Gamification in Location-based M-Learning: Students’ Perceptions
of Game Elements
Joaquim Honório
1
, J. Antão B. Moura
2
, Paulo Brito
1
, Talita Menezes
1
and Marcelo Barros
2
1
Graduate Program in Computer Science, Federal University of Campina Grande (UFCG), Brazil
2
Systems and Computing Department, Federal University of Campina Grande (UFCG), Brazil
Keywords: Student Perceptions, Gamification, Game Design Elements, Game-based Learning, Location-based Learning.
Abstract: Applications for Mobile-Learning, used in conjunction with strategies based on games, provide new
opportunities for the learning process in the physical and virtual worlds. Although previous works evaluated
location-based mobile applications (and its variations), most of them focused almost entirely on specific
metrics, leaving the player’s perspective aside. This paper presents study r esults for the evaluation of m-
Learning applications from the students’ perspective regarding the learning experience based on locatio n and
the game elements that might make the learning process more appealing to them. The study collected major
game elements from the literature and applied questionnaires to 53 students from public high schools (junior
high) in two states of Northeast Brazil. The results suggest that the majority of students have interest in this
learning approach and consider most of the analysed game elements important to promote learning
motivation, even though there are elements that are not as appealing. The paper contributes to the design of
gamified location-based m-Learning applications in the sense that it provides insight into the importance of
their requirements players perceive and may thus, serve as a guide for such applications vers ioning.
1 INTRODUCTION
Games are widely popular nowadays. Given their
dissemination and capacity of attracting different
audiences, researchers investigate how to apply
games elements in different domains, not solely for
entertainment. Thus, the phenomenon known as
“gamification” arises. It consists of the inclusion of
game elements in other software application for non-
gaming purposes (Deterding et al., 2011).
Gamification is being utilized in a multiplicity of
activities and areas, including education (Swacha and
Baszuro, 2013; Perry, 2015).
The education process, however, is not exclusive
to the school environment. The widespread use of
mobile devices, such as smartphones and tablets,
provides new opportunities to stimulate learning
outside the traditional teaching space, offering the
capability for learning in real-life other spaces
(Huizenga et al., 2009). That is, through mobile
devices in conjunction with GPS (Global Positioning
System), it is possible to implement pedagogic
characteristics in urban and other scenarios.
Associated with gamification, these characteristics
may positively impact motivation and engagement in
the learning process.
Nevertheless, gamification does not simply entail
insertion of game elements from existing systems
(games) into an application. It is necessary to follow
an adequate process to obtain real benefits (Cheong et
al., 2014). The development processes of gamified
applications have common steps, such as
understanding the target audience and context to
insert the game elements accordingly (Aparicio et al.,
2012) (Huang and Soman, 2013) (Cheong et al.,
2014). In the learning context, comprehending
students’ perspective about game elements
beforehand might improve the motivation and the
engagement of participants.
Previous works evaluated gamification in
location-based mobile applications (and its
variations) and showed positive results about their
adoption (for example, see Hutzler et al., 2017 and
(Barros et al., 2017)). However, much of the
evaluations of previous works focused almost
exclusively on objective metrics (such as learning
performance (Su and Cheng, 2013) and not on the
(potential) player’s perspective. Other studies, such
Honório, J., B. Moura, J., Brito, P., Menezes, T. and Barros, M.
Gamification in Location-based M-Learning: Students’ Perceptions of Game Elements.
DOI: 10.5220/0006716404890496
In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2018), pages 489-496
ISBN: 978-989-758-291-2
Copyright
c
 2019 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
489

as the one made by Cheong et al. (2014), evaluated
the user’s perspective about game elements for
gamification of applications. However, the literature
on academic evaluation studies of game elements of
location-based applications in the field of education
is still scanty. This paper adds to this specialized
literature.
To better understand users’ perspective of
educational, location-based, mobile applications (m-
Learning), an investigation into students' perceptions
of which game elements might bring an overall
improvement in their engagement and learning is
being carried out at the Federal University of
Campina Grande (UFCG), Brazil.
So far, the investigation considered students from
public middle (junior high) schools in two states in
Northeastern Brazil. Preliminary results offer
indication as to the perception of the effectiveness of
game elements for educational purposes. As such,
they might lead to a better understanding of the use of
gamification in educational location-based
applications.
The remainder of this paper is structured as
follows: section 2 highlights basic concepts for the
discussion and it reviews related work. Section 3
discusses the methodology and models used in the
investigation and describes the design of associated
experiment. Section 4 brings results and analyses and
explores them for possible cause-effect relations.
