Educational Games as a Motivational Tool: Considerations on their

Potential and Limitations

Marcello Passarelli

1 a

, Francesca Maria Dagnino

1 b

, Jeffrey Earp

1 c

, Flavio Manganello

1 d

Donatella Persico

1 e

, Francesca Pozzi

1 f

, Chris Bailey

2 g

, Carlo Perrotta

3 h

, Thomas Buijtenweg

and Mata Haggis

4 i

Institute for Educational Technology, National Research Council of Italy, Via de Marini 6, Genoa, Italy

Department of Education, Childhood, and Inclusion, Sheffield Hallam University, Howard Street, Sheffield, U.K.

Faculty of Education, Monash University, Ancora Imparo Way 19, Clayton, Australia

Academy for Digital Entertainment, Breda University of Applied Sciences, Sibeliuslaan 13, Breda, The Netherlands

{buijtenweg.t, haggis.m}@nhtv.nl

Keywords: Game-based Learning, Motivation, Gamification, Serious Games.

Abstract: There is considerable interest in leveraging video games to support students’ motivation. This involves

employment of educational (serious) and entertainment games. However, while evidence indicates that games

can enhance learning outcomes, doubts persist about whether they retain their enjoyable character in formal

learning contexts. This study was carried out within the H2020 Gaming Horizons project, which involved a

review of academic literature on the role of games in society, as well as 73 semi-structured interviews with

relevant stakeholders, including players and educators, investigating their positions on game-related issues.

The interviews suggested that players tend to view game-based learning – and specifically serious games at

school – with scepticism. This is partly attributable to the perception that serious games have lower production

values than entertainment games, and that gaming, as a voluntary, self-driven activity, clashes with the

structured nature of school. Some educators reported individual and gender differences in the motivating

power of games. However, the use of entertainment games to foster learning outcomes was seen favourably.

Two focus groups devoted to the issue highlighted the need for carefully tailoring the gaming experience to

both context and student, and the importance of developing a sustainable business model for enhancing serious

games quality.

1 INTRODUCTION

At the beginning of the ‘80s, Thomas W. Malone

published his seminal Ph.D. dissertation addressing

the following questions: “What are the features that

make computer games so captivating?; and “How can

these features be used to make learning, especially

learning with computers, interesting?”. Malone

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7991-8812

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2416-702X

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7075-5992

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7584-939X

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4574-0427

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3592-2131

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1969-5001

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3572-0844

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9619-5268

mostly focused on intrinsic motivation, i.e. “what

makes an activity fun or rewarding for its own sake

rather than for the sake of some external reward”

(Malone, 1981, p.1), and produced a set of guidelines

for designers of what he called “instructional

computer games”. Following Malone’s pioneering

work, much research has been carried out into

computer games, the reasons why they are fun and

330

Passarelli, M., Dagnino, F., Earp, J., Manganello, F., Persico, D., Pozzi, F., Bailey, C., Perrotta, C., Buijtenweg, T. and Haggis, M.

Educational Games as a Motivational Tool: Considerations on their Potential and Limitations.

DOI: 10.5220/0007586503300337

In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2019), pages 330-337

ISBN: 978-989-758-367-4

engaging, and how we can leverage these

characteristics to motivate people to engage in

learning activities the same way they do with play. In

this endeavour, especially in the last decade, a rich

research strand concerning game-based learning, with

dedicated conferences and journals, has developed, in

part thanks to support and funding from the European

Commission (Perrotta et al., 2017).

The expression “serious games” came into use in

the scientific literature around 2004 to identify games

designed for a purpose other than entertainment

(Ratan and Ritterfeld, 2009). Since its first

appearance, the term’s use has steadily increased. By

the same token, the term gamification, which denotes

the use of game design elements in non-game

context(s) in order to influence user behaviour

(Deterding et al., 2011), started to appear in the

scientific literature around 2009. Very soon it

attracted considerable interest within education and

educational research (Caponetto et al., 2014).

