The Dark Side of Narrow Gamification: Negative Impact of Assessment Gamification on Student Perceptions and Content Knowledge

Abstract

We explored the effects of assessment gamification on students’ content knowledge and perceptions of satisfaction, course experience, learning, and impact of teaching techniques. The course preparation, attendance, quizzes, classroom activities, and team projects of an undergraduate operations and supply chain management course had game elements that accumulate to team advantages in the collaborative midterm and final exam. Interestingly, we found that gamifying assessment activities resulted in significantly lower content knowledge, satisfaction, and course experience. Difference in perceived learning was not significant. Also, team exam scores were significantly lower in the gamified group, whereas individual exam scores were not significantly different. This study contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence that gamification in classroom may produce unintended consequences and implementing gamification restrictively to assessment is ineffective at best. Directions for further research are discussed.

Fostering University Students’ Engagement in Teamwork and Innovation Behaviors through Game-Based Learning (GBL)

“…From a theoretical point of view, the most widely used frameworks to explain the relationship between learning and the use of games have been the theory of gamified learning and the self-determination theory (SDT) [30,[41][42][43]. Very succinctly (see a longer description [30,34,[41][42][43][44]) the theory of gamified learning [34] postulated that GBL influences learning through four components-such as instructional content, behaviors and attitudes, game characteristics, and learning outcomes-being the critical issue to the success of any GBL effect that "the instructional content in place is already effective" [34] (p. 9). Self-determination theory (SDT) postulated that "an understanding of human motivation requires a consideration of innate psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness" [43] (p. 227).…”

“…In fact, the quality of instructional content is essential: if this content does not help college students to learn, gamified learning itself cannot produce learning [50]. Second, the game characteristics should help support psychological needs such as competence, autonomy, and empathy [43][44][45][46]50]. In this sense, the combination of collaboration (e.g., playing the game in teams) and competition (for example, the winning team is getting an award) could positively affect learning-related behaviors and outcomes [30].…”

The Seneb’s Enigma: Impact of a Hybrid Personal and Social Responsibility and Gamification Model-Based Practice on Motivation and Healthy Habits in Physical Education

“…Gamification techniques or the art of employing games in the classroom [ 15 ] are a complement to increase the extrinsic motivation. Although games provide freedom in learning, where failure allows learning without fear, thus increasing student engagement [ 16 ], the use of games is being questioned [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. In a review study, Hamari, Koivisto and Sarsa (2014) [ 18 ] concluded that gamification studies are limited by methodological problems such as small sample sizes, a lack of comparison groups (gamified and non-gamified experiences), short treatments, singular assessments or a lack of validated measures.…”

Gamification in education: threats or new opportunities

“…Respectively, application of gamification technologies for involvement of students into education seems to be attractive, though, it requires systematization of theoretical knowledge of main aspects of this concept as well as determination of already revealed advantages and disadvantages of gamification [4,5].…”