Chapter 1. Gamification elements

Chapter 1

Participatory teaching for the polycrisis in Higher Education using: Gamification elements

Preamble

This Chapter is part of the PolyCIVIS Handbook on Participatory Methods for Teaching about the Polycrisis in Higher Education. The objective of this Handbook is to serve as a reference resource for teaching about the polycrisis in Higher Education in a participatory manner, a need which has not only been foreseen by the PolyCIVIS project in its inception phase, but also confirmed and further substantiated in a number of meetings and workshops during the project’s lifetime.

This Handbook is not a coursebook to teach what the polycrisis is, but a methods book, to provide instruments for teaching about the polycrisis in a participatory manner. It is to be made available online as a multimedia live resource, presenting different participatory teaching methods for uptake by the Polycrisis-interested community in Higher Education, together with supporting materials such as method descriptions, references, examples and case studies.

The different methods proposed are presented in one chapter for each group of methods, which also includes, in the digital edition of this Handbook, a live survey to collect peer feedback from the community itself, on the usefulness and ease of use that community members (Higher Education tutors, students, researchers as well as practitioners) may themselves find specific methods to have within, and for, their own contexts and audiences.

What do we mean by thin participation techniques?

Gamification elements are selected features from games that are intentionally introduced into non-game learning environments to support motivation, participation, feedback, progression and reflection. In higher education, these elements may include points, levels, badges, progress bars, leaderboards, challenges, quests, missions, trophies, unlockable tasks, peer rewards and SAPS rewards: status, access, power and stuff. In the context of teaching polycrisis, gamification can structure complex inquiries through missions, collaborative problem-solving, visible progress, systems mapping and reflective action.

Indicative starter sources for information about these methods

Gamified UK. “Gamification Mechanics and Elements.”: Practical taxonomy of points, badges, leaderboards, rewards, player types and motivation structures.
Mambo.io. “Gamification Elements and Mechanics.”: Accessible overview of game mechanics such as goals, feedback, progress, competition and collaboration.
Points, badges and leaderboards: Common gamification pattern, useful but limited if disconnected from meaningful learning outcomes.
Progress bars and levels: Help students visualise movement through complex material and staged learning pathways.
Challenges and quests: Useful for turning large problems into structured missions, inquiry tasks and collaborative milestones.
SAPS rewards: Distinguishes symbolic, social, functional and material rewards: status, access, power and stuff.
Cooperative leaderboards: Alternative to competitive ranking, showing collective class progress toward shared goals.
Badge-based portfolios: Useful for recognising evidence of learning, reflection, systems thinking and stakeholder awareness.
Gameful learning design: Broader approach that treats learning as meaningful challenge, agency, feedback and iteration.
Gamification ethics sources: Help avoid manipulation, superficial reward systems, excessive competition and trivialisation of crisis.

Additional sources of information about these methods

Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & Mandl, H. (2017). How gamification motivates: An experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 371–380.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033
Huang, B., & Hew, K. F. (2015). Do points, badges and leaderboard increase learning and activity: A quasi-experiment on the effects of gamification. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 275–280). Society for Computer in Education.
Zeng, J., & Hew, K. F. (2024). Exploring the impact of gamification on students' academic performance: A comprehensive meta-analysis of studies from the year 2008 to 2023. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55, 2478–2502.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13471
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining "gamification." In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9–15). ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32(1), 77–112.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w
Marczewski, A. (2015). Even ninja monkeys like to play: Gamification, game thinking and motivational design. Gamified UK.
Tondello, G. F., Wehbe, R. R., Diamond, L., Busch, M., Marczewski, A., & Nacke, L. E. (2016). The gamification user types hexad scale. In CHI PLAY '16: Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (pp. 229–243). ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2967934.2968082
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Hew, K. F., Huang, B., & Guo, K. (2024). Advancing gamification research and practice with three underexplored ideas in self-determination theory. TechTrends, 68(4), 612–624.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-00968-9
Uz Bilgin, C., & Gul, A. (2020). Investigating the effectiveness of gamification on group cohesion, attitude, and academic achievement in collaborative learning environments. TechTrends, 64(1), 124–136.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00442-x
Mozilla Foundation. (2019). Transforming education with open badges. MozFest Book.
https://book.mozillafestival.org/10-years-of-activism-community-and-collaboration/transforming-education-with-open-badges
Deterding, S. (2015). Gamification ethics: Exploitation and manipulation [Workshop paper]. CHI 2015, ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2732466
Zagal, J. P., Deterding, S., & Nguyen, T. H. D. (2016). More than just a game: Ethical issues in gamification. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(2), 157–173.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9402-x
Bogost, I. (2011). Gamification is bullshit [Position statement, Wharton Gamification Symposium].
http://bogost.com/writing/blog/gamification_is_bullshit/
Hamari, J., Hassan, L., & Dias, A. (2018). Gamification, quantified-self or social networking? Matching users' goals with motivational technology. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 28(1), 35–74.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-018-9200-6

Indicative participatory teaching scenarios for these methods

Scenario 1. Polycrisis mission map

Students are divided into teams representing climate, migration, public health, food, energy and governance systems. Each team receives weekly missions requiring them to identify causal links, feedback loops, vulnerable groups and possible intervention points. Badges are awarded for systems thinking, ethical reasoning, stakeholder inclusion and evidence-based argumentation.

Scenario 2. Resilience quest leaderboard

Students design a resilience strategy for a fictional city facing heatwaves, housing stress, misinformation and energy insecurity. The leaderboard does not reward speed alone. It rewards quality of evidence, attention to justice, feasibility, collaboration and recognition of unintended consequences.

Scenario 3. Crisis-response badge portfolio

Each student develops a reflective portfolio organised around badges such as “uncertainty mapper,” “stakeholder listener,” “feedback-loop analyst,” “equity advocate” and “scenario critic.” Badges are awarded only when students submit short evidence-based reflections showing how their thinking changed.

Scenario 4. Polycrisis escape-room seminar

The classroom becomes a crisis coordination room. Groups unlock successive tasks by interpreting data fragments, news items, stakeholder statements and policy constraints. Each “lock” represents a complex decision: prioritising resources, communicating uncertainty, protecting vulnerable groups or anticipating cascading risks.

Scenario 5. Cooperative challenge board

Instead of competing, the whole class works toward a shared challenge board. Each group contributes one part of the polycrisis puzzle: visual maps, stakeholder interviews, policy summaries, risk timelines or ethical dilemmas. Collective progress unlocks a final synthesis workshop.