Literature Review
Media is often seen as a hindrance to society. It can be a powerful tool for change if
Utilized correctly. New technologies and alternative ones have arisen in the last few years that allow for positive changes to occur. Positive psychology practices in combination with these technologies can better society as a whole.
The Internet can connect people across the world. This connectivity can be both positive and negative. Social networking sites offer both of these aspects. Positive psychology stresses the idea of putting what is working in a person’s life first. Many of the exercises it teaches involve journaling positive events (Seligman, 2011). Social media can allow for its user to post or blog these things and share them with others. This connection can increase the mental and emotional benefits for people to flourish.
Gaming is another media piece that is often criticized. The media often looks at the negatives such as violence and addiction (Anderson & Warburton, 2012; Kuss & Griffiths, 2012). The positive sides are many and include fostering cognitive development, socialization and massive educational and health benefits. Treatments for the therapy, older adults with neuro-motor and cognitive decline and teens suffering from depression are just a few of the positive uses of gaming (Fernandez-Aranda, et al.,2012; Aison, Davis, Milner & Targum, 2002; Szalavitz, 2012; Research concerning the use of video games to increase health well-being is evident by a literature review utilizing six databases, the Center on Media and Child Health Database Research, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials (Primack, et al., 2012). The research determined that video game use is relevant and beneficial “to provide physical therapy, psychological therapy, improved disease self-management, health education, distraction from discomfort, increased physical activity and skills training for clinicians” Primack, et al., 2012, p. 630).
A great example of video game use is a game developed by Pam Omidyar, who was a board member at the Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service at Tufts University. Having worked as a researcher in an immunology lab, she often would play video games after work to relax. While playing video games, she had a revelation, “That’s when I had the idea to develop a game that would allow kids to blast away at cancer cells,” she stated (Herman, 2007, Para.2). The video game created helps the young cancer sufferers to cope and understand the disease. This was the ideal mixture of technology with her passion for science. Through a nonprofit called the HopeLab that she started, a game was developed. The video game helps the young experience flow and as much well-being as possible through the PC based cancer fighting video game called Re-Mission (Herman, 2007). This is positive Psychology working for not only the individual but for the health community.
These technologies can utilize positive psychology to its core. They allow for connectivity and the ability to engage one another. This with the proper guidance can foster growth in a positive way. The American Heart Association and Nintendo teamed up in 2011 at the AHA Conference to demonstrate the benefits of video game playing acting as a “gateway concept” to foster interest of healthcare providers, behavioral researchers and health care professionals to see the potential health benefits of active-play video games (Lieberman, et al., 2011; Peng & Liu, 2009). Mainstream media needs to do a better job of reporting such positive efforts using alternative media that impacts the well-being of both the individual and the global community.
Definitions
“Ganification is an underutilized element in instructional design, but crucial to engaging today’s learners and enabling content mastery” (Kapp, 2013).
Research on video gaming has increased over the years with emphasis on violence and its adverse affects; but there have been other researchers who have seen the benefits of gamification, especially in the areas of cognition and education. To understand what gamification is and its positive effects, it must be defined.
Gamification is a relatively new hot topic impacting cognitive, social and emotional development. But what is gamification? There are numerous definitions but Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke (2011) define gamification “as the use of game design elements in non-game contexts,” focusing on using computerized, competitive elements in a situation where the user does not choose to play a game and further defines it in four parts Seymour, nd.). Groh (2012) like Deterding, et al. (2011) breaks down gamification into four parts (Seymour, nd., p.1). Witt, Scheiner, & Roba-Bissantz (nd.) define gamification further as “implementing principles and mechanics of games (like points, leaderboards or level) in a serious context” (p.1). Serious games are to teach, establish a point, or hone a skill, rather than just provide entertainment. Gamification in education is using “game-based mechanics, aesthetics and game thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote learning, and solveproblems,” (Kapp, 2013, p.7). Zichermann (2010) furthers the Kapp, (2013) definition “as the process of using game thinking and game mechanics to engage audiences and solve problems” (p. 4).
