Computers in Human Behavior 58 (2016) 48e63

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Review

Effectiveness of gamication in the engagement of students

Luma da Rocha Seixas a, *, Alex Sandro Gomes a, Ivanildo Jose

de Melo Filho a, b
a
UFPE e Informatics Center, Pernambuco, Brazil
b
IFPE e Belo Jardim Campus, Pernambuco, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of gamication platforms as a strategy for the engage-
Received 5 October 2015 ment of students from the 8th year of elementary school in Brazil. We chose two badging platforms e
Received in revised form ClassDojo and ClassBadges e to be evaluated based on 7 different criteria. The main objectives were to
7 November 2015
generate involvement among individual and particular situations, increasing the interest, engagement
Accepted 11 November 2015
Available online 31 December 2015
and efciency while performing a specic task. We observed the behavior of 61 students from an
elementary public school in Brazil as part of our eld research. Data were collected using observation,
semi-structured interviews and questionnaires. Quantitative data were statistically analyzed using a
Keywords:
Engagement
multivariate technique known as cluster analysis. The results allowed us to classify students in 4 distinct
Game mechanics groups and showed that students who received more rewards from the teacher got signicantly better
Gamication average performances.
Cluster analysis 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Elementary school
Teaching practices

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2. Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.1. Gamification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.2. Game mechanics
game dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.3. Students engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.4. Badging platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3. Methods and procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.1. Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.2.1. Phase 1: selection and comprehension of the objectives of the subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.2.2. Phase 2: definition of communication tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.2.3. Phase 3: definition of badges and suitability of platforms to teaching strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.3. Data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.4. Qualitative and quantitative analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.1. Performance rewards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.2. Effectiveness of strategies used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.1. Gamification effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.2. Pros and Conts of gamification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.3. Perspective from the teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lrs3@cin.ufpe.br (L. da Rocha Seixas), asg@cin.ufpe.br
(A.S. Gomes), ivanildo.melo@belojardim.ifpe.edu.br (I.J. de Melo Filho).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.021
0747-5632/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 L. da Rocha Seixas et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 58 (2016) 48e63 49

File generated from the cluster analysis in R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

