from game design elements to gamefulness defining gamification

Recent years have seen a rapid proliferation of mass-market consumer software that takes inspiration from video games. Usually summarized as "gamification", this trend connects to a sizeable body of existing concepts and research in human-computer interaction and game studies, such as serious games, pervasive games, alternate reality games, or playful design. However, it is not clear how "gamification" relates to these, whether it denotes a novel phenomenon, and how to define it. Thus, in this paper we investigate "gamification" and the historical origins of the term in relation to precursors and similar concepts. It is suggested that "gamified" applications provide insight into novel, gameful phenomena complementary to playful phenomena. Based on our research, we propose a definition of "gamification" as the use of game design elements in non-game contexts.

Figures - uploaded by Rilla Khaled

Author content

All figure content in this area was uploaded by Rilla Khaled

Content may be subject to copyright.

Discover the world's research

20+ million members
135+ million publications
700k+ research projects

Join for free

From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness:

Defining "Gamification"

Sebastian Deterding

Hans Bredow Institute for

Media Research, Hamburg

University

20354 Hamburg, Germany

+49 151 400 300 44

s.deterding@hans-

bredow-institut.de

Dan Dixon

Digital Cultures Research

Centre, University of the

West of England

Bristol BS16 1QY, UK

+44 117 3283596

dan.dixon@uwe.ac.uk

Rilla Khaled

Center for Computer Games

Research, IT University of

Copenhagen

2300 Copenhagen, Denmark

+45 7218 5348

rikh@itu.dk

Lennart Nacke

Faculty of Business and

Information Technology,

University of Ontario Institute

of Technology, Oshawa,

Canada L1H7K4

+1 905 721 8668

lennart.nacke@acm.org

ABSTRACT

Recent years have seen a rapid proliferation of mass-mark et

consumer software that tak es inspiration from video games.

Usually summarized as "gamification", this trend connects to a

sizeable body of existing concepts and research in human-

computer interaction and game studies, such as serious games,

pervasive games, alternate reality games, or playful design.

However, it is not clear how "gamification" relates to these,

whether it denotes a novel phenomenon, and how to define it.

Thus, in this paper we investigate "gamification" and the

historical origins of the term in relation to precursors and similar

concepts. It is suggested that "gamified" applications provide

insight into novel, gameful phenomena complementary to playful

phenomena. Based on our research, we propose a definition of

"gamification" as the use of game design elements in non-game

contexts.

Categories and Subject Descriptors

H.5.m [Information Interfaces and Presentation (e.g., HCI) ]:

Miscellaneous; K.8.0 [Personal Computing ]: Games; J.4 [Social

and Behavioral Sciences]: Psychology, Sociology

General Terms

Design, Theory

Keywords

Alternate reality games, game-based technologies, gameful

design, gamefulness, games, gamification, pervasive games, play,

playful design, playfulness, serious games

1. INTRODUCTION

Following the success of the location-based service Foursquare ,

the idea of using game design elements in non-game contexts to

motivate and increase user activity and retention has rapidly

gained traction in interaction design and digital mark eting. Under

the monik er "gamification", this idea is spawning an intense

public debate as well as numerous applications – ranging across

productivity, finance, health, education, sustainability, as well as

news and entertainment media. Several vendors now offer

"gamification" as a software service layer of reward and

reputation systems with points, badges, levels and leader boards.

This commercial deployment of 'gamified' applications to large

audiences potentially promises new, interesting lines of inquiry

and data sources for human-computer interaction (HCI) and game

studies – and indeed, "gamification" is increasingly catching the

attention of researchers [24,48,58].

However, until now, little academic attention has been paid to a

definition of the concept of "gamification" (see [37] for one

exception). There has also been no close scrutiny of whether the

term actually denotes a sufficiently new and distinct phenomenon.

Therefore, this paper surveys and situates current uses of

"gamification" within existing research to suggest a definition of

"gamification". The first sections describe the origin and current

uses of the term and compare these with historic precursors and

parallels in HCI and game studies. This leads on to a definition of

"gamification" and a discussion of its elements. It is argued that

"gamification" calls attention to phenomena of "gamefulness",

which should be considered as complementary to but distinct from

playfulness. The definition is situated in the fields of HCI and

game studies, and the paper concludes by outlining the research

contribution of studying "gamified" applications.

2. INDUSTRY ORIGINS

"Gamification" as a term originated in the digital media industry.

The first documented use dates back to 2008 [54,55], but the term

did not see widespread adoption before the second half of 2010.

Parallel terms continue being used and new ones are still being

introduced, such as "productivity games" [47], "surveillance

entertainment" [32], "funware" [66], "playful design" [27],

"behavioral games" [25], "game layer" [56] or "applied gaming"

(natronbaxter.com). Yet "gamification" has arguably managed to

institutionalize itself as the common household term.

Despite or because of that, "gamification" is also a heavily

contested term, especially within the game industry and the game

studies community. Discontent with current implementations,

oversimplifications, and interpretations have led some to coin

different terms for their own arguably highly related practice. For

instance, designer and researcher Jane McGonigal redefined

"Alternate Reality Games" as "a game you play in your real life"

([48], p. 120) to describe her work , and game scholar and designer

Ian Bogost recommended replacing the term "gamification" with

"exploitationware" [9] as an act of linguistic politics that would

more truthfully portray the "villainous reign of abuse" that

"gamification" presumably entails.

Current industry uses of the term fluctuate between two related

concepts. The first is the increasing adoption, institutionalization

Permission to mak e digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for

personal or 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 on the first page. To copy

otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,

requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.

MindTrek'11, September 28-30, 2011, Tampere, Finland.

and ubiquity of (video) games in everyday life [63,35,18]. The

second, more specific notion is that since video games are

designed with the primary purpose of entertainment, and since

they can demonstrably motivate users to engage with them with

unparalleled intensity and duration, game elements should be able

to mak e other, non-game products and services more enjoyable

and engaging as well [71,73].

Vendors and consultants have tended to describe "gamification"

practically and in terms of client benefits, for example as "the

adoption of game technology and game design methods outside of

the games industry" [35], "the process of using game think ing and

game mechanics to solve problems and engage users" [70], or

"integrating game dynamics into your site, service, community,

content or campaign, in order to drive participation".1

3. PRECURSORS & PARALLELS

These ideas are not entirely new. The notion that user interface

design can be informed by other design practices has a rich

tradition in HCI. During the first boom of computer games in the

early 1980s, Malone wrote seminal papers deriving "heuristics for

designing enjoyable user interfaces" from video games [46].

