International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2018, Volume 30, Number 1, 70-79

http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/ ISSN 1812-9129

Gaming the System: Helping Students Level Up Their Learning

David Hill and Stein Brunvan
University of Michigan-Dearborn

The use of gamified learning has increased within the educational community over the last decade in
an attempt to enhance student learning in multiple ways. In particular, researchers have started to
examine gamified learning and its impact on student motivation and engagement within educational
settings. However, few have examined the relationship between specific tools embedded within a
learning management system (LMS) and student outcomes at the postsecondary level. The purpose
of this study was to examine the impact of a grade predictor tool embedded within a gaming inspired
learning management system on 75 college students’ ability to accurately predict their final grades.
Results indicated that all students reported using the tool on at least a monthly basis and that the
majority of students were able to correctly predict their final grades.

Gamified learning, or the gamification of learning, representations of the same material (Mayer, Moreno,
has been defined as the use of game design elements in Boire, & Vagge, 1999) rather than relying on a single
non-game settings in order to increase motivation and viewpoint or perspective. This theory of learning aligns
attention on a task (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & closely with a gamified approach to teaching where
Nacke, 2011; Simões, Redondo, & Vilas, 2013). It is students are provided multiple opportunities to interact
important to note the distinction between teaching with their teachers, the content, and their classmates in
through a gamified pedagogical approach and teaching an attempt to construct new meaning.
through the use of actual games, which has been found In addition to social constructivism, the theoretical
to be an effective way to teach things such as grammar framework of this research draws on self-determination
(Tuan & Doan, 2010; Yolageldili & Arikan, 2011), theory. A primary tenet of self-determination theory is
computer programming (Doherty & Kumar, 2009), that when individuals are given the autonomy to make
digital citizenship, and problem solving (Gros, 2007). their own decisions about the tasks they complete, they
Unlike teaching with games, gamified instruction is the are more likely to be engaged in their work (Gagne &
integration of gaming principles, and this approach to Deci, 2005). Choice is an integral component in self-
teaching and training is gaining popularity in the field determination theory, which posits that having the
of education (Caponeto, Earp & Ott, 2014; Domíngues, autonomy to make decisions can also lead to greater
et al., 2013) as well as private and public corporations motivation in task completion (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
(Dale, 2014). Evidence suggests that gamified learning, When students are allowed to choose which learning
or the creation of gameful experiences, can impact activities they engage with, they are more likely to
engagement, motivate target behaviors, and drive make selections that align with their own learning style,
innovation (Kapp, 2012). which can make the learning more relevant and
This research draws on social constructivism and meaningful to them (Biggs, 1999). In addition, when
self-determinism as a theoretical framework. The students are provided with a learning environment
social constructivist theory of learning states that where they are encouraged to take risks and delve into
learners construct new knowledge based upon prior challenging problem solving, they are more likely to
knowledge and experiences (Vygotsky, 1978). develop effective learning dispositions (Claxton, 2007).
According to this theory, teachers and students both The challenge comes in aligning course goals and
generate knowledge as they reflect and work together assignments with the interests of individual students so
towards conceptual understanding of the content that as students choose to complete various
(Vygotsky, 1978). Constructivist theory contends that assignments, they are also meeting the objectives of the
knowledge is created through this collaborative work course (Barata, Gama, Jorge, & Goncalves, 2013).
between teachers, content experts, and students (Brown Providing students with choice in assignment selection
et al., 1993; Lave, 1988). The notion that knowledge is is at the foundation of the gamified instructional
constructed indicates that students must take an active approach (Dickey, 2005), which is why self-
role in their learning as opposed to being passive determination theory, combined with social
vessels into which teachers pour information (Au, constructivism, provides a logical framework for
1998). This also implies that knowledge is not a static research in this area.
entity but instead an evolving process that differs from In his book, What Video Games Have to Teach Us
learner to learner (Gredler, 1997). Additionally, About Learning and Literacy (2014), James Gee
meaningful learning occurs when learners have the describes thirty-six learning principles that are present
opportunity to construct meaning from multiple in good games. These learning principles provide the
Hill and Brunvand Gamified Learning 71

