1. Gamingthe System1
Gaming the System: How Adding Game Design Elements to Education Affects Students’
Self-Reported Participation
Evan Barnett
Comm 4395
Trinity University
Abstract
The study explores the effects of gamification on self-reported participation in a college
seminar classroom, where gamification entails adding game design elements to the non-game
environment of the classroom. Gamification acts as a tool to accurately measure more positive
conceptualizations of excellence, promotes identity building necessary for learning, and provides
a structural framework that seeks to engage the learner while increasing their agency in the
course. This leads to increased self-reports of participation from students, and positive benefits
are seen in performance and class activity as well.
Introduction
“An institution’s assessment practices are a reflection of its values,” explains Alexander
Astin in his book Assessment for Excellence: The Philosophy and Practice of Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, “A second, perhaps more fundamental, premise is that
assessment practices should further the basic aims and purposes of our higher education
institutions (1991).” With that said, what do our current assessment practices reflect, and do they
further our basic aims?
Most assessment methods focus on a traditional view of excellence, which tracks student
and faculty performance. However, this leads to issues regarding student comprehension of
material, retention of the material, and desire to learn for learning’s sake (Kohn, 2011) In order
to properly assess students’ development as learners, assessment needs to focus less on
performance, and more on intellectual growth.
To facilitate this growth, it is most effective to manage how students interact with what
James Gee calls “virtual identities,” which references the intellectual roles that educators wish
for students to adopt. To do this, educators must provide an engaging experience that facilitates

2. Gamingthe System2
learners manipulating the desired virtual identity on their own terms, which leads to increased
effort towards learning (2003).
One methodology for achieving this goal is to introduce game design elements into the
non-game environment of the classroom (Deterding, Khaled, Nacke & Dixon, 2011). This
process, more commonly known as gamification, seeks to provide a framework that will engage
students with the course material, incentivize desired behaviors, and provide multiple approaches
to learning in order to increase learner agency. As a result, learners will be more engaged with
the material, and, at the very least, report higher amounts of participation than if they were
working under a traditional grading structure.
Literature Review
Assessment and Engagement
As assessment is a means by which we try to operationalize our views on excellence,
Astin provides two diverging views for excellence. The first is the traditional view of excellence,
which focuses on resources and reputation. This view emphasizes higher amounts of money,
high-quality faculty, and high-quality students in the resources category in order to influence the
reputational category. Additionally, this view defines high-quality students largely by high marks
on entrance examinations and in class (1991).
Emphasizing grades, however, turns out to be a longstanding and problematic tradition.
Kohn, a social science and education expert, points out that the emphasis on grades has three
obvious and major results: grades diminish students’ interest in what they’re learning; grades
create a preference for the easiest possible task; and grades reduce the quality of students’
thinking. In addition, several factors influence the three results Kohn outlines, including
motivation, achievement, and quantification. Grades unfortunately create an environment where

3. Gamingthe System3
motivations become extrinsic, focusing on the grade itself, rather than intrinsic, where the
student is focused on the learning. Furthermore, this shift towards extrinsic motivation eventually
causes existing intrinsic motivations to deteriorate (2011). In regards to achievement, students’
focus on how well they are doing turns out to overshadow their concern with what they are
doing. This “overemphasis on assessment can actually undermine the pursuit of excellence,”
according to a study by Maehr and Midgley (1996). The common issue with assessment lies in
the quantification, or measurement, of the students’ learning, as it oversimplifies what happens in
both the classroom and in the students’ minds. What often gets ignored is the thinking, which is
more difficult to quantify.
Taking into consideration Kohn’s findings on the effects of grades, it is apparent that
traditional conceptualizations of excellence are not only insufficient, but would also reflect
poorly on any institution as they fail to address the purpose of the institution: “the education of
students and the cultivation of knowledge (Astin, 1991).” This brings us to Astin’s second view
of excellence, the talent development view, which emphasizes the ability for the institution to
favorably affect students and faculty. Favorable developments include intellectual and scholarly
development, as well as making a positive difference in their lives. This view is notably different
from the traditional view in that it is not only far more abstract, but also far more complete in its
inclusion of learning activities that occur both in and out of the classroom. By focusing on ways
to enhance the learning process of both faculty and students and provide opportunity for positive
development, assessments of the students and institution will not only be more accurate, but
more positive and beneficial to those being assessed as well (1991).
One way to enhance the learning experience for students is to implement classroom
practices that better engage the students with the material. While there are several approaches,

4. Gamingthe System4
two highly beneficial methods of increasing engagement in the classroom are cooperative
learning and problem-based learning. Cooperative learning builds interdependence among group
members, which provides an environment where members feel comfortable holding each other
accountable for high quality work. In addition members often support each other’s efforts to
learn, rather than focus solely on their attempt to finish their part and redeem it for a grade.
Continuous improvement is also incentivized, as the group will more frequently and deliberately
assess the quality of the work and the effectiveness of the group members (Smith, Sheppard,
Johnson & Johnson, 2005). This collaborative system provides a learning space that places more
emphasis on content mastery, rather than completion, through accountability to other group
members to know both individual and group content. Students also will build a sense of
ownership over the material by being able to structure groups and content processing around
themselves, rather than around a rubric or assignment.
Problem-based learning complements cooperative learning by providing an activity that
emphasizes most of the same principles that the environment created by cooperative learning
endorses. In order to complete the assignment, students must first have a firm understanding of
several concepts to accurately assess the nature of the problem and possible solutions. This
encourages students to master not only the singular concept at hand, but also related concepts
that could possibly affect the outcome. As new concepts are discovered or made relevant,
problem-based learning also encourages continuous improvement to the work on the assignment
in order to account for the new material, and assessments will occur more deliberately and
frequently due to this aspect as well (Smith et al., 2005).
To further reinforce the importance of problem-based learning and cooperative learning,
Umbach and Wawrzynski observe that active learning (somewhat analogous with problem-based

5. Gamingthe System5
learning) and collaborative learning lead to increased engagement among the students. Students
“reported greater gains in personal social development, general education knowledge, and
practical competencies” (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2004) when these types of learning were used.
Specifically, the emphasis on both high-order cognitive activities and on participation in class
had positive effects on student engagement (Umbrach & Wawrzynski, 2004).
As an example of the success of engagement and its effects on student learning, Carini,
Kuh, & Klein demonstrate that student engagement is positively linked to student performance
(2006). Despite the correlation between the two being weak, there is support behind the theory
that engagement does positively affect student’s critical thinking skills and grades. One
important finding from the study to consider is that different age groups have varying reactions
to different forms of engagement. First-year students benefit highly from a reasonable workload
over the course of the semester, completion of common assignments or readings, and faculty
relationships. However, seniors see more gain from collaborative projects, high quality academic
advising, and emphasis on contact amongst a diverse student population. Thus, it is important to
focus the efforts of both education administrators and teachers on promoting certain types of
engagement to best reach certain audiences.
Identity, Play, and Learning
One of the factors most important for successful learning and engaged learning is the
development and acceptance of new identities related to the subject material. James Gee
discusses in his book the fact that identity building is most apparent in current video game titles,
which offer choices that allow players to explore facets of the identity (or identities) the game
wants them to assume. Education can benefit from similar approaches, but must fulfill three

6. Gamingthe System6
requirements to successfully convince people to build new identities, or repair damaged ones
(Gee, 2003).
First, the learner must be enticed to take on the new identity (called a virtual identity) by
building bridges, or connections, between the learner’s existing identity and the desired virtual
identity. Providing a psychosocial moratorium, where the learner can take risks with lowered
real-world consequences, is one way to facilitate this bridge building. Games naturally provide
these environments, but education must deliberately and carefully construct the psychosocial
moratorium to be functionally effective at reducing consequences for risks as well as interesting
to students in concept.
Role-play scenarios have proven particularly useful for constructing effective
psychosocial moratorium spaces for students. A recent study on college pharmaceutical students,
introduced role-play as a way to both simulate the students’ eventual work environment and also
to encourage the students to more directly adopt the identity they would later need to assume in
the work place. By providing this experience in the classroom the consequences associated with
making mistakes were effectively eliminated, as the environment is only a simulation. Students
also reported and demonstrated that their communication, problem-solving, and understanding
related to the course material were strengthened (Rao, 2011).
To further exemplify this, a study regarding online role-play found similar, if not stronger
effects. Online role-play encouraged people to don learning identities and also facilitated
complex social learning. In this case, the effects of pseudo-anonymity more effectively reduce
the consequences associated with risks, allowing learners to take larger and more frequent risks
without having to worry about humiliation or retribution (Russell & Shepard, 2010).

7. Gamingthe System7
The second aspect of convincing people to assume new identities is to encourage them to
invest significant effort both in donning the new identity and in understanding the material. To
do this, the material must be made compelling to the learner on the learner’s terms. As a
testament to the success of this, social psychologist Ana-Maria Bliuc and her colleagues showed
that having a strong identity as a college student positively predicts a deep approach to learning
as well as higher grades. This indicates that once a learner is enticed to adopt an identity on their
own terms (in this case, having a strong identity as a college student) their effort will increase
(denoted, in this case, by more comprehensive understanding of the material and higher grades).
Conversely, a weak identity as a student was shown to predict lower grades overall, indicating
less effort put forth as a result of the lack of connection with the identity as a college student
(Bliuc, Ellis, Goodyear, & Hendres, 2011).
It is important to acknowledge a factor that can stand in the way of a learner being
compelled to assume a new identity (and consequently put forth significant effort). If the learner
has a damaged identity associated with the desired one, this may act as a barrier since it
predisposes the learner to negative outcomes (behaviors, attitudes, and results). The process for
repairing this identity is the same as getting them to assume the identity (namely, Gee’s three
requirements), and once repaired the identity usually becomes a strong identity, as defined by
Bliuc et al. (2011)
Another approach to compelling the learner to connect with the identity and put forth
significant effort is to blur the line between work and leisure. Currently, education has an issue
with how it represents academic work in that it works hard to separate the process of the work
from leisure. This indirectly forces the faculty’s idea of an “academic worker” identity onto
learners, rather than allowing learners to discover and craft their own identity, making it unlikely

8. Gamingthe System8
the learner will assume the identity or put forth significant effort in the course. To counteract
this, academic work should be reframed as more leisurely by allowing for increased agency and
lowering consequences, as it allows for more engaging interactions between learner and material
(Harris, 2012). This increased engagement with the material increases the likelihood the learner
will be compelled on their own terms, and thus that significant effort will be put forth.
Furthermore, game-based environments are shown to encourage more persuasive
connections with the material. In a quasi-experimental study, students that were encouraged to
take on the role of an investigative journalist and complete tasks to contribute towards a shared
class goal demonstrated both significant learning gains, as well as higher levels of engagement.
The agency allowed to students in the game-based design encouraged them to define their own
objectives, and interact with the identity of the investigative journalist and mold it into
something relevant and compelling to them. The study also showed that students were often
motivated by compelling material or scenarios, rather than literal gain, demonstrating the
relevance of the material to the student is often more important than the positive or negative
consequences of performance (Barab, Pettyjohn, Gresalfi, Volk, & Solomou, 2012).
The final requirement necessary to successfully convince learners to adopt new identities
(or repair damaged ones) is that success and difficulty must be customized and tailored to each
student’s individual stage of development. This is perhaps the most arduous task, as it requires
continual changes be made to planned material. It is also one of the most essential, as
assessments are how the learner comes to understand their progress in assuming a new virtual
identity. To properly tailor the content of the course, and the necessary behaviors for success,
Harris suggests getting students into a “flow state,” where they feel challenged by the material,
yet competent enough that they complete the assignments, which requires close personal

9. Gamingthe System9
attention to each student (2012). This allows them to be continually encouraged to have a deeper
understanding of the material (by not making it too easy) as well as keep them interested in the
material (by not pushing the learner away with unnecessary or unfair difficulty).
In trying to meet the three requirements Gee lays out for repairing and encouraging
assumption of new virtual identities, it is important to note the role of play in trying to fulfill the
requirements. Many of the examples use some form of direct play, be it role-play, reframing
work as leisure, or more deliberate game-based design that facilitates play through agency.
Perhaps the most important relation that play has to Gee’s three requirements is that it helps
create the psychosocial moratorium necessary for enticing the learner to bridge their real world
identity and the new virtual identity (2003). To do this, environments that encourage play reduce
the stress of learners within the environment, as well as make the learner more socially
competent. By doing this, they actively encourage learners to assume virtual identities because
there are fewer repercussions associated with the risks, and fewer risks associated with the
activities. In addition, play actively improves working memory and self-regulation and
encourages abstract thinking, which facilitates putting forth greater amounts of effort once the
learner has built scaffolding for assuming the virtual identity (Bartlett, 2011; Whitebread,
Coltman, Jameson & Lander, 2009).
Gamification
Gamification is a rather general term being used to descrive several different concepts
and that has avoided academic definition for quite some time. However, the most apt definition
poses gamification as a framework or structure that uses game design elements in non-game
contexts (Deterding et al., 2011). It is important to note, however, that gamification takes a turn
away from the playfulness found to be beneficial in early development and learning, and instead

10. Gamingthe System 10
focuses on the concept of “gamefulness;” denoted by rules, competition or strife, and a specified
and discrete outcome to achieve, gameful structures build on the freeform nature of play by
adding game-design elements. The elements applied to play take the form of both technical and
social elements of games, with emphasis on the technical elements interpreted as affording
gameful interpretations and interactions, rather than as existing mechanical structures.
Furthermore, the game-design elements have to be applied to a non-game context in order for a
framework to be considered gamification, meaning that it has to fulfill a purpose other than
entertainment. Lastly, the design must refer to specific design elements, and not just game
technology. Five categories of design elements are interface design, game design patterns (or the
mechanics), design principles, conceptual models of game design units, and game design
methods (such as play-testing, playcentric design, etc) (Deterding et al., 2011).
Once defined, understanding gamification further becomes a matter of understanding the
purpose of gamification is, selecting useful game design elements, and properly implementing
them. The most readily apparent purpose of gamification is to provide a formalized structure that
changes ambiguous and directionless play into directed and focused game interactions.
Gamification accomplishes this by providing students with purposeful roles and objectives, and
by fostering legitimate peripheral participation (Charoenying, 2010). Inherent in the gamification
structure is a method of assessment, which verifies adherence to the rules and progress towards
the goal or outcome. In addition, gamification provides a framework meant to increase student
interest through the content’s presentation in a game environment (Charoenying, 2010). This
helps increase engagement between the students and the course material, which in turn enhances
the learning experience.

