edtech504-gamification and game based learning in the 21st century constructivist classroom

Gamification and Game-Based Learning in the 21st Century Constructivist Classroom 1

Gamification and Game-Based Learning in the 21st Century Constructivist Classroom

Nicolas Hernandez

Boise State University

Abstract

This paper will explore game-based learning and gamification from within the context of constructivist learning theories. This paper explains how game-based learning and gamification have strong ties to constructivist learning theories. This paper will also examine case studies that evaluate the effectiveness of game-based learning and gamification in the classroom.

Keywords: Game-based learning, gamification, constructivism, social constructivism, social activity theory, cognitive constructivism


Introduction

If one takes a trip to an elementary school playground while children are outside, they

will likely see children running, jumping, and playing. The children may play cooperatively, and

sometimes they may play independently. It is a well-known and documented that play helps

children learn (Whitebread, Coltman, Jameson, & Lander, 2009). Children engage in play

effortlessly and naturally. They create games to play with each other, establish rules, and teach

each other how to play. By the time children leave elementary school, they have spent a

considerable amount of time playing games (Erenli, 2013). But, as children move into higher

grade levels they spend less time playing games in educational settings (Erenli, 2013).

Playing games, however, does not stop once a child leaves elementary school. The game

playing just takes on a different form. According to Erenli, approximately 97% of school-aged

children are engaged in a videogame or computer game activity. Furthermore, he stated that

adults continue to play games as well. He noted the average age of a video game player as 37

years old (2013). The video game market is very large. Consumers are expected to spend in

excess of $100 Billion on video games this year (Kim, 2015c). In the U.S., it is reported that

more than three out of every four households own video games (Erenli, 2013). The popularity of

video games often leaves educators frustrated as they have to compete for students’ attention

with video games at home and in the classroom (Nworie & Haughton, 2008). However, some

educators have observed how engaged their students are when they are playing video games.

They desire a similar level of engagement and excitement by their students towards the lessons

in their curriculum (Waddington, 2015). It is not surprising that some educators have identified

the constructivist benefit of using games in a 21st Century classroom. They incorporate games

and game concepts in their classrooms in an attempt to capture some of the magic they witness


when they observe their students play video games (Erenli, 2013). The purpose of this paper is to

examine gamification and game-based learning within the context of constructivist learning

theory and the potential benefit of using game-based learning and gamification in the classroom.

Constructivist Learning Theories

Constructivist learning theory maintains that learning occurs when students create

meaning from their learning experiences. The theory places the learner at the center of the

learning environment. Active participation is a key component of constructivism. Every moment

is viewed through a lens of prior experiences that help the learner formulate the meaning within

the current context. It is through active participation that constructivists believe meaning is

created (Ertmer & Newby, 1993).

Constructivism theory is multifaceted. Social activism theory, social constructivism, and

cognitive constructivism are theories that fall under the constructivist theory umbrella. These

theories will be discussed because all three theories have an implication in game-based learning

and gamification. Social activism theory, developed by John Dewey, maintains that learning is a

social exercise involving authentic scenarios. Social learning was also important to Lev

Vygotsky, who developed Social constructivism. Vygotsky postulated that learning occurred in

what he called the “Zone of Proximal Development” with the assistance of others. According to

Nassaji and Cumming, the “Zone of Proximal Development is the distance between a student’s

ability to perform a task under a teacher’s guidance or with peer collaboration and his/ her ability

to solve a problem independently” (as cited in Wu, Hsiao, Wu, Lin, & Huang, 2012, p. 268).

Cognitive constructivism also builds upon prior knowledge. The theory proposed by Piaget,

holds that learning occurs as knowledge is taken in, and the learner can reconcile past knowledge


with new knowledge and assign their personal meaning to what was experienced ("Cognitive

Constructivism", 2015).

Games in the Classroom

Savvy educators will go to great lengths to engage, motivate, and provide their students

with wonderful learning opportunities. These early adopters were among the first to start using

game-based learning and gamification in the classroom. In order to completely understand how

games, gamification, and game-based learning can be used in the classroom, one must first

understand how the terms are defined. According to Caillois, a game is an activity that has six

primary components. A game must be “fun,” “separate,” (from normal activities) “uncertain,” (in

outcome) “non-productive,” “governed by rules,” and “fictitious” (as cited in Erenli, 2013, p.

