Designing With Game-Based Learning: Game Mechanics From Middle School to Higher Education

Abstract

Background. The use of game-based learning strategies in higher education has shown promise to increase student motivation and achievement. Little is known about which game mechanics are most appropriate and effective for learners at different academic levels.

Aim. This article examines teacher selection and implementation of game mechanics in 27 courses from middle school to higher education designed with game-based learning.

Method. 27 educators participated in an open-ended survey on the design of their course. Measures included an open response survey on patterns and design of game mechanics with results validated through member checking.

Results. Findings included different choices of game attritubes and game elements in courses in middle school, high school, and higher education. Teacher selection and inclusion of game mechanics changed over time to better meet the needs of students.

Conclusions. The structure of game-based learning at different levels will vary to meet the developmental and academic needs of students, but more work is needed in determining which strategies are most effective for learning.

Keywords

academic games curriculum design game-based learning games teaching

Introduction

Game mechanics are considered the building blocks of games, and they are the tools that invoke a meaningful response from the learner when used correctly (Sicart, 2008; Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011). Although a variety of mechanics are used in game-based learning (GBL) environments to motivate and engage learners, each game design is a distinctive combination of strategies and game features (Jabbar & Felicia, 2015). Researchers are beginning to identify a common list of game mechanics (Alaswad & Nadolny, 2015; Bedwell, Pavlas, Heyne, Lazzara, & Salas, 2012; Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011), but effective combinations of specific game strategies are lacking. In Seriously Considering Design in Educational Games (2015), Gaydos stated that researchers must provide more specifics on design of potentially impactful games and “to reliably convert that potential into action” (p.478).

This study examined the design strategies used by teachers who have chosen to take a comprehensive integration of games, whether digital or analog, into their curriculum. Despite the increased interest in educational gaming environments, our understanding on this topic is in its early stages (Hanghøj & Brund, 2011). Many aspects remain unclear: How are teachers modeling games? What processes do teachers use to implement GBL? Are specific game genres appropriate for certain content areas? Unlike more established methodologies such as project-based learning or problem-based learning, GBL lacks consistent and systematic processes that teachers can utilize. Therefore, the authors determined that an examination of instructional practices by those experienced with GBL was essential to begin modeling the process. Modeling how GBL is currently being implemented in the field is benefical for researchers, curriculum developers, and teachers who wish to further investigate or implement game mechanics for teaching and learning.

To reach this goal and begin defining the field of GBL at different academic levels, we surveyed an international group of middle school, high school, and higher education teachers. Purposeful and snowball sampling were used to recruit leaders in the field to participate in an in-depth survey. Member checking validated research results and gathered further input from the community.

Theoretical Framework

Designing with games in mind requires a focus on increasing user engagement, motivation, and achievement. Approaches to designing game based learning enviornments vary according to the different educational settings and learning goals. Harteveld’s (2011) approach takes into account balance, meaning, and play. His approach is built upon a number of learning and gaming theories such as theory of flow, cognitive apprenticeship, behaviorism and others. Van Staalduinen and de Freitas (2011) added that designing games for learning purposes should also integrate theories of constructivism and engagement in addition to instructional design theories. Put in the perspective of theories of motivation, the ARCS Model of Motivational Design connects individual users’ attention to the task, relevance of the task, and confidence in the task to increased performance and satisfaction of a learning experience (Figure 1, Keller, 1987, 2008).

Figure 1.

ARCS model of motivation.

In GBL, game mechanics are the mechanism for motivation. This process within GBL is complicated by the specific design of the game activities in combination with the characteristics of the user (Jabbar & Felicia, 2015).

Alaswad & Nadolny (2015; Figure 2) illustrated the process of designing with GBL pedagogy in relation to instructional design and motivation. The model included the consideration of game mechanics together with learning goals and assessments before determining learning activities. This model is in alignment with popular instructional design models by beginning with the larger learning goals, narrowing on specific activities, and then evaluating effectiveness (e.g. Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2009).

Figure 2.

Game-based learning cycle.

In GBL, the instructional experience is at its foundation based upon game mechanics, that is, the structures and strategies that are prevalent in games throughout history (Plass, Homer, & Kinzer, 2015). For example, Qian and Clark (2016) described GBL as “an environment where game content and game play enhance knowledge and skills acquisition, and where game activities involve problem solving spaces and challenges that provide players/learners with a sense of achievement” (p.51). The process above can be distinguished from the increasingly popular term of gamification, when game mechanics are utilized but the foundational structure of a learning experience does not change (Deterding, Sicart, Nacke, O’Hara, & Dixon, 2011).