1. Introduction users, there is an increase on its potential as an innovative teaching

tool (Simo ~es, Redondo, & Vilas, 2012). Researchers have been trying
Recently there has been an increasingly interest in the use of to understand why games are so attractive. According to them, it
game features in non-game applications with the goal to increase would happen due to a combination of fantasy, challenge and cu-
engagement and motivation (Fitz-Walter; Tjondronegoro & Wyeth, riosity, plus a level of engagement described as ow, where users
2012). In this context, a phenomenon known as gamication do not get distracted (Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2004). Due to its
(Werbach & Hunter, 2012) arises. When a user reaches a specic popularity, there are many denitions in the literature.
goal, there are rewards, which are usually given through a score Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, and Nacke (2011) understand the or-
system (Liu, Alexandrova, & Nakajima, 2011). Based on this system igins of the term gamication from the digital media. Still according
of scores and a record of achievements, rankings (global or partial) to the authors, the rst use of this expression happened around
and medals are provided for the users. 2008. Its popularization started on the second semester of 2010.
In the circumstances of education, gamication allows students The term became prominent with the publishing of books about
to receive instant feedback about their progress in the classroom the use of game mechanics in different areas from the game
and acknowledgment of an accomplished task (Kapp, 2012). Be- manufacturing itself. In Reality is Broken, by Jane McGonical, the
sides, it offers potential for greater engagement of students and author argues that the use of games does not need to be focused
motivation in the classroom (Simo ~es et al., 2012). only in alone entertainment and that skills developed during the
Despite the extense amount of research on the engagement of game are useful to solve real-life issues (McGonigal, 2011). In
students in the classroom and works such as Sullivan et al. (2009) Gamication Wiki (2012), the term relates to the use of the game-
and Gibbs and Poskitt (2010), there still is difculty to keep stu- design thought in different applications rather than games with the
dents engaged in their activities. Gapp and Fisher (2012) state that objective of turning them into funnier and more attractive appli-
it is complex for students to develop the necessary levels of cations. The same denition is reinforced by Deterding et al. (2011)
engagement to reach the full learning potential. According to the and Xu (2011). Zichermann and Cunningham (2011) also highlight
authors, there is the risk that only small groups engage themselves that this process can promote the engagement of users and solve
in their academic activities. problems. It is possible to observe on these denitions the use of
Facing these facts, a great deal of research are being continu- elements that are part of games in contexts outside the game
ously developed with the objective of unraveling which factors universe. However, it is not always clear what elements are those.
would promote the engagement of students. In this research, we In the literature, two denitions of these elements become clear
propose the use of the mechanics of the games. Some studies show when it comes to mechanics or dynamics.
the relation of engagement and social and cognitive performance of Zichermann and Cunningham (2011) understand the mechanics
students (Basioudis et al., 2007; Clark, Beer, & Jones, 2010; Coates, of the fame as responsible for making the components of it work.
James, & Baldwin, 2005; Gresal, Barab, Siyahhan, & Christensen, They allow the player to have total control of the game levels and
2009; Melero, Leo, & Blat, 2012; Tomkinson & Hutt, 2012). with it, guide their actions. However, the dynamics are the in-
Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004) noted the engagement teractions of the player with the mechanics (Zichermann &
of students in academic activities is related to changes introduced Cunningham, 2011). To the authors, it determines what each
in the context. With it, the support to students, relationships with player is doing as a response to the mechanics of the system,
classmates, structure of the classroom, the support to the autonomy whether it is individual or in a group. By using it individually or
and the characteristics of the activities are factors of the context collectively, it is possible to estimulate motivational features of the
that interfere on the relationship the students set with the pro- users.
posed activities (Finn, Pannozzo, & Voelkl, 1995; Skinner & In the corporate context, Zichermann and Linder (2010) defend
Belmont, 1993). that game mechanics applied to business help engaging people.
This way, this work has the objective of evaluating the mechanic They suggest that it is possible to combine the power of games with
of games through gamication to promote the engagement of business strategies. Zichermann and Christopher Cunningham
elementary school students. Two web platforms were used with published design strategies to integrate game mechanics in any
the goal to reward activities and behaviors performed by students: kind of website or mobile application for consumption in the book
ClassDojo and ClassBadges. Initially, engagement indicators were Gamication by Design. In the book, the main concepts of games,
identied and served as a base for quantitative and qualitative project patterns and meaningful code lines are presented to create
analysis of the engagement of students. a fun and attractive social environment (Zichermann &
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents a literature Cunningham, 2011). In Total Engagement, Leighton Read and
review on the theme. Section 3 describes the methodology used to Baron Reeves explore the idea of transferring the enthusiasm and
develop this work. After, the results obtained are presented in concentration provided by videogames to the workplace. To the
Section 4, followed by Section 5 presenting a brief discussion on the authors, by using games and virtual worlds to change the way
work. Finally, Section 6 presents the conclusions. people work, lead and dene the competition way of corporations,
a more creative, collaborative and embracing environment is
created (Reeves & Read, 2009).
2. Literature review
In the context of education, the game is considered an important
part for the development of knowledge and engagement of stu-
2.1. Gamication
dents (Ellis, Heppell, Kirriemuir, Krotoski, & McFarlane, 2006). A
possibility to incorporate games and promote the engagement of
With meaningful growing of popularity and number of game
50 L. da Rocha Seixas et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 58 (2016) 48e63
students is the adoption of gamication techniques on the design of
learning situations. Kapp (2012) talks about the concept of gami-
cation in practices of teaching and learning. He afrms that every
educator already works with some kind of game with his students
by proposing challenges and offering solutions.
These aspects allows us to understand that use of gamication
in education should not be restricted to giving points every time a
student visualize a lesson or deliver an assignment. It's important
to highlight that the use of other gaming strategies, allows the
student to awaken creativity, leave room for errors, promote the
exchange of experiences collaboratively and build learning situa-
tions in which they are free to make choices.
2.2. Game mechanics
game dynamics
In order to create engaging experiences through game features on
non-game context, it is necessary to consider the functioning of game
mechanics and dynamics. Game mechanics and dynamics are two
important tools related to Gamication (Law, Kasirun, & Gan, 2011).
Game mechanics are related to rules and benets that compose the
game e features that make it challenging, fun, rewarding or any other
emotion expected by game designers (Bunchball, 2010). Still ac-
cording to the author, these emotions are the result of wishes and
motivations, which are called game dynamics.
To Zichermann and Cunningham (2011), game mechanics are
responsible for the functioning of the game components. It allows
the player to have total control of the game levels and, with it, guide
his actions. On the other hand, dynamics are the interactions
players have with the mechanics (Zichermann & Cunningham,
2011). The authors believe it determines what every player is do-
ing as a response to the system mechanics, individually and with
other players. They also highlight that many times the terms me-
chanics and dynamics are used as synonyms, but they are very
different when put in practice.
Game mechanics are built by tools, techniques and widgets used
to gamify a website or application (Bunchball, 2010). By using them
individually or collectively, it is possible to estimulate motivational
aspects of users. Bunchball (2010) presents some of the most
common game mechanics:
 Points e Used to reward users through multiple dimensions
and different categories, they can be used to manage different
behaviors inside the same website or application. When points
should stimulate a competition they should be used as scores;
on the opposite side, when the goal is to provide constant
feedback to the user, each individual progress should not be
shown to other people (Werbach & Hunter, 2012, p.74). Points
can also be used to stimulate the participation of users. Chou
(2014) uses this technique on a blog for an audience interested
in Gamication that presents a reward system through points to
stimulate access and sharing of contents.
 Levels e Indicate the user accomplished a goal. The higher the
level, the greater is the respect and status. Levels are usually
dened as threshold points, in a way users can automatically
level up based on their participation.
 Challenges, Trophies, Badges/Medals and Accomplishments e
Challenges represent missions for people to accomplish and
then give rewards for the execution. Trophies, badges or medals
are the visible acknowledgment that the user has reached new
levels and concluded challenges. The main mechanism to make
efcient challenges and levels is to provide users a place where
they can show their accomplishments, such as a trophy shelf.
Antin and Churchill investigated ve psychological functions
that medals can have in a context of social media. The most
important role of them is the goal-setting. Many times, the main
rewards are fun and interest while seeking goals. When the
progress to reach a goal is presented to the user, the following
badge is more efcient (Antin & Churchill, 2011).
 Virtual Goods e Non-physical and intangible objects that can be
purchased using points the users collect over time. Virtual goods
are a good way to incentive them to get more points and they
also offer the possibility of personalizing something that will
reect their identity. To McHale (2012) virtual goods can also be
converted into points, badges/medals, discounts, credits and
avatars. According to the author, it is very common to use virtual
coins in different situations including the trade mechanism to
buy items and points to increase status and prestige.
 Classication Table, Ranking, Score Table e Show the position
of users compared to others. Those are tables commonly used to
manage and display the scores of users with the objective of
using the competition as an incentive to the behavior. Werbach
and Hunter suggest that this mechanic should not be used iso-
latedly, because it could reduce the performance of users. The
greatest benet of implementing a classication table is the fact
it provides contextual information on the progress of users that
could have a motivating effect on the user (Werbach & Hunter,
2012, p.76).
People are motivated by the game mechanics due to its dy-
namics (Bunchball, 2010). The author says people have funda-
mental needs and desires e reward, status, accomplishment, self-
expression, competition, and altruism, among others. By selecting
the proper set of game mechanics on a website, application or
community, it is possible to create an experience that stimulates
the behavior by satisfying one or more of those needs, among
which the author highlights:
 Reward e Tangible or intangible, the reward is presented after
an action (that is, a behavior), with the intention of this behavior
to be repeated. In gamication, the main reward mechanism is
the system of points or similar ideas (such as miles granted to
passengers by airline companies to stimulate their delity).
 Status e Most of people have the need to be recognized: fame,
prestige, attention and, lastly, esteem and respect from others.
In order to get it, they need to engage in some activities. Ele-
ments from game mechanics such as leveling up or obtaining
items others still do not have work as a motivating feature.
 Accomplishments/Fullllment e Some people are driven by
the need of accomplishing something difcult through pro-
longued and repeated efforts, working towards the goals and to
win. These kind of people tend to seek challenges and stablish
moderately difcult goals (but still achievable) and their great-
est reward is the accomplishment of this completion.
 Self-Expression e People need opportunities to express their
autonomy and originality and, some how, differentiate them-
selves from others. An example is the use of virtual products;
with them it is possible to create your own identity. They can be
obtained through rewards, presents or bought directly. The
avatar of a person, for example, is one of the main ways of
expression.
 Competition e It is possible to obtain the highest levels of
performance when a competitor knows the winner will be
rewarded. It happens because there is a kind of satisfaction by
comparing your own performance with others.
2.3. Students engagement
Literature is full of studies on the engagement of students in the
process of teaching-learning. However, there is not a consensus on
 L. da Rocha Seixas et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 58 (2016) 48e63
the denition of this notion (Fredricks et al. 2004; Gibbs & Poskitt,
2010; Libbey, 2004). Concepts found usually include a psychological
and behavioral component as Beer, Clark, and Jones (2010) and
Fredricks et al. (2004) presented. Other authors, as Sullivan et al.
(2009) and Fredricks et al. (2004) for example, analyze the
engagement to discuss the attitudes of students regarding the
school. To the authors, the non-engagement of the student usually
indicates leaving school. The concept is related to how students
interact with school activities that are proposed to them. When
they are involved in their activities, they tend to persist to accom-
plish them despite challenges and obstacles (Saeed e Zyngier,
2012).
According to Fredricks et al. (2004), there are three different
denitions in literature for engagement: behavioral, emotional and
cognitive. Behavioral engagement involves the participation and
the involvement of students in school and extracurricular activities
and positive attitudes of the students during the resolution of ac-
tivities. The emocional engagement involves the affective and
emotional reactions of students while fullling the activities.
Emocional engagement involves the affective ans emotional re-
lationships of students facing the activities of subjects and other
elements that compose the school environment. Interest, happi-
ness, well-being, disgust, anxiety and frustration are examples of
such reactions. Cognitive engagement involves the psychological
investment of the student in the learning process. It is marked by
the effort made by the learner to understand what is studied and to
reach the highest levels of comprehension on a specic area of
study.
When talking about student engagement, studies present in-
dicators or variables that allow observing if there was any change
on the context of their interventions. This way, behavior, emotion
and cognition are combined in a single evaluation scale. To
Fredricks et al. (2004), it makes it difcult to differentiate the three
kinds of engagement. Besides, there is no standardization of these
indicators. Some authors identify the engagement in terms of au-
tonomy (Parsons & Taylor, 2011; Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch,
2004; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). It allows students to conduct and
search for information and the process of monitoring and accom-
plish their learning by themselves (Russell & Slater, 2010; Shernoff,
Csikszentmihalyi, Shneider, & Shernoff, 2003). It all represents
evidences of positive engagement (Jang, 2008; Kanthan, 2011).
Zepke et al. (2010) also suggest that engaged students are usually
intrinsically motivated and need to feel capable of working in an
autonomous way and then succeed on their activities.
Others authors believe the fulllment of classroom activities is a
sign of engagement (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Finn et al., 1995). On a
study conducted by Sullivan et al. (2009), by fullling their activ-
ities, students hope to learn successfully, which increases their level
of commitment.
According to Russell and Slater (2010), the relationship between
students and teachers is an important factor through which is
possible to analyze the engagement. To Sagayadevan and Jeyaraj
(2012), a solidary and peaceful relationship between students and
teachers encourages the student engagement and provides better
academic performance. Other studies show that interactions be-
tween students and teachers can indirectly affect the learning
process (Fullarton, 2002; LaNasa, Cabrera, & Trangsrud, 2009;
Willekens & Gibson, 2010).
Studies of Parsons and Taylor (2011) and Finn et al. (1995) point
that only performing the activities is not enough to identify the
engagement of students. According to the authors, activities should
happen in a specic time for their execution. Knowing how to
manage time efciently and working on stablished deadlines is also
an evidence of commitment (Akey, 2006; Saeed & Zyngier, 2012).
To other authors, the participation of the student on classroom
51
discussions evidences the motivation regarding the learning pro-
cess (Akey, 2006; Birch & Ladd, 1997; Finn et al., 1995; Parsons &
Taylor, 2011; Reeve et al. 2004; Stovall, 2003). This dialogue not
only favors the exchange of information between students and
teachers but its lack may indicate students are not understanding
the subject (Bulger, Mayer, Almeroth, & Blau, 2008; Rocca, 2010;
Willms, 2003).
According to Bulger et al. (2008) and Zepke et al. (2010), the
collaboration must also be taken into account when evaluating the
engagement of students. Russell and Slater (2010) indicate that
students also build their knowledge through reection, discussion
and decision-making that occur with their peers. This collaboration
between them has a fundamental part on the development of the
group and learning. Studies such as Cavanagh (2011) and Rocca
(2010) observed high levels of engagement in students who had
ability to work collaboratively and to maintain quality discussions.
Saeed and Zyngier (2012) argue that engagement can also be
evaluated from the perspective of teamwork. When a group is
engaged in an investigation and its members seem motivated and
well articulated, they get meaningful gains for the learning (Russell
& Slater, 2010; Zepke et al. (2010)). To Kanthan (2011) group ac-
tivities engage students and stimulate them to interact with others
in an active way to question, exchange ideas with colleagues and
then build their own thoughts and comments.
According to Chin (2002), engagement can also be evaluated
from the fact that students feel comfortable with making questions.
The author says that based on the questions made by the students it
is possible to identify if the student is engaged with a specic ac-
tivity. Stovall (2003) and Akey (2006) add that questions asked
could stimulate another group to join, contributing with the
commitment of everyone.
Another element that may indicate the engagement of students
is the organization of the school environment. Sullivan et al. (2009)
argues that without proper organization it is hard to maintain the
control of the room and it can harm the learning process of stu-
dents. The way the classroom is organized also reects the
commitment of them. When they create confusions and disorga-
nize the space, it is likely that they are not completely involved with
the learning process (Sullivan et al., 2009).
Getting closer to the idea of gamication and games, other
studies conclude there is a strong relation between fun and
engagement (Bisson & Luckner, 1996; Prensky, 2002; Shernoff et al.,
2003). Chatterjee (2010) also adds that commitment can be eval-
uated based on the retention level, involvement and student
satisfaction. With all that, the more you conclude activities, the
better the engagement level.
Based on these studies, it is possible to observe there is a variety
of engagement indicator of students. They correspond to a measure
that indicates the level of engagement of these students. In the
literature, these indicators appear spread in many references.
Table 1 gathers the effects of these indicators and their evidences.
2.4. Badging platforms
Badging platforms are distributed software services (SaaS)
mediating the paradigma of cloud computing. On these systems,
individuals or institutions can create a specic kind of gamication
technique, which uses badges to attribute rewards to users through
specic activities (Sandheinirich, 2013).
This kind of platform allows managing a reward system where
teachers can award their students through points. These points can
be rescued and traded by physical objects or even be converted into
donations to charity institutions. Usually, schools are allowed to
personalize the reward platform according to their own goals and
academic initiatives. Teachers have access to an interface where
52 L. da Rocha Seixas et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 58 (2016) 48e63

Table 1
Engagement indicators and their evidence.