Finally, section 5 presents conclusions and discusses
future work.
2 BACKGROUND AND RELATED
WORK
This section describes: (1) the use of gamification in
the learning process; (2) game elements and their
definitions; and, (3) location-based learning.
2.1 Gamification in Education
In education, gamification has the potential to engage
people, motivate actions, promote learning, and help
in problem-solving (Kapp, 2012). Implementation of
gamification, however, is a complex process. To be
effective, it requires a careful application of the
elements of games (Kapp, 2012).
Several works sought to understand the
perspectives of users regarding the elements of games
used in learning environments. One of them is
Cheong et al. (2014) that evaluated the perception of
undergraduate IT students about six game elements
that could make the teaching process more engaging.
Another study, carried out by Peixoto and Silva
(2017), carried out a systematic mapping to obtain an
overview of the elements of gamification in education
and evaluating them according to their priorities. In
addition, the study sought to evaluate the elements
found according to the types of the users. Their
assessment has been made by specialized participants
such as researchers and members of companies,
leaving out (the perspective of) non-specialist
members such as children - who, by the way, are an
important and large target audience for educational
and gambling applications.
Other works, such as the one by Monterrat,
Lavoué and George (2014), have studied adaptive
gamification to create personalized experiences for
each user type in game-based learning systems.
Although gamers' expectations do not seem to
directly enhance the effectiveness of the gamified
protocol, the study of expectation elements may be
useful in guiding new studies and developers during
the gamification-implementation process. This work,
besides dealing with different audiences and different
contexts of the cited works, aims to evaluate the
expectations related to twelve of the most important
elements identified by Werbach and Hunter (2012).
This document can thus be seen as complementing
and broadening the works briefly reviewed above.
2.2 Game Elements
Game elements are characteristics pertaining to
games that might be implemented during or for
gamification (Werbach and Hunter, 2012). These
elements present some level of abstraction, which
might be complex because they are not necessarily
concrete aspects as found normally in games - e.g.,
emblems, points, ranking systems, etc (Cheong et al.,
2014).
Werbach and Hunter (2012) identified three game
elements hierarchical categories that might be applied
during gamification: dynamics (top level in the
hierarchy), mechanics (middle level) and components
(bottom). These categories are described and
organized according to their level of abstraction. Each
mechanics might have a link with one or more
dynamics; and, each component be linked with one or
more mechanics - that is, each element has a link to
their superior levels, except for the dynamic, which
represents the highest level (Werbach and Hunter,
2012).
The
dynamics are aspects in which a gamified
CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
490

system evolves and is represented at the highest level
of abstraction for the game elements. Dynamics are
not inserted directly into a gamified piece of software,
but must be managed (Werbach and Hunter, 2012).
According to these authors, there are different types
of dynamics, of which the most important ones are:
restrictions (e.g., limitations), emotions (e.g.,
curiosity, competitivity), narrative (e.g., storyline),
progressions (e.g., growth within the game) and
relationships (e.g., social interactions with other
players, cooperation).
The mechanics are the next level down of
abstraction, being responsible for the basic process of
involving the user in the essential processes and is
utilized to achieve one or more dynamics (Werbach
and Hunter, 2012). In other words, the mechanics
provide the specific means to designate how the
dynamics will really be performed (Teh et al., 2013).
Among the ten most important levels of mechanics
identified by Werbach and Hunter (2012), there are:
cooperation (e.g., teamwork), rewards (e.g.,
gratification for certain actions), competition (e.g.,
friendly competitions between users), acquisition of
resources (e.g., collectibles items).
In the most concrete level for game elements, one
finds the components. Components are practical
game elements that might be visualized directly in the
application (Werbach and Hunter, 2012). Despite that
direct visualization, the player’s experience might be
affected by some previously presented aspects.