15). Erenli also includes a definition by Crawford that describes a game as “an interactive, goal-

oriented activity, with active agents to play against, in which players (including active agents)

can interfere with each other” (as cited in Erenli, 2013, p.16). Erenli concluded that the

combination of the two definitions with the exclusion of the term “non-productive” was a sound

definition for a game (2013).

Having established a definition for a game, we can then begin to define game-based

learning. Game-based learning is the use of games (either commercially available or created by

an instructor or student) to relay educational concepts and further the curriculum. In game-based

learning, a game is a tool that is used to teach new concepts or to enhance a learning experience

(Erenli, 2013; Lin et al., 2013). According to Lin et al., “game-based learning theory is grounded

in the concept that a competitive game environment requires students to actively participate,

thereby increasing their desire to learn” (2013, p. 272). Game-based learning may involve a

variety of genres. According to Hong, Cheng, Hwang, Lee, and Chang, “action games,”


“adventure games,” “fighting games,” “RPG,” (Role Playing Games) “simulations,” “sports

games,” and “strategy games” are the seven major digital game genres (Hong, Cheng, Hwang,

Lee, & Chang, 2009, p. 424). It is the job of the educator to facilitate the learning through the

playing of the game in whatever genre of game is chosen for the specified learning objective

(Hong, Cheng, Hwang, Lee, & Chang, 2009).

When discussing game-based learning, one may encounter the term, digital game-based

learning. As the phrase implies, digital game-based learning is game-based learning with an

added digital component (Woo, J. 2014). Game-based learning and digital game-based learning

are often used interchangeably, but it is possible to have a game-based learning educational

environment that is free of technology. For the purposes of this paper, the broader definition of

game-based learning will be used so as not to exclude digital games.

According to Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, and Nacke, gamification is "the use of game

design elements in nongame contexts" (as cited in Erenli, 2013). But others define gamification

differently, Zichermann and Cunningham believe “gamification is the process of game-thinking

and game mechanics to engage users and solve problems” (as cited in Kim, 2015a, p. 14).

Simply put, gamification creatively uses game-based elements, and mechanics, to engage

learners and create a rich learning environment (Erenli, 2013). This can take shape in many

different ways. For example, a school in Michigan used gamification to turn the summer reading

program into a game that allowed students to choose specific reading paths. Students earned

rewards and points for accomplishing the reading tasks. Codecademy is a website that teaches

people how to write computer code. The site uses game style elements, offers rewards, and

provides the learners with badges for completing coding lessons. While only two examples are


mentioned above, gamification can be used in almost any domain to add a game layer to an

already existing framework (Kim, 2015b).

Game-based learning, Gamification, and Constructivism Theories

Game-based learning and gamification are increasing in popularity in classrooms around

the world as teachers strive to engage their students and enhance their learning experiences

(Erenli, 203). Many teachers can see their students are engaged with the games they play, and

they are attempting to achieve the same level of engagement with the content they wish to teach

their students. An educator’s desire to bring games into the classroom has legitimate educational

implications. Game-based learning and gamification can also be tied to constructivist learning

theories (Wu, Hsiao, Wu, Lin, & Huang, 2012).

Cognitive Constructivism. Jean Piaget claimed that game playing could help a child be

more familiar with the creative elements of their imagination (Hong, Cheng, Hwang, Lee, &

Chang, 2009). Games by their nature, require game players to create meaning as they play

games. A game player must derive meaning from the game instructions, environment, controls,

colors, sounds, characters, storyline, and even how others play the game. A cognitive

constructivist would agree that as a game player advances through a game, the actions and

outcomes the player encounters would be taken in by the game player and the player would

react, adapt, and act accordingly to new circumstances in the game. This relates game-based

learning to constructivist learning theory at a fundamental level ("Cognitive

Constructivism,"2015). Gamification infuses game-like elements into non-game environments,

thus effectively creating a game-based learning environment (Erenli, 2013). Gamification can

therefore also be linked to cognitive constructivism.