11. Gamingthe System 11
As a game design element, narratives offer some of the strongest benefits when used in
non-game environments. A narrative, when implemented properly, provides both a motivational
and a cognitive framework for problem solving. Narratives make use of plot hooks, usually in
the form of questions to be answered or conflicts to be resolved, to draw in the learner. These
plot hooks help convince learners to expend significant effort towards adopting the desired
virtual identity Gee describes by making the content compelling to the learner on their terms.
Additionally, heightening the learner’s emotional proximity to the content can similarly increase
engagement (Dickey, 2006). The emotional proximity also encourages learners to build
meaningful connections between their real world identity and the desired virtual identity.
Narratives also act as a framework for learning experiences beyond problem solving, too.
While many narrative devices are plot-based, focusing on events happening around the learner,
character-based narratives provide an experience where the focus is on the learner themselves.
This learner-centric design avoids a potential issue with plot-based narratives where the learner
isn’t interested in the content that serves as the plot (Dickey, 2005). In addition, it allows for
increased agency within the gamification framework to drive the character-based narrative,
which creates engagement “hooks,” similar to what Dickey describes being used in more
traditional plot-based narratives (Dickey, 2006).
Furthermore, meaningful engagement arises from playing an active role within the
course, as well as being able to make judgments about progress within the course based on
mastery of content (Bell, P., Davis, E. A., & Linn, M.C., 1996; Schlechty, 1990). This highlights
the importance of agency, or the learners’ ability to make choices in their approach to content
mastery. Offering learners a choice in how they approach assessing, completing, and/or
mastering course content, forces the learner into an active role. The inclusion of choice facilitates

12. Gamingthe System 12
the manipulation and relation to desired virtual identities, as defined by Gee. The ability to
choose how one learns also decreases the chance that the practice of learning becomes boring,
because the learner is learning on their own terms (Gee, 2003).
The agency provided by gamification also provides internal motivations, rather than
external motivations. In game worlds, learning happens because players want to discover, share,
and organize new information (Thomas & Brown, 2011). More traditional forms of assessment
act as external motivators, which are less engaging. By offering substantial and meaningful
choices to how students approach course content, motivations are more likely to be internal,
rather than external, because learners acquire a sense of ownership over their direction.
Gamification structures also more readily provide psychosocial moratorium spaces,
which allow agency to be more effective. Designs that minimize the effects of failure will allow
students to experiment and perfect forms of learning, and repair damaged identities, that are
inaccessible in more traditional forms of assessment due to the high associated risk. When
students aren’t pressured by traditional systems, they are less likely to take the easy (and often
familiar) route, encouraging exploration (Kohn, 2011).
Methods
Grading Structure Design
When designing the grading structure, there were two objectives: the primary objective
was to operationalize the course ideals/goals (deep reading and articulate writing, participating
actively in discussions, making meaningful connections between course content and other
material, mastering core course content, and information literacy) in a way that allowed for easy
and fair assessment; the secondary objective was to design a grading structure that allowed
students to master the course content in a way that appealed to them.

13. Gamingthe System 13
To operationalize the course ideals/goals, five “professions” were designed: Reading and
Writing, Discussion, Core Concepts, Making Connections, and Initiative. Each profession would
be leveled up by participating in class activities and completing written assignments. Students
would complete one weekly writing assignment based on their course readings, and discussions
related to the readings would be held on Tuesdays. Thursdays served as an activity day where
students completed work related to course readings, or information literacy.
After the professions were designed, it was decided that participation, as reflected
through the professions, would account for 50% of the students’ grade, while major assignments
would account for 60% of their grade. In addition, achievements were included to provide an
additional 5% towards the students’ overall grade. Obviously, the highest possible grade is
115%, but only a 100% was necessary for the course. The goal of providing the means to get
higher than 100% in the course was to reduce the penalties for failing to fully level one or more
of the five professions. In theory, this would allow students to participate in ways they felt
comfortable with while still providing them the means to excel.
Another consideration when designing the professions, and the singular consideration
when designing the achievements, was to encourage students to behave in certain ways.
Assessment of discussions, major assignments, and Thursday activities all promoted students
making connections between course content and other material, demonstrating mastery of core
concepts, and taking initiative in their education in the class. The achievements, as noted, were
solely designed for this purpose, and promoted much more active roles within discussion and
between the students and the teachers.
Focus Groups

14. Gamingthe System 14
To assess the students’ response to the grading structure, I conducted two focus groups
which each lasted thirty to forty minutes. The intended size for focus groups was six students,
but the two groups had four and two participants, respectively. The class had 16 students total, so
half of the students participated in the focus groups to give feedback. In addition, the focus group
was conducted by a proxy, due to the fact I did not want the students to give biased responses
when speaking to me (their peer tutor and designer of the grading structure). Rewards for
participating in the focus group included an advertised $10 Starbucks gift card, and were offered
500 Initiative Profession Points after the session was conducted. Food and drink were also
provided as an incentive.
The questions were designed to get the students thinking about the course and their
performance within the course, then reflect on their experience within the course and their
interactions with the grading structure, and finally provide an opportunity for them to voice any
opinions they felt they didn’t get a chance to express. While the initial questions focused on
performance and content delivery, the majority of questions required students to either assess the
purpose of the grading structure, and its fulfillment of that purpose, or reflect on their
participation as a function of the grading structure. As is common in focus groups, discussions
often lead to different and follow-up questions being asked.
When assessing the responses, there were four major focus points: what were the
students’ conceptions of the purpose of the grading structure; did the students feel the grading
structure fulfilled the purpose previously stated; was their participation affected by the grading
structure; did they understand the grading structure?
Results

15. Gamingthe System 15
The participants of the focus groups all gave similar answers regarding the purpose of the
grading structure: to incentivize participation and provide options to students in how they
approached the material. In terms of fulfilling the goals of the design process (mapping course
ideals/goals to behaviors, mastering content in ways that personally appealed to learner), the
grading system seems to be a success. Both focus groups reported that the grading structure
supported and even encouraged students to approach the course content on terms that were
familiar or appealing to them. While mostly a positive reflection of the design, it does indicate
that students often avoided approaching the course content in ways that they felt uncomfortable
with. Despite the failure of the system to encourage students to explore new forms of interaction
with the material, the ability to choose their approach in the course made the experience a more
positive one for them since they felt it reduced the risks associated with forgoing certain types of
interaction. In addition, the participants reported that the cumulative nature of the assessment
reduced the stress related to mistakes and missed assignments.
Another aspect unanimously agreed on amongst all the participants was that the grading
system was too complex, and thus confusing. To compound the issue, the grading system was
not properly explained, and not made readily available. In general, participants were aware of
basic objectives, such as participating to earn points, but specific objectives were unclear or
entirely unknown. To further complicate the issue, the feedback loop regarding progress was
unanimously deemed ineffective due to its confusing nature and untimeliness.
The participants in the different focus groups disagreed, however, on how the grading
structure drove participation and interaction with the material. The members of the first focus
group consistently reported that the grading structure drove participation through multiple
objectives, cumulative points for behaviors, and fostering interesting and meaningful discussion.