Indicators Evidences Source

Autonomy Corresponds to the ability of the student to study at home independently Shernoff et al. (2003), Russell and Slater (2010), Sullivan et al.
and to make decisions without the continuous intervention of the teacher. (2009), Zepke et al. (2010), Parsons and Taylor (2011), Reeve et al.
(2004), Skinner and Belmont (1993), Kanthan (2011), Jang (2008)
Execution Identied when the student does the activities proposed by the teacher in Shernoff et al. (2003), Sullivan et al. (2009), Akey (2006), Birch and
the classroom. Ladd (1997), Finn et al. (1995).
Social Identied when the student has a good relationship with the colleagues and Ryan and Patrick (2001), Willekens and Gibson (2010), Shernoff
teacher. et al. (2003), Russell and Slater (2010), Sagayadevan and Jeyaraj
(2012), Zepke et al. (2010), Parsons and Taylor (2011), LaNasa et al.
(2009), Fullarton (2002), Kanthan (2011)
Delivery The student does not do the activities, but they always happen between Shernoff et al. (2003), Parsons and Taylor (2011), Akey (2006), Saeed
deadlines. and Zyngier (2012), Finn et al. (1995).
Participation During classroom discussions or explanation of the subject, the student Willms, J.D. (2003), Zepke et al. (2010), Bulger, et al., (2008), Parsons
always contributes. and Taylor (2011), Akey (2006), Stovall (2003), Birch and Ladd
(1997), Finn, Pannozzo e Voelkl (1995), Reeve et al. (2004),
Cavanagh (2011), Rocca (2010), Fullarton (2002)
Collaboration The student is used to help the other colleagues in the classroom, even if it is Russell and Slater (2010), Zepke et al. (2010), Bulger et al. (2008),
not a teamwork. Cavanagh (2011), Rocca (2010)
Cooperation During teamworks, the student has initiative and contributes with his Russell and Slater (2010), Zepke et al. (2010), Kanthan (2011), Saeed
group. and Zyngier (2012)
Questioning The student does not feel intimidated or embarrassed by asking the teacher Sullivan et al. (2009), Akey (2006), Stovall (2003), Chin (2002)
about the studied subjects.
Organization of The students maintain the classroom always clean and organized. Sullivan et al. (2009)
the Environment
Fun The student performs the activities not only for the obligation, but for Prensky (2002), Bisson and Luckner (1996), Shernoff et al. (2003),
considering them fun to do. Chatterjee (2010), Parsons and Taylor (2011), Brown, Reumann-
Moore, Hugh, Christman, and Riffer (2009), Parker & Lepper (1987)

they can manage the badges given to students, who have a private
online prole where it is possible to identify how many badges they
have already received, what are the items available to be traded and
what activities will be scored by the school. Some of these plat-
forms include tools to manage users, and allow the control of the
creation and attribution of badges.
Activities can be evaluates using any kind of metric, including
volunteering hours, read pages or problems solved, which stimu-
lates the students to follow their progress and continue, even when
facing a long-term objective (Onlineeducation, 2013). Usually,
teachers are responsible for building a set of activities for students
to do and students are supposed to develop what the teacher
proposed and then receive points and badges acknowledging their
work.
Vivo Miles is an online platform rewards. This allows the schools
and college principals create a learning cycle that enables teachers,
motivates students and involves parents in student progress
(Vivomiles, 2014). The platform was created in 2009 by two en-
trepreneurs from software and developed to currently make up the
leading solution for online rewards in UK secondary schools
(CrunchBase, 2014).
The platform manages a system of rewards (Vivos) in which
teachers can reward their students. These points are redeemable
and can be exchanged for physical objects or even be converted into
donations to charity. Each student receives a rewards card Vivo
where are accumulated the points received.
Youtopia is an online platform that monitors, validates and re-
wards welfare using Gamication (Youtopia, 2012). The platform
allows teachers to set goals and monitor any student activity. How
it works directed to goals, students are rewarded with badges ac-
cording to their achievements, which allows teachers gamify their
classes (Onlineeducation, 2013).
Teachers could build a set of activities for students to perform
and for those that complete the proposed by the teacher are
awarded with points and badges that recognize their work. The
activities can be evaluated using any metric, including volunteer
hours, read pages or problems solved which encourages students to
track your progress and continue even when faced with the long
term goal.
UBoost is a reward platform where points are awarded for
positive behaviors of students and these can be redeemed for prizes
Uboost (2014). This tool is designed to increase student engage-
ment and hence contribute to learning. Schools have the option to
choose the categories of rewards that are most meaningful to their
students.
The Credly is an online web based service that allows users to
create, publish and receive digital badges Credly (2013). The service
is free to any user, but if necessary track the badges issued by or-
ganization, it takes hire a paid account. Users, however, can not
customize addition to the items available in the tool.
It is a free online simple tool that only allows to create and
download badges (Openbadges, 2013). The service is part of an
initiative called Mozilla Open Badges aimed at providing a frame-
work for recording and display of skills and achievements in digital
form. The tool provides an interface with several icons that can be
customized according to the user's needs.
Unlike Credly, mentioned previously, if it's necessary to
customize the badges besides the icons provided by the platform,
it's possible to make upload more images. However, the tool does
not allow the creation of groups, as well as the monitoring of
badges received by users.
The ClassDojo is an online reward platform on student behavior
ClassDojo (2013). This, seeks to encourage specic positive behav-
iors as persistence, curiosity and teamwork. The proposal is to go
beyond getting good grades, it seeks to encourage the construction
of a good character in students ClassDojo (2013).
The ClassBadges is a free tool whereby teachers can reward the
skills of their students or academic domain Classbadges (2013). The
teacher can personalize the badges for your classroom or school.
3. Methods and procedures
3.1. Participants
The study was conducted in two groups at a public school with a
total of 61 students who were attending the 8th grade of
 L. da Rocha Seixas et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 58 (2016) 48e63 53

Table 2
Criteria to evaluate the tools.

Criterion Description

Freeware Registration in the platform should not generate any costs and it should be allowed the free access to all its functionalities.
Customizable The platform must not present only ready badges or that do not allow the customization according to the objectives of the work
Class management The platform must allow the registration of students and not only the creation of badges
No need of creating Since the badges were not linked to one or more specic activities of the classroom and could not be used in a daily basis, it is not
challenges to use badges necessary to create one or more challenges.
Privacity Since it is regarding the abilities and behaviors of students individually, it is essential that every student have the access only to their
own interactions in the tool.
Fun Allow students to customize the environment or the avatar and the platform must also favor the follow up, without needing much effort
for the students learn how to use.
Easy badge management As the teacher conducted the experiment in two classes, it is fundamental the tools are simple and easy manageable. They should also
provide quick reports about the interactions that happen and preferably provide a mobile version, since the teacher is going to use it in
the classroom.

elementary school, from both sexes. Students were between 13 and
14 years old and the research was developed on the subject of
Geometric Design (Geometry).
The teacher of the subject is licenciate in Design and Plastics at
the Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE) and has a Masters
Degree in Mathematics and Technology Education from the same
institution.
3.2. Procedures
In order to meet the objectives of this investigation were
researched 7 platforms. The investigated platforms were evaluated
based on seven criteria: Freeware, Customizable, Class Manage-
ment, No need of creating challenges, Privacity, Fun e Easy Badge
Management, which are described as follows in Table 2:
As a result, it was obtained the following Table 3 in which the
tools according to the criteria are identied.
ClassDojo and ClassBadges platforms were selected regarding
their adherences to the criteria established, as well as the objectives
proposed in this work, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of
gamication as a strategy to engage students of elementary school.
The experiment was performed in three phases (see Fig. 1). On
phase 1, we tried to identify the subject objectives. On the second
moment, some communication tools were dened and then, on
phase 3, gamication mechanics were incorporated to the objec-
tives, which are dened as follows:
According to Kapp (2012), adding game features to the class-
room may lead to motivation, participation and learning. We tried
to understand and identify the particularities of the teaching plan
of the subject, in order to identify the activities to be gamied and
how. The plan was dened with four main objectives e such objects
were based on the political-pedagogical project of the institution
and tried to ll the needs of the teacher, as identied below:
3.2.1. Phase 1: selection and comprehension of the objectives of the
subject
First, in order to identify which activities would be gamied and
how, we tried to identify and understand the specities of the
teaching plan oh the subject, provided by the teacher. We chose the
subject Geometric Design, which had 4 main objectives. Such
objectives were based on the political-pedagogigal project of the
institution and tried to ll the needs of both the project and the
teacher (Table 4).
3.2.2. Phase 2: denition of communication tools
The teacher used Facebook group tools with his students to
amplify the communication between them. On the group, activities
related to the subject were posted and students could also ask
questions. On the tool, the teacher asked the students to register in
the badge platform and told them that by using a colleague, for
example, students could identify themselves either on Facebook or
in the classroom to receive a dojo. The tool was selected because
the teacher previously used it.
3.2.3. Phase 3: denition of badges and suitability of platforms to
teaching strategies
ClassDojo was used to reward attitudinal objectives. On the tool,
there is the possibility of creating positive behaviors and others in
need of improvement. It generates a report with all the interactions,
which makes the work of the teacher easier when he needs to
evaluate students individually. The service allows teachers to
attribute rewards in real time from the analysis of behavior in the
classroom.
ClassBadges had the purpose of following instrumental, cogni-
tive and conceptual objectives. On the tool, the teacher customized
the badges for his classroom, and after dening the activities to be
done and the gamication strategies, the use of platforms started.
One of the great advantages of ClassBadges is the ease of aligning
academic objectives with the created badges.
ClassDojo has an option to Customize Behaviors, which the
teacher has access to an interface where he can choose icons and
link them to a description with the objective of attributing positive
behaviors, presented on Fig. 2.
The Help friends behavior had the objective of stimulating the
cooperation between students. Since most of the tasks were done
on the geometry lab, where students sat on 3 rows of 10 people

Table 3
Evaluation of the reward platforms.

Platforms Freeware Customizable Class management No need to create challenges to use badges Privacy Fun Easy badge management

VivoMiles e x x e e x e
Youtopia e x x e e x
Uboost e x x e e e e
Credly e x e x x e x
OpenBadges.me x x e x e e e
ClassDojo x x x x x x x
ClassBadges x x x x x x x
54 L. da Rocha Seixas et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 58 (2016) 48e63

Fig. 1. Phases of the experiment.

Table 4
Subject objectives.

Objectives Description

Attitudinal Objectives These are the most complex kind of objectives, since they are related to being. It is connected to a set of values and attitudes that build the
personality of the student. This item comprehends the following situations, such as: classroom participation, teamwork, delivery of activities on
time, curiosity, will to learn, among others.
Cognitive Objectives A cognitive objective determines which specic task must be done and how it will help students develop cognitive learning. They provide a goal
that a student or a group is working on e decision-making, evaluation, thought or problem solving. When it comes to the subject, they were
liked to geometrical thought.
Conceptual Objectives Linked to subjects or contents, that is, specic elements inside the learning of a subject, for example: triangles, squares, trapezia, etc.
Instrumental Objectives Regarding the correct use of technical design instruments (compass, set squares and mechanical pencil), quality of the drawing, besides cleaning
and organization.

each, it favored the contact and sharing of information among
them. Less Mess encouraged students to call up the attention of
other students who were distracted or more agitated during the
classes or activities. The Activity done! badge had the intention of
recognizing students who did the activities requested by the
teacher. And nally, Working in team tried to identigy students
who, by working in a group, were able to build knowledge collec-
tively through the evaluation of their ability to argue and divide
tasks between them.
There were also medals created to behaviors that required
improvement. In Disrupt the class, the objective was to inhibit
parallel conversations e subjects that were not according to the
subject e between students during classes. Late! was created for
students who arrived after the time set to enter the classroom.
There was the Absence from class badge to identify the students
who were absent without explanations, and those who were
harming the rhythm of classes would be identied with Chatty.
All badges are presented in Fig. 2.
As the activity of geometric designed required materials as
pencil and paper, students were supposed to be clean and
organized during and after classes. For this reason, the clean up
badge was created to reduce situations as papers on the oor and
environment disorganization. Activity miss has the objective of
identifying students who did not do the activities proposed by the
teacher. Finally, since students needed instruments as: compasses,
set squares, mechanical pencils, pencils, eraser, ruler and other
necessary items, the badge Didn't bring the material was created
so the students would also have the instruments with themselves
and, this way, would do the activities correctly.
The students were also registered on ClassBadges. The teacher
was involved in the creation of the badges each student would
receive. The teacher chose very suggestive words, drawing analo-
gies between he subject and video games, very common on the
routine of students. They set the badges, where each one of them
presents a name and the description, seen by the student at the
moment he receives it, identifying an acquired skill. The created
badges are presented on Table 5 below:
After selecting, adjusting and preparing the platforms and
during the classes, students were receiving the dojos. This attri-
bution was provided for the interactions happening in the

Fig. 2. Customize behaviors.

 L. da Rocha Seixas et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 58 (2016) 48e63 55

Table 5
Badges created on ClassBadges.

Badge Title Message

Lord of Caligraphy Congradulations! You dominate the legendary art of the ancient ages: caligraphy.

Lord of technical drawing line Wow! You know how to handle the drawing sacred weapons (Set Square, Compass etc).
You know how to differentiate the drawing lines and your tasks are organized and clean.

Sense 8 - Geometric thinking You've reached the highest level You went beyond the other senses. You have a good
abstract and geometric reasoning and can make connections between content studied.

Master of Triangles You understand well the properties of triangles.

Master of Angles You understand the properties of angles and know how to build them and their divisions.

Master of Quads You understand the properties of Quads.

I'm your biggest fan! Congradulations! You have won the most desired badge in the world e You've got all the other badges.

ClassDojo tool, while interaction in the ClassBadges tool happened identify: (i) evidences that would show if the student was engaged
only in the end of the classes. It allowed the teacher to evaluate the or not; (ii) strategies of the teacher to motivate students and (iii)
skills of students regarding the subject and award them with moments when those strategies appeared during the classes given
medals or badges. by the teacher. Weekly visits were conducted at school. At each
visit, way made observations, and recorded and a diary about the
students' engagement. The observation occurred four (4) times per
3.3. Data collection
week because were two groups during the entire period of the
study. The rapid ethnography was used as a support for the
This study used the mixed paradigm of research. Different
remaining evaluations.
techniques from exploratory qualitative research and quantitative
The guide of the semi-structured interview had 8 questions
methods were used for the data collection, such as: observation,
regarding the perceptions of the teacher on the use of gamication
semi-structured interview and survey.
as a strategy for the engagement of students, his experience with
For the present study, it was decided to resort to the kind of
the use of ClassDojo and ClassBadges and what the use of them
ethnography 'quick & dirty' presented in Hughes, King, Rodden, and
contributed on the behavior of students. Also, the main difculties
Andersen (1995). Such ethnographic studies are distinct from
while using the tools were identied.
conventional ethnographic studies by having a more limited
The survey was applied in the end of the classes to trace a prole
duration and are not exhaustive in respect of contexts that propose
diagnose of students by identifying their rst experience with
to investigate, ie they are short and provide a general idea, but
games and their level of engagement. It had 22 (twenty two) closed
informed of contexts (Hughes et al.,1995). According Nardi (1997)
questions, in groups of 3 (three) sets, identied hereafter: First part
the main ethnographic methods are interviews, observation and
had 6 (six) questions about the prole of the students and their
participant observation. For this study, it was opted for the obser-
experience with computers and Internet; Second part had 11
vation. According to Flick (2004), the observation is a data collec-
(eleven) questions about the engagement of students and their
tion instrument widely used in qualitative research.
behavior during school activities; Third part har 5 (ve) questions
In the classroom, we used the non-participant observation
to identify the relationship between students and their player
(Flick, 2004), in order to identify the behavior of the participants to
prole.
notice their engagement in the activities. The observation sought to
56 L. da Rocha Seixas et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 58 (2016) 48e63
3.4. Qualitative and quantitative analysis
From qualitative analysis the information observed with the
results of the questionnaire as well as the interview with the
teacher were related with the interactions that took place on the
platforms.
In order to analyze the data obtained, we chose to perform a
Cluster Analysis, which groups a set of multivariate techniques with
the primary purpose of aggregating objects based on their char-
acteristics (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2005). Such analysis
classies the objects in a way each one is very similar to the other
inside the group regarding predetermined criterion of selection
(Hair et al., 2005).
In this word, we applied the Cluster Analysis to classify the
students using the answers related to the engagement (questions 7
to 17) as a reference. In this part of the research, we did an adap-
tation of Likert scale, ranging from 1 to 5, equivalent how often the
students had given behavior: 1 Never; 2 Rarely;
3 Sometimes; 4 Almost always; 5 Always.
When it comes to the procedure to be used to put similar objects
in groups, it was necessary to choose the grouping algorithm to
create the groups (clusters) and then decide the number of
groupings to be set. The most commonly used algorithms are
classied in two general categories: (1) hierarchical and (2) non-
hierarchical.
Hierarchical algorithms involve the construction of a tree-
structure called Dendrogram. It is a graphic representation of the
results of a hierarchical procedure in which each object is places in
an axis and the other axis represents the steps in the hierarchical
procedure (Hair et al., 2005). It shows graphically how the clusters
are combined in every step of the procedure until all are in a single
cluster (Hair et al., 2005).
There are basically two kinds of hierarchical methods:
agglomerative and divisive. In this research, we used the agglom-
erative method, where each object or remark starts with its own
grouping. Next, the two closer clusters (or individuals) are com-
bined into a new aggregate, reducing the number of clusters in one
unit at every step. It is possible in some cases for a third individual
to join the two rst in a cluster. In other cases, two groups of in-
dividuals made in a previous stage can join into a new cluster.
There are ve most popular agglomerative algorithms: Indi-
vidual connection, Full connection, Median connection, Ward
method and Centroid Method. They differ from each other in how
distance between clusters is calculated. An important step in the
cluster analysis is choosing a measure to evaluate how similar or
different are the analyzed cases. This way, in this research we chose
the Euclidian distance as a similarity measure, since it is one of the
most used on this kind of analysis (Hair et al., 2005). By using
distance as a proximity measure, it is important to take into account
what smaller distances indicate greater similarity.
The cluster was implemented with the Ward method. According
to Hair et al., a method is better than another when the dendrogram
provides a less distorted image of the reality. Besides the Ward
method, other 5 methods (Average, Centroid, Complete, Median,
Single) were tested but with no satisfying results when visualizing
clusters.
Differently from the hierarchical methods, the hierarchical
procedures do not involve the construction process in tree. Instead
they design objects as soon as the number of aggregates to be built
is specied. Such procedures are frequently called K averages.
Hair et al., 2005 point there is no denite answer when it is
seeking to choose what method to be used. In this research, we
used a combination of both methods, as the literature suggests. At
rst, the hierarchical technique was used to establish the number of
clusters and then, the remarks were grouped by a non-hierarchical
method. This way, according to Hair et al. (2005), it is possible to get
benets from both methods.
We used the program R, version 3.0.1 for Windows to analyze
the data. With this analysis, we tried to evaluate the effects of the
gamication strategies on the engagement indicators. The results
obtained were related to interactions on the tools, interview with
the teacher and appointments made on the eld journal through
observation.
4. Results
This section discusses the data collected on this research, which
made it possible to prove the effectiveness of using gamication as
a strategy to engage students from elementary school. Through the
literature, we could also identify engagement indicators that were
used to evaluate the commitment of students.
When it comes to the use of ClassDojo and ClassBadges, these
platforms seemed to be a fun way to present the performance of
students. On ClassDOjo, they were evaluated from their in-
teractions with other colleagues in the classroom, their participa-
tion and effort to do activities. ClassBadges awarded the cognitive
skills developed by students. We noticed that the teacher played a
decisive part on the engagement of students (Sagayadevan e
Jeyaraj, 2012). Since the beginning of the research, he was very
available and committed to use the tools with the students. His
skills on technology were also a positive factor to perform the
activities.
Regarding the students, they showed curiosity about the tools
since the beginning of the research. We also observed that, occa-
sionally, they would ask the teacher for the badges, and there was
also greater motivation to help the colleagues to receive the badge
related to contributing with each other.
4.1. Performance rewards
Initial evidences show that students seemed committed to do-
ing their activities. However, they wanted to be recognized for it,
according to a comment made by one of the students in a social
media. Aln01 said in different situations: I have helped Aln02 and
Aln03 on the activities; If you helped, he (the teacher) said I could
post here so he could give the points on ClassDojo) (sic).
When it comes to using the tools, students could notice their
skills through badges received on ClassBadges and by using Class-
Dojo they could have some of their activities that could remain
unnoticed by the teacher, recognized. These activities are also
importante during the follow-up of the student. Both tools pro-
vided a repository of important information about behaviors and
skills, so students and teacher could identify their actions in the
classroom and improve their attitudes. The tools became a kind of
journal about the behavior and skills of students. When the teacher
answered about his experience with the platforms, he said: I
believe both tools help us evaluate how our teaching plan is
working in practice, because if the objectives of the plan are
translated on the badges but are not being punctuated, it can show
difference between practice and planning.
4.2. Effectiveness of strategies used
As mentioned before, this research followed the approach that
uses hierarchical and non-hierarchical methods combined. First
step on the process of analysis used the hierarchical procedure to
identify the right number of clusters. Such procedure was
composed by a series of successive clusters or divisions of elements
grouped according to common characteristics (Hair et al., 2005),
usually represented by a bidimensional diagram called dendrogram
 L. da Rocha Seixas et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 58 (2016) 48e63
Fig. 3. Dendrogram e hierarchical method.
or tree diagram (Hair et al. 2005). On this diagram, each branch
represents an element, while the root represents the grouping of all
elements, as it can be visualized on Fig. 3. It is important to high-
light that every element means one of the students who answered
the survey. In addition, cluster analysis is a heuristic procedure and
not a statistical test (Borcard, Gillet, & Legendre, 2011). Therefore, it
must be interpreted their result which is represented by a
dendrogram.
Through the dendrogram, it was possible to determine a cut
distance to dene which would be the group formed. According to
Hair et al. (2005), this decision is subjective and it should be made
with the objective of the analysis and the number of desired
grouped. To Bussab (1990), the cut level of the dendrogram should
be done by analyzing it to nd meaningful changes on the levels of
similarity between the successive fusions. Considering the
dendrogram above, we cut close to the 10th height and so we could
identify four groups, as illustrated on Fig. 4.
Similar observations were grouped according to smallest
euclidean distance. Each cluster had similar observations between
them, but different from the others. The identication of the
number of groups, in this case, 4 groups, served as a reference to the
next step of the analysis through non-hierarchical procedures, to
rene the results of hierarchical procedures.
The non-hierarchical agglomerative method used on this
research was the Kmeans algorithm. The k-means method has one
input parameter, K, and partitions a set of N elements into K groups.
Not all K values have satisfactory groups, therefore, the method
Fig. 4. Cluster Dendogram e Initial identication of groups.
57
needs to be applied several times for different values of K, selecting
the results which have better interpretation of the groups or
graphical representation (Bussab, 1990). The central idea of most of
partitioning methods is to choose an initial partition of the ele-
ments and then change group members to obtain the best partition.
The objective was to identify the students inside specic groups
according to the engagement prole pointed by them on the sur-
vey. The results obtained are presented on Appendix A. Table 6
below presents the sample distribution according the 4 groups
(clusters) obtained, as an attempt to dene proles due to a set of
referred indicators. It was possible to nd that group 2 as the one
that integrated more students, summing 16 students (33,3%).
As previously identied, one of the parts of the survey answered
by the students had references to the engagement of students in
the classroom. Besides the indicators found in the literature, it was
necessary to include one more item: Care. The teacher included it as
a relevant matter to identify if a student was committed to the
activities or not. According to him, the Care was one of the re-
quirements to evaluate the drawing activities that were delivered
in an organized way (on a not wrinkled clean paper) and according
to the criteria stablished by him.
Table 7 below presents the average of each group regarding the
engagement indicators and the general average of groups.
Following the characterization of the groups found, we tried to
analyze them according to the averages obtained from the in-
dicators and also according to the interactions on ClassDojo and
ClassBadges.
58 L. da Rocha Seixas et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 58 (2016) 48e63