The assumption behind all of this interest is rather

simple: the more an interactive learning environment

is gratifying, interesting and engaging, the more it

motivates the user to stay there, focus on the proposed

tasks, commit to them and work hard to carry them

out successfully. As a consequence, it would also be

more likely to generate learning outcomes than other,

less captivating environments.

While empirical evidence of the effectiveness of

digital games and gamification on learning has

emerged (Clark et al., 2016), at least for students in

formal education, and a number of moderating

variables have been identified, the effects on

motivation are still debated. Studies of individual

serious games claiming positive results in terms of

motivation are countless (e.g., Papastergiou, 2009).

However, Wouters et al’s (2013) meta-analysis of

serious games found that the games they examined

were more effective in terms of learning and retention

than traditional methods, but they were not more

motivating. In addition, there is evidence that

students’ acceptance of video games cannot be taken

for granted (Bourgonjon et al, 2010; Martí-Parreño et

al., 2018).

This study is an attempt to explore motivation in

game based learning by engaging with the main

stakeholders involved: players and teachers. The

starting point of our work was the examination of

themes such as the distinction between intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation, the object of motivation

(motivation to learn and/or to play), and the

unintended effects a teacher may encounter when

introducing game based learning.

Subscribing to Ryan and Deci’s claim that being

motivated means “being moved to do something”

(Ryan and Deci, 2000), we contend that when talking

about motivation in gaming it is essential not to lose

sight of what that “something” actually is, namely

what gaming triggers players to pursue. It may prove

difficult for serious game designers to strike a balance

between motivation to learn, which is their primary

goal, and motivation to play, which is where the

engagement potential comes in. In both serious and

entertainment games, the relationship between (a)

motivation to learn and motivation to play and (b) the

relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation seem to play a key role in understanding

the conditions needed to harness the motivating

power of games to improve the learning process.

This study challenges the generic assumption that

games support learning because they are motivating

and engaging. The aim is to enrich the body of

knowledge concerning learning with games with a

better understanding of the conditions for games to be

motivating both to play and to learn from.

2 CONTEXT AND METHOD

Gaming Horizons (https://gaminghorizons.eu/) is an

EU-funded project in the Horizon 2020 program that

concluded in January 2018. One of the objectives of

the project was to investigate the influence of video

games and gamification on the individual and society,

considering a variety of perspectives (psychological,

educational, ethical, sociocultural/artistic). The

ultimate aim was to promote alternative framings for

research, practice and policy about video games and

gamification.

In this paper, we will focus specifically on the

outputs of the project concerning the potential of

games and gamification for motivating learning. To

this end, we will concentrate on three phases of the

project. The first is a literature review that allowed us

to get a broad picture of the most influential voices in

social sciences research regarding games. The second

phase entailed one-on-one interviews with various

stakeholders involved in games, including players

and educators, who were the most relevant voices for

the topic of motivation. The third phase consisted of

two three-hour workshops specifically focused on the

topic of games and gamification for learning, where,

through focus groups, we aimed at eliciting

participants’ recommendations for policy makers,

educators, developers, researchers and/or players.

Each phase built on the results of the previous one,

and together they trace a path that helped us identify

Educational Games as a Motivational Tool: Considerations on their Potential and Limitations

331

‘areas of tension’, open questions, critical aspects and

possible solutions in the use of games as motivating

tools.

2.1 Literature Review

The first phase of the project was a systematic

literature review (Persico et al., 2017a). This review

had three main aims: (i) identifying the main social

sciences research trends for video games and

gamification; (ii) highlighting the most influential

contributions and results so as to obtain a broad

overview of the 'state of the art'; (iii) identifying the

recommendations - both explicit and implicit - issued

in those investigations. Taken together, these three

goals can help us in identifying critical aspects of the

use of video games for learning, either because they

are highlighted in the studies themselves, or because

they yield contradictory results, or because they have

been understudied and we lack empirical knowledge

about them. Motivation turned out to be one of these

critical aspects, because several authors have

discussed the surmised motivating power of games,

but conclusive evidence for or against it is not yet

available. The first step of the review consisted in

collecting all the journal papers concerning games

and gamification published since 2010 and indexed

on Scopus and/or Web of Science. The contributions

were retrieved using sets of keywords specifically

targeting three social sciences perspectives,

('psychological', 'educational', and 'ethical'; for more

details, see Persico et al., 2017a).

