Abstract
Gamification has been used as a tool to increase engagement with businesses, build group cohesion, and improve student motivation in Grades K-12. Part of its appeal is in developing autonomy in the “player,” and part of its appeal is in participating regularly in a structured progress ladder where the customer, student, or employee can predict how present actions can lead to future rewards. Currently, research in applying gamification to undergraduate courses is sparse, which is surprising given the overlap between higher education and game design; students and players both follow rules, participate voluntarily, engage with a feedback loop, and work toward a goal. This study applied game design principles via gamification to an undergraduate General Psychology course at a community college. Results indicate better motivation, improved exam scores, a stronger sense of autonomy, and a desire within students to have more courses offered in this manner. However, final course grades showed no significant difference compared with traditionally designed courses. Implications for future research are discussed.
More than half of U.S. households include at least one person who plays video and computer games regularly (Entertainment Software Association, 2017), and tabletop or board gaming has seen a resurgence in popularity that some are calling its golden age (Duffy, 2014). Regardless of format, games are defined as having four components: a goal, rules, a feedback system, and voluntary participation (McGonigal, 2016). These components seem to overlap with higher education, where students work toward a goal by following rules, responding to a feedback system, and participating in the education process voluntarily. The application of game design methodology to other contexts is commonly referred to as gamification in academic research, particularly in regard to education and learning (Deterding, Khaled, Nacke, & Dixon, 2011). For the purpose of this article, the terms gamification and game-based learning are used interchangeably.
Despite game-based learning’s popularity in research and publication, the discussion regarding its efficacy has focused on K-12 education. Although college courses designed entirely using a game-based approach have shown positive outcomes, few articles address its use in university settings or psychology courses specifically (Aguilar, Holman, & Fishman, 2018).
This study seeks to present the results of applying game-based learning methodology to two General Psychology courses and discuss its further implications to student motivation, engagement, retention, and interest in continued social science education. Elements of gamification from Yu-kai Chou’s (2015) Octalysis framework and Sheldon’s (2011) Multiplayer Classroom were integrated into the design of these courses.
Method
Demographics
Two classes of General Psychology at a large community college near a major city in the United States were infused with elements of game design. Figure 1 describes demographic and other information about each class.
Demographic information across two sections of general psychology in a community college.
Grading
Grading consisted of an “experience points” (xp) scale spread out over 20 levels that began on a curve, and then continued linearly at what was projected to be the midpoint of the semester for many students. This was done for the purpose of students receiving frequent rewards for little effort early in the course, and then requiring greater amounts of work to increase the grade when larger projects (papers, group presentations, exams) were typically due. This reflected Chou’s (2015) “Onboarding” element of gamification.
End of course xp below 1750xp was designated as a grade of F. Level 13 (1750xp) was required to receive a grade of D in the course; Level 15 (2150xp) for a grade of C; Level 17 (2550xp) for a grade of B; Level 19 (2950xp) for a grade of A. In addition, because Level 19 was the barrier for a grade of A, Level 20 had a higher increase in xp for students who wished to feel accomplished in achieving a non-grade-oriented goal, similar to a “perfect score” or “100% completion” in a game. Figure 2 illustrates the xp progression. This xp structure, and the layout of the course, reflected Chou’s (2015) “Discovery” element of gamification as well as Sheldon’s (2011) syllabus layout indicating xp-per-level for students to easily refer to throughout the semester.
Experience points (xp) needed to achieve each level.
Whereas a traditional grading scale consists of a rolling average, a gamified grading scale consists of an upward progression. Students who achieved a score below 100% of the possible points of an assignment were encouraged to find another assignment in the course to make up the missing points. For example, if a student set a personal goal of receiving 200xp in a week, but only earned 160 due to receiving an 80% on an assignment, the student could find an additional assignment worth 40xp (an online quiz, a paper, or other options in the table below) to attempt to make up the missing points. In a traditional grading system, this student would receive a score of 160 points and would not be given an opportunity to re-engage with course material until the next scheduled assignment. By regularly providing opportunities for students to engage with course material for the purpose of seeking “win-states,” this reflected Chou’s “Scaffolding” element of gamification. Classes met twice weekly for 75 min in a 16-week semester. One day per week was designated for traditional lecture to cover course material and 1 day per week was designated for small group projects. Students could gain xp by completing any combination of in-class projects, quizzes, exams, presentations, and papers. Students were encouraged to choose the combination they thought would best help them achieve the grade they desired, as the total amount of xp possible in the course exceeded the xp needed to achieve Level 20. Figure 3 details the xp values per assignment.
The xp values per assignment.
In addition, students were placed into groups of four to six students, in which they would complete in-class group activities for every chapter of the course. Students would remain in these groups until the midterm exam, after which students would be randomly assigned to new groups for the remainder of the semester. This added a “multiplayer” element to the course; students had assignments and exams to complete individually as well as in-class activities and presentations for which students received xp as a group.