Carroll [16] analyzed the design of early text adventures such as

Adventure, leading him and Thomas [14] to suggest redressing

routine work activities in varying "metaphoric cover stories" to

mak e them more intrinsically interesting, and to urge for a

research program on fun and its relation to ease of use [15].

With the expansion and maturation of the field and the rise of user

experience as a profession, more researchers began to study such

"hedonic attributes" [34] or "motivational affordances" [69] of

"pleasurable products" [40], dubbing the field "'funology' – the

science of enjoyable technology" [8], again taking game design as

an important source of inspiration. As part of this movement,

some researchers have look ed into "games with a purpose", in

which game play is piggyback ed to solve human information

task s such as tagging images [2], and using game interfaces and

controllers in other contexts [17]. More importantly, multiple

researchers have explored playfulness as a desirable user

experience or mode of interaction, and how to design for it.

Despite this considerable body of research, no consensual theory

or terminology of playfulness has emerged so far: Sometimes, it is

equated broadly with any "pleasurable experience" [20] or "fun"

[28], or indeed every interaction that goes beyond utilitarian work

and task contexts [30,31,52]. To this end, Gaver introduced the

terms "ludic design", "ludic engagement" and "ludic activities",

broadly describing "activities motivated by curiosity, exploration,

and reflection" [30]. Other studies focused and defined

playfulness more narrowly [68,51,43]; Korhonen, Montola and

Arrasvuori have made the most systematic attempt in this regard

[43,44]. Combining the "pleasurable experience" framework of

Costello and Edmonds [20] with further theoretical work and user

studies on video game play, they developed a Playful Experience

Framework (PLEX) that categorizes 22 (originally 20) playful

experiences.

Finally, in the 2000s, HCI researchers also became increasingly

interested in studying the design and experience of video games in

their own right, developing methods to evaluate their user

experience [6], "playability" heuristics for their design [62], and

models for the components of games [29,36] and game experience

[13,53,65].

1 http://www.bunchball.com/nitro/

In the field of game studies, "gamification" can be seen as but one

further outgrowth of the repurposing and extension of games

beyond entertainment in the private home.

Games used for serious purposes or "serious games" [1] date back

several millennia [33], migrating from mainly military uses into

education and business in the second half of the 20th century. In

the early 2000s, the rise of digital games has reinvigorated this

into a substantial industry and research field of its own. Such

digital, serious games can be defined as "any form of interactive

computer-based game software for one or multiple players to be

used on any platform and that has been developed with the

intention to be more than entertainment" ([59], p. 6). Within

serious games, some authors have proposed differentiating

between serious games and serious gaming [39]. Whereas the

term "serious games" denotes games designed to convey learning

material in being played through, "serious gaming" encompasses

any (educational) utilization of the broader ecology of games –

that is, all of the technologies, practices, literacies and social

processes surrounding games, lik e reviewing games; producing

machinima; or designing virtual items, avatars, levels, or whole

games.

In parallel to the serious games movement, new game genres

evolved that stretched the traditional limits of games, bringing

games into new contexts, situations and spaces. These are

commonly called pervasive games , games that have "one or more

salient features that expand the contractual magic circle of play

spatially, temporally, or socially" ([50], p. 12). Examples are

location-based games that tak e gameplay into the public space,

augmented reality games that use digital devices to overlay game

representations over the environment, persistent games that

continually run to be entered and exited during the course of the

day, or alternate reality games which "tak e the substance of

everyday life and weave it into narratives that layer additional

meaning, depth, and interaction upon the real world" ([50], p. 37).

On the broadest scale, media scholars observe a "ludification of

culture" [50,57]. With their increasing ubiquity, adoption and

institutionalization in the past three decades, they argue that video

games have become a cultural medium and source of formative

experiences on a par with literature, movies, or television in

earlier generations. Technologies, tropes, references and

metaphors, mindsets and practices flowing from games

increasingly suffuse society and everyday life, most notably

playful identities and playful media practices.

4. TOWARDS A DEFINITION

This brief review shows that "gamification" has grown within a

rich bed of interacting trends and traditions in interaction design

and games, and that there are already a number of potentially

competing, parallel, or overlapping concepts. Thus, if

"gamification" is to be understood and developed as an academic

term, the task is to determine whether the term and current

"gamified" applications are significantly different from previous

phenomena and areas of research – and if so, how to situate them

in relation to these existing fields.

We believe that "gamification" does indeed demarcate a distinct

but previously unspecified group of phenomena, namely the

complex of gamefulness, gameful interaction, and gameful design,

which are different from the more established concepts of

playfulness, playful interaction, or design for playfulness. Based

on this observation, we propose the following definition:

"Gamification" is the use of game design elements in non-game

contexts. The following sections unpack this definition in detail.

4.1 Game

Firstly, "gamification" relates to games , not play (or playfulness),

where "play" can be conceived of as the broader, looser category,

containing but different from "games" [60]. In game studies, this

distinction between games and play is usually tied back to

Caillois' concept of paidia and ludus as two poles of play

activities [12]. Whereas paidia (or "playing") denotes a more free-

form, expressive, improvisational, even "tumultuous"

recombination of behaviors and meanings, ludus (or "gaming")

captures playing structured by rules and competitive strife toward

goals. Along those lines, classic definitions in game studies state

that gaming and games – in contrast to playing and toys – are

characterized by explicit rule systems and the competition or strife

of actors in those systems towards discrete goals or outcomes

[42,60]. Recent theoretical and empirical studies have provided

further support for the distinctness of "playing" and "gaming" as

two modes, foci, or "values" of behavior and mindset2

encountered during video game play [4,41]. This distinction also

appears in HCI research on playfulness. The aforementioned

PLEX framework ack nowledges Caillois' distinction of paidia

and ludus in that it explicitly sets out to capture all experiences

between these two poles [43]. Finally, academic as well as

industry critiques of "gamified" applications have repeatedly

emphasized that these focus almost exclusively on design

elements for rule-bound, goal-oriented play (i.e., ludus ), with little

space for open, exploratory, free-form play (i.e., paidia ) [3,23].

Indeed, this critique of mass-mark et "gamified" applications

serves as a valuable observation from a research perspective:

namely, that design inspired by games can afford experiences and

behaviors leaning more to one pole of play than the other. These

applications also provide us with empirical data on the design and

experience of systems supporting the rule-bound or ludus pole,

which has arguably received less research attention in HCI.

On these grounds, in contrast to the PLEX framework that

includes both free-form and rule-bound play under "playfulness",

we suggest adopting the term "gamefulness" recently introduced

by McGonigal [48] as a systematic complement to "playfulness".

