In 2001, Marc Prensky (2001:145) introduced the term ‘digital game-based learning’² as a new learning paradigm. One year later (2002) the term gamification was coined by Nick Pelling, a British IT expert (Marczewski 2012:46; Pappas 2014b:Introduction), in an attempt to make the use of hardware more fun. The first documented use of the term gamification was in 2008 when ‘gameification’ was used in a blog post by Bret Terrill, who was covering discussions in the lobby at the Social Gaming Summit held that year. He heard the term used in connection with ‘taking game mechanics and applying to other web properties to increase engagement’ (Terrill 2008). The term was picked up by other blogs and slimmed down by dropping the ‘e’, becoming gamification (Fitz-Walter 2013). Gamification became a buzzword in 2011 (Fitz-Walter 2013) to such an extent that the term made it into Oxford’s Short List for Word of the Year 2011 (Richter, Raban & Rafaeli 2015:22). It relies on the premise that there are certain traditional (educational) activities and learning that are inherently not interesting, and that, because gaming is fun, game-like features can be introduced to make these otherwise ‘dull activities’ more attractive (McGonigal 2011; Zichermann & Linder 2010). Cognisance is taken of the fact that gamification is not restricted to education, but is flourishing in the corporate world as well, at this stage even more than in the educational world.

Games are played everywhere on earth, and most probably from the beginning of humankind. It is a ‘universal part of human experience and present in all cultures’ (Ifenthaler, Eseryel & Ge 2012:1). Christopher Pappas (2014a) states that more than 75% of people are gamers (50% casually and 27% moderately to fairly often). Although the general perception is that games are mostly played by kids and teens, the New Media Consortium (NMC)³ stated in 2012 in a report that ‘[a]ccording to Trip Wire Magazine, 61.9 million people participated in online social games in 2011 … Forty percent of these gamers are between the ages of 20 and 34. The average age of the American gamer is now 35-years-old …’ (NMC Report 2012:18). The NMC supplies a good reason for this: The first digital games were created during the 1980s together with the first home computers. In the next decade, the web was created, which introduced games on the internet. The implication is that these children grew up ‘in a world where digital games have always been an important part of their lives, and entered or graduated from higher education institutions with hundreds of hours of gaming experience’ (NMC Report 2012:18). Kevin Werbach and Dan Hunter (2012:8) confirm that it is the generation that is entering the corporate market that plays games the most. In 2014, the NMC reports that the age of the average gamer is 30, while 68% of all gamers are older than 18 – university age (NMC 2014:42). Knewton (sa) states that worldwide, people spend more than 3 billion hours per week gaming on a mobile device.

Gamification can shortly be defined as an ‘integration of gaming elements, mechanics, and frameworks into non-game situations and scenarios’ (NMC 2014:42). It relates to an ancient concept in which games were used to support (learning) objectives (Rapti 2013b:92). A few more definitions are added to this one (together with two negative comments!) for the reader to understand this phenomenon even better:

Sebastian Deterding (2011) describes it as the use of game elements in a non-gaming context.

Games and play, as indicated above, have a very long history. Arthur Krentz (1998) shows that Plato already, in his Republic (written in the 4th century BCE!), indicated a close connection between play (paidia) and education (paideia). However, during the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Ages, games lost this positive attribute and were considered to be evil and a waste of time (cf. Parmentier 2004). Immanuel Kant (1803) was also negative towards games, indicating that games do not have any positive influence on formal education. The 19th century saw a turnaround as Friedrich Fröbel (the founder of kindergartens – cf. Ifenthaler et al. 2012:2) started to develop special games for children to educate them. The 20th century shows further progression on this topic, when Sigmund Freud used games to help his patients overcome psychological problems (Freud 1920). In 1955, Johan Huizinga wrote a book, Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. This book was regarded to be a major piece of research on game theory (Ifenthaler et al. 2012:2).