catalyst for good game design and, in turn, can be used value of the task or tasks being completed (Yang,
as guiding principles when designing a gamified 2012). This is particularly beneficial with educational
learning environment. For instance, good games games focused on academic content like civics,
provide players with information when they need it and geometry, or science. In most traditional classrooms,
within the context in which the information will be used the primary way students are rewarded is through
(Gee, 2003). This allows players to put that grades, which are given after the completion of an
information to use immediately in order to complete a assignment, paper, quiz, or test. In a gamified
task, solve a problem, or otherwise progress through the classroom, students are rewarded throughout the
game. Quality games also challenge players so that learning process as a way to encourage their active
they are routinely working at the peak of their abilities engagement in problem solving and critical thinking.
and knowledge (Gee, 2003). Vygotsky (1978) referred Another key component inherent in most gaming
to this as the zone of proximal development, which is environments is the element of choice, which allows
the area where a learner is constantly being tested and players to decide where to go within the gaming
challenged. Having students, or players, operate within environment and what decisions to make based on the
this optimal learning zone helps keep them engaged and tasks and situations with which they are confronted.
encourages them to learn more in order to meet the Providing authentic opportunities for choice can lead to
demands of the next challenge. more engaged learning as players feel they have control
Games, particularly multi-player games, require over the outcome of the game and the ability to
players to collaborate and work in teams where they customize their experience (Dickey, 2005). However,
have to share knowledge and skills (Gee, 2003). Being providing students with too much choice can result in
engaged in a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, negative consequences. This has been referred to as the
1991) focused on solving a common problem or “paradox of choice” (Schwartz, 2005) and suggests that
completing a joint task can promote social learning having too many choices can be overwhelming and
opportunities. Games that specifically promote and actually detrimental to the decision-making process.
reward cooperation and teamwork have a positive Finding the balance between enough choice and too
impact on the development of prosocial skills (Granic, many options is one of the many challenges game
Lobel & Engels, 2014). Creating gamified learning designers face. Incorporating an element of choice is yet
environments that likewise promote cooperative another design element to consider when creating a
learning could have a similar impact on social skills. gamified learning environment.
Gee (2003) also contends that well designed games Over the last decade, a variety of gameful
are motivational, primarily because of the different learning environments such as ClassCraft
learning principles outlined previously. Working at the (http://www.classcraft.com/), Playlyfe
limits of their abilities keeps players engaged as they (https://playlyfe.com/), and TalentLMS
continue to take on new challenges (Ott & Tavella, (http://www.talentlms.com/) have been developed
2009). Gee (2003) refers to this process as a cycle of to promote and facilitate gamified learning. Some
expertise, which requires players to constantly learn, act, are better suited for K-12 education, and some are
revise, and learn again in order to demonstrate mastery designed for post-secondary environments. That
and be successful in a game. Allowing students to said, research on how these learning environments
engage in this iterative process of learning, testing, and affect specific student outcomes is limited. The
revising can be an effective way to keep them engaged in authors of this study chose to use the learning
authentic tasks (Barata et al., 2013). In addition to the management system (LMS) called GradeCraft
motivational aspect of the cognitive element of games, (https://www.gradecraft.com), which was developed
Lee and Hammer (2011) suggest that the social and at a prominent midwest university. GradeCraft
emotional aspects of gaming environments can incorporates a variety of elements of gamified
contribute to student engagement as well. learning including additive grading, where students
Most games have reward systems that allow start at zero and advance through levels by earning
students to earn things such as points, badges, and points via the completion of assignments and other
trophies, which unlock new features or levels based on graded tasks. Courses can also be structured such
the completion of various tasks. Conversely, there are that the successful completion of one assignment
usually consequences when tasks aren’t completed will unlock, or make available, subsequent
correctly. The key is finding a balance between assignments. Other gamified elements present in
rewards and consequences such that players remain GradeCraft include a leaderboard, badges that can
motivated to proceed but do not become overwhelmed be awarded for exceptional work, focus on mastery
or discouraged by the complexity of the task learning, the creation of avatars to represent
(Domínguez et al., 2013). A well-designed game can students in the LMS environment, and student
also motivate players to stay engaged by enhancing the choice in assignment selection.
Hill and Brunvand Gamified Learning 72