Taking a closer look at Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, and Nacke (2011) and Groh (2012), their four parts of gamification argue that there is a difference between ‘game’ or gamefulness’ and ‘play’ or playfulness.’ Play is “free-form, expressional or improvisational behavior,“ while game means that there is “clear and discrete goals with explicit rule systems” (Seymour, nd. p.1). The second part is elements, which pertains to the context of a game having a characteristic of an element that is readily identifiable and belonging to the game. Part three, design, emphasizes game design instead of game based technologies. The fourth part non-game context, stresses that gamification should not be restricted and could be used not just for a game but for a game application (Seymour, nd.).
The term gamification gained prominence and became a “buzz word” in February 2010, during the DICE 2010 Conference, when Jesse Schell, a game designer and professor at Carnegie Mellon University gave a presentation, “The Future of Games” claiming that “elements of games will invade every part of our daily lives “ (Xu, 2012, p.1). This gradually has unfolded to be true. Games are utilized in every facet of our lives as never before imagined.
Purpose
The purpose of games is the motivation that encompasses the elements. People are motivated toward gamification as a means of voluntary experiences that at times could become addictive, but the real reason that motivates people to play games is a specific kind of happiness that Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1990) introduced and named “Flow.” Fundamentally, this is why people play games. Flow is defined as a “state of absorption in one’s work” ( Xu, p.9). Csikszentmihalyi (1990) argues that there are seven core components of flow, broken into two categories of conditions and characteristics. In conditions of flow a person has a clear task, feedback, concentration, control, diminish awareness of self and altered sense of time. While the characteristics encompass all of the conditions, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) further states that it is “optimal experience, where we feel a sense of exhilaration, a deep sense of enjoyment that is long cherished, does not come through passive, receptive relaxing times” (Pagowsky, 2012, p.3). Research by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (1990) also point to elements of play in referring to gamification as voluntary exercises in positive psychology and a means of motivating learners (Liao, 2006).
Advocates of the Flow Theory
Several researchers advocate the Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow Theory in reference to motivation of learning and have applied it to technological and computer based learning (Chen, Wigan, & Nilan, 1999; Ghani, & Despande, 1994; Koufaris, 2002; Novak, Hoffman, & Yung, 1998). The theory of flow can readily be applied to learning by the use of games due to the user’s interaction and focus attention to the activity (Liao, 2006). Prensky (2002), Garris, et al. (2000), and Kapp (2012), support the importance of flow in gameplay due to the engagement of players, which drives them to continue playing and causing them to repeat the gameplay cycle and thus instills learning.
Video games, according to research do influence cognitive ability, socialization and emotional ability, especially memory. Memory is stored or can be triggered in different forms: short-term, long-term, verbal, visually spatial, and emotional, which is triggered by images. Bowen and Spaniol (2011), in their research utilized video games to find which images aroused the participants’ emotional memory. The research centered on utilization of violent, negative and neutral images within video games, finding that violent images rated more arousal than the rest, but long-term emotional memory is not affected by chronic exposure to violent video games. Bowen and Spaniol (2011) and Ferguson (2007) argue an opposite view from most research, including the Committee on Public Education, (2001), which report that playing violent video games and media related violence cause aggressive behavior or people become less emotionally responsive. Research results indicate that emotional long-term memory acts as an avoidance to negative situations (Bowen, & Spaniol, 2011).
Literature Review of Mobile Learning
Mobile learning has become an integral part of education mainly due to the children of today who are savvy users of digital technology. The evolution of both hardware and software and its adoption into society have had a definite impact on learning (Helen Crompton, 2013). The use of mobile devices for education purposes has increased dramatically and has the potential to revolutionize the way that people learn (Diehl, 2013).