Up to half a century ago, all the games being played were ‘manual games’ – these are games not played on a responding/interactive device like a machine/computer. The epistemology of ‘only children play games’ started to change in the early 70s of the previous century when arcade games, also known as video games, were introduced by Atari Inc. through their first game, Pong, a two-dimensional tennis game (Timetoast na). This opened a whole new way of engagement in gaming, as, for the first time, a human played a game against/with a machine. Although this game and its follow-ups were mostly played by teenagers, students soon got involved. During the past more than 40 years, video games have grown to ‘comprise a massive global industry that generates $70 billion per year’ (Werbach & Hunter 2012:8). During this time, gaming on machines have extended to TV games, home video games, computer games and games on consoles. From the start of the 21st century ‘digital tools and portable devices have enabled gaming to become a mobile and social activity’ (Higher Education Academy [HEA] 2015). Soon after the arrival of (specifically) the smartphone in 2007 (Arthur 2012), ‘everybody’ started to play games on their mobile devices, from children aged 3 and 4 to ‘aged’ people in their sixties and seventies. Reasons for that are: (1) the games can be downloaded for free and (2) one can play it in one’s private space and at any desired time.

The first game that was played on a cell phone was the snake game in 1996 (Timetoast na). Many other games soon followed. In the 21st century and more specifically in the second decade thereof, gamification became a buzzword and became implemented on a rapid basis (Fitz-Walter 2013). During this era, games were no longer only played by individuals, but by a worldwide group of competitors, introducing proper online gaming. Games were not merely played just for fun, but to gain experience points (XP) and badges and achieve high rankings. Although Timetoast (na) traces online gaming back to 1969 (!), it only became really effective in 2001 with the introduction of Xbox 1, which is a playstation.

In 2007, Bunchball launched the Nitro platform that made it possible for organisations and individuals to integrate social networks into gaming (Fitz-Walter 2013). This was succeeded in 2009 by the Foursquare application. This social network application included gaming elements like points, badges and leader boards which became the ‘blueprint for future gamification designs’ (Fitz-Walter 2013). In 2010, companies such as Bunchball and Badgeville adopted the term gamification in describing the platforms created by them to integrate game elements into their sites. More sites and applications would follow, like the Epic Win app (Fitz-Walter 2013). Annual Gamification Summits in San Francisco (20–21 January 2011) and New York (15–16 September in the same year), followed by many more in the following years, would testify to the prominence of gamification.⁴ Already in 2011, the New York summit was advertised as follows:

Gamification Summit NYC is the must-attend event that shows you how to use the power of games to create breakthrough engagement with your customers and employees. Companies like Gilt Groupe, Google, Microsoft, NBC/Universal, Scholastic, MTV, Recyclebank and Aetna have leveraged gamification to transform their businesses, and will share startling insights, statistics and hands-on workshops at GSummit NYC. (Xing Events 2011)

In the academic world, gamification also became a point of interest, especially after a workshop of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) in 2011 in Vancouver, BC, titled ‘Gamification: Using Game Design Elements in Non-Gaming Contexts’. Scholars like Kaliopi Rapti (2013a:255–262) as well as Andrew Stott and Carmen Neustaedter (2013:1–8) linked gamification to transformative assessment.

In 2012, gamification hit a low as people got wary/weary of the old type of gamification with badges and more badges (Fitz-Walter 2013). However, this was turned around in 2013, which was named by Fitz-Walter (2013) as the year of gamification, and since then gamification never looked back again.

There seems to be no clarity among scholars on which term to use when referring to the implementation of games for educational purposes. Although many scholars prefer the term gamification, there are those who choose to use other ‘better’ designations. Apart from all the scholars discussed in this article, who plainly refer to games for educational purposes as gamification, there are those like Elliott Bristow (2015) who regard gamification as a controversial topic. Brian Burke, giving a good overview of how to gamify innovation, in his discussion of gamification, has decided to stay with the term (Burke 2014). Sydney Butler has a quite different view. In his YouTube video, he refers to gamification as ‘an approach that facilitates behavioural change’ (Butler 2015).⁵ He demonstrates this definition by indicating that gamification has all the elements of pure gaming in it, but that it is not a game per se.

Andrew Miller (2011a; 2011b) and Steven Isaacs (2015) both make a clear distinction between gamification and game-based learning (GBL) and, in the end, both choose for GBL as the correct way of teaching students through games. Vicky Davis (2014; also cf. HEA 2015) also opts for GBL. On the contrary, Botturi and Loh (2008:1–22; cf. Loh 2012:126) regard GBL as an old tradition of gaming that has just been revived.

