Designing Gamification in the Right Way

Home , Gamification, Gamification of learning, Mud

Chapter 5

amification is still relatively new as a topic in education and libraries for the purpose of improv- of research. While the use of gamification is ing user engagement and instruction. But the goals of Gbecoming more popular, there are few sys- many gamification projects do not appear to have been tematic studies that assess and measure the impact of clearly set out before the projects began. This is prob- gamification.1 For this reason, many benefits of gami- ably due to the fact that gamification is still seen as a fication are hypothesized rather than verified at this relatively new and experimental strategy. Nevertheless, point. In chapter 2, we saw that gamification of learn- considering various outcomes from a gamification proj- ing is not identical to educational games since the lat- ect in advance and determining which outcome should ter are full-fledged games while the former is only a be given the highest priority can greatly facilitate the lightweight application that applies game elements evaluation and improvement process of a gamification

to the learning context. But both the gamification of project. Suppose that an instructor gamifies part of or TechnologyLibrary Reports learning and educational games share the same pro- all homework for a class with a leaderboard, points, cess of gamifying learning elements to create the final teams, challenges, missions, and badges. The goal of product. Consequently, the studies that evaluated the this gamification may simply be to increase the number efficacy of educational games are relevant to the dis- of students who submit the homework on time. Or the cussion on the evaluation of gamification projects. goal can be set as better grades from the students in Previous studies about serious games failed to pro- the low performance group, the longer retention time duce strong evidence for their pedagogical efficacy of the subject knowledge taught, or increasing students’ when compared to other instructional methods due to collaboration skills through working out challenges and 2

methodological shortcomings. Furthermore, assess- missions as a team. Setting a clear goal for a gamifica- alatechsource.org ing the effectiveness of an educational game is not a tion project makes it much easier to design the project straightforward task because there are many variables and to evaluate it after it is run. to be considered such as whether a game is of the type If we are gamifying library services or programs, that is most suitable for the learning content in ques- here are some examples of questions that we should tion, whether the learning content itself is suitable for ask in advance. Do we simply want to advertise various

a game in the first place, students’ previous knowledge activities taking place in the library more widely? Or 2015 February/March about the learning content, and what their individual do we want to increase the attendance of a library pro- preferences are for a type of game.3 gram? Do we want to use gamification as a way for students to understand better why plagiarism is unaccept- able? Or do we want patrons to be able to successfully A Clear Goal order an interlibrary loan service on the library web- site? How about retaining the knowledge of different The examples of gamification in the previous chapter citation style formats? Note that these goals are not nec- showed that gamification is currently being utilized essarily mutually exclusive but are not identical either.