This strategy led to the retrieval of 9,157 papers

(after elimination of duplicates), whose keywords

were analysed in terms of frequency and co-

occurrence in order to inform goal (i). Since the large

number of contributions made complete examination

unfeasible, only a subset of papers was used to inform

goals (ii) and (iii). The goal pursued in selecting this

subset was to identify the most 'influential' papers by

using year-adjusted citation rates as a proxy for

impact. Only papers one standard deviation or more

above the mean citation rate of their publication year

(for the full set of papers) were retained in the

restricted subset (n=674). A subsequent manual

selection of papers through abstract reading led to a

final set of 47 literature reviews and meta-analyses,

which were then read and coded according to a

codebook.

2.2 Interviews with Stakeholders

The second phase consisted in 73 one-on-one

interviews with stakeholders involved with video

games (Persico et al., 2017b). The stakeholders

included 30 game developers, 4 policy makers

involved with games, 14 researchers, 13 players, and

12 educators with experience in using games /

gamification in class, all recruited through purposeful

sampling. In this paper we will focus on the last two

groups, who contributed the most to our

understanding of games as motivational tools.

The interviews were semi-structured and the

participants were asked to talk about a wide range of

topics connected to games according to the ‘expert

interview’ method (Bogner et al., 2009). The

interviews were carried out online and were assisted

by the use of visual stimuli in which selected

keywords were presented to the interviewees. These

were derived from the literature review and

represented areas of interest in the study of video

games and gamification. Participants were free to

draw on these visual stimuli to guide their thoughts

about games. The interviews had no set duration, but

most lasted from 60 to 90 minutes. They were

recorded, transcribed, and coded top-down according

to a Codebook. Interviews were analysed

qualitatively using the ‘Framework Method’ (Ritchie

and Spencer, 1994).

2.3 Focus Groups

The third phase consisted in fifteen workshops

involving different groups of informants and experts.

In most of these events, we used focus groups to elicit

critical considerations on the knowledge collected

during the previous phases of the project, and to

produce recommendations for policy makers,

educators, developers, researchers and/or players.

Each focus group considered a specific Area of

Tension (AoT), that is, a topic on which contrasting

positions were collected through the literature review

and/or the interviews.

The workshops were held in the UK and Italy,

involving 206 stakeholders. The motivating power of

games was specifically discussed during two of the

workshops. The first took place in Naples and

involved a group of six researchers in Technology

Enhanced Learning and policy makers, while the

second took place in Milan and was attended by a

group of ten secondary school teachers. Focus groups

were analysed with an inductive approach,

specifically searching for explicit and/or latent

recommendations.

CSEDU 2019 - 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

332

3 RESULTS

3.1 Literature Review

The Gaming Horizons literature review (Persico et

al., 2017a) looked at how the implications – both

positive and negative – of gaming where seen in

different research fields. In the case of the

relationships between gaming, player motivation and

learning, our focus spanned across education and

psychology research output (18 and 26 papers,

respectively). Much of the education-oriented

research in this set centred on gaming in formal

contexts.

As the literature review conducted by Connolly et

al., (2012) confirmed, research studies into player

responses to entertainment games have

predominantly focused on learning impact, as well as

affective and motivational outcomes. However,

motivation, engagement and enjoyment are closely

intertwined in much games-related research, and in

many cases they are neither well defined nor clearly

differentiated in the literature. Sometimes, they are

conflated and treated almost interchangeably (Boyle

et al., 2016). This inhibits efforts to gain a clearer

understanding of the effective connections and

interrelations between gameplay, motivation and

learning outcomes. Indeed, efforts to clarify the

motivation-learning relationship in gaming need to

come to terms with different types and facets of

motivation, which, at a personal level, can be varied

and multiple (Yee, 2006).

