23

Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies Volume 10, Number 1, June 2022

The Effect of Gamification and Self-Determination

Theory on Motivation of Learners

Shane Ede
Jamestown High School

Abstract

The author of this report examines research describing self-determination theory,

gamification, and their effects on learner’s motivation. The structure of motivation
within the framework of self-determination theory and how that structure may be
applied to gamification is discussed. An examination of research on the motivational
effects of gamification including both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations is done. The
author concludes there is evidence that properly implemented gamification takes
into account the framework of motivation within self-determination theory can
increase the motivation of learners. The author found little evidence on
implementation of gamification or what proper implementation looks like. Further
research into the practical application of gamification and longitudinal studies of the
effects of gamification are suggested.

Keywords: gamification, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, self-

determination theory

The rise of video games and their seemingly unending motivational nature has brought
about the desire by teachers to find a way to implement the mechanics of games into
their curriculum. Primarily, educators want to tap into the motivational nature of games
to enhance the learning of their students. Games, and the elements of games, are being
used and implemented in classrooms around the world. Schools are adding eSports
teams as an extracurricular activity alongside traditional sports. Despite the rapid
adoption of gamification in curriculum and athletics, the field of study of gamification is
still relatively young. The author discovered very little research on the implementation of
gamification present in modern day curriculum planning. It is remarkable that the majority
of research reviewed for this report has been conducted in the just the last twenty years.
 24

Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies Volume 10, Number 1, June 2022

Public schools and post-secondary education institutions are not the sole focus of
gamification research. The research presented was conducted on the implementation of
gamified elements in the workforce, in classrooms, and global society as a whole. Many
applications available to users of cellular phones include some form of gamification
elements integrated into the app. Gamification, anecdotally, has a seemingly influential
effect on motivation, and the research is beginning to discover how and why. Through
the research presented, the primary theory cited for why gamification affects motivation
is Self-Determination Theory.

Self-Determination Theory

There is much that remains a mystery when it comes to human motivation. The virtual
shelves of Amazon are lined with non-fiction books written to assist the self-help reader
gain a little insight into individual motivation. With such a market for people to learn about
their motivations, it seems that attempting to learn what motivates someone other than
ourselves should be nearly impossible. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) attempts to
unravel the workings of human motivation.

The Center for Self-Determination Theory calls SDT a “broad framework for the study of
human motivation” (The Center for Determination Theory, n.d., para. 2). SDT posits that
for any motivation to even exist, an individual has certain basic psychological supports
(autonomy, competence, and relatedness) that must be met (Ryan & Deci, 2020). The
level to which those supports are fulfilled influences the motivational level of the
individual. Deci et al. (1991) explain that each of the three supports is interrelated, stating
that any of the three can enhance motivation, but will only enhance intrinsic motivation
and internalization when the other two are also supported.

SDT, as described by Ryan and Deci, differentiates motivation into three basic levels: (a)
amotivation or the total lack of motivation, (b) extrinsic motivation, or motivation fueled
by outside factors, and (c) intrinsic motivation or motivation that is fueled by internal
factors. SDT further breaks down extrinsic motivation into 4 levels (2020). These four
levels appear as a continuum that begins near amotivation with external regulation, then
proceeds to introjection, identification, and concludes with integration which is nearest
to intrinsic motivation.

As the motivational source moves further from amotivation toward intrinsic motivation,
the level of autonomy (described as integrated internalization) increases. Autonomous
motivation, one of the support pillars of SDT, was found by Taylor et al.’s (2014)
 25

Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies Volume 10, Number 1, June 2022

investigation to have a strong correlation to academic achievement. Ryan and Deci

(2000) found the opposite was also true; students who were influenced by extrinsic
factors of motivation were less likely to show interest or effort in academics.