Cochrane, (2013) states that generally pre-2005 mobile learning studies were typically international “short term pilot studies” (p.24). Today the studies are more in depth and present a comprehensive view of mobile learning and span the globe, such as Africa, Voslo, Walton, & Deumert, 2009; Asia, Ogata et al., 2010; North America, Europe; New Zealand, Cochrane, 2011. According to Cook (2009) and Sharples (2010), there are three phases of mobile learning:
1. A focus upon devices, such as handheld computers in schools (Perry, 2003);
2. A focus on learning outside the classroom, for example MOBILearn (O’Malley
et al., 2005);
3. A focus on the mobility of the learner such as MyArtSpace (Cook, 2010;
(Cochrane , 103, p.25).
Research since 2005, has identified the advancement of technological tools but the integration of mobile learning to enhance teaching was not explicitly linked (Anderson, 2007; Becta, 2007). As research into mobile learning increased, so too did the increase in interest, which became mainstream with conferences focusing on the use of mobile devices and apps (Ally, 2009; Woodill, 2010).
Focusing on learning outside the classroom, “requires an institutional and cultural change” (Cook, 2010), coupled with the proper scaffolding for students to utilize the tools of mobile devices and apps. Cochrane (2010) proposes an alternative to mobile learning by “minimizing the need for technical expertise in order to implement and maximize transferability, while explicity using a social-constructivist pedagogical foundation (p.28).
There still exists a gap between research and the actual implementation of mobile learning utilizing devices and apps. According to Cochrane (2013) there is a lack of explicit underlying theory (Traxler & Kukulska-Hulme, 2005). Additionally he argues that there is a general lack of evaluation and longitudinal studies, along with the lack of pedagogical integration. He goes on to state that there does exist a wealth of research into the use of mobile devices in education that can be utilized for future research. This definitely is the trend of the future that will eventually close the gap between mobile technology and learning. That impacts the well-being of both the individual and the global community.
References
Aison, C., Davis, G. Milner, J. & Targum, E. (2002). Appeal and interest of video game
use among the elderly. Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved on
April 10, 2063 from
http://www.booizzy.com/jrmilner/portfolio/harvard/gameselderly.pdf
Ally, M. (Ed).(2009). Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training.
In Z.L. Berge & L. Muilenburg (Eds.) Handbook of mobile learning.
New York, USA: Routledge, (pp. 24-34).
Anderson, C. A., & Warburton, W. A. (2012). The impact of violent video games: An overview. In
W. Warburton & D. Braunstein (Eds.) Growing Up Fast and Furious: Reviewing the Impacts of
Violent and Sexualised Media on Children, (pp. 56-84). Annandale, NSW, Australia: The
Federation Press. Retrieved on March 11, 2016 from
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2010-2014/12AW.pdf
Becta. (2007, March). Emerging technologies for learning, Volume 2. Z.L. Berge & L. Muilenburg
(Eds.) Handbook of mobile learning.New York, USA: Routledge, (pp. 24-34).
Bowen, H. J., & Spaniol, J. (2011). Chronic exposure to violent video games is not
associated with alterations of emotional memory. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 25(6), 906-916. doi: 10.1002/acp/1767. Retrieved on March 17, 2016
from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.1767/full
Chen, H., Wigand, R. T., & Nilan, M. S. (1999). Optimal experience of Web activities. In
L. F. Liao, (2006). A flow theory perspective on learner motivation and behavior
In distance learning. Distance Learning, 27(1) 45-66. Retrieved on Marcn 16, 2013
from
Cochrane, T. (2011). Reflections on 4 years of mlearning implementation (2007-2010).
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 3(3). 1-22.
Cochrane, T. (2013). A Summary and critique of m-learning research and practice. In
Z.L. Berge & L. Muilenburg (Eds.) Handbook of mobile learning, (pp. 24-34).
New York, USA: Routledge.
Committee on Public Education (2001, November 1). Media violence. Pediatrics, 108(5), 1
222-1226. doi:10.1542/peds.108.5.1222. Retrieved on July 27, 2013 from
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/108/5/1222.full.pdf+html
Compton, H. (2013). Mobile learning: New Approach, New Theory. In In Z.L. Berge &
L. Muilenburg (Eds.) Handbook of mobile learning, (pp. 47=58).
Cook, J. (2009). Scaffolding the mobile wave. In Z.L. Berge & L. Muilenburg (Eds.)
