Meaningful Gamification in an Industrial/Organizational Psychology Course

Abstract

Motivation and game research continue to demonstrate that the implementation of game design characteristics in the classroom can be engaging and intrinsically motivating. The present study assessed the extent to which an industrial organizational psychology course designed learning environment created with meaningful gamification elements can improve student perceptions of learning, course experience, and learning outcomes compared to a traditional course. A mixed analysis of covariance revealed that those in the gamified condition showed significantly higher perceptions of learning, engagement, and motivation than those in the traditional course. This research suggests that students can learn just as effectively as traditional courses but have more favorable and positive experiences in the course through more, novel, interactive teaching methods. Future research implications are discussed.

Keywords

meaningful gamification higher education innovative methods teaching psychology

Educators are often confronted with the same challenging questions each year: How can I engage my students, make the course material relevant, have fun, and increase intrinsic motivation in the classroom? In the last decade, using digital media, games, and the incorporation of gamelike elements (i.e., gamification) has become a popular medium to influence students inside and outside the classroom (Prensky, 2001; Squire, 2007). Gamification is the incorporation of gamelike elements in nongame contexts or environments (Deterding, Khaled, Nacke, & Dixon, 2011). Motivation and game research continue to demonstrate that the implementation of effective game design characteristics can be engaging, intrinsically motivating, challenging, and fun (Felicia, 2012; Gee, 2007; McGonigal, 2011; Sheldon, 2012), precisely the qualities that students may perceive traditional, passive lectures in higher education settings lack. Despite beliefs that games or the implementation of gamelike elements may be disruptive to higher education values and traditions (Baker, Bujak, & DeMillo, 2012), research demonstrates the use of games in the classroom provides active learning environments (McGregor, Cooper, Smith, & Robinson, 2000) that encourage creativity, engagement (Kapp, 2012), social collaboration (Barab et al., 2007), and an intrinsic motivation for learning (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Malone, 1981).

A majority of gamification implementation has been explored and studied in the marketing and business context (Deterding et al., 2011; Farzan et al., 2008; Fitz-Walter, Tjondronegro, & Wyeth, 2011; Hamari, 2013) and has focused heavily on technology to create these gamification experiences. Hameri, Koivisto, & Sarsa (2014) reveal that the research literature examining gamification is limited, relatively new, and lacking in theoretical frameworks and sound methodology, which is further challenged by the multiple contexts and nonuniversal application of gamification elements in varying contexts (e.g., workplace, education). In contrast to gamification, the underlying goals of meaningful gamification are to place users at the center of meaningful learning experiences and enhance connections with real-world context and foster an intrinsically motivated environment.

Thus, this research will design and evaluate an undergraduate industrial organizational (IO) psychology course using meaningful gamification elements and provide a quantitative methodological approach to evaluate learning outcomes and students’ perceptions of learning when compared to a traditional active learning environment in the same course.

Meaningful Gamification

As the implementation of gamification mechanics continues to become more prevalent in education and learning contexts (Codish & Ravid, 2014; Iosup & Epema, 2008; Sheldon, 2012), the definition and term of gamification continues to transform. Incorporating gamelike elements (e.g., narrative, choice, engagement) into an educational context has begun to emphasize intrinsic motivation principles (i.e., play; Malone, 1981) over extrinsic motivation principles (e.g., operant conditioning) and includes less reliance on technology (Deterding, 2012; Nicholson, 2012, 2013). Lee Sheldon (2012) created a multiplayer classroom incorporating many different game elements to include experience points (XP), role-playing, leveling up, team challenges, missions, and choices of tasks were implemented in the course. In this course paradigm, grades are equal to XP, missions and raids in the classroom replace traditional assignments, and students create an avatar, which becomes their alternate identity throughout the course. Two case studies conducted in higher education, a history course and introduction to computer business writing course, included elements of this course design into their curriculum. Although not all elements were implemented, anecdotal evidence suggests that this play-like learning environment created students who were more intrinsically motivated to participate in the course (Sheldon, 2012).

Stemming from Lee Sheldon’s (2012) creation of the multiplayer classroom, Nicholson (2012) coined the term meaningful gamification as a new way to define and classify gamification in an educational context (Nicholson, 2012). Meaningful gamification is integrating layers of play into classroom instruction to help students connect with information in a way that promotes long-term learning (Nicholson, 2012). Nicholson’s (2013) framework for meaningful gamification integrates user-centered design (Nicholson, 2012), universal design for learning (UDL; Rose & Myer, 2002), and self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2004). Through the integration of these three theoretical frameworks, meaningful gamification places the user at the center of receiving benefits; provides multiple ways for users to engage in learning through having options in their experiences and setting their own goals; and facilitates intrinsic motivation by fostering autonomy, relatedness, and mastery (self-determination theory; Deci & Ryan, 2004).

There are six elements that create a reflection, exposition, choice, information, play, and engagement (RECIPE) for meaningful gamification (Nicholson, 2015). Play is the freedom to explore boundaries; unlike a game, play does not have goals or rules, instead play captures exploration without the threat of real-life consequences (Nicholson, 2015). Nicholson (2015) defines exposition as providing a layer of narrative to help players create relationships between constructs of time (e.g., past, present, future). Additional gaming research suggests by focusing on a narrative via roles (e.g., support staff, managers, shareholders), we can fully engage students imagination, similar to game play (Gee, 2007; McGonigal, 2011). In creating expositions, users can create their own stories (e.g., identities), and they are given choice in creating those elements, which supports self-determination theory of autonomy. Nicholson also relates choice and information to principles of UDL (Rose & Myer, 2002), which allows the users to choose the activities they want to engage and achieve within the learning environment and receive information (e.g., feedback) in various ways. For example, users may prefer information embedded with the exposition (i.e., narrative) or connected via game mechanics such as a simulation (Nicholson, 2015). Supporting the relatedness component of self-determination theory, engagement involves connecting with others via social interaction (e.g., multiplayer, teams) and feeling challenged rather than bored. The final element, reflection, allows user to connect their experiences in play and find meaning in the information (i.e., course content) being presented. Although the word RECIPE implies all elements must be included for a successful outcome, meaningful gamification does not have to include all six elements.

Despite the recent increase in creating new theoretical frameworks to understand meaningful gamification and the conceptual infancy of this playful approach in formal school settings, there is no empirical research investigating the applicability of this innovative instructional technique within higher education and its impact on students’ perceptions of learning and learning outcomes compared to traditional courses. A recent literature review examining empirical studies on traditional gamification found only nine studies that explored learning outcomes in an education/learning context (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014). Interestingly, learning outcomes were operationally defined as student’s motivation, engagement, and enjoyment of learning tasks rather than objective learning gains related to subject content. While it is important to engage and intrinsically motivate students in the classroom via novel teaching techniques, it is also important to evaluate whether these innovative methods can increase students’ learning of content and promote positive perceptions of learning.

The Current Research

The goals of meaningful gamification are to engage users into a deeper level of thinking that promotes a richer connection with real-world context, which can create long-term change and foster an intrinsically motivated community. Students in IO psychology courses study human behavior in the workplace through application of psychological theories and principles. Students learn about many different roles within corporations and organizations, how each role functions, and the interrelationship among those roles. This content provides an opportunity to include elements of role-play and intrinsic motivation principles (e.g., choice, curiosity, fantasy), which allows students the freedom to explore roles and apply theoretical principles of IO psychology (Paschall & Wustenhagen, 2011). Beyond role-play techniques, teaching organizational structure and psychological theories that operate interdependent of one another provides an opportunity to explore meaningful gamification elements (e.g., engagement, narrative, choice) that may engage the student in deeper reflection and learning of course material.

As instructors continue to seek the most captivating and engaging ways to reach students, it is important that educational researchers continue to investigate students’ perceptions of nontraditional teaching approaches in traditional environments. In order for instructors to design engaging and motivating instruction, it is important to understand affective and motivational perceptions of students (Beausaert, Segers, & Wiltink, 2013; Stes, De Maeyer, Gijbels, & Van Petegem, 2012). The goal of the current research is to design an IO psychology course with meaningful gamification elements and explore whether or not engaging students in this nontraditional course form (e.g., role-playing experience) is more effective than a traditional course format. More specifically, does it enhance engagement, motivation, perceptions of learning, and increase learning outcomes compared to traditional teaching methods? Therefore, a quasi-experimental design was used to assess whether an IO psychology course implementing meaningful gamification elements (experimental condition) via role-playing exercises (i.e., play, exposition, choice) and multiple levels of analysis (individual, team, and class) will demonstrate an increase in learning outcomes and perceived engagement, motivation, and perceived learning among students compared to a traditional IO psychology course (control condition).

We hypothesize that students in the experimental condition will have greater perceptions of learning, higher engagement in the course, higher levels of enjoyment, and perceived motivation compared to the control condition. We also hypothesize that those in the experimental condition will perform higher on learning outcome measures than in the control condition. We will also explore students’ perceptions of each teaching technique employed within the course (e.g., exams, quizzes, lecture, role-play) in comparison to the traditional course, in order to better understand which course components students perceive are most impactful to their learning.

Design of IO Psychology Course With Meaningful Gamification Elements

Design of Industrial Psychology Courses

In order to control for undergraduate course differences, two IO psychology courses were designed for this study. Each course was similar in regard to course instruction (e.g., same instructor); assignments; learning objectives; goals; and content of class activities, quizzes, exams, and projects. The experimental course, however, was designed with an overlay of meaningful gamification elements integrated into the course structure (e.g., syllabus, activities). See Table 1 for description of course syllabus components of traditional course with meaningful gamification overlay.

Table 1.
Description of Course Syllabus Components of Traditional Course With Meaningful Gamification Overlay.

Course Component Traditional Course Meaningful Gamification Overlay Meaningful Gamification Element

Description During this course, we will seek to understand human behavior and mental processes in the workplace through exploration of psychological theories and application This course will involve role-playing exercises and multiple levels of analysis (individual, team, and class) Play, exposition

Participation Each student will participate in activities that may take the form of group work, speaker presentations, individual tasks, or instructional training Each student will role-play as one of the five types of individuals that exist in the organization context. Students will act and dress in their assigned roles during class time. Instructions for how each role will act and dress is provided in the role-play rules section of the syllabus. Failure to follow role-play rules will result in a deduction of experience points (XP) Narrative, play

Grading Student grades will be assessed using a combination of quizzes, activities, a team project, midterm, and final comprehensive exam Each assignment in the course is worth XP (points earned through completion of the assignment) that reflect the student’s mastery of the overall course material (level) Feedback

Extra credit Extra credit can be earned via research pool and other course opportunities Prosocial organizational behaviors (active classroom participation, helping other students, arriving to class on time, etc.) will results in the accumulation of additional extra credit points. Antisocial organizational behaviors (arriving to class late, disruptive classroom activities, cheating, etc.) will result in a reduction of extra credit XP. Choice, autonomy, social relatedness

Note. Each course was similar in regard to course instruction (e.g., same instructor); assignments; learning objectives; goals; and content of class activities, quizzes, exams and projects. The meaningful gamification elements were overlay on the traditional course structure.

Traditional courses

In traditional sections, students were presented a standard syllabus with a course description, objective, assessment methods (e.g., quizzes, exams, projects), and a standard grading system. In class, students were randomly assigned to teams and presented with one of the five realistic mock organizational problems. Student teams were instructed to assess their randomly assigned organizational problem and to develop solutions as if they were an external industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology consulting team seeking to aid the organization in solving organization issues. This external consultant perspective provides a real-world context and increased applicability to the project for the traditional psychology student who is unfamiliar with organization consultation and practice. The organization profiled for this project was a national publicly held bank that provides retail and commercial baking products and services primarily on the east coast. Organizational problems included personnel, customer service, retention, selection, and work process issues. Teams had access to the textbook, class notes, and literature databases in order to develop organizational solutions. Extra credit was available to students through participation in psychology department research pool studies and other traditional extra credit assignments.

Meaningful gamification courses

In these sections, students were presented with the same syllabus; however, there were additional descriptions and grading structures that incorporated meaningful gamification elements of play, exposition, information, choice, and engagement. The syllabus included an additional section describing role-play (i.e., play, exposition) placed underneath course objectives, and assessments incorporated the participation of play in the course activities. The grading system was designed to equate XP (earned through completion of assignment) to grades and included leveling up (i.e., information; feedback on students mastery of course material). In addition to traditional means of earning extra credit, students in the gamification courses were provided the same opportunities to earn extra credit, but the mechanism in which extra credit could be earned included other venues such as cooperative play among the class that fostered role-play. All traditional and gamification courses had access to the same number of extra credit points, worth approximately 1% of total possible points, throughout the semester.

Students were randomly assigned to teams and received organizational problems in the same fashion as traditional courses. Similar to the traditional courses, student teams were instructed to act as a consulting team in order to provide real-world context. However, gamification student teams were instructed to assess the organizational problem as if they were an internal organizational consultation team seeking to aid the organization in solving organizational issues. In order to incorporate play and exposition (i.e., narrative), each team was assigned a role from within the organization. Roles included being members of the operating core (frontline employees such as bank tellers and loan officers), support staff (Human Resources and Information Technology [HR and IT] professionals), middle managers (frontline supervisors), executives (executive directors, vice president positions, and chief officers), and shareholders (investors and board of directors members). Student teams were provided a set of role-play rules and organizational role descriptions. Role-play rules included information on how students should act, behave, and dress in their role. To help create a strong exposition, each team was given a description of their particular role. For example, students were instructed that operating core employees are the employees who do the primary work related to organizational goals such as bank tellers and loan officers. These employees may directly interact with customers, produce products, and/or fulfill the organizations primary goals in a variety of ways. These are the workers of the organization who share an employee-oriented focus and are responsible to middle managers. The internal consultant and more personalized role provided for gamification teams were used as a mechanism for increasing the game and role-play focus of the course through increased student attachment to the organization and their team members and personal stake in proposed organizational solutions.

To encourage student role-play and provide choice, students could earn extra credit points for following role-play rules as a class. With each team representing a particular role in the organization, the class as a whole took on the aspects of an organization. As such, when the class performed well, the entire class earned extra credit points (class quiz average above 75%, all teams appearing in proper role-play attire, all assignments completed on time). This was instituted to mimic how an organization succeeds (higher stock prices and more profitably) when the members of the organization work together. Extra credit points could be deducted for all students if members of the organization did not work well together (i.e., failure to follow role-play rules, class disturbances, etc.). Thus, creating a situation that allows students to work cooperatively and competitively increased the element of engagement within the course. This extra credit opportunity was optional and was worth the same amount of extra credit points as the traditional course.

Method

Participants

The study took place on the campus of a large metropolitan university during the course of 1 academic year. In two different sections (i.e., 10 a.m., 11 a.m.) of an I/O psychology course taught by the same professor 3 times a week for 50 min each semester (i.e., fall, spring), 99 undergraduate psychology students participated. However, 6 students were excluded from the analysis due to missing more than half of the data collection time points, leaving a total sample of 93 participants. In order to counterbalance conditions, each semester we switched the conditions by sections. We created the experimental and control conditions by combining data from respective conditions of fall and spring semesters. Across all I/O courses, the sample of students in the current study represented a typical undergraduate psychology population with participants being predominantly female, 61%. The experimental condition consisted of 49 students, and the control condition consisted of 44 students. All courses consisted of lectures and experiential individual and team-based learning with the team project assignment accounting for 20% of the student’s final course grade. Teams were used throughout both classes for a semester-long team project, quizzing, and activities.

Measures and Procedures

All students were assessed on content knowledge (i.e., quizzes), perceptions of learning and course experience (e.g., motivation, engagement), and teaching techniques (e.g., role-play, group projects) throughout the course.

Content knowledge measures

Content quizzes were administered to assess students’ content knowledge of the course material at six time points throughout the course. The instructor administered a 9-item quiz at the beginning of class on scheduled quiz days, which included six multiple-choice and three short answer questions. Items on the quizzes were constructed by the course instructor and were the same for all conditions throughout the academic year.

Formative perception measures

Students were administered formative assessment surveys at 12 different time points throughout the course, assessing students’ perceived experience, perceived learning, and perceived impact of teaching techniques being used in the course. These time points were formative assessments that corresponded with the end of class on team (working on team project) and activity (days spent applying course content to real-world situations) days in which students interacted with team members and adhered to role-play rules as assigned in the gamification course. Survey time points occurred over a 10-week period between the 2nd and 12th week of classes.

Perceived experience measures

Students were asked to rate their current feelings of the course in seven areas: enjoyable, motivating, engaging, fun, boring, challenging, and relevant. All responses were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale with end points: 1= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The items on the perceived experienced measure were highly reliable (α = .77) and were averaged to create a perceived experience index for each time point.

Perceived learning measures

Students were asked to rate their perceptions of learning using traditional courses as a comparison. The question stated, “When comparing this course to my traditional courses, I would rate this course as being…” followed by 7 items. Some items were “increasing my overall understanding of course content,” “at keeping me involved in the classroom,” and “at developing my ability to reason” (see Table 2 for a full list of perceived learning measures). All responses were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale with end points: 1 = worse to 5 = better. The items on the perceived learning measure were highly reliable (α = .86) and were averaged to create a perceived learning index for each time point.

Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics on Gamified and Traditional Courses.

Gamified Condition Traditional Condition

Dependent Measures Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Perceived experiences

Motivation 4.34 (.48) 4.05 (.46)

Enjoyment 4.43 (.44) 4.14 (.46)

Engagement* 4.55 (.43) 4.32 (.41)

Fun 4.34 (.50) 4.03 (.52)

Perceptions of learning

Increasing understanding of course content 4.45 (.49) 4.12 (.42)

Increasing my confidence 4.19 (.53) 3.69 (.57)

Keeping me involved in the classroom 4.56 (.44) 4.28 (.46)

Reinforcing key concepts 4.39 (.51) 4.11 (.47)

Motivating my learning 4.32 (.50) 4.00 (.50)

Developing my ability to reason 4.26 (.55) 3.95 (.42)

Increasing application of course content* 4.46 (.49) 4.19 (.53)

Note. All unmarked items are significant at p < .01.

p < .05.

Perceived impact of teaching technique measures

Students were asked to rate the degree to which eight teaching techniques aided their learning in the course: group activities, team projects, quizzes, professor, review sessions, exams, lecture, and role-playing (experimental condition only). All responses were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale with end points: 1 = not at all* to 7 = extremely. The items on the perceived impact of teaching technique measure were analyzed as individual variables.

Summative perception measures

A 19-item summative follow-up survey was given to the experimental condition regarding their overall perceived experience of the gamified course (e.g., role-playing) at the end of the semester. Students’ perceptions were assessed using a 5-point Likert-type scale with end points: 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Questions included being part of a team motivated me to study, role-playing in class to learn motivated me to study, role-playing in class provided excitement to the course, and role-playing stimulated my curiosity regarding the course material. In order to assess students perceptions regarding games and learning, students were also asked to select from a list of skills (e.g., check all that apply) that they believed could be achieved via games (e.g., problem-solving, critical thinking). Lastly, students were asked which type of learning style they preferred across their courses to include competitive (i.e., working against other students), cooperative (i.e., working with other students), and individual (i.e., working alone). The items on the summative follow-up overall experience measure were highly reliable (α = .95) and were explored as descriptive measures.

Results

The data were analyzed using a mixed design 2 (condition: experimental vs. control) × 3(time: beginning, middle, end) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) controlling for time of class. The within-subject variable time was created for content knowledge by averaging Quizzes 1–2 to assess the beginning of the semester knowledge gain, Quizzes 3–4 to assess the middle of the semester, and Quizzes 5–6 to assess the end of the semester. The within-subject variable time was created for formative perceptions measures by averaging Time Points 1–4 to assess the beginning of the semester, Time Points 5–8 to assess the middle of the semester, and Time Points 9–12 to assess the end of the semester.

Content Knowledge

The ANCOVA on the quizzes revealed no significant main effects or interactions, when controlling for time of class. Overall, participants in the experimental condition (M = 13.99, SE = .27) scored on average as well as those in the control condition (M = 14.23, SE = .28), F(1, 90) = 3.90, p > .05.

Formative Perceptions

Perceived experience

The ANCOVA on perceived experience revealed a significant condition main effect, F(1, 90) = 4.98, p < .05, η² = .05. Participants in the experimental condition rated their perceived experience more positively (M = 4.31, SD = 0.42) than those in the control condition (M = 4.12, SD = 0.37), with controlling for time of class. Neither the time main effect nor the Condition × Time interaction approached significance. Post hoc analysis revealed that participants in the experimental condition rated the course significantly more enjoyable, motivating, engaging, and fun than in the control condition (see Table 2).

Perceived learning

The ANCOVA on perceived learning revealed a significant condition main effect, F(1, 90) = 11.58, p < .01, η² = .11. Participants in the experimental condition revealed higher perceptions of learning (M = 4.34, SD = 0.46) than those in the control condition (M = 4.06, SD = 0.41), with controlling for time of class. Neither the time main effect nor the Condition × Time interaction approached significance, though time of class did approach significance, p = .052. Post hoc analysis revealed that participants in the experimental condition perceptions of learning were significantly higher than those in the control condition on all individual variables (see Table 2).

Perceived impact of teaching techniques

Students in the experimental condition perceived the group activities used in the course as impacting their learning (M = 5.78, SD = 0.97) significantly more than those in the control condition (M = 5.36, SD = 0.81), t(91)= −2.24, p < .05. Students in the experimental condition perceived the team projects used in the course as impacting their learning (M = 5.63, SD = 0.93) significantly more than those in the control condition (M = 5.16, SD = 0.87), t(91)= −2.52, p < .05. Students’ perceptions on all other teaching techniques in the course were not significant. For the experimental condition only, students report high impact of role-playing (M = 5.43, SD = 1.23) as a teaching technique used throughout the course.

Summative Perceptions

Analysis of the entire 19-item scale (α = .95) showed students reported favorable perceptions on average on all individual items (for a full list of means and standard deviations, see Table 3). In regard to perceptions of skills learned via games, collaboration and teamwork were reported as the top skill (87.5%) that games provide. In all, 83.3% of students checked creativity and problem-solving, 79.2% checked critical thinking and leading/motivating, and 58.3% selected analyzing/classifying as the skills games provide. Interestingly, only 5.9% preferred a competitive learning style, while 47.1% preferred a cooperative learning style, which defines learning by working with other students, and 47.1% of students reported an individual learning style (i.e., learning on own).

Table 3.
Descriptive Statistics of Students Perceptions of Overall Meaningful Gamified Course.

