UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE VALENCIA“San Vicente Mártir”

GAMES AND GAMIFICATION: ATHEORETICAL APPROACH TO ITS USE AS

A TOOL IN CLASS

Máster Universitario: Máster Universitario en Formación del Profesorado de Secundaria,Bachillerato, Formación Profesional y Enseñanzas de Idiomas, Especialidad en Inglés

Presentado porDª MARIA DEL CARMEN MONCHO PUCHOL

Dirigido por: Dª NEUS ÁLVAREZ RUBIO

Valencia, a 28 de MAYO de 2015

PORTADILLA

Dª NEUS ÁLVAREZ RUBIO

CERTIFICA:

Que el trabajo titulado: GAMES AND GAMIFICATION: A THEORETICAL APPROACH TO ITS USE ASA TOOL IN CLASS, ha sido realizado bajo mi dirección por la alumna Dª MARIA DEL CARMENMONCHO PUCHOL

Valencia, 28 de MAYO de 2015

Firmado:

AUTORIZACIÓN PUBLICACIÓN TRABAJO FIN DE MÁSTER

Dña.: MARIA DEL CARMEN MONCHO PUCHOL, con

D.N.I. 73657974 Z, como autor del Trabajo Fin de Máster con título: GAMES ANDGAMIFICATION: A THEORETICAL APPROACH TO ITS USE AS A TOOL IN CLASS del MásterUniversitario EN FORMACIÓN DEL PROFSORADO DE SECUNDARIA, BACHILLERATO,FORMACIÓN PROFESIONAL Y ENSEÑANZA DE IDIOMAS, ESPECIALIDAD EN INGLÉS

AUTORIZA:

la publicación en la Universidad Católica de Valencia “San Vicente Mártir” del Trabajo Fin deMáster arriba mencionado, como material de uso pedagógico para el apoyo al estudio yla investigación.

Valencia, 28 de MAYO de 2015

Fdo:

ABSTRACT

This dissertation is aimed at analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of learning a

second language through games. Therefore, I will investigate all the existing literature

about games and gamification and how a second language, different from the mother

tongue, can be learnt through games (simulations, role-plays, guessing..) with scholar

articles found on journals, academic articles and scientific texts.

Once I will analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of learning a second language

through games, I will state my opinion in respect to this methodology by giving

examples and citing authors who reinforce my view.

Key words: game, gamification, second language learning, advantages, disadvantages

RESUMEN

Este trabajo de investigación tiene como objetivo analizar las ventajas y las desventajas

del aprendizaje de una segunda lengua mediante juegos. De este modo, investigaré toda

la información académica existente sobre la gamification, como se puede aprender una

segunda lengua distinta a la materna mediante juegos (simulaciones, juegos de roles,

deducciones…) a través de documentos académicos encontrados en journals, artículos

académicos ¸ y en textos científicos.

Una vez analizadas las ventajas y las desventajas sobre el aprendizaje basado en juegos,

mostraré mi opinión respecto a esta metodología, y método, argumentándola con

ejemplos y citando autores que refuercen mi punto de vista.

Palabras clave: juego, gamification, aprendizaje de una segunda lengua, ventajas,

desventajas

RESUM

Aquest treball d’investigació té com a objectiu analitzar els avantatges i les

desavantatges de l’aprenentatge d’una segona llengua per mitjà de jocs. D’aquesta

manera, investigaré tota la informació acadèmica que existeix al voltant de

gamification, i com es pot treballar una segona llengua utilitzant la metodologia de

l’aprenentatge basat en jocs (simulacions, jocs de rol, deduccions...).

Una vegada analitzats els avantatges i les desavantatges sobre l’aprenentatge basat en

jocs, mostraré la meua opinió respecte a aquest mètode i metodologia, recolzant-me

amb els autors que hauré citat prèviament.

Paraules clau: joc, gamification, aprenentatge d’una segona llengua, avantatges,

desavantatges

INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION 12. EXISTING LITERATURE 3

2.1. Existing Literature of Games 32.2. Existing Literature of Gamification 5

3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 123.1. Hypothesis 123.2. Research Questions 12

4. ANALYSIS 134.1. Games 13

4.1.1. Scaffolding in Games 184.1.2. Types of Games 224.1.3. Points in Games 244.1.4. Levels 264.1.5. Other Markers of Progression 274.1.6. How to Design and Evaluate Game Based Learning 284.1.7. Advantages and Disadvantages of Games 30

4.2. Gamification 334.2.1. Engagement in Gamification 354.2.2. Levels in Gamification 394.2.3. Debriefing in Gamification 404.2.4. Advantages and Disadvantages of Gamification 414.2.5. Gamification Misunderstandings 45

4.3. Education Games vs Gamification of Education 474.4. Computer Assisted Language Learning 51

5. CONCLUSIONS 555.1. Answers to the Research Questions 555.2. Reflections on the Use of Games in Class 58

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY 63

1. INTRODUCTION

In this dissertation, what I aim to prove is that games can be used both as an

effective methodology and method for teaching any subject, and languages in particular.

We will analyze the different elements that form games and gamification, the main

advantages and disadvantages of both, and their relation.

The general motivation to study the topic of learning through games and

gamification is that everybody has a child inside him or her, and we love playing.

Therefore, as playing games is an interesting pastime, I want to prove that they can be

used for making learning more attractive for students. Since I started working as an

English teacher, I have been interested in making my students enjoy being in class and

learning. Therefore, in my opinion, games and gamification are perfect methods for this

purpose.

Since the impact of technology and globalization has made English to become a

lingua franca, that is a language and tool to communicate in any field, many learners

have realized that their traditional English learning at school was not an appropriate

preparation for the real world use of this language. What is more, there are English

learning methods and methodologies, which are usually dynamic and communicative,

and which are on the web for learners’ disposal. This phenomenon shows that informal

learning, the one which does not occur in the classroom, has been more flexible within

context relevance, comparing it to formal learning.

Having set out the essay and the general motivation, we can declare that the

investigation of this issue might be of the interest of teachers because they can use more

dynamic and engaging methodologies for their lessons. Nowadays, students ask for

1

more active participation in class, and teachers should be able to answer to these

requirements.

The overall structure of this study takes the form of six chapters, including this

introductory chapter. As we are doing in this section, this first part deals with the

introduction of this topic, showing the interest of our analysis, its purposes and the

relevance of this theme at the moment. Secondly, we will be looking at the existing

literature about games and gamification, doing an in-depth study of the different

investigations carried out on this topic, and the controversy which has arisen around

them. In the third chapter, we will set out to specify the research objectives that

motivate and trigger our analysis. Right after this part, we will start our analysis of the

different elements which form games and gamification, their advantages and

disadvantages, and the relationship between these two methods for teaching. The fifth

part is aimed to fall back on section 3, there we will discuss if the research hypothesis

that we formulated beforehand have been accomplished throughout the study.

Furthermore, in this section, we also state the conclusions that we extract from the

whole essay, analyzing how the research questions that we had at the beginning might

have been answered at the end of our work. Finally, in the sixth part, we will provide all

the bibliography used in order to write up this dissertation.

2

2. EXISTING LITERATURE2.1. EXISTING LITERATURE OF GAMING

Games are an important aspect of our human condition. Since we are born, we play.

It is inherent in our human state to play and entertain ourselves while learning. Small

children spend their first years playing at the same time they are learning. Many

companies since the 1950s and 1960s started creating games for babies so as to practice

with numbers, colours and shapes. But before the appearance of these companies, many

pedagogues advocated for games in their teaching methods. One of the pioneers of

learning while playing is the enormously famous Maria Montessori. This physician and

educator, in her work Montessori Method of 1912, defended that children should learn

naturally while developing their own initiative and natural skills, especially through

practical play.

Unbelievingly, teaching through games can be traced back many centuries. For

example, Chinese warriors were trained by using board and war games. Moreover,

many paintings have been found in the pyramids of Egypt where drawings of

checkerboards can be seen.

For a long time, many researchers have highlighted a clear relation between learning

and playing digital games, such as the psychologists Malone and Lepper (1987) and the

GBL researchers Kowit Rapeepisarn, Kok Wai Wong, Chun Che Fung and Myint Swe

Khine (2008). Indeed, digital games promote a new learning culture which better

matches students’ interests (Prensky, 2001).

There has been some investigation of gamers’ L2 learning in out-of-class contexts.

Sylvén and Sundqvist (2012) surveyed out-of-class English activities enjoyed by 86

Swedish youths (aged from 11 to 12 years old) and found that playing digital games was

3

more popular than watching TV or listening to music. In this research, students had to

report activity diaries, in those the researchers identified three groups of gamers: non

gamers, moderate gamers, and frequent gamers. The latter achieved the highest score in

a vocabulary test, followed by the moderate and then the non-gamers. The authors of the

investigation suggest that there is a positive relationship between L2 gaming and

informal L2 learning, and the reading of in-game texts could be a key learning

facilitator.

Despite all the advantages that games have and its utilities in education, there are

still many detractors. Much criticism has risen around the aspect that if it is possible to

learn while playing, because gaming is not seen as a useful tool for teaching. For

example, in schools in East Asia, gamification is regularly seen as addictive and non-

educational (Gentile, Choo, Liau, Sim, Li, Fung, & Khoo, 2011). L2 digital gaming,

therefore, takes place mainly in “entirely out-of-school non-institutional realms of freely

chosen digital engagement” (Thorne, Black, & Sykes, 2009, p. 802). According to Hays

(2005), “games should be used as adjuncts and aids, not as stand-alone instructions”.

Moreover, these critics oppose to teaching through games because they think that the

teacher is meaningless in this methodology because the students are alone while

playing. Another criticism to gaming is that students learn how to play but actually they

do not acquire any specific skill or concept.

2.2. EXISTING LITERATURE OF GAMIFICATION

4

Interest in learning through digital games has intensified in recent years, and

researchers and teachers have been keen to harness the pedagogical benefits in

classroom contexts. The term gamification is relatively new. It was first used by Nick

Peeling, a programmer and consultant who used it to describe his idea that electronic

manufacturers could improve their products by leaning in the videogames industry. In

2008, Bret Terrill from Zynga games used the term to describe “taking the gaming

mechanics and applying them to other web properties in order to increase engagement”

(Terrill, 2008). Nevertheless, it was not until 2010 when the term gained more

popularity. The proper definition of gamification is still being discussed.