Table 6
Student distribution on the 4 identied clusters.
Clusters N %
Cluster 1 8
Cluster 2 16
Cluster 3 11
Cluster 4 13
When it comes to autonomy, the averages in the groups were
higher: 4 and 3, 3.8 and 3.7, respectively. Most of the students from
these groups said that sometimes they studied the subjects pre-
sented in the classroom at home. According to information
collected from students of group 2, we rarely observed this
behavior, but on group 1, where the lowest average on this indicator
was found e 2.8 -, students were less compromised with the
accomplishment of activities autonomously.
About the Execution indicator, we observed there was balance
between groups 4, 3 and 1, which presented the best averages: 4.5,
4.2 and 4.1, respectively. On the other hand, group 3 presented the
lowest average: 3.7. By verifying the badge related to the indicator
Delivered Activity, it was possible to observe that group 4 was
responsible for the highest average shown in the survey on this
indicator and it was also the one that received more badges from
the teacher (50). The other groups 1, 2 ans 3 received 35, 47 and 42
badges, respectively. We can notice that students who received
more badges were in the groups with the highest averages of
engagement indicators. In a general way, 93,7% of all students
received at least 1 badge related to the delivery of activities.
The badge Did not deliver activity was also related to the in-
dicator Execution. In this case, group 2 was the one that received
more badges e 47. Group 4 was the second to receive more
negative badges e 43 e followed by groups 1 and 3 that received
16 and 11 badges, respectively. About this perspective, 87,5% of
students received at least 1badge of this kind.
About the matter related to the Social indicator, all the 4
groups presented high averages. Group 4 stood out among others
because all the students informed they always had good relation-
ship with the colleagues, reaching an average of 5.0, while groups 1,
2 and 3 reached 4.6, 4.6 and 4.3. This matter is clear during the class
observation. Always in the beginning of the classes, the teacher
organized a relaxation moment with the students. Usually, they
would talk for a few minutes about subjects not related to the
studied subjects and it was possible to notice there was a rela-
tionship of friendship between students and teacher and also be-
tween the students themselves. This affection was present on how
they communicated to each other, always respectfully and even
during a few warnings made by the teacher.
Regarding the Delivery, data show concern of most of students
when doing activities in the deadline for the teacher. Students from
groups 4, 3 and 2 with averages of 4.5, 4.2 and 4.0 informed that
this kind of attitude always (or almost always) happens, while
students from group 3, with an average of 3.7, demonstrated less
16,6
interest in completing their activities in the deadline set by the
33,3 teacher. It can also be observed during the observation time. Always
22,9 in the end of classes, the teacher left an activity to be delivered on
27,0 the following class, so, on the delivery date, students would always
look for the teacher to deliver the activities in the beginning of the
class. Even when the teacher did not charge the students, they
asked about the deadline to complete it.
On the Participation indicator, about the discussions in the
classroom, group 4 had the highest average e 4.3. Most of the
students said they usually participated of the debates promoted by
the teacher in the classroom and the other groups, 1, 2 and 3 (av-
erages 3.0, 3.5 and 3.4) afrmed it happened occasionally. When
verifying the number of badges about the Class Participation
behavior, group 4 received 13 badges, group 1 received 7 and
groups 2 and 3 received 6 badges each.
It is important to observe that not all students received this kind
of badge. In cases like group 1, more than half of students received
between 1 and 2 badges, only 3 students did not receive any. In
group 2, only 4 students received this badge, but one of them
received 3 and the rest, 1 e in this group, 12 students did not receive
any badge. On group 4, most of the students also received at least 2
badges and only 4 students did not. In a general way, 66,6% of
students received at least 1 Participation badge.
Still related to this aspect, during the observation phase we
noticed this kind of behavior was very common among the stu-
dents. The classes of the teacher made it very clear that the
methodology used by him was fundamental, however it was not
the only factor, for greater participation of students. The teacher
made them very comfortable to interrupt him and add any infor-
mation to the others, even if it was during the explanation of the
subject.
On the Collaboration indicator, groups 3 and 4 reached the
highest averages e 4.0 and 4.1 e that show a habit of these students
to help the colleagues during the activities. On the other hand, with
students from groups 1 and 2 this kind of attitude was more dif-
cult to happen. However, when verifying if the badge Helps the
colleagues we noticed a divergence between what was shown by
the majority of students in the survey and the rewards assigned to
them. Group 4, the one with the highest average, only 1 student did
not receive the participation badge and on group 3, no student
received the referred badge. On group 2, students said they did not
join the activities regularly and still 11 students received badges.
The group with the lowest average (3.0) was group 1, and only 2
students did not receive the badges. In sum, 87.5% of students did
not receive the Helps the colleagues badge.
Weekly observations identied that the badge did not reect the
attitudes of students. During the follow-up, it was possible to

Table 7
Average of engagement indicators.

Indicators Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4
dia

Me

Autonomy 2.875.000 3.062.500 3.727.273 3.846.154 3.377.732

Execution 4.125.000 3.750.000 4.272.727 4.538.462 4.171.547
Social 4.625.000 4.687.500 4.363.636 5.000.000 4.669.034
Delivery 4.250.000 3.750.000 4.000.000 4.384.615 4.096.154
Participation 3.000.000 3.500.000 3.454.545 4.307.692 3.565.559
Collaboration 2.750.000 3.312.500 4.000.000 4.153.846 3.554.087
Teamwork 3.375.000 4.125.000 2.727.273 4.692.308 3.729.895
Questioning 3.625.000 3.312.500 4.454.545 4.615.385 4.001.858
Organization of the environment 2.625.000 4.187.500 4.545.455 3.923.077 3.820.258
Care 3.000.000 4.687.500 3.818.182 4.000.000 3.876.421
Fun 2.875.000 3.937.500 3.545.455 3.538.462 3.474.104
 L. da Rocha Seixas et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 58 (2016) 48e63
observe that students contributed a lot with each other on the
performance of activities. In some of these observations, the stu-
dents mentioned to be helping the other colleagues to receive the
collaboration badge.
On the indicator Teamwork, groups 4 and 2 had the best
average: 4.6 and 4.1, respectively. These data show the interest of
the majority of the students in working in teams in the classroom.
On the other hand, students from group 1 showed less enthusiasm
on this kind of activity, with an average of 3.3, while students from
group 3 demonstrated there are not times when they are interested
in working with a team or it rarely happens. While checking the
Teamwork badge about this indicator, it did not reect the survey
result. Different from the survey that presented group 4 as the most
interested in teamwork, group 3 was the one that received more
badges for this behavior. About 81% of students received at least 1
badge, differently from group 4, where only 76,9% of students
received some. Group 2 was also among the highest averages but
received the lowest percentage of this badge: only 31% of students
received it.
When talking about the behavior related to asking the teacher
when there was any doubt, we noticed groups 3 and 4 were feeling
more comfortable for this kind of attitude. Groups 1 and 2 still
demonstrated insecurities regarding asking questions to the
teacher during classes. Observations revealed that the teacher al-
ways showed a lot of receptivity to the questions made by the
students. In one of the conversations with the teacher, he reported
that this was one of the main characteristics of students, the ma-
jority always manifested during classes, however, there were some
students who preferred to ask their questions directly to him only.
The indicator Organization of the Classroom, was created to
encourage the student and warn possible bad behaviors of them.
Students from groups 2 and 3 were the ones with the highest
average in this indicator, 4.1 and 4.5, respectively. As for students in
groups 1 and 4, that sort of thing rarely happened in the classroom.
During one of the observations, it was witnessed a conversation
between the teacher and the students in which he encouraged the
moderation of the group behavior when the class was more
uncalm. During the classes, it was also found that students them-
selves had the initiative to call up the attention of others if they
observed inappropriate behavior in the classroom.
However, even with the willingness of students to this behavior,
the badge collaborates to decrease mess, was little used. Only 1
student on group 2 received this badge. Apart from this, another
badge Absence in class - also concerning the indicator - was not
given to any student.
In the indicator Care, students of the groups 2 and 4, with av-
erages 4.6 and 4.0 seemed more concerned with doing the work
taking into account cleanliness and organization. For students of
groups 1 and 3, this criterion was occasionally considered. During
observations, e noticed that most of the activities were done on a
sheet of paper.
Since the discipline was Geometric Design, this is why it was
important to evaluate this aspect in students. According to the
teacher, when he checks the works, it is possible to identify the
interest of the student in the activity. Works delivered in wrinkled
or stained sheets, which it is not observed the quality of the layout
of students or those with many sketches show the lack of interest of
the student. However, we did not observe any claims of the teacher
regarding this matter.
As for the indicator Fun, averages showed a balance between the
groups. Group 2 stood out with the highest average e 3.9. However,
groups 3 and 4, registered close values, both with 3.5. This result
showed that even with the strategies aligned to the teaching plan,
with the active participation of the teacher it is still necessary to use
mechanisms that are also very attractive for students. Initially, it
59
was expected that this indicator pointed to highest values since the
proposal was also to provide a funnier way for students track their
activities.
In addition to the above-mentioned badges, other badges were
not linked to any student who answered the survey, for example:
Late; Absence in the class; Lack of cleanliness and Did not
bring the material. As the teacher reports, it happened due to the
relatively restricted time to conduct the study and some times
when the teacher could not attribute the badges because the school
was with no connection to the Internet. This occurrence was not
relevant and did not bring signicant changes in the nal results.
Fig. 5 presents the graph with averages obtained by the groups
in all engagement indicators.
Such analysis are related to Hakulinen et al. (2013), when dis-
cussing the use of gamication, more specically the use of badges
as contributions to the engagement of students. The comparison
between groups showed that group 4 was the one with highest
averages among the engagement indicators e of the 11 presented, 8
had a higher average when compared to others (Autonomy,
Execution, Social, Delivery, Participation, Collaboration, Teamwork
and Questioning). On the other hand, group 1 reached the lowest
averages. Of the 11 engagement indicators, it presented 6 lowest
averages (Autonomy, Participation, Collaboration, Organization of
the Environment, Care and Fun). Through a general analysis taking
the received badges into account, we understood that the groups
with best averages were also the groups with more badges.
5. Discussion
5.1. Gamication effectiveness
Student engagement e regardless how it is promoted e must be
based on educational reasons (Beer et al., 2010; Bulger et al., 2008).
It is necessary to consider the prole of the students and the
available infrastructure of the school (Laird, Smallwood, Niskode
-
Dossett, & Garver, 2009; LaNasa et al., 2009; Porter, 2006).
By doing this work, it has become clear that attitudinal, cogni-
tive, conceptual and instrumental objectives, when aligned, are
fundamental for the engagement of students. Identifying which
behaviors must be awarded or warned helps the teacher to qualify
his students (Kapp, 2012) and also benets the students once they
start to be aware of their attitudes in the classroom (Raymer, 2011;
Simo ~es et al., 2012), what needs to be improved and which skills
they are developing.
Through a general analysis taking the received badges into ac-
count, we understood that the groups with best averages were also
the groups with more badges. However, it is important to highlight
there were difculties, especially when it comes to badge attribu-
tion e the main cause was the difcult to connect to the Internet.
When it comes to the use of ClassDojo and ClassBadges, these
platforms seemed to be a fun way to present the performance of
students. On ClassDojo, they were evaluated from their interactions
with other colleagues in the classroom, their participation and
effort to do activities. ClassBadges awarded the cognitive skills
developed by students by the end of the course.
Results obtained were related to authors such as Denny (2013),
Kapp (2012) and Hakulinen, Auvinen, Korhonen (2013) and it was
possible to conclude that the use of gamication aligned to
educational purposes can act as a powerful engagement factor in
education contexts. It has become clear that the chosen model
reached the objectives of the research, but it also reinforces the use
of rewards. It is necessary to nd possibilities that favor collabo-
ration between students and that stimulate inner motivation
through gamication. It is necessary to think about the student not
only as a player who will receive a reward for his effort, but he
60 L. da Rocha Seixas et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 58 (2016) 48e63
Fig. 5. Engagement indicators graph.
should be responsible for building his knowledge and gamication
is an opportunity to make this process funnier and more chal-
lenging according to his skills.
5.2. Pros and Conts of gamication
When it comes to the use of ClassDojo and ClassBadges, these
platforms seemed to be a fun way to present the performance of
students. ClassDojo monitored the interactions of students with
others in the classroom, their participation and effort to do their
activities. ClassBadges awarded the cognitive abilities acquired by
the students in the end of the classes. Nevertheless, it is important
to highlight some difculties regarding the platforms.
With a fun interface and the possibility of students customizing
the avatars, ClassDojo had some limitations. First of them was
related to creating new icons. As much as they would meet the
initial objectives of the research, it was not possible to create new
ones. Secondly, if the student received a positive badge followed by
an improvement-need one, the platform would reset the in-
teractions shown on the home screen. It was like a positive action
canceled a negative action and vice-versa e the teacher always had
to look individually to each student to have an idea of the history.
On the other hand, even with a very intuitive interface, the absence
of a portuguese version can be a limitation for ClassBadges.
5.3. Perspective from the teacher
It is importante to highlight that even with the active partici-
pation of the teacher and the interest of students, it was possible to
observe some contrast between what the survey showed and the
received badges. By analyzing students individually, we noticed
that some of them had good indexes on the engagement indicators,
however, they were not rewarded for their behavior. On the other
hand, there were also cases in which students had lower indexes
and received more badges. This discrepancy served as a reection
so the teacher could identify where the follow-up of the student
could be more effective, as related on the interview:
if the objectives of the plan are translated into the badges but
are not being scored, it can show a discrepancy between practice
ana planning Teacher
According to the teacher, the platforms served as a repository
where it was possible to follow the development of students during
classes and evaluate them more completely by the end of the
period. Besides, they were a way to analyze the teaching plan and
investigate if it is being applied effectively, as the teacher reports:
I believe both tools help us evaluate how our teaching plan is
working in practice Teacher
The use of badges also contributed to a reection of the teacher
about organization:
It was very interesting, mainly regarding the planning, because
adapting the tools to my planning made me rethink my objectives,
clarify some questions and simplify others Teacher
During the classes follow-up, it was possible to observe the
curiosity of students on how to use the platforms. ClassDojo
attracted more attention of the students. Such opinion was
reinforced:
it is a fact that the curiosity of the students was stimulated
about what would be put in the application and also related to
playfulness Teacher
As a positive aspect, the fact that the tool can attribute behaviors
to be improved was something considered positive. To the teacher,
this kind of action intimidated the students to act improperly. Still
according to him, when dealing with very agitated students and
mentioning he would give red dojos was something that made
them calmer.
6. Conclusions
This work has analyzed the effectiveness of gamication me-
chanics to stimulate the engagement among students of elemen-
tary school. The investigation has shown that gamication had
positive effects on the engagement of students. Those who pre-
sented the highest levels of engagement on the indicators were also
those with more badges given by the teacher and on the opposite
side, those with lower indexes on the indicators were those with
less badges from the teacher.
It is important to notice that this process of building gamica-
tion strategies must also be aligned to educational purposes. On
this research, the fact that we followed the subject plan was very
important for the teacher, who could monitor the students better
and did not need to change his teaching in the classroom, as well as
for the students, who followed their development better.
We also highlight that the teacher performance was funda-
mental for the results of the study. Since the beginning he was very
available and autonomous while using the tools. His actions stim-
ulated the students directly to do their activities in order to receive
badges, as well as followed the performance of students by giving
 L. da Rocha Seixas et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 58 (2016) 48e63 61

