See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311317334

LEGA: A LEarner-centered GAmification Design Framework

Conference Paper · September 2016

DOI: 10.1145/2998626.2998673

CITATIONS READS
8 590

3 authors:

Johan Baldeon Inmaculada Rodriguez Santiago

Pontifical Catholic University of Peru University of Barcelona
9 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS    52 PUBLICATIONS   294 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Anna Puig
University of Barcelona
62 PUBLICATIONS   230 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CAD Systems View project

Computer Graphics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Johan Baldeon on 21 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

or

W y ing
W y LEGA: A LEarner-centered GAmification Design
p
Framework
co rk
co

Johan Baldeón Inmaculada Rodríguez Anna Puig

johan.baldeon@pucp.edu.pe inma@maia.ub.edu
o
anna@maia.ub.edu

W y ing
Avatar Group, Engineering Department Mathematics and CS Dept, IMUB, UBICS research inst.
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú University of Barcelona
Lima, Perú Barcelona, Spain
p
ABSTRACT and the acquisition of knowledge) and affective (feelings or
emotions) domains can be supported by what is called the
co rk
In the recent years, the gamification of learning has emerged
to include game-based thinking and game mechanics within
the classroom, serving the purpose of motivating and en-
gaging students during the process of learning. Gamifying
Gamification of Learning [17] - the application of game-
based thinking and game mechanics within the classroom
- serving the purpose of motivating (both intrinsically and
extrinsically) and engaging students during the process of
o
is not a trivial task for educators. Although gamification
frameworks can guide them during the process, they usually learning [18]. First, the matching of in-game activities with

W y ing
do not focus on educational aspects such as intended learn-
ing outcomes (ILOs), learning styles (LS), learning activities
(LAs) and learning mechanics (LMs), neither take into ac-
count the two roles of students - as players and learners.
p
This paper aligns both educational and gamification worlds
and proposes a Learner-Centered Framework for the design
co rk
of gamified learning activities. It provides a guide for teach-
ers that allows them to start with ILOs and LAs, and reach
suitable gamified learning mechanics to be implemented in
the process of gamification.
o
a cognitive taxonomy (Bloom’s revised taxonomy [1]) is one
way of ensuring that learning occurs. And second, the pur-
pose of gamification is an affective and pleasurable user/learner
experience, which additionally can be personalised according
to the individual needs of the student [11, 24].
Once a teacher decides to apply gamification in the class-
room, arise the question, how can he start? Most Gamifica-
tion Design Frameworks (GDFs) define the steps to design
gamified activities in different contexts and areas of business
and academy [25]. There are also general recommendations
and technological solutions to gamify typical activities of a
classroom [3][4][16][18][19], but they are often abandoned by

g
CCS Concepts teachers due to they do not define specifically how to match
•Human-centered computing → User centered de- the learning outcomes with gamified activities, and more im-

py in
sign; portantly they do not take into account different learners’
profiles and their learning styles. This paper aims to fill a
p
gap in the literature proposing LEGA, a LEarner-centered
Keywords GAmification Design Framework that focuses on who is the
co rkGamification Design Framework; Gamification of Learning.

1. INTRODUCTION
learner/player and aligns both course’s intended learning
outcomes and proposed learning activities with gamified ac-
tivities.
This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces
o
Usually, the teacher elaborates classes and assessments
concepts related to our research. Section 3 gives details of
considering learning objectives and including activities to
frameworks and guidelines focused on the gamification of
get students’ attention. Nevertheless, are these activities
learning. Section 4 presents our framework, including stages
involving all the students? Are students motivated in the
and a mapping table that supports the teacher during the
classroom? Are they reaching learning outcomes? Although
design of the gamification. Finally, section 5 gives conclu-
these questions will always be present, proven theories show
sions and future work.
that interactive learning experiences like simulations, games,
and gamification experiences can help in the three domains
of learning: cognitive, affective and psychomotor [17].
Specifically, the cognitive (development of our mental skills
2. BACKGROUND
This section first introduces the Outcomes-Based Educa-
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or tional (OBE) theory, which bases each part of an educational
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation system around goals or outcomes, which has been adopted in
on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the education systems around the world [32]. Moreover, to bet-
author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or ter know the final user profile, we briefly present the theory
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org. referred to account for differences in individuals’ learning
and playing. Finally, we synthesize the common steps de-
c 2016 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
fined in several effective GDFs used in other contexts than
ISBN 978-1-4503-2138-9. education, such as business and training. The correspon-
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2998626.2998673 dence from the learning theory to these gamification steps
or