Richter et al. (2015:22) prefer the term serious games: They want gamification to develop into a serious game. Whereas, the main focus of games is to entertain, serious games ‘are games conceived to educate and not necessarily to entertain, although they might be entertaining as well’ (Barata et al. 2015:2; cf. Michael & Chen 2006; Ritterfeld, Cody & Vorderer 2009:6). Sawyer and Smith (2009) as well as Jantke (2012:86) believe that almost every game is a serious game, as there is a serious element in every game. Barata et al. (2015) make the following distinction between gamification and serious games:

Gamification differs from (serious) games in that the latter consist of using full-fledged games (without a purpose beyond entertainment), which usually simulate real-world or fantasy scenarios and events, while the former adopts game design elements (only) in contexts or processes that are not games…usually encompassing real-world activities. However, both allow for gameful interactions. (p. 2)

Ghergulescu and Muntean (2012:356) argue in the same vein stating that serious games also include games such as games for health and training, which do not necessarily include game-play elements. Gebremichael (2016:12) defines serious games as ‘games that are used to simulate real world events in order for the player to solve problems’. The umbrella term he uses is educational games, which are ‘[g]ames that are designed to assist the player to learn about a specific subject, reinforce development or learn new skills’ (Gebremichael 2016:12). He then classifies serious games and gamification under the category of educational games. Rapti (2013b) also draws a clear line between gamification and serious games. With reference to Gåsland (2011), she explains:

Serious games serve a pedagogical purpose by using game properties towards this purpose, thus they are still considered a game but with an educational context. They are also developed by game designers and come in the form of simulations. When using gamification you are not in a virtual world but in the real one. (Rapti 2013b:92–93)

She adds:

Gamification comprises of game mechanics, which are the basic processes, and rules, which gamify an activity, like points, challenges (sic), leaderboards, levels, virtual goods and gifts, that in turn lead to motivations of the experience, i.e. game dynamics, such as rewards, achievement, competition, status, self-expression, and altruism. (Rapti 2013b:93)

With reference to Kapp (2013b), she distinguishes between two types of gamification, namely structural and content, and also refers to the use of both for education. When using structural gamification, the structure is gamified around the content (which remains unchanged), while the progress of the learner is constantly rewarded. Content gamification has the aim to change the content to be more game-like. The lecturer will use the structural gamification to motivate the learners to make use of the content on a continuous basis, while she or he will use the content gamification to introduce new knowledge. These two forms of gamification can also be combined, with the obvious better results.

Wilson et al. (2009) distinguish between a game and a simulation, showing that one should be very clear about these two terms. They define a game as ‘an artificially constructed, competitive activity with a specific goal, a set of rules and constraints that is located in a specific context’ (Wilson et al. 2009:218; cf. Hays 2005) and a simulation as ‘a serious attempt to accurately represent a real phenomenon’ (Wilson et al. 2009:218; cf. Crawford 1984:8). Other names used to describe gamification are ‘games for education’, ‘educational games’, ‘gaming for education’ and ‘gamified education’ (Butler 2015).

For the purposes of this article, the author prefers the term gamification when referring to games, gaming, serious gaming, etc. for educational purposes.

The literature on gamification has escalated by leaps and bounds in the 21st century. Articles, books, e-books and posts on the internet (including YouTube videos and blogs) have increased exponentially during the second decade of this century. According to Ifenthaler et al. (2012:2), approximately 20 000 publications that focus on games in social science saw the light between 2004 and 2014. In this overview, some important publications of the past 10 years are provided to give the reader an indication of the ‘feel in the field’.

In the marketing and business world, specifically in the US, gamification is almost synonymous with clients and employees, as both these groups are rating themselves and are rated by companies on a continuous basis, implying that they are gaming on an almost continuous basis. Gabe Zichermann and Christopher Cunningham published a book in 2011 titled Gamification by Design, showing that the use of game design elements in non-game contexts has managed to grow from a self-description used by some proponents to a placement on the Gartner hype cycle (Gartner 2011).⁷ In 2012, Kevin Werbach and Dan Hunter published a book on business gamification in the USA, showing their readers how game thinking can revolutionise a business: ‘A well-designed game is a guided missile to the motivational heart of the human psyche. Applying the lessons that games can teach could revolutionize your business’ (Werbach & Hunter 2012:8).⁸ In 2013, Gabe Zichermann teamed up with Joselin Linder to publish a book on games-based marketing setting the trend for active marketing through gaming (Zichermann & Linder 2013). Also in 2013, the NMC Report refers in a positive way to gamification in the workplace (NMC 2013:20, 21).⁹ In 2014, Ella Hafermalz and Kristine Dery discussed the advantages of gamification as a ‘useful tool for engaging talent in recruitment, training, and skills assessment’ (Hafermalz & Dery 2014).