29 Understanding Gamification Bohyun Kim Target Group and User Types two different types of people: those who are willing to play for extrinsic rewards and those who are not. Once a clear goal is set for a gamification project, The “player” type refers to those who are motivated to we need to also consider at whom the gamification play by extrinsic rewards. By contrast, the “socialiser,” is directed and what the characteristics of the tar- “free spirit” (a type similar to Bartle’s “explorer”), get group are. For example, at an academic library, “achiever,” and “philanthropist” are motivated to play it would be good to think about whether a particular by intrinsic factors such as social connections, self- gamification project is to be designed for all students expression and exploration, personal achievement and in general or a certain group of students such as fresh- mastery, and a sense of purpose. men, seniors, international students, business school These user types are theoretical abstractions, and students in their summer internship, or students with people in the real world are likely to display charac- poor grades in writing classes, and so on. teristics of more than one of these types to different After determining the target group for a gamifi- degrees. Nevertheless, they provide a useful guide in cation project, another important thing to consider understanding how different motivations are involved is the user type. Bartle classified players in the MUD in gamification and how a gamified application can be (Multi-User Dungeon) games into four types: achievers, designed to appeal to those with different motivations. explorers, socialisers, and killers. (MUD is an adventure For the “player” type, it is clear that offering exter- game played through real-time interaction with other nal rewards, such as a prize or a gift certificate, will players in a virtual world described only in text.) He increase user participation and engagement. For the describes the four types as follows: other types, on the other hand, gamification needs to provide different types of incentives that will appeal to • “Achievers regard points-gathering and rising in them. For example, high achievers in schools with good levels as their main goal.” grades would fall under the category of “achiever” • “Explorers delight when the game reveals its inter- and are likely to be drawn to gamification if the game nal machinations. . . . They try progressively eso- mechanics and dynamics enhance the sense of per- teric actions in wild, out-of-the-way places, look- sonal mastery and achievement. However, gamifica- ing for interesting features . . . and figuring out tion that focuses on personal mastery and achievement how things work.” would have little appeal to other types of users such • “Socialisers are interested in people, and what as “socialiser” and “philanthropist.” The “socialiser” they have to say. The game is merely a back- type will enjoy gamification that offers a lot of social drop, a common ground where things happen to interactions, while the “philanthropist” type would players. Inter-player relationships are important: respond well to gamification for a greater cause. The empathising with people, sympathising, joking, “free spirit” type will be drawn to game mechanics entertaining, listening; even merely observing such as the detailed customization of avatars, space, people play can be rewarding—seeing them grow and journey-type quests where many discoveries can as individuals, maturing over time.” be made and a lot of detours are available. • “Killers get their kicks from imposing themselves If you are designing a gamified application, on [and causing distress to] others.”4 embedding game dynamics and mechanics that appeal to the target group and providing the type of rewards It is easy to see that people in different user types that are attractive to the motivation of the majority February/March 2015 may prefer one type of game to another. Bartle’s player of them would significantly improve the appeal of types have served as a general framework for other the gamification. For example, medical students are game researchers and a guideline for game designers known to be highly competitive but have little time to even though they are specific to MUD-type games.5 spare beyond their study. Gamification for such medi- Marczewski modifies Bartle’s player types to fit the cal students will be successful if it is designed to have context of gamification as follows. the element of competition and can be played during alatechsource.org a short break. But the members of the target group • player (motivated by extrinsic rewards) may belong to multiple user types. For this reason, in • socialiser (motivated by relatedness) designing gamification, different types of motivation • free spirit (motivated by autonomy) that appeal to different user types need to be care- • achiever (motivated by mastery) fully considered and balanced out instead of overly • philanthropist (motivated by purpose)6 emphasizing one of them over others. In the context of education, thinking about these different types of The main difference between Bartle’s player types users and their motivation in relation to different and Marczewski’s gamification user types is that the learning styles can also be beneficial. Students’ differ-

Library Technology ReportsLibrary Technology latter accommodates the fact that unlike games whose ent learning styles should be taken into account as an players always want to play, gamification will have important factor in the design process of gamification

30 Understanding Gamification Bohyun Kim particularly if the majority of the target group prefers match concepts, manipulate numbers, and recognize a certain learning style to others. patterns; Jeopardy-style games are likely to be best for promoting the learning of verbal information (facts, labels, and propositions) and concrete concepts; Other Variables: Gender, Age, arcade-style games are likely to be best at promoting Culture, and Academic Performance speed of response, automaticity, and visual processing; adventure games, which are narrative-driven open- In designing gamification, one should also be aware of ended learning environments, are likely to be best for the fact that variables such as gender, age, and cultural promoting hypothesis testing and problem solving. orientations can play a role in variance in the recep- This means that there is a great need for matching spe- tion of gamified application. Kron et al. discovered cific learning goals with types of games or gaming ele- that female students were about 35 percent as likely ments that are most suitable for those learning goals. as male students to enjoy the competitive aspects The following list from Kapp presents seven types of the video games.7 A different study by Wohn and of knowledge, along with gamification elements and Lee showed that younger players (under age 32) play examples for each type. It can be taken as an effort to Facebook games to pass the time and relieve boredom, respond to this kind of need. while older players (age 32 and up) play Facebook games to help others and also to get support and help • “Declarative Knowledge” from others.8 Another study by Lee and Wohn revealed • Gamification elements: “Stories/Narrative, that different cultural orientations, such as individu- Sorting, Matching, Replayability” alism and collectivism, affect people’s expected out- • Examples: “Trivia, Hangman, Drag and Drop” comes of playing social network games such as social • “Conceptual Knowledge” interaction, recognition, entertainment, and diversion • Gamification elements: “Matching and sorting, and that those expected outcomes in turn affect differ- Experiencing the concept” ent game usage patterns.9 • Examples: “Whack a Mole, You Bet!” In addition, findings from the studies on seri- • “Rules-Based Knowledge” ous games need to be taken into account in design- • Gamification elements: “Experience conse- ing gamification. Kanthan and Senger studied the quences” results of the midterm exam for second-year medi- • Examples: “Board games, Simulated work cal students after the use of a serious game and found tasks” that the results indicated that the game improved aca- • “Procedural Knowledge” demic performance outcomes of students at the lower • Gamification elements: “Software challenges, end of the scale more than those at the higher end.10 Practice”

