An experience report on using gamification in technical higher education

Technical universities, especially in Europe, are facing an important challenge in attracting more diverse groups of students, and in keeping the students they attract motivated and engaged in the curriculum. We describe our experience with gamification, which we loosely define as a teaching technique that uses social gaming elements to deliver higher education. Over the past three years, we have applied gamification to undergraduate and graduate courses in a leading technical university in the Netherlands and in Europe. Ours is one of the first long-running attempts to show that gamification can be used to teach technically challenging courses. The two gamification-based courses, the first-year B.Sc. course Computer Organization and an M.Sc.-level course on the emerging technology of Cloud Computing, have been cumulatively followed by over 450 students and passed by over 75% of them, at the first attempt. We find that gamification is correlated with an increase in the percentage of passing students, and in the participation in voluntary activities and challenging assignments. Gamification seems to also foster interaction in the classroom and trigger students to pay more attention to the design of the course. We also observe very positive student assessments and volunteered testimonials, and a Teacher of the Year award.

1. Can gamification be effective in teaching higher-education courses? (@iosup2014, 27)

1. We introduce a gamification toolbox for academic-level computer science (Section 2). 2. We design two gamification-based courses, which together cover a variety of desirable instructional goals (Section 3). 3. We approach gamification through an empirical method (Section 4). For three years, we have taught hundred of students who succeeded more than usual. We use passing ratios, participation counts, and results of evaluation surveys to quantify the effectiveness of using gamification in teaching our courses. 4. We summarize the lessons we have learned in applying gamification in academic-level CS education (Section 5). Our lessons are personal, but hopefully educative: we made mistakes, encountered student and organizational resistance, and read eye-opening student testimonials of how gamification has changed the life of our students. (@iosup2014, 28)
   • Experiment.
2. Player Classes The astute professor needs to understand and cater to different student skill-levels and personalities. We propose that skill can be assessed dynamically, via tests offered during the operation of the course, and that personality (or motivation) can be understood within the framework of four primary player-motivations defined by Bartle [3]:
   1. Explorers are players who enjoy understanding the worldthe student who is curious. Designing courses for these students is challenging for the educator, as students are interested in both the quality and the quantity of the material.
   2. Achievers enjoy completing most of the challenges they are presented with. These are our ambitious, high achieving students, who would strive not only to pass the course, but also to achieve at least a grade of 80%.
   3. Socializers participate in the game mainly because other players, in particular players like them, also do. Passing the course is interesting for them, if it allows them to continue being part of the same social circle.
   4. Winners (Killers in Bartle’s taxonomy) want to complete challenges at the expense of other players. For them, a challenge is good if it can only have one winner (preferably themselves). Many of the top-percentile students could belong to this category. Winners may be self-destructive, in that competitiveness may push them into burn-out, depression, or boredom. (@iosup2014, 28)
   • Framework.
3. Seven Core Tools for Course Gamification Our current approach for gamification of education units fits within the framework of Zichermann and Cunningham [17]. For them, as for many traditional theorists of computer games, games contain mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics. Mechanics define how games operate as systems, that is, the way they convert specific inputs into specific outputs. Dynamics guide how players and the game mechanics interact during the runtime of the game. Aesthetics refer to the way the game mechanics and dynamics interact with the game designer’s artistry, to produce cultural and emotional outcomes. We propose that mechanics and dynamics are what a course designer can systematically employ and tune to produce desired student and community behaviors; aesthetics, 28 albeit also important, are less predictable and thus not explicitly investigated in this work. We identify 7 core tools for gamification. The 3 core mechanics are:
   1. Point systems are managing the acquisition and expenditure of points, that is, of units of value internal to the game, that quantify student performance. Students may be rewarded with points that count towards the course grade; for example, 1,000 points may translate into the maximum course grade of 100%. Students may also earn points that are not directly linked to the course grade; for example, points that can be spent to propose a topic to be discussed in the next course. Points that expire, for example after each major component of the course or after one year, may be used to level the playing field or to prevent inflation.
   2. Levels, access, and power are ways to incentivize students to play, achieve, and excel, respectively. Levels are typically a direct result of accumulating experience (points). For example, the level of a student may be the final course grade of that student. Access describes what players can see and do inside the game system; access may be granted through level restrictions, continued good behavior, etc. For example, students may get access to additional material, one-hour mentoring sessions with the educator, exta lectures, etc. Power refers to what players are entitled to do, including access to and control of course topics. Power may be achieved through active and continuous participation in the course, acing exams, helping other students, etc.
   3. Leaderboards are routinely used to compare achievements. Anonymous leaderboards, while not as fun as full-disclosure leaderboards, allow individual students to assess their own ranking. This may be demoralizing if actual ranks are displayed; instead, presenting a long general list of ratings and placing low-ranked players always in the middle may be a better approach.
4. The 4 core dynamics are:
   1. Badges and other status displays refer to ways to show achievement. Badges quantify achievement through their challenge and scarcity, but may also be offered to surprise the students. For example, an educator may invent fun badges such as “late but smart” badge for late students who can answer a question when they first enter the class.
   2. Onboarding is the “act of bringing a novice into the system” [17]. Most modern online games employ the simple technique of starting with “tutorial” game tasks, that is, tasks that every user is guaranteed to be able to solve with relative ease and in a short period of time. Once successful, novice players find it more difficult to leave the system.
   3. Social engagement loops are designs that make players return to the game. Students that are part of a team have a strong social incentive to be present, if missing out diminishes the chances of the team to perform well. In-class interactions between groups of students are also important.
   4. Unlocking content is a powerful dynamic tool for controlling the evolution of the course. Students may not be allowed access to a course component, prior to completing the core requirements of another. Top students may be allowed access to supplementary course material, tougher assignments, etc. (@iosup2014, 28)
   • Framework.
5. We report on three types of student satisfaction evaluations, official surveys, volunteered testimonials, and in-class participation. (@iosup2014, 31)
   • Quantitative.

1. !iosup2014-4-x313-y619.png
2. We have found that gamification can help in many ways our students, from increasing passing rates and participation, to high student satisfaction and heart-warming testimonials. (@iosup2014, 32)
   • Positive results.

1. We set for both courses a points-scale in which 10,000 points are required for a course grade of 10 (@iosup2014, 30)
   • I think this is like that other study where it's just assessments that have a point to grade mapping, there's no actual game being played from what I can gather.
2. • One week to consider gamification elements. • One day per lecture for adaptation. • Two hours per lecture, for analyzing end-lecture quizzes and adapting the next lecture accordingly. • Two days after each major exam, to tabulate results. • One week to compile final course results, using spreadsheet technology. (@iosup2014, 31)
   • Challenge: Lots of teacher time investment is required.