W y ing
will be the base of our proposal.
2.1
W y
Outcomes-Based Education Theory (OBE)
The Outcomes-Based Education theory (OBE) defines a
p
comprehensive approach to education that focuses on demon-
co rk
strations of learning sought from each student [32, 31].
co
The OBE process is guided by a constructive process where
the three main areas of the curriculum must be aligned,
the Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs), the Teaching and
o
Learning Activities (TLA) to lead to the ILOs, and how the
student is assessed [6]. OBE’s stages are:

W y ing
Stage 1. Defining curriculum objectives and In-
tended Learning Outcomes (ILOs): In an outcomes-
based curriculum, syllabus and classes are designed consid-
ering the accomplishment of students as a result of a session
p
or a full course [33]. A learning outcome describes a spe-
cific task that the student is able to perform at a given level
co rk
of competence of a specific learned content. Thus, learn-
ing outcomes describe both transversal competences to be
achieved and contents/knowledge to assimilate. Transver-
sal competences are related to skills- such as collaborative,
o
creative, communicative and written-, and learning contents

W y ing
are defined through topics in the syllabus.
Stage 2. Choosing Teaching and Learning Activi- Figure 1: Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy (BT) and cor-
ties (TLAs): Together with the outcomes, OBE conceives responding Learning Mechanics (LMs).
the forms of thinking as a cross-cutting aspect in the learn-
p
ing process. Specifically, Bloom’s revised taxonomy (BT) [1]
is composed by six major categories of the cognitive process, ment are closely related to the type of defined TLAs, and
co rk
which are listed below with an acronym to facilitate the read-
ing along the entire paper, in order starting from the sim-
plest to the most complex level: (BT1-REM) Remembering
or retrieve previous learned information, (BT2-UN) Under-
o metrics for summative assessment are given by means of
computer-based test (self- evaluation), portfolio, group eval-
uation and exams.

standing or comprehend the meaning, (BT3-APP) Applying 2.2 Learners and Players
or the use of a concept in a new situation, (BT4-ANA) An- In OBE approach and according to Spady [31], a key as-

g
alyzing or distinguish materials or concepts and inferences, sumption or premise is that “all students can learn and suc-
(BT5-EVA) Evaluating or make judgments about the value ceed, but not on the same day in the same way”, and this is

py in
of ideas or materials, (BT6-CRE) Creating or combine dif-
ferent elements to build a structure.
p
Working along each different level of this taxonomy im-
co rkplies the use of different Learning Mechanics (LMs) [2] (See
Figure 1) and thus, plan appropriate Teaching and Learning
Activities (TLAs).
For instance, to develop intellectual abilities and skills of
Remembering level, teachers use Learning Mechanics (LM)
o
such as Discover, To do repetitions and Exploring new con-
cepts. Then, learning activities for Remembering can be:
identify some concepts in a panel, recite a list of topics, use
technologies such as book marking, flash cards, rote learning
based on repetition and reading.
Stage 3. Assessing learning outcomes (LOs): The
assessment can be viewed as a two-fold process to improve
both instructor teaching and student learning. The forma-
tive assessment is used by teacher and students during a ses-
sion/course to gather feedback from learning activities and
to improve the ongoing session/course. Additionally, the
summative assessment allows to measure the level of suc-
cess that students achieved at the end of a session/course.
Done together, formative and summative assessments can
help teachers to follow and adapt the teaching activities dur-
ing the course as well as can help students to be more aware
of their progressions during the learning process. Teach-
ers ought to define metrics that help them to measure the
achievement of the outcomes. Metrics for formative assess-
a factor to be considered in the instructional process.
Based on the experiential learning model, the Learning
Styles (LS) theory [9, 15] claims as people has different ways
of learning and teaching methodologies should be adapted
to those different LS in order to improve the final outcomes.
In [15], four distinct LS have been proposed: Activists, those
people who learn by doing, Theorists, who like to understand
the theory behind the actions, Pragmatists, who need to be
able to see how to put the learning into practice in the real
world, and Reflectors, people who learn by observing and
thinking about what happened. Thus, to recognize what
are the predominant LS in students, Honey and Mumford
developed a Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ) [14], which
can inform the teacher and so better adapt the Teaching and
Learning Activities (TLAs) to students’ learning styles, as
shown in Table 1.
On the other hand, when the learning process becomes a
play in a gamified session, learners turn into players. From
the perspective of players, Marczewski [23] proposed six
player types (PTs), based on Bartle’s player types [5] and
intrinsic motivations: Socializers (SOC), Free Spirit (FR),
Philanthropist (PH), Achiever (ACH), Player (PLA) and
Disruptor (DIS). Socializers prefer to create interrelation-
ships and social connections, Free Spirits are autonomous
people who want to create and explore. Achievers want
to explore new concepts and improve themselves, Philan-
thropists want to help others, with no expectation of reward.
or