In trying to offer a good experience with a
gamified m-Learning app, this paper aims to elicit the
app users’ (i.e., its potential or actual players’)
perceptions on the importance of the following
components identified by Werbach and Hunter
(2012):
Virtual Goods: acquisitions that the players can
make and utilize within the game itself. These
acquisitions are commonly done with the use of
virtual currency acquired by successfully realizing
activities within the game;
Quests or missions: proposed activities that
guide the user in what should be done. In an
educational context, missions can be utilized to teach
a specific topic to the player, and then guide her or
him into putting the newly acquired knowledge into
practice. Missions, upon their successful conclusions,
will reward the users with, for example, scores or
points. This component is linked to the challenge and
emotion mechanics;
Teams: the teams are made up by groups carrying
out the same activity, which can be executed by
students from the same school, people from the same
neighborhood, etc.;
Leader boards: a list that ranks players according
to criteria such as their scores or collections;
Collections: collectible rewards commonly in the
form of medals or emblems that a player usually wins
when s/he concludes certain activities;
Points: usually related to levels and are basically,
rewards that are given to users when they realize
certain actions. In addition, points can be used as
feedback about the game itself, informing whether an
action was carried out adequately;
Boss Fights: challenges with progressive
difficulty faced at the end of a level, stage, etc.;
Levels: represent the player’s evolution in the
application. New levels are usually unlocked by
acquired points after the success of some game
activity;
Social Graphs: ability to interact with players
within the game;
Combat: a dispute between two or more players in
search of rewards;
Avatar: virtual representation of a user (player)
within the context of the game (e.g., a character);
Content Unlocking: resources made available to
the player when s/he meets certain criteria such as
attaining certain levels, points, medals, etc.
It is worth mentioning that Werbach and Hunter
(2012) describe 15 game elements; 3 of them, are not
considered here because apprehending abstractions
(achievements), are either included in other elements
(badges) or were not properly grasped by the
participants of the study (for instance, gifting).
2.3 Location-based Learning
With each passing day, students tend to use more
smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices. In this
scenario, it is possible to combine training and
connectivity to create new opportunities in the
learning process. The dissemination of mobile
devices, in conjunction with the use of GPS (Global
Positioning System) and game-based strategies, can
provide a way to motivate and involve students in the
learning process in new environments. For example,
a student can learn about a historical monument
through school material, or be in the monument’s
location to see it, learn directly about its
characteristics and the history behind it. In this way,
location-based applications can allow new
experiences, extending the acquisition of knowledge
to the physical and virtual worlds.
Some works incorporate gamification into the
learning process in location-based applications.
Hutzler et al. (2017) designed, evaluated and
identified risks qualitatively in an application used for
Gamification in Location-based M-Learning: Students’ Perceptions of Game Elements
491

sharing and learning of historical information about
specific places, e.g., historical sites.
Another gamified application that utilizes the
user’s location is AquaGuardians (Barros et al.,
2017). This application promotes awareness about
water usage through missions, many of which take
place in real locations, provided by the local water
management agency and by (mini-)games embedded
in the application. Moreover, it involves events
related to information about the economy and water
recycling, making use of the human vision as a sensor
for a system of collection of data regarding water
leakage and contamination.
By mapping which game elements users perceive
as causes for a better experience, this paper
contributes to the support of decisions on
requirements of these and other m-Learning apps
which are to be implement for their creation or
evolution.
3 METHODOLOGY
Gathering information on users’ perceptions of game-
elements in m-Learning applications was made here
through questionnaires. Questionnaire development
followed a methodology based on the proposal by
Shaughnessy and Zechmeister (2011).
The methodology has six stages. In the first stage,
the data that were to be collected were defined
together with how and when the questionnaire would
be applied. After that, a questionnaire sketch was
developed, and it was further revised by other
researchers. A preliminary test of the questionnaire
was executed with 3 subjects who were not part of the
intended sample, but with similar characteristics (11
to 18 years-old students from the middle school
system in North-eastern Brazil). The last stage
defines the procedures that were to be followed when
applying the questionnaire.
The final questionnaire was divided into three
sections. In the first section, the questions focused on
demographic characteristics, like educational level,
age and gender. The second section elicited
information on the participant’s familiarity with
mobile devices, gamified applications and location-
based systems. In the third and last section, the
interviewee was asked to evaluate the gamification
components identified by Werbach and Hunter
(2012), giving him questions with the Likert scale for
answers, each with 7 levels ranging from 1 (I strongly
disagree) to 7 (I fully agree). The questions served as
a basis for assessing participants' perceptions of their
existing experiences of using game components to
make the learning process and learning assessment
activities more appealing. Note that because of such
subjectivity and the small number of participants
(53), results should be taken as preliminary.
Before receiving the questionnaire, the
participants were given a presentation and
explanations on the addressed issue. And to facilitate
their understanding of the issue and objective of the
questionnaire, formal language and jargons regarding
gamification were avoided in the making of the
questions that better represented the game elements at
hand.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section presents results on (potential) users’
expectations about gamification of location-based,
educational applications for mobile devices (m-
Learning) and their perception of which game
elements might make these applications more
appealing.