In the academic world, Sebastian Deterding¹⁰ was one of the first academics to talk about gamification, and he is still presenting papers worldwide. He was also one of the first scholars to warn against the potential pitfalls of gamification. After he has published his book in 2011 as a response to Zichermann, in the same year he teamed up with Rilla Khaled, Lennart Nacke, Dan Dixon, Miguel Sicart and Kenton O’Hara in delivering three very positive papers on gamification at the annual Conference on Human factors held in Vancouver, BC. Jesse Schell’s presentation at the Dice Summit 2010¹¹, named When games invade real life, and Jane McGonigal’s Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED) Talk¹², Gaming can make a better world, helped to spur this area on as well. It was she who made the disruptive statement, ‘Reality is broken, game designers can fix it’ (McGonigal 2010; 2011).

In 2012, Karl Kapp published a major work on the gamification of learning and instruction, followed by a publication in 2014 by himself, Lucas Blair and Rich Mesch, in which they put the ideas of his previous book into practice, calling the book The Gamification of Learning and Instruction Fieldbook: Ideas into Practice. Yigal Attali and Meirav Arieli-Attali (2015) evaluate (in two studies) the effects of one particular gamification feature, namely points, ‘on different aspects of performance in the context of an educational assessment’ (Attali & Arieli-Attali 2015:58). In these two studies, the effects of points on different aspects of performance within the field of educational assessment are described. The form of assessment used by the scholars focused on the ‘mastery and influence of basic mathematical concepts’ (Attali & Arieli-Attali 2015:58).¹³

In 2016, Daniel Gebremichael submitted his MSc dissertation in which he examines the use of gamification to develop an assessment tool, specifically on first-year students in computer science. In his dissertation, he elaborates quite extensively on how to create and develop a game for assessment purposes (cf. Chapters 4 and 5 of his dissertation), and then he tests it on his students (chapter 6) with very positive outcomes. However, his dissertation is very technical and not suitable for further discussion in this article, other than to say that we took cognisance of it.

Despite much literature on the specific mechanisms relating feedback to performance (Hattie & Timperley 2007; Kluger & DeNisi 1996), the concept is still not well investigated and understood (Attali & Arieli-Attali 2015:58). Findings and meta-analyses on the concept describe the results as inconsistent, contradictory or highly variable (Attali & Arieli-Attali 2015:58; Azevedo & Bernard 1995; Kluger & DeNisi 1996).

In academia, there are two main lines of argumentation on gamification, namely the ludologists and the narratologists (Werbach & Hunter 2012:9). Gonzalo Frasca (in 1999) and Matthew Tyler-Jones (in 2013) discuss these terms:¹⁴

During the second decade of the 21st century, quite a few books were published on the relation between gamification and assessment. The most recent book known by the author of this article is published by Harold O’Neil Jr, Eva Baker and Ray Perez in January 2016 on key issues regarding the utilisation of gaming in assessment. However, the book is more directed to ‘computer scientists interested in the scientific and practical approach to computation and its application’ (O’Neil, Baker & Perez 2016: preface). An outstanding book to be mentioned here, concerning assessment in education (GBL), is written by Dirk Ifenthaler, Deniz Eseryel and Xun Ge in 2012. This book, being extensively discussed in this article, consisting of 21 chapters written by almost 50 scholars on assessment, is divided into three parts:

Worthy to be mentioned here are The Horizon Reports published annually from 2005. The NMC Academy has published these Reports in collaboration with the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI):

Each year the Horizon Advisory Board researches, identifies and ranks key trends affecting the practice of teaching, learning, research, and creative expression. The Board reviews current articles, interviews, papers, and new research to discover emerging or continuing trends. (The Horizon Report 2009:5)

