A theoretical approach to the social importance of games in education

The entire world is experiencing a technological revolution, affecting virtually every area of human experience, especially education. It is precisely in this field (the educational sciences) that it has been established that motivation, involvement, and self-commitment, to name a few aspects, are the true keys to meaningful learning. One alternative in this direction, one already being successfully implemented by many professionals in the field, is gamification, but both its emergence and use have not been without controversy. Despite the relevance of this emerging and controversial educational resource, there is little research in Spanish that synthesizes and offers a conceptual introduction to the world of gamification in the field of learning. Using a methodology that consisted of a conceptual review of existing theories in the field of games and gamification, this article offers a brief theoretical guide to introduce the didactic implications of gamification as a learning resource. This review highlights the social importance of gaming as a learning phenomenon and the relevance of using gamification as a teaching resource in learning contexts.

Keywords:gamification, learning, education, game, motivation.

Abstract:The whole world is experiencing a technological revolution that crosses practically all areas of human experience, especially in education. It is precisely from this area (educational sciences) where it has been found that motivation, involvement, and self-commitment, to name a few aspects, are the real key to meaningful learning. An alternative in this direction, which many professionals in the area are successfully applying, is the so-called gamification. Still, both its appearance and its use have not been without controversies. Despite the relevance of this emerging and controversial educational resource, there is not much research in Spanish that synthesizes and offers a conceptual introduction to the world of gamification in the field of learning. This article is proposed as a brief theoretical guide to introduce the didactic implications of gamification as a learning resource, based on a review of existing studies. From this review, we can confirm the social importance of the game as a training phenomenon and the relevance of gamification as a didactic resource in learning contexts.

Keywords:gamification, learning, education, game, motivation.

1. Introduction

We know from experience that new and promising solutions emerge in the educational world from time to time to address the most paradigmatic educational challenges of each era. In many cases, these solutions, defended by opportune experts, take the form of novel tools and theories that are given almost magical qualities when they are disseminated within the educational field. The dazzling technological innovation that the incorporation of interactive whiteboards (IDBs) into public school classrooms represented at the time can be an example of this. However, this does not mean to say that IWBs cannot be a valuable resource in the educational context[ 1 ]. Rather, this observation aims to emphasize the importance of the human factor in this process and, therefore, that the tools and resources for learning themselves constitute only one piece of this complex and intricate process called learning.

Technology, one of the most widely used tools in the current educational paradigm, has not remained indifferent and continues to gain an ever stronger foothold in educational programs, as demonstrated by reports such as the one produced by the Office of Communication and Education of the Autonomous University of Barcelona (2014) in Spain, or the NMC Horizon Report ( Johnson et al., 2014 ) in North America. In an increasingly interconnected and global world, digital technology stands out as the new Promethean fire capable of articulating and producing the –so called by Jenkins (2008) – culture of participatory convergence[ 2 ]. In other words, the slogan that can be felt in the educational rhetoric of our time is that education will be technological or it will not exist.

Now, it’s important to clarify that we won’t be using the concept of technology here exclusively as a synonym for digital technology. If we refer to the Greek etymology (tekné, meaning technique) and its broader meaning, technology can also refer to any specialized knowledge, any technical resource applied to a specific field, without necessarily being linked to digital technology. Thus, we can affirm that gamification, as technical knowledge, is technology, and that, furthermore, as a technical resource, it can also make use of digital technology.

So, what’s behind this complicated name and why is it becoming a trend in the learning field? The term gamification was certainly first mentioned in 2002 by programmer Nick Pelling ( Marczewski, 2013 ), but it wasn’t until 2010 that, thanks to its significant possibilities, it achieved greater media coverage due to its use in the corporate sphere, as well as in the learning field ( Stott & Neustaedter, 2013 ). Accordingly, some questions that will guide this research are the following: will gamification be another of those promising educational discoveries we mentioned at the beginning? And if so, where would its effectiveness lie?

2. Methodology

This article reviews the literature on the concept of gamification and, specifically, its use in education as a useful tool for enhancing learning, given its positive influence on student motivation. To explain the relationship between gamification and learning, we analyze other associated theoretical concepts, such as game psychology, the elements involved in games, the relationship between motivation and fun, the types of players that exist according to their motivations, and, finally, the advantages of games that can be leveraged in teaching and learning processes.

