Master's Defense Presentation Slides given at Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. This research aims to identify key elements of game design that can be applied to classroom activities in a way that is beneficial to the learner. This is done through an extensive literature review of philosophical texts and research in psychology, game studies, gamification, and education. Following that, two studies examine the outcomes of game-like learning activities and their relationship to both the design qualities of an activity and the traits of the individual learners. The findings illustrate how opportunities for playful actions and the satisfaction of individual psychological needs contribute to the experiences of an activity. Full-text paper and references can be found in the JAIST repository: https://dspace.jaist.ac.jp/dspace/handle/10119/12938

1. Finding the Fun:
Gameful Design of Classroom Goal Structures
for Motivating Student Performance
Robert W. Songer
Miyata Lab
School of Knowledge Science
Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
Master’s Defense given on August 19, 2015
Full text paper with references available at https://dspace.jaist.ac.jp/dspace/handle/10119/12938

2. http://www.mrtoledano.com/gamers 2
Gamers

3. Background
Game-Based Learning
• The use of full games in educational contexts
Gamification
• The use of game design elements in non-game contexts
(Deterding, Dixon, Haled, & Nacke, 2011)
Gameful Design
• The application of game design principles for game-like experiences
3

4. Background – Game-Based Learning
(Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002) 4

5. Background
Gamification
• Reward-oriented
• Organization-centered
• Pattern-bound
Gameful Design
• Skill-oriented
• User-centered
• Meaning-bound
http://maidrunner.blogspot.jp
5
http://www.superbetter.com

6. Background – Problems
Full games create separate social and psychological contexts
• Knowledge transfer decreases with greater differences in contexts
(Klahr & Chen, 2011)
Extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation
• Game rewards distract from personal goals (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999)
Efficacy of gamification relies on the context and the individual
• Must balance a playful mindset with goals (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014)
6

7. Aim
Identify key elements of game design that support the motivation and
performance of learners and can be applied to classroom activities.
Method:
1. Review literature in philosophy, psychology, & anthropology
2. Study 1 – Identify elements of a playful context vs. enjoyment
3. Study 2 – Find relationships between individual traits and outcomes
7

8. The Playful Affordances Model
For evaluating the connection of
playful action with experience
Four dimensions:
1. Agon “Contest”
2. Alea “Chance”
3. Mimicry “Imagination”
4. Ilinx “Vertigo”
(Caillios, 1961)
8
(Songer & Miyata, 2014)

9. Study 1: Playful Affordances
Singaporean students (n = 12) and Japanese students (n = 24)
played a business negotiations game in English and
answered a survey about their actions and experiences.
Survey items included:
• Anticipated enjoyment
• Actual enjoyment
• Engagement in contest, exploration, imagination, sensation
• Experiences of challenge, discovery, creativity, arousal
9
THE商社
The Shosha
http://www.projectdesign.co.jp/the-shosha
Project
Card
Resource
Card
Funds
Cash
Assets

10. Study 1: Results for Enjoyment
SG
r(10)
JP
r(22)
C1
r(7)
C2
r(15)
C3
r(8)
P
r(34)
Challenge 0.64 0.47* 0.30 0.10 0.17 0.39*
Discovery 0.66* 0.62* 0.72* 0.54* 0.86* 0.64*
Creativity 0.02 0.59* 0.10 0.59* 0.27 0.50*
Arousal 0.69* 0.72* 0.85* 0.24 0.88* 0.70*
Achievement 0.66* 0.59* 0.21 0.06 0.81* 0.60*
Curiosity 0.32 0.57* 0.67* 0.50* 0.67* 0.53*
Fantasy 0.52 0.40 0.64 0.31 0.53 0.44*
Thrill 0.82* 0.66* 0.78* 0.58* 0.79* 0.72*
10*p < .05
Correlation of actual enjoyment to playful experiences. SG (Singaporean students), JP
(Japanese students), C1 (Cohort 1), C2 (Cohort 2), C3 (Cohort 3), P (Population whole)

11. Study 1: Results for the Model
SG
r(10)
JP
r(22)
C1
r(7)
C2
r(15)
C3
r(8)
P
r(34)
Challenge/Achievement -0.58* 0.71* 0.81* 0.47 0.60 0.54*
Challenge/Contest 0.00 0.76* -0.12 0.51* 0.64* 0.44*
Discovery/Curiosity 0.45 0.57* 0.27 0.61* 0.81* 0.56*
Discovery/Exploration -0.15 0.10 -0.08 0.42 -0.27 0.12
Creativity/Fantasy 0.40 0.60* 0.15 0.66* 0.45 0.49*
Creativity/Imagination -0.01 0.22 -0.10 0.11 0.85* 0.27
Arousal/Thrill 0.89* 0.81* 0.73* 0.66* 0.97* 0.81*
Arousal/Sensation 0.67* 0.86* 0.84* 0.75* 0.78* 0.78*
11
Correlation of items within the same dimension of the Playful Affordances Model. SG (Singaporean
students), JP (Japanese students), C1 (Cohort 1), C2 (Cohort 2), C3 (Cohort 3), P (Population whole)
*p < .05