One way to provide students with choice in an have left to complete in order to advance in the game.
educational setting is by allowing them to pick from a However, picking a score for an assignment doesn’t
range of assignments and assessments to complete mean students automatically receive that score. It just
rather than telling them specifically what they need to allows them to see how many total points they would
do and when it needs to be completed. In addition to earn in the course based on the assignments they select
assignment choice, providing students with a tool that and the scores they anticipate receiving.
helps them predict final grades may bolster learner The Grade Predictor automatically gives students
autonomy within the course. One such tool is the credit for assignments completed so that those points get
Grade Predictor feature embedded in GradeCraft, which factored into their final predicted grade. Students can
allows students to track their progress and anticipate a use the Grade Predictor as frequently as they like,
final grade in ways that would otherwise not be making revisions to the assignments they plan to
possible in the absence of this tool. complete based on whatever criteria they choose. This
The Grade Predictor tool is designed to let students aligns closely with the tenet of choice that is a central
explore different pathways through the course part of gameful learning. The Grade Predictor tool is
assignments in order to see what choices will help them designed to help students make informed decisions about
achieve the grade they hope to earn in the class. This the assignments they choose to complete so that they can
research focuses specifically on student use, and plot a productive and efficient pathway through the
perceptions of, the Grade Predictor tool in order to learn course. That said, questions remain about the frequency
how students might make use of this predictive and usefulness of the Grade Predictor tool.
capability. There are several unique features within Prior to the start of the winter 2015 semester,
GradeCraft that make it different from other learning Institutional Review Board approval was sought and
management systems. Likewise, there are many granted to implement GradeCraft in a series of cross
differences in the pedagogical approach between a listed (undergraduate/graduate) courses to examine the
gamified course and a more traditional course. impact a gaming inspired LMS has on students’ ability
Investigating all of the different features and making to accurately predict their final grades. More
comparisons between the multitude of differences in specifically, to answer the following research question:
instructional approaches would be beyond the scope of Does using a Grade Predictor tool embedded within a
a single manuscript. Therefore, a deliberate decision gaming inspired learning management system enhance
was made to focus on the Grade Predictor because of students’ ability to accurately predict their final grade at
the novelty of this tool and the potential it provided for the college level?
students to take greater control of their studies.
Method
Grade Predictor
During the fall of 2014, the authors chose to adopt
The Grade Predictor tool, as the name implies, GradeCraft as the primary LMS for two classes they
makes it possible for students to predict their final taught in the fall semester of 2015 and winter semester
grade while selecting the assignments they want to of 2016. The classes selected for implementation were
complete. The ability to accurately predict a final grade both education classes serving undergraduate and
can help students make determinations about what graduate students, many of whom were pursuing a
material they need to master and how they should teaching certification or an additional teaching
prepare for upcoming tests and examinations (Burns, endorsement. More specifically, one class had a focus
2007; Hacker, Bol, Horgan, & Rakow, 2000). on transition services for individuals with disabilities,
Moreover, when students are accurately able to predict and the other class on the integration of educational
their grade in a course they can make better informed technologies within the K-12 environment.
decisions about how to distribute the time and effort
they devote to studying (Grimes, 2002). Participants
The Grade Predictor tool allows students to pick all
the assignments they intend to complete and see how All students (n = 76) who were enrolled in the
many points they would earn, as well as the overall grade courses during the two semesters listed previously were
they would receive, based on the completion of those eligible to participate in the study. The sample for this
assignments. They can even select an individual score study included undergraduate (n = 73) and graduate (n
for each assignment to determine exactly what they = 2) level students who received all instruction on
would need to earn in each case in order to reach their campus within a face-to-face classroom framework. Of
target grade for the course. This is similar to a progress the 75 students, 11 were male, and 64 were female. No
bar or status indicator in a gaming environment that age or ethnicity information were collected.
shows the players where they are in a level and what they Participation in the research was completely voluntary,
Hill and Brunvand Gamified Learning 73

Table 1
Survey Participation
Participants Pre-Survey Midterm Survey Response Rate