Sixty-two participants answered the questionnaire
initially. Of these, 9 were excluded from statistical
analysis due to incomplete data or unintelligible
answers. Thus, the complete data set consists of 53
responses, resulting in 85.48% of usable data for the
research. The 53 responding students came from the
public network of schools of the city of Campina
Grande – Paraíba state, Brazil (10 males and 14
females of average age = 13.83 and standard
deviation = 1.80, with a minimum of 11 years-old and
a maximum of 17) and Santa Cruz do Capibaribe –
Pernambuco state (14 males and 15 females with
average age = 14.10, SD = 1.11, Min.=12, Max.=18).
Students were from the 6th to the 9th grade of the
middle school system. All actual respondents were
selected at random and had their participation made
willingly.
4.1 Experience and Expectation with
Gamified M-Learning Applications
The initial interest here is on gathering information
on experiences and expectations of middle level
students with gamified applications in general, not
necessarily gamified educational apps, for mobile
devices. For that, the frequency in which they use
mobile devices for gaming was first established.
It was observed that 31 (58.49%) of the
participants, consisting of 17 male and 14 female
students, made daily use of mobile phones or tablets
for playing games. Only 3 male and 3 female
students, for a total of 6 participants (11.32%), made
CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
492

weekly use of these devices for gaming. 10 females
and 4 males, tor a total of 14 (26.42%) participants,
said that they rarely played on these devices. Finally,
only 1 (1.8%) participant said that he never used a
mobile device to play. The above information can be
visualized in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Frequency of use of mobile devices for games.
The questions regarding the experience with
location-based applications, as well as gamified
applications, highlighted that 41 participants (77.3%)
reacted positively to the adoption of gamified
applications. In regard to the use of location-based
applications, 31 (45.28%) of the participants said that
they had already used applications with similar
characteristics.
Figure 2: Interest in learning through location-based
applications.
As to their interests and expectations regarding
location-based educational applications, Figure 2
shows that 31 (58.49%) of the interviewees, 20
females, and 11 males, favour the utilization of
location-based applications in the learning process.
Only 5 males and 2 females, for a total of 7 people
(13.21%), are indifferent and 15 (28.30%), 9 males
and 6 females, are not interested in learning through
this approach. When it comes to the expectations of
the participants, 36 people, comprising 22 females
and 12 males, informed that they had interest in
learning and putting into practice their acquired
knowledge outside of the classroom. 22 participants
(10 males and 12 females) expect to socialize with
other students. Lastly, 10 participants (5 males and 5
females) hope to see and understand the subject in
their current location, and only 10 (6 males and 4
female) do not have interest or show any other
expectation.
Figure 3: Expectations for using location-based
applications for learning.
The results found in this subsection refer to the
users’ behaviour towards the usage of mobile devices,
interest in and expectations with the gamification and
usage of location-based applications in education.
Overall, most of the students already had contact with
gamified apps, games in particular, and a significant
part of them had some notion or already utilized
location-based applications. The students also
showed interest in participating in educational
approaches based on location - the female
respondents being the most interested in this
approach. Ultimately, the participants showed more
interest in learning outside of the classroom and
socializing with other students through mobile apps.
4.2 Perception of Game Elements
The game components used here are part of the main
components proposed by Werbach and Hunter
(2012): virtual goods, quests, teams, leaderboards,
points, boss fights, levels, social graphs, combat,
avatar, collections and content unlocking. The
questionnaire had questions for all these 12 elements.
Associated answers offered options covering seven
levels of agreement with the presence of each element
Gamification in Location-based M-Learning: Students’ Perceptions of Game Elements
493

in a gamified m-Learning app. The respondent could
choose from: 1 (I strongly disagree) to 7 (I strongly
agree). Each respondent was requested to indicate
his/her perception concerning the components in the
questionnaire. Components were described without
presenting specific examples of them in any game or
app; this way, respondents were more likely to
evaluate the items according to their experiences with
less bias that could be caused by examples.
The analyses of results are done here in three
distinct parts. The first presents overall results for the
average scores of the components. Next, results are
sorted out according to participant’s gender. And
lastly, the results are examined according to the
respondents’ gaming regularity using mobile devices.
The overall results show that the majority of the
students evaluate a significant portion of the
components in a positive way as actual promoter of
engagement in the learning process (as shown in
Figure 4). The leaderboard component appears as a
possible exception. In fact, it is the only component
to have a median below 5 (as shown in Table 1).