The corpus analyzed includes twenty specialized texts and nine research articles.

3. Development

3.1 What is gamification and how does it relate to the learning “flow”?

A convincing definition of this emerging resource is the one proposed by researcher Sebastián Deterding, who defines it as: “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” ( Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011, p. 10 ). In other words, gamification is the use of dynamics, elements, and mechanics belonging to the game, but applied to other types of scenarios, practices, or contexts. In short, gamification consists of recovering the most stimulating and fun aspects of the world of games and incorporating them into scenarios that, in general, require additional motivation. This resource and its encouraging results are currently part of a didactic repertoire that some educators already use frequently and consciously, and that is also increasingly incorporated by companies, both to build customer loyalty and to promote strategic solutions in the area of human resources ( Ruizalba, Navarro, & Jiménez, 2013 ).

If we think about the potential that gamification has in education, we will soon see why it continues to be so talked about. When we see children (and not so young) “hung” to their mobile phones because of the latest video game, or for those of us who grew up in another generation and remember the pleasure of playing with our friends in a square or park, we empirically confirm the hypnotic and captivating power of the game. Being immersed in an activity with your consciousness totally focused on it is what the Hungarian-born American psychologist, Mihály Csikszentmihalyi, called “the flow,” or “the zone” ( Csikszentmihalyi, 2008 ). We can find this theory in many everyday activities[ 3 ], especially those with a high creative component (painters, when they are creating a magnificent work, or in the flow of musicians in a jam session, for example). Now, one of the important aspects that Csikszentmihalyi points out for being in “flow” consists of maintaining a balance between the difficulty of the challenge and the skills we have to overcome it; that is, if the activity poses a very high challenge, for which we have not yet developed sufficient skills to overcome it, the activity can produce anxiety and frustration. Similarly, when we face a very simple challenge, for which we have great skills, it can be boring and uninspiring. Thus, Csikszentmihalyi (2008) proposes eight components that characterize flow states, namely: clear objectives, a doable task, concentration on the activity, feedback, effortless involvement, loss of sense of time, disappearance of self-awareness, and control over actions. This state of optimal experience, in which we literally flow through time and the stimuli provided by an activity, is crucial for the development of new skills and the processing of meaningful experiences. Thus, incorporating effective gamification into the world of education could be a major step forward in addressing the constant motivational challenges that affect not only compulsory education but also any type of training. In this regard, studies such as that by Stott and Neustaedter (2013) confirm the advantages that the use of gamification has brought in increasing student motivation.

Something that may seem obvious is the observation that greater motivation influences the level of engagement, and this in turn is decisive in strengthening an optimal learning aptitude ( Soriano, 2001 ); however, our learning models seem to have recently awakened from those old conceptions based almost exclusively on classical conditioning. Fortunately, the emergence of proposals such as PBL (Project-Based Learning) or Game-based learning have confirmed the importance of intrinsic motivation and how it manages to engage students in a practical and more autonomous way ( Perrotta, Featherstone, Aston, & Houghton, 2013 ). Benjamin Franklin’s famous pedagogical statement: “Tell me and I forget, teach me and I remember, involve me and I learn” seems to make more sense than ever in today’s educational contexts.

To continue, I consider it appropriate to delve deeper into the factors linked to the psychology of play and how the game itself operates in our immediate social environment. It is in these aspects that we find the keys to unraveling the fascination that play provokes and, consequently, what aspects must be taken into account to design successful gamification.

3.2 Playing, an ever-present experience

Play is, above all, a space of possibility. This means that the dynamics generated by play open the door to new scenarios where everyday life can’t reach, whether due to apathy or other restrictions. What underlies the success of today’s roomscapes, immersive video games, or classic sports competitions?

From an evolutionary perspective, our fascination with play represents a sort of “psychological survival and adaptation kit”; it is that surplus of physical and psychic energy that we use when we are not engaged in priority survival tasks. That is to say, if play is a recreational leisure activity that we engage in when we have already completed the pressing task of going “on a mammoth hunt,” at the same time, while I play, I train different psychomotor and cognitive skills that will prepare me for the serious activities of tomorrow. In other words, while playing, I develop skills that can be useful for adaptation and survival in everyday life. As Suits rightly points out: “Play is the attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles” ( 1978, p. 194 ). But are these obstacles unnecessary in the strict sense of the word? Suits, like other authors, defends the idea that, although the activity of playing itself is not strictly useful in terms of productivity, it is useful in many other aspects. If this is so, what are the benefits of playing?