Total 75 68 91%

Undergraduate 73 66 90%

Graduate 2 2 100%

and no incentive was given for participation. was assigned to familiarize the students with the
Additionally, no penalty was administered for GradeCraft features and help them learn how to
nonparticipation if students opted out. navigate the site successfully. More specifically, the
Grade Predictor was introduced, and students were
Measure shown how to use it. Lastly, the collected data was
analyzed at the conclusion of the winter 2016 semester.
Data were collected through surveys distributed
electronically to all participating students at the start, Results
middle point, and end of each semester. The three
surveys were created collaboratively by both authors The purpose of this study was to explore whether using
and consisted of open ended and multiple-choice a Grade Predictor tool embedded within a gaming inspired
questions. Students were asked about their grade status LMS (i.e. GradeCraft) allowed students to accurately predict
including both current and anticipated grades, use of their final grade. Three separate surveys were distributed
LMS features such as the Grade Predictor, and during each semester to 75 students over the span of two
assignment preferences. As stated earlier, the Grade academic semesters. Due to a low response rate on the post-
Predictor tool is embedded in GradeCraft and assists survey (n 42), data reported in tables 1 - 3 are exclusive to
students in determining which assignments are needed the Pre and Mid surveys. That said, a fourth table has been
to obtain a specific grade for the course. Students can included and contains Grade Predictor user opinion data
generate hypothetical “final” grade scenarios based on collected from the post survey since the authors believe
the selection of assignments they intend to complete. these data add value to the manuscript. Lastly, data were
For example, students may use the Grade Predictor to analyzed to see whether students were able to accurately
select the minimum number of assignments to complete predict their final grade based on two variables (a) student
in order to achieve their desired final grade. use of Grade Predictor and (b) final grade.

Procedures Participation

Student participation in data collection was limited Total enrollment for all classes was 76 students. Out
to answering three online surveys during the course of of the 76 students, 75 consented to participate in this study,
the semester. Links to the pre-survey, mid-survey, and and 100% of those participating completed the pre-survey
post-survey were distributed each term to correspond (see Table 1). Seven of the initial 75 participants failed to
with the first week of class, midway point of the term, complete the midterm survey, resulting in a 91% response
and last week of class respectively. Prior to any survey rate for students completing both surveys. A possible
dissemination, a consent form was distributed to all explanation for why seven students did not complete the
potential participants that included, but was not limited midterm survey is that all seven had acquired enough
to, the following: the purpose of the study, research points to offset attendance/participation points awarded for
procedures, possible risks, and contact information for each class session and, therefore, were not in class the day
the university’s office of research. Students did not the midterm survey was administered. The sample
have a choice on whether or not they used GradeCraft, consisted of 64 females and 11 males.
but they did have the option to not participate in the
study. On the first day of each semester, students were Grade Predictor
informed that GradeCraft would be the LMS for the
course and were shown a brief video providing an Students were asked on the pre-survey to predict
overview of GradeCraft. Next, an orientation exercise their use of the Grade Predictor tool prior to any
Hill and Brunvand Gamified Learning 74

Table 2
Pre-Survey for Grade Predictor (n=75)
Participants Daily Once a Week Every Other Week Monthly Did Not Use

Accurately Predicted (n=33) 6 15 8 4 0

Within 1 Grade Value 2 5 3 0 0

(n=10)

≤ 2 Grade Values (n=10) 3 5 0 2 0

≥ 3 Grade Values (n=22) 3 7 7 5 0

Table 3
Midterm Survey for Grade Predictor (n=68)
Participants Daily Once a Week Every Other Week Monthly Did Not Use

Accurately Predicted (n=29) 1 3 18 7 0

Within 1 Grade Value (n=9) 1 2 4 2 0

≤ 2 Grade Values (n=9) 0 1 6 2 0

≥ 3 Grade Values (n=21) 0 4 9 8 0

assignments being completed. They were presented Midterm survey. After a six-week exposure to
with five answer choices ranging from daily use of the course content and assignments, students were
Grade Predictor to no use of the Grade Predictor. prompted to complete the midterm survey. Instead of
Students were also asked to predict their final grade. asking students how they anticipated using the Grade
Table 2 compares students anticipated use (pre-survey) Predictor, this survey asked how frequently they had
of the Grade Predictor in determining their final grade actually been using the tool over the first half of the
against their actual final grade in the course to semester. Similar to the pre-survey, students were
represent how accurately each student was able to asked again to predict their final grade in the course.
predict their grade. It should be noted that a student Student self-reported frequency of use was noticeably
who predicted an A but earned an A- was considered to different compared to the pre-survey results. Table 3
be within 1 grade value. Likewise, if a student displays the results of the use of the Grade Predictor
predicted a B but earned a B+, he/she was also by students at the midway point of the semester
considered to be within 1 grade value. compared with the accuracy with which students
Pre-survey. Of the 75 students, all responded they predicted their final grade.
intended to use the Grade Predictor tool during the Only 18% of the students reported using the tool on
semester. Frequency of intended use varied across at least a weekly basis even though 61% anticipated
participants with 61.3% of students anticipating using using it that frequently on the pre-survey. All of the
the Grade Predictor either daily or at least once a week participants indicated using the Grade Predictor at least
compared to 39% of students intending to use it at least monthly if not more frequently. Additionally, over half
once a month. The most commonly selected option was (54.4%) of the students reported using the Grade
once a week (43%) while monthly usage was the least Predictor every other week and only two students used
selected answer (15%), indicating a possible initial the tool daily. As shown in the table, 29 (43%) of the
reliance on the tool to predict final grades. There were students accurately predicted their final grade at the
33 students (44%) who accurately predicted their final midway point of the semester. This was nearly
grade on the pre-survey. An additional 10 students were unchanged, on a percentage basis, from the pre-survey
accurate within one grade value. where 44% accurately predicted their final grade.
Hill and Brunvand Gamified Learning 75