Where "playfulness" broadly denotes the experiential and

behavioral qualities of playing (paidia ), "gamefulness" denotes

the qualities of gaming (ludus ). Thus, gamefulness circumscribes

a coherent set of phenomena that is both distinct and has received

little focused attention so far, which provides a meaningful

extensional ground for defining "gamification". To systemize the

terminology, one may distinguish

• gamefulness (the experiential and behavioral quality),

• gameful interaction (artifacts affording that quality), and

• gameful design (designing for gamefulness, typically by using

game design elements).

In terms of defining "gamification", this means that it too has to

be analytically distinguished from playfulness or playful design –

indeed, this mark s the novelty of "gamified" applications. In

practice, it can be assumed that they often can and will give rise to

playful behaviors and mindsets as well, just as video game players

often switch between playful and gameful behaviors and mindsets

during play [4]. "Gamification" will usually coincide with

2 There is some consensus that playfulness should be construed as an

attitude or mindset with which one approaches a given activity, rather than

a distinct set of observable behaviors. However, several scholars also point

out that although that is the case, there are still certain observable formal

properties of activities when they are playfully approached [11,22,45]. To

capture this, we speak of "behavior and mindset" here.

gameful design as defined above: The most lik ely strategy of

designing for gameful experiences is to use game design elements,

and the most lik ely goal of using game design elements are

gameful experiences. Yet analytically, gameful design and

"gamification" frame the same extension of phenomena through

different intensional properties – as the design strategy of using

game design elements (gamification) or the design goal of

designing for gamefulness (gameful design).

Although the overwhelming majority of current examples of

"gamification" are digital, the term should not be limited to digital

technology. Not only are media convergence and ubiquitous

computing increasingly blurring the distinction between digital

and non-digital: games and game design are themselves

transmedial categories [42].

4.2 Element

Whereas "serious game" describes the design of full-fledged

games for non-entertainment purposes, "gamified" applications

merely incorporate elements of games (or game "atoms" [10]). Of

course, the boundary between "game" and "artifact with game

elements" can often be blurry – is Foursquare a game or a

"gamified" application? To complicate matters, this boundary is

empirical, subjective and social: Whether you and your friends

'play' or 'use' Foursquare depends on your (negotiated) focus,

perceptions and enactments. The addition of one informal rule or

shared goal by a group of users may turn a 'merely' "gamified"

application into a 'full' game. Within game studies, there is an

increasing ack nowledgement that any definition of "games" has to

go beyond properties of the game artifact to include these situated,

socially constructed meanings [19,67]. For the present purpose,

this means that (a) artifactual as well as social elements of games

need to be considered, and (b) artifactual elements should be

conceived more in terms of affording gameful interpretations and

enactments, rather than being gameful. Indeed, the characteristic

of "gamified" applications might be that compared to games, they

afford a more fragile, unstable 'flick er' of experiences and

enactments between playful, gameful, and other, more

instrumental-functionalist modes.

This leads directly to another question: Which elements belong

into the set of 'game elements'? Tak e the "Ten Ingredients of

Great Games" identified by Reeves and Read [58]: Self-

representation with avatars; three-dimensional environments;

narrative context; feedback ; reputations, rank s, and levels;

mark etplaces and economies; competition under rules that are

explicit and enforced; teams; parallel communication systems that

can be easily configured; time pressure. Each of these elements

can be found outside of games, and tak en in isolation, none of

them would be readily identified as 'gameful', let alone game-

specific. Also, there is serious variation between the different

game genres and digital versus non-digital games – avatars are

common in action and roleplaying games, but not necessarily in

strategy video games or card games. In addition, how game

elements are perceived can also be a matter of role, whether this

be designer or user. For example, the MDA model [36] suggests

that designers work with mechanics to create aesthetics, whereas

players experience aesthetics, and in so doing, infer k nowledge

about mechanics.

This points to the fact that "game" is a composite category of

multiple necessary conditions. Tak e the "classic game model" by

Juul [42]: "A game is a rule-based formal system with a variable

and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned

different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the

outcome, the player feels attached to the outcome, and the

consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable." As Juul

himself argues, no part of this definition on its own constitutes a

game. Only together do they set apart a clear figure against the

back ground of other phenomena.

Yet as helpful as this may be for defining games, it does not

answer the question of how to identify game elements . One

solution is to treat game elements as a set of building block s or

features shared by games (rather than a set of necessary conditions

for a game), comparable to Wittgensteinian family resemblances.

A very strict interpretation of this approach – accepting only

elements that are unique or specific to games – would produce an

empty or very constrained set. A very liberal interpretation – any

element that can be found in any game – would be boundless. We

therefore suggest restricting "gamification" to the description of

elements that are characteristic to games – elements that are

found in most (but not necessarily all) games, readily associated

with games, and found to play a significant role in gameplay. Of

course, this is a heuristic definition with much room for debate

over what is "characteristic" for games.

4.3 Design

As noted, "gamified" applications are not the only instances

where elements of games have been repurposed. In HCI, there is a

long tradition of using game controllers as input devices for other

purposes. Graphic engines and authoring tools of video games are

also regularly used for non-entertainment purposes (from

scientific visualizations and 3D environments to fan art), as are

practices of the broader game ecology, e.g. in serious gaming. For

the purposes of terminological and conceptual clarity, it is more

helpful to reserve the term "gamification" for the use of game

design, not game-based technologies or practices of the wider

game ecology.

When surveying the existing literature on games and

"gamification", we found that such game design elements were

identified on varying levels of abstraction. All of these levels

should be included in the definition. Ordered from concrete to

abstract, five levels can be distinguished (tab. 1): Interface design

patterns [21]; game design patterns [7] or game mechanics [67];

design principles, heuristics or 'lenses' [62]; conceptual models of

game design units [10,13,29,36]; game design methods and design

processes [5,29].

As can be seen, this 'level model' distinguishes interface design

patterns from game design patterns or game mechanics. Although

they relate to the shared concept of pattern languages [26], unlik e

interface design patterns, neither game mechanics nor game

design patterns refer to (prototypical) implemented solutions; both

can be implemented with many different interface elements.

Therefore, they are more abstract and thus treated as distinct.

So to restate, whereas serious games fulfill all necessary and

sufficient conditions for being a game, "gamified" applications

merely use several design elements from games. Seen from the

perspective of the designer, what distinguishes "gamification"

from 'regular' entertainment games and serious games is that they

are built with the intention of a system that includes elements

from games, not a full 'game proper'. From the user perspective,

such systems entailing design elements from games can then be

enacted and experienced as 'games proper', gameful, playful, or

otherwise – this instability or openness is what sets them apart

from 'games proper' for users.

