Critical Perspective on Gamification in Education

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Overall, this chapter offers a critical perspective on gamification in education and defines gamification as purposeful experiences that utilize game design and game elements. First it focuses on the basics of learning. Second it explores the advantages and disadvantages of technology in relation to teaching and learning, as many technologies share similar traits. Third it examines how technology has influenced education (i.e., reform) in the past, and offers insight on the impact games may have on education. Fourth it reviews gaming research and what it means to student learning with respect to both current and past research trends. Last, it contends that using a scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) framework can help create a more evidence based approach to the use of gamification in education.

Keywords

Gamification Critical Learning SoTL Technology Gaming 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abachi, H. R., & Muhammad, G. (2014). The impact of m-learning technology on students and educators. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 491–496. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleven, V. A. W. M. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, D. (1999). From pencils to pixels: The stages of literacy technologies. In G. Hawisher & C. Selfe (Eds.), Passions, pedagogies, and 21st century technologies (pp. 15–33). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Battle Juan, P. A. (1999). Home computers and school performance. The Information Society, 15(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishop-Clark, C., & Dietz-Uhler, B. (2012). Engaging in the scholarship of teaching and learning: A guide to the process and how to develop a project from start to finish. Sterling, VA: Stylus.Google Scholar
  6. Blakemore, S. J., & Frith, U. (2005). The learning brain: Lessons for education. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  9. Byrnes, J. P. (2007). Cognitive development and learning in instructional contexts. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  10. Charlton, A. (2012). Video games outsell DVDs to become biggest entertainment category. International Business Times. Retrieved from http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/317940/20120322/video-game-biggest-entertainment-category-uk.htm
  11. Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59(2), 661–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corbett, S. (2010). Learning by playing: Video games in the classroom. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/magazine/19video-t.html
  13. Creswell, J. W., & Piano Clark, V. L. (2012). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  15. Daniel, D. B., & Woody, W. (2013). E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print texts. Computers & Education, 62, 18–23. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Delaney, P. F., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., & Spirgel, A. (2010). Spacing and the testing effects: A deeply critical, lengthy, and at times discursive review of the literature. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 53, 63–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9–15). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  19. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers & Education, 50(3), 906–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Gee, J. P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-Learning, 2(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  24. Goodwin, B. (2011). One-to-one laptop programs are no silver bullet. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 78–79. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/feb11/vol68/num05/One-to-One_Laptop_Programs_Are_No_Silver_Bullet.aspx
  25. Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gurung, R. A. R. (2012). Consuming the scholarship of teaching and learning: Using evidence-based pedagogy ethically. In R. E. Landrum & M. A. McCarthy (Eds.), Teaching ethically: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 67–76). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
  27. Gurung, R. A. R., & Schwartz, B. M. (2012). Optimizing teaching and learning: Practicing pedagogical research. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Heinzen, T. E., Landrum, R. E., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2014). Game-based assessment: The mash-up we’ve been waiting for. In T. Reiners & L. Wood (Eds.), Gamification in education and business (pp. xx-xx). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2003). The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 46–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hu, W. (2007). Seeing no progress, some schools drop laptops. New York Times. New York. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html
  32. Hutchings, P., Huber, M. T., & Ciccone, A. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and learning reconsidered: Institutional impact. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  34. Ke, F. (2009). A qualitative meta-analysis of computer games as learning tools. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (pp. 1–32). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  35. Lowther, D. L., Strahl, J. D., Inan, F. A., & Bates, J. (2007). Freedom to learn program: Michigan 2005-2006 evaluation report. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy.Google Scholar
  36. Malamud, O., & Pop-Eleches, C. (2011). Home computer use and the development of human capital. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 987–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marklein, M. B. (2010). Can college students learn as well on iPads, e-books? USA Today. McLean, VA. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-08-10-ebooklearning10_CV_N.htm
  38. Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(4), 256–265.Google Scholar