They regarded this finding as consistent with Van • Examples: “Data Miner, Software scenarios” TechnologyLibrary Reports Eck’s claim that serious games benefit students with • “Soft Skills” less self-motivation and lower grades.11 If this holds • Gamification elements: “Social Simulator” true for gamification, educational gamification may • Examples: “Leadership simulation” be more effective when it is specifically designed as • “Affective Knowledge” a learning tool for underperforming students. Another • Gamification elements: “Immersion, Providing interesting observation from students reported in the success, Encouragement from celebrity-type literature is that serious games may be most beneficial figures” as a supplementary tool in education rather than as a • Examples: “Darfur Is Dying” 12

replacement for traditional teaching. • “Psychomotor Domain” alatechsource.org • Gamification elements: “Demonstration, Hap- tic devices” Learning Content • Examples: “Virtual Surgery Simulator”14

In the context of learning and education, it is inevi-

table to notice the potential of gamification as a Darfur Is Dying 2015 February/March pedagogical tool beyond mere engagement. In 2006, www.darfurisdying.com Richard Van Eck noted that the taxonomy of games is as complex as learning taxonomies.13 He argued that Virtual Surgery Simulator not all games will be equally effective at all levels of https://smiletrain.biodigitalhuman.com/home learning and that it is critical that we understand how different types of games work and how game taxonomies align with learning taxonomies. For example, Needless to say, Kapp’s is not the only classifica- card games will be best for promoting the ability to tion of knowledge. In addition, the items that he lists

31 Understanding Gamification Bohyun Kim as gamification elements are closer to a type of game a matched slideshow that contained the same text and or a gaming activity than the game mechanics or images used in the game to explain pathogens. For the dynamics that we have discussed. But in the context content about how electromechanical devices work, of education, this classification is still useful in investi- students were divided into a narrative game group, gating further how to best apply gamification to learn- a non-narrative game group, and a non-game group. ing and instruction. For example, with the MDA frame- Students in the narrative game group played a game work that we have seen in chapater 3 in mind, which called “Cache 17,” in which they were tasked to find a game mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics would be long-lost painting in an old bunker system dating back best mapped to each of Kapp’s seven types of knowl- to World War II. To make their way through the bunker edge? This is a challenge for anyone who is interested system to find the painting, students had to construct in gamifying learning. Game aesthetics are less directly electromechanical devices to help open doors. In addi- tied to the learning content and more closely related tion, they were given a narrative about the character to what kind of emotions and experience the gamifica- and had to interact with other game characters dur- tion tries to deliver. For this reason, any game aesthet- ing the game. On the other hand, students in the non- ics that can serve the purpose of delivering the given narrative game group played the same game, but nei- learning content can be chosen, whether it is narra- ther a narrative nor other characters were given, and tive, challenge, discovery, achievement, or fantasy. the documents they read contained information only On the other hand, coming up with compelling about the electrical devices they had to use. Lastly, game dynamics and supporting them with appropri- those in the non-game group learned the same content ate game mechanics is much more challenging. For by viewing a matched slideshow that contained the example, acquiring demonstrative knowledge requires same text and images used in the game’s resources to a lot of repetition and association. From this, we can explain the devices. infer that game dynamics and mechanics that facili- The results of these two experiments showed that tate the repetitive performance of tasks without mak- students learned both sets of content significantly bet- ing them boring would be best utilized for this type of ter by viewing a slideshow presentation than by play- knowledge acquisition. Points can be a useful game ing a hands-on narrative adventure game.16 However, mechanics here, and feedback, progress bars, time this does not mean that discovery and narrative are pressure, and countdowns can all work well as appro- not useful game elements for the gamification of learn- priate game mechanics for this category of knowledge ing. It simply means that discovery and narrative were because they can invoke game dynamics such as a not the most appropriate game dynamics for teaching sense of urgency in players and turning the repetition those two particular sets of learning content. Adams et of the same type of task into something exciting. Those al. also took their study results as supporting the dis- who design gamification, however, must go one step traction hypothesis, which holds that certain aspects further and should ultimately create a playful and fun of game playing—discovery and narrative in this experience from those game mechanics and dynamics. case—can distract the learner from the academic con- This is where each designer’s creativity and imagina- tent of the lesson rather than facilitating the learning tion come to play a unique role in creating successful process.17 gamification. What is to be avoided is to blindly set a certain game mechanics, dynamics, or aesthetics as an ideal Can Gamification Be February/March 2015 and to neglect the right fit with the given learning con- Harmful? Tangible Rewards tent. The study by Adams et al. illustrates what hap- and Intrinsic Motivation pens when such a fit is ignored.15 They measured students’ learning outcomes for the same learning content While gamification is touted as a new way to engage through three different learning methods: a narrative and motivate people and even to influence their game, a non-narrative game, and a PowerPoint slide- behavior, there are also critiques of gamification that alatechsource.org show. The learning content tested in this study was need to be heeded. For example, some critiques argue (a) how pathogens work and (b) how various elec- that gamification can become “exploitationware” with tromechanical devices work. For the content about counterfeit rather than genuine incentives.18 Rughinis how pathogens work, students were divided into a noted that gamification of education can also become game group and a non-game group. Students in the exploitative “if it becomes an excuse for a simplistic, game group played a game called “Crystal Island,” in inadequate design of learning.”19 which they were given the challenge of discovering One of the most interesting critiques of gamifica- the source of an unknown disease on a remote island tion revolves around the concepts of external reward through interacting with other characters and using and intrinsic motivation. Motivation falls under two