The majority (57%) of students accurately After an analysis of the other post survey data, the
predicted their final grades within one grade value. authors agreed that the data focusing on user
However, 29% incorrectly estimated their final grade opinions for the Grade Predictor tool added value to
by 3 or more grade values. A closer analysis of that the overall manuscript (see Table 4).
29% revealed four students underestimated their final Users’ opinions regarding the Grade Predictor tool
grades (i.e., earned a higher grade than predicted) and revealed an overall positive view. The majority of
the other 24% overestimated. Since all students used respondents (62%) reported using the Grade Predictor
the Grade Predictor tool at least monthly, it was tool to plan a course of study throughout the semester.
difficult to correlate frequency of usage with ability to Additionally, more than half (53%) believed the Grade
accurately predict a final grade. For example, of the 43 Predictor tool instilled an additional level of confidence
students who accurately predicted their final grade, when working towards a predicted final grade, and half
51% of them used the Grade Predictor tool every other reported that the tool reduced grade anxiety. It should
week, and only two students used the tool on a daily be noted that a percent of respondents were compelled
basis. Additionally, weekly use was also low among the to select a neutral answer to the three questions. That
respondents with just five students from each group said, the number of neutral answers did not surpass the
using the tool on a weekly basis. However, the most positive responses for each question.
commonly reported usage of the tool on a frequency
basis was every other week. In addition, of the 29 Discussion
students who accurately predicted their grade, 18 (62%)
reported using the Grade Predictor at least every other An increasing number of researchers have
week. Conversely, of the 19 students who only used the conducted studies with a focus on gamified learning
Grade Predictor on a monthly basis, only 7 (37%) and its impact on motivation and engagement within
accurately predicted their final grade. education (Gee, 2003; Yang, 2012). However, few
Post Survey. During the final week of the have examined the relationship between specific tools
semester, students were instructed to complete a post embedded within the LMS and student outcomes at
survey. Similar to the pre- and midterm surveys, the postsecondary level. The purpose of this study was
questions focused on the frequency of Grade to examine the impact of using a Grade Predictor tool
Predictor use and final grade outcomes. Additional embedded within a gaming inspired learning
queries on the post survey went beyond what was management system on 75 college-level students’
previously asked on the pre and midterm surveys, to ability to accurately predict their final grades. Based
include questions focused on users’ opinions of the on the results, the majority of students were able to
Grade Predictor tool, more specifically, how accurately predict their final grade by using the Grade
beneficial the tool was in planning work for the Predictor tool at least once every two weeks, thus
semester, reducing workload anxiety, and instilling increasing autonomy in the learning process by
confidence in the student’s ability to earn his/her providing students the ability to design their own
desired grade for the course. As stated previously, learning path and predict their learning outcomes (i.e.,
response to the post survey was 56%, so a decision grades). Furthermore, the intrinsic results from the
was made to exclude the data from the reporting of post survey, coupled with data representing actual use
student use of Grade Predictor and final grades of Grade Predictor, provide further evidence that the
alongside the pre and midterm surveys in Tables 1-3. tool was helpful to the majority of students.