Table 1. Levels of Game Design Elements

Level Description Example

Game interface

design patterns

Common, successful interaction

design components and design

solutions for a known problem in

a context, including prototypical

implementations

Badge, leaderboard,

level

Game design

patterns and

mechanics

Commonly reoccurring parts of

the design of a game that concern

gameplay

Time constraint,

limited resources,

turns

Game design

principles and

heuristics

Evaluative guidelines to

approach a design problem or

analyze a given design solution

Enduring play, clear

goals, variety of

game styles

Game models

Conceptual models of the

components of games or game

experience

MDA; challenge,

fantasy, curiosity;

game design atoms;

CEGE

Game design

methods

Game design-specific practices

and processes

Playtesting,

playcentric design,

value conscious

game design

4.4 Non-game contexts

Similar to serious games, "gamification" uses elements of games

for purposes other than their normal expected use as part of an

entertainment game. Now 'normal use' is a socially, historically

and culturally contingent category. However, it is reasonable to

assume that entertainment currently constitutes the prevalent

expected use of games. Lik ewise, joy of use, engagement, or more

generally speak ing, improvement of the user experience represent

the currently predominant use cases of "gamification" (in the

definition proposed in this paper, gameful experiences are the

most lik ely design goal). Still, we explicitly suggest not delimiting

"gamification" to specific usage contexts, purposes, or scenarios.

Firstly, there are no clear advantages in doing so. Secondly, the

murk iness of the discourse on "serious games" can be directly

link ed to the fact that some authors initially tied the term to the

specific context and goal of education and learning, whereas

serious games proliferated into all k inds of contexts [61]. Thus, in

parallel to Sawyer's taxonomy of serious games [61], we consider

different usage contexts or purposes as potential subcategories:

Just as there are training games, health games, or newsgames,

there can be gameful design or "gamification" for training, for

health, for news, and for other application areas.

Some authors have argued that games themselves can be

'gamified' [72], a case in point being meta-game platforms such

as achievement systems [38,49]. In principle, this might be in line

with the definition presented here – the only thing that "non-

gaming contexts" explicitly intend to exclude is the use of game

design elements as part of designing a game , since that would

simply be game design, not "gamification". However, on closer

scrutiny, classifying meta-games or other additions of game

design to existing games as something other than game design

becomes hard to uphold: Firstly, even in formalist game literature,

meta-games are also understood as full-fledged games, "based on

the effects and outcomes of other games" ([7], p. 401), not simply

game design elements . Secondly, from the designer's perspective,

given that the context of design is already that of games, it seems

counter-productive to perceive the design of meta-games (or game

elements) as distinct from the design of those games. Thirdly,

shifting our focus to the user's perspective, it is a complex and

open empirical question whether (or under what circumstances)

players experience meta-game elements as part of or distinct from

the "primary game". And in all cases where a meta-game system

is not experienced as distinct from the "primary" game, it appears

unnecessary to create an artificial separation between the two.

Finally, we have argued that part of the novelty and distinctness of

"gamified" systems is the experiential 'flick er' between gameful,

playful, and other modes of experience and engagement. Such

flick ers are arguably less lik ely to occur when the user is already

playing a game. Classifying meta-games as "gamification" does

not ack nowledge this difference, but we readily admit that this

constitutes a complex case that warrants further empirical

research.

5. SITUATING "GAMIFICATION"

To summarize: "Gamification" refers to

• the use (rather than the extension) of

• design (rather than game-based technology or other game-

related practices)

• elements (rather than full-fledged games)

• characteristic for games (rather than play or playfulness)

• in non-game contexts (regardless of specific usage intentions,

contexts, or media of implementation).

This definition contrasts "gamification" against other related

concepts via the two dimensions of playing/gaming and

parts/whole. Both games and serious games can be differentiated

from "gamification" through the parts/whole dimension. Playful

design and toys can be differentiated through the playing/gaming

dimension (Figure 1). In the broader scheme of trends and

concepts identified as related, we find "gamification" or gameful

design situated as follows: Within the socio-cultural trend of

ludification, there are at least three trajectories relating to video

games and HCI: the extension of games (pervasive games), the

use of games in non-game contexts, and playful interaction. The

use of games in non-game contexts falls into full-fledged games

(serious games) and game elements, which can be further

differentiated into game technology, game practices, and game

design. The latter refers to "gamification" (Figure 2).

To date, there appears to have been only one alternative attempt to

define "gamification" in academic literature. Huotari and Hamari

have suggested defining "gamification" from a service-mark eting

perspective as a "service pack aging where a core service is

enhanced by a rules-based service system that provides feedback

and interaction mechanisms to the user with an aim to facilitate

and support the users' overall value creation." [37]

Huotari and Hamari's definition differs from our own in several

ways. Firstly, by focusing on rules-based systems, it arguably

covers more than games or 'gamified' services and is ultimately

applicable to almost any interactive system. Even a touchpad for

ordering snack s in a cinema would qualify as a "rules-based

service system" (driven by software) "that provides feedback and

interaction mechanisms" (people order through the interface,

which confirms their orders) "with an aim to facilitate and support

the users' overall value creation" (the ability to order snack s

enhances the movie experience).

Secondly, focusing on rules-based systems and situating the

definition within a service mark eting perspective underplay the

constitutive social and experiential dimensions of games.

Thirdly, the definition excludes all systems where the provision of

game mechanics (tailored to a specific context) is the core service

itself, or at least an essential part of it: What most 'gamified'

health applications such as Health Month (healthmonth.com) offer

is the ability to set up rules and goals for personal health behavior,

to then track actual behavior against them – these game elements

are not a deductable "enhancement" of another "core" service. In

contrast, we believe that our definition addresses all these issues.

6. CONCLUSION

This paper argued that current "gamified" applications present

emerging phenomena that warrant new concepts and research.

Specifically, it suggested that insight into "gamefulness" as a

complement to "playfulness" – in terms of design goals as well as

user behaviors and experiences – mark s a valuable and lasting

contribution of studying "gamified" systems. Partly in reaction to

this, the term "gameful design" – design for gameful experiences

– was also introduced as a potential alternative to "gamification".

Given the industry origins, charged connotations and debates

Figure 1. "Gamification" between game and play, whole and parts

Figure 2. Situating "gamification" in the larger field

about the practice and design of "gamification", "gameful design"

currently provides a new term with less baggage, and therefore a

preferable term for academic discourse.

Another important point is the high level of subjectivity and

contextuality in identifying "gamification". It is not possible to

determine whether a given empirical system 'is' "a gamified

application" or "a game" without tak ing recourse to either the

designers' intentions or the user experiences and enactments.