Figure 4: Responses to the question on game components.
(1 is the minimum and 7 is the maximum score in the
adopted Likert scale).
To statistically estimate the difference between
the evaluations of the 12 game components, the
nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis and the post-hoc
Mann-Whitney tests were used, since the resulting
data do not follow a normal distribution. Tests
indicate that at least one game component exists with
a significant difference in its evaluation (Kruskal-
Wallis test, p<0.001): the evaluation of the
leaderboard component is significantly different from
other components (Mann-Whitney test, p<0.05).
Table 1: Statistical Summary of Sample (Min. is the
minimum and Max. is the maximum score in the sample;
SD is the standard deviation).
Components
Mean
Median
Min.
Max.
SD
Virtual Goods
4.92
6
1
7
2.27
Quests
4.64
5
1
7
2.24
Teams
5.60
7
1
7
1.85
Leaderboards
3.81
4
1
7
1.93
Points
5.32
6
1
7
1.99
Boss Fights
4.90
6
1
7
2.15
Levels
5.28
6
1
7
2.06
Social Graphs
5.20
6
1
7
2.06
Combat
5.05
6
1
7
1.99
Avatar
5.11
5
1
7
1.78
Collections
5.03
5
1
7
1.97
Content
Unlocking
5.15 6 1 7 1.97
Figure 5: Responses to the question on game components
grouped by gender (1 is the minimum and 7 is the maximum
score in the adopted Likert scale).
The perception according to the participant’s
gender is shown in Figure 5. Results indicate that
there is no significant difference among game
components evaluated by male respondents (Kruskal-
Wallis test, p<0.10). In contrast, there is a significant
difference among game components evaluated by
female participants (Kruskal-Wallis test, p<0.03),
with the leader board component being significantly
different from other components (Mann-Whitney
test, p<0.05).
CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
494

Figure 6: Response to the questions about game
components grouped by frequency of use of mobile devices
for games (1 is the minimum and 7 is the maximum score
in the adopted Likert scale).
Preference for game components according to
frequency of gaming on mobile devices is shown in
Figure 6. Participants were put into two categories:
frequent players (that use mobile devices daily for
gaming), and non-frequent users (that uses mobile
devices for gaming weekly, monthly or rarely). No
significant difference among evaluations by non-
frequent users (Kruskal-Wallis test, p<0.10) was
found. In contrast, there is a significant difference
between the evaluations of game components by
frequent players (Kruskal-Wallis test, p<0.03).
Again, the evaluation of the leader board component
significantly differs from those of other components
(Mann-Whitney, p<0.05).
4.3 Discussion
Some results seem worth of further observations,
comments and attempts to explore cause-effect
relations:
1. The overlapping intervals in Figure 1 preclude
definite conclusions – statistically speaking there
could be equally favored by respondents – except
perhaps, for leader boards. The apparent
“distaste” for leader boards could stem from the
negative psychological impact of being exposed
when one is not very well ranked.
2. Females were observed to come out stronger in
favour of gamification of m-Learning
applications. Further, their perceptions of the
contribution of game elements differ from those
of their male counterparts. Although additional
research is needed to ascertain these observations
and identify their causes, they could lead to
customizable m-Learning apps according to
gender for better user experiences.
3. Results in Table 1 suggest a uniform distribution
– i.e., all 12 game elements appear equally
important for the success of m-Learning apps. It
is important to note that a similar observation
may be made for the results in (Cheong et al.,
2014) but for respondents with a different profile
(university students). This may be caused by the
“give me the works” syndrome of avid and/or
frequent players.
4. Bias from frequent players seems not to be the
case here: Figure 8 shows that although players
with different gaming and mobile usage profiles
have somewhat different perceptions most game
elements end up with very similar ratings.
All four points above suggest further research to
clarify matters or open new research opportunities. In
this direction, one might envisage a contribution of
the paper in the sense that it opens new paths for
further research on gamification of m-Learning apps.
In short, the general results found in this
subsection indicate that there is no consensus among
the participants regarding the key elements that might
contribute to the educational process, However, there
is evidence that the leader board component is less
“effective” for the analysed profile of potential
players.
5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE
WORK
Gamification is being used in different contexts. In
education, the usage of game elements has the
potential of engaging people, motivate actions,
promote learning and help in problem solving
situations (Kapp, 2012). However, to obtain the true
potential of gamified m-Learning apps it is necessary
to use adequate gamification processes, understand
the characteristics and perspectives of students about
their motivation and engagement in the learning
process (Cheong et al., 2014).