W y ing
only external rewards (like coupons, badges or points), but
Table 1: Learning styles (LS) and corresponding

Learning
W y
Teaching/Learning Activities (TLAs).
Teaching / Learning Activities
p also those related to intrinsic motivation (self-realization,
self-confidence, feel connected to others). Gamified activi-
ties have to balance the difficulty of a task so that players
Style (LS) (TLAs) become neither anxious neither bored, maintaining a flow
Activist Brainstorming, problem solving, group dis-
co rk state during the experience. This is the hardest point for a
co
cussion, puzzles, competitions, role-play. gamification designer due to it is a creative process where
Theorist Models, statistics, stories, quotes, back- no specific rules or guidelines exist.
ground information, applying theories.
Stage 4. Deploy, play-test. This step implies the de-
Reflector Paired discussions, self analysis question-
o
ployment and the testing of the gamification with users in a
naires, personality questionnaires, time
real environment. That test will be useful to enhance some

W y ing
out, observing activities, feedback from
design aspects and refine details of gamification mechanics.
others, coaching, interviews.
Pragmatist Time to think about how to apply learn- Stage 5. Evaluate the effectiveness of the gamifi-
ing in reality, case studies, problem solv- cation. This last step involves to define metrics that allow
p
ing, discussion. to measure gamification’s results. Using these metrics, de-
signers can collect and analyze data to track user activity
co rk
Players are motivated by rewards from the system. Disrup-
tors disturb the system to force positive or negative changes.
and measure the degree of achievement of the goals defined
in the first step. Generally, designers use this information
to refine and improve future designs.
Previous stages detail common characteristics of general
Additionally, Marczewski developed a questionnaire [22] to
o
establish the type of players involved into the session that Gamification Design Frameworks (GDFs). However, our
working hypothesis is that the Gamification of Learning

W y ing
allows to balance the gamification to engage users.
In summary, the proposed questionnaires can help teach- implies to seamlessly suit all these stages to the learning
ers to know the students’ profile - both as learners and process, taking into account different and complementary
players -, but how to select the most suitable both learning aspects in the design: learning outcomes/gamification ob-
jectives, learners/players, learning mechanics/gamification
p
mechanics and gamification mechanics depending on these
types of learners/players is still an open question that the mechanics, as well as learning assessment/gamification eval-
co rk
teacher has to deal with. Later in this paper, we propose
to use the two previous questionnaires during the gamifica-
tion process, and so define a guidance for teachers to select
between the set of activities that better suit to the type of
o uation.

3. RELATED WORK
There are a number of models, frameworks and also guide-
learner/player they have in the classroom. lines that aim to support teachers in the gamification pro-
cess.

g
2.3 Gamification Design Framework (GDF) The Theory of Gamified Learning [20] explores the re-
Gamification has been used in different contexts, such as lationship and differences in the processes of gamification