Social Constructivism. Games, when played with others, are social experiences because

a game player must interact with other players in the game. Whether a player is playing a game

cooperatively with others or competitively against others, makes little difference to the social

constructivist learning with which the game player is actively engaged. In a cooperative game,

the game player will progress through the game and learn along with the other players who are

also playing the game. In a game like Minecraft (which provides game players with an open

world environment) for example, players can play the game cooperatively if they choose to do

so. Cooperative game players can help each other survive, collect resources, share important

recipes for creating new resources, provide help with game controls, and can help new players

learn how to the play the game in general (Elliot, 2014). In a competitive game like Minecraft,

the players also learn socially. Because they are engaged in the game with other players, they

will learn tactical information about their opponents like their location, weapon types, hideout,

etc., which can be used to gain an advantage. In both cases described above, the learning requires

a social interaction in order to take place. As the game players progress through the game and

learn from the social interactions with others, the players’ “Zone of Proximal Development” will

scaffold upward. This is consistent with social constructivism (Wu, Hsiao, Wu, Lin, & Huang,

2012). In a similar fashion to the relationship with cognitive constructivism, gamification can be

tied to social constructivism because of the game-based environment created by a gamification

system (Erenli, 2013).

Social Activism Theory. Roblyer and Doering asserted that social activism theory is

“learning as social experience” and that advancement occurs when students are actively involved

in learning situations that have true to life implications (2013, p. 42). Since social activism

theory specifically requires real-world scenarios or issues, the theory is particularly interesting


when it is considered within the context of game-based learning and gamification. Simulation

style games are games that immerse the player into a simulation that can involve real-world

situations (Hong, Cheng, Hwang, Lee, & Chang, 2009). These games can provide the learner

with opportunities to learn from real-world scenarios. In the Peacemaker game, students are

immersed in the conflict between Palestine and Israel. They are placed in a leadership role on

one side of the conflict, and they are expected to navigate through difficult true to life diplomatic

negotiations to resolve conflicts (Cowley, Heikura, & Ravaja 2013).

A game such as this one can help students learn difficult concepts rich with real-life

learning experiences. This applies to gamification as well, Kim stated that “since gamification

uses game mechanics and dynamics for educational purposes, serious games and gamification

are often discussed together, and their boundaries tend to blur” (Kim, 2015b). In both cases,

social activism theory is at the center of the learning experience because the learning is social,

and it applies to real world scenarios (Roblyer and Doering, 2013).

Related Research

Since we have established the definitions of game-based learning and gamification and

their inherent links to constructivist learning theories, we are now ready to examine case studies

conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of using game-based learning and gamification in

learning environments.

Game-Based Learning Research

Elementary Education. Chuang and Chen studied the effectiveness of game-based

learning when compared to computer-assisted instruction with children. The study was

conducted on 115 third graders in Taiwan. The students were placed into separate groups. One

group used a video game to learn about fighting fires, and the other group would use computer-


assisted instruction on a website. The data show that there was a significant positive difference in

achievement for the group playing the video game when compared to the group using the

computer-assisted instruction. The research also suggests that video game playing may promote

problem-solving skills, creativity, and higher order thinking skills (Chuang and Chen, 2009).

Disadvantaged Students. Elliott conducted a case study of the use of a video game in

the classroom with 8th grade “disadvantaged” students in Australia. Students used Minecraft, an

open world, and open-ended video game by Mojang in a literature curriculum. Elliot discusses an

unintended consequence of using the game in the classroom. One student, who was a poor

performing student and an outcast, was knowledgeable about Minecraft and was asked by the

teacher to help other students. According to Elliot, the student received praise from other

students, was regarded as an expert, and began to perform better in other classes as well.

Students with Special Needs. Ke and Abras conducted a study on the effectiveness of

game-based learning on populations of American schoolchildren with special needs. The study

was conducted in New Mexico and included nine students with special needs. The study found

that “educational games, if well designed and used, can promote engagement and learning for

students with special learning needs” (Ke & Abras, 2013, p. 239).

Gamification Research

Economics. Chen, Burton, Mihaela, and Whittinghill conducted a study on a

gamification system called COGENT that is used with university students. The COGENT system

uses virtual currency for real world tasks and is designed to motivate and engage students. The

case study evaluated 32 undergraduate students from all four grade levels to gain insight into the

experiences students had with COGENT and gamification in general. The authors suggested that

the COGENT system had a motivational effect on students, but they also point out that the focus


group participants claimed that participation was sporadic. The study results pointed to issues

around the design, implementation, complexity, adoption, and support of the COGENT system.

The authors suggested that these issues must be addressed with care in order for a successful

deployment of a gamification system (Chen, Burton, Mihaela, & Whittinghill, 2015).

Science. Hakulinen, Auvinen, and Korhonen conducted research on the use of badges in

a university level computer science classroom in Finland. The study was randomized with the

control group not being offered the opportunity to earn badges and the treatment group being

told about the badges and the criteria for earning them. There were eight different badges offered

to the treatment group. The badges were designed to encourage specific student behaviors the

researchers felt would help student performance in the course. Examples of these behaviors

included mistake-free work and submitting work early. The research showed that by offering

badges to students, students did the extra work required and intentionally tried to earn the

badges. The students were motivated to learn by gamification that was in place. The authors

stated this meant that the control group’s behavior was closer in line with the encouraged

behavior (Hakulinen, Auvinen, & Korhonen, 2015).

Conclusion

The use of game-based learning and gamification is a growing trend in learning

environments. Results from research on the use of game-based learning in educational settings

are encouraging concerning student motivation and performance. The case studies reviewed for

this research showed an educational benefit of game-based learning for students of various ages,

grade levels, and demographics. Despite some issues with potential distractions, the results show

that using game-based learning in the classroom can have a beneficial impact on learning. Game-

based learning is also supported by constructivist learning theory. Cognitive constructivism,


Social activity theory, and Social constructivism can all be tied to constructivist learning

principles.

In a similar fashion, gamification research yielded positive results concerning student

engagement and motivation, and like game-based learning, gamification is also supported by

constructivist learning theories. Despite the benefit to engagement and motivation, there are

some issues around how gamification is designed and implemented that have to be addressed to

achieve the best results. Whether gamification or game-based learning will appear in every

classroom remains to be seen, but the instructors who choose to use it now have evidence-based

research and constructivist learning theory principles to support their desire to do so.


References

Chen, Y., Burton, T., Mihaela, V., & Whittinghill, D. (2015). Cogent: A case study of

meaningful gamification in education with virtual currency. International Journal of

Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 10(1), 39-45.

Chuang, T., & Chen, W. (2009). Effect of computer-based video games on children: An

experimental study. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 1-10.

Cognitive Constructivism. (2015). Retrieved March 28, 2015, from http://gsi.berkeley.edu/gsi-

guide-contents/learning-theory-research/cognitive-constructivism/

Cowley, B., Heikura, T., & Ravaja, N. (2013). Learning loops – interactions between guided

reflection and experience-based learning in a serious game activity. Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning, 29, 348-373.

Elliott, D. (2014). Levelling the playing field: Engaging disadvantaged students through game-

based pedagogy. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 22(2), 34-40.

Erenli, K. (2013). The impact of gamification. International Journal of Emerging Technologies

in Learning (iJET), 8(1), 15-21.

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical

features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly,

6(4), 50-72.

Hakulinen, L., Auvinen, T., & Korhonen, A. (2015). The effect of achievement badges on

students’ behavior: An empirical study in a university level computer science course.

International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 10(1), 18-29.

Hong, J., Cheng, C., Hwang, M., Lee, C., & Chang, H. (2009). Assessing the educational values

of digital games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 423-437.


Kim, B. (2015a). Gamification examples, definitions, and related concepts. Library Technology

Reports, 10-16.

Kim, B. (2015b). Gamification in education and libraries. Library Technology Reports, 20-28.

Kim, B. (2015c). The popularity of gamification in the mobile and social era. Library

Technology Reports, 5-9.

Lin, C., Liu, E., Chen, Y., Liou, P., Chang, M., Wu, C., & Yuan, S. (2013). Game-based

remedial instruction in mastery learning for upper-primary school students. Educational

Technology & Society, 16(2), 271-281.

Nworie, J., & Haughton, N. (2008). Good intentions and unanticipated effects: The unintended

consequences of the application of technology in teaching and learning environments.

TechTrends, 52(5), 52-58.

Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2013). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching:

Pearson New International Edition (6th ed., international ed.). Harlow: Pearson.

Schwarzmueller, G., & Rinaldo, V. (2013). The importance of self-directed play. Kappa Delta

Pi Record, 49(1), 37-41.

Waddington, D. (2015). Dewey and video games: From education through occupations to

education through simulations. Educational Theory, 65(1), 1-20.

Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Jameson, H., & Lander, R. (2009). Play, cognition and self-

regulation: What exactly are children learning when they learn through play. Educational

& Child Psychology, 26(2), 40-52.

Woo, J. (2014). Digital game-based learning supports student motivation, cognitive success, and

performance outcomes. Educational Technology & Society, 17(3), 291-307.


Wu, W., Hsiao, H., Wu, P., Lin, C., & Huang, S. (2012). Investigating the learning-theory

foundations of game-based learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted

Learning, 28, 265-279.

edtech504-gamification and game based learning in the 21st century constructivist classroom

Documents