Game mechanics can be further broken down into game attributes and game elements (Table 1). Game attributes are defined as features and characteristics inherent in the game structure and are likely to initiate and maintain interest in gaming activities (Hull, Williams, & Griffiths, 2013). These broad sweeping attributes are intentionally included by the game designer to create a certain experience for the player. Game elements can be defined as a set of tools shared by games, but not necessarily critical conditions of games (Deterding, Dixon, et al., 2011). They are front-line experiences for the player, where he or she can directly interact with the game.

Table 1.

Examples of Game Mechanics Applicable to Education (Bedwell, Pavlas, Heyne, Lazzara, & Salas, 2012; Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011; Gamification Wiki, 2016).

Game Attributes	Action language, assessment, conflict/challenge, control, environment, game fiction, human interaction, immersion, rules/goals
Game Elements	Badges, leaderboard, levels, time constraints, limited resources, turns, points, rewards, appointments, loss aversion, quests, status, virality, ownership, adaptive release, boss level, instant feedback

For example, adaptive release is the ability to open content to students based on pre-determined criteria. If a student completes a quiz, new content such as learning modules or rewards will become available. The central role of these motivating interactions has lead game elements (e.g., leaderboards and badges) to become popular additions to a variety of contexts, such as business and industry (Robson, Plangger, Kietzmann, McCarthy, & Pitt, 2016).

The Current Study

This investigation was designed to examine the design process and implementation of teachers experienced in GBL, through the use of a survey to gather data and observe patterns (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011). In order to reach this goal, the following two research questions guide this study:

RQ1: What patterns of game mechanics are utilized by teachers?

RQ2: How do those patterns change over time?

Detailed below are the research methods used to collect data from the study participants, along with results from survey and member checking events.

Method

Participants

This study utilized purposeful sampling and snowball sampling in the selection of teachers (Cohen et al., 2011). This method allows researchers to identify similarities between cases, illuminate patterns within a specific population, and reduce the complexity of analysis (Palinkas et al., 2015). The criterion for inclusion in our sample was that the participants be (1) educators of students within the K-20 levels and (2) implemented game-based learing curriculum design in a classroom setting. We identified individuals through books, journal articles, conference proceedings, social media, blogs, and videos, and contacted them directly via email or social media (N = 51). Our goal was to reach those teachers who had publicly written about, reflected upon, or innovated with the use of GBL in curricular design and planning. This determination of potential participants was not difficult, as the pool who advertise this type of work are frequently cited as pioneers in this area. To reach even more teachers who may not have publically promoted their experience, we asked teachers on the survey to recommend additional participants.

Of those who completed the survey (N = 28), we removed any teachers who indicated that they had not implemented GBL with students (N = 1). Our final sample, listed in Table 2, included a diverse set of 27 teachers. Their ages ranging from 26 to 64 years old with an average of 14 years teaching experience. The majority of teachers were male (72%) with one participant not identifying a gender. Our sample included courses delivered with and without technology, including two online courses, 20 blended courses, and five face-to-face courses.

Table 2.

Profiles of Survey Participants. Academic levels include middle school (MS), high school (HS), and higher education (HE) teachers.

Participant	Academic Level	Country	Course Topic	Number of students in the GBL course	Number of times taught course with GBL
1	MS	USA	English	12	2
2	MS	USA	Science	36	6
3	MS	USA	English	20	3
4	HS	USA	Technology	24	12
5	HS	Canada	English	20	3
6	HS	USA	Science	25	3
7	HS	Asia	English	20	2
8	HS	USA	Science	26	3
9	HS	USA	Science	30	4
10	HS	USA	Science	25	3
11	HS	USA	English	25	3
12	HS	USA	Science	24	2
13	HS	USA	History	25	2
14	HS	USA	Technology	33	2
15	HS	USA	Technology	170*	1
16	HE	Europe	Educational Technology	40	3
17	HE	USA	Educational Technology	15	2
18	HE	USA	Science	30	5
19	HE	USA	Education	18	2
20	HE	USA	Games Design	25	5
21	HE	USA	History	25	8
22	HE	USA	Educational Technology	25	10
23	HE	USA	English	22	1
24	HE	Europe	English	60	2
25	HE	USA	Game Design	30	1
26	HE	USA	Educational Technology	15	5
27	HE	South America	Mathematics	25	2

All numbers over 40 were confirmed with the participant to clarify students within one section of a course only. This number could not be confirmed and is excluded from data analysis.