This paper offered preliminary results of research
on the perspective of location-based mobile
applications users. Potential users of interest here
were children (11 to 18 years-old) of the middle level
of schooling. The results provide a descriptive study
of game elements that affect students’ perceptions in
terms of overall improvement of the learning process
caused by the characteristics of those elements. The
study indicated that, in general, there is no consensus
among the questionnaire respondents regarding the
Gamification in Location-based M-Learning: Students’ Perceptions of Game Elements
495

key elements that might contribute to the educational
process. This indication is aligned to the results by
Cheong et al. (2014), although their work considered
another “class” of (potential) users – i.e., university
students. On the other hand, the study here yielded
evidence that the leader board component appears to
be less effective. This research might serve as a basis
for other works on the evolution of gamified m-
Learning applications.
As future work, one could consider other user
profiles for the evaluation of the game elements. One
could also consider a qualitative research through
semi-structured interviews. It is of further interest to
explore gamification in the process of pedagogic
evaluation of students. Since false information is
likely to be produced by cheating users for
underserved gains, one will need intervention to
detect and root out cheaters. Conventional manual
evaluation approaches (by teachers, tutors or
specially appointed agents, etc.) to catch false
information lack scalability. That is, as the quantity
of users/students rises, the number of evaluators may
not increase proportionally. Therefore, interventions
are necessary to meet such increase and motivate
users towards this type of activity – which is typical
of a trust evaluation system. Gamification of such
systems may prove efficient. One would need,
however, to identify which game elements would be
of most assistance in this case and thus set
development priorities.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is being carried out with support from the
Brazilian Agency for the Improvement of Higher
Education Personnel (CAPES).
REFERENCES
Aparicio, A. F., Vela, F. L. G., Sánchez, J. L. G., and
Montes, J. L. I. (2012). Analysis and application of
gamification. In Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on Interacción Persona-Ordenador, page
17. ACM.
Barros, M. A. d., Andrade, V., Moura, J. A. B., Silva, J. I.A.
O., Alcântara, H. M. d., Vieira, et al. (2017).
AquaGuardians: a tutorial-based education game for
population engagement in water management. In
CSEDU 2017: Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Computer Supported Education.
Cheong, C., Filippou, J., and Cheong, F. (2014). Towards
the gamification of learning: Investigating student
perceptions of game elements. Journal of Information
Systems Education, 25(3):233.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., and Nacke, L. (2011).
From game design elements to gamefulness: defining
gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th international
academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future
media environments, pages 9–15. ACM.
Huang, W. H.-Y. and Soman, D. (2013). Gamification of
education. Research Report Series: Behavioural
Economics in Action, Rotman School of Management,
University of Toronto.
Huizenga, J., Admiraal, W., Akkerman, S., and Dam, G.t.
(2009). Mobile game-based learning in secondary
education: engagement, motivation and learning in a
mobile city game. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 25(4):332–344.
Hutzler, A., Wagner, R., Pirker, J., and Gütl, C. (2017).
Mythhunter: Gamification in an educational location-
based scavenger hunt. In International Conference on
Immersive Learning, pages 155–169. Springer.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and
instruction: game-based methods and strategies for
training and education.
Monterrat, B., Lavoué, É., & George, S. (2014). Toward an
Adaptive Gamification System for Learning
Environments. In International Conference on
Computer Supported Education (pp. 115-129).
Springer, Cham.
Peixoto, M. and Silva, C. (2017). A gamification
requirements catalog for educational software: results
from a systematic literature review and a survey with
experts. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied
Computing, pages 1108–1113. ACM.
Perry, B. (2015). Gamifying french language learning: a
case study examining a quest-based, augmented reality
mobile learning-tool. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 174:2308–2315.
Shaughnessy, J. J. and Zechmeister, E. B. (2011). Research
methods in psychology. McGraw-Hill.
Su, C. H. and Cheng, C. H. (2013). A mobile game-based
insect learning system for improving the learning
achievements. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 103, 42-50.
Swacha, J. and Baszuro, P. (2013). Gamification-based e-
learning platform for computer programming
education. In X World Conference on Computers in
Education, pages 122–130.
Teh, N., Schuff, D.,Johnson, S., and Geddes, D. (2013).
Can work be fun? improving task motivation and help-
seeking through game mechanics.
Werbach, K. and Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game
thinking can revolutionize your business. Wharton
Digital Press.
CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
496