Items M SD

I enjoyed role-playing in this class 4.04 0.95

The role-playing kept me engaged 4.29 0.75

I would recommend role-playing in future courses to other instructors 3.95 1.16

Being part of a team motivated me to study 3.83 1.04

Role-playing in class provided excitement to the course 4.12 0.94

Role-playing in class provided me with a challenge 4.12 0.79

Role-playing allowed me to compete with others in the class 3.54 1.25

Role-playing stimulated my curiosity regarding the course material 3.75 1.07

Role-playing in class to learn did not motivate me to study 2.12 0.94

Role-playing stimulated me emotionally 3.08 0.92

Role-playing helped to stop me from being bored 4.04 0.99

I enjoyed being part of a team 4.04 1.19

I believe the roles fit well with each chapter’s text material 3.95 0.72

I believe the role-playing provided a good overview of the topics in the chapter 3.95 0.72

I did not learn anything about the intended topic while role-playing in the class 1.54 0.80

I believe role-playing increased my content knowledge of industrial psychology concepts 4.22 0.81

If I had the choice, I would choose to enroll in courses where role-playing is used 3.45 1.29

If I had to vote, I would vote against using role-playing in the industrial psychology classroom 1.90 1.10

I am enthusiastic about instructors using game elements in the classroom to teach industrial psychology 4.27 0.88

Note. 5-Point Likert-type scales with higher numbers indicating greater agreement (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Due to the low response rate of overall perception measure at the end of the courses, total response rate N = 24.

Discussion

As hypothesized, these results support that creating an active learning environment that promotes social collaboration via the implementation of meaningful gamification elements leads to higher perceptions of engagement, motivation, and perceived learning of course material when students were engaged in role-playing, play, and exposition, while also giving higher impact to instructional techniques (e.g., group activities, team projects) compared to a traditional classroom using the same instructional techniques. Interestingly, our hypothesis that students in the gamified class would have higher learning outcomes than those in the traditional course was not supported. Although quantitative research exploring meaningful gamification is in its infancy, past research in game-based learning in higher education suggests that the incorporation of game-based learning principles leads to higher knowledge gains compared to traditional courses (Stansbury & Munro, 2013; Stansbury, Wheeler, & Buckingham, 2014). However, the current research demonstrates that the incorporation of meaningful gamification elements is just as effective as traditional learning methods in higher education in regard to learning outcomes.

Although learning outcomes do not increase between conditions, students’ perceptions of learning and perceived experience in the course increase. As shown in Table 2, students reported that the instructional design (i.e., inclusion of play, exposition, choice) of the course led to significantly higher perceptions of understanding course content, increasing student confidence, keeping students involved in the class, reinforcing key concepts, developing their reasoning ability, and increasing application of course content relative to the traditional condition. Importantly, and important to any successful students’ ability to become a lifelong learner, students in the experimental condition reported the course motivated them to learn more than the traditional course. Furthermore, students recommended using this activity in other industrial psychology courses and reported willingness to enroll in other courses that employed role-playing instructional techniques.

Designing courses that include meaningful gamification elements may be intimidating to some course instructors, especially if interaction with technology is perceived to be a key component. This research suggests, however, that instructors do not need to be familiar with specialized technology in order to integrate meaningful gamification elements into their course structure. For example, there are a variety of disciplines explored in an introduction to psychology courses including social, developmental, IO, clinical, and experimental psychologists or the various therapies perspectives included in an abnormal psychology course. Incorporating similar narrative and role-play techniques, instructors could assign students to teams of disciplines or theories and encourage them to play the part of social psychologists or experimental psychologists throughout the semester. This would allow students to immerse themselves into a unique perspective, which provides a deeper connection with all course material. Having students share multiple perspectives would create an atmosphere of diversity and divergent thinking that would encourage open-mindedness allowing students to learn collaboratively, while increasing intrinsic motivation, engagement, critical thinking skills, and collaboration with course material. This meaningful gamification element could be incorporated easily with course objectives and syllabi across psychology courses.

Conclusion

Despite many successful innovative teaching methods to capture students’ interest in psychology courses, there is no research that explores meaningful gamification integration in higher education, using a quantitative methodology to assess this instructional technique as an effective teaching method. This research supports that via implementation of some meaningful gamification elements (e.g., exposition, play, choice), students report higher enjoyment, engagement, and motivation in learning compared to traditional courses. Beausaert, Segers, and Wiltink (2013) and Stes, De Maeyer, Gijbels, and Van Petegem (2012) research stresses the importance of understanding the impact of students’ perceptions of learning in order to design effective instruction and increase intrinsic motivation for learning (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Malone, 1981). Creating a learning environment that impacts students perceptions of learning positively may also lead to an increase in students’ self-efficacy, which can lead to higher intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2008) and a passion for learning.