Rewards
Rewards were presented as optional benefits to redeem to further customize each student’s learning experience.
Students received rewards for reaching Levels 2, 5, 10, 13, 15, 17, and 20. The reward at Level 2 (25xp) and at Level 15 (2150xp) allowed students to use one “50/50 hint” on an exam (professor removes two wrong answers from four potential answers on a multiple choice question). The reward for Level 5 (250xp) allowed students to use one “correct/incorrect check” on an exam (student indicates his or her answer to one question, professor responds with “correct” or “incorrect”). Achieving Level 10 (1125xp) permitted students to bring a single 3 × 5 in. notecard containing written hints to all remaining exams. At Level 13 (1750xp), students could increase the page requirement by one on a paper and double its xp value (200xp). Similarly, at Level 17 (2550xp), students could increase the page requirement by three on a paper and triple its xp value (300xp).
Results
A variety of outcome measure techniques were employed to garner qualitative and quantitative data. An anonymous survey conducted with both courses revealed students overwhelmingly want more gamified courses in higher education. In addition, students reported the workload was not as challenging as anticipated, despite the higher-than-average amount of work made available to them.
Students were interviewed about their opinions of the course, with the following quotes emerging: “I like that the tests aren’t a huge part of our grade”; “My grade is based on my decision [of what work I want to do.]”; “Some students need to be more motivated, since they affect our group’s grade”; “You get to determine your grade based on the work you do. It’s not like other classes where it’s all based on tests, and maybe you don’t test well or know that information as well.”
Four traditional courses taught by the same instructor were randomly selected to compare grades with the two gamification courses. Figure 4 illustrates midterm exam averages utilizing the same midterm exam across all courses.
Statistically significant difference between gamification averages and traditional averages (p < .05).
Student performance on the midterm exam demonstrated a statistically significant higher average grade in gamification courses compared with traditional courses. Students in the four sampled traditional courses earned an average of 75.3%, compared with students in the two sampled gamification courses earning an average of 79.3%. Figure 5 illustrates course grade averages.
No statistically significant difference between gamification averages and traditional averages (p > .05).
When examining course grades, gamification course averages did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference when compared with traditional course averages (87.7% vs. 87.5% traditional vs. gamification).
Students in the gamified courses were surveyed at the conclusion of the semester about their opinions regarding how the gamification experience differs from their other courses. When considering feelings of motivation, 58.34% of students in Class A and 57.15% of students in Class B indicated that they felt more motivated in this course compared with other courses. When asked if they wished more courses were structured in this fashion, 70.83% of Class A students and 71.43% of Class B students answered in the affirmative. Regarding perceived workload, 12.5% of students from Class A and 9.52% of students from Class B thought these courses had more work compared with other courses. Finally, when asked about their enjoyment of the course, 58.34% of Class A students and 90.48% of Class B students responded that they enjoyed the course more than they anticipated at the beginning of the semester.
Discussion
Gamification, or game-based course design, was employed in two sections of General Psychology at a community college, with results compared with four randomly sampled traditional General Psychology courses taught by the same professor. Quantitative results indicate gamification courses provide similar or better outcomes compared with traditional courses. Midterm scores were significantly higher in gamified courses; however, course grades averages were nearly identical between the two groups. This finding suggests using gamification is, at least, not likely to result in any detrimental outcomes for the students.
When interviewed and surveyed, most students in the gamified courses reported enjoying the class, thinking the workload was no more than any other course, and wishing more courses utilized gamification. In addition, a majority of students in the gamified courses indicated feeling more motivated in these courses compared with their other, traditional courses, albeit just barely a majority. Furthermore, students consistently reported that they felt more in control of their grade in the gamified courses, even going so far as to recognize and appreciate that a course that offers such a variety of “optional” projects means students can tailor the course’s assignments to their strengths.
Gamification appears to be at least as effective as traditional teaching methods, with the added benefit of greater student control and satisfaction throughout the course. Further research into gamification should include other disciplines in higher education, as well as other ways of applying gamification principles to courses than those used by the primary author of this study. In addition, this study examined courses at a community college; research into applying this method of teaching at universities, trade schools, and graduate programs remains largely nonexistent.
Limits of this study include the very nature of students selecting which assignments to work on and which to avoid. Very few students completed the exact same set of assignments by the end of the course, whereas students in traditional courses tend to complete many of the same assignments as these assignments are required to complete the course. As a result, one student who completed all written assignments, half of the online quizzes, and one exam will have their performance factor into the class’s average just as much as a student who completed all exams, all online quizzes, and no written assignments. In addition, the primary author of this study was also the professor across all courses; thus, experimenter bias must be taken into consideration when viewing this study’s results.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this study was provided by the Illinois Community College Faculty Association’s Dr. Joseph T. Cipfl Research Grant.