One distinction of particular significance here is

that between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, which

are widely held to fuel learning in significantly

different ways and to different extents (Ryan and

Deci, 2000). In formal education contexts,

participation in gameful activities is – more often than

not – compulsory. This condition potentially shifts

player motivation towards the extrinsic end of the

spectrum and is in contrast with what many believe to

be a fundamental condition for true gamefulness,

namely voluntary participation (McGonigal, 2011).

The question of intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation also

arises with regard to challenge and competition as

ingredients of game based learning (see below). Here,

gamification frequently comes into criticism for

applying crude strategies (“pointsification”) to

motivate participants extrinsically, rather than by

making challenge an integral part of engaging

gameplay experiences (Seaborn and Fels, 2015).

Lastly, the meta-analysis that Wouters et al.

(2013) conducted into the cognitive and motivational

results of serious gaming found that while serious

gameplay leads to better learning and retention than

traditional teaching methods, it is not actually more

motivating. This finding appears to clash with the

foundational assumptions of game based learning but

at the same time it’s worth noting that it resonates

with positions expressed elsewhere in Gaming

Horizons (e.g. Haggis et al., 2018). These question

whether serious games of the kind that have been

most commonly adopted in formal education actually

offer the type of high-quality, engaging digital

gameplay that many of today’s learners now associate

with – and expect of – video gaming per se.

The picture is also variegated regarding

gamification, (Deterding et al., 2011). In their review

of empirical evidence of gamification outcomes,

Hamari et al., (2014) note that education and learning

is the area of application most commonly investigated

in gamification research. And while they find

generally positive outcomes for participant-perceived

motivation, the also find the risk for undue distraction

from learning objectives and, significantly,

participant stress related to the competitiveness

inherent in many gamified learning implementations.

Competition is generally considered an important

ingredient for fostering player motivation in gaming

generally (e.g. Boyle et al., 2016). At the same time,

however, Abdul Jabbar and Felicia (2015) note that in

Role Play Games (RPGs) competition often coexists

with collaboration. They posit that the combination of

the two fosters motivation, although they find that

sometimes this is more motivation to play than

motivation to learn. In their study of collaboration in

games, Kong et al., (2012) report a somewhat similar

outcome, namely that while collaboration seems to

increase motivation, it does not necessarily translate

into improved learning outcomes.

3.2 Interviews with Stakeholders

In general, the players we interviewed recognized the

learning potential of both games and gamification.

The players believe that this potential is not limited to

disciplinary knowledge: they think games can help

develop transversal skills such as problem solving

and decision making.

However, when talking about games’ potential for

motivating students, player interviewees were

somewhat skeptical. This skepticism was directed

especially towards serious games, which were

characterized as being far less engaging than

commercial video games, to the point of not being fun

at all (“Playing educational games that try and gamify

learning, I think they really missed the mark, because

they’re not fun.”). This lack of engagement is the

Educational Games as a Motivational Tool: Considerations on their Potential and Limitations

333

result of both a general lack of polish (“young people

nowadays are so used to a certain kind of gaming

experience, that if you put in front of them a different

kind, one that is seen as old, as simplified, as ugly [...]

you don’t engage them”), and the paradoxical result

of unmet expectations (“labelling a game as

something which is designed to be educational and

wholesome [...] turns people off”). In fact, for some

players, the very act of designing games for an

explicitly educational purpose limits their potential

for fun and engagement (“stop making educational

games immediately. Make games which happen to

teach you, not educational games”). Additionally,

since players have different tastes in terms of genres

and themes, it may be impossible to design a game

that appeals to an entire cohort of learners (“people

have different tastes and like movies, sometimes you

don’t want to sit down and watch action movies”).

The players, however viewed somewhat more

favourably the use of commercial off-the-shelf video

games for a learning purpose (e.g. “[Portal 2] is a

perfect example of what, in my opinion, should be

done [...] it’s a game in which you have to think”).