However, future research is needed to begin to understand how each gamification element influences the students’ perceptions of learning and whether or not these elements can promote long-term learning as theoretical research suggests (Nicholson, 2012). For example, it is possible that just creating a strong context (e.g., narrative) for the students to interact with the course content within a set of predefined boundaries (e.g., rules) while working collaboratively with peers influences the motivation and investment students put forth in their coursework. Are there individual differences unaccounted for that influence the relationship of game play and learning? As our teaching and learning epistemological beliefs continue to progress, it is important to reconsider simple, yet foundational learning principles such as play.

Course Component	Traditional Course	Meaningful Gamification Overlay	Meaningful Gamification Element
Description	During this course, we will seek to understand human behavior and mental processes in the workplace through exploration of psychological theories and application	This course will involve role-playing exercises and multiple levels of analysis (individual, team, and class)	Play, exposition
Participation	Each student will participate in activities that may take the form of group work, speaker presentations, individual tasks, or instructional training	Each student will role-play as one of the five types of individuals that exist in the organization context. Students will act and dress in their assigned roles during class time. Instructions for how each role will act and dress is provided in the role-play rules section of the syllabus. Failure to follow role-play rules will result in a deduction of experience points (XP)	Narrative, play
Grading	Student grades will be assessed using a combination of quizzes, activities, a team project, midterm, and final comprehensive exam	Each assignment in the course is worth XP (points earned through completion of the assignment) that reflect the student’s mastery of the overall course material (level)	Feedback
Extra credit	Extra credit can be earned via research pool and other course opportunities	Prosocial organizational behaviors (active classroom participation, helping other students, arriving to class on time, etc.) will results in the accumulation of additional extra credit points. Antisocial organizational behaviors (arriving to class late, disruptive classroom activities, cheating, etc.) will result in a reduction of extra credit XP.	Choice, autonomy, social relatedness

	Gamified Condition	Traditional Condition
Perceived experiences
Motivation	4.34 (.48)	4.05 (.46)
Enjoyment	4.43 (.44)	4.14 (.46)
Engagement*	4.55 (.43)	4.32 (.41)
Fun	4.34 (.50)	4.03 (.52)
Perceptions of learning
Increasing understanding of course content	4.45 (.49)	4.12 (.42)
Increasing my confidence	4.19 (.53)	3.69 (.57)
Keeping me involved in the classroom	4.56 (.44)	4.28 (.46)
Reinforcing key concepts	4.39 (.51)	4.11 (.47)
Motivating my learning	4.32 (.50)	4.00 (.50)
Developing my ability to reason	4.26 (.55)	3.95 (.42)
Increasing application of course content*	4.46 (.49)	4.19 (.53)

Items	M	SD
I enjoyed role-playing in this class	4.04	0.95
The role-playing kept me engaged	4.29	0.75
I would recommend role-playing in future courses to other instructors	3.95	1.16
Being part of a team motivated me to study	3.83	1.04
Role-playing in class provided excitement to the course	4.12	0.94
Role-playing in class provided me with a challenge	4.12	0.79
Role-playing allowed me to compete with others in the class	3.54	1.25
Role-playing stimulated my curiosity regarding the course material	3.75	1.07
Role-playing in class to learn did not motivate me to study	2.12	0.94
Role-playing stimulated me emotionally	3.08	0.92
Role-playing helped to stop me from being bored	4.04	0.99
I enjoyed being part of a team	4.04	1.19
I believe the roles fit well with each chapter’s text material	3.95	0.72
I believe the role-playing provided a good overview of the topics in the chapter	3.95	0.72
I did not learn anything about the intended topic while role-playing in the class	1.54	0.80
I believe role-playing increased my content knowledge of industrial psychology concepts	4.22	0.81
If I had the choice, I would choose to enroll in courses where role-playing is used	3.45	1.29
If I had to vote, I would vote against using role-playing in the industrial psychology classroom	1.90	1.10
I am enthusiastic about instructors using game elements in the classroom to teach industrial psychology	4.27	0.88

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Francis Jedrzejewski, Nicholas Myers, and The Players Research Lab team for their help in data collection.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Baker

P. M. A.

Bujak

K. R.

DeMillo

(2012). The evolving university: Disruptive change and institutional innovation. Procedia Computer Science, 14, 330–335. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2012.10.037

Barab

Zuiker

Warren

Hickey

Ingram-Goble

Kwon

… Herring

S. C.

(2007). Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalisms and contexts. Science Education, 91, 750–782. doi:10.1002/sce.20217

Beausaert

S. A. J.

Segers

M. S.

Wiltink

D. P. A.

(2013). The influence of teachers’ teaching approaches on students’ learning approaches: The student perspective. Educational Research, 55, 1–15. doi:10.1080/00131881.2013.767022

Codish

Ravid

(2014). Personality based gamification: How different personalities perceive gamification. In ECIS 2014 Proceedings. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2014/proceedings/track12/10

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

(2004). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49, 182–185.