them skills they had developed.
Finally, a contribution that can be emphasized is nding about
the relevance and benets from the gamication as an engage-
ment strategy. This possibility, among other features, provides
the teacher: a general view of the behavior of his students in the
classroom and related to their developed cognitive skills, as well
as allowing students to be aware of the skills they have devel-
oped and with it, evaluate those in need of improvement or
learning.
Appendix A. File generated from the cluster analysis in R
The data below, express the students observations and their
answers to each engagement indicator. The last column called Re-
sults, contains the classication of each student per group (cluster).
References
Antin, J., & Churchill, E. F. (2011). Badges in social media: A social psychological

qst_07 qst_08 qst_09 qst_10 qst_11 qst_12 qst_13 qst_14 qst_15 qst_16 qst_17 results

1 4 3 5 4 4 3 5 3 4 4 5 2
2 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4
3 4 5 5 5 3 4 4 2 5 5 4 2
4 2 4 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 2
5 4 5 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 1
6 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 2
7 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 2 3 4
8 4 5 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 5 3 4
9 3 5 5 5 5 3 3 2 4 5 3 2
10 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3
11 3 3 4 3 3 4 5 3 5 5 3 2
12 4 5 5 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4
13 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4
14 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 3 4
15 4 4 4 4 5 3 3 5 5 4 3 3
16 3 3 5 3 3 3 4 2 5 5 4 2
17 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 4 4
18 2 4 5 5 2 3 4 3 4 5 4 2
19 3 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 5 4
20 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 3 4 4
21 3 4 5 4 4 3 2 4 4 3 4 3
22 3 3 5 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 2 1
23 1 4 5 5 1 5 3 1 1 3 3 1
24 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 5 4 3 3
25 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 3 5 4 4
26 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 4
27 3 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 3 3 3 4
28 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 3
29 3 4 5 4 3 5 3 4 5 3 3 3
30 3 4 5 3 2 3 5 4 5 5 5 2
31 2 3 4 2 2 3 4 3 4 4 3 2
32 3 4 5 4 2 4 2 5 5 5 3 3
33 4 4 4 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 2
34 3 3 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 2
35 3 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 2
36 3 4 5 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 2
37 3 4 3 3 4 4 1 5 4 2 3 3
38 3 5 5 4 4 2 4 5 3 4 2 1
39 4 5 5 5 2 5 3 4 5 5 4 3
40 3 3 5 2 4 2 3 4 5 5 2 2
41 3 4 5 4 3 1 5 3 1 2 3 1
42 5 5 4 4 4 5 3 5 5 4 4 3
43 4 5 4 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 3 3
44 3 4 4 5 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 1
45 3 4 4 4 5 3 4 4 3 5 4 2
46 3 4 5 4 3 2 3 4 4 4 3 1
47 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 1
48 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 3 4

Acknowledgments perspective. In CHI 2011. Vancouver, BC: ACM.