Indeed, in comparison to games on the one hand and utility

software on the other, a distinct quality of "gamified" applications

is their relative openness to varying situational modes of

engagement – gameful, playful, and instrumental.

To conclude, one of the big promises of today's commercial

deployments of "gamified" systems is easy access to more

ecologically valid user data on the different k inds of experiences

and natural categories that arise from interaction with these

systems. This data will ultimately determine the validity of the

distinctions introduced here. Even if they do not remain upheld in

the long term, we believe that our suggested definitions of

"gamification" and "gamefulness" against serious games and

playful interaction clarifies discourse and thus allows research to

move into more detailed study, and clearer conceptualization of

the defined phenomena.

7. REFERENCES

[1] Abt, C.C. Serious Games. Vi k ing, New Yor k , 1970.

[2] Ahn, L. von and Dabbish, L. Designing games with a

purpose. Communications of the ACM 51 , 8 (2008), 58-67.

[3] Alfrink , K. New games for new cities. Presentation,

FutureEverything, Manchester, UK, 2011.

http://goo.gl/6Wfx4.

[4] Barr, P. Video Game Values: Play as Human-Computer

Interaction. Doctoral Dissertation, Victoria University of

Wellington, 2007.

[5] Belman, J., and Flanagan, M. Exploring the Creative

Potential of Values Conscious Game Design: Students'

Experiences with the VAP Curriculum. Eludamos 4, 1

(2010), n.p.

[6] Bernhaupt, R., ed. Evaluating User Experience in Games:

Concepts and Methods. Springer, London, 2010.

[7] Björk , S. and Holopainen, J. Patterns in Game Design.

Charles River Media, Boston, MA, 2005.

[8] Blythe, M., Hassenzahl, M., and Wright, P. Introduction:

Beyond fun. interactions 11 , 5 (2004), 36–37.

[9] Bogost, I. Exploitationware. Gamasutra, 2011.

http://goo.gl/jK1VR.

[10] Brathwaite, B., and Schreiber, I. Challenges for Game

Designers. Charles River Media, Boston, Ma, 2008.

[11] Burghardt, G.M. The Genesis of Animal Play: Testing the

Limits. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2005.

[12] Caillois, R. Man, Play, and Games. University of Illinois

Press, Urbana, Chicago, 2001.

[13] Calvillo-Gámez, E.H., Cairns, P., and Cox, A.L. Assessing

the Core Elements of the Gaming Experience. In R.

Bernhaupt, ed., Evaluating User Experience in Games .

Springer London, London, 2010, 47-71.

[14] Carroll, J.M. and Thomas, J.C. Metaphor and the cognitive

representation of computing systems. IEEE Transactions on

Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 12, (1982), 107-116.

[15] Carroll, J.M. and Thomas, J.M. FUN. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin

19, 3 (1988), 21-24.

[16] Carroll, J.M. The Adventure of Getting to Know a Computer.

Computer 15, 11 (1982), 49-58.

[17] Chao, D. Doom as an interface for process management.

Proc. CHI '01, ACM Press (2001), 152-157.

[18] Chatfield, T. Fun Inc.: Why Gaming Will Dominate the

Twenty-First Century. Pegasus, London, 2005.

[19] Consalvo, M. There is No Magic Circle. Games and Culture

4, 4 (2009), 408-417.

[20] Costello, B. and Edmonds, E. A study in play, pleasure and

interaction design. Proc. DPPI 2007 , ACM Press (2007), 76-

91.

[21] Crumlish, C. and Malone, E. Designing Social Interfaces:

Principles, Patterns, and Practices for Improving the User

Experience. OʼReilly, Sebastopol, 2009.

[22] Csik szentmihalyi, M. Flow: the psychology of optimal

experience. Harper and Row, New York , 1990.

[23] Deterding, S. Playful Technologies. In C. Wiedemann, and S.

Zehle, eds., Depletion Design. A Glossary of Network

Technologies. Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam,

forthcoming.

[24] Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nack e, L., OʼHara, K., and Dixon,

D. Gamification: Using game-design elements in non-

gaming contexts. Proc. CHI EA '11 , ACM Press (2011),

2425-2428.

[25] Dignan, A. Game Frame: Using Games as a Strategy for

Success. Free Press, New York et al., 2011.

[26] Dixon, D. Pattern Languages for CMC Design. In B.

Whitworth and A. De Moor, eds., Handbook of Research on

Socio-Technical Design and Social Networking Systems. IGI

Global, Hershey, PA, 2009, 402-415.

[27] Ferrara, J. Playful Design. Creating Game Experiences in

Everyday Interfaces. Rosenfeld Media, New York ,

forthcoming.

[28] Fontijn, W. and Hoonhout, J. Functional Fun with Tangible

User Interfaces. Proc. DIGITELʼ07 , IEEE (2007), 119-123.

[29] Fullerton, T. 2008 Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric

Approach to Creating Innovative Games. Morgan Kaufmann,

Amsterdam.

[30] Gaver, W. W., Bowers, J., Boucher, A., et al. The drift table:

designing for ludic engagement. Proc. CHI EA '04 . ACM

Press (2004), 885-900.

[31] Gaver, W.W. Designing for Homo Ludens. I3 Magazine 12 ,

(2002).

[32] Grace, M.V. and Hall, J. Projecting Surveillance

Entertainment. Presentation, ETech, San Diego, CA, 2008.

[33] Halter, E. From Sun Tzu to Xbox: War and Videogames.

Thunderʼs Mouth Press, New York , 2006.

[34] Hassenzahl, M. The Thing and I: Understanding the

Relationship Between User and Product. In M.A. Blythe, K.

Overbeek e, A.F. Monk and P.C. Wright, eds., Funology:

From Usability to Enjoyment. Kluwer, New York et al.,

2003, 31-41.

[35] Helgason, D. 2010 Trends. Unity Technologies Blog, 2010.

http://goo.gl/AZ4vm.

[36] Hunick e, R., LeBlanc, M., and Zubek , R. MDA: A Formal

Approach to Game Design and Game Research. Proc. AAAI

workshop on Challenges in Game, AAAI Press (2004).

[37] Huotari, K. and Hamari, J. "Gamification" from the

perspective of service mark eting. Proc. CHI 2011 Workshop

Gamification (2011). http://goo.gl/JUIpa

[38] Jak obsson, M. and Sotamaa, O. Special Issue - Game

Reward Systems. Game Studies 11 , 1 (2011), n.p.

[39] Jen k ins, H., Camper, B., Chisholm, A., et al. From Serious

Games to Serious Gaming. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody and P.

Vorderer, eds., Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects.

Routledge, New York , 2009, 448-468.

