A RECIPE for Meaningful Gamification



Meaningful gamification is the use of gameful and playful layers to help a user find personal connections that motivate engagement with a specific context for long-term change. While reward-based gamification can be useful for short-term goals and situations where the participants have no personal connections or intrinsic motivation to engage in a context, rewards can reduce intrinsic motivation and the long-term desire to engage with the real world context. If the goal is long-term change, then rewards should be avoided and other game-based elements used to create a system based on concepts of meaningful gamification. This article introduces six concepts—Reflection, Exposition, Choice, Information, Play, and Engagement—to guide designers of gamification systems that rely on non-reward-based game elements to help people find personal connections and meaning in a real world context.


Theory Model Design User-based Motivation Framework Gamification 


  1. Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. Journal of MUD Research, 1(1). Available online at
  2. Brand, J. E., Knight, S. J. (2005) The narrative and ludic nexus in computer games: Diverse worlds II. Proceedings of the Digital Games Research Association Conference, Vancouver, Canada. Retrieved from
  3. Branigan, E. (2006). Projecting a camera: Language games in film theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Callois, R. (2001). Man, play and games. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  5. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2004). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fanning, R., & Gaba, D. (2007). The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 2(2), 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gwen, G. (2009). What is play? In search of a definition. Children to Red Hatters: Diverse Images and Issues of Play: Play and Culture Studies. 8. 1–13.Google Scholar
  9. Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo ludens: A study of the play element in culture. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  10. Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  11. Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group process. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2010). Learning to play, playing to learn: A case study of a ludic learning space. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(1), 26–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kramlinger, T., & Huberty, T. (1990). Behaviorism versus humanism. Training and Devleopment Journal, 44(12), 41–45.Google Scholar
  14. Lifelong Kindergarten Group (2013). About SCRATCH. Retrieved online from
  15. Maroney, K. (2001, May). My entire waking life. The Games Journal. Retrieved from
  16. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.Google Scholar
  17. Nicholson, S. (2012a, June). A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification. Paper Presented at Games+Learning+Society 8.0, Madison. Retrieved from online at
  18. Nicholson, S. (2012b, October). Strategies for meaningful gamification: Concepts behind transformative play and participatory museums. Presented at Meaningful Play 2012. Lansing. Retrieved from online at
  19. Nicholson, S. (2012c). Completing the experience: Debriefing in experiential educational games. In the Proceedings of The 3rd International Conference on Society and Information Technologies. Winter Garden: International Institute of Informatics and Systemics. 117–121. Retrieved from online at
  20. Nicholson, S. (2013, June). Exploring gamification techniques for classroom management. Paper presented at Games + Learning + Society 9.0, Madison. Retrieved from online at
  21. Pink, D. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
  22. Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  24. Schamber, L. (1994). Relevance and information behavior. In M. E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology 29 (pp. 3–48). Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science.Google Scholar
  25. Sheldon, L. (2011). The multiplayer classroom: Designing coursework as a game. Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  26. Simons, J. (2007). Narrative, games, and theory. Game Studies, 7(1). Retrieved from
  27. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
  28. Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Thiagarajan, S. (2004, February). Six phases of debriefing. Play for Performance. Retrieved from
  30. Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Because Play Matters game labSyracuse University School of Information StudiesSyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations