Application of Gamification in a College STEM Introductory Course: A Case Study

Application of Gamification in a College STEM Introductory Course: A Case Study
Preview of the Abbreviated Dissertation Manuscript. Pages 15-72 were redacted.
Full text available at http://research.dataii.com/publications/Gamification
APA Citation:
Machajewski, S. (2017). Application of Gamification in College STEM Introductory
Course. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Education Resources Information
Center https://eric.ed.gov/?q=machajewski&id=ED574876
Submitted to Northcentral University
School of Business
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Management of Information Systems
By
SZYMON TOMASZ MACHAJEWSKI
San Diego, California
July 2017

Abstract
Between 2000 and 2016, the STEM industry reportedly added jobs at the rate of
28% while all jobs were growing at only 6%. However, 48% of bachelor’s degree
students and 69% of associate’s degree students in STEM majors left their program of
study between 2003 and 2009. The high attrition rate is often attributed to low student
engagement, boredom, alienation, lack of diversity in student population, and faculty
attitudes. This exploratory case study demonstrates thick descriptions of student
experiences in an Introduction to Computing course with a special focus on gameful
design of short-term and long-term course activities. The findings of this case study
described an application of gamification to increase engagement. The participants of the
case study include 501 students enrolled in 4 semesters and 15 courses. Through the
process of qualitative content analysis, 1002 course review comments and 182 comments
from a third-party source were categorized and processed into emerging themes and
patterns. The lecture themes identified in qualitative content analysis were intellectual
engagement, emotional engagement, behavioral engagement, physical engagement, and
social engagement. The course-long themes to promote participation were attendance,
management of anxiety, assignment completion, timely feedback, mastery of the
material, and course completion. The implications of the case study included a
demonstration of a working gamification system for high enrollment and mandated
curriculum courses. The first research question: “How does gamification encourage
engagement during lectures?” addresses student willingness to use their personal devices
in active learning with the Kahoot peer-response system, the reciprocal nature of
engagement between instructors and students, and the importance of games as an

instructional metaphor. The second research question: “How does gamification
encourage participation in the activities during the entire length of the course?” focuses
on the role of instructional design in a candidate course for gamification, a variety of
tools necessary to promote course-long engagement, a bridge in the affective domain
from disinterest to emotional investment, and the application of the Anna Karenina
principle for adoption of gamification.

Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction.................................................................................................... 6
Background ................................................................................................................. 7
Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................... 9
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 10
Research Questions ................................................................................................ 10
Nature of the Study.................................................................................................. 11
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 11
Definition of Key Terms........................................................................................... 12
Summary ................................................................................................................... 13
Chapter 2: Literature Review.........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Documentation...........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Theory of Motivation .................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Content theories. ................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Process theories.................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Challenges in STEM Education and Industry.......Error! Bookmark not defined.
Playing Games, Gamification, and Motivation......Error! Bookmark not defined.
Motivation in Higher Education ...............................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Gamification in Higher Education ...........................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Summary ....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chapter 3: Research Design Method...........................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Research Methods and Design...............................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Population...................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Sample........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Materials/Instruments ...............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis ...........Error! Bookmark not defined.
Assumptions...............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Limitations ..................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Delimitations...............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Ethical Assurances ...................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Summary ....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chapter 4: Findings........................................................................................................ 72
Trustworthiness of the Data.................................................................................... 72
Results ....................................................................................................................... 73
Research question 1. How does gamification encourage engagement during
lectures? .................................................................................................................... 74
Intellectual........................................................................................................................................... 75
Emotional ............................................................................................................................................ 78
Behavioral........................................................................................................................................... 80
Physical............................................................................................................................................... 82
Social................................................................................................................................................... 83

Research question 2. How does gamification encourage participation in the
activities during the entire length of the course?................................................. 84
Attendance.......................................................................................................................................... 84
Management of Anxiety.................................................................................................................... 86
Assignment Completion.................................................................................................................... 88
Timely Feedback ............................................................................................................................... 89
Mastery of the Material ..................................................................................................................... 91
Course Completion............................................................................................................................ 92
Additional Findings................................................................................................... 95
Course Evaluation Participation ...................................................................................................... 95
Pre-gamification student engagement ........................................................................................... 97
Course Quality ................................................................................................................................... 98
Evaluation of Findings ............................................................................................. 99
Summary ................................................................................................................. 101
Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions ............................ 102
Implications ............................................................................................................. 103
Research question 1. How does gamification encourage engagement during lectures?.... 103
Research question 2. How does gamification encourage participation in the activities during
the entire length of the course?..................................................................................................... 105
Recommendations for Practice............................................................................ 107
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................ 108
Conclusions............................................................................................................. 109
References.................................................................................................................... 110
Appendix A.......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix B.......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix C.......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix D.......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix E.......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix F .......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix G.......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix H.......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

6
Chapter 1: Introduction
Effective teaching has been a field of diligent study for a significant period of time
(Bloom, 1984). Teaching and learning methods, along with human motivational theories, have
broad application. Beyond the field of education, they apply to many areas of business with
some examples in continuous employee development or leadership mentorship. However, the
views on the most effective ways of teaching and on the role of technology in teaching differ. In
ancient times, Socrates believed that the technology of writing was going to ruin learning and
education (Kohan, 2013). As evidence-based approaches were perfected, one-on-one tutoring
was found to improve student grades by two standard deviations (Bloom, 1984), and yet the
search for teaching techniques in group environments that equal the success of one-on-one
tutoring continues. Active learning and peer-instruction were found to increase academic
performance toward student outcomes by 0.47 standard deviation in a meta-analysis of 166
studies (Ruiz-Primo, Briggs, Iverson, Talbot, & Shepard, 2011). Another meta-analysis of 225
studies reported that students are 150% more likely to fail in courses dominated by traditional
lectures over courses with active learning strategies (Freeman et al., 2014).
Traditional lectures are sometimes defined as “teaching by telling” (Bonwell & Eison,
1991) or “exposition-centered” (Freeman et al., 2014). Active learning is connected with
constructivist course design, inquiry-based teaching, collaborative activities, and technology-
enabled activities (Ruiz-Primo et al., 2011). Further, a connection is made between experience
in introductory courses and a negative impact in student engagement, attendance, and
participation (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004).
Effective teaching is important from business perspectives of academic institutions. High
enrollment in introductory courses makes up an important part of revenue stream for schools.

7
The introductory courses support organizations financially and also represent the pool of
candidates for advanced programs of study. Therefore, creating engagement in introductory
courses and promoting retention is a high-priority objective. Since gamification is applied by
many commercial organizations to engage large numbers of customers, attempts are made early
on to apply gamification to academic activities.
Background
A theory often applied to gamification is the self-determination theory by Richard Ryan
and Edward Deci (2000). For sixteen years, the self-determination theory has been applied to a
variety of fields to modify behavior, instill new habits, and promote intrinsic motivation. This
case study, which covers the emerging field of gamification as well as education, and business,
also utilizes self-determination theory. The focus of the case study explores the application of
gamification in college introductory STEM courses.
The basic elements of self-determination theory (autonomy, relatedness, and competence)
were applied to the business field in order to promote employee well-being, performance, and
employment tenure (Williams et al., 2014). In the field of education, the self-determination
theory was applied to mitigate academic dishonesty by addressing student needs of autonomy
(Kanat-Maymon, Benjamin, Stavsky, Shoshani, & Roth, 2015). In music education, the theory
was used to increase student motivation and improve learning environment (Evans, 2015). In
physical education, the application of self-determination theory showed evidence of increasing
performance in physical activities and improved the attitude toward exercise later in adulthood
(Weiyun & Hypnar, 2015). In broader educational studies, self-determination theory element of
autonomy seems to be negatively affected by deadlines (Amabile, DeJong, & Lepper, 1976),

8
surveillance (Enzle & Anderson, 1993), testing (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987), and controlling
language (Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004).
A modern application of the self-determination theory is in gamification. Commercial
businesses have been utilizing reward-point systems and other gamification strategies for some
time now (Saran, 2015). Improvement was found in marketing on mobile devices with
gamification (Hofacker, de Ruyter, Lurie, Manchanda, & Donaldson, 2016). The University of
Michigan applied gamification to college courses by developing a custom Learning Management
System, which is driven by individual paths of learning and game points instead of grades
(Aguilar, Fishman, & Holman, 2013). The University received a 1.8-million-dollar grant to
continue the project.
While many studies report benefits of gamification in education and other fields
(Dicheva, Dichev, Agre, & Angelova, 2015), Gartner warned in 2012 that 80% of gamification
projects would fail in the next two years due to poor understanding of effective design in
gamification (Gartner, 2012). The successful studies in education focus on problem-solving
skills, exploration, and discovery as project outcomes (Lee & Hammer, 2011; Kapp, 2012;
Sitzmann, 2011). Studies that report negative impacts of gamification cite decreases in
motivation, empowerment, and satisfaction due to ongoing comparisons between students in
leaderboards (Hanus & Fox, 2015). Faiella and Ricciardi (2016) suggest that more work needs
to be done to experimentally establish the learning benefits of gamification in education.
In the business field, the term zombification was coined to express mechanical following
of gamification rules to reach extrinsic rewards (Conway, 2014). Further, exploitationware is
another negative term associated with gamification to underline the tangible employer benefits
resulting from employee gamification activities in contrast with intangible, and often valueless,

9
rewards given to employees (Bogost, 2011). Laboring without proper compensation was given
yet another name by Kuchlich (2005) in the expression playbour.
While the above negative expressions about gamification stress the need for ethical
consideration, they demonstrate the effectiveness of the principle and the need for informed
design. Gamification has a noticeable effect on people and requires further investigation. There
is a need to maximize the positive effects of gamification and minimize the negative impact.
Statement of the Problem
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) is an important academic
area for the United States in order to effectively compete in the global markets, economy, and
innovation (Chen & Soldner, 2013). Reportedly, students have left behind their studies in STEM
and switched to other majors. Some of the reasons are based on student engagement and point
out student boredom, alienation, low achievement, and high dropout rates (Fredricks et al.,
2004). A 30% failure rate was found in relation to female students and minorities in
introductory, so-called STEM gatekeeper courses (Vasquez, Fuentes, & Kypuros, 2015).
There exists a negative sentiment among some higher education faculty that scientists
cannot be made, they are born that way, or that students need to be weeded out in gatekeeping
courses (Gasiewski, Eagan, Garcia, Hurtado, & Chang, 2012). A study of 2,873 students in 15
schools covering 73 introductory courses underlines the importance of supportive faculty role in
student success. Gasiewski et al. demonstrates that engagement increases with the adoption of a
new teaching role, which replaces the gatekeeping professor with the role of an engaged
professor. Other studies confirm the reciprocal nature of engagement, which means that both the
students and the professors must promote a positive attitude (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). While
teachers can be monitored through classroom visitations and other evaluation protocols in order

10
to increase engagement (Early, Rogge, & Deci, 2015), the engagement of students cannot be
forced the same way.
When considering gamification in classroom activities, researchers report a dearth of
studies about the immersion in game environments associated with storification (Hamari et al.,
2016). Researchers call for more qualitative studies in this area to understand the nature of
engagement in games (Consalvo & Dutton, 2006; Connolly, Boyle, MacArthur, Hainey, &
Boyle, 2012). The complexity of the phenomenon and continually changing audience in the
classroom lends itself to a qualitative study.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative case study is to explore and describe the gamification of a
STEM introductory college course, Introduction to Computing, at Grand Valley State University.
STEM attrition in academia, as well as the shortage of STEM workforce on national scale,
makes attracting and retaining students a significant business problem for STEM academic
departments and for the industries relying on STEM workforce. Exploring the technology
implemented in this gamification study and providing a model of gamification demonstrates a
business solution for academic or enterprise learning. The study includes 501 students who
contributed data in form of course evaluations, journals, public review posts, as well as activity
data available in a digital gamification system, peer-instruction system, and various cloud-based
assignment systems. Gamification was applied to the course through custom software and
gameful instructional design.
Research Questions
• Q1. How does gamification encourage engagement during lectures?

11
• Q2. How does gamification encourage participation in the activities during the entire
length of the course?
Nature of the Study
This qualitative case study explores the application of gamification in a higher education
environment. The research questions are in the “how” format, which provides the students the
opportunity to supply observations and report on the field notes of the phenomenon. Yin (2009)
suggests that a case study is appropriate when the researcher has little control over events and
when a contemporary phenomenon is considered in a real-life context.
The “how” questions are supported by the exploratory nature of the case study. The
gamification strategies included in the case study were an experiment in the class. Surveys
submitted to participants in the form of end-of-semester evaluations allowed for documenting the
experiences of participants. While the design of the gamified course was controlled by the
researcher, the behaviors of participants cannot be controlled, and the incoming student
populations are never the same.
Gamification in education with advanced technology is a relatively new development.
Building complex systems on top of active learning and peer instruction is part of a new
generation of teaching and learning innovation. The application of these methods allows a
phenomenon to occur in student motivation and it requires our attention and study.
Significance of the Study
This case study provides evidence of successful application of gamification to an
introductory college course. The success is measured by qualitative data provided by the
participants of the study. This includes an increase in affinity toward the subject matter,

12
expressions of motivational levels, and subjective opinions connected with participation in the
course.
The significance of the study is emphasized in the impact of higher attendance in
lectures, completion of assignments, and exploration of the subject matter to mitigate the
problems mentioned in the Statement of the Problem section. The resolution of high-failure rates
in introductory courses, low achievement, student boredom, student alienation, along with high
dropout rates will have a significant impact in STEM academic programs producing graduates to
handle industry needs.
If the study was not conducted, the impact of the software developed for the study or the
application of motivational theories could not be qualified in an academic environment. Since
the study presents a case for little modification of curriculum, the application of gamification can
be broadly generalized to other subject matter areas and other populations.
Definition of Key Terms
Autonomy. An element of the self-determination theory, which implies free choice,
taking initiative to originate actions and engagement (Vandercammen, Hofmans, &
Theuns, 2014)
Extrinsic motivation. Emotional state leading to actions caused by external factors,
which are separable from outcomes of the activity (Olafsen, Halvari, Forest, & Deci,
2015; Yoo, Han, & Huang, 2012).
Gamification. The use of game mechanics and dynamics in nongame contexts
(Deterding, 2012)

13
Gameful design. Gamification is an instance of gameful design. It means applying game
design patterns in practice (Deterding, 2012) with special attention to intrinsic motivation
(Lee & Doh, 2012).
Intrinsic motivation. Emotional state leading to actions caused by satisfaction derived
from the activity itself instead of external factors (Olafsen et al., 2015; Yoo et al., 2012)
Flow. A concept introduced by Professor Csikszentmihalyi from the University of
Chicago meaning energized focus in an activity, full immersion, and enjoyment (Hamari
et al., 2016).
Fiero. An expression of winning or final accomplishment, typically expressed with raised
hands and exclamation with etymology in an Italian word meaning pride or happiness
(McGonigal, 2011).
Includification. Integration of accessibility of digital material and increasing the
inclusiveness and diversity of gamer population (Barlet & Spohn, 2012).
Storification. Usage of non-narrative elements, such as video, to create structure of
narrative story (Morneau, Van Herreweghe, Little, & Lefebvre, 2012).
Quantification. Collection of data and its visualization in order to provide feedback and
modify behavior (Whitson, 2013).
Summary
The research of effective teaching provides clear lessons that tutoring and active learning
show significant improvements over more traditional approaches (Bloom, 1984; Ruiz-Primo,
Briggs, Iverson, Talbot, & Shepard, 2011; Freeman et al., 2014). Benefits of such approaches
can be linked to motivational theories such as the self-determination theory, which features

14
autonomy, relatedness, and competence as key requirements in motivating students (Ryan &
Deci, 2000). Recently gamification, which draws from the self-determination theory, has been
applied to commercial environments in the form of loyalty reward systems or employee
experience tracking (Saran, 2015; Hofacker, de Ruyter, Lurie, Manchanda, & Donaldson, 2016).
Academic institutions, which are facing enrollment, retention, and graduation challenges, also
experiment with gamification systems to increase student motivation (Aguilar, Fishman, &
Holman, 2013).
The study will include 501 students who contributed data in form of course evaluations, public
review posts, as well as activity data available in a digital gamification system, peer-instruction
system, and various cloud-based assignment systems. The case study approach allows for
answering “how” questions to investigate the application of gamification on student engagement
and participation in STEM learning (Yin, 2014).

15
Page 15-72 redacted and available at http://research.dataii.com/publications/Gamification

72
Chapter 4: Findings
The findings will demonstrate emerging themes and patterns obtained though qualitative content
analysis. Following the connections between the qualitative data and reporting the results will
address the research questions:
Q1. How does gamification encourage engagement during lectures?
Q2. How does gamification encourage participation in the activities during the entire
length of the course?
Trustworthiness of the Data
The data in this exploratory case study is made up of 1002 comments made by students in
course evaluations, 182 RateMyProfessor.com entries, and activity data collected from the
custom gamification system, Cengage Skill Administration Manager (SAM) system, Code.org,
and Codecombat.com. The 1184 comments were processed through qualitative content analysis
to produce categories, which resulted in 331 extracts grouped based on emerging themes and
patterns. The categories were adjusted in a cycle of revisions following the patterns found in the
data.
The two main sources of qualitative data in this case study were University managed end-
of-course evaluations and RateMyProfessors.com comments about the course. Both sources
provided anonymous data, however they fell in two distinct domains. Before completing course
evaluations students provided their credentials to access University resources. In contrast,
RateMyProfessors.com was an external service in relation to the University and a publicly
accessible system. A triangulation of the qualitative data between the systems helped to

73
establish verification, reproducibility, and validation. Student reflective journals, written by
students during the course, were also collected for the case study. However, they were not used
in detailed analysis due to possible bias. They were written with the knowledge the instructor
would see the names of the students along with the content.
Further, some quantitative data was collected in the custom gamification system and
other sources. Quantifying engagement and participation in terms of numerical responses in
evaluations, number of optional tasks completed, frequency of feedback and others allowed for
an alternate view of engagement to qualitative data. The triangulation of methodologies
delivered data sets that complement each other.
This case study uses 15 course sections as data sources for the application of
gamification. While these are all students and do not represent diverse stakeholder perspectives,
some data triangulation exists in the multiple groups being investigated. Data triangulation
improves validity of the study.
This exploratory case study provides thick descriptions of the participants’ experiences.
It relies on public data and restricted data. The goal of the study was to provide comprehensive
and coherent reconstruction of the information obtained from participants to establish
confirmability.
Results
The course Introduction to Computing, at Grand Valley State University, was a
coordinated course with approximately 30 sections each semester. The content of the course was
centrally managed. This content included the textbook, exams, quizzes, Cengage SAM tutorials,
and Cengage SAM projects. All graded assignments were standardized across the course
sections. The course consisted of 49 graded assignments, 3 performance exams, 2 summative

74
exams, and a self-paced project. The content of the course was broad including over 700
computing terms in the theory section along with hands-on skills in Microsoft Word, Excel, and
Access.
The course was delivered primarily to non-computing majors and it was a required course
in many academic programs. A theme in the collected data emerged of students dreading the
course either based on their own previous experiences with computing or anecdotal stories
shared by their peers. Many comments stressed lack of interest in computing prior to the course.
Some of the comments stated: “The book tried really hard to be interesting, which I appreciate,
but holy cow it is long and boring! That may be because I am not a computer person at all and
the content was of no interest to me”, “Going into CIS150 I was so scared because everyone told
me it was the worse class ever”, “I was really uninterested in this class when I originally signed
up, but it was required by my major."
The custom gamification system was applied to the course in the Fall of 2015. The case
study data extends over 4 semesters of Fall 2015, Winter 2016, Fall 2016, and Winter of 2017. It
includes 15 class sections and 501 students. The course was delivered in 16-week semesters.
The undergraduate population at Grand Valley State University in 2016 consisted of students,
who were 58.5% female, 41.5% male, 89.1% full-time. The total enrollment in all sections of
the case study course, Introduction to Computing, had 1,740 enrolled students out of a total of
22,081 undergraduate population.
Research question 1. How does gamification encourage engagement during lectures?
Student engagement during lectures as a theme was simplified to 187 expressions in the
data set. Student engagement is a composite idea that means a level of attention, curiosity,
interest, optimism, and passion demonstrated by students during a learning period (Strati,

75
Schmidt, & Maier, 2017; Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008; Fredericks, Blumenfeld, &
Paris, 2004). Student engagement may be intellectual, emotional, behavioral, physical, or social.
The results of the case study are group by these themes. Opposite concepts include being bored,
dispassionate, disaffected. Some of the key expressions involved in the qualitative content
analysis were based on the word engagement itself, but also on expressing interest, emotional
affinity, and references to having fun.
Lecture engagement is indicated by student activity in the Kahoot peer-instruction or
classroom response system. Within most lecture sessions a Kahoot was run containing between
6 and 12 questions. Such questions served as prompts for class discussion and visual aids.
Students connected to the peer-instruction system by using their own phones or laptops.
Between Fall 2015 and Winter 2017 a total of 189 Kahoots were run in 15 sections with a
gradual adoption from few in 2015 to a Kahoot in most lectures in Winter 2017.
Intellectual
Intellectual engagement was evident in course evaluations through responses to the
following open-ended question: “Was this class intellectually stimulating? Did it stretch your
thinking? Why or why not?” Qualitative analysis was performed on the responses to evaluate the
meaning in two categories of “yes” or “no”.
Example responses evaluated to “yes”:
“This class made me think outside of the box because the coding was very hard and I had
no clue how to do it, but I had to become creative to finish it”, “Yes, he always challenged us to
do more but brought about in a very fun way!”, “It did, because it pushed the boundaries of my
intellect like no other class has.”, “yes because each class we learned a variety of different things
involving computers as well as being challenged through "the game" to go above and beyond

76
what was required”, “Yes, the use of the games in class and the apps really helped me learn in a
more effective way in which I actually retained the information taught.”, “A lot of the
information was a repeat since I have taken a similar course in high school however, (…) made
the class very stimulating with the Kahoot games and his app.”, “Yes. With the app I went above
what I normally would have done and it encouraged me to do things such as the coding games
and going to the technology showcase. “, “This class was definitely one of the more thought
provoking classes as the instructor connected other ideas such as philosophy, science, and
business into one class “, “Yes because he brought in things from outside of just the book work
about technology and really engaged me throughout the whole semester. He did great things that
made me want to learn about this class and its topics as well as kept it fun and upbeat.”
Example responses evaluated to No:
“No, this class was pretty straight forward I thought. If you took the time to do all the
assignments then nothing was really that hard. This class was very useful though, I learned some
things about word and excel I never knew and got to learn about access which wasn't too bad.
Learning about hardware was also very intriguing. “, “No, this class was the easiest course I've
taken yet at Grand Valley. Honestly, I should've tested out of it because I already knew the
majority of what we were talking about in class. “, “Class material was not very hard.”, “No so
boring”, “No, but that is because of the type of class this is. It is a class made to teach you how to
use programs like Microsoft word, excel, and access.”
Figure 1 demonstrates the “yes” category as Engaged, “no” as Bored labels.
Additionally, the responses are set in perspective of the total students enrolled in the course and
the number of students who completed the survey. The number of students, who completed the
survey, but did not respond to the gamification questions is also indicated. The proportion of

77
engaged to bored students increases each semester from 88% to 96%. The Fall 2015 semester
received more reviews than later semesters.
Figure 1.
Course evaluations asked the question: “Relative to other college courses you have taken:
The intellectual challenge presented was: (scale 0 - Much Lower, 4 - Average, 7 - Much
Higher)”. The average rating across four semesters was 5.2. This reflects an above average
intellectual challenge relative to other courses taken by students, who completed evaluations.
The questions posted during Kahoot sessions were anchors for classroom discussion. A
student mentions: “explaining the Kahoot answers was especially helpful.” The technical
discussions of content between Kahoot questions helped to cover the curriculum course content.
To this end a student noted: “The lectures in between Kahoot problems were sometimes too
long.” However, Kahoots were mentioned in a positive light extensively. A student summarizes:

78
“The Kahoots were fun and made the class interactive. I really enjoyed the lecture because it just
interested me and I felt like I learned something every time I went to class.”
Emotional
The lecture level engagement was often indicated in the case study data by students
reporting the experience of fun. Some excerpts include: “He made it fun to go to class”, “we
learned while having fun and we learned a lot”, “making class fun and interactive, fair and
entertaining”, “he made me ENJOY coming to class; always made the class very fun”, “he
turned a very boring class into one of my favorites. He makes class fun and teaches in ways that
help students learn”, “had a good time in his class. was never bored”, “he made the class fun and
made it seem like a game.” While not precisely defined, having fun does indicate the elements
of engagement like attention, curiosity, interest, optimism, and passion.
Not all reviews indicated the experience of fun, some reported the opposite: “no, boring
as hell” or “Kahoot was fun but didn't really help me.” Another example of a negative
perception was in the response to the question: “What aspects of the class detracted from your
learning?”, the answer given by a student: “the lectures.” Figure 1 above provides a relative
proportion of negative expressions in the data set. While the figure is specifically addressing
engagement though intellectual stimulation, it provides an insight on the percentage of the
negative comments in the reviews in this and other categories. One of the expressions pertaining
to lectures, which was evaluated to a negative feedback states: “Professor taught class by using
Kahoot quizzes and I felt like I wasn't learning the material. He expected us to read the chapters
before class but then class time felt useless. I would rather be taught what I needed to know
when I come to class. That's the point of class.”