16. Gamingthe System 16
In addition, the various incentives for meaningful discussion also influenced reading and writing
habits, as well as performance on major assignments. The direct incentives for contributions and
increased incentives for more meaningful contributions heightened participants’ desire to engage
in both class sessions and course content compared to traditional grading structures. However, it
was noted that students already likely to participate weren’t as likely to be affected by the
system.
The second focus group, however, felt that the system encouraged learners to engage
only as frequently as a traditional grading structure would, and it did not increase participation
within the classroom. Additionally, participants of the second focus group felt the grading
structure negatively impacted the discussion at times, because the increased incentive to provide
connections to outside material encouraged people to make meaningless associations in an
attempt to get points, rather than display mastery.
Based on the agreement that the grading structure was confusingly complex and that
progress was unknown, as well as the disagreement over how participation was affected by the
grading structure, it is obvious the participants felt the grading system failed to completely fulfill
its purpose. The complexity often overwhelmed the students, which overshadowed the choices
and encouragement for certain behaviors, and the lack of feedback regarding progress made
people unwilling to take risks with new approaches. The disagreement over how participation
was affected also indicates that the grading structure only partially fulfilled the purposes defined
by the participants. In addition, these factors indicate that participation was only moderately
affected, and that students had a very unclear and cursory understanding of the grading structure.
Discussion
Assessment and Engagement

17. Gamingthe System 17
The reports from the students indicate that the grading structure did increase the students’
engagement with the material, though the degree to which students were engaged varied on an
individual level. This is understandable, as Carini et al. describe how attempts to affect
engagement will work differently depending on both the learners’ progress as a student, as well
as the students’ progress through the course content (2006). Students that were slower to
understand and master the material found the grading structure to be a guiding element that
allowed them to understand how to approach the material, what to pull out of the material, and
how to finally understand and explain the material.
Students that were quick to master the content reported that the grading structure did not
increase their engagement, and by extension their participation, because they were already
planning to participate in a more active manner. However, they did also note that the grading
structure was good at assessing and recording their contributions, both in understanding the
material and expanding on their understanding through connections to other content. This did
somewhat encourage them to continue participating in an active and thoughtful manner, as they
were directly rewarded for their effort.
Both sets of reports indicate that the grading structure was an effective assessment tool
that encouraged what Astin describes as the talent development view of excellence, which
focuses on the ability of an institution to favorably affect the students and faculty (1991).
Especially in the case of learners who were slower to understand the concepts, the grading
structure provided a way for them to not only master the material, but also feel accomplished in
doing so, since their efforts were more directly reflected. It is unclear, however, as to whether the
motivation for learning shifted from extrinsic to intrinsic, which Kohn describes as necessary for
what could be considered a deep approach to learning (2011).

18. Gamingthe System 18
It is also worth noting that students who were engaged with the material generally
performed better, as well, which aligns with the observations made by Carini et al. One of the
participants, who was slower at understanding the material (as demonstrated in writing
assignments turned in and comments in class), achieved a grade higher than 100% as a result of
their active participation. Their participation was reported to be the result of increased
engagement with the material due to encouragement from the grading structure, suggesting the
grading structure did positively affect students’ performance. Furthermore, students who felt
more engaged with the material also reported increased ability to perform deep reading, write
critical and concise arguments, and understand the material easily and comfortably as a result of
the grading structure’s encouragement to approach the material in certain ways. This reflects
findings from Umbach and Wawrzynski, where engagement led to “reported greater gains in
personal social development, general education knowledge, and practical competencies (2004).”
It is also worth mentioning that the grading structure didn’t make use of cooperative,
collaborative, or problem-based learning to increase engagement (Smith et al., 2005; Umbach &
Wawrzynski, 2004). The course activities were modified to work alongside and in conjunction
with the grading structure, rather than the grading structure providing the basis for developing
activities.
Identity, Play, and Learning
The most successful aspects of the grading structure relate directly to Gee’s elaboration
on how to facilitate learning: reports from both focus groups indicate the structure was successful
at allowing students to explore the virtual learner identity within the class on terms they found
compelling, and create a psychosocial moratorium that reduced the consequences associated with
risks and mistakes.

19. Gamingthe System 19
The professions within the grading structure provided a framework for the students to
loosely understand activities within the class as different roles, and to experiment with them to
varying degrees. By being able to adopt these various roles in low risk scenarios, such as weekly
discussions and writing assignments that didn’t have major impacts on overall performance,
students were able to develop various intellectual skills, similar to Rao’s observations related to
pharmaceutical role-play (2011). It also encouraged building the bridges Gee finds necessary to
accept and incorporate the virtual identity into the learner’s real world identity (2003).
It is unclear to what extent the grading structure provided compelling reasons for the
students to expend significant effort in the class. Students with a stronger student identity
reported being as engaged, or just slightly more engaged, with the material as a result of the
grading structure than if they were learning under a traditional grading structure, which again
reflects Carini et al.’s findings (2006). However, these students also had higher grades than other
students that displayed a weaker student identity, reflecting findings by Bliuc et al. (2011)
Furthermore, students who did feel engaged by the material as a result of the grading structure,
but had a weaker student identity, developed a stronger identity as a student and received similar
high grades to the students with a pre-existing strong student identity. This indicates that the
grading structure was successful, to some degree, at building bridges between the real and virtual
identities of learners with weak student identities, which resulted in significant effort being put
forth by these students.
One failing of the grading structure, in regards to encouraging expending significant
effort, is that the grading structure did not make the course content more appealing. Students
reported that the material was often dull, and a chore to work through. The grading structure did

20. Gamingthe System 20
encourage them to approach it in different ways, but it did not fundamentally alter their
perceptions of the work, as Harris recommends doing to increase the effort expended (2012).
In terms of the third requirement Gee mentions, which necessitates custom tailored
difficulty and progress, the grading structure did not account for that aspect well. All students
had to complete the same material, so the difficulty of the course could not effectively be
changed in any substantial manner. It is possible that the ability to avoid forms of participation,
due to there being reduced consequences, could have reduced the difficulty for some students,
but if this is the case, it was an entirely unintended and negative side-effect. In addition,
assignments and activities were often not prolonged, resulting in too little time to enter what
Harris described as a “flow state,” allowing students to feel optimally challenged and competent
(2012).
Gamification
As an example of Deterding’s definition of gamification, in that game design elements
are applied to non-game environments, the grading structure designed for this course
appropriately reflects the necessary dimensions (2011). Experience points, professions,
achievements, and levels are all common game design elements, and they are indeed applied to a
non-game environment. However, it is questionable whether the grading structure appropriately
selected and implemented useful game design elements, which Charoeying uses to define a
successful gamification structure (2010). The students’ agreement that the system was overly
complicated, confusing, and unknown indicates that the selection process for design elements
should have been more exclusive, the implementation should have resulted in a less complex
system, and the system should have been more easily accessible to students.