In the midst of the Enlightenment, authors such as Friedrich Schiller already recognized play as a true, ideal space of freedom and emotional recreation; so much so that Schiller considered that only through play do human beings achieve their human condition ( Schiller, 2018 ). Along similar lines, Johan Huizinga developed an apologia for play, elevating it to the status of a catalyst for humanity’s sociocultural practices; that is, play and the freedom to play are understood as a sine qua non of our species; in short, play as the entity responsible for culture ( Huizinga, 2012 ). Likewise, play is not only an impulse that allows culture to be created (art, language, poetry, sports, inventions, etc.), but also a means of re-creating itself, thus assuming the role of an escape valve, calibrating the moods of a large and complex nervous system such as society. In other words, playing is also good for personal and social health.

But, as with everything, gambling also has its Achilles’ heel: in the pursuit of certain rewards, gambling can also lead us down dark alleys where our self-determination and willpower can hardly see the light. In fact, it’s no coincidence that in Spanish we use the word “jugador” to refer not only to the person who is gambling, but also to people addicted to gambling; the so-called compulsive gamblers. Gambling casinos are full of interesting and dramatic stories on the subject.

As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility, and if we fail to recognize when the balance between motivation and addiction becomes unbalanced, it’s advisable to review our habits. Of course, the casino manager on duty won’t be interested in us solving this problem, nor will the companies that use gamification to get their customers to accumulate points and buy compulsively. But if you’re raising a child and see them locking themselves away gambling all day, or if you’re a teacher designing good gamification, you’ll try to maintain a healthy balance between rewards and motivation.

This controversy leads us to the so-called, parodically, “triumvirate of evil” of gamification: we are talking about the famous PBL template (points, badges and leaderboards). Nowadays considered a kind of primitive gamification, PBL involves a series of criticisms, as its gamified system is based exclusively on obtaining points, the use of recognition badges, and rankings. In fact, one of its main critics is the video game designer, Bogost (2011) , who wrote a controversial article called Gamification is bullshit[ 4 ] where he harshly criticizes the PBL system.

When we think about designing an activity that includes gamification, we must remember that, to achieve good motivation, we must incorporate aspects that go beyond providing external rewards and displaying a leadership ranking. In the following sections, we will see why it is important to evolve to another paradigm that considers much more significant aspects of learning.

3.3 Why do we play? The importance of motivation and fun

So far, we have briefly reviewed the importance of play for culture and human development; however, we have not yet proposed a definition of play. From classic authors such as Huizinga and Callois to more recent researchers such as Lazzaro, Bartle, Marczewski, Chou, and McGonigal, there are relative similarities when it comes to defining what a game is.

Perhaps the best way to approach this exercise is to first define the elements present in most games. However, before continuing, it is necessary to clarify what idea of “game” we are referring to. In English, as in other languages, there is a conceptual difference between game and play (in Latin, ludus and paidia, respectively). For sociologist Roger Caillois (1961) , a scholar of games and creator of a respected taxonomy of games, we refer to “ludus” or “game” when we talk about a regulated system with a specific objective; whereas, when we talk about “paidia” or “play,” we refer to the playful instinct of recreation and free expression. Thus, if we consider the idea of “game,” according to researcher Jane McGonigal (2011), we can observe some main characteristics that games share, namely: an objective, rules, feedback, and, finally, the voluntary participation of players. On the other hand, authors such as the North American professor Eric Klopfer ( Klopfer et al., 2009 ) have highlighted the importance of the concept of freedom in play, a fundamental idea when we refer to the meaning of play. For the MIT professor, the will to play necessarily implies the confirmation of a series of freedoms, namely: freedom to fail (error is part of learning), to experiment (discover new relationships between objects), to adopt identities (possibility of interacting with different roles), to interpret (new information, sensations and stimuli), and, finally, freedom to put in the effort you deem appropriate ( Klopfer, Osterweil and Salen, 2009 ). Considering a synthesis of the ideas we have reviewed so far, we could try a simple definition of play: a game is a deliberate activity that gives us pleasure, and that, apparently, encourages the development of serious skills for tomorrow.