79
This view of covering content in class for the purpose of exams was deliberately
addressed in the design of lectures. Lectures were for talking about things students could not
learn on their own such as sparking interest in the subject matter, social learning, and
understanding the deeper meaning behind the course content. A student commented on the
process of figuring things on their own: “I have never been in a more engaging class than this
one. The Kahoot and phone game technology integration with lecture really helped make the
class enjoyable and educated students at the same time. This class did stretch my thinking and
challenged me to figure things out on my own, which in turn educates students more.”
RateMyProfessors.com, with 246 ratings, included the following top 5 tags selected by
students: respected (100), lots of homework (84), caring (68), hilarious (49), gives good
feedback (48). Additional tags relating to lecture engagement indicated: amazing lectures (22),
participation matters (17). 100% of students who rated the course, after 5/25/2016 when this
feature was added, indicated they would take the instructor again given opportunity.
An indicator of engagement were the reports of the use of humor in class. The
RateMyProfessors.com data set shows that 49 out of 246 respondents marked the class as
“hilarious” and 11 out of 181 comments included the word “funny”. Some humorous moments
were built into Kahoot questions. For example, some questions would create a cognitive
dissonance, where no answer seems correct or all answers were correct. Since students could
select only one answer, there was an emotional tension created. Sometimes, nobody in the class
would answer a question correctly. Humor was used to diffuse such situations.
Enjoyment of lectures indicates emotional engagement. Course evaluations in three of
the gamified semesters included custom questions. One of them, rated on a 1-5 (1=Strongly

80
Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree) scale stated: Q2. I enjoyed lectures in this class. The question was
answered by 132 students with an average of 4.4.
Sample expressions reflecting emotional engagement in the class are: “He is so funny,
caring, and amazing lecturer”, “He cares so much about his students and is always finding ways
to make sure they do their best in the class. He's SO approachable and very understanding”, “I
love this professor. One of my favorite professors I have had at Grand Valley. Really wants
students to do well and sincerely cares”, “He is the sweetest teacher and really wants his students
to succeed”, “Professor (…) would go out of his way to make sure I was doing ok both in class
and in my life”, “He genuinely cares about all of the students and knows that most students are
taking this for gen-ed requirements. This helps in the long run because you learn super cool
information and take-a-ways from the class instead of just sitting through a boring computer
class”, “He is one of the best teachers I have had in my 4 years at this school. He truly cares
about how much the students learn and what they take away from the class.“ 27 out of 181
comments on RateMyProfessors.com included an expression of feeling cared for during the
course.
Behavioral
Students made a connection between engagement and in-class competition: “The
competition in class kept me engaged”, “the lectures and the Kahoot games were very helpful”,
“He is so funny and makes his lectures interesting. He brings the competitor out in his students.
He always has games to be played during his lecture to get through material and it makes the
class go by a lot faster.” 55 course evaluation comments out of 342 responding students, who
left 1002 comments, and 25 RateMyProfessors.com comments out of 182 reviews mentioned
competition or classroom games in a positive light.

81
One of the comments brings out: “This class absolutely met my goals for taking it. I
wanted to learn and feel confident with Word and Excel and I achieved that. (…) he made it all a
game. He lectured via online, real time quiz games and it was very effective teaching for me and
my competitive personality. I don’t love computer concepts but I enjoyed this class (…).”
The Kahoot system provided a ranked standing within a lecture and after each completed
question. The competition was based on answering faster and more accurately than other
students during lectures. At the end of the entire Kahoot session the top three performing
students were recognized on the screen. After each question, the screen would display top 5
students and the instructor would recognize the students.
The recognition was based on students raising their hand as their Blackboard username
was called. Students signed in with the Blackboard user name to grant XP for the session in the
game system. The instructor would then say their real first name from memory or attempt to
learn that name. This helped the instructor to learn the names of students, but also allowed for a
social element in the lecture process. The instructor made it a goal to learn student names and in
addition to the Kahoot exercise, the Blackboard Learn photo roster aided in this effort. The
classroom size ranged from 25 to 40 students.
Engagement was also linked to a variety of methods utilized in lectures. “He made many
unique and fun methods of teaching to help make the class interesting”, “He used a variety of
different teaching skills, which helped me understand the material better”, “I loved the way
lectures were set up and I really didn't feel like I was in a formal lecture, which significantly
helped my learning”, “The classroom was very hands on and the learning facilitated student
interaction which helped to maintain our interest”, “all of the class participation, it kept me
paying attention”, “discussion was very interesting and stimulating.” While Kahoots helped to

82
anchor the lectures in the required content, a variety of methods appealed to students in keeping
the sessions interesting.
Effort was required to participate in classroom activities and to complete homework
assignments. Course evaluations indicated that students put more effort in this class than other
courses. Four engagement questions were reported in the data set and rated on the scale of 0 to 7
(0 - Much Lower, 4 - Average, 7 - Much Higher). The results presented are averages across all
sections. Relative to other college courses you have taken: The intellectual challenge presented
was: 5.2; The amount of effort you put into this course was: 5.6; The amount of effort to succeed
in this course was: 5.7; Your involvement in course (doing assignments, attending classes, etc.)
was: 5.8.
Game missions were introduced in varied time intervals to promote the concept of
unpredictability and to optimize reinforcement. This further led to maintaining positive
behaviors like class attendance. The autonomy the instructor had in releasing missions or
creating new ones contributed to instructor engagement.
Physical
Physical activity in the classroom included operating the mobile app to complete
missions or Kahoots. Some activities like Quizlet Live required that students move around the
class and find their assigned groups. Also, midway through a lecture a 60 second period of
guided dancing helped to introduce physical activity. Getting up for the activity was required,
dancing itself was not. Perspectives on this activity were mixed.
Students noted: “(…) He lectures by playing quiz games. (…) Even had us get up and
dance to break up the lecture”, “The biggest distraction that the teacher thought was fun and a
good idea was making us dance in class”, “Stop making kids dance when you are the only one

83
dancing.” The activity was not rigidly scheduled, instead depending on the overall activity level
in the class it was added as needed. A student with a note of disappointment commented: “No
suggestions, except we stopped dancing in class about half way through the semester. The class
was unique and fun.”
The mobile app created for the class included a direct link to Kahoot from a button titled
“Lecture Participation”. Occupying the hands of students with their phones created a physical
activity that helped them stay focused on class activities. During lectures text or QR Code game
codes were shared as answers to lecture-summative questions, codes for attendance, or
challenges. Collecting codes as artifacts was a key game design for in-person interaction. QR
Codes in the game were either generated or adopted based on codes already displayed in public
places. Some out-of-class game missions involved finding building maps or campus art to scan
associated QR Codes.
Social
Social engagement during lectures was accomplished by the peer-instruction system,
Kahoot, by Quizlet Live, and by game recommendations. Upon earning 500XP students could
recommend someone else in the class to unlock late assignments achievement. This allowed
requests to purchase late assignments and created peer connections between engaged students
and those who felt they needed to turn in late assignments. When a late assignment was
completed the mentor student received more experience points.
Kahoots helped in lecture social engagement, because the questions and answers were
only available on the main projector screen, which required students to look up and stay aware of
the classroom activities. Kahoots were alternated between a Classic Kahoot, one student per
phone, and a Team Kahoot, which meant a single phone would allow feedback from 2 to 4

84
students in a group. The group Kahoot allowed for added collaboration between students as they
reached consensus on the answer. The points earned in a Classic Kahoot were added to the
experience point ledger for each student after a lecture.
A student comment on social engagement stated: “Continue the Kahoots. Please do more
quizzlet lives! Working with teams is awesome”, “good job of getting everyone involved which
made the learning easier”, “the class discussion got everyone involved”, “I liked it because it was
different from other classes. Playing Kahoots/Quizlet was fun because it got everyone involved”,
“the games actually helped a lot, instead of boring lectures the games helped everyone pay
attention.”
Research question 2. How does gamification encourage participation in the activities
during the entire length of the course?
RQ1 reported on engagement during individual lectures. It was a short-term, event-based
engagement. Long-term participation in the course, such as attendance, homework completion,
are defined here as engagement throughout the course. Certainly, engagement during lectures as
reported on in RQ1 contributed to students coming back to class. However, a number of other
themes became apparent in the qualitative content analysis to support participation in the entire
length of the course.
Attendance
Attendance in the course was tracked with Kahoot activities, hidden mission codes, and
protection codes. This was for informational purposes for the instructor and students. Students
were not punished for absences in terms of a course grade component. A student comments:
“Even though he doesn't take attendance, almost the whole class shows up every Mon/Wed. I

85
feel that Prof (…) really works for the students in his class instead of expecting students to come
to class because they're afraid they'll fail if they don't.”
Students used their Blackboard username to login to the Kahoot. This allowed the
mobile app to credit them with experience points. In some cases, at the end of a lecture a key
question was asked, where the answer was a mission code. Before students left the room the
answer was revealed to all present.
The experience point ledger allowed to tie all lectures together. Those in attendance were
contributing to it from lecture to lecture. Therefore, performance on Kahoots, attendance, and
other classroom activities were connected into a semester-long journey. A student commented:
“I LOVED the game, it was an amazing incentive to come to class and stay interested but also
something that was fun and extra.”
Participation in the course included in-class activities with attendance as its foundation,
but it also included homework, which was extensive in this course. The course syllabus
indicated that in addition to the 3 hours of classroom activity, students were expected to reserve
additional 6 hours a week to complete homework. The extensive hands-on practice, which was a
method of ensuring the transfer of applied knowledge, was part of course participation. A
student indicated: “the homework and projects really engraved the lessons.”
A storification element of the Vikings allowed for metaphors that applied to Computer
Science and helped students remember technical concepts. In the case of “protection codes”
students were told that Scandinavian trolls were roaming the campus looking for experience
points. To protect experience points students needed to be present during scheduled lectures to
receive the current protection mission code. A mission with negative amount of experience
points was added to accounts without the current protection code. A student comments about

86
storification: “(…) lectures never really feel like class because you're usually playing games or
talking about Vikings.”
Effort in the design of the class lectures was to provide some practical and intellectual
value each time in addition to the required course terminology. A student comments on this:
“This class was definitely one of the more thought provoking classes as the instructor connected
other ideas such as philosophy, science, and business into one class.” Students were more likely
to attend the class, when they were intellectually stimulated. An element of unpredictability of
how the technical issues will be related to other topics they may already have interest in opened a
door for curiosity.
The classroom response system helped students realize that they were learning during
lectures. When students answered incorrectly in a Kahoot, it served as evidence of their
ignorance and then the correct answer was explained or discussed. A clear progress in mastery
or competence in the subject was visible to lecture participants. A student commented: “I felt
like I learned something every time I went to class.”
Management of Anxiety
The gamified lectures and clear outline of graded and optional assignments in the
Blackboard course contributed to a low pressure learning environment. A student noted: “Zero
stress or pressure in this class allowed me to do extremely well. Also, the real-life application
example allowed me to increase my life as an individual.” Being able to track their own progress
helped to underline a growing mastery in terms of computer skills, therefore building confidence.
Removing academic stress from the class was certainly by design. Approaching the course as a
game and communicating this on the first day of class helped students to set aside bias to the
subject matter and approach the content in a playful way.