Table 4
Grade Predictor Opinions (n 42)
Very Neither True or Not True At
True Untrue All

I used the grade predictor tool to plan my work for the semester. 26 10 6

I used the grade predictor to reduce my anxiety over my workload. 21 16 5

The grade predictor tool helped me to be confident of achieving 22 12 8

the grade I wanted.
Hill and Brunvand Gamified Learning 76

The Grade Predictor tool is designed to provide term (Koriat, 1997). This is largely because once
students with a way to accurately predict their final students become more familiar with the expectations and
grades by seeing, not only what assignments they need rigor of a course, they are better able to predict how well
to complete, but also the specific scores they would they will perform in the class.
need to earn on those assignments. Tools such as the Another explanation is that assignments across
Grade Predictor are only effective if they are used on a courses were designed so that due dates extended over
consistent basis and are readily available. Equally the duration of the semester versus having weekly
important is that within a gamified environment, rules deadlines, so students might not have felt inclined to use
are established and remain in effect throughout the the Grade Predictor every week since they were not
duration of the course. This is particularly important receiving graded work that frequently. A final
when using an additive method of point accumulation explanation is that some classes only met once a week,
within a gamified environment so that students have an whereas others met twice a week. Students in classes
advantage in determining which assignments will result that met more frequently may have had regular
in favorable points through the consistent use of the reminders, and opportunities, to use the Grade Predictor
Grade Predictor tool. when they logged into the LMS during class. Regardless
Results of this study indicated that students who of the frequency of use, every student reported using the
used the tool every other week had the highest success Grade Predictor during the course of the semester. This is
rate of accurately predicting their final grade. This, in encouraging because it’s one indication that students
part, could be due to the fact that students who used the perceive this tool as having some measure of value when
Grade Predictor every other week were more aware of it comes to self-guided learning.
their ongoing progress in the course compared with
their classmates who were only using the tool on a Limitations
monthly basis. Using the Grade Predictor every other
week likely allowed students to make more timely A couple of limitations of the study are worth
decisions about what assignments they still needed to noting. First, only data from the pre and midterm
complete based on scores they were receiving on surveys were used in tables 1-3 because of a low
submitted work. Students could also recover more response rate for the post survey. One explanation for
easily from a low score on an individual assignment if the low response rate is that the post survey was
they were regularly checking the Grade Predictor. administered either during the final week of class or at
In addition, students who utilized the Grade the final exam class period. Several students who had
Predictor every other week would be better able to stay already earned enough points to get an A in the course
abreast of the staggered deadlines inherent within a did not bother to attend the final class sessions and were
gamified course where there are many different not required to complete the final exam. This meant
assignment options to choose from. An additional they were not present to receive verbal prompts to
benefit of using the tool weekly was a reduction in complete the post survey nor did they feel obligated to
anxiety, as reported in the post survey results. Those respond to e-mail reminders requesting the completion
students who were only using the Grade Predictor on a of the survey. Exploring ways to insure a higher
monthly basis would have been at a disadvantage as completion rate will be important for future research.
they would have likely missed several deadlines from The second limitation of note was the focus on data
month to month and thereby lost the opportunity to earn collection from student self-reporting on surveys at
points for several assignments. different checkpoints each semester. While this
There was a discrepancy between intended use (pre- approach generated useful information, it will be
survey) and actual use (midterm survey) of the Grade important to expand data collection efforts to include
Predictor tool. Students predicted a higher rate of Grade other methods such as course evaluations, interviews,
Predictor use on the pre-survey compared to their actual and observations where appropriate.
reported use on the midterm survey. This may be due to
the fact that students gained a better understanding of the Future Research
demands of the targeted courses, and associated
assignments, and their corresponding ability to meet One suggestion for future research is to examine
those intellectual demands as the term progressed, thus how students are choosing assignments and what criteria
reducing the need for the tool. This makes sense because they use when given the opportunity to choose which
initial predictions about grades are influenced by past assignments they will complete. This might include
performance in similar courses (Burns, 2007) and, not looking at patterns across classes to see whether or not
surprisingly, grade predictions made later in a course certain assignment types (e.g., quizzes or written papers)
tend to be more accurate than those made early in the are selected more often than other types of assignments.
Hill and Brunvand Gamified Learning 77