Data Collection

The survey instrument was developed to align with game mechanics presented in the research literature (Table 3; Garris & Ahlers, 2001; Smith et al., 2011; Wilson et al., 2009). A total of 27 questions included demographics, course information, selection of game attributes, selection of game elements, and open ended questions for additional information (see Appendix). The survey was electronically delivered to teachers in fall 2014 over a two-month period using Qualtrics. Several teachers contacted the research team after completion of the survey to offer additional support for the study or request resources on GBL.

Table 3.

Survey Question Alignment to Study Topics.

Topic	Survey question	Supporting research
Contextual factors	1-6, 13-15	Nadolny (2016); Sheldon (2011); Dick, Carey, and Carey (2015)
Game mechanics	7-12	Wilson et al. (2009); Garris and Ahlers (2001); Smith et al. (2011)
Changes in design	17, 19-22	Salen and Zimmerman (2004); Zimmerman (2003)
Design process	16, 18	Dick, Carey, and Carey (2009)

Data Analysis

Both quantitative and qualitative data analyses were utilized in this study. Qualitative data analysis was guided by the work of Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2014), including (1) coding, (2) identifying patterns, (2) reviewing patterns with teachers, (3) determining generalizations, and (4) comparing those generalizations to the research literature.

Data analysis began by reviewing each teacher broadly for thematic trends and creating a preliminary list of codes for the qualitative data. Due to the number of teachers to code, each researcher was assigned a group to review with the preliminary codes while also suggesting potential new codes. The list of codes was finalized between all researchers and then re-coded using the refined list. Over five months, the research team met as a group on eight different occasions to review each thematic finding and discuss research results. Quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and provided evidence for thematic findings in game attributes and game elements.

Member checking events were offered to all participating teachers to solicit feedback on preliminary results (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Four individuals agreed to participate in these events, including two college faculty members (MC1, MC2), one high school teacher (MC3), and one middle school teacher (MC4). The four events took place in March 2015. As discussed in Creswell and Miller (2000), the goal of the sessions was to explore the following questions: (1) Do our findings make sense?, (2) Do we have enough evidence for our claims?, (3) Are the findings realistic and accurate?, and (4) Do you have any additional information you want to add to support or refute the claims? Finally, the results were compared with the research literature and are presented in the discussion section below.

Results

The qualitative data analysis conducted for this study revealed significant patterns across and differences between academic levels. The game attributes and elements utilized by middle school, high school, and college educators varied depending upon what the educators believed to be important or motivating for their students. Due to this strong pattern, the results were organized around academic level.

Game Attributes

Based on descriptive statistics of the survey results, high school and college teachers chose similar attributes (Figure 3). The attributes selected with the highest frequency were assessment, interaction between students, and rules and goals. However, the quantitative data revieled a different pattern for middle school teachers as the conflict or challenge attribute was the most selected by teachers. This was confirmed through member checking, where the teachers agreed that the academic priorities and sources of motivation are different for middle school students. At the middle school level, the students will engage quickly with a creative narrative and are not focused on academic achievement or class ranking (MC4, MC1). As one middle school teacher noted on his emphasis for challenge, “success in not guaranteed [in my game]. If you finish, this is an extreme accomplishment”.

Figure 3.

Frequency of selected game attributes by grade level.

Game Elements

According to the survey results, high school and college teachers selected points, quests, instant feedback, and academic rewards with the highest frequency. On the other hand, middle school teachers included quests, instant feedback, competition, and adaptive release items most often in their course (Figure 4). Academic grades motivate students at different developmental levels, and this is reflected in the choices made by teachers when choosing game elements (MC1). The middle school member checking (MC4) teacher rationalized the emphasis on instant feedback and leveling to align with middle school students’ need for instant gratification and constant engagement. The teacher in the high school member checking was not sure why it was not as important in higher education, stating that it is “interesting that instant feedback is not important in college, because instant feedback is really really important when you’re teaching at any level”.

Figure 4.

Frequency of selected game attributes by grade level.

Although all of these elements were used in some way by the group, how students were motivated by these game elements was not consistent. Some found success with badges or rewards and competition, while others did not (Table 4). The game elements that motivated students the most included quests, instant feedback, academic rewards, adaptive release items, and points. This highlights the individual nature of GBL and the importance of context in determining game elements.

Table 4.

Student Motivation and Game Elements.