87
The terminology used promoted reduction of stress. Extra credit points were called Peace
of Mind points, which meant that each Peace of Mind point evaluated approximately to one
question on a midterm or final exam. This made the practical value of the extra credit very clear
and focused attention on reduction of stress during exams.
Instead of calling a student grade menu “My Grades” in the Blackboard Learn LMS, it
was renamed to My Progress. Instead of calling the ranking screen “Leaderboard”, it was called
“Experience Ranking”. This screen in the mobile app was accessible through the “Progress” tab,
which listed missions completed most recently by students and missions completed most often.
This data was displayed on a moving gallery, which promoted the concept of ongoing activity.
The leaderboard was further optimized to only display 10 neighboring players with an option to
see the top 30 overall players. A full ranking of all players was not available.
For many students taking off the edge in terms of stress led to willingness to attend
lectures and continue participation in the course. The connection between learning, play, and
mastery of actual skills is highlighted by this comment: “I think that one of the reasons this class
was effective was because learning and play were united in a unique way. We were given
independence to learn at our own pace, and we were introduced to a variety of different areas in
the world of computers. (…) was charismatic about the content of the class, and I think it
inspired students to do well. The skills that I value the most are probably the skills we developed
using MS Office, because I think that these are things that I can use everyday at the university,
but also in the workplace. Other skills that I appreciate are just a better general knowledge of
computers.”
Another approach of the game design to lessen the stress levels was to take attention
away from official grades. The system of experience points introduced a secondary system of

88
rewards. In an evaluation, when asked for suggestions, a student wrote: “Nothing. I love the
professor, love the class, and would not suggest anything differently. I was told to take the class
with this professor by a friend and I am really grateful I listened. Not only do I have a better
understanding of the topic, but I feel like I really learned something and with some classes I am
focused more on the grade than the subject, and that was not the case at all for this class.”
Assignment Completion
Evidence of participation in the course throughout the semester can be gleaned from the
Cengage SAM system activity. There were 49 graded assignments in the course in Cengage
SAM system. However, there were also 23 optional assignments, which allowed students to
practice Microsoft Word, Excel, and Access applications. 490 students out of the 516, who
registered for the course, completed some hands-on optional Cengage SAM assignments.
A review of Cengage SAM gradebooks in the Winter 2017 semester reveals that all
students completed some optional assignments during that semester, with a minimum of 3%
success rate, average of 63%, and at least one student reaching completion of 99.6% (Figure 2).
The completion rate was calculated by adding the total scores on assignments instead of counting
completed assignments. These optional assignments produced experience points instead of
course grades. The practice likely contributed to greater mastery of the subject matter.

89
Figure 2.
Students reported a higher involvement in this course than other courses. The course
evaluations included four engagement questions, one of them stated: “Relative to other college
courses you have taken: Your involvement in course (doing assignments, attending classes, etc.).
was: (scale 0 - Much Lower, 4 - Average, 7 - Much Higher).” Students reported higher than
average involvement in completion of assignments and class attendance across the four
semesters with an average of 5.8 rating.
Timely Feedback
Timely feedback was accomplished by designing the course in the Blackboard Learn
LMS to include each graded assignment as a separate gradable item and setting clear due dates
on assignments through the semester. A student noted: “(…) very straight forward weekly
schedule.” Cengage SAM generated a detailed report within minutes of project submission:
“(…) assignments let you know the score and you can correct the mistakes.”

90
The Blackboard’s mobile app, which includes an automated notification system, kept
students informed of their grades and course progress. This gave students the time and
opportunity to consider completion of optional assignments, game missions, and lecture
attendance. A manual gradebook sync was performed each week to import current grades from
the Cengage SAM system into Blackboard Learn, export experience points from Cengage SAM
and Kahoot systems into the custom game system.
To complement the automated feedback, an email shortcut was present in the Blackboard
course and in the game app to encourage asynchronous communication. A theme of the
instructor’s willingness to help, which indicates feedback, is present in the data. 46 mentions of
being helpful are present in the 181 RateMyProfessors.com comments. Students wrote: “He
emails back in a timely manner”,” responds to emails as soon as possible, sometimes late at
night”,” he responds quickly to emails, and if you ever need any extra help, he is very
approachable and very willing to help.”
Whenever possible, the feedback was accelerated. For example, text or QR Code game
missions were granted and credited immediately within the game system. NetApp certification
mission, Boss Level missions in Code.org or CodeCombat.com allowed the instructor to view an
internal gradebook and verify who completed the missions. However, students were asked to
submit a screenshot of their progress from those systems and an appropriate game code would be
displayed to them immediately through Blackboard Learn adaptive release feature. Missions
could be revoked if needed in special circumstances. The same functionality of adaptive release
was used when encouraging students to explore the Blackboard Learn system. Upon finding
certain areas of the course and clicking on “Marked Reviewed” buttons, adaptive release would

91
also display the game code immediately and the mobile app would credit the experience points
immediately.
A student noted: “I learned I can’t just wait and cram homework at the last minute with
this class, I have to spread it out and start early. I also never in a million years thought I could
make a website on my own so that was cool.” The timely feedback concept is not just a
gamification goal; it is part of good instructional design. When students know how they are
performing in class they can make additional choices based on that knowledge. Due dates
allowed opportunity for the concept of late assignments.
Mastery of the Material
Practical skills in Cengage SAM system were learned by following tutorials and then
completing self-paced projects. However, projects could be turned in 5 times with corrections
after receiving detailed feedback. Creating this failure-safe environment contributed to an
increase in mastery and confidence. A student noted: “If you do all the assignments and then do
the practices before exams and quizzes you will be golden. Longer weekly homework
assignments let you know the score and you can correct the mistakes for a 100% every time”,
“Allows chances to redo assignments.”
As a reflection, after completing the class, students were asked four questions about the
gamification approach. The questions were present in three semesters of the case study and were
answered by 132 students. The following questions were rated on a 1-5 scale (1=Strongly
Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree) and resulted are in averages: Q1. After taking this class my
confidence in using computers increased: 4.6; Q2. I enjoyed lectures in this class: 4.4; Q3. The
game system in this class encouraged me to do additional practice, which otherwise I would not
do: 4.5); Q4. This class was a well-played game: 4.5.

92
There was a positive feedback on each question, however, the questions about an increase
of confidence and being encouraged to additional practice reflect growth in mastery of the
subject matter. As reported earlier, many students dreaded the course ahead of time and did not
feel like it was of interest. Students who completed the evaluations participated in the course
with an impression of their skills and confidence growing.
Course Completion
The total enrolled students in 4 semesters and 15 sections was 516. 15 students dropped
the course, most in the first two weeks of the class. This means that 3% of students dropped the
course. Maintaining student interest and creating milestones, like achievements or Boss Level
mission, created a mindset of expectation and anticipation. When asked on the evaluation, what
contributed to your learning, a student responded: “All of the different things to do. Kahoot,
Game Codes, Sam Learning, Boss Level.”
The course was outlined through a path of intermediate milestones. Four achievements,
marked in the mobile app gamer profile, were available to students. The first achievement was
reached at 500 experience points opening the capacity to recommend other students for late
assignments. The second achievement, opening ability to trade for Peace of Mind Points, was
opened through a game code shared in a midterm preparation lecture session by entering a text
code. The third achievement was opened when someone else recommended the player and
opened capacity to purchase late assignments. The fourth achievement was connected with
completion of the Boss Level mission.
The Boss Level event was a final mission in the course-long game. Upon completion of
the mission students would either receive 50% Peace of Mind Point exchange rate or 300 XP to
help complete late assignments. Initially the Boss Level was based on the Accelerated

93
Introduction to Computer Science activity on Code.org. Later, JavaScript and Python
programming courses were used on CodeCombat.com. In the Code.org mission, out of 373
students, 194 participated and completed on average 32 levels writing 189 lines of code. In
CodeCombat.com, out of 364 students, 154 completed on average 13 levels and spent 36 minutes
on the assignment.
The gamification allowed students to be involved beyond the duration of their own class.
By recommending students in current classes, the course alumni could continue to be in touch
with the system. The recommendations are required to purchase any late assignments. Creating
mentorship relationships, or at least relationships with past students who may share some
comments about their experience in the course, was a way to increase the social quality of the
course game.
Collecting experience points through the length of the semester allowed for continuity of
participation in the course. Since missions, or visible milestones of activity, were issued more
often than grades, they provided a path to completion with more frequent feedback. To illustrate
this, in an answer to the question “Was this class intellectually stimulating?” students wrote:
“Yes (…) and really engaged me throughout the whole semester. He did great things that made
me want to learn about this class and its topics as well as kept it fun and upbeat”, “Yes, (…)
game approach to the class was very motivating throughout the semester and taught how to
prioritize time, how to effectively use computer applications.”
During the 4 semesters examined in the case study 525 users registered in the game and
completed 15,117 missions. The missions included 648 late assignment makeups, 362 course
alumni recommendations, 2478 attendance checks, and 4277 art explorations. Figure 3 and
Figure 4 show the frequency of completed missions and game registration periods. Figure 3

94
demonstrates distinct dips at the start of a semester and peaks toward the end as student
participation in mission activities increased toward the conclusion of the course. Figure 4
demonstrates high registration in the game system at the start of each semester.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.

95
An element of novelty was associated with the use of the semester-long game. A student
comment states: “The game was really cool and different.” The exploration of various Computer
Science points of interest in optional game missions likely added to the attitude of exploration
and unpredictability. However, the variety of topics covered by optional game missions
contributed to an increase of interest in some students. A student noted the semester-long
approach in this comment: “He has a game you play all semester. You earn points in the game
by completing extra assignments and participating in class.”
Upon completion of the course, students reflected about a change of attitude toward the
subject matter. Their participation in the course-length activities resulted in an improved affinity
and new interest toward the STEM field. Students noted: “I was really uninterested in this class
when I originally signed up, but it was required by my major. (…) made it really interesting and
fun and easy to understand for someone who doesn't care much about computers. I am now
genuinely interested and at least somewhat informed in the basics of this field. I am glad I had to
take this class, which I never expected myself to say, and Professor(…) is the main reason it was
enjoyable”, “The game helped me practice and gain interest in the subject.”
Additional Findings
In order to provide a deeper understanding of the case study and experiences of the
participants, additional findings and designs are reported. Such findings do not apply directly to
the research questions; however, they may be helpful to practitioners or researchers. They
provide a background for the findings reported above.
Course Evaluation Participation
At a high level, the frequency of student feedback indicates engagement in the course.
Pre-gamification completion rate of course evaluations was at 44%, while in the gamified course

96
the rate was 68%. Figure 5 demonstrates the number of students who responded to course
evaluations prior to gamification application. Out of 597 enrolled students, 261 responded in
evaluations. Figure 6 demonstrates the frequency of response after the gamification was applied.
Out of 501 students, 342 responded. Two versions of the end-of-course evaluations were
collected; the first version covered Fall 2013 to Winter 2015 and the second version covered Fall
2015 to Winter 2017. The application of gamification coincided with introduction of a new
course evaluation system at the University level.
Figure 5.

97
Figure 6.
Pre-gamification student engagement
It is important to note that instruction of this course received positive feedback even
before the application of gamification. A well-designed course is a good candidate for
gamification to increase student engagement and instructor engagement. The key affective
domain questions in the pre-gamification feedback (Fall 2013, Winter 2014, Fall 2014, Winter
2015) were identified in questions 14, 23, and 33. The scale in the evaluation form ranged from
1= high (Strongly Agree), to 5 = low (Strongly Disagree). The data was reported as average
across the four semesters.
Question #14 I enjoyed taking this course. 2.13
Question #23 This instructor used a teaching style that kept my attention throughout this
course: 1.74
Question #33 This instructor motivated me to do my best work for this class: 1.67

98
Course Quality
The IASystem course evaluation calculated the Overall Summative Rating as well as the
Challenge and Engagement Index (CEI). The Overall Summative Rating represents the
combined responses of students to the four global summative items and is presented to provide
an overall index of the class's quality. The scale ranged from 0=lowest to 5=highest. The
semester averages were: Fall 2015: 4.6; Winter 2016: 4.4; Fall 2016: 4.7; Winter 2017: 4.6.
Minimum across all semesters was 4.0 and maximum 4.9.
The Challenge and Engagement Index (CEI) combines student responses to several
IASystem items relating to how academically challenging students found the course to be and
how engaged they were. The scale ranged from 0=lowest to 7=highest. The semester averages
were: Fall 2015: 4.7; Winter 2016: 5.0; Fall 2016: 5.2; Winter 2017: 4.9. Minimum across all
semesters was 4.3 and maximum 5.7.
Data collected from RateMyProfessors.com shows that the instructor of the course held
the 7th
overall ranking in May of 2017 at Grand Valley State University in terms of the number
of students rating the course (246) out of 3242 instructors recorded by the system. In the time
period covered by the data the instructor taught the Introduction to Computing course
exclusively. Within the top 20 ranked instructors at the University, he received the highest rating
of 4.7. The minimum rating within the top 20 was 2.0 and median 3.4. The ratings start on
August 30th
, 2013 and remained positive until the start of the gamification project in Fall of
2014. Data collected for the needs of this case study spans from Fall of 2014 to Winter of 2017.
The end-of-semester review system in the last two semesters added a decile indicator for
comparison across college and overall institution. This data was available for 8 sections of the