[40] Jordan, P.W. Designing Pleasurable Products. An

introduction to the new human factors. Taylor & Francis,

London, New York , 2002.

[41] Juul, J. A Casual Revolution: Reinventing Video Games and

Their Players. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2010.

[42] Juul, J. Half-real: video games between real rules and

fictional worlds. MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma, 2005.

[43] Korhonen, H., Montola, M., and Arrasvuori, J.

Understanding Playful User Experiences Through Digital

Games. Proc. DPPI 2009 , ACM Press (2009), 274-285.

[44] Lucero, A. and Arrasvuori, J. PLEX Cards: a source of

inspiration when designing for playfulness. Proc. Fun and

Games '10, ACM Press (2010), 28-37.

[45] Malaby, T.M. Beyond Play: A New Approach to Games.

Games and Culture 2, 2 (2007), 95-113.

[46] Malone, T.W. Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating

instruction. Cognitive Science 4 (1981), 333-370.

[47] McDonald, M., Musson, R., and Smith, R. Using

Productivity Games to Prevent Defects. In M. McDonald, R.

Musson, and R. Smith, eds., The Practical Guide to Defect

Prevention, Microsoft Press, Redmond, 2008, 79-95.

[48] McGonigal, J. Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us

Better and How They Can Change the World. Penguin,

London, 2011.

[49] Montola, M., Nummenmaa, T., Lucero, A., Boberg, M., and

Korhonen, H. Applying game achievement systems to

enhance user experience in a photo sharing service. Proc.

MindTrek '09, ACM Press (2009), 94-97.

[50] Montola, M., Stenros, J., and Waern, A. Pervasive Games:

Theory and Design. Experiences on the Boundary Between

Life and Play. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam et al., 2009.

[51] Morrison, A., Viller, S., and Mitchell, P. Building sensitising

terms to understand free-play in open-ended interactive art

environments. Proc. CHI '11 , ACM Press (2011), 2335-

2344.

[52] Morrison, A.J., Mitchell, P., and Brereton, M. The lens of

ludic engagement. Proc. MULTIMEDIA '07 , ACM Press

(2007), 509-512.

[53] Nack e, L. E., Drachen, A. and Goebel, S. Methods for

Evaluating Gameplay Experience in a Serious Gaming

Context. International Journal of Computer Science in Sport

9, 2 (2010).

[54] Paharia, R. Who coined the term "gamification"? Quora,

2010. http://goo.gl/CvcMs.

[55] Personal communication, R. Paharia, March 17, 2011.

[56] Priebatsch, S. The Game Layer on Top of the World.

Presentation, SxSWi, Austin, 2011. http://goo.gl/DnwBH.

[57] Raessens, J. Playful Identities, or the Ludification of Culture.

Games and Culture 1, 1 (2006), 52-57.

[58] Reeves, B. and Read, J.L. Total Engagement: Using Games

and Virtual Worlds to Change the Way People Work and

Businesses Compete. Harvard Business School Press,

Boston, MA, 2009.

[59] Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M., and Vorderer, P. Serious Games:

Mechanisms and Effects. Routledge, London, 2009.

[60] Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. Rules of play: Game design

fundamentals. MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma, 2004.

[61] Sawyer, B. and Smith, P. Serious Games Taxonomy.

Presentation, GDC 2008, San Francisco, CA, 2008.

http://goo.gl/OWVzo.

[62] Schaffer, N. Heuristic Evaluation of Games. In K. Isbister

and N. Schaffer, eds., Game Usability: Advice from the

Experts for Advancing the Player Experience. Morgan

Kaufman, Amsterdam et al., 2008, 79-89.

[63] Schell, J. Visions of the Gamepocalypse. Presentation, Long

Now Foundation, San Francisco, CA, July 27, 2010.

[64] Sicart, M. Defining Game Mechanics. Game Studies 8, 2

(2008), n.p.

[65] Sweetser, P. and Wyeth, P. GameFlow: A Model for

Evaluating Player Enjoyment in Games. Computers in

Entertainment 3, 3 (2005), Art. 3A.

[66] Tak ahashi, D. Funware's threat to the traditional video game

industry. Venturebeat, 2008. http://goo.gl/O9lSq.

[67] Taylor, T.L. The Assemblage of Play. Games and Culture 4 ,

4 (2009), 331-339.

[68] Woszczynsk i, A.B., Roth, P.L., and Segars, A.H. Exploring

the theoretical foundations of playfulness in computer

interactions. Computers in Human Behavior 18 , 4 (2002),

369-388.

[69] Zhang, P. Motivational Affordances: Reasons for ICT

Design and Use. Communications of the ACM 51 , 11 (2008),

145-147.

[70] Zicherman, G. A Long Engagement and a Shotgun Wedding:

Why Engagement is the Power Metric of the Decade.

Presentation, Gamification Summit, San Francisco, CA,

2011. http://goo.gl/jlaO0.

[71] Zichermann, G. and Cunningham, C. Gamification by

Design: Implementing Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile

Apps. O'Reilly, Sebastopol, 2011.

[72] Hamari, J. and Eranti, V. Framewor k for Designing and

Evaluating Game Achievements. Proc. DiGRA 2011: Think

Design Play, DiGRA (2011).

[73] Flatla, D.R., Gutwin, C., Nack e, L.E., Bateman, S. and

Mandryk , R.L. Calibration Games: Mak ing Calibration

Task s Enjoyable by Adding Motivating Game Elements.

Proc. UIST'11, ACM (2011).

... Gamification refers to the use of game design elements in non game contexts [1]. This strategy aims to make products and services enjoyable and engaging [1], [2]. ...

... Gamification refers to the use of game design elements in non game contexts [1]. This strategy aims to make products and services enjoyable and engaging [1], [2]. It has become popular and used in a variety of contexts to motivate people to engage in targeted behaviours [3]. ...

Gamification is the use of game elements in non-game contexts to increase user engagement with a system. In education, especially in Higher Education, gamification is considered a promising strategy to motivate students and promote their involvement in learning activities. To be effective, gamification needs to consider students' differences and adapt to their needs and preferences. In this paper, we propose the use of Students' Approaches to Learning to differentiate learners and analyse their preferences for gamification elements. The study was carried out in a gamified postgraduate course in engineering. We present a statistical analysis of the correlation between students approaches to learning, academic success, engagement, and appreciation of gamification elements.

... Game-based learning (GBL) with serious games (SG) refers to using full-fledged games to foster experiential learning (Deterding et al., 2011). Appropriately designed SG can induce thoughts on various scales of impact and trade-offs in decision-making, problem-solving and collaboration (Hummel et al., 2011;Aubert et al., 2019;Wood et al., 2013). ...