In the 2008 edition (the fifth edition of the Horizon Report), games as pedagogical platforms was named as one of the seven metatrends for the past 5 years (The Horizon Report 2008:7). In 2009, games were classified as third highest Key Trend by the Report (The Horizon Report 2009:5). The year 2010 marked two new trends in The Horizon Report: It was the first time the team issued a Higher Education Edition, and it was the first time they started to refer to gaming, alongside games, referring to gaming as a trend to be adopted in the coming 2–3 years. In 2011, the Report stated that GBL has gained considerable traction since 2003 (The Horizon Report 2011:20). In the 2012 Higher Education Edition, the Report once again put GBL under the heading ‘Time-to-Adoption: Two to Three Years’, because they considered it to be difficult to design games with educational content to be acceptable for everyone (NMC Horizon Report 2012:18). The year 2013 was the first time the Report used the term gamification. In 2014, the Report states that gameplay:

has long since moved on from solely being recreational and has found considerable traction in the military, business and industry, and increasingly, education as a useful training and motivation tool. (NMC 2014:42)

The 2015 report does not list gamification anymore as it became a commonplace word in higher education.

An eBook, worth mentioning here, was written by Christopher Pappas in 2014. He approached 23 gamification professionals and asked them the same question: ‘What are the most effective uses of gamification in learning’ (Pappas 2014b). The book will be discussed later in the article.

Many YouTube videos on gamification have also seen the light during the past years. Examples are:

In 2011, Sebastian Deterding, then busy with his PhD on the motivational psychology of gamified applications, posted a 50-min-video called Meaningful Play: Getting Gamification Right. Because of heavy criticism during that time, he points out the positives and negatives of gamification and supplies his audience with skills on how to design powerful games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZGCPap7GkY

In the USA, Monica Cornetti is hosting a Weekly Gamification Talk Radio Program where she talks to gamification gurus, platform providers and users for learning, talent management and organisational development professionals to show her listeners how to use gamification in their organisations. In July 2016, she talked to Dr. David Chandross on the topic, The Gamification of Higher Education (The Gamification Report July 2016).

There is already an online gamification course presented by Susan Manning (2016) in which she also teaches people how to integrate interactive games and simulations with their curriculum.

The eLearning Industry provides statistics and facts on gamification on an annual basis (eLearning Industry 2016) to all the gamers and scholars busy with gamification.

Several documents have already seen the light in which the development of suitable games is discussed, like Gabriel Barata, Sandra Gama, Joaquim Jorge and Daniel Gonçalves who did an article in 2015 on ‘Gamification for smarter learning: tales from the trenches’. Lastly, gamification is also used in fields and environments of fitness and health (cf. Brauner et al. 2013), in driving instructions (Fitz-Walter et al. 2013), improving productivity (Sheth, Bell & Kaiser 2011) and promoting eco-friendly driving (Inbar et al. 2011).

Learning can be defined as a ‘lifelong process of accessing, interpreting, and evaluating information and experiences’ (Shute & Ke 2012:47) which one should translate into knowledge, skills, values and dispositions. This process supports the learner to change the way he or she knows things, does certain things, believes things and feels things. Valerie Shute and Fengfeng Ke (2012:43–58) have the conviction that gamification can enhance these processes and discuss the role that a well-designed game can play in education:

common motivation for studying games as vehicles to support learning is frustration with the current education system and a desire for alternative ways of teaching – ways that increase student engagement and yield a rich, authentic picture of the learner(s). (p. 43)

According to them, a well-designed game can be utilised as a transformative digital learning tool to support students with deep and meaningful learning, which results in knowledge that is meaningful and useful to the student. Optimal learning takes place when a game is ‘active, goal-oriented, contextualized, and interesting’ (Shute & Ke 2012:47). The created environment of the games should therefore be interactive, providing constant feedback and be attention grabbing, with well-designed challenge levels (cf. Shute & Torres 2012:92). This creates the perfect environment for implicit learning, where the gamer plays the game, but in fact he or she learns without any conscious intent.

Games that are designed to support content learning, must be in line with a gamer’s intrinsic interests, and it must challenge a gamer to use skills he or she may not even be aware of (Shute & Ke 2012:47). In this way, it will enable the gamer to design intrinsically motivating environments, in which knowledge and skill acquisitions are merely positive by-products. Besides having fun, well-designed games also have the ability to create multiple types of cognitive learning strategies for the gamer, like problem-solving. Games also have the ability to ‘express and inspire certain underlying epistemic frames, values, beliefs, and identities’ (Shute & Ke 2012:48).