It’s no coincidence that when it comes to finding the reason why we play, the answer lies in the question itself: motivation. Although many authors have addressed this aspect, especially in the field of psychology, I will focus on the research of authors such as Edward Deci, Richard Ryan, and Daniel Pink, whose theories have been a major contribution to understanding the implications of motivation in play.

The Self-Determination Theory (SDT) by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan (1985) is based on the idea that human beings possess innate and universal tendencies linked to our personal development and growth. These tendencies, known as inherent growth tendencies, are supported by three basic psychological needs: competence (understood as expertise), relatedness (interaction with others) and autonomy (freedom to decide). Behind these three needs is intrinsic motivation, as the authors state, hence the importance of motivation is closely connected to that innate tendency we have to explore the environment, confront novelty and incorporate and exercise new skills ( Deci and Ryan, 1985 ).

On the other hand, Pink (2011) develops a curious thesis, in which he argues that every society throughout history functions with a sort of social operating system. Pink uses the analogy of computers to explain that, just as computer operating systems evolve and adapt to new needs depending on how new resources are developed, societies have had three operating systems defined by the motivation that has guided said society. According to this theory, the set of instructions and protocols would become more sophisticated as humanity evolves. Thus, the first protocol is represented by motivation 1.0, focused solely on survival. Then, motivation 2.0 appeared, represented by the classic system of rewards and punishments that dominated the routine tasks of the 20th century. Finally, the latter was updated by Motivation 3.0, in which humans no longer readily accept routine challenges or the imposition of punishments or rewards, and instead prefer to engage only when we find an intrinsic motivation that drives us.

Although societies, in their complexity, can be very different from an operating system, we are interested in Pink’s theory because his analogy would very well explain the paradigm shift that education has experienced in the last century. If we think about it, it hasn’t been long since teachers were allowed to hit and humiliate their students as a way of shaping their behavior. It’s impossible not to think of the scene from Pink Floyd’s Another Brick in the Wall ( Parker, 1982 ) as an example of the paradigm we want to move away from. On the contrary, and following a film classic, Professor Keating, a character in Dead Poets Society ( Weir, 1989 ), represents the example of motivation 3.0, a teacher who knows how to engage his students and stimulate their learning through strategies that were not very orthodox for the time, but that today, we could well call “gamified.”

As you can see, intrinsic motivation is essential for engaging students and achieving meaningful learning. This doesn’t mean that extrinsic motivation (external rewards) should be completely eradicated, but caution should be exercised when including and overusing it, as it can often even be detrimental to learning. In fact, some studies claim that using external rewards (tangible or intangible) could eliminate a person’s existing intrinsic motivation. One study that demonstrates this is the one cited by North American educator Khon (1993) , which involved observing the behavior of two groups of children who initially enjoyed drawing equally (intrinsic motivation). In the next stage, the children in Group 1 began to consistently receive rewards for their drawings. Over time, this group had become accustomed to receiving rewards for their drawings, so that when the rewards were removed, the children in that group stopped drawing (unlike the other group [Group 2], who continued to draw without any problems). The rewards had eliminated the intrinsic motivation of the first group; they had taken away the fun of drawing and, instead, had turned the activity into a self-serving and instrumental act.

Is the fun and passion for an activity compatible with obtaining a tangible reward like money, for example? If you pay someone to play, do you eliminate the fun? Of course, we can explore these conjectures on our own, thinking about what would happen if we were given money for doing what we love. Everyone will draw their own conclusions here; what we’re interested in highlighting with these digressions is that it’s no coincidence that the activities we’re most passionate about have a high intrinsic motivation component, which is why they’re so fun and rewarding.

Now, moving into the realm of play, if we consider that fun can be an important component of motivation, it will be useful to consider the research project called The 4 Keys to Fun ( Lazzaro, 2004 ). This project found that fun is a powerful magnet that motivates people to play and, as the name of the study indicates, there are four different types of fun that can be found in games:

1. a) Simple fun: motivated by curiosity, exploration, role play and creativity.
2. b) Hard fun: motivated by the possibility of achieving epic triumph, overcoming complex obstacles and experiencing the fierce[ 5].
3. c) Fun with people: motivated by the possibility of sharing experiences with others, whether to compete and/or cooperate.
4. d) Serious fun: motivated by the feeling of growth and improvement of the player and his environment.

