J., 2012. Tiger nation: empowering citizen scientists. In: Proceedings of the 2012 6th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems Technologies. Presented at DEST 2012. IEEE, Campione d’Italia, pp. 1–5. 10.1109/DEST.2012.6227943.
Massung, E., Coyle, D., Cater, K., Jay, M., Preist, C., 2013. Using crowdsourcing to support pro-environmental community activism. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Presented at CHI’13. ACM, Paris, France, pp. 371–380.
McDaniel, R., Lindgren, R., Friskics, J., 2012. Using badges for shaping interactions in online learning environments. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference. Presented at IPCC 2012. IEEE, Orlando, FL, pp. 1–4.
McGonigal, J., 2011. Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World. Penguin Books, New York, NY.
McNeill, M.D.J., Charles, D.K., Burke, J.W., Crosbie, J.H., McDonough, S.M., 2012. Evaluating user experiences in rehabilitation games. J. Help. Technol. 6, 173–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17549451211261290.
Morneau, R.A., Van Herreweghe, W.G., Little, J.W.H., Lefebvre, D.B., 2012. Energy company perspective on virtual worlds/3-D immersive environments. In: Proceedings of SPE Intelligent Energy International 2012. Presented at SPE Intelligent Energy International 2012, pp. 329–340.
Musthag, M., Raij, A., Ganesan, D., Kumar, S., Shiffman, S., 2011. Exploring microincentive strategies for participant compensation in high-burden studies. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. Presented at UbiComp’11. ACM, pp. 435–444.
Nelson, M.J., 2012. Soviet and American precursors to the gamification of work. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference. Presented at MindTrek’12. ACM, pp. 23–26.
Neves Madeira, R., Postolache, O., Correia, N.., 2011. Gaming for therapy in a healthcare smart ambient. In: Constructing Ambient Intelligence. Presented at AMI 2011. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 224–228. 10.1007/978-3-642- 31479-7_38.
Nicholson, S., 2012. A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification. In: Proceedings of GamesþLearningþSociety 8.0.
O’Mara, J., 2012. Process drama and digital games as text and action in virtual worlds: developing new literacies in school. Res. Drama Educ 17, 517–534. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2012.727624.
Passos, E.B., Medeiros, D.B., Neto, P.A.S., Clua, E.W.G., 2011. Turning real-world software development into a game. In: Proceedings of SBGames 2011. Presented at SBGames 2011. Salvador, pp. 260–269.
Prestopnik, N.R., 2013. Design Science in Human–Computer Interaction A Model and Three Examples (Ph.D.). Syracuse University, Ann Arbor.
Robertson, M., 2010. Can’t play, won’t play [WWW Document]. Hide & Seek. URL: /http://hideandseek.net/2010/10/06/cant-play-wont-play/S (accessed 10.10.14).
Rogers, Y., 2012. HCI theory: classical, modern, and contemporary. Synth. Lect. Hum.- Centered Inform. 5, 1–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.2200/S00418ED1V01Y201205- HCI014.
Alexandria, VA. Rose, K.J., Koenig, M., Wiesbauer, F., 2013. Evaluating success for behavioral change in diabetes via mHealth and gamification: MySugr’s keys to retention and patient engagement. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 15, A114. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1089/dia.2012.1221.
Rouse, K.E., 2013. Gamification in Science Education: The Relationship of Educational Games to Motivation and Achievement (Ph.D.). The University of Southern Mississippi, Ann Arbor.
Takahashi, D., 2010. Gamification gets its own conference [WWW Document]. Venture Beat. URL: /http://venturebeat.com/2010/09/30/gamification-getsits-own-conference/S (accessed 10.10.14).
Terlutter, R., Capella, M.L., 2013. The gamification of advertising: analysis and research directions of in-game advertising, advergames, and advertising in social network games. J. Advert. 42, 95–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00913367.2013.774610.
Thom, J., Millen, D., DiMicco, J., 2012. Removing gamification from an enterprise SNS. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Presented at CSCW’12. ACM, Seattle, WA, pp. 1067–1070.
Von Ahn, L., 2006. Games with a purpose. Computer 39, 92–94. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1109/MC.2006.196.
Werbach, K., Hunter, D., 2011. Serious gamification [WWW Document]. Win Serious Gamification Symp. URL: 〈http://gamifyforthewin.com/〉 (accessed 27.08.13).
Werbach, K., Hunter, D., 2012. For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business. Wharton Digital Press, Philadelphia, PA. Wilson, P., 1973. Situational relevance. Inf. Storage Retr. 9, 457–471. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/0020-0271(73)90096-X.
Witt, M., Scheiner, C., Robra-Bissantz, S., 2011. Gamification of online idea competitions: insights from an explorative case. In: Proceedings of INFORMATIK 2011 – Informatik Schafft Communities, Lecture Notes in Informatics. Presented at INFORMATIK 2011. Berlin, Germany, p. 192.
Yamakami, T., 2012. From gamenics to servicenics: lessons learned in mobile social games in Japan toward service engineering. In: Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops. Presented at WAINA 2012. IEEE, Fukuoka, Japan, pp. 352–356