  39. McClernon, C. K., McCauley, M. E., O’Connor, P. E., & Warm, J. S. (2011). Stress training improves performance during a stressful flight. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53(3), 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  41. Morling, B. (2012). Research methods in psychology: Evaluating a world of information. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  42. New York City Department of Education. (2013). Quest to learn [data file]. Retrieved from http://schools.nyc.gov/SchoolPortals/02/M422/AboutUs/Statistics/default.htm
  43. Olsen, S. (2009). Educational video games mix cool with purpose. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/technology/02games.html
  44. Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(37), 15583–15587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Poirier, C. R., & Feldman, R. S. (2012). Using technology to enhance teaching and learning. In R. M. Schwartz & R. A. R. Gurung (Eds.), Evidence-based teaching for higher education (pp. 39–58). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Potter, M. K., & Kustra, E. (2011). The relationship between scholarly teaching and SoTL: Models, distinctions, and clarifications. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 23. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/vol5/iss1/23/.Google Scholar
  47. Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. Computers in Entertainment (CIE)—Theoretical and Practical Computer Applications in Entertainment, 1(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
  48. Prensky, M. (2007). Digital game-based learning. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.Google Scholar
  49. Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation and Gaming, 23(3), 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Richtel, M. (2011). In classroom of the future, stagnant scores. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-in-schools-faces-questions-on-value.html
  51. Rutherford, T., Kibrick, M., Burchinal, M., Richland, L., Conley, A., Osborne, K., et al. (2010). Spatial temporal mathematics at scale: An innovative and fully developed paradigm to boost math achievement among all learners. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association (AERA), Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  52. Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sansone, C., Morf, C., & Panter, A. (2003). The Sage handbook of methods in social psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before it’s too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  55. Schooler, L. J. & Anderson, J. R. (1990). The disruptive potential of immediate feedback. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 702–708). Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  56. Schwartz, E., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2012). Evidence-based teaching in higher education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Sturges, K., Caranikas-Walker, F., Huntsberger, B., & Maloney, C. (2009). Evaluation of the Texas technology immersion Pilot: Final outcomes for a four-year study (2004-05 to 2007-08). Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  58. Sheldon, L. (2012). The multiplayer classroom: Designing coursework as a game. Belmont, CA: Cengage.Google Scholar
  59. Silvernail, D. L., & Gritter, A. K. (2007). Maine’s middle school laptop program: Creating better writers. Portland, OR: Center for Education Policy, Applied Research, and Evaluation, University of Southern Maine.Google Scholar
  60. Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Squire, K., Barnett, M., Grant, J., & Higginbotham, T. (2004). Electromagnetism supercharged!: Learning physics with digital simulation games. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences (pp. 513–520). Santa Monica, CA: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  62. Steinkuehler, C., Alagoz, E., King, E., & Martin, C. (2012). A cross case analysis of two out-of-school programs based on virtual worlds. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 4(1), 25–54.Google Scholar
  63. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2009). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  64. Stross, R. (2010). Computers at home: Educational hope vs. teenage reality. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/business/11digi.html
  65. Sutter, J. (2012). The school where learning is a game. Cable News Network. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/08/tech/gaming.series/teachers.html
  66. Truman, G. E. (2005). An empirical assessment of student computer use behaviors in the classroom. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 6a–6a).Google Scholar
  67. Tugend, A. (2008). Multitasking can make you lose … um … focus. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/business/yourmoney/25shortcuts.html
  68. Vigdor, J. L., & Ladd, H. F. (2010). Scaling the digital divide: Home computer technology and student achievement. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  69. Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Warschauer, M. (2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  71. Willingham, D. (2009). Why don’t students like school: A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  72. Willingham, D. (2013). Meta-analysis: Learning from gaming. Retrieved from http://www.danielwillingham.com/1/post/2013/02/meta-analysis-learning-from-gaming.html
  73. Wilson-Doenges, G., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2013). Benchmarks for scholarly investigations of teaching and learning. Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(1), 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Woody, W. D., Daniel, D. B., & Baker, C. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers & Education, 55(3), 945–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., et al. (2012). Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zyda, M. (2005). From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer, 38(9), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Learning and InnovationCollege of Adult and Professional Studies, Indiana Wesleyan UniversityMarionUSA
  2. 2.Human Development and PsychologyUniversity of Wisconsin-Green BayGreen BayUSA

Personalised recommendations