Library Technology ReportsLibrary Technology lab microscopes to run tests. By contrast, those in the categories: extrinsic and intrinsic. When we take an non-game group learned the same content by viewing action out of extrinsic motivation, the goal of that

32 Understanding Gamification Bohyun Kim action is not the action itself but something else. On do so because she wants to protect the environment. the other hand, when the goal of an action is the Humans are capable of enjoying the gamified experi- action itself, it is intrinsic motivation out of which ence for its own sake regardless of the designer’s inten- we take that action. Deci, Koestner, and Ryan con- tion. It is also possible that intrinsic and extrinsic moti- ducted a meta-analysis of 128 studies on the effects vation coexist independently for the same activity. of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.20 Their Unlike in recycling or driving, however, educators meta-analysis showed that “engagement-contingent, care a great deal about whether a student is intrin- completion-contingent, and performance-contingent sically or extrinsically motivated to participate in a rewards significantly undermined free-choice intrin- learning activity. They do not want the students to sic motivation . . . , as did all rewards, all tangible play Fantasy Geopolitics only because they want to rewards, and all expected rewards. Engagement-con- score more points and win the competition. Educa- tingent and completion-contingent rewards also sig- tors want them to realize that news reading is not as nificantly undermined self-reported interest . . . , as intimidating and difficult as it may seem and to even- did all tangible rewards and all expected rewards. Pos- tually understand and even enjoy reading about cur- itive feedback [i.e., verbal rewards] enhanced both rent geopolitical issues. What if Fantasy Geopolitics or free-choice behavior . . . and self-reported interest. any other educational gamification undermines such Tangible rewards tended to be more detrimental for intrinsic motivation for learning? Would rewards stu- children than college students,” and verbal rewards dents’ as points, statuses, or tangible prizes reduce or tended to be less enhancing for children than college destroy students’ intrinsic motivation to learn? Is gam- students.21 That is, external rewards undermine intrin- ification harmful rather than helpful to learning? sic motivation. One way to solve the problem of the potential Since the goal of gamification is always something long-term negative effect of gamification on intrin- other than gameplay itself, it seems natural to assume sic motivation is to design gamification that does not that what motivates people to engage in any gami- depend on external rewards. For example, gamifica- fied application is almost always extrinsic. We turn tion can be designed to give more autonomy to users to EpicWin and Chore Wars because we want to get by allowing them to set their own goals or to guide things done, which we would otherwise procrastinate them to make their own choices about the constraints on doing. We play Nike+ because we want to exercise to be placed for a given learning goal in educational regularly. We follow along the Codecademy program contexts.22 This can help users realize the relevance of because we want to learn how to code. This puts gami- the goal of gamification to them and understand how fication in a sharp contrast with a game, which people learning outcomes are connected to game elements play for its own sake. Take the Speed Camera Lottery in educational contexts. This can also in turn mini- that we saw in chapter 2 as an example. People may mize the potential controlling aspect of rewards and not be willing to drive at the given speed limit. With instead strengthen their competence-affirming aspect. TechnologyLibrary Reports the reward of potentially winning a lottery, however, The challenge in this case is how to make tasks suffi- the gamification generates extrinsic motivation for ciently fun to engage people without relying on tangi- people to observe the speed limit. Now, what would ble rewards and extrinsic motivation. happen if the camera were removed? It is easy to see However, not all tangible rewards need to be that many drivers who were observing the speed limit removed from gamification or even from the gamifica- only for a chance to win the lottery would start driving tion of learning. Gamification used for one-time activ- over the speed limit again. ity, such as a library orientation or a promotional cam- But not all cases are this straightforward. Let’s take paign, is not subject to its long-term negative effect