py in
business, marketing and education to engage users in fun
and motivating experiences. Gamification of a system does
p
not guarantee positive results, the success greatly depends
co rk
oon the context where the gamification is applied, on the
final users [13], and mainly on design of the gamification
[25]. Gamification is much more than apply points, badges
and leaderboards, being necessary to define clear objective
and follow well defined steps. Several frameworks have been
proposed in the literature applicable to differents contexts or
to specific sectors [7, 8, 12, 10, 21, 23, 34]. In the following
we synthesize the common stages that they focus on:
Stage 1. Define objectives and target behaviours.
At this stage, designers state why they want to gamify, the
behaviours they aim to influence, and what are the benefits
that the gamification provides to the system.
Stage 2. Describe players. The goal here is to know
and understand the potential players’ thinking: who are the
players? What are their needs and goals? Why are they
playing? What social actions do they and enjoyable? Do
they enjoy games? If so, what characteristics of games do
they find most appealing? Understanding common charac-
teristics among the different types of players can help design-
ers to tailor game mechanics to change users’ behaviours.
Stage 3. Devise fun activity loops. Designers define
the game elements and the game mechanics that will be used
to create player engagement. These game elements are not
and serious games, and proposes two ways by which game
elements can affect learning-related behaviour in gamifica-
tion: by moderation and by mediation. In the former, this
behaviour moderates the relationship between instructional
quality and learning (e.g. motivating students). In the lat-
ter, this behaviour mediates the relationship between game
elements and learning, i.e. directly influencing to improve
learning outcomes. By contrast, game attributes in serious
games have the intention of affecting learning without this
type of behavioural mediation/moderation.
FRAGGLE [26] is a framework for the design of gami-
fied learning experiences on higher education. It is based
on the use of the Agile methodologies in order to obtain a
fast Minimum Viable Product (MVP) ready for testing. The
framework applies different techniques all the way down to
the lowest levels of abstraction through its step-by-step pro-
cess. Moreover, the creation phase of the framework defines
game mechanics and game activities according to player pro-
totypes (defined by gender, learning experience, origin, etc.)
and the different stages of the game (discovery, on-boarding,
mid-game and end-game).
The Theoretical Framework for Meaningful Gamification
[29] is an approach that - based on a variety of user-centered
theories - proposes to take into consideration the background
that the user brings to the activity and the organizational
context into which the specific activity is placed, to create
courses appropriate for a variety of learners, and to allow
or
W y ing
W y p
co rk
co
o
W y ing
p
co rk
Figure 2: In blue, centered in the figure, our proposed LEarner-centered GAmification Design Framework
(LEGA). Top and down, the educational (OBE) and gamification (GDF) approaches aligned with our proposal.
o
W y ing
the players to set and customise their own goals inside the
gamified system.
Related to guidelines, Gamification of Learning [18] is
a design guidance for teachers who want to create mean-
p
ingful learning experiences. Considering the three domains
of learning, it includes design considerations and pragmatic
co rk
recommendations to enhance learning initiatives through the
use of games. Gamification of Education [16] is another
practitioner’s guide on how to apply gamification in edu-
cation considering the gamification process as described in
o
section 2.3. Lee Sheldon, in his book ‘The multiplayer class-
g
room’[30], presents a guide to gamify the classroom since
game design syllabi until playing games, showing techniques
py in
to create multiplayer games on any subject that would en-
gage students by using formats found in video games.
p
Works mentioned above contribute to the gamification of
learning from different perspectives, either from theoretical
co rkor practical sides. Nevertheless, they do not consider jointly
the different types of learners and their learning styles. Ad-
ditionally, although they sometime propose and define gam-
ification activities, they do not help the teacher in the tran-
o
sition from learning activities and learning mechanics cur-
rently used in the classroom to the appropriated gamifica-
tion mechanics.
4. LEGA: A LEARNER-CENTERED GAM-
IFICATION DESIGN FRAMEWORK
In this section we present LEGA, our iterative LEarner-
centered GAmification Design Framework, which supports
teachers interested in applying gamification in the class-
room. Aligned with the OBE educational approach and
the Gamification Design Frameworks (GDFs) presented in
sections 2.1 and 2.3, the framework puts a strong focus
on learners’ characteristics (both learning style and playing
style) and proposes the teachers those Gamification Mechan-
ics (GMs) that - based on the Intended Learning Outcomes
(ILOs) - better fit their students. Specifically, Figure 2 de-
picts the mapping between the OBE approach, Gamification
Design Frameworks (GDFs) and our proposal.
LEGA defines the following stages:
Stage 1. Identify the intended learning outcomes
(ILOs) to be gamified.
The teacher must define both contents (knowledge) and
transversal competences (skills) to be assimilated by the stu-
dents through gamification. That is, what specific topics
does the teacher want to gamify? What are the goals of
gamifing these topics? Does the teacher want to improve
the learning itself or does she want to motivate the learning
experience?
Stage 2. Know the learners/players and the con-
text.
As gamification will apply in educational activities, we
should consider students both as learners and players. Then,
before defining the learning activities to be gamified, teach-
ers need to know what kind of learners and players they have
in the classroom.
On the one hand, to identify students’ learning styles we
propose teachers to ask them to answer the Learning Style
Questionnaire (LSQ) from Honey and Mumford [14]. It
should be noted that learning styles theories have been crit-
icized by many educators and researchers [28], particularly
because, in practice, they can have a tendency to label stu-
dents and therefore restrict learning. Then, it is up to the
teacher to decide the target learning styles. For example,
they can select activities adapted to the learning style of
the majority of a class, or on the contrary to be aware of the
less common learning style and propose activities focused on
this style. The teacher can also decide to cover the entire
set of learning styles. On the other hand, to identify stu-
dents’ player types, the teacher should ask the students to
complete Marczewski’s User Type Test.
Related to the analysis of the context, issues such as stu-
dents’ group size, classroom setup, duration of the learning
program, and available resources should be taken into ac-
count when designing gamification of learning.
Stage 3. Design gamified learning activities and
metrics.
The goal of this stage is to identify Learning Mechan-
ics (LMs) and Gamification Mechanics (GMs). To do so,
this work proposes a mapping guide (in form of tables) that
or