This line of research would provide practitioners with use. In turn, this could increase the chances of students
valuable insight that could improve future course reaching their academic goals (i.e., desired final grade)
offerings by increasing student engagement and and help them better manage their coursework in a
motivation through the creation of assignment types that gamified learning environment.
more closely align with student interests. To conduct this One notable issue encountered during this study
research, it is imperative that more faculty start was the assumption by several students that full points
implementing GradeCraft so data collection can expand would be automatically awarded for any assignment
across a greater range of courses and disciplines. This that was submitted. This false assumption may have
would hopefully alleviate smaller sample sizes of been a result of a miscommunication between students
participants in future studies and promote the collection and the instructor on the capabilities of the Grade
of data across a broader array of courses. As the number Predictor or simply a misconception of how the tool
of courses using GradeCraft increases, naturally future worked. More specifically, students equated
data collection efforts will grow. This will present hypothetical assignment submissions represented in the
opportunities to explore the impact of gamified learning Grade Predictor with automatic full credit instead of
in a variety of content areas. compensating for points not awarded due to mistakes
A second suggestion for future research is to and assignments that did not demonstrate mastery of
reexamine existing survey questions to ensure that targeted concepts. This provides further justification for
future iterations of this line of study will continue to explicit, and ongoing, training throughout the semester.
yield worthwhile insights. In addition, a more Lastly, it should be noted that the authors of this study
comprehensive approach to administering the post have only been using GradeCraft for a year and
survey for future courses is necessary to insure acknowledge that they are still learning the best ways to
responses from students who do not attend class at the effectively implement gamified learning in their
end of the term. One solution would be to administer respective courses. Having said that, the authors see the
the survey within the last two weeks of the course when potential benefits of using gamified learning at the
more students will likely be in attendance rather than university level and intend to continue using
waiting until the final exam period. GradeCraft for future classes as they work
collaboratively to refine their competency with the tool.
Implications for Practice
Conclusions
Based on data collected in this study, all students
made use of the Grade Predictor tool available to them From a very early age, games are used to teach and
in order to stay abreast of their progress within their enhance human development (Yang, 2012). Incorporating
courses. As reported earlier, 100% of the participants and increasing gamified elements within an academic
in this research across multiple semesters and classes curriculum seems to be a natural progression as educators
indicated that they made use of the Grade Predictor tool continue to compete with personal technology for their
on at least a monthly basis. A tool such as this seems students’ attention. The extant literature supports the
particularly critical in gamified courses where students notion that a gamified approach can increase student
are given the autonomy to pick and choose which motivation and engagement, but more work is needed to
assignments they will complete. Students took know how much and in which contexts gamified elements
advantage of the opportunity to test out different should be used. Additionally, there is still much to learn
pathways to get to the course grade they hoped to about the best way to implement principles of gamified
achieve and the ability to revise those pathways as the learning into a formal class setting and effective ways to
semester progressed. Therefore, instructors planning to prepare students to be successful learners in courses where
use gamified pedagogies in their courses should provide these pedagogical strategies are used. Universities are in a
students with access to a tool such as the Grade unique position to help further this exploration through
Predictor so they can easily track their progress and empirical research by expanding the use of gamified
predict their grade. learning across disciplines.
While virtual tools such as Grade Predictor have
the potential to be powerful learning mechanisms References
within a gamified learning environment, simply
providing these tools to students without the necessary Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school
guidance and instruction on how to effectively use them literacy learning of students of diverse
is counter-intuitive. A comprehensive training for backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2),
students on how to use these types of tools prior to 297–319.
implementation, and continuous fidelity checks Barata, G., Gama, S., Jorge, J., & Goncalves, D. (2013).
throughout the semester, can help to maximize their Engaging engineering students with gamification.
Hill and Brunvand Gamified Learning 78