Ningna Xie
Raphael Heereman Von Zuydtwyck

There has been considerable progress in designing sustainability-related serious games, including the ones for corporate learners. However, exploration is still limited in connecting learning from the game sessions and game development context. The Interreg-VA Dutch-German project "STRASUS", a browser-based multiplayer simulation game for logistics-related companies, was designed to sensitise learning about sustainable business. Our study presents research in learning from game sessions and game development, using insights from analyses of documents, interviews, and observations in light of the learning-loop concept. The results show that single-loop was fully achieved; double-loop learning was achieved except for players not consistently linking comprehension of some sustainability concepts to the normative factors in business decision-making. Deutero learning was detected for the game designers and researchers involved in game design: both groups were sensitised about the difficulties to match the linear approach of game development with complex sustainability concepts. Our findings emphasise that strategic decision-making, key performance indicators and reflective debriefing are linked to the effectiveness of game-based sustainability learning. Furthermore, the learning-loop inspired assessment provides a valuable evaluation method for clarifying learning on the cognitive, normative, and contextual level. In conclusion, serious gaming offers a valid and practical approach to foster corporate sustainability learning if the game allows strategic thinking in players' decision-making; if multidisciplinary collaboration leads to the appropriate portrayal of complex decision-making processes for sustainability; and if game-based learning is reflected upon learning objectives that can be thoroughly discussed in the debriefing and beyond game sessions. As a suggestion for future research, we expect further investigation on how sustainability games could work together with other participatory learning activities to capture the benefits of different learning loops in an extended period.

... Concretamente, a través de experiencias basadas en la Gamificación, se pueden generar nuevas formas de transmitir la información a los estudiantes, y que estos desarrollen sus capacidades de manera más efectiva (Del Moral, Guzmán y Fernández, 2018). Unido a ello, la metodología de la Gamificación supone poner en práctica el juego en entornos que no presentan factores lúdicos aparentes (Deterding et al 2011). De esta forma, se puede contribuir de manera más sencilla a la adquisición de los objetivos previamente propuestos y posibilitar que se produzcan mejores resultados de aprendizaje en los estudiantes, mediante la motivación intrínseca (Torres-Toukoumidis y Romero- Rodríguez, 2018). ...

Elena González-Fenoll
Virginia Imbernón Pérez

Este artículo presenta una propuesta de enseñanza interdisciplinar e innovadora mediante el diseño de Escape Room educativos realizados por los estudiantes del primer curso del Grado en Educación Infantil, de ISEN Centro Universitario, facultad adscrita a la Universidad de Murcia. La finalidad que se persigue con este estudio es desarrollar en el alumnado del primer curso de esta titulación las competencias necesarias que atiendan a la diversidad del alumnado del segundo ciclo de Educación Infantil, además de promover la competencia comunicativa en la lengua española e inglesa en un contexto bilingüe. Todo ello se ha llevado a cabo mediante la aplicación de la metodología de la Gamificación de aprendizajes. Los resultados muestran un incremento significativo por parte del alumnado en su motivación e interés por recibir formación en materia de diversidad, así como una mayor receptividad hacia la lengua inglesa.

... The learning model using game elements and game use techniques that are designed in an off-game context or a learning model with a game approach is referred to as gamification [4,5]. Currently, gamification or game-based learning has become a new trend in learning by using technology with game elements to promote behavior and encourage desired learning results. ...

Gamification has become a new trend in learning in the 21st century, by utilizing technology with game elements to change behavior and support learning outcomes. However, few researchers have focused on the comprehensive impact of gamification in helping researchers to better understand developments over the past few years. The ScienceDirect, Taylor and Francis, Springer, Wiley, and SAGE publisher databases were surveyed and a total of forty articles from 2016-2021, were selected for review. Data analysis using NVivo 12 Plush software, with Hierarchy Chart and Mind Map methods. The main findings indicate the positive impact of gamification on student behavior and learning outcomes, including affective, cognitive, behavioral, and performance or others. The researcher recommends the continuity of gamification on learning outcomes and behavior, that interface design and teacher cognitive abilities are strategies or successful learning.

... Gamifizierung ist dabei jedoch nicht gleichbedeutend mit spielbasiertem Lernen. Gamifizierung wird auch als "Die Nutzung von Gamedesign-Elementen in nicht spielerischen Kontexten" definiert [De11]. ...

Dietmar Zoerner

Institutionelle Bildung ist für autistische Lernende mit vielgestaltigen und spezifischen Hindernissen verbunden. Dies gilt insbesondere im Zusammenhang mit Inklusion, deren Relevanz nicht zuletzt durch das Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen über die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderung gegeben ist. Diese Arbeit diskutiert zahlreiche lernrelevante Besonderheiten im Kontext von Autismus und zeigt Diskrepanzen zu den nicht immer ausreichend angemessenen institutionellen Lehrkonzepten. Eine zentrale These ist hierbei, dass die ungewöhnlich intensive Aufmerksamkeit von Autist*innen für ihre Spezialinteressen dafür genutzt werden kann, das Lernen mit fremdgestellten Inhalten zu erleichtern. Darauf aufbauend werden Lösungsansätze diskutiert, welche in einem neuartigen Konzept für ein digitales mehrgerätebasiertes Lernspiel resultieren. Eine wesentliche Herausforderung bei der Konzeption spielbasierten Lernens besteht in der adäquaten Einbindung von Lerninhalten in einen fesselnden narrativen Kontext. Am Beispiel von Übungen zur emotionalen Deutung von Mimik, welche für das Lernen von sozioemotionalen Kompetenzen besonders im Rahmen von Therapiekonzepten bei Autismus Verwendung finden, wird eine angemessene Narration vorgestellt, welche die störungsarme Einbindung dieser sehr speziellen Lerninhalte ermöglicht. Die Effekte der einzelnen Konzeptionselemente werden anhand eines prototypisch entwickelten Lernspiels untersucht. Darauf aufbauend zeigt eine quantitative Studie die gute Akzeptanz und Nutzerfreundlichkeit des Spiels und belegte vor allem die Verständlichkeit der Narration und der Spielelemente. Ein weiterer Schwerpunkt liegt in der minimalinvasiven Untersuchung möglicher Störungen des Spielerlebnisses durch den Wechsel zwischen verschiedenen Endgeräten, für die ein innovatives Messverfahren entwickelt wurde. Im Ergebnis beleuchtet diese Arbeit die Bedeutung und die Grenzen von spielbasierten Ansätzen für autistische Lernende. Ein großer Teil der vorgestellten Konzepte lässt sich auf andersartige Lernszenarien übertragen. Das dafür entwickelte technische Framework zur Realisierung narrativer Lernpfade ist ebenfalls darauf vorbereitet, für weitere Lernszenarien, gerade auch im institutionellen Kontext, Verwendung zu finden.