Milyavskaya and Koestner (2011) performed a study testing SDT across a variety of
domains. These domains spanned such personal domains as family and friends and less
personal domains such as school and work. The results of the study showed that need
satisfaction, or how well the key SDT supports were met, explained 40% of the variance
in autonomous motivation between each of the domains, and need satisfaction had a
similar effect across all the domains studied. This correlation between autonomous
motivation and the continuum of motivation as described by Ryan & Deci (2020) supports
the claim that a curriculum that is need-supporting can lead to greater engagement. It is
this engagement that the field of gamification is intended to create.

Gamification

Gamification has been described in many ways, but generally is categorized with the
broad idea of using some of the elements commonly included in games and integrating
them into something that is not a game. Hanus & Fox (2015) describe it in careful detail
as the “use of narratives to change the context around a typical activity, the creation of
social competition, and the incentivizing of behavior through badge and reward systems”
(para. 1). Just as the definition of what constitutes gamification is being narrowed, so too
are the defined practices of what an effective implementation should look like.

A study by Groening and Bennewies (2019) that looked exclusively at the inclusion of the
gamification element of digital achievements (badges and leaderboards) found no
significant difference in self-reported motivation, but did see an increase in persistence
(defined as how many of the study tasks the subject completed) which is synonymous
with engagement to the subject. Upon review, several other studies provide evidence of
this same increase in persistence and engagement. Denny (2013) showed an increase in
the number of student contributions with no reduction in quality when badges were
introduced. Mekler et al. (2017) introduced points, levels, and leaderboards in their study
and discovered that there was no real difference in measured intrinsic motivation, and
yet the number of tasks performed increased with no decrease in quality.
 26

Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies Volume 10, Number 1, June 2022

Intrinsic motivation may not be the only factor included to judge gamification and its
usage. Increasing persistence, performance, and engagement may be enough to
discover measurable gains. Kapp et al. (2020) tested gamification on retail employees in
a twelve-month study. In this study, employees were allowed to log in to the training
system at any time or place and play a casual game that had integrated learning
elements and found that the addition of the casual games increased engagement and
the employees were more motivated to come back and engage.

Caution may be warranted as there is evidence that gamification may lead to a decrease
in intrinsic motivation. Hanus & Fox (2015) studied the effects of gamification through
badges and reward systems (leaderboards and points systems) and discovered that in
the groups where gamification elements were included, intrinsic motivation, classroom
satisfaction, and final exam performance all decreased. This result may have been
expected though. Desi and Ryan (2020) explain that Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET),
a sub-theory of SDT that is largely related to intrinsic motivation, suggests that rewards
like badges, leaderboards, and points naturally produce feelings of competence,
however, to be effective for a student’s intrinsic motivation they must also elicit a sense
of autonomy. Further, if those rewards are seen by the learner as controlling, or forced,
they can harm students’ autonomy (Ryan & Desi, 2020). Since intrinsic motivation is so
closely tied to autonomy, the implementation of game elements must be carefully
considered.

Some of the reviewed studies that seem to indicate that gamification is detrimental to
student motivation also seem to point the way to implementation of gamification in such
a way as to avoid the pitfalls they encountered. Hanus and Fox (2015), for example,
found that reward systems reduced motivation, satisfaction, and performance, but also
found that for students who were bored in the classroom or do not wish to be there,
rewards and incentives might have the opposite effect, increasing their motivation. They
also found that gamification is more likely to work when learners can choose whether
they participate. Mekler et al. (2017), in the discussion of their study, noted that the
gamification elements did not increase intrinsic motivation but may have been an
effective extrinsic motivation. It should be acknowledged that there were course and
visual design flaws that were detrimental to their study (suggesting that aesthetics may
play a part), and lastly, that those participants who felt more autonomously driven in the
task reported more intrinsic motivation. These findings support the CET/SDT claim that
intrinsic motivation is tied to autonomy.
 27

Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies Volume 10, Number 1, June 2022

Van Roy and Zaman (2018) specifically designed a study to examine the effects of
gamification when applied with the need supporting features of SDT. At the conclusion
of their study, they discovered that if game elements are designed that support a
student’s needs, they have the potential to stop or decrease a decline in autonomous
motivation. They also discovered that motivation is a unique element for each learner
and the designer needs to be selective when including a variety of need-supporting
elements. Their findings, along with Mekler et al.’s (2017) findings that aesthetics may
have played a part in the lack of motivation, and Hanus & Fox’s (2015) findings that
rewards seen as controlling can decrease motivation, all seem to point to the idea that
implementation of gamification can be a tenuous affair.