Handbook of mobile learning, New York, USA: Routledge (pp. 24-34).
Cook, J. (2010). Mobile Phones as mediating tools within augmented contexts for
development. In Z.L. Berge & L. Muilenburg (Eds.) Handbook of mobile
learning, (pp. 24-34). New York, USA: Routledge
Czikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. In N. Pagowsky.
(2012). ETCV 524 Literature Review: Motivation in gamified learning
Scenarios. Retrieved on March 24, 2016 from
http://nicolepagowsky.info/documents/pagowsky_etcv524_litreview.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687012001202
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. , & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements
to gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” In M. Hulsebosch, (2013). Targeting
gamification applications to increase user participation. 18thTwente Student
Conference on IT. Enschede, The Netheralnds 1-8. Retrieved on february 18,
2016 from
Diehl. W. C. (2013). Charles A> Wedemeyer: Pioneer of distance education. In
.L. Berge & L. Muilenburg (Eds.) Handbook of mobile learning, New York, USA:
Routledge , (pp. 24-34).
Ferguson, C.J. (2007)“The Good, The bad and the ugly: A meta-analytic review of
positive and negative effects of violent video Games,” Psychiatry Quarterly, 78,
309–316.
Fernandez-Aranda, F., Jimenez-Mucia, S., Santamaria, J.J., Gunnard, K., Soto, A.,
Kalapanidas, E., Bults, R. G., Davarakis,C., Ganchev, T., Granero, R., Konstantas,
D., Kostoulas, T.P., Lam, T., Lucas, M., Masuet-Aumatell, C., Moussa, M.H.,
Nielsen, J. & Penelo,E. (2012, August). Video games as a complementary therapy
tool I mental disorders: PlayMancer, a European multicentre study. Journal of
Mental Health, 21(4), 364-374.
doi: 10.3109/09638237.2012.664302. Retrieved on March 10, 2016 from
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/pdfplus/10.3109/09638237.2012.664302
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and
practice model. In N. Pagowsky. (2012).ECTV 524 Literature review: Motivation
in gamified learning scenarios. University of Arizona, 1-13. Retrieved on March
22, 2016 from
http://nicolepagowsky.info/documents/pagowsky_etcv524_litreview.pdf
Ghani, J. A., & Deshpande, S. P. (1994). Task characteristics and the experience of
optimal flow in human–computer interaction. In L.F.Liao, (2006). A flow theory
perspective on learner motivation and behavior in distance learning.
Distance Learning 27(1) 45-66. Retrieved on March 26, 2016 from
Groh, F. (2012). Gamification: State of the art definition and utilization. In Giannetto, D.
Chao, J. & Fontana, A. (2013). Gamification in a social learning environment.
Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 10, 195-207. Retrieved
on March 22, 2016 from
http://iisit.org/Vol10/IISITv10p195207Giannetto0090.pdf
Herman, L. (2007, August). Fighting Cancer with video games. Jonathan M. Tisch
College of Citizenship and Public Service, Tufts University. Retrieved on March
10, 2016 from
http://activecitizen.tufts.edu/blog/2007/07/28/fighting-cancer-with-video-games/
Kapp, K.M. (2013). Interactivity, games, and gamification: A research-based
approach to engaging learners through games. ICE Presentation Resources.1-
48. Retrieved on March 22, 2016 from
http://www.astdconference.org/files/content/events/7174/1030_Kapp_W209.pdf
Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to
online consumer behavior. In LF .Liao, (2006). A flow theory perspective on
learner motivation and behavior distance learning. Distance Learning, 27(1) 45-66.