Shute and Ke (2012:48) refer to a ‘convergence between the core elements of a good game and the characteristics of productive learning’, stating that the ‘best instruction hovers at the boundary of a student’s competence’. What is of utmost importance is that each level of a game must be constructed in such a way that it is difficult enough for the gamer to just be able to do it (Shute & Ke 2012:48). A well-designed game will reinforce a sense of control inside the gamer, something that is ‘a critical metacognitive component for self-regulated learning’ (Shute & Ke 2012:48). There is also a close link between the ‘curiosity for learning motivation … and the critical role of sensory memory in information processing’ (Shute & Ke 2012:48) on the one hand, and the uncertainty as well as the sensory stimuli characteristic of a good game.

According to PG Schrader and Michael McCreery (2012:13), researchers have studied and considered the educational implications of digital video games ‘since their inception’. The eLearning looked at games and started to implement them, aiming at engaging the new generation of learners (the ‘Digital Wisdom generation’ already referred to) and bridging the gap between what they expect and what traditional education and learning practices can offer them (cf. also Ghergulescu & Muntean 2012:355). The Horizon Report (2011:20) adds to this by stating that GBL has exponentially developed since 2003 when James Gee started to do research on the relation between game play and cognitive development. This includes games specifically designed for education, because these games ‘stimulate productivity and creative inquiry among learners’ (NMC Report 2013:20). One of the big advantages is that mobile technology allows gamers to play or engage any time and in any place. The Report (2013) gives a good reason why it is to the advantage of gamers to play these games, even video games:

Research has long indicated that video games help stimulate the production of dopamine, a chemical that provokes learning by reinforcing neuronal connections and communications. Furthermore, educational gameplay has proven to increase soft skills in learners, such as critical thinking, creative problem-solving, and teamwork. This idea is the basis of the relationship between games and education. (p. 21)

In 2014, the Report states (NMC 2014) states:

Educational gameplay has proven to foster engagement in critical thinking, creative problem-solving, and teamwork – skills that lead to solutions for complex social and environmental dilemmas. This idea is the foundation of Jane McGonigal’s work, a recognized game designer and researcher who is raising awareness about the power of games to change the world. McGonigal and other researchers at the Institute for the Future are designing online games that foster participation and new ways of thinking about systems and sustainability in education, health, and urban contexts. The goal is to develop engaging platforms that spark curiosity, instill a sense of urgency and gravitas, while rewarding users in meaningful ways. (p. 42)

In 2014 and 2015, Christopher Pappas did some very useful research on gamification, especially within the eLearning environment. In 2014, he explored how the brain responds to gamification in eLearning, and added the most notable benefits of using gamification in eLearning. For him, gamification makes studies more joyful and more effective (Pappas 2014a). The reason is that ‘there is actually an exact science behind why gamification in eLearning is so successful’:

When we participate in activities that stimulate our bodies or minds, such as exercising, our body releases a hormone known as endorphins. The same effect can be achieved by playing eLearning games that challenge learners or give them the chance to achieve a particular reward, even if that reward is something as simple as moving onto the next level. When these endorphins are released, the learners not only have more fun during the eLearning process, but they actually retain more information. Endorphins also bring on feelings of calm and well being. It’s also important to note that endorphins are neurotransmitters, which means that they have the ability to send signals between neurons. (Pappas 2014a)

The fact that a great contingent of the world, especially students, plays games on a daily basis makes this phenomenon worthy of research (cf. Pappas 2014a). According to Piaget (1962; 1975) and Vygotsky (1967), play is a crucial component of cognitive development, stretching from birth through adulthood. Added to this, Pappas (2014b:Introduction) points out that, ‘[b]ased on extended research conducted by numerous educational institutions, what makes games effective for learning is the learners’ level of activity, motivation, interactivity and engagement’. Pappas (2014a) has listed the five top benefits of gamification in eLearning:

Increases learner engagement (also cf. Andrade & Mizoguchi 2016): When learners feel positive about their learning process and know that they are going to be rewarded in some way for their efforts, then they stop becoming passive observers and turn into active participants. By doing so, they are able to effectively absorb the information and commit it to the long-term memory, because the knowledge itself is linked to the favourable experience you’ve provided through gamification in eLearning.

