Learning Mechanics and Game Mechanics Under the Perspective of Self-Determination Theory to Foster Motivation in Digital Game Based Learning

Abstract

Background: Using digital games for educational purposes has been associated with higher levels of motivation among learners of different educational levels. However, the underlying psychological factors involved in digital game based learning (DGBL) have been rarely analyzed considering self-determination theory (SDT, Ryan & Deci, 2000b); the relation of SDT with the flow experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) has neither been evaluated in the context of DGBL.Aim: This article evaluates DGBL under the perspective of SDT in order to improve the study of motivational factors in DGBL. Results:In this paper, we introduce the LMGM-SDT theoretical framework, where the use of DGBL is analyzed through the Learning Mechanics and Game Mechanics mapping model (LM-GM, Arnab et al., 2015) and its relation with the components of the SDT. The implications for the use of DGBL in order to promote learners' motivation are also discussed.

Designing productively negative experiences with serious game mechanics: Qualitative analysis of game-play and game design in a randomized trial

“…small sample size) (Gauthier & Jenkinson, 2017), this paper is limited by being one of the first to apply the Activity Theory Model of Serious Games to empirically evaluate the value-added effect of serious game design in a randomized controlled trial and, as such, we were unable to find current literature to support our findings. Recent studies have applied similar frameworks, such as the Learning Mechanics and Game Mechanics model, to support the integration of pedagogy within the game (Arnab et al, 2013;Callaghan et al, 2016;Koivisto et al, 2016;Proulx et al, 2017)-an important step for the game-based learning literature-but should extend their research by connecting measured interaction data to the serious game design to able to make concrete conclusions about the value-added effect of game design. Our ongoing research will continue to employ similar analytical approaches as described in this paper and we encourage other researchers to try similar strategies to determine the validity of the design considerations described above (Section 5.1.3).…”

To play or not to play: on the motivational effects of games in engineering education

“…However, if games go beyond pure entertainment and become serious, they are purposefully developed and applied as instructional tools to transfer learning content with the aim of educating and training the player (Blumberg et al 2013). As being part of an educational programme or course, games cannot be expected to motivate students simply because they are used (Proulx, Romero, and Arnab 2017). For example, Leemkuil et al (2003) report on the pilot application of a knowledge management simulation game and showed that functionality problems and complexity can lead to dissatisfaction and that challenging, competitive and collaborative games are valued by players.…”

“…From a SDT perspective it is argued that motivational and learning effects are gained if games are designed to allow for player autonomy through sufficient choices and control, competence development through task challenge and completion, and relatedness through engagement with other players (Ryan, Rigby, and Przybylski 2006;. Proulx, Romero, and Arnab (2017) propose a framework that combines game and learning mechanics with different motivational forms ( Table 1) and assert that 'the learning outcomes and motivational potential will depend on the implementation of the mechanics within the learning situation where the game is integrated' (91). Game operativeness relates to the teaching and classroom context in which the game is played and can include aspects such as time available, costs, area of application, user group, game functionality and clarity of game instruction (Frank 2007;McConville et al 2017).…”

“…In this sense, games should not be regarded as educational practices that intrinsically motivate students by default (Iten and Petko 2016) but may require forms of extrinsic motivation for students to become involved and its further internalisation for sustained involvement. Which motivational form is activated will depend on the extent to which games are attractive to students and support students' learning; the variety of possible game designs and mechanics will have different motivational effects (Proulx, Romero, and Arnab 2017). In addition, through the integration of games in the classroom, a number of factors come into play that can interfere with the motivational effects of games including the learning situation, the teacher and the learning style of students (Molin 2017;Proulx, Romero, and Arnab 2017).…”

Integrating Self-Determination and Self-Efficacy in Game Design

“…Although it was not implemented nor tested in a real system, Prouxl et al [19] proposed to map SDT to a theoretical framework for designing serious games aimed at learning. The selected theoretical framework was the Learning Mechanics and Game Mechanics (LM-GM) [20,21].…”