Regarding the side effects of using video games at

school, players were very positive about the

competitive aspects of games, reporting that

competition in a video game is less frustrating than

competition outside of the game (“where competition

takes place in a space where everyone is able to opt

in or opt out, as in a game, I think it’s very healthy”).

At the same time, they highlighted the potential of

games for teaching collaboration (“I’m always

impressed by how in League [of Legends] you’re on

five man teams and you have to immediately come up

with some sort of teamwork and communication […]

in order to actually win.”).

Similarly to players, educators expressed their

confidence in the positive impact games can have on

learning, but, at the same time, some obstacles were

highlighted as to their application in a formal context,

particularly regarding the constraints posed by school

organization. The sample of interviewees included a

certain number of teachers who had gained solid

experience in Game Based Learning (GBL) while

others were still exploring the potential of games. The

position of the teachers belonging to this second

group tended to be more enthusiastic, without a

critical in-depth analysis of the multiple implications

of using games.

The power of digital games is seen not only in

their capability to engage and motivate but also as

medium able to support situated and interactive

learning experiences. In the interviews, some

educators referred to the “intrinsically motivating

nature” of games and playing, while others expressed

the belief that their motivational power stems from

the fact that games use a language that is part of the

daily experience of students or from the

innovativeness of the medium. Nevertheless, in more

than one case, educators stressed that games should

not be seen as a motivational panacea. In their view,

games shouldn't be adopted as the last chance for

motivating hard-to-reach students, and students’

acceptance shouldn't be taken for granted, especially

when gaming is presented as a compulsory activity

(“as soon as you try to put students into the setting of

having to play a game for learning […] they then start

to dislike this thought”) or when the games have a

playful/gameful dimension that is just a layer added

to conventional instructional interactions (“When

they realise that they are not playing a game, they are

making the same exercises again and again and again,

then they get disappointed”).

Another important point raised by educators is the

acknowledgment of existing individual differences at

motivational level and their relation with game

mechanics (“We are using a lot of different game

mechanics, game dynamics, to make sure that we

motivate everyone”). Some interviewees also cite

gender differences in relation to the motivational

aspects of gaming in general and different games

types and genres. In particular, boys seem more

motivated by playing commercial games, while girls

seem more open to applied games, and especially

puzzle games, or coding experiences (“my boys

always engage more with the commercial games. And

they didn’t always like the Maths games or Science

games, because it just didn’t feel like real game to

them […]. But the girls, they did, and the puzzle

problems on Nintendos and things, they liked them”).

Games seem to have a double-edged effect also from

the social viewpoint: while for one educator games

reinforce relationships between boys and girls in

class, for others the fact that girls succeed in playing

can produce frustration in boys.

Motivation is also analysed in relation to game

mechanics; some educators, similarly to the players,

consider both collaboration and competition as

motivational boosts (“there are two aspects that

stimulate motivation: one is competition [...] and then

there’s the cooperative side that encourages and

fosters learning”), while others are afraid of the

impact of competition on their students (“competition

is something we’d rather not go into. There’s a lot of

other ways to motivate”).

The debate about intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation was only touched on lightly in the

interviews. While one teacher highlighted the

CSEDU 2019 - 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

334

potential of games (“once they realised that what

we’re trying to teach them actually was applicable in

a setting that they were really engaged in [...], we

could then go back to our regular school books -

boring, unsexy school books - and then they would

actually carry this enthusiasm and this willingness to

learn”) others were afraid that game mechanics could

increase time on task when studying, but not a real

motivation to learn.

It is worth pointing out that both educators and

players believe that the former should increase their

game literacy in order to better leverage games in

support of learning. In this sense teachers call for

more training opportunities and the introduction of

policies at institutional and national levels.

3.3 Focus Groups

In two of the Gaming Horizons workshops, the area

of tension concerning the motivating power of games

was proposed as a theme for two focus groups using

a challenging format “The surmised motivating

power of games (are games REALLY motivating?)”,

and participants were provided with some excerpts

from the literature review and the interviews to

trigger the discussion.