As you might expect, not all people enjoy the same things, and we typically never play games seeking just one of the aforementioned entertainments. Furthermore, our preference for different games will have a lot to do with our mood, as well as our personality. Considering these variables, some researchers have developed a taxonomy of players, in which each type of player can correspond to a type of entertainment or motivation. For a potential gamification design, it would be optimal to understand these categories and what motivations each player responds to.

3.4 Player types and their motivations (drives). The taxonomies of Bartle, Kim, Marczewski, and Chou’s Octalysis

We now know that motivation and fun are two fundamental concepts when we talk about gaming, but, as mentioned, we all have different interests and play differently. On this point, through research conducted in the world of online video games, British professor Bartle (1996) concluded that there are four types of players, namely:

1. a) winners: motivated by achieving rewards and surpassing achievements,
2. b) explorers: motivated to know and discover the game world better[ 6],
3. c) sociable: motivated more by interaction with others than by the game itself,
4. d) murderers: motivated by confronting and competing with others.

Although taxonomies are often convenient simplifications, based on Bartle’s contribution and his observation that different people enjoy different types of fun, researcher Kim (2018) develops a classification that is more adaptable to less competitive environments. Her model also consists of four types of players and classifies them as follows: competitive, expressive, collaborative, and finally, exploratory. Although both taxonomies are useful and well-regarded, Marczewski’s (2013) category and its six archetypes are currently the most comprehensive and reputable. These archetypes and their respective motivations are as follows:

1. a) Socializers: They are motivated by interaction with others and social connection.
2. b) Free Spirits: They are motivated by autonomy and self-expression. They enjoy creating and exploring, but above all, personalizing their world: avatar, scenarios, decks, etc.
3. c) Achievers: motivated to achieve mastery, overcome challenges and dominate their environment.
4. d) Philanthropists: They are altruistic, motivated by enriching the lives of others and they like to collect, trade and exchange, without apparent reward.
5. e) Players: They are motivated by rewards. They like to achieve goals and show them off to others.
6. f) Disruptors: They are motivated by change and often question the rules of the game. Depending on the type of disruptor (Marczewski creates a subgroup with four types of disruptors), they can force a negative or positive change in the system.

The incorporation of the disruptor archetype into this typology is an important finding, as the role of these players is often underestimated, identifying them exclusively as a negative element in the game. Instead, Marczewski highlights the positive effect that some disruptors (the influencer and the improver) have on improving or evolving games. Huizinga himself, from a sociocultural perspective, refers to them as “killjoy players” when he notes that:

It may happen that these spoilsports, in turn, form a new team with new rules of the game. The outlaw, the revolutionary, the secret society member, the heretic, in particular, are often extraordinarily active in group formation, and they almost always do so with a high degree of playfulness. ( Huizinga, 2012, p. 31 )

On the other hand, a model to describe the drives (motivations) that move different players and that enjoys notable influence, thanks to its ability to synthesize different variables, is Chou’s Octalysis (2015) . This model describes eight types of drives, which are related to the two types of motivations (extrinsic and intrinsic), and whether this is a white hat motivation or a black hat motivation [ 7 ]. The Octalysis model consists of the following factors, as shown in figure 1 :