99
class. The College decile rating in the Fall of 2016 was reported as: 9th
, 9th
, 9th
, 7th
and Winter
2017: 9th
,9th
,8th
, 8th
.
Evaluation of Findings
Findings documented in RQ1, concerning the short-term engagement in lectures,
reflected a plethora of motivational theories. The acquired needs theory suggests that frequent
recognition of efforts and accomplishments motivates people (Moorer, 2014; Tsounis, Sarafis, &
Bamidis, 2014). The classroom-response system facilitated student expression and immediate
feedback. Activation theory maintains that motivated people perform activities based on mental
arousal between overstimulation and boredom (McClelland & Liberman, 1949; Scott, 1966).
Novelty, variation, and uncertainty are some of the stimuli that can lead to activation and were
present in Kahoot driven lectures.
Attribution theory claims that people are motivated when they can explain the world
around them (Harvey, Madison, Martinko, Crook, & Crook, 2014; Roesch & Amirkham, 1997).
As they do, they tend to assign blame as personality traits for others, and as external reasons for
themselves. The Kahoot system allowed for questions to be asked, which required an
explanation. As students made mistakes in answering, they owned their wrong answers and were
motivated to understand their own failure.
Escape theory could be applied to the storification of the course and Kahoot lectures
allowing for escape from boredom. With many trepidations present at the start of the course,
exploring the subject matter through the view of Vikings and playfulness of games allowed
students to escape the negative feelings. In connection with overjustification effect theory,
taking focus away from grades allowed for intrinsic motivation to affect attendance and

100
assignment completion, because the reason for work was no longer the grade, but experience
points that actually held the promise of improving the course experience itself.
RQ2 results addressed course-long participation and course completion. The VIE theory
suggests that people are motivated to contribute towards a positive and likely outcome with a
clearly outlined path (Vroom, 1964; McClelland & Liberman, 1949; Damij, Levnajić, Rejec
Skrt, & Suklan, 2015). The completion of course missions and specific benefits from the game
for students motivated them to attend lectures and complete optional practice assignment.
The goal-setting theory explains why detailed feedback in Cengage SAM projects, with
ability to resubmit assignments to improve, were motivating (Locke & Latham, 2015; Tsounis,
Sarafis, & Bamidis, 2014; Schroeder, & Fishbach, 2015; Latham, Brcic, & Steinhauer, 2017).
Also, the affect perseverance theory applied to students completing simple missions during
lectures and later completing more difficult and time-consuming practical assignments for the
satisfaction of reaching the game milestones.
Endowed progress effect theory explains the need to finish an already started process
(Nunes & Dreze, 2006; Schroeder & Fishbach, 2015). Students were driven to complete the
collection of experience points by participating in lectures. The investment model theory and the
side-bet theory affected students as they collected small digital artifacts in the form of missions
or experience points. This led to a commitment, where students became motivated to stick with
the course assignments in view of their previous investment of time and effort as documented in
the experience point ledger.
The case study results reveal that the game mechanics and dynamics were designed to
appeal to four major player personality types identified in gaming culture (Robson, Plangger,
Kietzmann, McCarthy, & Pitt, 2016; Taylor, 2006). Strivers (achievers) had an opportunity to

101
earn experience points and achievements. Slayers (killers or influencers) had opportunity to
participate in Kahoot competitions and rank themselves on an optimized leaderboard.
Socializers were able to work in Team Kahoots, receive recommendations, plan to recommend
others in the current or future semesters. Scholars (explorers) were able to collect a variety of
mission codes and explore the subject matter in a non-grade focused, autonomous approach.
Finally, results in both research questions echo self-determination theory in pursuit of
autonomy, relatedness, and competence. Student grades were not penalized if they didn’t
participate in lectures or if they didn’t play the course game. Lecture engagement and course
game participation were autonomous. Elements of social-relatedness were present in Kahoot
interactions and student game recommendations. Competence was increased with each
explained Kahoot question as well as ongoing hands-on practices. The lack of direct connection
between the grade and the game activities maintained autonomy, more authentic relatedness to
the subject matter, and self-driven increase in competence making in-class and after-school
activities intrinsically motivated.
Summary
The findings of this case study explored and described the application of gamification in
an introductory STEM college course. Through the process of qualitative content analysis
patterns emerged to identify elements that promoted lecture engagement and semester-long
mechanics to promote participation in the course. The lecture themes identified in qualitative
content analysis included intellectual engagement, emotional engagement, behavioral
engagement, physical engagement, and social engagement. The course-long themes to promote
participation included attendance, management of anxiety, assignment completion, timely
feedback, mastery of the material, and course completion. Additional findings reported

102
increased participation in the student course review process after gamification was applied and
the high quality instructional design of the original course.
Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions
This case study was designed to be an exploratory research to communicate knowledge
through narrative. While in the context of Higher Education, the human motivational theories
and reported gamification methods apply in other areas of business, especially in enterprise
learning, employee development, or customer engagement. The problem statement of this
research touches on the deficit of skilled workers in STEM industries as well as high attrition
rates away from STEM academic fields. An experience focused process of using intrinsic
motivation in introducing new students to STEM majors, and retaining them, will contribute to
mitigating those problems.
The findings identified intellectual engagement, emotional engagement, behavioral
engagement, physical engagement, and social engagement as components in gamification of
short-term events such as lectures. Long-term participation in the course was reported in
categories of attendance, management of anxiety, assignment completion, timely feedback,
mastery of the material, and course completion. The methods included active learning through
Kahoots, tracking student progress with experience points, and facilitating a system of earning
and spending points as a course currency.
Figure 1 documented that 91% of the respondents felt intellectually stimulated in the
introductory class. 95% of students completed additional hands-on practice assignments (Figure
2). Students rated their experience as a well-played game at 4.5 on a 1 to 5 = high scale. The
positive responses to the methods were echoed by the expression: “Keep doing the game format
for the class it keeps it interesting.”

103
Implications
In view of the findings of this case study, the application of gamification in academic
courses requires short-term and long-term design. Event-based engagement was outlined in
results for RQ1. Long-term approach was reported in results for RQ2. Tying short-term events
into a course-long system allows for providing immersive feedback throughout the course and
focus on course progress instead of grades.
Research question 1. How does gamification encourage engagement during lectures?
Literature review presented earlier suggested that more examples of gamification in
education are needed, especially methods packaged into an adaptable system (Landers, Bauer,
Callan, & Armstrong, 2015; Vassileva, 2012; Deterding, 2012). These are required to encourage
mainstream adoption of gamification (Smith, 2015). When considering gamification in
classroom activities, researchers report a dearth of studies about the immersion in game
environments associated with storification (Hamari et al., 2016). Researchers call for more
qualitative studies in this area to understand the nature of engagement in games (Consalvo &
Dutton, 2006; Connolly, Boyle, MacArthur, Hainey, & Boyle, 2012). This case study provides
findings and a case study on student use of a working gamification prototype.
Gamification in this case study was presented as a functional package. In addition, the
custom gamification system could be scaled across large numbers of students by combining
multiple course sections into a single game. Within this case study, 3 to 5 sections played
concurrently covering up to 150 students in an instance of the game.
An important implication, based on the results of the case study, is that students are
willing to operate their own digital devices during lectures in a college course to participate in
active learning with Kahoot. At times faculty may hesitate to adopt audience response systems

104
in fear of situations, where some students are unable to arrange for a device like a laptop, tablet,
or smartphone. Even in cases, when smartphones are missing in the class due to battery
problems or other difficulties, Kahoots can be played in a team mode. This allows a single
device to be shared across two or more students. This case study demonstrates the use of both
approaches, the Classic Kahoot, one phone per student, and the Team Kahoot.
Engagement during lectures was reciprocated in both directions between the instructor
and the students. This is documented in the findings of emotional engagement and management
of anxiety as students commented about instructor’s enthusiasm and active involvement in
lectures. A comment documents: “(the instructor) was charismatic about the content of the class,
and I think it inspired students to do well.” The reciprocal nature of engagement thrives when
both instructors and students feel engaged (Skinner & Belmont, 1993).
Prensky (2009) wrote about digital natives, who represented students intuitively savvy in
technology in contrast to older generations, which must exert effort to learn technology and
perhaps never master it at the level of the natives. He also indicated that students are bored in
classes, because while playing games at home, they had realized what true engagement felt like.
A similar metaphor could be used today about faculty.
A generation of new faculty comes out of the gaming culture of the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s,
who also remember what it feels like to be immersed in a highly engaging activity of video
games. The average age of a male gamer is 35 and 44 for females (Entertainment Software
Association, 2016). When instructors are asked to teach introductory courses, which may appear
elementary and lacking academic challenge, it may be necessary to create additional engagement
for the faculty. Perhaps allowing them to add gamification elements in their teaching could

105
provide an engagement spark. The autonomy for faculty to share their current interests and
research through course optional missions may contribute to increased faculty engagement.
As generations of students and instructors carry childhood experiences based on playing
games with high levels of engagement, the metaphor of a well-played game may be a very
effective and powerful teaching tool. It allows for setting the minds of students at ease, while
communicating new ideas. New ideas often require new metaphors. Playing a good game, and
looking back at it with satisfaction, involves obeying the rules, slowly increasing skills through
grunt work (grinding in games), and collaborating with others. Such concepts can be applied to
education in academic integrity, teamwork, clear identification of learning objectives, and other
basic principles of instructional design for learning.
Research question 2. How does gamification encourage participation in the activities
during the entire length of the course?
An implication of this case study in relation to semester-long engagement is the role of
instructional design in delivering gamified courses. Prior to the Fall of 2015, starting in 2013
and extending over 17 sections, the non-gamified course received positive end-of-semester
evaluations including promising engagement indicators. As reported in additional findings, on a
scale of 1 = high to 5 = low the average response on engagement questions was 1.8. The
application of the gamification system aimed at increasing student engagement and participation
in an already well-designed and well-executed course. While comparisons are difficult between
the pre-gamification and post-gamification results, the student response rate to end-of-course
evaluations increased from 44% to 68%.
Therefore, gamification in this case study was not the only prerequisite for positive
student feedback in the STEM introductory course. The gamification was built on the

106
foundation of an award-winning instructional design effort (GVnow, 2014; Blackboard, 2017),
clear and accessible online resources within the course, and award-winning educator executing
the course (GVnow, 2016). It should not be concluded that adding selected elements of
gamification to any course, or especially adding an environment of gamification into a poorly
executed course, should have similar positive results.
The semester-long design of gamification presented in this case study demonstrates a
bridge between disinterest and emotional investment on the background of the STEM field.
Students initially indicated that before participating in the class their interest in computers was
low. Later they reported an increase in the level of interest and new-found affinity towards
STEM. Such motivational bridge can be reused in other environments, where self-beliefs or
trepidations prevent engagement. While the main content, which remains unchanged, meets the
regulatory requirements, the intrinsic motivation places participants in a new frame of mind.
One of the key themes in the case study data was the generation of new interest through a
variety of tools, not a single, specific one. A sample expression states: “He turned a very boring
class into one of my favorites. He makes class fun and teaches in ways that help students learn.”
The composition of the engagement methods, incorporating the lecture level and course level
gamification strategies, facilitated a reported increase in affinity to the subject matter over the
duration of the course. Likely, adoption of individual tools would not have the same effect as the
full set of short and long-term gamification strategies.
Lutz Bornmann and Werner Marx from the Max Planck Society in Germany wrote about
the Anna Karenina principle as a way of thinking about success in science experiments
(Bornmann, & Marx, 2012). According to the principle, success in science at the excellence level
requires all key elements to be fulfilled. A single element unfulfilled may lead to systemic

107
failure. For this reason, experiments are often unsuccessful in their own unique and particular
ways.
Gamification in this case study was a complex system of many tools in two main
categories: short-term engagement and long-term participation. Adoption of just a few of them,
such as a leaderboard, a points system, or classroom response system may not lead to the
gamified culture among the students and high levels of motivation, which was reported in the
data of this case study
Conversely, unsuccessful studies of gamification should not reflect a general lack of
applicability of gameful design in academic courses. Instead, such studies should be considered
in the light of the Anna Karenina principle focused on the missing elements either in short-term
game or long-term game design. The prevailing important conditions for success in gamification
may be more difficult to identify in successful case studies of the phenomenon, while in the
unsuccessful experiments they may be easier to document. The unsuccessful case studies may
shed light on a possible long list of required criteria for gameful design of instruction.
Recommendations for Practice
In March of 2016 a request for quotation (RFQ) was submitted to Open Systems
Technologies in Grand Rapids, Michigan (Open Systems Technologies, 2016). The RFQ
covered a commercial software re-development of the working prototype of the gamification
system presented in this case study. Faculty from the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC)
expressed an interest in adopting a similar gamification system in their courses. In order to apply
for an academic grant, a cost estimate was needed. The cost of developing the system based on
the prototype was quoted at $269, 640.