One of the definitions of gamification most widely cited is the one offered by

Deterding et al. (2012, 10) who claim that “gamification is the use of game-play

mechanics in non-game contexts”. This definition, despite its simplicity, contains

characteristics which differentiate gamification from other similar pedagogic and ludic

processes. Deterding et al. distinguish between games and play, asserting that

gamification is based on games because it is more structural and formal while play is

freeform and improvisational. While some researchers are already working on it,

currently there is still little work on this subject.

The strengths and weaknesses of the definition of gamification provided by

Deterding et al. are that it is taken from the peculiarities of gaming. This approach does

not mean that they are proposing a simplified definition, but it also means that they do

not want to categorise the types of game design elements employed in gamification, nor

the kinds of non-game contexts in which the elements are employed. This is a non-

controversial definition but it is not a proper approach because it is not useful for

understanding the details of the processes of gamification.

5

An interesting alternative definition which deals with the peculiarities of

gamification is proposed by Gabe Zichermann (2011). Zichermann, one of the main

proponents of gamification, highlights the practices and purposes of gamification. He

claims that:

Gamification can be thought of as using some elements of game systems in the

cause of a business objective. It’s easiest to identify the trend with experiences

(frequent flyer programs, Nike Running/Nike+, or Foursquare) that feel

immediately game-like. The presence of key game mechanics, such as points,

badges, levels, challenges, leaderboards, rewards, and onboarding, are signals that a

game is taking place. (Zichermann, 2011)

While the definition proposed by Deterding et al. fails due to its lack of specificity,

Zichermann identifies the game mechanics used and the purpose behind the process of

gamification. His emphasis in the use of points, badges, levels, challenges and rewards

reflects and corresponds to an important aspect of gamification. In fact, many theorists

have stressed in the nature of these mechanisms in gamification (Fitz-Walter et al.,

2011, Huotari & Hamari, 2012, Muntean, 2011, Nicholson, 2012, Paharia, 2011).

However, the points, badges, levels, challenges and rewards system is highly

criticized. Ian Bogost (Pervasive Games: Exploitationware, 2012) states that the term

exploitationware should be used instead of gamification, because it controls and dictates

the behavior of the player. Moreover, he claims that creating a game is not a simple task,

and the gamification proponents have misunderstood the basic components of what a

game is:

6

gamification mistakes games’ secondary properties for their primary ones. It insults

and violates games. It confuses the magical magnetism of games for simplistic

compulsion meted out toward extrinsic incentives. (Bogost, 2011)

Thus, interestingly enough, he enhances his argument by asserting that gamification

only takes the most superficial and insignificant elements of games and rejects

Zichermann, to whom he defines as “the gamification movement’s Dark Lord”.

Note how deftly Zichermann makes his readers believe that points, badges, levels,

leader boards, and rewards are ‘key game mechanics.’ This is wrong, of course —

key game mechanics are the operational parts of games that produce an experience

of interest, enlightenment, terror, fascination, hope, or any number of other

sensations. Points and levels and the like are mere gestures that provide structure

and measure progress within such a system. (Tulloch, 320)

Bogost clearly believes that gamification has disregarded the important elements of

games and chosen to focus on its trivialities. According to him, the use of the word

“game” in the term gamification is not correct because the mechanics of gamification

have very little to do with the experience of playing a game.

Bogost is not the one who defends this idea, the gamification critic Alan Chorney

(2012) offers a similar perspectic when he states:

Gamification entrepreneurs will say they are using “techniques that game designers

[have] used for years to motivate behaviour – points, badges, levels, high score

tables and virtual goods” (Paharia, 2011). The truth is that these techniques are not

core characteristics of video games, nor are they exclusive to video game design.

7

In reality, gamification strips games of their essential characteristic: content, and

replaces it with a brand. (Chorney, 2012: 3)

Chorney understands gamification as a practice that looks for mechanisms designed

to make a commercial activity look like and entertainment experience.

Similarly to Chorney, Margaret Robertson argues the following:

[The] problem being that gamification isn’t gamification at all. What we’re

currently terming gamification is in fact the process of taking the thing that is least

essential to games and representing it as the core of the experience. Points and

badges have no closer a relationship to games than they do to websites and fitness

apps and loyalty cards. They’re great tools for communicating progress and

acknowledging effort, but neither points nor badges in any way constitute a game.

(Robertson, 2010)

According to Robertson, gamification misleads people when it makes them believe

that it exits a simple way of turning the difficult into easy. Moreover, in her opinion, it

would be better if we used the term pointsification when addressing to gamification

because it is not related to games, but to points. Finally, she defends that “Games are

good, points are good, but games ≠ points.” (Robertson, 2010).

Eventually, it can be observed that in the field of gamification there are two

tendencies clearly differentiated. On the one hand, there are theorists who believe that

the game mechanisms such as points, levels, badges and achievements can help to

produce a game-like experience in a non-game context. On the other, there are other

theorists who understand those mechanisms as secondary to true gaming.

8

Over time many researchers have conducted theoretical and empirical studies on the

subject of learning through gamified courses. These studies have unveiled many

interesting advantages of gamification like immediate feedback, the availability of

online information, productive learning, its engagement, the individual and cooperative

learning (Gee, 2003; Rosas, Nussbaum, & Cumsille, 2003), its assessment, the role of

the teacher and technological framework (Facer, 2003; Squire, 2002, 2003).

Unfortunately, there is still few research conducted around the topic of gamification.

Muntean made a theoretical analysis of gamification as a tool to increase engagement in

e-learning platforms (Muntean, 2011). This author states that gamification mechanics

can be used as a tool to motivate and trigger desired behaviors on students. She provides

a list of gamification elements and explains how they could be included in an e-learning

course. However, there is not empirical research so, more work is required so as to

implement it and obtain evidence about its effect on learning and teaching.

Muntean is not the only author who lists the elements if gamification. Silva proposes

another list of gamification elements, focusing on social game mechanisms which could

be included in gamified courses to increase the motivation of the students while

interacting with their classmates (Silva, 2010). The elements that this theorist list are

customization, community interaction and leaderboards. However, this author fails to

provide a guide on how to apply them on education. Therefore, more research is needed

in this field.

In 2013, another social gamification framework was presented by Simões, Díaz and

Fernández (2013). This is the web page http://schoooools.com. It is a social learning

environment, which intends to assist educators and schools with attractive educational

tools in order to improve students’ motivation and learning results. In this web page

9

teachers can choose the appropriate social gamification tools for their students based on

social games’ mechanics. Moreover, these theorists present a scenario in which they

describe how a certain mechanic can be integrated using a point-based reward system.

Unfortunately, there is no empirical evidence about the effectiveness of this approach.

There are few empirical researches on this subject, but Gaasland, in his master’s

thesis “Game mechanic based e-learning” (Gåsland, 2011). In this dissertation,

Gaasland presents an experiment in which a web platform is developed for a gamified e-

learning experience and evaluated it with a university class. The platform functioned as

a collaborative database in which students created and answered questions, using it as a

different way to study and revise topics. The results of this study suggested that the

platform is motivating, to some extent, but that much more research is needed to test

other gamification mechanisms and their combinations.

In 2014, Angelini, García-Carbonell and Watts conducted a research on the topic of

“Student perceptions of gain in telematic simulation”. They pretended to analyse “the

acquisition of communicative competence in English as a Foreign Language motivated

the use of simulation and gaming methodology, specifically telematic simulation, with a

cohort of engineering students”. The results of this study show that students were

satisfied with the methodology; they improved their oral and written production skills

and consolidated their interpersonal skills.

This dissertation could not dismiss the importance of the ICONS (International

Communication and Negotiation Simulations) project from the United States. It has

more than 30 years of experience designing and delivering educational role-play

simulations. Participants take part in simulations which can be scheduled for any length

10

of time throughout the year, and which consist of situations related with international

conflicts.

Finally, as this is the aim of this dissertation, more research should be conducted in

the following years around the topic of learning languages through gamified courses.

Most research of gamification has been applied to medicine, engineering or economic

courses, but not to learning and teaching languages.

3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

In the first sections, we have been looking at the introduction of this essay and the

existing literature about this topic. It is our purpose in this dissertation to study the

11

different elements which compose games and gamification methods, and its propensity

to being used in the learning process.

3.1. HYPOTHESIS

Given the growing interest of using new and active methodologies in class, in this

dissertation it is my purpose to investigate whether gaming methodology is an effective

tool for improving the learning of a second language.

Specifically, I am interested in the applicability of games and gamification methods

and methodology in the subject of English as Second Language learning in the

Secondary Education of Spain, regarding the national curriculum of this subject.

3.2. RESEARCH QUESTION

I have devised the following research questions that are intended to be tested in my

research:

1. When can a game be placed in the lesson: as a warmer, actual teaching or post

teaching?2. Why games should be used for the learning of a second language?3. Which are the constraints of using games for the teaching of a second

language?4. ANALYSIS

Before starting to deal with the analysis of gaming and gamification, we should bear

in mind the accurate definition of each of these methods and methodologies for

learning, and the different aspects which form them.

12

4.1. GAMES

Taking into account the Merriam Webster Dictionary, it defines the noun game as “a

physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure”.

Interestingly enough, Collins Dictionary defines it as “a contest with rules, the result

being determined by skill, strength, or chance”. Both dictionaries coincide in their

definitions, though there is a difference, they highlight the fact that games are designed

according to some rules and that the player’s ability is one of the key aspects. However,

the Merriam Dictionary includes the element of pleasure in the definition of game

provided, while the Collins Dictionary, in a different word sense, defines game as “an

amusement or pastime; diversion”, but there is no reference to the importance of the

rules. Hence, mixing both definitions provided by the Merriam Webster and the Collins

dictionaries, an appropriate definition of the word game would be “an activity, which

can be mental or physical, in which the players follow some rules and use their

cognitive knowledge in order to entertain themselves”.

Despite the differences in these definitions, all games share some elements, as Kapp

explains in his major work The Gamification of Learning and Instruction (2012). First

of all, games cannot exist without someone who plays; and if it is a game which can be

played by many people, these players get to interact and communicate in order to

perform properly. Moreover, games have points, badges and several systems for

assessing how players play. In turn, this point system contributes to promote challenge

in the game because all players want to do their best. Also, the points system provides

players with immediate feedback of their playing strategies. Another essential aspect is

the rules system, in order that all players know how to play correctly, a set of rules must

13

be provided. These should be known clearly by every player before starting to play.

Finally, the last essential aspect of games is that it provokes emotional reaction; players

can feel victorious or defeated after playing a game. To sum up, quoting Kapp’s words:

Together these disparate elements combine to make an event that is larger than the

individual elements. A player gets caught up in playing a game because an instant

feedback and constant interaction are related to the challenge of the game, which is

defined by the rules, which all work within the system to provoke an emotional

interaction and, finally, result in a quantifiable outcome within an abstract version

of a larger system. (Kapp, 2012:9)

In his dissertation, as a summary, Godwin-Jones (2014) explains perfectly what

games are. He highlights that one of the main advantages of games is that they “offer

an immersive environment in which extensive use is made of the target language.”

(Godwin-Jones, 2014:10). Furthermore, this author states that in order to progress in a

game, and pass over levels, players have to use language actively, because they need to

interact verbally either with game objects or other players. In this regard, players get to

use language in a real and meaningful way because it is employed in order to

accomplish a task. Furthermore, when using the language for the communicative

purpose of the game, players also learn that “the game context pragmatic

appropriateness is more important than grammatical accuracy” (Godwin-Jones,

2014:10). In addition, while playing, players “exposed to cultural and linguistic

knowledge that they are unlikely to have encountered in a textbook or in the

classroom” (Godwin-Jones, 2014:10). Therefore, players can learn from a variety of

situations in which different kinds of language use are requested. Such language use

comes naturally from the game and can involve interaction with players from different

14

cultural backgrounds. Furthermore, while playing, players are constantly bombarded

with feedback according to their performance.

Hirsh-Pasek and Michnick Golinkoff (2008) offer a different, but more complete,

definition of the noun game. They remark that games are pleasant, spontaneous,

absorbing, and are not real-life simulations. Moreover, games imply active participation,

do not have extrinsic objectives and can contain certain elements of imagination.

Basically, all games are edutainment, which is a combination of education and

entertainment, and the player hardly notices that he or she is learning while playing a

game. However, as Koster (2004) remarks, once it is mastered, it stops being fun,

because the enjoyment is placed in the uncertainty of what is going to happen during the

game. Following this insight, Tulloch (2014) remarks that “gaming is an unusual

pedagogy in its emphasis on entertainment”, the player learns because he or she is

entertained.

As Tulloch (2014) claims, almost all play functions through teaching the player the

rules, either in a verbal or in a written form. Then, the player learns these rules, so that

he or she can join in the game. Games therefore have to train the player into the

‘correct’ practices of play, these are the strategies needed to participate in and succeed at

the game.

Thiagi (1998), one of the most important theorists of gaming in education, states that

well-constructed games share five characteristics. First of all, he highlights the

importance of conflict in games because players must have a goal to achieve while

overcoming various obstacles. With this characteristic, Thiagi defends that games

should have a certain level of complexity so as not to be boring for the player.

15

Moreover, the rules must be clearly set, so that there is a certain control of the game. All

players can play in harmony because there are rules which guide the game, and all the

players know them. The third characteristic is that it must be clear under which

conditions the game can come to an end. The player can feel tired or exasperated if he

or she does not know how and when the game can end. Furthermore, players must take

into account that it is only a game, and that they should not feel neither frustrated nor

upset if they lose it. This fourth characteristic is very important because games are

based in imaginary scenarios, and do not correspond to real-life. Finally, Thiagi refers to

the characteristic of competency, that is the specific skills that the game is designed to

improve. For example, when designing a game, a teacher should think of the objectives

that the students should achieve in order to perform correctly while playing and, at the

same time, learn.

Nicola Whitton (2010) adopted an approach which defines games according to ten

characteristics, but not all games necessarily include each and every of these

characteristics. Whitton coincides with Thiagi with the element of competition in games

because, as she states, the goal of the activity is to achieve better results than other

players. However, in individual games, the competition can be found in the player

competing against him or her. She also agrees with Thiagi with the aspect of challenge,

because games need to have some obstacles that require the player’s effort. If games do

not challenge the players, they are worthless; they need to have a certain degree of

difficulty. As Thiagi remarks, games are only games, so Whitton reinforces this idea by

stating that the gaming activity takes place in a simulated environment which includes

places, objects and people which do not usually correspond to the reality of the player.

Following with the idea of games based on simulation, fantasy inhabits the game world,

16

because they are seldom placed in real scenarios. Furthermore, games have explicit

objectives so that the players know what they have to achieve, these objectives are

clearly explained in the instructions of the game. The sixth characteristic of games

introduced by Whitton is the interaction between the player and the game itself due to

the feedback. This is idea is strengthened by the fact that games provide measured

results, that is the points that the player can get while playing the game. Moreover,

Whitton explains that games help to social interaction when many players take part in

the gaming activity because they can play in a competitive or collaborative manner. In

relation to the rules, Whitton also explains that they are an important part of the game

mechanics because they present its boundaries, limitations and constraints. Finally, one

of the most important characteristics is that games are safe because they can be played

without having consequences in the real world, for example, in the hangman game the

player is not hung if he loses the game.

According to Elizabeth Corcoran (Corcoran, 2010), there are three types of games

which can be used in education. These are the classical educational games, the games

developed by students themselves and the gamified courses. In this paper, we will

explain the former and the latter, as they are the ones which arouse more controversy.

Interestingly enough, the games developed by the students themselves are the ones that

the student makes, using his or her imagination, in order to learn better and in depth.

4.1.1. SCAFFOLDING IN GAMES

Teachers must always be up-to-date in order to make their classes appealing and

attractive for students. Moreover, teachers should take account of the environment in

which they are teaching Addleman el al. (2014) points out. These authors state that

teachers should know who their students are, what are their likes and dislikes, where

17

they live, which familiar context they have, among other aspects. That knowledge of

who the students are is known as scaffolding. Moreover, if most of the students have a

certain political inclination, although the teacher does not agree with them, he or she

should respect it and provide them with games which do not raise controversy.

The benefits of self-reflection, empathy, self-efficacy, and multicultural sensitivity

result from engaging with culture rather than merely observing it from a distance.

Scaffolding is based on the Vygotzkian Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

concept. This concept refers to the distance between the actual development level as

determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as

determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with

more capable peers (Obikwelu, .2013:1).

According to Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976), the term scaffolding is used for

characterizing the help that takes place during other-regulated interactions between

teachers and students. According to them, scaffolding has six main functions. First of

all, it is a form of recruitment because it recruits students into the task, that is, making

them interested in what they are asked to do. Moreover, since students are asked to do a

task, it reduces their freedom. A third function of scaffolding is motivating students to

perform a task; this is related with the engagement concept which will be later

discussed. Furthermore, scaffolding is used as a form of debriefing since the teacher

marks critical features and draws the students’ attention to certain areas of the task. In

addition, teachers sometimes work as therapists when the stress levels of the students

are so high, that they need the help of the teacher in order to control their frustration.

Finally, the last function of scaffolding, and the most important one, is that the teacher

18

needs to be a model for the students; therefore, with his or her words and deeds, the

teacher can model a desired outcome in the students.

Renshaw & Brown (2007) list three strategies and functions of teacher talk and

describe the common features underlying teachers’ reactions to student responses. The

first strategy is called reformulation, in this the teacher listens to the student’s response

and then rephrases what the student has said while using appropriate language use or

reasoning. Another strategy for teachers to react to student responses is repetition, in

this the teacher repeats what the student has said and makes it publicly accessible for the

class. Finally, the third strategy is known as elaboration because the teacher asks the

student to justify his or her answer, or the teacher rephrases the student’s answer.

According to McNeil (2011), these strategies show how teachers scaffold language

learners during classroom talk. In other words, if teachers want to exercise these

scaffolding techniques, the student will first have to respond to a question, so that the

teacher can then rephrase, repeat or elaborate the response., This type of scaffolding is

undoubtedly important in helping English language learners move from everyday

concepts and language to a more scientific ones.

Tsai et al. (2013) conducted a research on the importance and use of targeted content

knowledge with scaffolding aid in educational simulation games, in which they divided

the class into two groups, one with scaffolding support, and the other, without it. They

concluded that providing scaffolding tasks in the game does not make students feel

disappointed when they were compared with the other students. These authors also

claim that scaffolding strategies could be useful for promoting the use of in-game

contents. To come to the point, the fact that students are provided with scaffolding is

19

useful in promoting the use of in-game contents and enhancing learning effectiveness in

an educational simulation game.

Cates and Bruce (2000) explored how learner support might be more systematically

implemented in computerized instruction. As it can be seen in the figure below, they

thought about a “learner support space” which was made up of four quadrants that went

from intrusive to non-intrusive and from prescriptive to non-prescriptive. In the upper-

left corner, intrusive/prescriptive support appears on the screen without being asked for

by the learner and explains the correct form for task completion, for example, “You

need to do this next”. In the lower-right corner of the model, non-intrusive/non-

prescriptive support does not appear until the learner looks for it, though it makes

suggestions, such as “Have you thought about what you might do next?”. In the upper-

right corner, non-intrusive/prescriptive support waits until it is prompted by the learner

to supply with help, but then provides gradually guidance, like “Ask me when you’re

ready and I’ll tell you how to do it”. Finally, in the lower-left corner, intrusive/non-

prescriptive support interrupts to give clues about how to proceed, such as “Take a look

at this idea!”.

20

Cates and Bruce (2000) suggested that game designers use this conceptual model to find

a supportive balance between learner support to address the motivational and cognitive

load needs of learners.