... Gamification is used as an umbrella term comprising a variety of techniques inspired by research in game design and generally refers to the integration of game design elements into non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011;Seaborn & Fels, 2015). The primary idea is to take advantage of the motivational nature of games to enhance the effectiveness of existing methods. ...

The present study contributes to the emerging field of gamification in personnel selection by examining validity and acceptance of the Gamified Set-Shifting Task (GSST), which is based on a well-established neuropsychological test of cognitive flexibility, the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). Results based on a sample of 180 participants in an online study provided preliminary support for construct and criterion-related validity. The GSST was better accepted among test-takers than both the WCST and a cognitive ability test. Overall, the findings suggest that the GSST may be an attractive and valid method to assist organizations in selecting employees who are able to adapt to changing environments.

In recent years, games have emerged to offer new opportunities for studying socioenvironmental systems, and online games in particular offer a low-cost option for collecting rich data from diverse populations. Compared to the now well-established popularity of education games, research games remain uncommon outside of economics and social psychology; however, the emergence of technology that makes the development and deployment of games easier creates opportunities for new research communities. The following discussion has three specific objectives. The first is to introduce the reader to nonentertainment games applied to socioenvironmental topics. The second is to pose and address key practical questions that reveal both the unique research opportunities that games provide and some of the challenges to any future applications in socioenvironmental research. The third is to briefly discuss some new topics in which games can contribute to future socioenvironmental research. Although games will never replace existing data collection modalities, they offer an alternative that may be well-suited to the study of environmental conflict and nonuse values of environmental goods.

Traditional banks and financial institutions have witnessed a profound transformation to electronic banking with the rise of the internet over the last two decades. However, most digital banking customers do not feel that the activity of managing their money and making online transactions is exciting or enjoyable. The gamification of e-banking systems is a novel approach for promoting customer engagement that is gaining popularity. This work reviews the factors influencing the adoption of e-banking and how gamification can be used to improve customer engagement, loyalty, and financial wellbeing. An exploration of the most extensively used game design elements in gamified e-banking applications suggests that the use of certain game mechanics and characteristics can be effective in creating enjoyable banking experiences. Based on this research, a set of guidelines is provided for designers and practitioners for introducing game principles in e-banking applications.

Oluwatobi Ekundayo
Lisa Murphy
Pramod Pathak
Paul Stynes

Only 4% of household waste generated in Africa is recycled. Current research uses machine learning models in cloud-based solutions to classify waste. However, in countries with limited internet access, there is a need to increase user engagement in classifying waste using an on-device approach. Developing a machine learning model for a mobile device with limited size and speed is a challenge. This research proposes an on-device deep learning framework to encourage the recycling of household waste. The proposed framework combines an optimal deep learning image classification model and gamification elements. A combination of multiple waste datasets named WasteNet consisting of 33,520 images is used to train the deep learning image classification model using seven classes of recyclable waste namely e-waste, garbage, glass, metal, organic, paper and plastic. Data augmentation and transfer learning techniques are applied to train five models on a mobile device namely, MobileNetV2, VGG19, DenseNet201, ResNet152V2 and InceptionResNetV2. Results of the five models are presented in this paper based on accuracy, loss, latency and size. This research shows promise for InceptionResNetV2, MobileNetV2 and DenseNet201in encouraging householders to engage in recycling waste using gamification on a mobile device.

James York
Frederick Poole
Jonathan W. deHaan

In this paper, we argue that current research on games in language education, predominantly framed as "digital game‐based language learning" (DGBLL), is lacking details regarding the role of teachers, or more precisely, the verbalization of the pedagogical underpinnings, scaffolds, and techniques teachers use to successfully integrate games and play in their teaching contexts. Thus, we propose a new direction of research that emphasizes the importance of teachers in game‐based language learning and argue for the necessity of an inclusive field of inquiry that is open to the diverse instantiations of games and play which exist outside the current scope of DGBLL. This new field places teachers and a deeper consideration of the connections between play and learning at the center of an approach to studying the intersection and implementation of games and language teaching. We present three "ludic language pedagogy" (LLP) studies which demonstrate what teaching with and around games looks like. Finally, we propose numerous avenues of further inquiry for teachers and researchers to advance the field of LLP. Research on game use in language learning is narrowly focused on game design and games as stand‐alone learning environments. Few studies have investigated the role and impact of teachers in this field. Thus, we explore why teachers have been left out, why they are needed, and what teaching with games looks like.

The developments in game industry and service design have led to an increased use of so-called game mechanics to drive customer retention and engagement outside the realm of, what can traditionally be seen as, games. This act of enhancing services with game-like features has largely been coined as 'gamification'. The phenomenon has been thus far discussed atomically, without ties to existing literature on service marketing, to which the goals of gamification is strongly related to. This paper presents a definition for gamification from the perspective of service marketing and lays ground for future studies on gamification and marketing.

Regina Bernhaupt

User Experience has become a major research area in human-computer interaction. The area of game design and development has been focusing on user experience evaluation for the last 20 years, although a clear definition of user experience is still to be established. The contributors to this volume explore concepts that enhance the overall user experience in games such as fun, playability, flow, immersion and many others. Presenting an overview of current practice from academia and industry in game development, the book shows a variety of methods that can be used to evaluate user experience in games, not only during game-play but also before and after the game play. Evaluating User Experiences in Games: • Presents a broad range of user experience evaluation methods and concepts; • Provides insights on when to apply the various user experience evaluation methods in the development cycle and shows how methods can be also applied to a more general HCI context; • Includes new research on evaluating user experience during game play and after; and social play; • Describes new evaluation methods; • Details methods that are also applicable for exertion games or tabletop games. This comprehensive book will be welcomed by researchers and practitioners in the field.

Terry Bossomaier

This chapter studies serious games, games for education and training. First, the nature of what makes a game is discussed and a distinction drawn between games and simulation. Games are considered at multiple levels. At one level, there are games which focus on developing a physical skill, such as learning to fly a plane or carry out a surgical procedure. At other levels are games which develop high-level social skills and gamification, the addition of game-like elements to add motivation. The progress in developing games for mathematics education is described, along with a general perspective on the state of evaluation of serious games.

Miguel Sicart

This article defins game mechanics in relation to rules and challenges. Game mechanics are methods invoked by agents for interacting with the game world. I apply this definition to a comparative analysis of the games Rez, Every Extend Extra and Shadow of the Colossus that will show the relevance of a formal definition of game mechanics.