21. Gamingthe System 21
However, despite issues created by the selection and implementation of the design
elements, certain positive aspects also emerged. As noted by Charoeying, gamification structures
ideally provide purposeful roles and objectives, and foster legitimate peripheral participation
(2010). According to student reports, the grading system was very successful at providing
purposeful roles and objectives, as well as encouraging some peripheral participation, as a result
of the professions and the assessment of activities.
One major aspect that the grading structure lacked was a narrative component. Due to
time constraints, no overarching narrative structure was added, and plans to include one occurred
too late in the semester to allow for proper and useful implementation. This was initially
considered to be a crippling oversight, since narratives are described as instrumental in eliciting
engagement and agency, as elaborated on twice by Dickey (2005, 2006). The lack of narrative
hooks, plot-based narration, and manipulating the emotional proximity between the learner and
the course content seemed to suggest the grading structure would be largely unsuccessful.
However, after careful consideration and reports of moderate success in the focus groups,
it seems those predictions were a bit hasty. The agency provided by the grading structure made
up for the lack of a narrative structure, to some degree. This reflects the assertions made by Ball
et al., Shelchty, and Thomas et al. that highlight the importance of agency within gamification, as
it leads to active role playing, shifts motivations to being more implicit, and interaction with
desired virtual identities.
While it is obvious that a gamification structure with both narrative devices and
mechanics that increase agency will be the most effective, it is feasible that situations could arise
where either narrative or agency focused systems used alone will be preferable. For the course
observed in the current study, any form of direct narrative device could easily have

22. Gamingthe System 22
overshadowed the material; while a direct plot or character-based narrative might have created
more interest in the course, it also would have detracted from students’ desire to grapple with
and understand the material, which was deemed excessively dull, because it would be more
interesting than the material being taught. Thus, by promoting agency alone, students are
provided a framework for interacting with the material in ways that appeal to them, while still
being able to maintain focus on the material, despite its dull nature.
Conclusion
Despite the flaws in the design of the grading structure, there were clear positive results
from employing it in the classroom. Students reported that the grading system did increase their
participation in the class to some extent, due to heightened engagement. In addition, grades for
participants who reported increased participation and engagement were higher than those who
reported no significant increase in participation and engagement. The increased feelings of
agency and psychosocial moratorium resulting from the grading structure, reported by all
participants, provided an environment where students felt comfortable building bridges with the
desired virtual identity, and felt compelled to expend significant effort.
These results indicate that gamification, even if flawed in design, can still be successful at
increasing engagement, more accurately assessing talent development based excellence, and
facilitating participation. Furthermore, this study seems to indicate there are situations which
make different implementations of gamification viable; while most discussions of gamification
revolve around a structure that includes a narrative and mechanics to increase agency, the reports
from participants in the focus groups indicate that an agentic model of gamification worked well
for the course. Further research is necessary to fully establish a necessity in differentiating
between agentic, narrative, and combined models of gamification, but this study suggests that

23. Gamingthe System 23
such a differentiation could be plausible. More importantly, however, this study demonstrates the
benefits of incorporating game design elements in a non-game environment as a means of
increasing self-reported student participation, and having methods of assessment that reflect
positively on an institution’s pursuit of bettering the intellectual lives of students and faculty.
Appendices
Grading Structure
Experience Point Breakdown
Professions: 250,000
Projects: 300,000
Achievements: 25,000
Professions
Professions will be the easiest and most straight forward way for students to earn
experience points; when a student completes an assignment, participates in class, and/or
demonstrates understanding of concepts from class readings and lectures, they will earn
Profession Points (PP) towards these professions. The five professions have four “levels” which
give a total of 50,000 experience apiece (when fully completed), making them worth 50% of the
experience points needed to earn a 100% in the class.
Categories
 Discussion - Awards points to students for participation in class discussions

24. Gamingthe System 24
 Reading and Writing - Awards points to students for progressively improving writing and
demonstrating the ability to critically assess the readings
 Core Concepts - Awards points to students for demonstrating understanding of current
and previous course material
 Making Connections - Awards points to students for making meaningful connections
between course material and outside material in their writing and in discussions.
 Initiative - Awards points to students for demonstrating agency in their pursuit of
knowledge
Level Breakdown
Experience Gained
Level 1: 5,000 EXP
Level 2: 10,000 EXP
Level 3: 15,000 EXP
Level 4: 20,000 EXP
Experience to Obtain
Discussion
 Level 1: 100 PP
 Level 2: 500 PP
 Level 3: 1,000 PP
 Level 4: 1,250 PP

25. Gamingthe System 25
Reading and Writing
 Level 1: 100 PP
 Level 2: 800 PP
 Level 3: 1,600 PP
 Level 4: 2,500 PP
Core Concepts
 Level 1: 100 PP
 Level 2: 500 PP
 Level 3: 1,000 PP
 Level 4: 1,500 PP
Making Connections
 Level 1: 100 PP
 Level 2: 500 PP
 Level 3: 1,000 PP
 Level 4: 1,500 PP
Initiative
 Level 1: 100 PP

26. Gamingthe System 26
 Level 2: 1,000 PP
 Level 3: 1,500 PP
 Level 4: 2,000 PP
Category Assessment
Discussion
Discussions are held on Tuesday classes, and have 5 phases: partner, small group (4),
medium group (8), large group (16), and all-class discussion. The focus for the first two phases is
centered around the students being able to demonstrate their ability to critically interpret the
readings, and a total of 50 PP will be awarded. In the larger discussions, the focus shifts towards
making connections and demonstrating understanding of the concepts covered in the readings,
and 10 PP is awarded each time a student participates (flow of discussion points are means of
participating--see below). 100 PP is the maximum discussion Profession Points one can
accumulate per day. 10 PP will be docked each time a student is caught not paying attention.
Flow of Discussion
 Topic is suggested (observation or insight), correctness is irrelevant
 Reaction, reply, thread development
 Encouragement w/ substantive reply
 Making connections

27. Gamingthe System 27
Reading and Writing
Demonstration of critical reading and writing skills will be demonstrated primarily
through weekly reading response writing assignments; one will be assigned each Tuesday, to be
completed by the following Tuesday. Each writing assignment is worth a total of 200 PP. In the
beginning of the course the primary concern is demonstration of understanding course material
and constructing logical arguments. Later in the course, grammar and writing mechanics will be
graded as well.
Core Concepts
Understanding of core concepts in the class (American Scholar, metaphor, information
literacy/information naivete) is demonstrated through weekly discussion, weekly activity-based
assignments, writing, and major projects. A primary opportunity to demonstrate understanding of
core concepts will be through weekly activity-based assignments, assigned and due on
Thursdays. During each Tuesday discussion and for each writing assignment, students can earn
up to 25 PP for demonstrating understanding of the concepts in the class. For weekly activity-
based assignments, students can earn up to 100 PP for demonstrating understanding of the
concepts. For major projects, students can earn up to 500 PP for demonstrating understanding of
the concepts.
Making Connections
Making connections from one class material to another, or to an outside work, is
demonstrated through both class activities and projects. Each time a student makes a meaningful

28. Gamingthe System 28
connection between class material and another material in discussion, they are awarded 25 PP,
and 100pp for each time a meaningful connection between class material and another material is
made in weekly activity assignments. If a student continues to make the same connection without
extending it further each iteration, they won’t earn PP for it.
Initiative
Initiative is displayed each time a student makes a choice regarding their class work or
initiates a discussion in class. Initiative can also be earned by attending designated events outside
of class time. Each time a student demonstrates initiative they are awarded 100 PP.
Examples of Initiative Actions
 Choosing a topic for a major assignment
 Suggesting a topic for discussion in class
 Agreeing to help another student
 Signing up for office hours
 Attending (both physically *and* mentally) designated outside-of-class time events
Achievements
General Achievements
1) Getting Your Feet Wet - 100 EXP
Complete your first assignment

29. Gamingthe System 29
2) Well You’re The Communications Officer, Ain’tcha? - 100 EXP
Survive your first discussion
3) Sweet, Sweet Perfection - 100 EXP
Get a perfect score on an assignment or discussion
4) Ten Points for Gryffindor - 100 EXP
Connect class material to a work of fiction in your writing or in discussion
5) Teacher’s Pet - 100 EXP
Attend office hours once
6) Be Polite - 100 EXP
Encourage someone else’s idea in a discussion with a substantive reply
7) Be Efficient - 100 EXP
Get at least 90% of the possible points for a full week’s assignments
8) Have a Plan to Ace Every Assignment You Meet - 100 EXP
Consult with Jeremy or Evan on a draft for an assignment, and then get a perfect score
9) I Don’t Appreciate That Kind of Negativity - 100 EXP

30. Gamingthe System 30
Get a perfect score on an assignment after getting less than 100% on the previous one
10) An Outside Job - 100 EXP
Attend a session outside normal class hours related to the course
11) Leading by Example - 100 EXP
Be chosen to lead a discussion for a Tuesday class
12) If at First You Don’t Succeed... - 100 EXP
Request to be a discussion leader for a Tuesday class, but do not get chosen
13) Try, Try Again - 100 EXP
Get chosen to be a discussion leader for a Tuesday class after being denied
14) Didactic Double Dose - 500 EXP
Get chosen to be a discussion leader for a Tuesday class twice
15) Are You Getting Paid for This? - 1000 EXP
Get chosen to be a discussion leader for a Tuesday class three times
16) Fear Leads to Hate, and Hate Leads to the Dark Side - 500 EXP
Attend office hours at least 5 times

31. Gamingthe System 31
17) Full Marks Across the Board - 500 EXP
Get full credit for a discussion, as well as at least one mark for M.C., C.C. and Initiative
18) Without Missing a Beat - 1,000 EXP
Get a perfect score on each assignment for a week
19) Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained - 1,000 EXP
Turn in 90% of all reading responses on time
20) Task Master - 1,000 EXP
Turn in 90% of all Thursday activities on time
21) Double Platinum (Over)Achievement Trophy - 1,000 EXP
Get all achievements
Time Progression Achievements
22) A Scholarly Performance - 100 EXP
Get past the initial American Scholar section of the course
23) Everything’s Coming Up Metaphor(ically) - 100 EXP
Get past the metaphor section of the course
24) Is This the Mind, or is it Real? - 100 EXP

32. Gamingthe System 32
Get past the cognitive section of the course
25) New to Known - 500 EXP
Finish the course
Profession Achievements
26) Level Up! - 100 EXP
Level one profession to level 1
27) Watch Out, We’ve Got a Badass Here - 100 EXP
Get a profession to level 2
28) Progress, Progressively - 500 EXP
Get a profession to level 3
29) A Regular Sherlock Holmes - 1,000 EXP
Get a profession to level 4
30) Basically the Best - 100 EXP
Get all professions to level 1
31) Black Belt of Knowledge - 500 EXP

33. Gamingthe System 33
Get all professions to level 2
32) All Your Levels Are Belong to Me - 1,000 EXP
Get all professions to level 3
33) I am Become Excellence, the Savior of Grades - 5,000 EXP
Get all professions to level 4
Project Achievements
34) F*CKING GENIUUUUUUUUU- - 1,000 EXP
Get an A on the first major project
Note: Awards all achievements for a lower grade on the first major project
35) Pretty F*ckin’ Smart - 500 EXP
Get a B or better on the first major project
Note: Awards all achievements for a lower grade on the first major project
36) Pretty Smart - 100 EXP
Get a C or better on the first major project
37) I’m Going to Steal the American Scholar! - 5,000 EXP
Get an A on the second major project
Note: Awards all achievements for a lower grade on the second major project

34. Gamingthe System 34
38) A True American (Scholar) - 1,000 EXP
Get a B or better on the second major project
Note: Awards all achievements for a lower grade on the second major project
39) So Who Wants to Talk About Emerson? - 500 EXP
Get a C or better on the second major project
Course Syllabus
GNED 1300-13: From the Transcendental Club to the Continental Club: Situating the Self
Between High and Low Culture.
Instructor: Jeremy Donald,
MSLS
Course Meeting Time:
Tues/Thurs, 11:20-12:35
Peer Tutor: Evan Barnett
Email: jdonald@trinity.edu
Phone: (210) 999 8176
Office: EHCL 308E
Office hours: Wed, Thurs,
4-5 p.m.
Location: EHCL 209 Email:
thebluemagician.barnett@gmail.com
Phone: 512-431-9285
Office hours: TBA & by
appointment
Course Description:
“Books are the best of things, well used; abused, among the worst. What is the right use?“ We’ll
explore Emerson’s question (quoted from “The American Scholar,” a speech he gave to the Phi
Beta Kappa Society in 1837) and his answer (“They are for nothing but to inspire”) by

35. Gamingthe System 35
reimagining how his address might read were it composed today. To that end, we’ll investigate
some theories, concepts, and methods of critical reading, information naïveté, and information
ethics, and consider them alongside the question of what should join books in an updated catalog
of current media. We’ll read broadly, examining genres as diverse as the personal essay and the
government report, and we’ll write in a variety of styles as well, in an effort to answer Emerson’s
question “What would we really know the meaning of?” Finally, we’ll situate ourselves as
information consumers and producers by aspiring to information literacy, undertaking a major
project designed to hone research skills and synthesize what we’ve learned and constructed from
our readings and discussions.
Course Goals:
Critical Reading: Students will cultivate the skills of critical reading, and be able to
demonstrate an ability to analyze a text for argument, both in writing and in discussion.
Analysis in this case consists of the ability to identify a text’s intended audience, its thesis/main
point, and, as Deborah Knott writes, the “ways of thinking” presented or implied by the text, and
the textual mechanics of the presentation or implication of those ways of thinking. (Looking
again to Knott, “ways of thinking” can involve theories, concepts, methods, arguments,
rhetorical strategies, terms and their definitions, assumptions, and the use of evidence.)
Evaluating the evidence provided by a text in support of its argument is another component of
analysis. This includes what the evidence is, where it came from, how it is used, and to what
extent it supports the argument.
The overarching emphasis here is on reading carefully and thoroughly in order to better
understand the intended meaning of a text and how that meaning is made. While your opinion or

36. Gamingthe System 36
judgment of a text is an important aspect of critical reading, the point of critical reading is not to
ultimately approve or disapprove of a given text, but instead to gain a nuanced sense of its
strengths and weaknesses.
Short Version: Read thoroughly, ask lots of questions as you read, and read for
argument, not for information.
Discussion: Students will be able to participate actively in group discussion by making regular
contributions and by actively eliciting and listening to the contributions of others.
“Contributions” in this case refers to any kind of participatory gesture that a) probes or
illuminates the topic of discussion by presenting a question, observation, or idea about the topic
which seeks to promote richer understanding of it for both oneself and for the group; or that b)
encourages someone else to do the same by expressing interest, curiosity, respectful
disagreement and/or agreement. Each student will demonstrate a degree of personal
responsibility for the success of class discussions (both in-person and online exchanges) and will
use discussions as an opportunity to develop and refine their ability to make contributions. In
other words, not only will students develop the ability to make contributions, they will also
develop the habit of applying that ability when in a group discussion setting.
Short version: Prepare for discussions by looking for insights about the reading to
share. Take responsibility for creating a probing and interesting group discussion.
Follow up on other people’s insights, and strive to help others be at their best in
discussion.

37. Gamingthe System 37
Written Communication: Students will be able to produce short-form and long-form writing
that explores an original idea or observation by making a coherent (“Of which all the parts are
consistent, and hang well together,“ to quote the Oxford English Dictionary definition of
coherent) argument, clearly expressed in prose.
Specifically, you will use the principle of “known-to-new” in composing sentences and
paragraphs in response to supplied prompts, and will seek to demonstrate mastery of English
grammar and mechanics in addition to logical flow and clarity. The format for writing
assignments and the grading criteria will be introduced in a classroom activity early in the
semester, and reference materials, instructor feedback, and opportunities for peer feedback will
be provided.
Short Version: Most of the writing assignments in this course will be paragraph-
long (i.e., 90-150 words) responses to a prompt the instructors provide, usually
about the course readings. Follow the instructions and criteria we provide. Strive
for insight, logic, clarity, and mechanical correctness.
Information Literacy: Students will develop and demonstrate the skills and habits of the
information literate: the urge and ability to identify and resolve gaps in their knowledge by
formulating a question, determining a method for answering that question, accessing
information, understanding its source, evaluating it for relevance, currency, accuracy, credibility,
bias, and its place in the related literature, and applying that information ethically and creatively.
Since questions inevitably lead to more questions, and since some questions are harder to answer
than others, this will not always be a simple or linear process. However, the goal is to apply the
process and its techniques rigorously, always seeking to avoid what Roberta Brody calls

38. Gamingthe System 38
“information naïveté.” This is done by questioning assumptions, addressing knowledge gaps
proactively, and creating information with ethical consideration of readers’ information naïveté
in mind.
Short Version: Look stuff up. Treat everything you read or watch or hear about as a
chance to learn more by discovering related information. Be resourceful; be
adaptable as the information landscape changes; know how to evaluate sources—
and do! Apply all this to the information you yourself create.
Synthesizing Skills: Students will routinely synthesize the skills and abilities described in the
above four goals in their work for the course. That is, written work should demonstrate critical
reading and information literacy; discussion contributions should incorporate the fruits of critical
readings of the assigned texts and should draw upon and inform one’s writing for the class; our
information literacy work should draw upon the themes and ideas and topics you develop
through our discussions, your writings, and your reading.
Short Version: This course will provide you with a number of challenges (writing
assignments, class discussion, and small and major assignments) and a number of
tools (techniques for critical reading and writing, information literacy skills, and
concepts and theories related to meaning-making and interpretation). It is your
responsibility to apply the tools to the challenges whenever possible, even when
doing so is not explicitly called for.
Readings:

39. Gamingthe System 39
Ralph Waldo Emerson, essays “The American Scholar” (1837); “Self-Reliance”; “The Poet”
(1841-1842) “The Scholar” (1863);
John Graves, Goodbye to a River, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1960.
Brody, R. (2008). The problem of information naïveté. Journal Of The American Society For
Information Science & Technology, 59(7), 1124-1127. doi:10.1002/asi.20849
Macki, Thomas P., and Trudi E. Jacobson (2011). Reframing Information Literacy as
Metaliteracy. College & Research Libraries, Volume 72, Number 1, 62-78
http://crl.acrl.org/content/72/1/62.full.pdf+html
Knott, Deborah “Critical Reading Towards Critical Writing” Accessed 11/22/11
http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/images/stories/Documents/critical-reading.pdf
Jeremy J. Shapiro and Shelley K. Hughes, “Information Literacy as a Liberal Art: Enlightenment
proposals for a new curriculum.” Educom Review, Volume 31, Number 2, March/April 1996
http://net.educause.edu/apps/er/review/reviewarticles/31231.html
James Geary, I Is an Other: The Secret Life of Metaphor and How It Shapes the Way We See the
World, Harper, 2011
David Eagleman. Incongito: The Secret Lives of the Brain. Pantheon Books. New York: 2011
William J. Scheick. Aspiring to the Highest: Imagery in Emerson's "The American Scholar"
Notre Dame English Journal , Vol. 8, No. 1 (Fall, 1972), pp. 34-42
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40066594
Other readingss TBA.