21

4.1.2. TYPES OF GAMES

According to Gros (2007), there is a variety of genres of games although there is not

one standard classification since industry, developers, and academics, all use different

taxonomies. This author categorizes seven major genres:

First of all, action games or platform games are those games which are based on the

reaction of the player. Initially, most of the games were action games. Then, adventure

games in which through a virtual world, the player solves a number of tests in order to

progress while getting levels, badges, points... The third game genre that Gros points out

is fighting games. As its name suggests, these games involve fighting against computer-

controlled characters or those controlled by other players. In this type of games, the

players only need to take part in the game at the same time, but not in the same place.

Videogames correspond to this category.

Role-playing games are another category. In these, the player pretends to be

someone else, he or she has to assume the characteristics of that person and act out in a

given context.

The fifth game listed by Gros is simulations. These are similar to role-playing

although there are some differences. The player has to succeed within some simplified

recreation of a place or situation to achieve a particular goal. According to Clapper

(2010), it involves participating in a very real learning experience that closely resembles

an actual setting. Chia-Jung Wu et al. also offer a definition of simulation; he defines it

as “a game genre that highlights the strong connection between a real life reference

game environment and knowledge-in-use playing mechanic” (Chia-Jung Wu et al.,

2014:211). These authors also state that “the challenge for simulation instruction is

22

transferring authentic game resources to comprehensible pieces for learners to play

without too much distraction from language barriers” (Chia-Jung Wu et al., 2014:212).

The difference between role-playing and simulation is that role-playing “exercises

typically provide fewer set instructions, regarding the roles the students are asked

to play, and instead students are asked to determine how they would respond in a

certain context (Shaw 2010).

Furthermore, sports games, as the name itself indicates, are based on sports and the

improvement of the fitness of the player. Finally, strategy games are those in which the

player recreates a historical or fictional situation to devise an appropriate strategy to

achieve a goal.

23

4.1.3. POINTS IN GAMES

The reward system is one of the most important elements in game structure because

it is responsible for stimulating active and sustained game playing. “In many games,

points do measure progress, but in doing so they are providing constant corrective

feedback to player on their play strategies” (Tulloch, 2014). They can help the player to

know if he or she is playing correctly; because the better played, the higher the number

of points achieved by the player. Therefore, points are essential to the play experience;

if players did not have them, they would have fewer indicators of how they are

approaching the game.

In contrast, not all games use point mechanics. Some games are designed relying on

‘health’ and ‘lives’ mechanisms of the player challenge, in these the player learns to stay

alive in order to succeed in the game. When the player dies or is injured, he or she

knows that something wrong has been done. Fortunately, that injury is not ‘real’ or

physical, the player can know, without being told, how to avoid injury and death for his

or her character. The degree of injury shows the player the improvement required. If the

player loses a small amount of health, then he needs a bit of refinement. However, if the

player virtually dies, he knows that he or she needs to correct the way he is playing.

Therefore, points help to provide the player with instant feedback of his or her

performance.

Contrary to ‘health’ and ‘lives’ mechanisms, points are very easy to be interpreted

and understood by the player because they have not got much complexity. They give

players real-time feedback on how well they are doing in the game, and to help them

refine their technique in order to succeed (Tulloch, 2014). However, one of the main

drawbacks of points is that they can increase in number, but they cannot be lost or

24

traded; points only reward correct actions, they are central to the teaching of how to

play correctly. In this way, ‘health’ and ‘lives’ mechanisms are better forms of

understanding the performance of the game because the player can reflect on his or her

abilities and lose a bit of his or her life to pass over an obstacle. Since we are born, we

are always competing in order to show who is stronger, or more powerful, or more

beautiful, or more intelligence. It is in this constant fight, with ourselves and everybody,

that rewards are an important element in gaming because it contributes to participation.

25

4.1.4. LEVELS

According to Tulloch (2014), levels are an example of a crucial process to the game

experience because they are markers of progression, and at the same time progression

provides the player with instant feedback on how he or she is doing. In most of the

games, the progress is represented in tables and diagrams, which are simple and crucial

pedagogic mechanisms in gaming. Players know they are playing correctly when they

get to the next level. Moreover, the player can clearly see his or her progress, control the

performance of his or her gaming and think about which strategies used have been

useful and which have been pointless.

When we play, we want that the game moves forward and keeps becoming more

difficult in every level. That difficulty is what engages the player; we are used to

entertain ourselves by achieving great challenges. However, levels can sometimes

reflect on the player a sense of linearity and boredom, because the player cannot choose

the level he wants to play, he or she has to follow the order of the levels designed.

26

4.1.5. OTHER MARKERS OF PROGRESSION

Apart from points, levels and ‘health’ and ‘lives’ mechanisms, there are other

instruments used in games in order to mark the progression of the player; these can be

leveling up character skills, unlocking items, attaining achievement badges and trophies,

weapons, moves or moving the narrative forward. All these give a sense of autonomy to

the player because they are encouraged to follow his or her interests.

The use of badges is popular in on-line systems and succeed in increasing user

participation (Anderson, Huttenlocher, Kleinberg, & Leskovec, 2013; Denny, 2013;

Hakulinen, Auvinen, & Korhonen, 2013). Badges represent goal setting, instruction,

reputation, status/affirmation, and group identification (Antin & Churchill, 2011),

depending on the type of badge used.

Finally, all these elements mark the progression of the game and their functions are

to signify, reward and correct play practice, because they are important pedagogic

elements.

27

4.1.6. HOW TO DESIGN AND EVALUATE GAME-BASED LEARNING

Romero (2015) created a six-phase methodology for designing and evaluating game-

based learning activities from a learner perspective, called HEXA-GBL, which is

organized on six steps. The first four phases are related to the game design activity, such

as the learning objectives definition, the learner-centered need analysis, and the

definition of the game modalities, mechanics and rules. The final two phases

concentrate on the play activity evaluation from the perspective of the learning goals,

assessment and feedback.

According to this author, first of all, we have to decide what the learners are going

to learn, that is, defining the objectives of the game, taking into account the curriculum

of the subject. Afterwards, the needs of the learners have to be analyzed and considered,

depending on the prior knowledge and competences of the learners, the learning

objectives will be designed. If it is an individual game, players can start at a certain

level according to their previous knowledge; but if it is a team game, cooperative game

dynamics can be created in order to deal with intragroup diversity. Romero emphasizes

that the social context of the players, the resources which are available and the language

needs of the players should be born in mind when designing the activity.

The third step of the HEXA-GBL is deciding the modality of the game. According

to the learning objectives or the learners’ needs, the game has to be adapted. Next, the

rules and the mechanics of the game have to be designed, taking into account the

individual or collaborative nature of the learning objectives and the assessment and

feedback so as to incentivize the learning progression in the game.

28

The fifth step is the learning assessment and feedback. This is an important phase of

the process of designing a game activity because if the player is not provided with an

appropriate assessment of his or her progress he or she could have the perception of

being engaged in a game activity which was not related to the learning objectives.

Learners do always want instant feedback, and this should be born in mind when

designing the game.

Finally, the sixth phase is called gaming and learning experience. In this part, the

gaming experience is recognized when a learner has been engaged as a player in the

activity. This intends to evaluate the player gaming and learning experience.

29

4.1.7. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF GAMES

The application of gaming methodology in education arouses some controversy.

Some theorists see its advantages; while others defend that it has many disadvantages.

First of all, we will explain the benefits, and later its drawbacks.

First of all, provided there are vast differences between games, their utility is that in

optimal environmental contexts, with appropriately selected and trained groups of

students, playing a well-designed game, a number of positive and effective language

learning experiences are feasible. According to Gowin-Jones (2014:10), “games can

offer an immersive environment in which extensive use is made of the target language”.

On the one hand, many scholars see the advantages of games in learning. One of the

most important advantages of using games in education is that they create a hands-on

opportunity to learn in a scenario. As students like games, they do not pay attention to

the fact that they are learning while playing. It is not the same watching a documentary,

for example, about the life of English people during the reign of King Henry VIII, than

pretending they lived in that time. Games allow students to become active participants

in their learning process while getting new ideas and concepts, while feeling tension and

suspense.

Nevertheless, with games players can learn conceptual and procedural contents, but

also attitudinal ones. Games can help to develop the player’s confidence, focus and

memory. They develop their confidence when they receive feedback of their

performance; and their focus, when they follow the order of the levels.

Furthermore, games offer challenges to the players, so they can improve their skills

in order to perform correctly. Interestingly enough, team games contribute to develop

30

the player’s collaborative experience, because he or she learns to play within a group,

and perform for the benefit of all the players. Therefore, games can provide

opportunities for students to work on different skills while developing their research

methods, problem-solving and leadership.

Another advantage is that games, as defended by Thiaggi, give the player adrenaline

when achieving challenges or passing over an obstacle. Moreover, games promote the

player’s creativity when making out how to solve any problem encountered during the

game. In team games, players can learn to interact with one another, and to work in

group. When games follow a story line or they are represented by characters, players are

more willing to play because of its emotion.

In summary, as stated by Prensky (2001), games are fun and give the player intense

and passionate involvement. They have a fixed structure thanks to its rules. Their goals

make the player to feel motivated. In addition, they provide feedback to the player that

to know if he or she is playing correctly and according to the rules; it is in this point

when players learn. Furthermore, as the player can get goals while playing, he or she

can feel rewarded and gratified. Moreover, Game Based Learning in education is a

teaching methodology which uses real problem-based learning to engage and motivate

students.

On the other hand, video game designer Jesse Schell defends that there are some

people who believe that games are useless in education, and see their disadvantages

when applied. One of the foremost drawbacks of games is that they are difficult to take

place in class because of time schedules. There are many concepts prescribed by the

curriculum that must be taught in every year of education in order to provide every

student with the same opportunities to learn. Most of the times, teachers find it difficult

31

to finish the academic year with having taught every concept prescribed in the national

curriculum of his or her subject, and prefer teaching in the traditional way rather than

incorporating innovative methodologies to his or her way of teaching. Games take a

long time to be designed and to be played because, first of all, the students must know

its rules, and that sometimes arises a bit of controversy. Furthermore, if the game is not

designed properly and it is too long either the students feel apathetic or there is no time

to finish it and they feel frustrated.