Figure 1
Octalysis by Yu-Kai Chou
taken from https://octalysisgroup.com/

1. a) Epic sense: we are the chosen ones to fulfill the challenge posed by the narrative. Example: the board game Pandemic, in which the players are chosen to save the world from this terrible threat.
2. b) Development and fulfillment: We experience satisfaction as we achieve goals and unlock milestones. For example, in video games, final battles against powerful enemies (boss battles) are common at the end of each stage.
3. c) Empowerment of creativity and feedback: We enjoy the game and the progress of our skills. For example: In any sport, you feel good the better you master it, especially when you’ve learned or perfected a skill (whip in soccer, spike in volleyball, etc.).
4. d) Ownership and possession: We feel satisfaction from the possessions (badges) we acquire. Example: In Monopoly, when we buy a neighborhood or build houses in it.
5. e) Social influence and relationships: We enjoy interacting with others and showing off our achievements and results. For example, showing off a good performance in front of others in any team game increases the player’s well-being and self-esteem.
6. f) Unpredictability and curiosity: We enjoy the freedom to explore and discover things we hadn’t planned for in the game. For example, collectible trading cards or the aforementioned Easter eggs or glitches.
7. g) Scarcity and impatience: We try to get limited items before everyone else, while avoiding torture breaks (forcing the player to wait for their next move or a reward). Example: in Monopoly, going to the bank before everyone else avoids going to jail.
8. h) Loss and avoidance: avoiding losing valuable things in which we have already invested energy and time (or money). For example, in the field of gambling, inspired by economics, there is a fallacy called Sunk Cost Prisons. In poker or slot machines, for example, whether because you had a good game or because you want to recoup what you lost, the tendency to keep playing is due to the fact that the system penalizes the progress of those who quit the game. On the other hand, if your progress is not favorable, you continue playing anyway, hoping to recoup what you lost.

In the Octalysis image, we can see that the drives on the far right (empowerment, social influence, and unpredictability) correspond to intrinsic motivations. If we return to Self-Determination Theory, we see that they correspond perfectly with the three motivations identified by it (competence, relatedness, and autonomy). Similarly, the three drives appearing at the bottom (unpredictability, avoidance, scarcity) are what Chou calls black hat; a type of motivation that tends to be more addictive and “dark,” since they appeal to the dopamine impulse to achieve certain rewards, no matter what.

As we’ve noted, a good gamified system, in order to preserve student autonomy, must pay attention to these factors and not abuse them. As much as our fantasy as educators is to see our students crowded and impatient to enter our classroom—just like the crowds waiting outside stores on Black Friday—gamification must promote a good learning environment and setting, more similar to Professor Keating’s classrooms than to a Roman circus or a casino.

Using a little creativity, time (which is never in short supply), and the theories and models reviewed so far, many education professionals have ventured into creating small and medium-sized gamified systems to test in their classrooms. In the following section, we’ll explore what elements gamification should include and highlight some successful examples.

3.5 What a game should do and what elements it should have

For some authors, such as Koster (2013) , games are synonymous with learning; they challenge us to learn and develop new skills in order to overcome obstacles, and best of all, they make this “training” fun. In this sense, games can be a good tool for solving problems of varying complexity if, as an educator, you manage to apply the appropriate motivation. As we have noted, it is not surprising that, in addition to education, gamification is also successfully applied in the field of human resources.

These are some of the things that games do very well in the educational field:

1. a) Cultivate an attitude of optimism and confidence. Games are about maintaining a positive attitude in the face of challenges. Challenges foster our curiosity and encourage us to develop new skills. In games, challenges are part of learning, and if you fail, you can always try again. In this sense, games help reduce the fear of failure by encouraging experimentation and innovation to find creative solutions to difficulties.
2. b) Promote teamwork toward common goals. Games strengthen coordination, communication, and knowledge within a team. Playing with others helps us get to know ourselves and others better.
3. c) Stimulate diverse interests and abilities. Games are a window into experiencing intellectual, physical, and sensory stimuli that we would probably never experience in a non-playful setting.

When we verify with practice the aforementioned advantages of the game, we will be able to see that, in essence, gamification appeals to our most intimate human nature: satisfying needs and desires inherent to our development as individuals, namely: recognition from our peers, obtaining rewards, achieving achievements, collaborating and competing with others, and being free to self-express our identity ( González, 2019 ).

Examples such as those of Javier Espinosa (Class of Clans[ 8 ], among others), Quintero’s ExpanEF (2017) , or Nacho Maté’s El Ministerio del tiempo[ 9 ], are good proof that all the above-mentioned aspects have been strengthened through gamification. Likewise, the examples that can be consulted in the publication entitled Experiencias de gamificación en aulas, by InCom-UAB ( Contreras and Eguia, 2017 ), or on the official page[ 10 ] of the virtual community of teachers, demonstrate that all subjects and contents can be gamified. As already mentioned, we only need time, will, creativity, some technical knowledge and the optimization of our available resources. In this sense, one of the best recommendations is to clearly define who will participate in our gamified system, what objectives we expect with the activity and what type of motivation will be the most appropriate in these cases.