We would like to thank CNPQ - National Council for Scientic
and Technological Development. Luma da Rocha Seixas received a
masters scholarship, process number # 133793/2012-5. Professor
Alex Sandro Gomes is a DT Fellow Level 2 at CNPQ - National
Council for Scientic and Technological Development, process
numbers # 310466/2012-1 and # 475634/2013-6.
Akey, T. M. (2006). School context, student attitudes and behavior, and academic
achievement: An exploratory analysis. MDRC.
Basioudis, I., De Lange, P., Suwardy, T., & Wells, P. (2007). Accounting students' per-
ceptions of a learning management system: An international comparison.
Beer, C., Clark, K., & Jones, D. (2010). Indicators of engagement. Curriculum, tech-
nology & transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ASCILITE Sydney,
75e86.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children's early
school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1), 61e79.
Bisson, C., & Luckner, J. (1996). Fun in learning: the pedagogical role of fun in
adventure education. Perspectives. Journal of Experiential Education, 19(2), 108.
62 L. da Rocha Seixas et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 58 (2016) 48e63
Borcard, D., Gillet, F., & Legendre, P. (2011). Numerical ecology with R. Springer
Science & Business Media.
Brown, D., Reumann-Moore, R., Hugh, R., Christman, J. B., & Riffer, M. (2009). Links
to learning and Sustainability: Year three report of the Pennsylvania high school
coaching initiative. Research for Action.
Bulger, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Almeroth, K. C., & Blau, S. D. (2008). Measuring learner
engagement in computer-equipped college classrooms. Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(2), 129e143.
Bunchball, I. (2010). Gamication 101: An introduction to the use of game dynamics to
inuence behavior. White paper.
Bussab, W. D. O. (1990). Introdua ~o a
 ana
lise de agrupamentos. ABE, 1990.
Cavanagh, M. (2011). Students' experiences of active engagement through cooper-
ative learning activities in lectures. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(1),
23e33.
Chatterjee, P. (2010). Entertainment, engagement and education in e-learning.
Training & Management Development Methods, 24(2), 601e621.
Chin, C. (2002). Student-generated questions: Encouraging inquisitive minds in
learning science.
Clark, K., Beer, C., & Jones, D. (2010). Academic involvement with the LMS: an
exploratory study. In Ascilite.
Classbadges. (2013). The free and easy way to award badges to students for all learning
experiences. http://classbadges.com Accessed 05.12.13.
Classdojo. (2013). What is ClassDojo? Accessed 07.12.13 http://www.ClassDojo.com/
about.
Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of
learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary
Education and Management, 11, 19e36.
Chou, Y. (2014). Yu-kai Chou & Gamication Accessed 18.04.13 http://yukaichou.
com.
Credly. (2013). Digital badges & credentials made easy Accessed 18.10.13 https://
credly.com/.
Crunchbase. (2014). Vivo Rewards. http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/vivo-
rewards Accessed 10.01.14.
Denny, P. (2013, April). The effect of virtual achievements on student engagement.
In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems
(pp. 763e772). ACM.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, September). From game design
elements to gamefulness: dening gamication. In Proceedings of the 15th In-
ternational Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environ-
ments (pp. 9e15). ACM.
Ellis, H., Heppell, S., Kirriemuir, J., Krotoski, A., & McFarlane, A. (2006). Unlimited
learning: Computer and video games in the learning landscape. London: Enter-
tainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association.
Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Voelkl, K. E. (1995). Disruptive and inattentive-
withdrawn behavior and achievement among fourth graders. The Elementary
School Journal, 421e434.
Fitz-Walter, Z., Tjondronegoro, D., & Wyeth, P. (2012, November). A gamied mobile
application for engaging new students at university orientation. In Proceedings
of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (pp. 138e141).
ACM.
Flick, U. (2004). Uma introdua ~o a pesquisa qualitativa (Vol. 2). Porto Alegre:
Bookman.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential
of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1),
59e109.
Fullarton, S. (2002). Student engagement with School: Individual and school-level
inuences. Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (Research Report).
Gamication Wiki. (2012) Accessed 02.05.14 http://gamication.org/wiki/
Gamication.
Gapp, R., & Fisher, R. (2012). Undergraduate management students' perceptions of
what makes a successful virtual group. Education Training, 54(2/3), 167e179.
Gibbs, R., & Poskitt, J. M. (2010). Student engagement in the middle years of schooling
(years 7e10): A literature review. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of
Education.
Gresal, M., Barab, S., Siyahhan, S., & Christensen, T. (2009). Virtual worlds, con-
ceptual understanding, and me: designing for consequential engagement. On
the Horizon, 17(1), 21e34.

lise multivariada de
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2005). Ana
dados.
Hakulinen, L., Auvinen, T., & Korhonen, A. (2013, March). Empirical study on the
effect of achievement badges in TRAKLA2 online learning environment. In
Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE) (pp. 47e54). IEEE.
Hughes, J., King, V., Rodden, T., & Andersen, H. (1995). The role of ethnography in
interactive systems design. Interactions, 2(2), 56e65.
Jang, H. (2008). Supporting students' motivation, engagement, and learning during
an uninteresting activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 798.
Kanthan, G. (2011). D/O S. Strengthening student engagement in the classroom. Msc
Science Communication: National University of Singapore.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamication of learning and instruction: Game-based methods
and strategies for training and education. John Wiley & Sons.
Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2004). Literature review in games and learning.
Laird, T. F. N., Smallwood, R., Niskode
-Dossett, A. S., & Garver, A. K. (2009). Effec-
tively involving faculty in the assessment of student engagement. New Di-
rections for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 71e81.
LaNasa, S. M., Cabrera, A. F., & Trangsrud, H. (2009). The construct validity of student
engagement: a conrmatory factor analysis approach. Research in Higher Edu-
cation, 50(4), 315e332.
Law, F. L., Kasirun, Z. M., & Gan, C. K. (2011, December). Gamication towards
sustainable mobile application. In Software Engineering (MySEC), 2011 5th
Malaysian Conference (pp. 349e353). IEEE.
Libbey, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: attachment,
bonding, connectedness, and engagement. The Journal of School Health, 74(7),
274.
Liu, Y., Alexandrova, T., & Nakajima, T. (2011, December). Gamifying intelligent en-
vironments. In Proceedings of the 2011 international ACM workshop on ubiquitous
meta user interfaces (pp. 7e12). ACM.
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can
change the world. Penguin.
McHale, R. (2012). Navigating social media legal risks: Safeguarding your business.
Pearson Education, Inc.. Web ISBN-13: 978-0-13-303365-6.
Melero, J., Leo, D. H., & Blat, J. (2012). A review of constructivist learning methods
with supporting tooling in ICT higher education: dening different types of
scaffolding. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 18(16), 2334e2360.
Nardi, B. A. (1997). The use of ethnographic methods in design and handbook of
human-computer interaction (p. 361).
Onlineeducation.Com. (2013). The Youtopian Ideal: using badges to transform learning
Accessed 02.07.13 http://www.onlineeducation.net/2013/05/14/the-youtopian-
ideal-using-badges-to-transform-learning.
Openbadges. (2013). An open-access image creator from MyKnowledgeMap to support
all of your Open Badge building needs Accessed 16.12.13 https://www.
openbadges.me/.
Parker, L. E., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). The effects of fantasy context on Children's
learning and motivation.
Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in
Education, 14(1).
Porter, S. R. (2006). Institutional structures and student engagement. Research in
Higher Education, 47(5), 521e558.
Prensky, M. (2002). The motivation of gameplay: the real twenty-rst century
learning revolution. On the horizon, 10(1), 5e11.
Putorti-Sandheinirich, J. (2013). Digital Badge Platforms. Disponvel em: https://
learningdesign.usc.edu/les/2013/07/TechTeamBadgesnal.pdf.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students'
engagement by increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion,
28(2), 147e169.
Reeves, B., & Read, L. (2009). Total engagement: Using games and virtual worlds to
change the way people work and businesses compete. Cambridge MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Raymer, R. (2011). Gamication: Using game mechanics to enhance eLearning. E-
learning Magazine. Disponvel em: http://elearnmag.acm.org/featured.cfm?
aid2031772 Accessed 12.06.13.
Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: an extended
multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education, 59(2), 185e213.
Russell, B., & Slater, G. (2010). Factors that encourage student engagement: Insights
from a case study of rst time students in a New Zealand university.
Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in
adolescents' motivation and engagement during middle school. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 437e460.
Saeed, S., & Zyngier, D. (2012). How motivation inuences student engagement: a
qualitative case study. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(2), p252.
Sagayadevan, V., & Jeyaraj, S. (2012). The role of emotional engagement in lecturer-
student interaction and the impact on academic outcomes of student
achievement and learning. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
12(3), 1e30.
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Shneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student
engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of ow theory.
School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158.
Simo~ es, J., Redondo, R., & Vilas, A. (2012). A social gamication framework for a K-6
learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2013), 345e353.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: reciprocal ef-
fects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571.
Sullivan, P., Mornane, A., Prain, V., Campbell, C., Deed, C., Drane, S., Faulkner, M.,
Mcdonough, A., & Smith, C. (2009). Junior secondary students' perceptions of
inuences on their engagement with schooling, Australian. Journal of Education.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000494410905300206.
Stovall, I. (2003). Engagement and online learning. UIS Community of Practice for E-
Learning.
Tomkinson, B., & Hutt, I. (2012). Online PBL: a route to sustainability education?
Campus-Wide Information Systems, 29(4), 291e303.
Uboost. (2014). Student Recognition and Rewards Accessed 06.01.14 http://www.
uboost.com/Portals/95911/docs/uboost_brochure_dl.pdf.
Vivomiles. (2014). Introducing Vivo. https://www.vivomiles.us/for.schools.php
Accessed 05.01.14.
Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize
your business. Wharton Digital Press.
Willekens, R., & Gibson, P. (2010). Hybrid courses and student engagement: op-
portunities and challenges for community college leaders. International Journal
of Educational Leadership Preparation, 5(1).
Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and partic-
ipation: Results from PISA 2000. Publications de l'OCDE.
 L. da Rocha Seixas et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 58 (2016) 48e63 63

Xu, Y. (2011). Literature review on web application gamication and analytics. Hon-
olulu, HI, 11e05.
Youtopia.com. (2012). Youtopia wins digital Media and learning competition. http://
www.youtopia.com/info/youtopia-wins-digital-media-and-learning-
competition/.
Zepke, N., Leach, L., & Butler, P. (2010). Student engagement: What is it and what
inuences it. Wellington: Teaching and Learning Research Initiative.
Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamication by design: Implementing
game mechanics in web and mobile apps. O'Reilly Media, Inc.
Zichermann, G., & Linder, J. (2010). Game-based marketing: Inspire customer loyalty
through rewards, challenges, and contests. John Wiley & Sons.