Educational Gamification: Challenges to Overcome and to Enjoy

  • J. Tuomas Harviainen
  • Mikko Meriläinen
Part of the Translational Systems Sciences book series (TSS, volume 18)


This paper presents a critical viewpoint on educational gamification, an understudied field filled with hyperbole and hollow sales pitches, as well as solid research. By reviewing existing research in the context of Landers’ theory of gamified learning, it discusses three underlying, important elements that need to be taken into account: engagement, challenge, and reflection, as well as the interconnections between them. As a result, it suggests ways for more efficient deployment of gamification for educational purposes.


Educational gaming Gamification Learning Reflection Simulation gaming Gamified education 


  1. 1.
    Landers RN, Auer EM, Collmus AB, Armstrong MB (2018) Gamification science, its history and future: definitions and a research agenda. Simul Gaming 49:315–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harviainen JT (2014) Critical challenges to gamifying education: a review of central concepts. In: Vorobyov AV (ed) Digest of the international conference on digital game-based learning Game ON! MoscowGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kibbee JM, Craft CJ, Nanus B (1961) Management games: a new technique for executive development. Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harviainen JT, Lainema T, Saarinen E (2014) Player-reported impediments to game-based learning. T Dig Games Res Assoc 1:55–83Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keys B, Wolfe J (1990) The role of management games and simulations in education and research. J Manag 16:307–336Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Landers RN (2014) Developing a theory of gamified learning: linking serious games and gamification of learning. Simul Gaming 45:752–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deterding S, Sicart M, Nacke L, O’Hara K, Dixon D (2011) Gamification: toward a definition. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2011 gamification workshop, Vancouver, British Columbia, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bedwell WL, Pavlas D, Heyne K, Lazzara EH, Salas E (2012) Toward a taxonomy linking game attributes to learning: an empirical study. Simul Gaming 43:729–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Balzer M (2011) Immersion as a prerequisite of the didactical potential of role-playing. Int J Role-Play 2:32–43Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Henriksen TD (2008) Extending experiences of learning games – or why learning games should be neither fun, educational or realistic. In: Leino O, Wirman H, Fernandez A (eds) Extending experiences. University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, pp 140–162Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koivisto J, Hamari J (2014) Demographic differences in perceived benefits from gamification. Comput Hum Behav 35:179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lieberoth A (2015) Shallow gamification: testing psychological effects of framing an activity as a game. Games Cult 10:229–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seaborn K, Fels DI (2015) Gamification in theory and action: a survey. Int J Hum-Comp St 74:14–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deterding S (2016) Make-believe in gameful and playful design. In: Turner P, Harviainen JT (eds) Digital make-believe. Springer, Basel, pp 101–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Warmelink H (2014) Online gaming and playful organization. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Whitton N (2014) Learning with digital games: a practical guide to engaging students in higher education. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crookall D, Oxford R, Saunders D (1987) Towards a reconceptualization of simulation: from representation to reality. Simul Games Learn 17:147–171Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hyltoft M (2010) Four reasons why edu-larp works. In: Dombrowski K (ed) LARP: Einblicke. Zauberfeder, Braunschweig, pp 43–57Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cruaud C (2018) The playful frame design and use of a gamified application for foreign language learning. University of Oslo, OsloGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harviainen JT, Savonsaari R (2013) Larps in high schools. In: Moseley A, Whitton N (eds) New traditional games for learning. Routledge, London, pp 134–145Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schrier K (2016) Knowledge games: how playing games can solve problems, create insight, and make change. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carlson JGH, Misshauk MJ (1972) Introduction to gaming: management decision simulations. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hamari J, Shernoff DJ, Rowe E, Coller B, Asbell-Clarke J, Edwards T (2016) Challenging games help students learn: an empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Comput Hum Behav 54:170–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Graham RG, Gray CF (1969) Business games handbook. American Management Association, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Duffy TM, Cunningham DJ (1996) Constructivism: implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In: Jonassen DH (ed) Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. Macmillan, New York, pp 170–198Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hakulinen L, Auvinen T, Korhonen A (2013) Empirical study on the effect of achievement badges in TRAKLA2 online learning environment. In: Proceedings of learning and teaching in computing and engineering (LaTiCE) conference, March 21–24, 2013, Macau, pp 47–54Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hannula O, Harviainen JT (2016) Efficiently inefficient: service design games as innovation tools. In Morelli N, de Götzen A, Grani F (eds) Service design geographies: proceedings of the servdes 2016 conference, May 24–26, 2016, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp 241–252Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hannula O, Harviainen JT (2018) User perceptions of design games as settings for organizational learning: case Topaasia cards. In: Proceedings of the servdes 2018 conference, June 18–20, Milan, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Crookall D (2010) Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simul Gaming 41:898–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kim DH (1993) The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Manag Rev 35:37–50Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Linderoth J (2011) Why gamers don’t learn more: an ecological approach to games as learning Environments. J Gaming Virt Worlds 4:45–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thavikulwat P (2004) The architecture of computerized business gaming simulations. Simul Gaming 35:242–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vesa M, Hamari J, Harviainen JT, Warmelink H (2017) Computer games and organization studies. Organ Stud 38:273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Knotts US Jr, Keys JB (1997) Teaching strategic management with a business game. Simul Gaming 28:377–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Deci EL, Ryan RM (2002) Overview of self-determination theory: an organismic dialectical perspective. In: Handbook of self-determination Research. University of Rochester Press, Rochester, pp 3–33Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Arya A, Chastine J, Preston J, Fowler A (2013) An international study on learning and process choices in the global game jam. Int J Game-B Learn 3:27–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Guevara-Villalobos O (2011) Cultures of independent game production: examining the relationship between community and labour. In: Proceedings of the digital games research association (DiGRA) conference: think design play, September 14–17, 2011, HilversumGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Grace L (2016) Deciphering hackathons and game jams through play. In: Proceedings of the international conference on game jams, hackathons, and game creation events, March 13, 2016, San Francisco, CA, pp 42–45Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kangas M (2010) Creative and playful learning: learning through game co-creation and games in a playful learning environment. Think Skills Creat 5:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nicholson S (2015) A RECIPE for meaningful gamification. In: Reiners T, Wood L (eds) Gamification in education and business. Springer, Cham, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Segura EM, Waern A, Segura LM, Recio DL (2016) Playification: the physeear case. In: Proceedings of the 2016 annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play, October 16–19, 2016, Austin, pp 376–388Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vahlo J (2018) In gameplay: the invariant structures and varieties of the video game gameplay experience. University of Turku, TurkuGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lieberoth A, Jensen NH, Bredahl T (2018) Selective psychological effects of nudging, gamification and rational information in converting commuters from cars to buses: a controlled field experiment. Transp Res F 55:246–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE (2006) Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educ Psychol 41:75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Tuomas Harviainen
    • 1
  • Mikko Meriläinen
    • 1
  1. 1.Tampere UniversityTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations