The chalenge of effectively motivating learners is one that has plagued educators since humans started practicing formal education. Motivating adult learners specifically may require different methods than children. Do negative consequences motivate better than positive ones? Do extrinsic rewards work better than intrinsic rewards? There is a wealth of research in this area, with practices changing to accommodate new research, societal expectations, and technological advances. Applying gaming elements to learning situations (gamification) is a motivational practice that has been around for decades in K-12 learning environments, but in recent years it has gained new life in the world of adult learning due to its’ increasing popularity in adult-focused non-learning environments.

Like others, I have heard a lot about gamification within education recently as it has become something of a buzzword. I do not have a lot of experience with implementing it but have absolutely participated in gamified activities as a learner. I appreciate that it can absolutely increase enjoyment of learning, but I have always been skeptical of whether it really provides benefits to learning, especially for adult learners. I wanted to do some digging to see what the research says it to see if my skepticism is warranted.

In this paper I will explore the theories behind gamification and adult learning and discuss how those theories can be applied to educational practices in schools, the workplace, and other formal adult learning spaces.

 Video 1: What is Gamification in Education? (Biotech Whisperer, 2023)

Video 1 provides a quick overview of gamification and describes some of its' potential benefits and how it educators can achieve those benefits through gaming elements. These game elements can include collecting points, gaining badges for various achievements, getting rewards for progressing through level, leaderboards displaying top performers, and more. Although they are sometimes used interchangeably, it should be noted that gamification is distinct from game-based learning, which involves utilizing actual games to facilitate learning. Gamification very specifically is not a game and simply applies game elements to tradtional learning practices (Deterding et al., 2011). So, how does gamification work on a theoretical level? Gamification is not a theory of cognition or learning. Instead, it relies upon a few psychological theories of motivation to foster increased interest in learning.

Figure 1: Extrinsic Vs. Intrinsic Motivation: What’s The Difference? (Simply Psychology, 2023)

While not a theory in and of itself, the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and how they apply to learning are fundamental bases for gamification. Figure 1 provides a brief overview of how the two types of motivaiton differ. Intrinsic motivation is due to internal desires unrelated to external outcomes, e.g., genuine interest in a topic or feelings of accomplishment when completing a difficult task. Extrinsic motivation comes from a desire to achieve a separate outcome that is tied to the action, e.g., receiving cash for participation, collecting points to get a small prize, or receiving praise from a role model. Both types of motivation can exist within the same person at the same time during one particular activity, so it is important to understand how to stimulate both.

Learning that is intrinsically motivated has been shown to be of better quality than that which is extrinsically motivated (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Learners better retain and apply information that they are personally interested in and find enjoyable, but this is mediated by learning activities themselves (Landers, 2014). Even if a learner is interested in a topic, if the learning activity is not interesting, they will be less motivated to learn. Of course, even the most engaging activity cannot make someone interested in a topic they dislike, but some extrinsically motivated engagement is better than none in that case. As seen in Video 2 below, both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are useful and necessary.

Video 2: Societal Expectations and Inner Desires: The Complex Dynamics of Motivation (Sprouts, 2021

It is up to educators to design learning activities that nurture both types of motivation, ideally focusing on intrinsic motivation, but bringing in extrinsic motivation when needed. When implemented correctly, gamification can do this. Gamification almost always increases enjoyment of learning (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019). Having fun and enjoying an activity can increase interest in a topic, which increases intrinsic motivation. Gamification can also promote intrinsic motivation by providing social interaction and a sense of personal accomplishment. It promotes extrinsic motivation through rewards such as points and badges. When these motivators come together, they provide a more engaging learning experience.

Self-determination theory (SDT) is a theory of motivation that can help explain why certain gamification elements can work as intrinsic motivators. SDT posits that humans have three internal needs that, when met, allow a person to develop intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000b).

Figure 2: Self Determination Theory (Structural Learning, 2023)

These needs are competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Figure 2 shows how these needs come together to promote intrinsic motivation and engagement. Competence refers to the need for a person to feel that they have some type of mastery or understanding of the task they are doing. Achievement badges or a progress bar are game elements that could provide learners with a sense of competence. Relatedness refers to the need for a person to feel connected with those around them. Competition or teamwork game elements can help fulfill this need. Autonomy refers to the need for a person to feel that they are doing a task of their own volition. This need can be more difficult to achieve with gamification if it is not done correctly. If a game element becomes a requirement to earn a certain grade in a course, learners may begin to feel that they do not have autonomy in regard to the activity. This effect could be worse for adult learners who, as will be discussed later, are assumed to prefer more choice over their learning. Educators can avoid this by making the game element optional or ensuring that it is enjoyable enough that learners do not mind that they are required to participate. Gamified activities do not need to satisfy all three of these needs to promote intrinsic motivation. Some needs may be fulfilled by other parts of the learning experience, so gamification can act as a supplement in some cases.

There is no doubt that gamification increases enjoyment of learning. There is, however, doubt about whether it improves learning outcomes. Some studies do show improvements in learning outcome achievement between gamified and non-gamified groups, but many show no improvement (Koivisto & Hamari, 2019; Mellado & Cubillos, 2024). The reason for this is uncertain and probably multi-faceted, but some critics believe it is primarily due to gamification being used as a poorly implemented band-aid (Hung, 2017). If students are not engaged and are struggling to learn, simply slapping a points gathering element on top of a lesson is not going to be helpful if the underlying problem is not being addressed. To provide the full benefits, gamification needs to go deeper and make more than surface level changes. At the same time, this can backfire if gamification becomes too complex and causes confusion and frustration (Berkling & Thomas, 2013). To make gamification successful as far as learning outcomes, educators must take time to evaluate what problem they are trying to address, which game elements can help them adress it, and how to implement those elements in a way that will be meaningful (Landers et al., 2019) This is one of the most common criticisms of gamification. Successful gamification implementation can require a lot of thought and work and there really is not a lot of consensus on how to make it work, so is it worth it to put in that work if there is little to no impact on learning? Since it does provide some benefit in the form of fun and interest, many educators may find it worth the effort depending on their goals, but some may not. Video 3 below discusses this issue beginning at 31:31.

Video 3: You've Been Played: Pros & Pitfalls of Gamification w/ Adrian Hon (Human Resotration Project, 2023)

Another common criticism of gamification is its’ potential to rely too heavily on extrinsic motivators. Collecting points or badges are some of the easiest game elements to apply to learning and are also strong extrinsic motivators. The concern is that if educators rely too heavily on these elements, learners will begin to show less and less intrinsic motivation, which is detrimental to learning quality (Bogost, 2015). In addition to poorer learning quality, learners who are primed to rely on extrinsic motivation may struggle to motivate themselves effectively in setting without extrinsic motivators (Deci et al., 1999). This should theoretically be less of an issue in adult learning since adults are assumed to be more intrinsically motivated, but it is still a potential problem to be considered.

There is also the potential for what psychologists call satiation. This occurs when an enjoyable experience becomes less enjoyable over time as a person is repeatedly exposed to it (Redden, 2015). If a student is constantly rewarded with points for every daily worksheet they do and those points never add up to something more, the student is eventually going to become desensitized to the points and they will no longer be a motivator. In studies of gamification in other fields this process has been shown to eventually have negative impacts on the goals that the gamification was intended to achieve (Hammedi et al., 2024). Clearly this phenomenon would be problematic in a learning setting. Educators can try to avoid it by using gamification infrequently or by making changes to the game elements from time to time.

Adults do not learn in a fundamentally different way than children. They do, however, bring more life experience and knowledge to learning than children do. They are also generally learning in different contexts and for different reasons than children. This means that learning for adults needs to be thought about and designed differently. It is important to note that adult learners are typically described as being over the age of 25, although the theory below may apply in some instances to younger learners. The most popular theory of adult learning, Malcom Knowles’ theory of Andragogy is a series of principles or assumptions about adult learners and their relationship with learning. The five (sometimes listed as six) principles of andragogy are shown in Figure 3 below(Merriam et al., 2007):

Figure 3: Andragogy – The Role of Prior Experience in Learning (Paul Desmarais, 2021)

When we combine these principles, we get a learner that is capable of self-direction and is motivated to learn things relevant to their lives. The theory has received criticism for being vague enough to apply to learners of any age and for not focusing enough on the importance of the context of the learner (Sandlin, 2005). I would argue that the importance of keeping the learners' contexts in mind is implied in the principles, but I do see the value in explicitly stating that personal or out-of-classroom context of adult learners is an important consideration when designing adult learning. Nonetheless, Andragogy is still a highly popular theory. Of course, these principles do not apply to every adult learner, but they can provide a general guide to designing learning experiences for adults. The main principle that is considered when discussing gamification is the fact that adult learners tend to be more intrinsically motivated to learn and respond better to learning activities that promote intrinsic motivation.

Gamification is used frequently in adult-centered non-learning contexts, most notably in retail store loyalty programs. The ubiquitousness of these programs indicates that adults do respond to gamification in the right circumstances. Companies would not invest in them if they did not lead to increased sales. However, learning is a much more involved process, so we cannot assume that gamification will work equally as well, especially since we already know that it often does not improve learning in children. Unfortunately, there are few studies exploring gamification applied to adult learning. Those that do exist are typically smaller case studies pertaining to undergraduate higher education courses. Not quite adult learners as previuosly described, but as close as the research gets. The results of these studies tend to show increased enjoyment of learning, but typically show mild to no improvement in learning outcome achievement (Gul & Bilgin, 2020; Riedmann et al., 2024). Again, there is not much consensus as to why this is, and in fact there is little discussion about it in the adult education field at all. Lack of adressing the root issues at hand or simply poor integration are certainly potential problems. As previously discussed, one of the major pitfalls of gamification is the potential for overreliance on extrinsic motivators. This is at odds with the andragogical assumption that adults are more intrinsically motivated to learn. Therefore, adult educators need attempt to prioritize game elements that are intrinsic motivators, while adding just enough extrinsic motivators to maintain interest. They also need to be mindful of not adding too many elements and taking away from the actual learning. Adults want to understand how their learning is relevant to them and overly complex gamification may obscure that and cause frustration. Adults like to have fun while learning, but if the fun is too superficial and unrelated to the learning, it may not be well received. Gamifying adult education may have some benefits, but it is clearly a balancing act that can be difficult to get right.

Educators can incorporate gamification into their lessons in numerous ways, but for it to be effective they need to consider the context of the learning activity and their learners. Many game elements can be used or just one. The whole course may involve gamification or just one lesson. Educators can create game elements on their own or supplement their lessons with gamified learning apps. These choices come down to what the educator is hoping to achieve with gamification.

Figure 4: Gamification in Education: Definition, Strategies & Examples (Pickcel, 2022)

Points, badges, individual or team challenges, leaderboards, and storytelling are some of the most commonly used game elements in education (Hung, 2017). Some other elements such as quests and role-playing are presented in Figure 4. Points and badges can serve as rewards for completing assignments or doing well on project. Individual and team challenges can provide time for developing problem-solving skills and teamworking skills. Leaderboards can provide a sense of accomplishment and a goal to strive towards, while also promoting competition. Storytelling can provide engagement and a sense of a shared goal or purpose. All of these elements can be applied to both in-person and online learning, but their effects may be different depending on the delivery format.

When first implementing gamification, starting simple may be helpful, but going too simple can lead to so called “shallow” gamification. This is the phenomenon of just adding points or badges into an activity without addressing underlying learning processes (Dah et al., 2024). To go “deeper”, educators can use game elements to transform the basic structure of a course. Having leaners start a course with a grade of zero and having them collect points throughout the course through a combination of required and optional assignments allows students to decide which assignments they want to focus more attention on (Sheldon, 2020). A flipped-classroom style course could utilize on online platform that allows students to move through content at their own pace, unlocking various levels as they progress (Berkling & Thomas, 2013). There are endless opportunities for deep gamification, but it requires significant creativity and work on the educator’s part. Even deep gamification does not always provide learning benefits beyond fun, however. It all depends on how gamification is applied in the context of one specific learning environment. 

Online learning platforms or apps are an option for independent formal learning that is gamified. Duolingo is an extremely popular, free-to-use language learning app that is heavily gamified. It uses traditional language learning methods, but awards users with different kinds of points, allows them to compete against others in leagues, shows their learning streaks, and displays progress bars. Unfortunately, Duolingo does not release any data about course completion rates, but the rates are believed to be extremely low (Burns, 2021). So, it is difficult to tell just how well these elements work for motivation, but the popularity of the app suggests that they are enticing enough to get people to begin learning. There are many other gamified learning apps that similarly use multiple different gaming elements to achieve something that is almost a learning game, but not quite.

I will be describing and analyzing an application of gamification that I experienced in a community college human anatomy and physiology course. I enrolled in the course in 2021 as a perquisite for a professional program. The didactic portion and the lab portion were taught by two different professors and were technically separate courses but were meant to be taken at the same time. The lab portion operated as a typical lab course, with one weekly meeting consisting of a short lecture followed by hands-on learning. I do not have the statistics, but I would guess that approximately 60% of my lab section were adult learners over 25, with the rest being a more typical college age. The lab portion included two game elements that the professor explained she had just introduced the prior semester. Stickers were given out to all students whenever the section finished studying a specific organ system. If a student completed the course and collected all of the stickers, they ended up forming a little person when arranged correctly. Additionally, at the beginning of each lab there was a timed group challenge. Each table would have to draw or list as much as they could remember about some topic from the previous week. The topics were not known beforehand, hence the challenge aspect. The winning group would get extra time to work on their next lab practical exam.

I personally enjoyed collecting the stickers and felt it was a fun addition to a difficult course. The challenges also felt like an easy way to learn from other students that was not as involved as a group project. When asked about it, the professor stated that prior to implementing these game elements, the course had about a 20% drop rate and that those remaining still did not show high levels of learning outcome achievement. From discussions with prior students, she believed that the issue was a lack of motivation due to outside factors (work stress, family issues, etc.) combined with the difficulty of the subject. She could not make the material easier, so she wanted to increase motivation in some way. She was not allowed by the school to drastically alter the structure of the lab, so she decided to start small with the stickers and the challenges. She stated that the first semester of implementation the drop rate very slightly decreased and received positive feedback about the stickers and challenges. Grades did not increase significantly, and she admitted that the increased retention could have been an outlier, but she felt that the potential positive benefits were enough to continue the practice.

Analysis

This use of gamification is a good example of it not increasing learning outcome achievement but increasing motivation and enjoyment and being an overall net positive. It achieved success in a few ways. First, students were motivated to show up each week and make an effort at learning in order to receive their stickers. It can be argued that something as small as a sticker is unlikely to motivate someone to not drop out of a course, particularly an adult who likely needs to complete the course to obtain a degree. If bigger motivators are not working, is a sticker going to make a difference? This is a fair point and introduces the potential for some other type of motivation being stimulated. From my conversations with other students in the class, it seemed that the stickers became a visual representation of their progress throughout the class. Visual representations of progress like progress bars, or in this case a person made of stickers, can provide learners with a sense of accomplishment and help satisfy their need for competency. In fact, progress indicators have been shown to significantly increase learner engagement and enjoyment of the class (Matus et al., 2024). Second, the challenges provided extrinsic motivation in the form of time on the next exam, but also fulfilled the need for connection with peers. Third, the game elements were not required to achieve a good grade in the class. Participation in the team challenges was required, but a lack of effort would not negatively affect grades. Students had full autonomy to decide how much value they wanted to give to the game elements. Finally, the game elements were simple and did not overshadow the learning they were supposed to complement.

With all three needs described by SDT theory being met, this use of gamification had all of the elements to promote intrinsic motivation. It also promoted some extrinsic motivation and added an element of fun to the course, while remaining relevant and not taking the focus off the learning. Because of the limitations in changing the actual structure of the course, it is not entirely surprising that learning was not drastically enhanced. Although it did not clearly influence learning outcomes, an informal review showed that it did increase motivation and enjoyment of the course and was a reasonable use of gamification for adults. In the future, it would be interesting to incorporate a multi-level online simulator into the course as an optional review element. Simulations have been shown to increase learning in lab courses, although they do represent game-based learning more than gamification (Dustman et al., 2021).

Gamification has been a popular topic in education for the past two decades, but there is still no consensus on how to consistently make it work to enhance learning outcomes. There is even less consensus about or even discussion of if it works for adult learning. In theory, if an educator can incorporate game elements that successfully promote intrinsic motivation by providing fun while meeting the needs of competency, relatedness, and autonomy, while at the same time stimulating extrinsic motivation, then gamification should work. In reality, there is a wealth of research stating that it sometimes enhances learning, but often does not. More research into why seemingly well-designed gamification applications fail to enhance learning will hopefully provide answers. More research into its' effects on adult learning outside of undergraduate college courses would be extremely useful. Additionally, some frameworks exist for evaluating and designing game-based learning, but guidelines for implementing simpler gamification would be helpful. Finally, more research into instances of successful gamification of adult learning is needed. Adult learners learn in different contexts and with different motivations than children, so gamification requires different things to work for them. Educators should not expect drastic results from gamification, but if their goal is simply to increase fun and engagement, it is a worthy endeavor.