#	Question	Positively	Neutral	Negatively	Total Responses
1	Badges	57.89%	42.11%	0.00%	19
2	Leaderboard	72.22%	27.78%	0.00%	18
3	Rewards: academic (extra points, bonus items)	79.17%	20.83%	0.00%	24
4	Rewards: non-academic (candy, prizes)	61.54%	38.46%	0.00%	13
5	Quests	80.00%	20.00%	0.00%	25
6	Boss Level	66.67%	33.33%	0.00%	15
7	Points	75.00%	25.00%	0.00%	24
8	Instant feedback	82.61%	17.39%	0.00%	23
9	Unlock / adaptive release items	76.47%	17.65%	5.88%	17
10	Competitive tasks	63.16%	36.84%	0.00%	19

Reflections on Design

The satisfaction with GBL was overwhelmingly positive, with only one survey teacher indicating that he would not teach the same course again with GBL. He reported that it “took up too much prep time, [and I] didn’t see a significant difference in student attitudes as opposed to the regular course.” The time commitment required for GBL was frequently reported by teachers, but was seen as a minor concern since most teachers saw immediate and positive feedback from students.

The teachers in our sample continuing with GBL are all in the iterative design process of GBL, from one teacher on her first iteration to another who has taught the course 12 times (Table 2). They all reported goals and ideas for future changes, and this was confirmed through member checking (MC1, MC2, MC3, MC4).

I will absolutely make changes next time I teach it. I am a strong believer in the iterative design process. We’ve just implemented a new way to do roles (RPG classes like wizard and rogue), and we’ll revisit them at the end of the semester and evaluate their effectiveness.

My changes have evolved in terms of enhancing and complexifying the storylines. Adding in more challenges and side-quests. And creating more path for students to choose from.

Of course, I’m always adjusting depending on my students. I may change storylines, add to the storyline, change game events, etc.

Yup. Changes every time. I get better at crafting the game just like the students get better at playing it. Both of us having a great time with the challenges and successes!

Finding the balance between attributes, elements, motivation, and content is difficult, but as one participant mentioned, “changes settle down after a few iterations of the design.” Table 5 lists the path some teachers traveled to reach the current version. Changes were made by simply removing components for the sake of simplification, as well as adding components to enhance attributes such as student autonomy. The scoring system seemed to be a main reason for course design iterations by providing balance between students’ scores and experience, and also through restructuring of the leveling strategy (MC1, MC2, MC3).

Table 5.

Iterations at Different Grade Levels.

Level	Content Area	% of Course online	Iterations	Quote
MS	English	0%	3	The initial game was far too complex. I eliminated some components, such as “hidden achievements,” as I was unable to track them effectively. I teach multiage, and so I could not run the “original” game two years in a row, so I experimented in Year Two with three variants that were significantly different from the original game. When I returned to the original game in Year Three, I simplified a couple of other elements (of particular note, the means of determining XP earned on a given assignment), as the original method was cumbersome.
HS	English	25-75%	3	Course changes constantly and I’ve made a bunch of changes. Too many to write about. Most recently I introduced perks to creative class cohesion and powers to give students agency over learning.
HS	Technology	<25%	12	Over the past five years, the system has gone through many iterations. Two other teachers (one math, one history) have started to use the system, and their own iterations have created multiple forks of the system. Iteration items include addition of side quests, addition of badges (and constant iteration of those badges), economic adjustments to the loot system, addition of roles, removal of roles, addition of revamped roles, and probably some other things I’m forgetting (sorry).
HE	Educational Technology	25-75%	3	Tried to make the game less competitive; Rebalance the scoring to make the experience more continuous; gradually got rid of “traditional” evaluation criteria such as a final exam.
HE	Science	<25%	5	The first iteration did not have a game mechanic beyond “The team with the most points wins a prize.” The second iteration used the multi-tiered mission and point structure in order to keep students engaged in the game throughout the course. The third and latest iteration uses the same multi-tiered structure, but places a greater emphasis on narrative and character/student avatar development to increase student engagement and desire to participate in the game.

Discussion and Limitations

Although many differences exist between classrooms for the motivation of students, grade level is an important consideration when planning for GBL. The variation of motivating factors at different grades and ages is consistent with what we know about youth and transitions between school-based levels. At the middle school level, students are less interested in school, have less intrinsic motivation, and begin to be concerned with grades. They are also concerned about their fit within the community (Eccles, 2004). For example, a game narrative was used most frequently with middle school teachers, allowing the connection of emotions and imagination through intentional storylines (Blakesley, 2013). One middle school teacher (Fallon, 2014) created a narrative based on Odysseus, engaging most of the class but not all.