Moreover, if each student learns and experiences something different, teachers will

find difficulty in keeping track of what has every student learnt. Another disadvantage

of using games as part of the curriculum is the possibility of excessive use. When games

are relied too much in the class, students risk losing the basic skills which do not

correspond to the virtual world of games, these mostly correspond to social interaction.

If the students spend too much time playing individual games, they will not succeed

in interacting with the classmates or the teacher.

32

4.2. GAMIFICATION

A large and growing body of literature has investigated what gamification is and its

contribution to the learning processes. To date, there has been little agreement on what

gamification is. The term gamification first appeared around 2005. While a variety of

definitions of the term gamification have been suggested, this dissertation will use the

definition suggested by Deterding et Al. (2011). According to Deterding et Al. (2011),

gamification is “the use of game-play mechanics for non-game applications”. The main

goal of this is to rise the engagement of users by using game-like techniques making

people feel more ownership and purpose when engaging with tasks. In other words, Lee

and Hammer (2011) define gamification as “the use of game mechanics, dynamics and

frameworks to promote desired behaviours”. These authors advocate for the power of

games in changing the players’ behaviours. Continuing with this approach, Tulloch

(2014) argues that “gamification is a form of training built upon the techniques used in,

and heritage of, games rather than traditional pedagogy”. Moreover, Cruz and Penley

(2014) defined gamification as “the use of various elements from games in non-games

context”. Another definition of gamification is provided by Kapp (2012), who defines it

as “the sense of engagement, immediate feedback, feeling of accomplishment, and

success of striving against a challenge and overcoming it”

These five definitions of the concept of gamification come to an agreement when

they state that in gamification game-play mechanics are essential to learn concepts

which are not related to gaming such as specific behaviours or concepts from any

subject.

33

According to Kapp (2012), the eight elements that each and every gamified course

should include are: game-based, mechanics, aesthetics, game thinking, engaging,

motivating, promotes learning and solve problems.

34

4.2.1. ENGAGEMENT IN GAMIFICATION

According to Baker (2014), nowadays, many students seem disenchanted with their

education system because most of the time they have to learn subjects which they find

they are useless for their careers. In fact, students who want to learn social or human

sciences believe that mathematics or any other scientific subjects are meaningless for

their future. On the other hand, students who want to work in the field of natural and life

sciences think that learning philosophy or languages is not for them. Therefore, when

they have to learn those subjects, they are demotivated. Nevertheless, if they were

taught those subjects through gamified courses, they would feel more interested ad, in

turn, they would learn more.

According to Lee and Hammer (2011), games are motivating because of their

impact on the cognitive, emotional and social areas of players; and so, gamification in

education should also focus on those three areas. In the cognitive area, a game provides

a complex system of rules and tasks that guide players to their proficiency. As Gee

(2003) explains, these are cycles of expertise, which consist of some brief tasks which

players repeatedly try to complete until they achieve the necessary skill level. Once the

player is implicated in this learning process, games try to make the players know what

to do next and which knowledge or ability is needed. Once the players complete tasks,

they are expected to have positive emotions because of overcoming difficulties.

Moreover, games have an impact on social areas when players interact; there are many

gamified courses which foster the simultaneous communication of players through

online chats. Therefore, the cognitive, the emotional and the social areas are essential

aspects for the motivation of the player but it has some restraints. For example, when a

task must be solved with the help of other players, the social and the cognitive areas are

35

mixed. In addition the rewards system, which corresponds to the cognitive area, also has

implication on the social area, due to the social status of the player

Tulloch (2014) draws our attention to what makes gamification so special, popular

and productive, the reason for this is its focus on engagement. The emphasis of

gamification is set on the player enjoyment. This idea is reinforced by the theorist and

game designer Ernest Adams who states that “game’s primary function is to entertain

the player, and it is the designer’s obligation to create a game that does so. “ (Adams,

2009:30). There are many dull activities which cannot be appealing for students.

However, if the teacher combines those activities with simple games, he or she can

create a more motivating way for students to learn.

Cruz and Penley (2014) also point out that gamification is seen as an interesting

methodology because, in their words, “[it] often looks and sounds “sexy”, in other

words, highly appealing, particularly because it transforms educational opportunities

into experiences that more closely resemble already popular games”.

Gaming pedagogy is distinguished from many pedagogic models because of its focus

on the enjoyment and entertainment of the player while learning at the same time.

However, gaming pedagogy is more used in early childhood teaching; and it is unusual

to find example of gaming tasks or gamification in upper-levels of learning. Montessori

system advocated for gaming since it is inherent in the development of the child.

Following this matter, Tulloch (2014) maintains that:

The techniques they (video games) mobilize, the traditions of the pedagogic

heritage they draw on and inform, are ones designed to produce an entertaining

experience, whilst simultaneously functioning to train the player. This is what

36

makes gaming pedagogy distinctive and valuable, and why gamification must be

understood as part of this heritage not just a recent invention. (Tulloch, 2014:327)

In this quote, Tulloch claims that gaming, and in turn, gamification, are not new

concepts; they are the evolution of the different pedagogic theories which have been

used among the years.

Interestingly enough, another important characteristic of the engagement element of

gamification is that it is free, because the player is not forced to play if he or she does

not want. If playing was mandatory, it would not be attractive for learners and it would

lose its joyous quality.

It is also important to note that there is important emotional impact in gamified

courses because of the satisfaction the player receives when performing correctly,

according to the rules and moving over the different levels. It is in that sense of

correctness, that the player feels he or she is learning easily without any stress.

Nevertheless, if the player fails while doing a task prescribed in the gamified course, he

or she may not be confident with his or her learning experience, and may disregard the

course and avoid playing it.

Moreover, gamification also has important social engagement, because players can

interact with each other. As Domínguez et al. (2012) state “These mechanisms make it

possible for players to cooperate helping each other towards a common goal, to compete

trying to impair other players or to perform better than them, or just to interact socially

by talking, flirting, trading or gifting for example.”.

At the base of meaningful gamification, Deci & Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory

(2004) states that learners need three things to be successful in gamification: autonomy,

37

competency and relatedness. Players do better when they know what they are exploring,

because in gamified courses the player is free to act as how he or she thinks the proper

way of performing is. Also, as soon as players achieve a certain degree of mastery in the

gamified course, they feel more confident and do not pay attention to the fact that they

are learning. Moreover, after players master the game and its rules, they get to interact

with other players and contribute with ideas of the different ways of playing gamified

courses.

In the words of Muntean (2011), gamification helps students to be motivated when

learning because of the positive feedback they receive; and it can constitute a powerful

push to make them study or read more.

In short, “gaming is an unusual pedagogy in its emphasis on entertainment” (Tulloch,

2014), due to this, the player learns because he or she is amused. Therefore,

gamification is successful when entertaining and learning are closely united.

Gamification is successful for learning new concepts because of its fantasy, curiosity

and challenge, according to Jarvin (2015).

38

4.2.2. LEVELS IN GAMIFICATION

When teachers or game designers create didactic units following the gamification

pedagogy, they should be clear on what they want their learners to get. A gamified

course is not going to be designed in order to review a skill or a concept, but to improve

it. For this learning objective, this type of games should have a certain degree of

difficulty. Moreover, learners will enjoy while participating in the game if it provides

them with challenges and makes them to take action if they want to win.

One of the mechanisms for showing the level and progress of the player it is

leaderboards. These present the points accumulated by the player, and present progress

or badges earned. Leaderboards encourage competition because they are a comparative

mechanic to distinguish between different players. Curiously enough, due to this

comparison, leaderboards can change behavior in both good and bad ways because

players can feel encouraged to continue or demotivated to give up playing.

39

4.2.3. DEBRIEFING IN GAMIFICATION

Learning does not end when the game finishes, but with its debriefing; that is the

bridge between gaming and applying the knowledge and skills gained to other contexts.

In normal lectures, teachers can provide students with debriefing with the explanations

and examples; however, it is different in gamification because the interaction between

the teacher and the player/learner is scarce. This is due to the autonomy of the player

provided by gamification. Games typically provide instant feedback to the player in the

form of audio/visual clues.

Among the various interactive learning techniques used in game-based learning,

Prensky (2001) highlights debriefing because it is the player’s opportunity to get

feedback and encouragement to keep on playing and learning.

40

4.2.4. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF GAMIFICATION

There is some controversy whether gamification is positive or negative in the

learning processes. After having read the literature of this issue, a difference between its

advantages and disadvantages is provided.

On the one hand, since most gamified courses take place on electronic devices such

as computers or laptops, there are interdisciplinary and multicultural learning

opportunities for the players. They, for example, in the Sims videogame, can develop

their visual-spatial skill when virtually building a house and how the avatar they have

created can interact with the others without being rude.

Moreover, players can develop their multicultural awareness when they play games

which are on-line, and with which they can communicate with players of different parts

of the world. It is in this line that players can learn another language, different from

their mother tongue, when they watch videos on Youtube which explain tactics or

techniques for games in a foreign language.

Furthermore, as it has been remarked before, the player is neither anxious nor

stressed, because he or she feels he is having fun and that he is not learning, but in fact

he is. Another advantage is that the player learns on his own, without being told how to

perform correctly. He or she knows he is performing well the feedback provided by

getting points, passing over the next level, unlocking items… Therefore, the player

becomes the main subject of his or her learning process because he learns by doing and

thinking on his own.

In addition, gamified courses can help shy students who do not feel comfortable

when talking in public. They feel they are in a comfort zone when they play virtual

41

games because they can pretend they are someone else. These timid players do not feel

anxious because their interaction with the teacher is indirect, they can communicate

through the computer, and not face to face.

Furthermore, since most gamified courses are digital, they can always be accessed

and the learner does not need the teacher to explain him or her how something

functions. The player can play whenever and wherever he or she wants. Every time he

plays, he receives corrective feedback provided by the gamified course itself.