Deterding

(2012). Gamification: Designing for motivation. Interactions, 19, 14–17. Retrieved from http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2212877.2212883\nhttp://dl.acm.org/ft_gateway.cfm?id=2212883&type=pdf

Deterding

Khaled

Nacke

Dixon

(2011). Gamification: Toward a definition. Chi, 12–15.

Farzan

DiMicco

J. M.

Millen

D. R.

Brownholtz

Geyer

Dugan

(2008). When the experiment is over: Deploying an incentive system to all the users. In Symposium on Persuasive Technology.

10.

Felicia

(2012). Motivation in games: A literature review. International Journal of Computer Science in Sport, 11, 4–14.

11.

Fitz-Walter

Tjondronegoro

Wyeth

(2011). Orientation passport: Using gamification to engage university students. In Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference in Canberra, Australia, ACM, pp. 122–125.

12.

Gee

J. P.

(2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

13.

Hamari

(2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12, 236–245.

14.

Hamari

Koivisto

Sarsa

(2014). Does gamification work?—A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 3025–3034). IEEE Computer Society. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2014.377

15.

Iosup

Epema

(2008). An experience report on using gamification in technical higher education. End Report to Parliamentary Investigation. Dutch Government, Second Chamber Report. Retrieved from http://www.pds.ewi.tudelft.nl/∼iosup/gamification-higher-education14sigcse_sub.pdf

16.

Kapp

K. M.

(2012). Games, gamification, and the quest for learner engagement. T+D, 66, 64.

17.

Malone

T. W.

(1981). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science, 5, 333–369. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0504_2

18.

McGonigal

(2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

19.

McGregor

Cooper

J. L.

Smith

K. A.

Robinson

(2000). Strategies for energizing large classes: From small groups to learning communities: New directions for teaching and learning (Eds.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

20.

Nicholson

(2012). A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification. In Paper Presented at Games+Learning+Society 8.0. Madison, WI. Retrieved from http://www.quilageo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Framework-for-Meaningful-Gamifications.pdf

21.

Nicholson

(2013). Exploring gamification techniques for classroom management. In Games+Learning+Society 9.0. Madison, WI. Retrieved from http://scottnicholson.com/pubs/gamificationtechniquesclassroom.pdf

22.

Nicholson

(2015). A RECIPE for Meaningful Gamification. In Wood

Reiners

(Eds.), Gamification in education and business (pp. 1–20). New York: Springer.

23.

Paschall

Wustenhagen

(2011). More than a game: Learning about climate change through role-play. Journal of Management Education, 36, 510–543. doi:10.1177/1052562911411156

24.

Prensky

(2001). Digital game-based learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

25.

Rose

D. H.

Meyer

(2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

26.

Sheldon

(2012). The multiplayer classroom designing coursework as a game. Boston, MA: Course Technology/Cengage Learning.

27.

Stansbury

J. A.

Munro

G. D.

(2013). Gaming in the classroom: An innovative way to teach factorial designs. Teaching of Psychology, 40, 148–152. doi:10.1177/0098628312475037

28.

Stansbury

J. A.

Wheeler

E. A.

Buckingham

J. T.

(2014). Can Wii engage college-level learners? Use of commercial off-the-shelf gaming in an introductory statistics course. Computers in the Schools, 31, 103–115.

29.

Stes

De Maeyer

Gijbels

Van Petegem

(2012). Instructional development for teachers in higher education: Effects on students’ perceptions of the teaching-learning environment. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 398–419. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02032.x

30.

Squire

(2007). Games, learning, and society: Building a field. Educational Technology, 47, 51–55.

	Gamified Condition	Traditional Condition
Dependent Measures	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
Perceived experiences
Motivation	4.34 (.48)	4.05 (.46)
Enjoyment	4.43 (.44)	4.14 (.46)
Engagement*	4.55 (.43)	4.32 (.41)
Fun	4.34 (.50)	4.03 (.52)
Perceptions of learning
Increasing understanding of course content	4.45 (.49)	4.12 (.42)
Increasing my confidence	4.19 (.53)	3.69 (.57)
Keeping me involved in the classroom	4.56 (.44)	4.28 (.46)
Reinforcing key concepts	4.39 (.51)	4.11 (.47)
Motivating my learning	4.32 (.50)	4.00 (.50)
Developing my ability to reason	4.26 (.55)	3.95 (.42)
Increasing application of course content*	4.46 (.49)	4.19 (.53)