As to the teachers, we collected different positions

and attitudes, in some cases related to different level

of experience in the field of GBL. One teacher agreed

that students could feel ‘cheated’ by the use of games

to deliver disciplinary content. Moreover, some

teachers agreed that proposing game based activities

as compulsory can be detrimental for motivation

because it deprives the experience of spontaneity and

cancels individual differences.

Others, on the contrary, had tried using games

(and gamification) in their classes and reported quite

positive experiences. Some teachers consider the

application of game mechanics to the classroom

setting more effective than the use of full-fledged

video games. Kahoot proved to be very popular

among the participants who, however, still tried to

involve students in quiz preparation so that they need

to study the topic before the lesson. Finally, game

making using applications such as Scratch was

considered more motivating than simple playing.

One critical issue raised was the impact of

competition at individual level. As with the results of

previous phases, competition is seen as a double-

edged sword: it can be motivating for competitive

students as well frustrating for students who struggle

to reach the results of their classmates. In this sense,

teachers suggest preferring group competition to the

individual variety.

The issue of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation was

raised by researchers in relation to gamification and

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS). According

to them, gamification in MOOCs can affect

motivation at different levels in relation to the

mechanics applied. For example, extrinsic motivation

can be pushed through elements like points or

leaderboards, but other aspects can work on intrinsic

motivation (e.g., supporting self-regulating learning

by providing learners with the opportunity to choose

their own learning path or supporting reflection).

4 DISCUSSION

The Gaming Horizons project evidenced a number of

critical aspects and open questions regarding the

motivational power of games.

The chief issue addressed emerged at several

points in our investigation: the concern that

employing games for educational purposes can

actually limit their intrinsic motivating potential, as it

contrasts with the spontaneous and recreational

character of play. This problem was clearly stated by

some of the players we interviewed and concerned

serious games especially, since in serious games the

educational intent is more overt and the technical

quality generally lower. Responses were more

positive when considering entertainment games used

for educational purposes. Teachers too showed

awareness of these problems, reporting that students

resent the use of games whose playful component

actually masks typical learning activities, so much so

that they also prefer the use of entertainment games.

Relatedly, players and educators agreed that gaming

should not become a mandatory activity in schools,

and should be presented as an alternative to other

learning activities. The reason for this is that playing

is characterized by a certain degree of spontaneity and

self-determination: forcing people to play a game

risks antagonizing students and depriving the activity

of its potential for fun. Additionally, making gaming

a mandatory activity ignores individual differences:

our investigations revealed how players differ widely

in terms of preferences, and there is the possibility

that gender plays a role in that. Previous research on

players’ attitudes towards video games for learning

(Martí-Parreño et al., 2017; Bourgonjon, et al., 2010)

suggests that media affinity is a factor in favour of

acceptance of game based learning. Our results do not

align with these findings, but we suggest that there

may be a ‘sweet spot’ of familiarity with the medium

that makes the potential for engagement higher:

individuals who play video games casually may have

Educational Games as a Motivational Tool: Considerations on their Potential and Limitations

335

just enough familiarity with games not to be

intimidated by them. Experienced video game players

such as those we interviewed, on the other hand, are

probably used to high production values and highly

engaging games, and may be more difficult to entice

with relatively simple game mechanics and modest

graphics.

An additional risk arises when the games used for

teaching incorporate an element of competition:

while this increases engagement and motivation, it

can prove stressful for some individuals. The players

we interviewed viewed competition somewhat

favourably, but we recruited individuals that spend a

significant amount of their free time playing.

Therefore, we probably selected for people who are

comfortable in competitive settings. The teachers,

instead, tended to be very cautious in introducing

competition in their classrooms, where they would

rather see collaboration prevail. Careful consideration

of the game mechanics employed, and how they may

affect students, should be a necessary step in

designing a teaching activity centred on gaming or

gamification.