12. Study 2: Skill Growth
Japanese students used a gamified feedback
online tool in an English presentation course
and an English conversation course.
Presentation:
• Control (n = 17)
• Skill Bars (n = 15)
Conversation:
• Control – Intermediate ability (n = 12)
• Skill Bars – High (n = 19) and low (n = 10)
12

13. Study 2: Skill Bars Add-On
13
Update Page (Teacher) Profile Page (Student)

14. Study 2: Survey Items
Pretest Survey
Interest in English
Effort & Persistence
Self-Efficacy for English
Instrumental Motivation
Self-Concept
Positive & Negative Affect
Posttest Survey
Interest in English
Effort & Persistence
Self-Efficacy for English
Dispositional Flow
14

15. Study 2: Data Analysis
Differences between groups
• Standardized mean difference
(Cohen’s d)
Pre-post matched scores
• Raw mean difference D
• Cohen’s d
15
𝑑 =
𝑀1 − 𝑀2
𝑆𝐷 𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙
𝑆𝐷 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 =
𝑆𝐷 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓
2 1 − 𝑟

16. 16
CG (Clear Goals), UF (Unambiguous Feedback), CB (Challenge-Skill Balance), AM (Action-Awareness Merging), TC (Total
Concentration), SL (Sense of Control), LS (Loss of Self-Consciousness), TT (Transformation of Time), AE (Autotelic Experience)
* significant difference between control and skill bars as per Student’s t-Test (p < .05)

17. 17
Cohort 1 – Large negative difference (D < -0.69) Cohort 2 – Small negative difference (D = -0.69 to 0.11)
Cohort 3 – Small positive difference (D = 0.11 to 0.92) Cohort 4 – Large positive difference (D > 0.92)

18. Study 2: Results for Presentation Class
Control Group
• Higher instrumental motivation:
d = 0.67
• Greater flow experiences:
d = 0.77
• Larger gains in self-efficacy and
effort & persistence
Skill Bars Group
• Lower positive affect:
d = -0.30
• Higher negative affect:
d = 0.50
• Larger gains in interest
correlated with flow:
r(13) = 0.53, p = .04
18

19. 19
CG (Clear Goals), UF (Unambiguous Feedback), CB (Challenge-Skill Balance), AM (Action-Awareness Merging), TC (Total
Concentration), SL (Sense of Control), LS (Loss of Self-Consciousness), TT (Transformation of Time), AE (Autotelic Experience)
* significant difference between control and skill bars as per Student’s t-Test (p < .05)
† significant difference between low and high ability groups as per Student’s t-Test (p < .05)

20. 20
Cohort 1 – Large negative difference (D < -0.84) Cohort 2 – Small negative difference (D = -0.84 to 0.11)
Cohort 3 – Small positive difference (D = 0.11 to 1.05) Cohort 4 – Large positive difference (D > 1.05)

21. Study 2: Results for Conversation Class
Control Group
• Least frequent flow experiences:
d = -0.42
• Only drop in self-efficacy:
d = -0.65
• Large gain in interest, unrelated
to measured variables
Skill Bars Groups
• Higher scores for clear goals and
unambiguous feedback
• Greatest flow experiences in the
high ability group: d = 0.30
• Large gain in self-efficacy for
high ability group: d = 0.49
21

22. Conclusions
Study 1
• Enjoyment of a game activity
designed with limited resources,
timed phases, and competition/
cooperation was related to
experiences of thrill, arousal, and
discovery
Study 2
• Gamified elements may support
flow for students with varying
relationships to affect and ability
• Experiences of flow may be
linked to changes in self-efficacy
22
Gameful design elements can satisfy psychological needs through the
promotion of a playful mindset and experiences of flow
Literature Review

23. Related Publications
24
Songer, R. W., & Miyata, K. (in press). A Playful Affordances Approach to the Design of Gameful
Learning. International Journal of Engineering Education: Special Issue on Gamification in
Engineering Education.
Songer, R. W., & Miyata, K. (2014). A Playful Affordances Model for Gameful Learning.
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing
Multiculturality. Salamanca, Spain: ACM.
Songer, R. W., & Miyata, K. (2014, March). Empowering Students with Gamified Learning
Experiences. Poster session presented at The 6th International Symposium on Digital
Technologies in Foreign Language Learning, Kyoto.