Although this is not a guide to creating gamified systems, this article can be considered a first step toward understanding the importance of play in our social lives, on the one hand; and, on the other, to guide us through the first steps toward designing experiences close to educational gamification. If this is the case, in addition to knowing who the activity will be aimed at, it is important to be clear about the learning objective we hope to achieve, as well as what resources we are interested in exporting from the world of games. Let us remember that gamification consists of creating playful environments by applying elements, mechanics, and dynamics specific to the world of games. A clear way to exemplify the importance of elements, mechanics, and dynamics is that they constitute the DNA of games, and gamification is nothing more than exporting that DNA to non-game environments. The details of this “genetic code” can be seen in Table 1 :

Table 1

Gamification Resources

ITEMS	MECHANICS	DYNAMICS
Refers to the pieces or components of the game. (What elements?)	It refers to the interactivity that the user makes of the elements. (How do they interact?)	It refers to what happens when the user interacts with the mechanics. (What happens when they are applied?)
-World (Narrative and aesthetics) -Avatars -Levels -Challenges and achievements -PBL	-Answer questions -Solve problems -Perform some type of test -Etc.	-Player level progression. -Emotions and sensations the player experiences. -Player interpersonal relationships and recognition.

own elaboration

Taking this into account, a generic model that can be useful for designing educational gamification ( González, 2019 ), should consider the following:

1. a) Analysis of users and their context
2. b) Definition of learning objectives
3. c) Experience design
4. d) Identification of users
5. e) Application of gamification elements

As mentioned before, incorporating gamified elements into the educational experience can be very intuitive (surely many teachers were already doing it even before the concept existed). However, understanding how it works and making its elements visible can be very useful for systematizing an experience and giving a more methodological character to our intuitive experiments, in addition to offering the possibility of becoming more expert and achieving increasingly better gamified systems. Beginning to gamify in education can be considered a metaphor for the game itself; an adventure that is not without its difficulties but that can give us great satisfaction as we advance in mastery and confirm its effectiveness with our students.

4. Conclusions (Alice chases the white rabbit)

Time is always a precious value, and those of us involved in education know this all too well. Whether it’s preparing lessons, assessing assessments, or the curiosity that drives us to continue learning, we’re always racing against the clock. Therefore, to avoid succumbing to daily demands and, at the same time, to test new teaching tools, we can take two positions when it comes to gamification: be skeptical about creating gamified content while waiting for other professionals to help us create it; or start testing small gamified activities right now. If you’re one of those who has preferred to invest a little more time and accept this rewarding challenge, you’ll be reassured to know that including playful elements doesn’t always require large projects; sometimes, all it takes is the right hook; sparking curiosity and creating a world full of meaning and possibilities around the content. Perhaps, like many teachers, you’re already one of those who have always done it this way, without even knowing the concept of gamification. The good news in this case is that we are not alone in this adventure.

Indeed, we could say that the creation of virtual communities of teachers has contributed to cooperation and the dissemination of good practices among colleagues. Now more than ever, we have access to the socialization of experiences and the ability to share materials, resources, and collaborations. This optimization of resources through the exchange of knowledge and experiences between different members of a virtual community is what the Frenchman Pierre Lévy called Collective Intelligence, and it operates under a simple but astute motto: “Nobody knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity” ( Jenkins, 2008, p. 36 ).

However, if jumping on the technology bandwagon implies, as we know, a fruitful challenge that is transforming the way we learn, we must not forget that technology, by itself, will not solve all the long-standing problems that the educational world has faced and continues to face. In this sense, in the face of the firm skepticism toward new educational trends and technology—typical of authors such as Royo (2016) —and, on the other hand, the excessive credulity that pedagogy bureaucrats place in technological messianism, there is a healthy middle ground that can be explored for the purpose of strengthening learning. Education professionals know better than any other professional what we find most effective in our classes. If we view gamification as a rising trend that has been catapulted by new technologies, who better than teachers to experience its advantages and disadvantages? Finally, the classroom could well be that space of autonomy where it is possible to explore new possibilities in order to obtain better results. After all, and keeping some nuances, in real life, as well as in the game, error is part of learning, because as Huizinga (2012) states , the game and its experiments have been what has mobilized our humanity since the beginning of time.