Lastly, both stakeholder groups agreed that any

educator considering using games for learning should

have extensive knowledge of the medium, and that

teacher training for the use of games should be

provided at the institutional level.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The present work has several limitations, mainly due

to the timing constraints imposed by the project. By

its nature, the literature review cannot be considered

comprehensive, focusing as it does on ‘mainstream’

contributions. Nevertheless, it probably accurately

represents the broader trends in educational research,

i.e. those that are most visible and impactful on

professionals that are not experts in the field.

Regarding the interviews, their main limit resides in

the wide variety of the themes explored: some

interviewees talked about games as motivational tools

for a relatively short time, while focusing more on

other topics. At the same time, they provided useful

first-hand experiences, and evidence for aspects of

games and motivation that are often referenced in

literature, but rarely backed with data. The focus

groups, comparatively, were narrower in scope and

longer in duration, leading to focused and extensive

conversations resulting in recommendations.

Lastly, our work presents the same limitation we

mentioned regarding previous studies in the literature

review: it is sometimes unclear what our participants

meant by the term ‘motivation’. In the case of players,

we could not expect them, on their own, to make the

fine distinction between motivation, engagement and

enjoyment. In the case of educators, they sometimes

explicitly distinguished between intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation, but the target of motivation (to

learn or to play) was not always as explicit.

Future work should focus on further exploring

how individual differences impact on the

motivational power of games. Additionally, there is a

clear need for a learning design framework for game-

based learning, one that takes context into careful

consideration, that clearly maps game mechanics and

contents to learning objectives, and that considers

video games and gamified systems as resources

supporting activities that, while remaining non-

compulsory, can enrich the learning experience for

the individuals they resonate with.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Gaming Horizon project has received

funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020

research and innovation programme under grant

agreement No 732332. If any, should be placed

before the references section without numbering.

REFERENCES

Abdul Jabbar, A. I, and Felicia, P. (2015). ‘Gameplay

engagement and learning in game-based learning: A

systematic review’, Review of Educational Research,

85(4), pp.1–40. http://doi.org/10.3102/

0034654315577210

Bogner, A., Littig, B. and Menz, W. (eds.) (2009).

Interviewing Experts. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Boyle, E. A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Gray, G., Earp,

J., Ott, M., Pereira, J. (2016). ‘An update to the

systematic literature review of empirical evidence of

the impacts and outcomes of computer games and

serious games’, Computers and Education, 94, pp.178–

192. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.003

Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R. and Schellens, T.

(2010). ‘Students’ perceptions about the use of video

games in the classroom’, Computers and Education,

54(4), pp.1145–1156. http://doi.org/10.1016/

j.compedu.2009.10.022

Caponetto, I., Earp, J. and Ott, M. (2014). ‘Gamification

and Education: A Literature Review’, Proceedings of

the European Conference on Games Based Learning,

1(2009), pp.50–57. http://doi.org/10.13140/

RG.2.1.1181.8080

CSEDU 2019 - 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

336

Clark, D. B., Tanner-smith, E. E. and Killingsworth, S.

(2016). ‘Digital games, design, and learning: A

systematic review and meta-analysis’, Review of

Educational Research, 86(1), pp.1–17. http://doi.org/

10.3102/0034654315582065

Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., Macarthur, E., Hainey, T.,

and Boyle, J. M. (2012). ‘A systematic literature review

of empirical evidence on computer games and serious

games’, Computers and Education, 59(2), pp.661–686.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. and Nacke, L. (2011).

‘From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining

gamification’, Proceedings of the 15th International

Academic MindTrek Conference on Envisioning Future

Media Environments - MindTrek ’11, Tampere,

Finland, 28-30 September 2011, pp.9–11.

http://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040

Haggis, M., Perrotta, C., Persico, D., Bailey, C., Earp, J.,

Dagnino, F., Passarelli, M. Manganello, F. Pozzi, F. and

Buijtenweg, T. (2018). A Manifesto for European Video

Games. Rome, Italy: CNR Edizioni. https://doi.org/

10.17471/54006

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J. and Sarsa, H. (2014). ‘Does

gamification work? -- A literature review of empirical

studies on gamification’, 2014 47th Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences,

Waikoloa, HI, USA, 6-9 January 2014, pp.3025–3034.