The “Sherlock Holmes” type thinkers - who have to crack any puzzle given to them - get addicted fast. One student this year would routinely beg for the next step and then proceed to spend hours of his own time that night to solve the puzzle. The middle ground students are either interested in playing a “game” or are incentivized by extra credit, or both. There are some students who hit the first wall and stop. (p.100)

This idea of engaging more students than usual, but also turning off a few, was also a consistent theme in this study. But these teachers, like high school teacher Paul Darvasi (2014), chose to keep going forward because of the tremendous response from students, the “students who had wilted at the back of the class for 4 years come alive and work tirelessly at a time when they should have been at their lowest levels of motivation” (p. 335).

During high school, students are concerned with the opinions and beliefs of their family and peers, but also look towards teachers for validation of academic achievement (Legault, Green-Demers, & Pelletier, 2006). This can be particularly important for low achieving students who need closely scaffolded academic support that GBL can provide. At the college level, academic achievement, particularly grades, are a key concern for students. Strategies such as increasing self-efficacy through detailed feedback, assisting with goal setting, and leveling content for effort regulation can help college students achieve academic success (Richardson, Abraham, & Bond, 2012).

This research study is limited by the sampling of experts in the field of GBL as participants. Additional representation would strengthen future research studies, including those who tried but did not continue on with GBL, more international educators outside of the U.S., as well as an equal number of representatives from each grade level. Future studies should include classroom observation, detailed game design, and reliable measures of student motivation and achievement. In addition, technology can play a large role in the implementation of game mechanics, and future studies may want to examine the role of technology and effectiveness of different tools.

Conclusion

The structure of curriculum in the context of game mechanics varied depending on the level of students. In particular, challenge, feedback and competition were prominent in middle school. Assessment, points and rewards were important for high school and college. The leveling of information, or quests, were frequently used game element at all levels. Although the use of badges, non-academic rewards, and competition are popular game mechanics, they may not be as effective as other strategies. In addition, iterative design, including debriefing of students and reflection of the teacher, was a normal part of the process. This research study provides foundational guidance for researchers and curriculum developers in selecting game mechanics that may be appropriate for different levels of education, but more work is needed in determining which strategies are most effective for learning.

Footnotes

Appendix

Please provide us with some information about the classroom or course you designed with GBL (game-based learning). Answer all of the following questions with this course in mind.

Compliance With Ethical Standards

This research was approved by our institution’s Institutional Review Board or research ethics committee.

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.

Author Biographies

Larysa Nadolny is an assistant professor in the School of Education at Iowa State University. Her research interests include examining factors in student motivation and achievement within game-based learning, augmented reality, and virtual reality environments.

Contact: lnadolny@iastate.edu

Zina Alaswad is a visiting instructor at the Interior Design Program in the School of Construction and Design at University of Southern Mississippi. She received her MFA in Interior Design and PhD in Education from Iowa State University. She enjoys teaching drafting, and residential design studios and her research interests focus on design studios pedagogy and using game-based learning in studio courses.

Contact: Zina.Alaswad@usm.edu

Dennis Culver is an instructional support specialist in the Center for Technology in Learning and Teaching at Iowa State University. His research interests include classroom technology integration, game-based learning, and K-12 engineering education.

Contact: dculver@iastate.edu

Wei Wang is an English textbook editor at Kang Hsuan Educational Publishing Group. She received her MS and PhD in Education with specialization in instructional technology. Her research interests include technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), educational technology in teacher education and game-based learning.

Contact: weiyui72@iastate.edu

References

Alaswad

Nadolny

(2015). Designing for game-based learning: The effective integration of technology to support learning. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 43(4), 389-402.

Bedwell

W. L.

Pavlas

Heyne

Lazzara

E. H.

Salas

(2012). Toward a taxonomy linking game attributes to learning an empirical study. Simulation & Gaming, 43(6), 729-760.

Blakesley

(2013). The role of narrative in the design of an educational game. In Williams

C. C.

Ochsner

Dietmeier

Steinkuehler

(Eds.), Proceedings GLS 9.0: Games + Learning + Society Conference (pp. 46-52). Madison, WI: Games + Learning + Society.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Creswell

J. W.

Miller

D. L.

(2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.

Darvasi

(2014). The Ward Game: A pervasive novel study. In Ochsner

Dietmeier

Williams

C. C.

Steinkuehler

(Eds.), Proceedings GLS 10.0: Games + Learning + Society Conference (pp. 334-336). Madison, WI: Games + Learning + Society.