Proceedings of the 2013 5th International Granic, I., Lobel, A., E, C. M., & Engels, R. C. M. E.
Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for (2014). The benefits of playing video games.
Serious Applications (VS-GAMES), Bournemouth, American Psychologist, 69(1), 66–78.
UK, 1–8. Gredler, M. E. (1997). Jean Piaget's cognitive-
Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for development theory. In M. E. Gredler (Ed.),
enhanced learning, Higher Education Research & Learning and instruction: Theory into practice
Development, 18(1), 57-75, doi: (Vol. 3rd) (pp. 201-235). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
10.1080/0729436990180105 Prentice Hall.
Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Grimes, P. W. (2002). The overconfident principles of
Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed economics student: An examination of a
expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), metacognitive skill. The Journal of Economic
Distributed cognitions (pp. 188-228). Cambridge, Education, 33(1), 15–30.
UK: Cambridge University Press. Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The design
Burns, D. J. (2007). An examination of the accuracy of of games-based learning environments. Journal of
students’ expected grades. Academy of Educational Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 23–
Leadership Journal, 11(3), 45–59. 38.
Caponetto, I., Earp, J., & Ott, M. (2014). Gamification Hacker, D. J., Bol, L., Horgan, D. D., & Rakow, E.
and education: A literature review. Proceedings of (2000). Test prediction and performance in a
the European Conference on Games Based classroom context. Journal of Educational
Learning, Berlin, Germany, 50–57. Psychology, 92, 160-170.
Claxton, G. (2007). Expanding young people’s capacity Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and
to learn. British Journal of Educational Studies, instruction: Game-based methods and strategies
55(2), 115–134. for training and education. Hoboken, NJ: John
Dale, S. (2014). Gamification: Making work fun, or Wiley & Sons.
making fun of work? Business Information Review, Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge
31(2), 82–90. during study: A cue-utilization approach to
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental
(2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Psychology: General, 126, 349-370.
Defining “gamification.” Proceedings of the 2011 Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge, UK:
Annual Conference Extended Abstracts on Human University Press.
Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA ’11, Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning:
Tampere, Finland. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
Dickey, M. D. (2005). Engaging by design: How UK: Cambridge University Press.
engagement strategies in popular computer and Lee, J. J., & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in
video games can inform instructional design. education: What, how, why bother? Definitions
Educational Technology Research and and uses. Exchange Organizational Behavior
Development, 53(2), 67–83. Teaching Journal, 15(2), 1–5.
Domínguez, A., Saenz-De-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, Mayer, R., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999).
L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez- Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia
Herráiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning communications by minimizing cognitive load.
experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 638-643.
Computers and Education, 63, 380–392. Ott, M., & Tavella, M. (2009). A contribution to the
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020 understanding of what makes young students
Doherty, L., & Kumar, V. (2009, August). Teaching genuinely engaged in computer-based learning
programming through games. Proceedings of tasks. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
the 2009 International Workshop on Technology in 1(1), 184–188. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.034
Education, Bangalore, India, 111-113. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory
Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-Determination and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
Theory and work motivation. Journal of development, and well-being. The American
Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. doi:10.1037/0003-
Gee, J. P. (2014). What video games have to teach us 066X.55.1.68
about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New York, Schwartz, B. (2005). The paradox of choice: Why more
NY: St. Martin’s Press. is less. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us Simões, J., Redondo, R. D., & Vilas, A. F. (2012). A
about learning and literacy. ACM Computers in social gamification framework for a K-6 learning
Entertainment, 1(1), 1–4.
Hill and Brunvand Gamified Learning 79

platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 345– College of Education, Health, and Human Services at the
353. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.007 University of Michigan-Dearborn. He earned his PhD in
Tuan, L., & Doan, N. (2010). Teaching English Special Education from the University of Pittsburgh. His
grammar through games. Studies in Literature & primary research interests are the use of technologies to
Language, 1(7), 61–75. Retrieved from enhance student and teacher outcomes and developing
http://cscanada.net/index.php/sll/article/download/j effective inclusive evidence based practices for students
.sll.1923156320100107.006/1463 with disabilities to enhance teacher instruction.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The
development of higher mental processes. STEIN BRUNVAND is an Associate Professor in the
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. College of Education, Health, and Human Services at
Yang, Y. T. C. (2012). Building virtual cities, inspiring the University of Michigan-Dearborn. He earned his
intelligent citizens: Digital games for developing PhD in Learning Technologies at the University of
students’ problem solving and learning motivation. Michigan. Prior to that, he taught elementary school
Computers and Education, 59(2), 365–377. for six years. Stein is interested in the enhancement of
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.012 learning environments through the integration of
Yolageldili, G., & Arikan, A. (2011). Effectiveness of technology and enjoys working with preservice and
using games in teaching grammar to young practicing teachers to learn about how this can be done
learners. Elementary Education Online, 10(1), more effectively. He has conducted research on the
219–229. impact of research-based professional development on
____________________________ the integration of technology in K-12 classrooms and
explored the use of e-portfolios in teaching and learning
DAVID R. HILL is an Assistant Professor in the with undergraduate and graduate students.