W y ing
W y p
co rk
co
o

W y ing
Figure 3: Process of obtaining Gamified Learning Mechanics.

links TLAs to both Learning and Gamification Mechanics, Mechanics (GMs), from now on the teacher must design
p
see Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 for Activist, Theorist, Reflector, gamification activities and use any supported tools. There
and Pragmatist learning styles respectively. We have con- are some recommendations about how to apply gamification
co rk
structed these tables by analyzing and filtering the two ap-
proaches - introduced in section 2 - which allow to go from
BT to LM and from LS to TLAs as depicted in figure 1 and
table 1 respectively.
o mechanics [16, 18, 27, 30], but it is important to highlight
that each activity must continue being aligned with Intended
Learning Outcomes (ILOs). Moreover, the design of each
gamified learning activity should include a set of metrics to
Tables’ first column clusters similar TLAs (based on [2]). assess both the achievement of the ILOs and the effective-
The second column defines, for each TLAs’ cluster, the LM ness of the gamification.

W y ing
classified according to the 6 levels of the Bloom’s revised tax- Stage 4. Deploy and perform “fun” learning ses-
onomy (BT). The third one states the specific Player Types sions. This stage defines how to perform the gamified learn-
(PT) that better fit to the corresponding TLAs. Note that ing session. Questions to answer are: What resources are
not all player types are suitable for gamifying a given TLA. necessary for gamified learning activities? What are the
p
The last column provides a list of gamification mechanics platforms to consider in the deployment of the gamification?
referred to each PT’s column.
co rk
Now we detail the entire process as depicted in Figure 3.
First, teachers chose the Teaching and Learning Activities
(TLAs) according to both the Intended Learning Outcomes
How plan to get the users onboard (enroll and participate)?
Depending on the design of the gamified session and/or the
available resources, the gamification could be deployed with
or without a software platform. During this stage learners’
(ILOs) and the Learning Styles (LSs) they want to reinforce
o
actions and behaviours should be monitorized to facilitate
in the class group. At this point, they look at the table/s the formative assessment and a continuous feedback.

g
that correspond/s to these selected learning styles. Stage 5. Evaluate learning and gamification. This
e.g. if the predominant student’s learning style is Activist, step involves collecting and measuring data obtained in the
the teacher can choose among following TLAs using the first