Deterding

Dixon

Khaled

Nacke

(2011, September). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9-15). Tampere, Finland: ACM.

Deterding

Sicart

Nacke

O’Hara

Dixon

(2011, May). Gamification: Using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. In Workshop presented at CHI 2011, Vancouver, Canada.

Dick

Carey

J. O.

(2009). The systematic design of instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson.

10.

Dick

Carey

J. O.

(2015). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

11.

Eccles

J. S.

(2004). Schools, academic motivation, and stage-environment fit. In Lerner

R. M.

Steinberg

(Eds.). Handbook of adolescent psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 125-153). John Wiley and Sons.

12.

Fallon

(2014). Finding the journal of Odysseus: Making and using pervasive games in the classroom. In Ochsner

Dietmeier

Williams

C. C.

Steinkuehler

(Eds.), Proceedings GLS 10.0: Games + Learning + Society Conference (pp. 96-101). Madison, WI: Games + Learning + Society.

13.

Gamification Wiki. (2016). Game mechanics [Website]. Retrieved from https://badgeville.com/wiki/Game_Mechanics

14.

Garris

Ahlers

(2001, December). A game-based training model: Development, application, and evaluation. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference, Orlando, FL.

15.

Gaydos

(2015). Seriously considering design in educational games. Educational Researcher, 44(9), 478-483.

16.

Hanghøj

Brund

C. E.

(2011). Teachers and serious games: Teacher roles and positioning in relation to educational games. In Egenfelt-Nielsen, S., Meyer, B., & Sørensen, B.H. (Eds.), Serious games in education (pp. 125-136). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.

17.

Harteveld

(2011). Triadic game design: Balancing reality, meaning and play. London, England: Springer.

18.

Hull

D. C.

Williams

G. A.

Griffiths

M. D.

(2013). Video game characteristics, happiness and flow as predictors of addiction among video game players: A pilot study. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2(3), 145-152.

19.

Jabbar

A. I. A.

Felicia

(2015). Gameplay engagement and learning in game-based learning: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 740-779.

20.

Keller

J. M.

(1987). IMMS: Instructional Materials Motivation Survey. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.

21.

Keller

J. M.

(2008). An integrative theory of motivation, volition, and performance. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 6(2), 79-104.

22.

Legault

Green-Demers

Pelletier

(2006). Why do high school students lack motivation in the classroom? Toward an understanding of academic amotivation and the role of social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 567-582.

23.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

(2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

24.

Nadolny

(2016). EPIC WIN: Designing for success with game-based learning. In Chamblee

Langub

(Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 33-36). Savannah, GA, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

25.

Palinkas

L. A.

Horwitz

S. M.

Green

C. A.

Wisdom

J. P.

Duan

Hoagwood

(2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533-544.

26.

Plass

J. L.

Homer

B. D.

Kinzer

C. K.

(2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 258-283.

27.

Qian

Clark

K. R.

(2016). Game-based Learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent research. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 50-58.

28.

Richardson

Abraham

Bond

(2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353-387.

29.

Robson

Plangger

Kietzmann

J. H.

McCarthy

Pitt

(2016). Game on: Engaging customers and employees through gamification. Business Horizons, 59(1), 29-36.

30.

Salen

Zimmerman

(2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

31.

Sheldon

(2011). The multiplayer classroom: Designing coursework as a game. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

32.

Sicart

(2008). Defining game mechanics. Game Studies, 8(2), 1-14.

33.

Smith

Anderson

Kopleck

Lindblad

Scott

Wardell

Mateas

(2011). Situating quests: Design patterns for quest and level design in role-playing games. In Si

Thue

André

Lester

J.C.

Tanenbaum

Zammitto

(Eds.), Interactive storytelling (pp. 326-329). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

34.

Van Staalduinen

J. P.

de Freitas

. (2011). A game-based learning framework: Linking game design and learning. In Khine

(Ed.), Learning to play: Exploring the future of education with video games (pp. 29-54). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

35.

Wilson

K. A.

Bedwell

W. L.

Lazzara

E. H.

Salas

Burke

C. S.

Estock

J. L.

Conkey

(2009). Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes review and research proposals. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2), 217-266.

36.

Zichermann

Cunningham

(2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.

37.

Zimmerman

(2003). Play as research: The iterative design process. In Laurel

(Ed.), Design research: Methods and perspectives (pp. 176-184). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.