40. Gamingthe System 40
Grading: (See TLEARN for assignment descriptions and grading mechanics.)
Class Participation: 50%
Class participation includes the following:
Weekly Reading Responses Due: every Tuesday by start of class.
Weekly Activity-based Assignments: Due: every Thursday by start of class.
Demonstrated ability to make connections between course material and course skills
(e.g., analysis/use of metaphor, information literacy, reading for argument, logical flow in use of
language).
Active involvement in class discussion.
Displaying initiative in realizing the course goals. This includes being a discussion leader
and providing peer critiques on weekly writing, weekly activity-based assignments, and Major
Assignment #1 (see grading mechanics for further explanation and examples).
Major Assignment #1: 25% Due: March 9
Major Assignment #2: 25% Due: April 24
Attendance: Please make every effort to come to class on time and actively participate in
discussions and activities. Being present, prepared and engaged during our class meetings is the
only way to get a high grade in the course. Unavoidable absences will be excused provided Mr.
Donald is notified by email in advance; Mr. Donald reserves the right to require documentation

41. Gamingthe System 41
of illness or other commitment as a condition of excusing absences. Each student can miss class
2 times, no questions asked. A third unexcused absence will result in a 1/3 letter grade reduction
(e.g., A- to B+) from one’s final grade. Another 1/3 grade will be deducted for a fifth unexcused
absence. If you accumulate seven or more unexcused absences you will automatically fail the
course. Regardless of the reason for an absence, it is the student’s responsibility to make up
missed work and obtain notes or assignments.
Peer Tutor: Evan Barnett will be your peer tutor. He will attend all of our seminars and be
available to talk with you outside of class. He can be particularly helpful as you work on your
writing assignments and as you plan your projects and group work. Evan will read and evaluate
all of your written work, including projects and project documentation, and Mr. Donald will take
his recommendations seriously. Mr. Donald will make the final decision for the grades you will
receive.
Academic Integrity: We expect students to abide by the Honor Code to which they pledged
upon enrollment. In the event that a student violates this code, we will follow the protocol
outlined in the Student Handbook and will turn the matter over to the Honor Council. All
students are covered by a policy that prohibits dishonesty in academic work. Under the Honor
Code, a faculty member will (or a student may) report an alleged violation to the Academic
Honor Council. It is the task of the Council to investigate, adjudicate, and assign a punishment
within certain guidelines if a violation has been verified.
If you are in doubt about what counts as a possible honor code violation regarding a specific
assignment or situation, PLEASE ASK ME FOR CLARIFICATION. Generally speaking, all
writing assignments are to be completed by you alone, and will represent your original work.

42. Gamingthe System 42
You are expected to provide full and in-text citations for all ideas, quotes, uncommon facts,
phrases, etc., which come from a source other than yourself.
Students who are under the Honor Code are required to pledge all written work that is
submitted for a grade: “On my honor, I have neither given nor received any unauthorized
assistance on this work” and their signature. The pledge may be abbreviated “pledged” with a
signature. For work submitted electronically, please include either the complete or abbreviated
pledge, followed by your initials at the end of the document.
A Note on the Syllabus: This document is intended to present the goals, policies, schedule, and
structure of the course with the intention of helping you organize your time and resources. It is
subject to revision, and should not be considered a ‘contract’ between instructor and student.
Every effort will be made to avoid changing due dates. Students will be notified in class and via
email of any changes made, and the syllabus posted to TLEARN will reflect any changes.
However, it remains the students’ responsibility to check TLEARN or with the instructor for the
most recent version of the syllabus should any doubts arise.
Disability Accommodation: Please inform the instructor of any accommodations you require.
Early notification (i.e., in the first week or two of the semester) of the need for accommodation
and documentation in the form of an accommodation letter from Trinity’s Disability Services for
Students are required in order to provide appropriate accommodations. Please see
http://web.trinity.edu/x6257.xml for more information.
Major Assignment Dates:
March 9: Major Assignment #1 due.

43. Gamingthe System 43
April 24: Major Assignment #2 + Documentation due.
May 3: Final Exam time, 12-3 p.m.
Weekly Schedule:
See TLEARN for Weekly Assignments.
Discussion Evaluation Tool
Student Small
Group
50PP
Large
Group
10PP = |
Making
Connections
25PP = |
Core
Concepts
25PP = |
Initiative
100PP = |
Achievements
Gryffindor |
Be Polite |
Full Marks |
Perfection
Not Paying
Attetion -
10PP = |
Focus Group Questions
Engagement Questions
1) Briefly summarize the course. What is it about, and what are the difficulties?
a. Why did you choose to take this class?
2) How is the class going overall (for everyone)?
3) What is your opinion of how information is delivered in class?
Exploration Questions
1) Describe the grading system as best you can.
2) What do you feel the purpose of the grading system is?
a. Why do you think the instructors decided to use this grading system?
3) How well has the grading system lived up to that purpose?
4) How do you feel the grading system lets you customize how you interact with the course?
5) How does the grading system encourage you to participate, if at all?
a. How is the grading system connected to your participation in
discussion/writing/collaborative activities?
Exit Questions

44. Gamingthe System 44
1) Is there anything you would like to say about how you would change the grading system,
or about your opinion of it?
References
Astin, A. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and
evaluation in higher education. (pp. 1 - 15). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing
Company.
Barab, S., Pettyjohn, P., Gresalfi, M., Volk, C., & Solomou, M. (2012). Game-based curriculum
and transformational play: Designing to meaningfully positioning person, content, and
context.
Bartlett, T. (2011). The case for play. Education Digest,77(1), 27-33.
Bell, P., Davis, E. A., & Linn, M.C. (1996). The knowledge integration environment: Theory and
design. In Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference
(CSCL ’95: Bloomington, IN).
Bliuc, A., Ellis, R., Goodyear, P., & Hendres, D. (2011). Understanding student learning in
context: relationships between university students' social identity, approaches to learning,
and academic performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26(3), 417-
433.
Carni, R., Kuh, G., & Klein, S. (2006). Student engagement and student learning. Research in
Higher Education,47(1), 1-32.
Charoenying, T. (2010). Accountable game design: Structuring the dynamics of student learning
interactions. Educational Computing Research,43(2), 135 - 163.
Deterding, D., Khaled, R., Nacke, L., & Dixon, D. (2011).Gamification: Toward a definition.
Paper presented at gamification research network chicago 2011 workshop, Chicago, Il.

45. Gamingthe System 45
Dickey, M. (2005). Engaging by design: how engagement strategies in popular computer and
video games can inform instructional design. ETR&D, 53(2), 67 - 83.
Dickey, M. (2006). Game design narrative for learning: Appropriating adventure game design
narrative devices and techniques for the design of interactive learning
environments. ETR&D, 54(3), 245-263.
Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. (pp. 51-71). New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harris, D. (2012). Work and leisure in higher education.British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 33(1), 115 - 132.
Kohn, A. (2011). The case against grades. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 28 - 33.
Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming School Cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Rao, D. (2011). Skills develpment using role-play in a first-year pharmacy practice course
. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 75(5), 1-10.
Russell, C., & Shepard, J. (2010). Online role-play environments for higher education. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 992-1002.
Schlecthy, P.C. (1990). Schools for the 21st century: Leadership imperatives for educational
reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, K., Sheppard, S., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement:
classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 1-15.
Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a
world of constant change. CreateSpace.

46. Gamingthe System 46
Umbach, P., & Wawrzynski, M. (2004, May). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in
student learning and engagement. Paper presented at Annual forum of association for
institutional research , Boston, MA.
Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Jameson, H., & Lander, R. (2009). Play, cognition, and self-
regulation: What exactly are children learning when they learn through
play?. Educational & Child Psychology, 26(2), 40-52.