Proper implementation of gamification elements along with a variety of how they support
the needs of autonomy, efficacy, and relatedness may be the key to using gamification
to increase motivation and learning. In Su and Cheng (2014) the authors found that when
students were exposed to a gamified environment that encouraged student curiosity and
interest in the subject, the student's motivation increased. The researchers also
concluded that the implementation of gamification must include the effective use of
instructional design methods if the desired result is to increase student motivation. In the
study, they used ARCS, but suggest that any of the standard instructional design
methods might give similar results if used effectively.

Implementation

If the proper implementation of gamification is the key to not only increasing student
engagement, but also improving student motivation, the focus of inquiry becomes the
elements of proper implementation in the classroom. Successful implementation,
suggests Suh et al. (2018), is a matter of using game dynamics that successfully satisfy
the students’ psychological needs. In the same study, the elements of rewards increased
competence and autonomy, the ability to express oneself increased autonomy,
leaderboards and points (competition) increased competence and relatedness, and
altruism also increased relatedness.

It is likely the collaboration of all the elements of gamification that are implemented and
how they mesh, that creates the success of the gamification. Suh et al. (2018) also found
that the three psychological needs as described by SDT accounted for 48.9% of the
variance of enjoyment. Gamification works, they conclude, by adding enjoyment through
the satisfaction of those psychological needs. The ignoring of those needs, or even one
 28

Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies Volume 10, Number 1, June 2022

of them, by the designer, could reduce the enjoyment of the learner and lead to a
decrease in engagement.

Garris et al. (2002) discuss an instructional model that centers on a process called the
Game Cycle. This Game Cycle is, they claim, the cornerstone of engagement created by
computer games. The Garris team also performed a review of twenty-one studies and
findings concluded that while there was no difference in the effectiveness of games over
conventional teaching, eight out of eleven of those studies examined the retention of
learning. These studies indicate retention was higher for training that was game-based.
In seven of eight studies that evaluated instructional interest, students preferred
simulation game activities over conventional teaching methods.

Discussion

If instructional designers can create and implement gamification elements that feed the
psychological needs of the students while also drawing the students into the repeating
pattern of the game cycle, it could create the ideal mix of motivation and engagement
that draws the educators to gamification in the first place. Mekler et al. (2017) argue
that while game elements may not increase intrinsic motivation, they may act as
effective extrinsic incentives. In SDT, extrinsic motivations can move toward intrinsic
motivations as they become more internalized. The path to internalization, according to
Ryan and Deci (2020), hinges greatly on the level to which the activities support the
SDT psychological supports of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Through research, indications are that it may be necessary for the gamification
elements to support all three psychological factors (Mekler et al., 2017; van Roy &
Zaman 2018; Su & Cheng, 2014) and there may even be negative effects when they do
not (Hanus & Fox, 2015; Groening & Binnewies, 2019). Research also shows that need
satisfaction can, directly and indirectly, affect the well-being of the individual
(Milyavskaya & Koestner, 2011).

Certainly, there is evidence that gamification can be used to increase the motivation
and performance of learners (Kapp et al., 2020; Su & Cheng, 2014; Suh et al., 2018).
SDT explains that intrinsic motivation is not the only motivational factor that influences
learning. SDT also incorporates the idea that extrinsic motivation can be improved
through integrated internalization (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Towards greater self-
determination and thus greater intrinsic motivation, Deci et al. (1991) suggest
 29

Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies Volume 10, Number 1, June 2022

autonomous choice, reduced command structures, acknowledgment of feelings, and

openness of information for decision making and task completion. Garris et al. (2002)
provide the Game Cycle model as a framework for the gamification of instructional
content. The combination of the two within the SDT motivational framework could
provide a catalyst for effective gamification.

If the desired goal is the increased intrinsic motivation of the student, the path is clear.
Using the prescribed elements of SDT, create activities and work that increases the
integrated internalization of the learning. Gamification, used holistically, can provide a
tool for educators to use to that end. To what extent gamification can, or should, be
incorporated into the curriculum is still open for debate and subject to the findings of
additional research.

Further Research

More research in the field of gamification is suggested. Much has been done to
attempt to isolate the effective elements of the engagement of gamification, but little
research was found on the effective implementation of a holistic gamification design
using a solid and accepted instructional design approach. Could such research show
that the proper implementation of gamified elements has a desirable effect on the
motivation of students? Such research might also lead to standards and methods that
are more broadly usable in a multitude of educational situations.

Further, of the research found, only the van Roy and Zaman (2018) study represented a
longitudinal study on the motivational effects of gamification. In this study, some
evidence was presented that indicated that the long-term effects of gamification may
be different from the shorter-term effects. Additional longitudinal studies are suggested
to provide more evidence on the long-term effects of gamification and determine if the
findings of van Roy and Zaman can be reproduced.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the research provided no conclusive evidence on the positive effect of

gamification on intrinsic motivation in learners. However, research suggests that
gamification can increase the engagement and persistence of learners (Kapp et al.,
2020; Su & Cheng, 2014; Suh et al., 2018). SDT suggests that increased engagement
and persistence, in the right circumstances, could lead to greater integrated
 30

Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies Volume 10, Number 1, June 2022

internalization of motivation which could also lead to greater intrinsic motivation, or, at
the very least, more efficacious and autonomous extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci,
2020).

Seen through the lens of SDT, increased intrinsic motivation may be more of an ideal
goal than a practical one. Instead, aiming for increased overall motivation, both
extrinsic and intrinsic, maybe a more realistic goal. With that more realistic goal in
mind, gamification may be an extremely useful tool for educators. A tool that the
research reviewed indicates that if properly implemented, and with attention to
pedagogical best practices, could increase the overall motivation of learners and have
an overall positive effect on educational outcomes.
 31

Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies Volume 10, Number 1, June 2022

References

Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and
education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist,
26(3/4), 325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137

Denny, P. (2013). The effect of virtual achievements on student engagement.

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems - CHI ’13, 763. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470763

Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A
research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238607

Groening, C., & Binnewies, C. (2019). “Achievement unlocked!”—The impact of digital

achievements as a gamification element on motivation and performance.
Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 151–166.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.026

Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom:
A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction,
effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152–161.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019

Kapp, K. M., Valtchanov, D., & Pastore, R. (2020). Enhancing motivation in workplace
training with casual games: A twelve month field study of retail employees.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2263–2284.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09769-2

Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K. (2017). Towards understanding
the effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and
performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 525–534.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.048

Milyavskaya, M., & Koestner, R. (2011). Psychological needs, motivation, and well-
being: A test of self-determination theory across multiple domains. Personality
and Individual Differences, 50(3), 387–391.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.029

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions
and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
 32

Issues and Trends in Learning Technologies Volume 10, Number 1, June 2022

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-
determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

Su, C.-H., & Cheng, C.-H. (2015). A mobile gamification learning system for improving
the learning motivation and achievements: A mobile gamification learning
system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3), 268–286.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12088

Suh, A., Wagner, C., & Liu, L. (2018). Enhancing user engagement through
gamification. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 58(3), 204–213.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2016.1229143

Taylor, G., Jungert, T., Mageau, G. A., Schattke, K., Dedic, H., Rosenfield, S., &
Koestner, R. (2014). A self-determination theory approach to predicting school
achievement over time: The unique role of intrinsic motivation. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 39(4), 342–358.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.08.002

The Center for Self-Determination Theory. (n.d.). The Theory. Center for Self-
Determination Theory. Retrieved November 11, 2020, from
https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/the-theory/

van Roy, R., & Zaman, B. (2018). Need-supporting gamification in education: An

assessment of motivational effects over time. Computers & Education, 127, 283–
297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.018