the Bottle Bank Arcade machine as another example. on intrinsic motivation. Gamifying an activity that alatechsource.org The goal that the designers of the Bottle Bank Arcade participants find dull or boring is also safe from such machine had in mind was to encourage people to col- concerns because there is little intrinsic motivation lect and recycle more bottles. But that does not prevent to begin with to be undermined by rewards.23 Also, anyone from playing the Bottle Bank Arcade game for gamification that offers an unexpected non–task-con- its own sake. The child who is jumping up and down tingent reward can be utilized without the undermin- 24 with joy while playing this game is probably just as ing effect on intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, ver- 2015 February/March intrinsically motivated as someone who watches her bal rewards, also known as positive feedback, can be favorite movie for the third time. In such cases, the incorporated into gamification to enhance intrinsic reward that gamification provides becomes nontangi- motivation for adults as long as it is not given in a con- ble, and the motivation influenced by gamification is trolling manner.25 no longer extrinsic. The same person may be extrin- In designing gamification, we need to remember sically motivated to collect and recycle more bottles, that gamification itself does not automatically gener- so that she can play the Bottle Bank Arcade game, ate motivation or engagement. For any gamification to and at the same time also intrinsically motivated to succeed, it needs people’s buy-in because they should

33 Understanding Gamification Bohyun Kim care enough to play along. It is for this reason that Games in Libraries: Essays on Using Play to Connect and the more closely the goal of gamification aligns with Instruct, ed. Breanne A. Kirsch (Jefferson, NC: McFar- the goal of a player, the more successful the gamifica- land, 2014), 160–161. tion will be. This strategy also minimizes the potential 4. Richard Bartle, “Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs,” self-published online 1996, negative effect of gamification on intrinsic motivation http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm. because in such a case players already are intrinsically 5. Donghee Yvette Wohn and Yu-Hao Lee, “Players of motivated to a degree to perform the activity. They Facebook Games and How They Play,” Entertainment may need just a little extra push to actually do the Computing 4, no. 3 (2013): 172, doi:10.1016/ work. As the designers of gamification, we also need j.entcom.2013.05.002. to ensure that the rewards attached to gamification are 6. Andrzej Marczewski, Gamification: A Simple Introduc- appropriate to the context and do not pose the risk of tion and a Bit More, 2nd ed. (self-published on Ama- distorting the intended context. zon Digital Services, 2013), Kindle edition, Loc 1405 When people feel that gamification attempts to of 1798. 7. Frederick W. Kron, Craig L. Gjerde, Ananda Sen, and manipulate their behavior, they will inevitably object Michael D. Fetters, “Medical Student Attitudes toward to and disengage from it. Even verbal rewards that Video Games and Related New Media Technologies were shown to enhance intrinsic motivation had an in Medical Education,” BMC Medical Education 10:50 undermining effect when they were given with a con- (2010): 7, doi:10.1186/1472-6920-10-50. trolling interpersonal style.26 While this may be disap- 8. Wohn and Lee, “Players of Facebook Games,” 175. pointing news to those who want gamification to be a 9. Yu-Hao Lee and Donghee Yvette Wohn, “Are There panacea for motivation, people’s autonomy should be Cultural Differences in How We Play? Examining respected in any attempt to engage them and influence Cultural Effects on Playing Social Network Games,” Computers in Human Behavior 28, no. 4 (July 2012): their behavior. The fact that the reach of gamification 1307–14, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.02.014. has limits should not detract from its value. We need 10. Rani Kanthan and Jenna-Lynn Senger, “The Impact to instead apply gamification wisely, thoughtfully, and of Specially Designed Digital Games-Based Learning selectively with a clear goal; a thorough understanding in Undergraduate Pathology and Medical Education,” of the target audience, the nature of the target activity, Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 135, and the gamified learning content; and appropriate no. 1 (January 2011): 141, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ and effective rewards for the intended context. How pubmed/21204720. to measure the success of gamification should be also 11. Richard Van Eck, “Digital Game-Based Learning: It’s planned ahead in relation to the goal of gamification. Not Just the Digital Natives Who Are Restless,” Edu- cause Review 41, no. 2 (2006): 16–30. 12. Bill Kapralos, Sayra Cristancho, Mark Porte, David Backstein, Alex Monclou, and Adam Dubrowski, Notes “Serious Games in the Classroom: Gauging Student Perceptions,” in Medicine Meets Virtual Reality 18 (e- 1. Florin Oprescu, Christian Jones, and Mary Katsikitis, book), ed. James D. Westwood, Susan W. Westwood, “I PLAY AT WORK—Ten Principles for Transform- Li Felländer-Tsai, Randy S. Haluck, Helene M. Hoff- ing Work Processes through Gamification,” article man, Richard A. Robb, Steven Senger, and Kirby G. 14, Frontiers in Psychology 5 (January 2014): 4, Vosburgh, Studies in Health Technology and Informat- doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00014. ics, vol. 163, (Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS 2. Elie A. Akl, Kay M. Sackett, Richard Pretorius, Paran- Press, 2011), 259. thaman Seth S. Bhoopathi, Reem Mustafa, Holger 13. Van Eck, “Digital Game-Based Learning,” 22. February/March 2015 Schünemann, and William S. Erdley, “Educational 14. Karl M. Kapp, The Gamification of Learning and Instruc- Games for Health Professionals,” Cochrane Database tion: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training of Systematic Reviews, CD006411, published online and Education, (San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2012), table January 23, 2008, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006411. 8.1, 189–90. pub2; Ziad Alfarah, Holger J. Schünemann, and Elie 15. Deanne M. Adams, Richard E. Mayer, Andrew Mac- A. Akl, “Educational Games in Geriatric Medicine Namara, Alan Koenig, and Richard Wainess, “Nar-

