ditional implementation effort does not improve par-
ticipant motivation, it makes sense to save this effort
in favor of other aspects, like logging more data, or
increasing the length of the game.
It is also interesting to note that some participants
really focused on the sound effects. “Entertaining
feedback” had better sound effects, but pragmatic had
a distinct “TRUE” or “FALSE” sound effects which
the subjects reported finding really helpful. One of
the participants had a notable comment for “No feed-
back”. The participant kept answering incorrectly
without noticing, because their attention was not on
the visual feedback, but the sound feedback, which
is missing in the “No feedback” level. The comment
was: “The problem was I did not hear I was wrong!”.
It can be said that whilst gamified feedback elements
are important and improve user motivation, the way
that they are presented does not make a drastic differ-
ence.
5.1 Limitations of the Study
The main limitation of this approach was that the
study was the amount of people reached who partici-
pated. It was not possible to reach a wide variety of
ages, professions etc. For example, it would be inter-
esting to see how an 8-year-old would react to doing
math in order to save the turtle.
6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE
WORK
In this paper, the value of the gamification of feedback
was addressed together with the importance of visual
presentation. Our main contribution is that users are
not significantly more motivated to complete a mun-
dane process when feedback is presented in an enter-
taining way rather than as plain text.
REFERENCES
Alsawaier, R. (2018). The effect of gamification on motiva-
tion and engagement. International Journal of Infor-
mation and Learning Technology Vol. 35 No. 1, pages
pp. 56–79.
Chou, Y. (2019). Actionable gamification: Beyond points,
badges, and leaderboards. Packt Publishing Ltd.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow. Harper and Row., New
York.
de Marcos, L., Domiguez, A., Saenz-de Navarrete, J., and
Pages, C. (2014). An empirical study comparing gam-
ification and social networking on e-learning. Com-
puters & Education 75, pages pp.82–91.
Deci, E. and Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behavior. Plenum, New York.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., and Nacke, L. (2011).
From game design elements to gamefulness: defin-
ing gamification. In 15th International academic
MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media en-
vironments., pages pp. 9–15.
Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into
homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in
a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications 12(4), pages
pp.236–245.
Huotari, K. and Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification
- a service marketing perspective. In The 16th Inter-
national Academic MindTrek Conference., pages pp.
17–22., Tampere.
Kapp, K. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruc-
tion. Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA.
Koivisto, J. and Hamari, J. (2014). Demographic differ-
ences in perceived benefits from gamification. Com-
puters in Human Behavior 35, pages pp. 179–188.
Kuo, M. and Chuang, T. (2016). How gamification moti-
vates visits and engagement for online academic dis-
semination: An empirical study. Computers in Human
Behavior 55, pages pp. 16–27.
Park, H. and Bae, J. (2014). Study and research of gamifi-
cation design. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Appl.
Prasetiantowibowo, L. S. N. and Lusi-Ani, C. E. (2017). Im-
plementation of gamification to improve blood donors
by peer motivation application.
Simoes, J., Redondo, R., and Vilas, A. (2013). A social
gamification framework for a k-6 learning platform.
Computers in Human Behavior 29(2), pages pp.345–
353.
Vesa, M. e. a. (2017). Computer games and organiza-
tion studies. Organization Studies 38(2), page pp.
273–284.
Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking
methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1 (6), page pp. 80–83.
CSEDU 2020 - 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
244