py in
column from Table 2: brainstorming, group discussion, prob-
p
lem solving, puzzles, competition and role-play.
Next, given the TLAs and the level of Bloom’s revised
co rktaxonomy (BT) they want to work with (BT1-BT6, see sec-
tion 2.1), first and second columns of mapping tables give
the most suitable learning mechanics (LM) (proposed by [2])
to perform during the TLAs.
o
e.g If teachers have selected as TLA Group discussion and
they want to work with BT3 (Applying), we propose to the
teacher a list of LM that includes Action/Task, Cooperation,
Demonstration.
Finally, tables’ third and forth columns - taking into ac-
count player types defined by [23] - give a list of most appro-
priate Gamification Mechanics (GM) that can be integrated
in the LMs.
e.g. following the previous example where TLA is group
discussion, the player types that fit it are Socializer (SOC),
Free Spirit (FR), Philanthropist (PH), Player (PLA) and
Disruptor (DIS). If as result of player type’s questionnaire,
the predominant player type were Socializer (SOC) - and
teacher selected Cooperation as LM - teacher can select from
the following set of gamification mechanics: Guilds/teams,
social network, social status, social discovery, social pres-
sure, on-boarding/tutorials, signposting, theme, narrative/story,
curiosity/mystery box, time pressure, fixed reward schedule.
Note that our approach arrives to propose Gamification
previous step, to analyze and reflect on it. That information
will be used to adapt and enrich the gamified learning sys-
tem and refine the process. Some questions to answer in this
stage are: What is working/What is not working? Did stu-
dents feel that gamified activities are tailored to their own
learning styles? Did student achieve learning outcomes?
Finally, and according to data gathered during the de-
ployed session/s, teachers can proceed to a new iteration,
incorporating new gamified learning activities or redesign-
ing previous ones. That is, adapt or change the learning
and gamification mechanics associated to tested activities.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This research presents LEGA as a LEarner-centered GAm-
ification design framework to help teachers in the gamifi-
cation of learning. We start detailing an outcome-based
learning approach, including Intended Learning Outcomes
(ILOs), Learning Styles (LS) and Learning Mechanics (LM).
From there, and following common stages in current gamifi-
cation design frameworks, we propose a framework that fit
both educational and gamification approaches. We propose
a step by step process whose central stage underpins on a
mapping table that allows the teacher to start in both In-
tended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) and Learning Activities
(LAs) and to arrive to suitable Gamified Learning Mechan-
ics. As on-going work we are validating the framework with
or

W y ing
W y p
Table 2: ACTIVIST learning style and the corresponding learning activities, learning mechanics, player types
and gamification mechanics.
co rk
co
o

W y ing
p
co rk
o

W y ing
p
co rko

g
py in
p
co rk
o
Table 3: THEORIST learning style and the corresponding learning activities, learning mechanics, player
types and gamification mechanics.
or

W y ing
W y
Table 4: REFLECTOR learning style and the corresponding learning activities, learning mechanics, player
types and gamification mechanics.
p
co rk
co
o