108
An appropriate grant had not been secured in a timely manner, however, a pilot of the
prototype software was deployed at UIC in the Fall of 2016. In April of 2017 a general adoption
process for faculty has been made public under https://game.dataii.com. This includes
deployment of the demo app in Apple App, Google Play, and Amazon Underground app stores.
Practitioners in STEM introductory courses are encouraged to apply for adoption of the
gamification system described in this case study. A demo app is available for preview. The
system can be adopted at the rate comfortable to the instructor.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research in semester-long engagement should utilize a feature of the Kahoot
system, that prompts players for their opinion and emotional state after completing the peer-
instruction session. The survey asks students if they enjoyed the session and if they felt they
learned from it. This survey was not utilized in this case study, but plotting student interest and
engagement over the period of the semester would provide an important data point.
The activity of tracking this feedback may communicate to students that their emotional
state is being paid attention to. Their progress can serve as feedback to the instructor on the
academic quality of the sessions. It would also provide feedback to the instructor, which would
encourage the faculty and generate energy in the course relying on the reciprocal principal of
engagement (Skinner & Belmont, 1993).
A future research should include comparison of gamified courses against the same course
taught by other instructors, who believe in the methods of teaching they practice. The course
evaluation system by IASystems provides the organizational level indicator. This may serve as a
comparison element to measure student engagement across multiple sections of the same course.

109
Conclusions
This case study explored gamification of a STEM introductory college course. The data
covered 15 course sections over 4 semesters, a total of 501 students. 1184 participant comments
were processed through the qualitative content analysis to identify emerging themes. The
categories of intellectual engagement, emotional engagement, behavioral engagement, physical
engagement, and social engagement were reported to address RQ1. The categories of
attendance, management of anxiety, assignment completion, timely feedback, mastery of the
material, and course completion were reported to address RQ2.
The problem of worker deficit in the US within STEM fields and high attrition rates away
from STEM academic programs may be mitigated by altering the experience of students in
introductory courses. Documenting examples of gamification strategies addresses the call of
previous researchers to help instructors adopt gamified teaching. The use of human motivational
theories packaged into a gamification system will allow schools to leverage intrinsic motivation
in program recruitment and completion.
This study indicates that focus on lecture engagement along with semester-long student
participation in the course provides an immersive feedback environment that motivates students.
In addition, faculty creating ad-hoc missions are able to discover new intellectual challenges in
teaching elementary courses to rekindle their own engagement in the course. The department
administration may allow such innovation of their instruction, because there is no need to modify
the core content of the course.

110
References
Acedo, M. (2014). 10 specific ideas to gamify your classroom. Retrieved from
http://www.teachthought.com 
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school:
Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the
Schools, 45, 369–386. doi:10.1002
Aguilar, S., Fishman, B., Holman, C. (2013). Leveling-Up: Evolving Game-Inspired University
Course Design. In Williams, C.C., A. Ochsner, Dietmeier, J., & C. Steinkuehler (Eds.),
Proc. GLS 9.0 (pp. 46–52). Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4154.0805
Akutsu, T., Gordon, R. K., & Noguchi, K. (2014). Critical pedagogy and children’s musical
flow: Curriculum design and assessment. Critical Practice in P-12 Education:
Transformative Teaching and Learning: Transformative Teaching and Learning, 170.
Alderfer, C. (1972). Existence, relatedness, & growth. New York: Free Press.
Alt, D. (2014). First-year female college students’ academic motivation as a function of
perceived parenting styles: A contextual perspective. Journal of Adult Development, 22,
63–75. http://dx.doi .org/10.1007/s10804-014-9201-2
Alvarez, M. (2014). Reassessing my gamification approach. Retrieved from
http://www.gamifyingmyclass.com
Amabile, T. M., DeJong, W., & Lepper, M. (1976). Effects of externally imposed deadlines on
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 92–98.
Anderson, C., & Gantz, J. F. (2013). Skills Requirements For Tomorrow’s Best Jobs Helping
Educators Provide Students with Skills and Tools They Need. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/12e3/e201ed45c57916fee1e9c154ca7e15722093.pdf

111
Aranya, N. and Jacobson, D. (1975). An empirical study of theories of organizational and
occupational commitment, Journal of Social Psychology, 97, 15–22.
Attali, Y., & Arieli-Attali, M. (2015). Gamification in assessment: Do points affect test
performance? Computers and Education, 83, 57–63.
Aubrey, J. & Coombe, C. (2011). An investigation of occupational stressors and coping
strategies among EFL teachers in the United Arab Emirates. In C. Gitsaki (Ed.), Teaching
and Learning in the Arab World, (pp.181-201). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang AG.
Barata G., Gama S., Jorge J., Gonçalves D. (2013), Engaging engineering students with
gamification, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Games and Virtual
Worlds for Serious Applications (pp. 24–31).
Barata, G., Gama, S., Jorge, J., & Gonçalves, D. (2014). Identifying student types in a gamified
learning experience. International Journal Of Game-Based Learning, 4(4), 19–36.
doi:10.4018/ijgbl.2014100102
Barlet, M.C., Spohn, S.D., 2012. Includification: A Practical Guide to Game Accessi- bility
[WWW Document]. Includification. URL: /http://www.includification.
com/AbleGamers_Includification.pdfS (accessed 09.10.14).
Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Blackboard (2017). Blackboard Announces Winners of 2017 Catalyst Awards. Press Release.
Blackboard Inc.
Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as
Effective as One-to-One Tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4.
doi:10.3102/0013189X013006004

112
Bogost, I. (2011). Persuasive games: exploitationware. Gamasutra.
Bonwell, C. C., and Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom.
ASH#-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, Washington, D.C.: The George Washington
University, School of Education and Human Development.
Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2012). The Anna Karenina principle: A way of thinking about
success in science. Journal Of The American Society For Information Science &
Technology, 63(10), 2037-2051. doi:10.1002/asi.22661
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Bridgeland, J., Milano, J., Rosenblum, E., & Civic, E. (2011). Across the Great Divide:
Perspectives of CEOs and College Presidents on America's Higher Education and Skills
Gap. Civic Enterprises.
Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2014). Gamification and student motivation. Interactive Learning
Environments, (October), 1–14.
Burke, B. (2014). Gartner Redefines Gamification. Retrieved from
http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_burke/2014/04/04/gartner-redefines-gamification/
Burkey, D. D., Anastasio, M. D. D., & Suresh, A. (2013). Improving student attitudes toward the
capstone laboratory course using gamification. Paper presented at the annual conference
and exposition of the American Society for Engineering Education, Atlanta, GA.
Burning Glass Technologies. (2015). The Human Factor: The Hard Time Employers Have
Finding Soft Skills. Retrieved from http://burning-glass.com/research/baseline-skills/

113
Business Roundtable (2012). Roadmap for growth. Retrieved from
http://businessroundtable.org/studies-and-reports/roadmap-for-growth-education/
Carnevale, A. P., Rose, S. J., & Cheah, B. (2011). The college payoff: Education, occupations
and lifetime earnings. Washington, DC: The Georgetown University Center on Education
and the Workforce.
Carnevale, A. P., Rose, S. J., & Hanson, A. R. (2012). Certificates; Gateway to Gainful
Employment and College Degrees. Washington, DC: The Georgetown University Center
on Education and the Workforce.
Cengage. (2014). SAM Helps Intimidated Students Gain Confidence and Proficiency with
Computer Technology. Retrieved from
http://www.machajewski.org/szymon/files/ss_sam_machajewski.pdf
Chang, M. J., Eagan, M. K., Lin, M. H., & Hurtado, S. (2011). Considering the Impact of Racial
Stigmas and Science Identity: Persistence Among Biomedical and Behavioral Science
Aspirants. Journal of Higher Education, 82(5): 564–596.
Chen, X., & Soldner, M. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM
fields: Statistical analysis report. (NCES 2014-001). National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington,
DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf
Chou, Y. K. (2015). Actionable Gamification: Beyond Points, Badges, and Leaderboards.
Octalysis Media.
Christe, B. (2013). The Importance of Faculty-Student Connections in STEM Disciplines: A
Literature Review. Journal Of STEM Education: Innovations And Research, 14(3),
22-26.

114
Christy, K. R., & Fox, J. (2014). Leaderboards in academic contexts: A test of stereotype threat
and social comparison explanations for women's math performance. Computers &
Education, 78, 66e77. http://dx.doi.org/10.106/j.compedu.2014.05.005 
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. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004.
Consalvo, M. and Dutton, N. (2006). Game analysis: Developing a methodological toolkit for the
qualitative study of games. Game Studies: The international journal of computer game
research, 6(1). Retrieved from: http://gamestudies.org/0601/articles/consalvo_dutton
Conway, S. (2014). Zombification?: Gamification, motivation, and the user. Journal Of Gaming
& Virtual Worlds, 6(2), 129. doi:10.1386/jgvw.6.2.129_1
Cruz, L., & Penley, J. M. (2014). Too cool for school?: The Effects of gamification in an
advanced interdisciplinary course. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology,
3(2), 1–11.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., (1991). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper
Cunningham, C., Zichermann, G., (2011). Gamification by Design: Implementing Game
Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA. 
D’Lima, G. M., Winsler, A., & Kitsantas, A. (2014). Ethnic and Gender Differences in First-
Year College Students’ Goal Orientation, Self-Efficacy, and Extrinsic and Intrinsic
Motivation. Journal Of Educational Research, 107(5), 341–356.
doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.823366

115
Damij, N., Levnajić, Z., Rejec Skrt, V., & Suklan, J. (2015). What Motivates Us for Work?
Intricate Web of Factors beyond Money and Prestige. Plos ONE, 10(7), 1-13.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132641
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, 82e91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020 
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). The importance of universal psychological needs for
understanding motivation in the workplace. The Oxford handbook of work engagement,
motivation, and self-determination theory, 13-32.
DeKoven, Bernie. 2013. Well-Played Game: A Player’s Philosophy. Cambridge, London: MIT
Press.
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.
Deterding, S., (2012). Gamification: designing for motivation. Interactions 19, 14–17.
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.-J., (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: practical implications and
outcomes. Comput. Educ. 63, 380–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2012.12.020
Doyle, T. & Zakrajsek, T. (2013). The new science of learning: How to learn in harmony with
your brain. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

116
Eagan, K., Herrera, F.A., Garibay, J. C., Hurtado, S., and Chang, M. (2011). Becoming STEM
Protégés: Factors Predicting the Access and Development of Meaningful Faculty-Student
Relationships. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute.
Early, D. M., Rogge, R. D., & Deci, E. L. (2014). Engagement, Alignment, and Rigor as Vital
Signs of High-Quality Instruction: A Classroom Visit Protocol for Instructional
Improvement and Research. High School Journal, 97(4), 219–239.
Early, D. M., Rogge, R. D., & Deci, E. L. (2015). Engagement, Alignment, and Rigor as Vital
Signs of High-Quality Instruction: A Classroom Visit Protocol for Instructional
Improvement and Research, 97(4), 219–239. http://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2014.0008
Edwards, K. M., Gidycz, C. A., & Murphy, M. J. (2015). Leaving an abusive dating relationship:
A prospective analysis of the investment model and theory of planned behavior. Journal
of interpersonal violence, 30(16), 2908-2927.
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.
Ellis, J., Fosdick, B. K., & Rasmussen, C. (2016). Women 1.5 Times More Likely to Leave
STEM Pipeline after Calculus Compared to Men: Lack of Mathematical Confidence a
Potential Culprit. PLoS ONE, 11(7), e0157447. http://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0157447
Else-Quest, N. M., Mineo, C. C., & Higgins, A. (2013). Math and science attitudes and
achievement at the intersection of gender and ethnicity. Psychology Of Women Quarterly,
37, 293-309. doi:10.1177/0361684313480694