http://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377

Kong, J. S.-L., Kwok, R. C.-W., and Fang, Y. (2012). ‘The

effects of peer intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on

MMOG game-based collaborative learning’,

Information and Management, 49(1), pp.1–9.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2011.10.004

Malone, T. W. (1980). ‘What makes things fun to learn?

heuristics for designing instructional computer games’,

Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSMALL symposium

and the first SIGPC symposium on Small systems -

SIGSMALL ’80, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 18-19 September

1980, pp.162–169. http://doi.org/10.1145/

800088.802839

Martí-Parreño, J., Galbis-Córdova, A. and Miquel-Romero,

M. J. (2018). ‘Students’ attitude towards the use of

educational video games to develop competencies’,

Computers in Human Behavior, 81. http://doi.org/

10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.017

McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make

us better and how they can change the world. New

York: The Penguin Press.

Papastergiou, M. (2009). ‘Digital game-based learning in

high school computer science education: Impact on

educational effectiveness and student motivation’,

Computers and Education, 52(1), pp.1-12.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.004

Perrotta, C., Bailey, C., and Rider, J. (2017). Critical

analysis report of H2020 documentation. Gaming

Horizons Deliverable D2.2, retrieved from

https://www.gaminghorizons.eu/deliverables/

Passarelli, M., Earp, J., Dagnino, F., Manganello, F.,

Persico, D., Pozzi, F., Buijtenweg, T., Haggis, M.,

Bailey, C. and Perrotta, C. (2018). ‘Library Not Found

- The Disconnect between Gaming Research and

Development’, Proceedings of the 10th International

Conference on Computer Supported Education

(CSEDU 2018) - Volume 2, Funchal, Portugal, 15-17

March 2018, pp.134-141. https://dx.doi.org/10.5220/

0006773601340141

Persico, D., Bailey, C., Buijtenweg, T., Dagnino, F. M.,

Earp, J., Haggis, M., Manganello, F., Passarelli, M.;

Perrotta, C. and Pozzi, F. (2017a). Systematic Review

and Methodological Framework, Gaming Horizons

Deliverable D2.1. Available at:

http://www.gaminghorizons.eu/wp-content/uploads/

sites/18/2017/05/D2.1-State-of-the-Art-Literature-

review.pdf

Persico, D., Dagnino, F. M., Earp, J., Manganello, F.,

Passarelli, M., Pozzi, F., Haggis, M. Buijtenweg, T.,

Perrotta, C. and Bailey, C. (2017b). Report on

interviews with experts and informants, Gaming

Horizons Deliverable D2.3. Available at:

https://www.gaminghorizons.eu/wp-content/uploads/

sites/18/2017/09/D2.3_Interviews-report.pdf

Persico, D., Passarelli, M., Dagnino, F., Manganello, F.,

Earp, J. and Pozzi, F. (2018). ‘Games and Learning:

Potential and Limitations from the Players’ Point of

View’. In Gentile, M. et al. (eds.) GALA 2018, LNCS

11385, Cham: Springer.

Ratan, R. and Ritterfeld, U. (2009). ‘Classifying serious

games’, Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects,

pp.10–24. http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203891650

Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000). ‘Intrinsic and Extrinsic

Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions’,

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), pp.54–

67. http://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Seaborn, K. and Fels, D. I. (2015). ‘Gamification in theory

and action: A survey’, International Journal of Human-

Computer Studies, 74, pp.14–31. http://doi.org/

10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006

Spencer, L. and Ritchie, J. (2002). ‘Qualitative data

analysis for applied policy research’. In Bryman, A. and

Burgess, R. G. (eds.) Analyzing qualitative data.

London: Routledge.

Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H. and

van der Spek, E. D. (2013). ‘A meta-analysis of the

cognitive and motivational effects of serious games’,

Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), pp.249–

265. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0031311

Yee, N. (2006). ‘Motivations for play in online games’.

CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9(6), pp.772–775.

http://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.772

Educational Games as a Motivational Tool: Considerations on their Potential and Limitations

337