In 2015, he discussed the ‘Top Gamification Statistics And Facts For 2015’ and very positive findings in favour of gamification for educational purposes. Based on his research, he stated the following:

… stakeholders are now recognizing the importance of gamification for training purposes, given that games may offer employees the opportunity to acquire and cultivate skill sets, while empowering them and putting them in control of their own eLearning experience via increased engagement … Based on the findings of a survey conducted by TalentLMS, 79% of the participants (both corporate learners and university students) said that they would be more productive and motivated if their learning environment was more like a game…This excitement leads to a boost in motivation and makes the experience more powerful and memorable. (Pappas 2015)

He then went on and touched on the preferences and effectiveness of students in a gamification milieu. The one thing that stands out for him is the fact that motivation is boosted by gamification. He stated (Pappas 2015; cf. also Pappas 2014a):

eLearning gamification gives learners the boost in motivation they need to become active participants in the learning process. It also serves as an incentive for those who may be more competitive in nature. A survey conducted by TalentLMS showed that:

Something he investigated, that many people are questioning, is whether adults would like to do gamification and whether they would perform better with gamification than with ‘normal’ assessment. He came upon research done by the University of Colorado on the impact of gamification on adult learners, showing the following increases relating to adult gamers (Pappas 2014a):

14% in skill-based-knowledge assessments;

Added to these statistics, he states that one only remembers 10% of what one reads and 20% of what one hears. Should visuals be added, then the number rises to 30% and should one see a person carrying out an action while he or she explains the content, it rises to 50%. Should a person do the job herself or himself, even if only a simulation, the percentage can rise to a high 90%.

Lastly, I want to refer to an eBook by Christopher Pappas (2014b) already mentioned, in which 23 top gamers discussed the significance of gamification on learning. I have condensed their views by putting it under a few sub-headings (and without referring to all of them).

Wilson et al. (2009:220) state: ‘In recent years, the study of learning has moved away from the traditional model (learning through lectures), toward a learner-centered approach, which encourages and even requires more active participation on the part of the learner’ (cf. Garris et al. 2002:441–467). Already in 2007, Blunt experimented with games in the learning community with the outcome that the students using games scored significantly higher during assessment (Blunt 2007:945–955; cf. Wilson et al. 2009:219).

The ‘core for creating a favourable and effective learning environment’ (Ifenthaler et al. 2012:v) is to align learning and assessment, thereby making ‘knowledge acquisition and knowledge assessment a transparent process’ (Ghergulescu & Muntean 2012:356). The fundamental question is how to create the correct learning environment. That environment should be learner-centred, knowledge-centred and assessment-centred. Within a game-based environment, it poses a challenge to, and also creates opportunities for the educator to find a favourable and effective learning strategy.

Feedback is a crucial component of assessment. During the past decades, the impressive development in education can largely be attributed to improved feedback (cf. Csapó, Lörincz & Molnár 2012:237). Paper-based feedback is becoming more and more unpopular and is replaced by Technology-based assessment (TBA), making use of information-communication technology (ICT).

Santhosh Kumar states that we as human beings are natural gamers. Natalie Denmeade adds that play is the highest form of research. Statistics show that 68% of today’s gamers are above the age of 18 years, indicating that most of our students are gamers. When a group of adult gamers were tested by the University of Colorado, the outcomes indicated that after being exposed to gamification of a specific subject, their marks and retention rate increased significantly. Kalliopi Rapti has done well in showing that gamification can successfully be used as an alternative way of assessing students. Austin Meredith indicates that the development of gamification meets the need for new methods of increasing learners’ interests, while Bryan Austin shows that gamification produces the best impactful learning outcomes and performance improvement of all the methods used in tuition. According to Anya Andrews, gamification has the ability to transform the learning process in total.

All these facts play gracefully into the call to use gamification as a transformative online assessment tool in Tertiary (Higher) Education. However, this call is not a new one, as scholars like Tanner Jackson, Kyle Dempsey and Danielle McNamara have already investigated the possibility of using games and simulations for teaching and assessment as early as 2012. In 2015, Yigal Attali and Meirav Arieli-Attali have evaluated (in two studies) the effects of points within the context of educational assessment in gamification, with positive results.