If the Motivation 3.0 paradigm, as Pink asserts, is the one that currently characterizes our way of learning, the current challenge is knowing how to adapt to it without losing the essence of human relationships. If games have a powerful capacity to awaken our motivation and put it at the service of our training and that of our students, as stated here, to achieve a positive impact on our teaching careers, we will have to learn to “play”; in this case, gamification can be a great step.

References

Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spaces: Players Who Suit MUDs. Journal of MUD Research , 1(1). Retrieved from: http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

Bogost, I. (2011). Gamification is bullshit . Ian Bogost. http://bogost.com/writing/blog/gamification_is_bullshit/

Caillois, R. (1961). Man, play, and game . Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Cascales, A., & Laguna, I. (2014). A learning experience with an interactive whiteboard in early childhood education. Pixel-Bit. Journal of Media and Education, 45, 125–136. doi: 10.12795/pixelbit.2014.i45.09

Chou, Y. K. (2015). Actionable gamification: beyond points, badges, and leaderboards . Fremont, California: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.

Contreras, R., and Eguia, L. (eds.). (2017). Gamification experiences in classrooms. InCom-UAB Publicacions, 15. Bellaterra: Institute of Communication, Autonomous University of Barcelona.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow. A psychology of happiness . Barcelona: Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial.

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior . New York: Plenum Press.

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, September). From Game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. Proceedings of the International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, Tampere, Finland, 15.

Office of Communication and Education of the Autonomous University of Barcelona. (2014). 2014 Perspectives. Technology and Pedagogy in the Classroom. Retrieved from: http://www.gabinetecomunicacionyeducacion.com/es/publicaciones/perspectivas-2014-tecnologia-y-pedagogia-en-las-aulas

González, C. (2019). Gamification in the classroom: gamifying face-to-face and virtual teaching-learning spaces . http://www.dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34658.07364

Huizinga, J. (2012 [1938]). Homo ludens . Madrid: Alianza Editorial.

Jenkins, H. (2008). Convergence Culture. The Culture of Media Convergence . Barcelona: Paidós Ibérica SA Editions

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V. & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition . Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Kim, A.J. (2018). Game Thinking: Innovate Smarter & Drive Deep Engagement with Design Techniques from Hit Games . LA, CA: gamethinking.io.

Klopfer, E. Osterweil, S. & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward . MIT Education Arcade. Retrieved from https://education.mit.edu/

Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: the trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, a’s, praise, and other bribes . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Koster, R. (2013). A theory of Fun for Game Design . Arizona: Paraglyph Press, Inc.

Lazzaro, N. (2004). Why we play games?: Four keys to more emotion without story . Oakland, CA: XeoAnalysis Player experience. Recovered from http://www.xeodesign.com/

Marczewski, A. (2013). Gamification: A Simple Introduction. In Marczewski, A. (ed.) (2015). Even ninja monkeys like to play: gamification, game thinking and motivational design . CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and How they can change the world . New York: The Penguin Group.

Parker, A. (director) and Marshall, A. (producer). (1982). Pink Floyd-The Wall. UK: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

Perrotta, C., Featherstone, G., Aston, H., and Houghton, E. (2013). Game-based Learning: Latest Evidence and Future Directions (NFER Research Programme: Innovation in Education). Slough: NFER.

Pink, D. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us . New York: Penguin Group.

Quintero, L. (2017). Static versus dynamic gamification: A classroom experience through playful pedagogy. ExpandEF [Paper presentation]. 5th International Congress on Videogames and Education (CIVE´17), Tenerife, Spain. https://riull.ull.es/xmlui/handle/915/6783

Royo, A. (2016). Against the New Education . Barcelona: Plataforma Editorial SL

Ruizalba, J., Navarro, F., & Jiménez, S. (2013). Gamification as an internal marketing strategy. Intangible Capital, 9 (4), 1113–1144. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.455.

Schiller, F. (2018 [1975]). Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Humanity . Barcelona: Acantilado.

Soriano, M. (2001). Motivation, the basic pillar of every type of effort. Proyecto Social: Journal of Labor Relations , 9, 163-184.

Suits, B. (1978). The Grasshoper: Games, life and utopia . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Stott, A., and Neustaedter, C. (2013). Analysis of gamification in education . Simon Fraser University (Unpublished material).

Weir, P. (Director) & Haft, S. (Producer). (1989). Dead Poets Society [Film]. United States: Touchstone Pictures.