According to Gardner, there are different types of learning styles; these can be

visual, kinesthetic, auditory, intrapersonal, interpersonal, logical and aural. Learners

who prefer using pictures, images and spatial understanding feel more comfortable in

learning when taking part in gamified courses because they find it easily to understand

abstract concepts in this way. Therefore, those visual learners perform better and get to

achieve better results.

Additionally, inasmuch as gamified courses are based on real life experiences, this

characteristic can contribute to the understanding of the world by the learner and his or

her reinterpretation of the concepts and skills that are being developed in the game.

On the other hand, much literature has appeared listing the disadvantages of

gamification which are mostly related to its technological aspect. The most significant is

its cost. In order to take part in a gamified course, the player needs a computer or a

tablet; thus there are many schools or learning institutions which cannot afford to pay

for those electronic devices. Given this scenario, gamified course fail to guarantee the

equal learning of each and every student; this is when social and economic differences

42

appear. In consequence, gamification harms the equity of education which defends that

every student must have the same opportunities in their education.

Besides, not all teachers can handle with technology, most of the elderly teachers

who are still working on the Spanish education system has not got any technological

expertise, and they do not feel comfortable when applying gamified courses. Thus, this

element also tilts the balance in favour of the students with teacher who can work easily

with technological elements, and who will design more and of better quality gamified

courses. The lack of mastery with computers and game design harms the equity of

education, too. In this digital age we are living, it is important that we can use

technology confidently; our students grew with computers and electronic devices, and

the teachers must be able to keep up to this technological progress.

Apart from that, in the majority cases gamified courses do not help to improve the

student’s speaking skill; software which deal with the speaking ability are scarce

because they are very complex to design. Technology cannot still provide corrective

feedback of the speaking performance. Therefore, gamified courses mainly deal with

reading, writing and listening skills, which feedback is easier to provide.

An important weakness of gamification, according to Muntean (2011), is its

coldness and isolation. The player is alone, in front of a screen trying to learn new

concepts and improve his or her ability; without neither the encouragement nor the

feedback provided by the teacher. Indeed, the player cannot show his or her emotions

because he is learning alone, and we always need to feel closeness and togetherness

because we live in community.

43

The last disadvantage that learners can find when taking part in a gamified

experience is that computers cannot handle unexpected situations. We live in a world

which is constantly changing and developing, so the same should gamified courses do

because sometimes they are old-fashioned. Following this line, gamification cannot

cope with the emotions and feelings of the player. For example, if the player, after a bad

test, is asked to take part in a gamified course, he or she may not give the closest

attention to what is being done, and the feedback provided to correct his or her

performance will be worthless.

44

4.2.5. GAMIFICATION MISUNDERSTANDINGS

Much research has been conducted around the gamification method, although it still

could be improved. In his work (“The Gamification of Learning and Instruction”, 2012),

Kapp enumerates what gamification is not. First of all, this author explains that

gamification is essentially about engagement and not badges, points and rewards.

Quoting his words: “the real power of game-based thinking is in the other elements of

games: engagement, storytelling, visualization of characters and problem solving”.

Curiously enough, Kapp criticizes the trivialization of learning. He supports his idea

explaining that gamification is a serious approach which helps to “accelerate the

experience curve of the learning, teaching complex subjects and systems thinking”.

Another misinterpretation of the gamification approach is that despite the fact that is

has grown so fast, its elements are by no means new. Chinese warriors used simulation

when preparing for the wars during centuries. He also exemplifies this idea by

explaining that many teachers and professors used case studies “to wrap experiences for

learners, create challenges to engage learners, and set goals to provide feedback on

progress while providing a safe environment for learners to practice skills” (2012:13).

However he states that game thinking and game mechanics are forcing theorists to

examine again games’ impact in learning and its performance.

A fourth aspect of gamification that Kapp believes that it has been confounded is

that it can only exist if qualified development professionals lead gamification within

organizations. He states that the aspects of interactive design need to be applied to face

to face learning events in order to create interactive experiences.

45

Interestingly enough he criticizes the fact that gamification is perfect for every

learning situation. He defends that gamification cannot work in many situations. He

suggests that “If gamification is seen as a panacea and applied to every single learning

event, it will quickly become trivialized and non-impactful” (Kapp, 2012:14).

Furthermore, Kapp (2012) disagrees with the fact that gamified courses are easy to

create. He considers that creating it is not an insignificant task. He shares this idea with

Romero (2015) who in her work formulated the different stages in order to design an

effective game. Kapp argues that “it is not easy to create a game that is both fun to play

and instructional” (Kapp, 2012:15).

The last error in the understanding of gamification that Kapp introduces in his major

work is that gamification is only about game mechanics. He disagrees with this way of

thinking when he claims that “ novice designers […] only look at the mechanics of the

game such as scores, points, rewards, badges, and so forth, and neglect other, more

critical elements of effective gamification” (Kapp 2012:15).

46

4.3. EDUCATION GAMES VS GAMIFICATION OF EDUCATION

An important distinction exists between Game Based Learning or education games

and gamification. According to Kapp, “A serious game is an experience designed using

game mechanics and game thinking to educate individuals in a specific content domain”

(Kapp, 2012:15). These games can be used as a supplement to direct teaching or replace

it.

The spirit of gamification is that it occurs in a non-game context; therefore, it would

be applied in such a way that would not change the existing practice of learning and

instead focus on making it more engaging and challenging for students.

Quoting Kapp’s words, “Serious games and gamification are both trying to solve a

problem, motivate people, and promote learning using game-based thinking and

techniques” (Kapp, 2012:15). In order to make clear the distinction between educational

games and gamification, we will use the following chart. As it can be clearly seen, there

are no major differences, but they are remarkably important.

EDUCATION GAMES GAMIFICATION OF EDUCATION

47

Points, achievements and rewards are one

element of the system

Importance of points, achievements and

rewardsExplicit rules Implicit rulesMake every effort to present the right

level of challenge to the player

It seldom consider targeting the level of

challengeNarrative and characters are present It may include a player avatar or a weak

storyImportance of conceptual change Importance of behavioral changeSimulated environment Real environment

Looking at the importance of rewards, points, levels…, gamification gives a lot

of importance to them as it is the essence of it. However, the educational games do not

give much importance to this aspect.

When referring to the level of the student while deciding to use education games

or gamification in class, we should bear in mind the importance of the level.

Educational games are designed according to the level of the player, so the

student/player can take part in the activity without much effort. In most education

games packages, the age for which that game has been designed appears. Nevertheless,

gamified courses present challenges at particular times in order to meet a particular skill

level; that is, according to the level in which the student is, the degree of difficulty will

be higher or lower. When you are playing a game, you will only play it until you master

the pattern, once you have mastered it, the game becomes boring.

Educational games are designed to support students, providing them with

scaffolding and opportunity to construct meaning in order to develop new

understanding. Meanwhile, simulations allow teachers to create a world that meets

students where they create their own problem space. Gamification applies game

48

principles to the real world, in which students are not provided with accessible

understanding of phenomena. Simulation also allows for the possibility of failure

without sever consequences. In gamification, failure can mean the loss of a more

highly-valued reward in real life.

Furthermore, in common games, its rules are explained, in advanced, either

orally or in written form. Nevertheless, in gamified courses, the rules are implicit, they

are not explained beforehand; it is the player who, with the corrective feedback of the

game, gets to know what it can and what it cannot be done, and which strategies are

better to get more points, ‘health’, ‘life’, or to unlock items.

In educational games, the narrative of the story has an important role because it

helps to drive the student’s engagement through curiosity, empathy and familiarity. On

the contrary, gamification seldom includes avatars or a story line. An avatar can be

included when it is tied to the identity of the student, but only in this case.

Indeed, digital games, when applied to educational contexts, can promote many

characteristics of creative pedagogies: they can provide challenging experiences that

promote the intrinsic satisfaction of the players (Gee, 2003; Whitton, 2008); they are

interactive systems, which enable learners to have an active impact on their virtual

environment (Aldrich, 2005); furthermore, they provide risk-free environments in which

players can play, explore, try out hypothesis and take risks (Salen and Zimmerman,

2004).

Both serious games and gamification aim to support the learning objectives of the

player/learner through a positive learning and gaming experience. In both cases, the

game mechanics and rules are combined to create positive learning and gaming

49

experience, for example, introducing competitive rules and a scoring system or

challenging the player in the learning progress through different missions and battles.

4.4. COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING

Ongoing discoveries in the field of Information and Communication Technology

(ICT) over the past half century have had important implications in foreign language

50

teaching and learning. With the emergence of multimedia computing and the Internet

the role of the computer in the process of learning a language has become an important

issue. Levy (1997: p. 1) in a seminal work defined Computer Assisted Language

Learning as "the search for and study of applications of the computer in language

teaching and learning". In his major study, Warschauer (1998) attempts to systematize

the different stages of Computer Assisted Language Learning, as it can be seen in the

following table.

Stage TechnologyPedagogical

approachComputer use Teacher role

Behaviourist

StructuralMainframe

Grammar,

translation and

audiovisual

Translation

exercises

Drill-and-

practice

Instructor

Communicativ

e

Personal

computer

Communicativ

e approach

Role-plays

SimulationsFacilitator

Integrative

Multimedia

and web-based

applications

Content-based

learning

Authentic

social contexts

Exercises

combining

reading,

listening,

speaking and

writing

Supervisor

The first phase is associated with behaviourist learning theories which stated that all

behavior is determined by the environment either through association or reinforcement.

This phase is defined by activities of stimulus-response and repetitive exercises.

Moreover, the role of the teacher is only to tell the student if he or she is performing the

tasks properly. The student through practice and repetition gets to learn.

51

The second phase is based on the communicative approach to teaching and learning,

and its main goal is set on the effective use of language, that is, the student being able to

communicate in any given situation. In this phase, the teacher has to facilitate the

student with situations in which he or she could use the language. For this, role plays

and simulation are commonly used, because they are a way of acting out possible

situations in a virtual environment.

Finally, the third phase is called the integrative. When it appeared, it coincided with

the development of multimedia technology and the emergence of new theories, such as

the social constructivism coined by Berger and Luckmann in “The Social Construction

of Reality”, which promoted that language learning is a social construction. According

to this phase, students have to deal with authentic learning environments which are

supervised by the teacher, while developing their reading, writing, listening and

speaking skills.