W y ing
p
co rk
o

W y ing
p
co rko

g
py in
p
Table 5: PRAGMATIST learning style and the corresponding learning activities, learning mechanics, player
types and gamification mechanics.
co rk
o
or
W y ing
a case study and as future work we plan to facilitate a tech-
W y
nological solution that - based on the theoretical basis of
the framework - give support to the teacher in the design,
p styles. Peter Honey Publications, 1982.
implementation and deployment of gamification.
co rk
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
co
We acknowledge projects TIN2012-38876-C02-02, 2014SGR623,
TIN2015-66863-C2-1-R (MINECO/FEDER) and Carolina
Foundation.
o
W y ing
7. REFERENCES
[1] L. W. Anderson, D. R. Krathwohl, P. W. Airasian,
K. A. Cruikshank, R. E. Mayer, P. R. Pintrich,
J. Raths, and M. C. Wittrock. A taxonomy for
p
learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of
Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. 2001.
co rk
[2] S. Arnab, T. Lim, M. B. Carvalho, F. Bellotti,
S. Freitas, S. Louchart, N. Suttie, R. Berta, and
A. De Gloria. Mapping learning and game mechanics
for serious games analysis. British Journal of
o
Educational Technology, 46(2):391–411, 2015.
W y ing
[3] J. Baldeón, M. Lopez-Sanchez, I. Rodrı́guez, and
A. Puig. Gamification of multi-agent systems theory
classes. In Workshop CARE for Digital Education
(AAMAS), 2016.
p
[4] J. Baldeón, A. Puig, I. Rodrı́guez, M. Lopez-Sanchez, [24] J.-C. Marty, T. Carron, and P. Pernelle. Observe and
S. Grau, and M. Escayola. Gamification of elementary
co rk math learning: a game designer role-playing
experience with kids. In gEducation (GWC15), 2015.
[5] R. Bartle. Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades:players who
suit muds. Journal of MUD research, 1(1):19, 1996.
o
[6] J. Biggs. Aligning teaching for constructing learning.
g
The Higher Education Academy, pages p1–4, 2003.
[7] B. Burke. Gamify: How gamification motivates people
py in
to do extraordinary things. Bibliomotion, Inc., 2014.
[8] Y.-K. Chou. Actionable Gamification: Beyond Points,
p
Badges, and Leaderboards. 2015.
[9] I. M. R. David A. Kolb and J. McIntyre.
co rk Organizational psychology: An experiential approach.
Prentice Hall, 1971.
[10] F. Escribano, J. Moretón, and S. Jiménez.
Gamification Model Canvas Framework. Evolution.
o
http://gecon.es/
gamification-model-canvas-framework-evolution-1,
2016. Accessed: 2016-05-03.
[11] L. S. Ferro, S. P. Walz, and S. Greuter. Towards
personalised, gamified systems: an investigation into
game design, personality and player typologies. In
Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment:
Matters of Life and Death, page 7. ACM, 2013.
[12] A. Francisco-Aparicio, F. L. Gutiérrez-Vela, J. L.
Isla-Montes, and J. L. G. Sanchez. Gamification:
Analysis and Application, pages 113–126. Springer,
London, 2013.
[13] J. Hamari, J. Koivisto, and H. Sarsa. Does
gamification work? – a literature review of empirical
studies on gamification. In International Conference
on System Sciences, pages 3025–3034, Jan 2014.
[14] P. Honey and A. Mumford. The learning styles
questionnaire: 80-item version. Peter Honey
Publications Limited, 2006.
View publication stats
[15] P. Honey, A. Mumford, et al. The manual of learning
[16] W. H.-Y. Huang and D. Soman. Gamification of
education. Technical report, Research Report Series:
Behavioural Economics in Action, 2013.
[17] K. M. Kapp. The gamification of learning and
instruction: game-based methods and strategies for
training and education. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
[18] K. M. Kapp. The gamification of learning and
instruction fieldbook:Ideas into practice. Wiley, 2013.
[19] D. Lamprinou and F. Paraskeva. Gamification design
framework based on sdt for student motivation. In
International Conference on Interactive Mobile
Communication Technologies and Learning (IMCL),
pages 406–410. IEEE, 2015.
[20] R. N. Landers. Developing a theory of gamified
learning linking serious games and gamification of
learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6):752–768, 2014.
[21] C. Marache-Francisco and E. Brangier. Process of
gamification from the consideration of gamification to
its practical implementation. 2013.
[22] A. C. Marczewski. Marczewski’s User Type Test. http:
//www.gamified.uk/UserTypeTest/user-type-test.php,
2013. Accessed: 2016-03-19.
[23] A. C. Marczewski. Even Ninja Monkeys Like to Play.
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2015.
react: interactive indicators for monitoring
pedagogical sessions. International Journal of
Learning Technology, 7(3):277–296, 2012.
[25] A. Mora, D. Riera, C. González, and
J. Arnedo-Moreno. A literature review of gamification
design frameworks. In Games and Virtual Worlds for
Serious Applications, pages 1–8. IEEE, 2015.
[26] A. Mora, P. Zaharias, C. González, and
J. Arnedo-Moreno. Fraggle: a framework for agile
gamification of learning experiences. In Games and
Learning Alliance Conference (GALA Conf ), 2015.
[27] F. F.-H. Nah, Q. Zeng, V. R. Telaprolu, A. P.
Ayyappa, and B. Eschenbrenner. Gamification of
Education: A Review of Literature, pages 401–409.
Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014.
[28] H. Pashler, M. McDaniel, D. Rohrer, and R. Bjork.
Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 9(3):105–119, 2008.
[29] N. Scott. A user-centered theoretical framework for
meaningful gamification. Games+Learning+Society, 8,
2012.
[30] L. Sheldon. The multiplayer classroom: Designing
coursework as a game. Cengage Learning, 2011.
[31] W. G. Spady. Outcome-Based Education: Critical
Issues and Answers. ERIC, 1994.
[32] R. Sunseri. O.B.E. [i.e.] Outcome Based Education:
Understanding the Truth about Education Reform.
Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah Books, 1994.
[33] P. Surgenor. Teaching Toolkit, Planning a Teaching
Session. UCD Teaching and Learning, 1 edition, 2010.
[34] K. Werbach and D. Hunter. For the win: How game
thinking can revolutionize your business. Wharton
Digital Press, 2012.