117
Emdin, C. (2011). Affiliation and alienation: hip-hop, rap, and urban science education. Journal
Of Curriculum Studies, 42, 1–25. doi:10.1080/00220270903161118
Emdin, C., & Lee, O. (2012). Hip-hop, the ‘Obama effect,’ and urban science education.
Teachers College Record, 114, 1-24. Retrieved from http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru e&db=psyh&AN=2012-16299-
004&site=ehost-live
Entertainment Software Association. (2013). 2013 Essential Facts About the Computer and
Video Game Industry. Retrieved from
http://www.isfe.eu/sites/isfe.eu/files/attachments/esa_ef_2013.pdf
Entertainment Software Association. (2016). 2016 Essential Facts About the Computer and
Video Game Industry. Retrieved from http://essentialfacts.theesa.com/Essential-Facts-
2016.pdf
Enzle, M. E., & Anderson, S. C. (1993). Surveillance intentions and intrinsic motivation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,257–266.
Erdogan, N., & Stuessy, C. L. (2015). Modeling Successful STEM High Schools in the United
States: An Ecology Framework. International Journal Of Education In Mathematics,
Science And Technology, 3(1), 77–92.
Espinosa, L. L. (2011). Pipelines and Pathways: Women of Color in Undergraduate STEM
Majors and the College Experiences That Contribute to Persistence. Harvard Education
Review, 81(2): 209–240.
Evans, P. (2015). Self-determination theory: An approach to motivation in music education.
Musicae Scientiae, 19(1), 65-83. doi:10.1177/1029864914568044

118
Faiella, F. Ricciardi, M. (2016). Gamification and learning: a review of issues and research.
Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, [S.l.], v. 11, n. 3, Sep. 2015. ISSN 1826-
6223.
Ferguson, C. J., & Olson, C. K. (2013). Friends, fun, frustration and fantasy: Child motivations
for video game play. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 154–164. doi:1007/s11031-012-9284-
7
Festinger, L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Feynman, R. P., & Robbins, J. (1999). The pleasure of finding things out: The best short works
of Richard P. Feynman. Cambridge, Mass: Perseus Books.
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., and Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: potential of the
concept: state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–119.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okorafor, N., Jordt, H., and
Wenderoth, M. P., (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science,
engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
(PNAS), 111(23),8410-8415.
Gartner (2012). Gamification: engagement strategies for business and IT. Report G00245563
Gasiewski, J. A., Eagan, M. K., Garcia, G. A., Hurtado, S., & Chang, M. J. (2012). From
Gatekeeping to Engagement: A Multicontextual, Mixed Method Study of Student
Academic Engagement in Introductory STEM Courses. Research in Higher Education,
53(2), 229–261. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9247-y
Glover, I. (2013). Play as you learn: Gamification as a technique for motivating learners. In: J.
Herrington, A. Couros & V. Irvine (Eds.) Proceedings of World Conference on

119
Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (Vol. 2013, pp.
1999-2008). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Goehle, G., (2013). Gamification and Web-based Homework. Primus: Probl. Resour. Issues
Math. Undergrad. Stud. 23, 234–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 10511970.2012.736451.
Gonzalez, A. (2012). Gamifying my classes. Retrieved from http://www.educatoral.com/
wordpress/2012/07/16/gamifying-my-classes/. 
Gorin, A. A., Powers, T. A., Koestner, R., Wing, R. R., & Raynor, H. A. (2014). Autonomy
support, self-regulation, and weight loss. Health Psychology, 33, 332–339.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0032586
GradeCraft (2017). GradeCraft Beta. University of Michigan. Retrieved from
https://beta.gradecraft.com/features
Grand Valley State University GVSU, (2016) GVSU Office of Institutional Analysis. Quick
Facts. Retrieved from https://www.gvsu.edu/ia/quick-facts-current-49.htm
Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. E. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. American
Psychologist, 69(1), 66–78. doi:10.1037/a0034857
Greene, D. Sternberg, B. and Lepper, M. R. (1976) Overjustification in a token economy,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1219–1234
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and
individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52,890–898.
Gunnell, K. E., Crocker, P. R., Mack, D. E., Wilson, P. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2014). Goal
contents, motivation, psychological need satisfaction, well-being and physical activity: A

120
test of self-determination theory over 6 months. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(1),
19-29.
GVnow. (2014). Blackboard Catalyst Award. Retrieved from http://www.gvsu.edu/idel/szymon-
machajewski-31.htm
GVnow. (2016). Faculty awarded for inclusive classrooms. Retrieved from
https://www.gvsu.edu/gvnow/2016/faculty-awarded-for-inclusive-classrooms-9481.htm
Hamari, J. (2015). Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on the effects of
gamification. Computers In Human Behavior, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.036
Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Edwards, T. (2016). Full
length article: Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement,
flow and immersion in game-based learning. Computers In Human Behavior, 54170-179.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.045
Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Edwards, T. (2016). Full
length article: Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement,
flow and immersion in game-based learning. Computers In Human Behavior, 54,
170-179. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.045
Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., 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. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 170-179.
Hamm, J. M., Stewart, T. L., Perry, R. P., Clifton, R. A., Chipperfield, J. G., & Heckhausen, J.
(2013). Sustaining primary control striving for achievement goals during challenging
transitions: The role of secondary control strategies. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 35, 286–297. http://dx .doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2013.785404

121
Hancock, D. R., & Algozzine, B. (2011). Doing case study research: A practical guide for
beginning researchers (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hanus, M., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A
longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and
academic performance. Computers & Education, 80152–161.
Harvey, P., Madison, K., Martinko, M., Crook, T. R., & Crook, T. A. (2014). Attribution theory
in the organizational sciences: The road traveled and the path ahead. The Academy of
Management Perspectives, 28(2), 128-146.
Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2011). Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Hirsch, J. K., & Barton, A. L. (2011). Positive social support, negative social exchanges, and
suicidal behavior in college students. Journal of American College Health, 59(5),
393-398.
Hofacker, C., de Ruyter, K., Lurie, N., Manchanda, P., & Donaldson, J. (2016). Gamification
and Mobile Marketing Effectiveness. Journal Of Interactive Marketing, 34(Mobile
Marketing), 25–36. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2016.03.001
Holman, C., Aguilar, S., & Fishman, B. (2013). GradeCraft: What can we learn from a game-
inspired learning management system?. In Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 260-264). ACM.
Hoorens, V., & Van Damme, C. (2012). What do people infer from social comparisons? Bridges
between social comparison and person perception. Social & Personality Psychology
Compass, 6, 607e618. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00451.x

122
Huczynski, A. A. & Buchanan, D. A., 2013. Organizational Behaviour. Eighth Edition ed.
Harlow: Pearson.
Hull, C. (1943). Principles of Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Ibanez, M-B., Di-Serio, A., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Gamification for engaging computer
science students in learning activities: A case study. IEEE Transactions on Learning
Technologies, 7(3), 291–301.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., and Hall, C. (2016).
NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media
Consortium.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., and Ludgate, H. (2013).
NMC Horizon Report: 2013 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media
Consortium.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report:
2015 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., and Cummins, M. (2012). The NMC Horizon Report: 2012 Higher
Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Johnson, L., Becker S., Estrada, V. & Freeman A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher
Education Edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium. http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2014-
nmc-horizon-report-he-EN-SC.pdf.
Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., and Haywood, K., (2011). The 2011 Horizon
Report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

123
Joseph, J. (2016). What are the top factors that prevent women and racial/ethnic minority
employees from leaving engineering professions or the tech industry? Retrieved from
Cornell University, ILR School site: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/student/104
Kanat-Maymon, Y., Benjamin, M., Stavsky, A., Shoshani, A., & Roth, G. (2015). The role of
basic need fulfillment in academic dishonesty: A self-determination theory perspective.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 431–9. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.002
Kapp K. M. (2012), The gamification of learning and instruction, San Francisco, Pfeiffer.
Kelly, G. E. (2012). Lecture attendance rates at university and related factors. Journal of Further
and Higher Education, 36, 17–40. 
Kim, T., & Werbach, K. (2016). More than just a game: ethical issues in gamification. Ethics &
Information Technology, 18(2), 157. doi:10.1007/s10676-016-9401-5
Knautz, K., Göretz, J., & Wintermeyer, A. (2014). Gotta catch’em all. Game design patterns for
guild quests in higher education. In iConfernce 2014 Proceedings (pp. 690–699).
Kohan, W. (2013). Plato and Socrates: From an Educator of Childhood to a Childlike Educator?.
Studies In Philosophy & Education, 32(3), 313-325. doi:10.1007/s11217-012-9348-x
Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2014). Demographic differences in perceived benefits from
gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 179–188.
Kriegbaum, K., Villarreal, B., Wu, V. C., & Heckhausen, J. (2016). Parents still matter: Patterns
of shared agency with parents predict college students’ academic motivation and
achievement. Motivation Science, 2(2), 97–115. doi:10.1037/mot0000033
Kuchlich, J. (2005). Precarious Playbour: Modders and the Digital Games Industry. The
Fibreculture Journal. 5(25).

124
Lam, J., & Rahma, Y. (2014). Top Management Commitment to Lean: The effects of side-bets
on the implementation’s success.
Lander, E. S., & Gates, S. J. (2010). Prepare and inspire. Science (New York, N.Y.),
330(October), 151. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198062
Landers, R. N., Bauer, K. N., Callan, R. C., & Armstrong, M. B. (2015). Psychological theory
and the gamification of learning. In T. Reiners & L. C. Wood (Eds.), Gamification in
education and business (pp. 165–186). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Langan, E., Lonsdale, C., Blake, C., & Toner, J. (2015). Testing the Effects of a
Self-Determination Theory-Based Intervention with Youth Gaelic Football Coaches on
Athlete Motivation and Burnout. Sport Psychologist, 29(4), 293–301.
Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., and Doms, M. (2011). STEM: Good Jobs
Now and for the Future. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, DC: Economics
and Statistics Administration. Retrieved from http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/
default/files/reports/documents/stemfinaljuly14.pdf.
Latham, G. P., Brcic, J., & Steinhauer, A. (2017). Toward an Integration of Goal Setting Theory
and the Automaticity Model. Applied Psychology, 66(1), 25-48.
Ledford, G., Lawler, E. (2015). Using Motivation Theory to Improve Gamification. Center for
Effective Organization. University of Southern California. Retrieved from
https://ceo.usc.edu/using-motivation-theory-to-improve-gamification/
Lee J., Hammer J. (2011), Gamification in Education: What, How, Why Bother? Academic
Exchange Quarterly, 15(2).
Lee, H., Doh, Y.Y., 2012. A study on the relationship between educational achievement and
emotional engagement in a gameful interface for video lecture systems. In: Proceedings

125
of the 2012 International Symposium on Ubiquitous Virtual Reality. Presented at ISUVR
2012. IEEE, pp. 34–37. 
Lemola, S., Brand, S., Vogler, N., Perkinson-Gloor, N., Allemand, M., & Grob, A. (2011).
Habitual computer game playing at night is related to depressive symptoms. Personality
and Individual Differences, 51, 117–122. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.024
Levy, A., DeLeon, I. G., Martinez, C. K., Fernandez, N., Gage, N. A., Sigurdsson, S. Ó., &
Frank-Crawford, M. A. (2016). A quantitative review of overjustification effects in
persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis.
Li, W., Grossman, T., Fitzmaurice, G., (2012). GamiCAD: A gamified tutorial system for first
time AutoCAD users. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on User
Interface Software and Technology. Presented at UIST'12. ACM, Cambridge, MA, pp.
103–112.
Lie, T. (2015). Why are women leaving the tech industry in droves? Retrieved from
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-women-tech-20150222-story.html
Locke, E., & Latham, G. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E., & Latham, G. (2015). Breaking the rules: a historical overview of goal-setting theory.
Advances in Motivation Science, 2(15), 99-126.
Lorenzo, G. (2016). University of Michigan Turns Courses Into Games. EdSurge News.
Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2016-10-20-university-of-michigan-
turns-courses-into-games

126
Machajewski, S. (2013). CIS150. [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cis150/id944850769?mt=8
Machajewski, S. (2015). Educational Gamification System and Gameful Teaching Process, US
Patent Application No. 14/922,321.
Machajewski, S. (2016a). Computers Storified in Viking History by Floki. Amazon Alexa Skill.
Amazon.
Machajewski, S. (2016b). Building Inclusive University Culture by Gameful Design of
Teaching. Lilly Conference. http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cisotherpubs/1
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.
Marra, R., Rodgers, K., Shen, D., & Bogue, B. (2012). Leaving engineering: A multi-year single
institution study. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 6–27.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Mastascusa, E., Snyder, W., & Hoyt, B. (2011). Effective instruction for STEM disciplines: From
learning theory to college teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M., & Bosker, R. (2014). Teacher–student interpersonal relationships
do change and affect academic motivation: A multilevel growth curve modelling. British
Journal Of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 459–482. doi:10.1111/bjep.12031
McClelland, D. C., & Liberman, A. M. (1949). The effect of need for achievement on
recognition of need-related words. Journal of Personality, 18(2), 236-251.