In his work, Warschauer (1998) pointed out some directions for the evolution of

Computer Assisted Language Learning, though he did not develop a fourth phase. He

named this new stage as intelligent. The main aim of this so-called fourth phase is to

prepare students for active citizenship in a global and networked society. In this phase,

learners have to evaluate and interpret all the information which is available on the

internet in order to create their own texts. Moreover, in order to improve the reading

skill in this phase, learners have to go behind how to decode texts, and explore and

interpret the huge amount of online texts.

Warschauer also highlights that the development of a digital literacy is one of the

purposes of teaching and learning foreign languages because the learners becomes

active and autonomous for regulating his learning process.

52

Following Warschauer’s phases of Computer Assisted Language Learning, in 2014,

Martins conducted a research on how to effectively integrate technology in the foreign

language classroom for learning and collaboration. She found that:

The use of authentic materials related to professional domain of the study cycle was

extremely positive, because in addition to leveraging students’ motivation, it also

allowed them to contact with a rich and varied input in English, stimulating reading

and an autonomous exploration of these resources, namely finding out unfamiliar

vocabulary. (Martins, 2014:81)

Moreover, Martins remarked the use of authentic materials is very positive because

students have to cope with real language which is usually different from the one which

appears on textbooks, that is mostly defined to achieve a certain level of proficiency.

In the final part of her work, Martins writes “Web 2.0 applications as an exceptional

strategy in meeting the goals raised by Bologna”. She reinforces this idea suggesting

that the use of real texts in learning foreign languages contributes to the development of

a plurilingual and pluricultural competence. Martins also points out that following

Warschauer fourth phase (Intelligent), students control their learning process because

they can decide on the contents they want to work, the time they need and how they

would approach those tasks.

Finally, three of the main goals of the Bologna process are mobility,

employability and lifelong learning; according to Martins (2014) these can be achieved

with the Intelligent phase of Computer Assisted Language Learning. The reasons for

this are: 1) that it favours a “dialogical, dialectical and actional language learning

approach”; and 2) that it develops a “reflective, active and critical attitude on the part of

learners” because they can communicate and interact in an interconnected multilingual

and multicultural society (Martins, 2014:83).

53

5. CONCLUSIONS 5.1. ANSWERS TO THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Once we have already developed the discussions carried out in this essay, we are led

to think if our first research questions have been proved.

54

1. When can a game be placed in the lesson, as a warmer, actual teaching or post

teaching?

In my opinion, after having researched and studied the different elements which

form games, I must state that games can be placed in any part of the lesson, that is, they

can be used as warmers, actual teaching or post teaching. Due to the huge variety of

games that can be found or that can be created by us, they can be used in any part of the

lesson. As it has been explained in the Section 4.1.6., How to Design and Evaluate

Game Based Learning, the first thing that has to be taken into account when designing a

game is the learning objective, that is, what we want our students to achieve.

Therefore, if we want our students to revise a concept which has already been

introduced and worked in class, games will be used as part of the post-teaching.

Nevertheless, if we want to introduce a difficult concept, which can be a bit ambiguous,

then we can start the lesson with a game used as a warmer. Finally, if we want our

students to learn and discover any concept while playing games, then they will be used

as part of the actual teaching. It should be kept in mind that when we want our students

to learn while playing, we are reversing the learning process because it is the student the

main agent of that process, who learns without the help of the teacher, so we are

applying flipped classroom methodology.

2. Why games should be used for the learning of a second language?

From my point of view, games are a very interesting method for the learning of a second

language. Speaking from my own experience as a teacher, though it is short, there are a

lot of students who do not feel confident in learning a language, and they feel bored and

55

frustrated. Furthermore, since the appearance of the acquisition of competencies in the

national curriculum of the English subject, students need to learn by doing, not by

listening the teacher repeating concepts over and over for them to memorize. Hence,

those types of students are asking for having an active role in class. They want to know

that they can learn a second language without being sat for many hours on a chair. This

change in the concept of the student requires a change in the way teachers teach. For

this reason, I think that games should be used both inside and outside of the classroom,

because students can become the main participants of their own learning process.

3. Which are the constraints of using games for the teaching of a second

language?

As it may have already been inferred, I am a strong supporter of the use of games for

the teaching of a second language. The reason for this is that I am such an active person,

that I cannot stand that my students spend time doing exercises in which they have to

memorize concepts, while I am watching them. Therefore, I do not want my students to

be quiet in my classes, I want them always doing things in which everybody can

participate.

Nevertheless, I am aware of the constraints of using games for the teaching of a second

language. I am not accusing anyone in particular but there are many elderly teachers,

who are so tired after many years teaching, that they opt for giving classes sat on their

desks. This creates a sort of frontier between the teacher and the student as if the teacher

was the only person in the class with knowledge of the subject. With the arrival of the

internet, information is readily available to everyone, so teachers and students should

work together to promote learning, because both teachers and students can learn in the

56

classroom. This idea is related with the flipped classroom methodology; there are many

teachers who think that their students are not good enough for learning by themselves.

Another constraint for using games in the teaching of a second language is that there

aren’t many of them in the market, and the teachers are the ones who have to design

them. However, most of the times, either teachers do not have the necessary creativity

or they do not have time for creating them.

5.2. REFLECTIONS ON THE USE OF GAMES IN CLASS

If language learning can be tied to popular forms of gaming in a way that does not

inhibit its enjoyment, that’s a winning situation both for students and teachers.

57

This dissertation has given account of and the reasons for the widespread use of

games, and the elements which shape it. After having investigated around the games

methodology and method, I have drawn my own conclusions regarding to this.

From my point of view, gaming methodology is an interesting way for teachers

to teach, and for learners to learn. Playing games is inserted in our DNA, it is inherent

to the intrinsic nature of our human condition. The first concepts that we learn when we

are children are acquired through games. For example, children first learn the colours,

the shapes, and the numbers while playing, either with games or with their parents or

relatives. However, the flip side is that these concepts are learnt through repetition, after

playing several times, children get to acquire them. Since the 1960s and 1970s, many

toy companies began to create games which were not only a playtime for the children,

but which were educational, too. Then, many games appeared on the market, and in toy

shops. Nevertheless, children are not the only ones who most use games. Chinese

warriors, for many centuries have been trained for the war while playing simulation

games. Therefore, the benefits of learning by playing are already there, they are visible.

Moreover, everybody enjoys playing and having a good time while learning new

things and acquiring new concepts. Personally, I love learning through playing because

it develops my curiosity. When you are playing, you always want to know what would

happen if you made a move, or tried out a new strategy. That sense of not knowing the

consequences of playing in a way or in another is what makes playing so attractive.

Despite the fact that when you are playing any game you know its rules, you always feel

nervous due to the possible outcomes of any move.

Games are perfect for any type of the intelligences described by Gardner in his

1983 book “Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences”. Musical–rhythmic

58

and harmonic learners can benefit from games which use musicality for teaching. For

example, the typical piano toy for small children in which they can learn the animals of

the farm while singing and playing it. Moreover, Visual–spatial learners are the ones

who take most advantage of games because this type of people learns while watching

images. Verbal–linguistic learners are not the ones who can take much profit from

games in learning, but they can succeed in games in which the storyline or the memory

are some of the most important aspects. Logical–mathematical learners are good with

games in which they have to develop their mathematical thinking, such as the Ludo or

the chess. Bodily–kinesthetic learners enjoy learning in games in which they have to

move, for example sports games, dancing, acting out, and making things. Interpersonal

skills can take advantage of team games, because this type of learners are characterized

by their sensitivity to others' moods, feelings, temperaments and motivations, and their

ability to cooperate in order to work as part of a group. Finally, Intrapersonal learners

can benefit from individual games, in which they are the only ones playing.

In line with the intrapersonal intelligence developed by Gardner, shy people can

take great advantage of games in their learning process. Many people either do not feel

confident when playing in a team or in a group or they do not know how to participate

in a game with other players. Therefore, gamified courses can help shy students who do

not feel at ease when they have to talk in public. These people feel they are in their

comfort zone when they play virtual games because they can pretend they are someone

else, and they do not need to show who they actually are. These timid players do not

feel fearful because they can communicate through the computer, and not face to face.

Turning to the learning of a second language through games, they can be helpful

for learning grammar structures or vocabulary. However, this type of games is similar to

59

the ones that can be found in textbooks, but they are made more attractive. Most games

which can be applicable to the learning of a second language enhance the learning of

vocabulary, think for example of the Hangman, or Simon says. In this regard, there are

many videogames and applications for learning language. Despite its attractive

presentation, they have the same structure as the activities found on textbooks. However,

changing content design and structure to make it more fun can have great motivational

impact.

To some extent, videogames can be useful for improving one’s reading, listening

and writing skills; provided that players participate in forums, or they watch videos on

YouTube in which they discuss strategies to perform better in the game. Team or group

games facilitate the development of one’s speaking skills. To this respect, when players

need to interact with one another, they speak and share comments and opinions of the

game.

After having investigated the different elements which compose games, I can

assert that they are useful in the process of learning a language. The main purpose of a

learning a language is being able to be understood and understand with other people.

Therefore, Game Based Learning contributes to this goal because they help players to

develop their communication skills.

Interestingly enough, there are more related with business, medicine,

engineering… In many universities, students learn through simulation games. For

example, in the Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV), engineering students learn

through simulations with students from different universities of the world. For this

purpose, they use English as their vehicular language for communication. In order to be

successful in the simulation, students talk through skype, send emails… This is a very

60

interesting form of learning because students do not perceive they are actually learning.

Another advantage of this is that students become responsible of their own learning, and

the teacher is just the facilitator of that learning, as Warschauer (1998) explained in the

article “Computers and Language Learning: an overview”.

Furthermore, simulation is, according to Gros (2007) a type of game. The reason

for this is that students have to succeed within some simplified recreation of a place or

situation to achieve a particular goal. In fact, it involves participating in a very real

learning experience that closely resembles an actual setting. Hence, the playing is safe

because it does not have real consequences for the students. In my view, after having

researched it, simulations are ideal for learning many subjects, but not languages.