Retrieved on March 26, 2016 from
Kuss, D. J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2012). Online gaming addiction in children and adolescents: A
review of empirical research. Journal of Behavioral Addiction 1(1), 1-20.
doi:10.1556/JBA.1.2012.1.1. Retrieved on April 2,2016 from
http://www.academia.edu/1146881/Kuss_D.J._and_Griffiths_M.D._2012_._Online_
gaming_addiction_in_adolescence_A_literature_review_of_empirical_research._
Journal_of_Behavioural_Addiction_1_3-22
Liao, L.F. (2006). A flow theory perspective on learner motivation and behavior in
distance learning. Distance Learning, 27(1) 45-66. Retrieved on March 26, 2016
from
Lieberman, D.A., Chamberlin, B., Medina, E., Franklin, B.A., Scanner, B,M., 7 Vafiadis, D. K.,
(2011). The power of play: Innovations in getting active Summit 2011. AHA Conference
Proceedings. Circulation. Retrieved on April 4, 2016from
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/123/21/2507.full
Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Yung, Y. F. (1998). Modeling the structure of the flow
experience among Web users. In L.F.Liao, (2006). A flow theory perspective on
learner motivation and behavior distance learning. Distance Learning, 27(1) 45-66.
Retrieved on March 26, 2016 from
Pagowsky, N. (2012).ECTV 524 Literature review: Motivation in gamified learning
scenarios. University of Arizona, 1-13. Retrieved on March 22, 2016 from
http://nicolepagowsky.info/documents/pagowsky_etcv524_litreview.pdf
Peng, W. & Liou, M. (2009). Chapter XXIII AN overview of using electronic games for
health purposes. IGL Global. Retrieved on April 10, 2016 from
https://www.msu.edu/~pengwei/Peng%20Liu.pdf
Prensky, M. (2002). The motivation of gameplay: The real twenty-first century learning
revolution. On the Horizon - the Strategic Planning Resource for Education
Professionals, 10(1), 5-11.
Primack, B.A., Carroll, M.V., Klem, M. L., King, B. Rich, M. Chan, C. W., 7 Nayak, S.
(2012, June). Role of video games in improving health-related outcomes: A
systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 42(6), 630-638.
Retrieved on April 2, 2016 from
http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(12)00172-9/fulltext#backbib40
Seligman, M.E.P. (2011). Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and
Well-being. New York, NY: Free Press.
Seymour, B. (nd.). Maximizing the usefulness of data gathered though crowdsourcing
Methods using gamification. University of Auckland. 1-5 Retrieved on March 24,
2016 from
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/compsci705s1c/assignments/proj_sem/reviews/bsey006.pdf
Sharples, M. (2005). Learning as converstation:Transforming in education in the mobile age.
In Z.L. Berge & L. Muilenburg (Eds.) Handbook of mobile learning, (pp. 24-34).
New York, USA: Routledge, (pp. 24-34).
Szalavitz, M. (2012, April 20). Study: Playing a video game helps teens beat depression. Time
Health and Family. Retrieved on April 4, 2016 from
http://healthland.time.com/2012/04/20/study-playing-a-video-game-helps-teens-
beat-depression/
Traxler, J,M., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2005). Mobile Learners. In Z.L. Berge & L.
Muilenburg (Eds.) Handbook of mobile learning, New York, USA:
Routledge., (pp. 24-34).
Vosloo, S. , Walton, M. & Deumert, A. (2009). M4Lit: A teen m-novel project in South Africa.
In Z.L. Berge & L. Muilenburg (Eds.) Handbook of mobile learning,
New York, USA: Routledge, (pp. 24-34).
Woodill, G. (2010), The mobile learning edge: Tools and technologies for developing tee,
In Z.L. Berge & L. Muilenburg (Eds.) Handbook of mobile learning,
New York, USA: Routledge, (pp. 24-34).
Xu, Y. (2012, April). Literature review on web application gamification and analytics.
Collaborative Software Development Lab, Department of Information and
Computer Sciences, University of Hawaii. 1—37. Retrieved on May 20, 2013
from
Zickermann, G. (2010, October 26). Fun is the future: Mastering gamification. In O.
Beza. (2011). Gamification-How games can level up our everyday life? VU
University 1-21. Retrieved on May 24, 2013 from
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~eliens/create/local/material/gamification.pdf