127
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. Assist. Technol. 6, 173–181.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17549451211261290.
McQuilkin, L. C. (2014). A grounded theory approach to the construction of a uniform and
sustainable resiliency development theory (Doctoral dissertation, The University of
Phoenix).
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Micari, M., & Pazos, P. (2012). Connecting to the professor: Impact of the student–faculty
relationship in a highly challenging course. College Teaching, 60(2), 41–47.
doi:10.1080/87567555.2011.627576
Mollit, D. S., 2016. Study Book: Managing People. 12th Edition ed. Bradford: Bradford
University School of Management.
Moorer, C. J. (2014). The TEACH Method: An Interactive Approach for Teaching the Needs-
Based Theories Of Motivation. Journal Of College Teaching & Learning, 11(1), 9–12.
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

128
SPE Intelligent Energy International 2012. Presented at SPE Intelligent Energy
International 2012, pp. 329–340.
Muntean, C. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. Proceedings 6th
International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL (pp. 323–329), Cluj-Napoca,
Romania, Europe.
Nadolny, L., & Halabi, A. (2016). Student Participation and Achievement in a Large Lecture
Course With Game-Based Learning. Simulation & Gaming, 47(1), 51.
doi:10.1177/1046878115620388
National Research Council NRC. (2012). Monitoring Progress Toward Successful K−12 STEM
Education: A Nation Advancing? Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Science Board NSB. (2012). Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation.
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.
Neuhauser, A., Cook, L. (2016). U.S. News/Raytheon Annual STEM Index. U. S, News and
World Report.
Nunes, J. C. and Dreze, X. (2006). The endowed progress effect: how artificial advancement
increases effort. Journal of Consumer Research. 32, 504–512.
O’Donovan, S., Gain, J., & Marais, P. (2013). A case study in the gamification of a
university-level games development course. In Proceedings of the South African Institute
for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists Conference, East London, South
Africa (pp. 242–251). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

129
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.
Obama, B., & Biden, J. (2013). Remarks by the president and the vice president on gun violence.
Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/ photos-and-
video/video/2013/01/16/president-obama-introduces-plan- reduce-gun-
violence#transcript
OECD (2016), Skills Matter: Further Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Publishing,
Paris. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264258051-en
Olafsen, A.H., Halvari, H., Forest, J., & Deci, E.L. (2015). Show them the money? The role of
pay, managerial need support, and justice in a self-determination theory model of
intrinsic work motivation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1-10.
doi:10.1111/sjop.12211
Olson, K. (2010). An examination of questionnaire evaluation by expert reviewers. Field
Methods, 22(4), 295-318. doi:10.1177/1525822X10379795
Open Systems Technologies (2016). Statement of Work: Gamification Project Delivery.
SOW#102426
Opdenakker, M. C., & Minnaert, A. (2011). Relationship between learning environment
characteristics and academic engagement. Psychological Reports, 109(1), 259–284.
Orosz, G., Farkas, D., & Roland-Levy, C. (2013). Are competition and extrinsic motivation
reliable predictors of academic cheating? Frontiers in Psychology, 4(87), 1e16.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.877393

130
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oakes,
CA: Sage.
Pennebaker, J. W. and Sanders, D. Y. (1976) American graffiti: Effects of authority and
reactance arousal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 264–267
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components
of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.
Prensky, M. (2009). H. sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital
wisdom. Innovate: journal of online education, 5(3), 1.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology PCAST. (2012). Engage to Excel:
Producing One Million Additional College Graduates With Degrees in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
Price, D. V. and Tovar, E. (2014) Student Engagement and Institutional Graduation Rates:
Identifying High-Impact Educational Practices for Community Colleges, Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, Vol 38, No 9, pp 766–782.
Provasnik, S., Kastberg, D., Ferraro, D., Lemanski, N., Roey, S., and Jenkins, F. (2012).
Highlights From TIMSS 2011: Mathematics and Science Achievement of U.S. Fourth-
and Eighth-Grade Students in an International Context (NCES 2013-009). National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC.

131
Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L.
Christenson, A. L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student
engagement (pp. 149–172). New York, NY: Springer.
Richter, G., Raban, D. R., & Rafaeli, S. (2015). Studying Gamification: The Effect of Rewards
and Incentives on Motivation. In T. Reiners & L. C. Wood (Eds.), Gamification in
Education and Business (pp. 21–46). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_2
Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J. H., McCarthy, I., & Pitt, L. (2016). Game on: Engaging
customers and employees through gamification. Business Horizons, 5929-36.
doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2015.08.002
Rodriguez, L. M., Neighbors, C., Rinker, D. V, & Tackett, J. L. (2015). Motivational Profiles of
Gambling Behavior: Self-determination Theory, Gambling Motives, and Gambling
Behavior. Journal of Gambling Studies, 31(4), 1597–1615.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-014-9497-7
Roesch, S. C. and Amirkham, J. H. (1997) Boundary conditions for self-serving attributions:
Another look at the sports pages. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 245–261.
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.
Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Briggs, D., Iverson, H., Talbot, R., Shepard, L.A. (2011). Impact of
undergraduate science course innovations on learning. Science 331, 1269–1270.

132
Ryan, R. M. (1982) Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of
cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 43,pp
450-461.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Saran, C. (2015). A business case for gameplay at work. Computer Weekly, 19–22.
Schoenleber, M., & Berenbaum, H. (2012). Shame regulation in personality pathology. Journal
Of Abnormal Psychology, 121(2), 433–446. doi:10.1037/a0025281
Schroeder, J., & Fishbach, A. (2015). How to motivate yourself and others? Intended and
unintended consequences. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 123-141.
Scott, W. E. (1966). Activation theory and task design. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 1, 3–30.
Sheldon, Lee (2012). The Multiplayer Classroom: Designing Coursework as a Game. Boston,
MA: Cengage Learning.
Sherman, D. K. and Kim, H. S. (2002). Affective Perseverance: The Resistance of Affect to
Cognitive Invalidation, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 28 No. 2,
224-237.
Sitzmann T. (2011), A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Instructional Effectiveness of
Computer-Based Simulation Games, Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489–528 
Skinner & Belmont (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behaviour
and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology,
85(4), 571–581.

133
Smith, F. (2015). Report: Is it Game Over for Gamification? Retrieved from
http://www.edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2015/06/k-12-nmc-horizon-report-preview-
it-game-over-gamification
Snyder, E., Hartig, J., (2013). Gamification of board review: a residency curricular innovation.
Med. Educ. 47, 524–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.12190
Statista. (2016). Statistics and facts about the casino industry. Retrieved from
https://www.statista.com/topics/1053/casinos/
Stinebrickner, T.R., and Stinebrickner, R. (2011). Math or Science? Using Longitudinal
Expectations Data to Examine the Process of Choosing a College Major. NBER
Working Paper No. 16869. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Stott, A., & Neustaedter, C. (2013). Analysis of gamification in education. Retrieved from
http://carmster.com/clab/uploads/Main/Stott-Gamification.pdf. 
Strati, A. D., Schmidt, J. A., & Maier, K. S. (2017). Perceived challenge, teacher support, and
teacher obstruction as predictors of student engagement. Journal Of Educational
Psychology, 109(1), 131-147. doi:10.1037/edu0000108
Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M. C., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Effects of need supportive teaching on
early adolescents’ motivation and engagement: A review of the literature. Educational
Research Review, 9, 65–87.
Swap, R. J., & Walter, J. A. (2015). An Approach to Engaging Students in a Large-Enrollment,
Introductory STEM College Course. Journal Of The Scholarship Of Teaching And
Learning, 15(5), 1–21.

134
Täht, K., Must, O., Peets, K., & Kattel, R. (2014). Learning motivation from a cross-cultural
perspective: a moving target?. Educational Research & Evaluation, 20(4), 255.
doi:10.1080/13803611.2014.929009
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
The White House. (2016). Educate to Innovate. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/educate-innovate
Taylor, T.L. (2006). Play Between Worlds: Exploring Online Game Culture. The MIT Press. p.
69. ISBN 0262201631.
Tsounis, A., Sarafis, P., & Bamidis, P. (2014). Motivation among Physicians in Greek Public
Health-Care Sector.
University of Michigan. (2015). U-M funds six learning transformation grants through Third
Century Initiative. University of Michigan News. Retrieved from
http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/22895-u-m-funds-six-learning-transformation-grants-
through-third-century-initiative
Uysal, A. (2016). Full length article: Commitment to multiplayer online games: An investment
model approach. Computers In Human Behavior, 61357-363.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.028
Vandercammen, L., Hofmans, J., & Theuns, P. (2014). The mediating role of affect in the
relationship between need satisfaction and autonomous motivation. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 62-79. doi:10.1111/joop.12032

135
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Goal Contents in
Self-Determination Theory: Another Look at the Quality of Academic Motivation.
Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19-31. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4101_4
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K.M., & Deci, E.L. (2004). Motivating
learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic role of intrinsic goals and
autonomy support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87,246–260.
Vasquez H., Fuentes A., & Kypuros J. (2015) Interventions to improve lower-level engineering
gatekeeper courses, Proceedings of the ASEE GSW Regional Conference
Vassileva, J. (2012). Motivating participation in social computing applications: A user modeling
perspective. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 22(1), 177–201.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Wagner, M., Christe, B., & Fernandez, E. (2012). Comparing first year engineering technology
persisters and non-persisters. Paper presented at American Society of Engineering
Education Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Weiyun, C., & Hypnar, A. J. (2015). Elementary School Students' Self-Determination in
Physical Education and Attitudes Toward Physical Activity. Journal Of Teaching In
Physical Education, 34(2), 189–209. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2013-0085
Wells, B. M., & Skowronski, J. J. (2012). Evidence of choking under pressure on the PGA tour.
Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 34, 175e182.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.655629. 
Werbach, K., Hunter, D., (2012). For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize.

136
Westfall, R. S., Millar, M., & Walsh, M. (2016). 'Effects of instructor attractiveness on learning':
Corrigendum. Journal Of General Psychology, 143(4), 311.
doi:10.1080/00221309.2016.1218704
Whitson, J. R. (2013). Gaming the Quantified Self. Surveillance & Society, 11(1/2), 163.
Wierts, C., Burns, M. J., Santin, S. A., Mack, D. E., Blanchard, C. M., & Wilson, P. M. (2015).
Comparing motivational differences between competitive and recreational weight trainers
using Organismic Integration Theory: A replication and extension study. Journal of
Exercise, Movement, and Sport, 47(1).
Williams, G. C., Halvari, H., Niemiec, C. P., Sørebø, Ø., Olafsen, A. H., & Westbye, C. (2014).
Managerial support for basic psychological needs, somatic symptom burden and work-
related correlates: A self-determination theory perspective. Work & Stress, 28(4), 404–
419.
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets That Promote Resilience: When Students
Believe That Personal Characteristics Can Be Developed. Educational Psychologist,
47(4), 302–314. http://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722805
Yin R. K. (1981) The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers. Administrative Science Quarterly.
March 1981;26(1):58-65. Available from: Business Source Complete, Ipswich, MA.
Accessed February 17, 2017.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Yoo, S.J., Han, S., & Huang, W. (2012). The roles of intrinsic motivators and extrinsic
motivators in promoting e-learning in the workplace: A case from South Korea.
Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 942-950. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.015

137
Yunhui, H., Wei, L., & Jiang, W. (2016). Relationship Between Intrinsic Motivation and
Undergraduate Students' Depression and Stress: The Moderating Effect of Interpersonal
Conflict. Psychological Reports, 119(2), 527-538. doi:10.1177/003329411666151

Application of Gamification in a College STEM Introductory Course: A Case Study

More Related Content

Similar to Application of Gamification in a College STEM Introductory Course: A Case Study (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Application of Gamification in a College STEM Introductory Course: A Case Study