Second language learning cannot take direct advantage of simulations, but it can be used

as a vehicular tool for learning other concepts.

In our learning process we can see an evolution of games. When we are children

we play games whose ending is closed, that is, it is known how the game ends, and there

cannot be different endings. However, once when we grow, that is in secondary and

university years, we play games which an open ending. These are simulations and role

plays. These games cannot be played when we are small because we do not know much

about social conventions and how to act in different situations.

We, teachers, should bear in many things before starting to use games in our

classrooms. First of all, we must research games before using them, because they need

to fit with the curriculum of the subject. Then, we need to look for games which require

strategy and problem-solving skills, because they are the best options for working on

61

competences. Furthermore, we need to be cautious with the games we choose for our

students to play because we do not want to make any student feel isolated from the rest.

Following back to the hypothesis I stated before starting the analysis of the

elements which form games and gamification (gaming methodology is an effective tool

for improving the learning of a second language), I must confess that I have not been

able to prove it. As this is a theoretical Trabajo de Final de Master, I have not been able

to put into practice in teaching English as a Foreign Language to students of Secondary

Education system in Spain.

Curiously enough, I found myself limited when researching about games and

gamification. Since they are new concepts in the didactics of teaching, and in teaching

English as a foreign language, in particular, there were some aspects which were not

very much dealt. That is the reason why the sections of levels and points in games are

not covered in much detail.

Finally, there is not much investigation related to the topic of learning languages

through games and gamification. In the future, I hope I can contribute to this field of

knowledge with a Doctoral Thesis.

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY1. Adams, E. (2009). Fundamentals of game design. Berkley, New Riders.2. Addleman, R. A., Brazo, C. J., Dixon, K., Cevallos, T., & Wortman, S. (2014).

Teacher Candidates’ Perceptions of Debriefing Circles to Facilitate Self-Reflection

During a Cultural Immersion Experience. The New Educator, 10(2), 112-128.

62

3. Aldrich, C. (2005). Learning by doing: A comprehensive guide to simulations,

computer games, and pedagogy in e-learning and other educational experiences.

John Wiley & Sons.4. Angelini, M. L., García-Carbonell, A., & Watts, F. Student Perceptions of Gain in

Telematic Simulation. The Shift from Teaching to Learning: Individual, Collective

and Organizational Learning Through Gaming Simulation, 44.5. Baker, Christopher J. (2014). Video Games: Their Effect on Society and How We

Must Modernize Our Pedagogy for Students of the Digital Age. Virginia

Commonwealth University6. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise

in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin UK.7. Bogost, I., (2012). Persuasive games: exploitionware. Gamasutra. Retrieved from:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134735/persuasive_games_expliotionware8. Cates, W. M., & Bruce, R. R. (2000). Conceptualizing learner support space.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 85–98.9. Chorney, A. I. (2012). Taking the game out of gamification. Dalhouise Journal Of

Interdisciplinary Management 8, (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.5931/djim.v8i1.24210. Clapper, Timothy C. Role Play and Simulation. The Education Digest . April, 2010,

p. 39 - 43 11. Collins Dictionary (Online). Retrieved from: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/ 12. Corcora, Elizabeth (2011). The Gamification Of Educaction. O’Reilly Media13. Cruz, L., & Penley, J. (2014). Too cool for school?: The effects of gamification in an

advanced interdisciplinary course. Journal of Teaching and Learning with

Technology, 3(2), 1-11.14. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., &Nacke, L. (2011). From game design

elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. Proceedings Of The 15th

International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media

Environments (pp. 9-15). ACM. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=218104015. Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C.,

Martínez-Herráiz, J.J. (2012). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical

implications and outcomes.

63

16. Facer, K. (Ed.). (2003). Screenplay: Children and computing in the home.

Psychology Press.17. Fitz-Walter, Z., Tjondronegoro, D., & Wyeth, P., (2011). Orientation passport: using

gamification to engage university students. Proceedings Of the 23rd Australian

Computer-Human Interaction Conference (pp. 122-125). ACM.

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=207155418. Gardner, H. (1998). Inteligencias múltiples. Paidós.19. Gåsland, M. (2011). Game mechanic based e-learning. Science And Technology,

Master Thesis (June 2011). Available at: http://ntnu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2,

441760.20. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy.

Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 20-20.21. Gentile, D. A., Choo, H., Liau, A., Sim, T., Li, D., Fung, D., & Khoo, A. (2011).

Pathological video game use among youths: a two-year longitudinal study.

Pediatrics, 127(2), e319-e329.22. Godwin-Jones, R. (2014). Games in Language Learning: Opportunities and

Challenges. Language, Learning & Technology, 18(2), 9.23. Gros, B. (2007). El aprendizaje colaborativo a través de la red: límites y

posibilidades. Sólo para uso Docente Distribución Gratuita, 112.24. Hays, R. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: a literature review and

discussion. TechnicalReport 2005–2004 for the Naval Air Center Training Systems Division: Orlando,

FL.25. Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2008). Why play= learning. Encyclopedia on

early childhood development, 1-7.26. Huotari, K., & Hamari, J., (2012). Defining gamification: a service marketing

perspective. Proceedings of the 16th International Academic Mindtrek Conference

(pp. 17-22). ACM. http://dl.acm.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2393137 27. ICONS Project. Retrieved from: http://www.icons.umd.edu/ 28. Jarvin, L. (2015). Edutainment, Games, and the Future of Education in a Digital

World. New directions for child and adolescent development, 2015(147), 33-40.

64

29. Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based

methods and strategies for training and education. John Wiley & Sons.30. Koster R., (2004). Theory of fun for game design. Sebastopol, O’Reilly Media, Inc. 31. Lee, J. J., & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in education: What, how, why

bother?. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15(2), 146.32. Levi, M. (1997). A model, a method, and a map: Rational choice in comparative and

historical analysis. Comparative politics: Rationality, culture, and structure, 28, 78.33. Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of

intrinsic motivations for learning. Aptitude, learning, and instruction, 3(1987), 223-

253.34. Martins, I. (2014). Transformaciones en el pensamiento de unos profesores

universitarios de áreas no lingüísticas sobre la escritura académica. In Bellaterra

journal of teaching and learning language and literature (Vol. 7, pp. 0021-33).35. McNeil, L. (2012). Using talk to scaffold referential questions for English language

learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 396-404.36. Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Online). http://www.merriam-webster.com/ 37. Montessori, M. (2013). The montessori method. Transaction Publishers.38. Muntean, C.I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification.

Proceeding of the 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL39. Nicholson, S., (2012). A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful

gamification. Games + Learning + Society, 8. Retrieved from

http://scottnicholson.com/pubs/meaningfulframework.pdf40. Oprescu F, Jones C, Katsikitis M. I PLAY AT WORK—ten principles for

transforming work processes through gamification. Frontiers in Psychology.

2014;5:1441. Obikwelu, C., Read, J., & Sim, G. (2013). Children's Problem-Solving in Serious

Games: The" Fine-Tuning System (FTS)" Elaborated. Electronic Journal of e-

Learning, 11(1), 49-60.42. Paharia, R., (2011). The rise of gamification. Adotas. Retrieved from

http://www.adotas.com/2011/07/the-rise-of-gamification/43. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5),

1-6.

65

44. Rapeepisarn, K., Wong, K. W., Fung, C. C., & Khine, M. S. (2008). The relationship

between game genres, learning techniques and learning styles in educational

computer games. In Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment (pp.

497-508). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.45. Reeve, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY

A Dialectical Framework for Understanding Sociocultural Influences on Student.

Big theories revisited, 4, 31.46. Robertson, M. (2010). Can’t play, won’t play. Hide & Seek: Inventing New Kinds

Of Play. Retrieved from: http://www.hideandseek.net/2010/10/06/cant-play-wont-

play47. Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille, P., Marianov, V., Correa, M., Flores, P., ... &

Salinas, M. (2003). Beyond Nintendo: design and assessment of educational video

games for first and second grade students. Computers & Education, 40(1), 71-94.48. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals.

MIT press.49. Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience.

Educational researcher, 35(8), 19-29.50. da Silva, R. M. M. (2010). Aplicaçao de gamificaçao em um sistema colaborativo.51. Sylvén, L. K., & Sundqvist, P. (2012). Gaming as extramural English L2 learning

and L2 proficiency among young learners. ReCALL, 24(03), 302-321.52. Shaw, Carolyn M. "Designing and Using Simulations and Role-Play Exercises. "The

International Studies Encyclopedia (Denmark, Robert A. Blackwell Publishing,

2010)53. Terrill, B. (2008) My coverage of lobby of the social gaming summit. Bret on Social

Games Retrieved from: http://www.bretterrill.com/2008/06/my-coverage-of-lobby-

of-social-gaming.html54. Thiagarajan, S. (1998). Ask Thiagi. Thiagi Game Letter, 1(4), 6. 55. Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use,

socialization, and learning in Internet interest communities and online gaming. The

Modern Language Journal, 93(s1), 802-821.

66

56. Tsai, F. H., Kinzer, C., Hung, K. H., Chen, C. L. A., & Hsu, I. Y. (2013). The

importance and use of targeted content knowledge with scaffolding aid in

educational simulation games. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(2), 116-128.57. Tulloch, R. (2014). Reconceptualising gamification: Play and pedagogy. Digital

Culture & Education, 6:4, 317-33. Retrieved from:

http://www.digitalcultureandeducation.com/cms/wp-

content/uploads/2014/12/tulloch.pdf 58. Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An

overview. Language teaching, 31(02), 57-71.59. Whitton, N. (2010). Game engagement theory and adult learning. Simulation &

Gaming.60. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89e100.61. Wu, C. J., Chen, G. D., & Huang, C. W. (2014). Using digital board games for

genuine communication in EFL classrooms. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 62(2), 209-226.62. Zichermann, G. (2011). The purpose of gamification. Radar. Retrieved from

http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/04/gamification-purpose-marketing.html

67