alatechsource.org Education: A Systematic Review,” BMC Geriatrics rative Games for Learning: Testing the Discovery 10:19 (2010), doi:10.1186/1471-2318-10-19; P. and Narrative Hypotheses,” Journal of Educational S. Bhoopathi, R. Sheoran, and C. E. Adams, “Edu- Psychology 104, no. 1 (February 2012): 235–49, cational Games for Mental Health Professionals: A doi:10.1037/a0025595. Cochrane Review,” International Journal of Psychiatric 16. Ibid., 241. Nursing Research 12, no. 3 (2007): 1497–1502; Gil- 17. Ibid., 246. lian Blakely, Heather Skirton, Simon Cooper, Peter 18. Ian Bogost, “Persuasive Games: Exploitationware,” Allum, and Pam Nelmes, “Educational Gaming in Gamasutra, May 3, 2011, www.gamasutra.com/view/ the Health Sciences: Systematic Review,” Journal of feature/134735/persuasive_games_exploitationware Advanced Nursing 65, no. 2 (February 2009): 259–69, .php. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04843.x. 19. Razvan Rughinis, “Gamification for Productive Inter- Library Technology ReportsLibrary Technology 3. Bohyun Kim, “Learning with Games in Medicine and action: Reading and Working with the Gamification Healthcare and the Potential Role of Libraries,” in Debate in Education,” in 2013 8th Iberian Conference

34 Understanding Gamification Bohyun Kim on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), IN- .com/pubs/meaningfulframework.pdf. SPEC Accession Number 13848780 (IEEE Xplore Digi- 23. Edward L. Deci, Richard Koestner, and Richard M. tal Library, 2013), 2. Ryan, “Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation 20. Edward L. Deci, Richard Koestner, and Richard M. in Education: Reconsidered Once Again,” Review of Ryan, “A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Exam- Educational Research 71, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 14, ining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Mo- doi:10.3102/00346543071001001. tivation,” Psychological Bulletin 125, no. 6 (November 24. Deci, Koestner, and Ryan, “A Meta-Analytic Review,” 1999): 627–68, doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627. 646. 21. Ibid., 627. 25. Deci, Koestner, and Ryan, “Extrinsic Rewards and In- 22. Scott Nicholson, “A User-Centered Theoretical Frame- strinsic Motivation,” 9. work for Meaningful Gamification,” paper presented 26. Ibid., 13–14. at Games+Learning+Society 8.0 conference, Madi- son, WI, June 13–15, 2012, http://scottnicholson TechnologyLibrary Reports alatechsource.org February/March 2015 February/March

35 Understanding Gamification Bohyun Kim