Classcraft: from gamification to ludicization
of classroom management
Eric Sanchez1
& Shawn Young2
& Caroline Jouneau-Sion3
Published online: 4 May 2016
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract In this article, we discuss the concept of gamification, based on a literature review
and preliminary feedback from teachers using Classcraft, a role-playing game supported by a
digital platform and a mobile application that were developed to answer high school teachers’
classroom management needs. Our results come from two experiments in France and
Quebec and also from an online survey that was made available on the Classcraft platform.
These results promote a model of gamification that consists of considering the experience of
the students, rather than the game itself, and they confirm that a game is consubstantial to its
player. Therefore, we argue for the use of the term Bludicization^ to emphasize that
transforming a situation into a game does not consist of using elements that have a gamelike
aspect, but rather of a non-essentialistic vision of play, generating a metaphor around the
situation to build a reflexive space where the nature and meaning of interactions are modified.
Keywords Classcraft . Gamification . Ludicization . High school education . Classroom
management
1 Introduction
Classcraft is a role-playing game that was developed for classroom management at the
high school level. The game is now available as a mobile and web application. Teachers
can create teams in the game and assign an avatar to every student, as well as points and
Bpowers^ as rewards for proper classroom conduct. Thus, the objective is to transform
the manner in which students experience coming to class by adding a playful dimension.
Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:497–513
DOI 10.1007/s10639-016-9489-6
* Eric Sanchez
eric.sanchez@unifr.ch
1
CERF, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
2
Classcraft Studios Inc., Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
3
EducTice, Institut français de l’éducation, ENS de Lyon, Lyon, France
The term gamification is generally used to describe the process in which one
integrates aspects of play into a situation that is initially not playful. However, in this
article, we argue for the use of the term ludicization, following from the idea that it’s
less about Bmaking a game^ (gamify) than it is about Bmaking it possible for a situation
to be seen as ludic^ (ludicize). Thus, in our first section, a brief literature review pushes
us to argue for the use of the term ludicization and to expose the key components of this
concept. A second section presents the game Classcraft and the experiments we have
conducted around the game. In the last section, we present an analysis of the feedback
of the first usage experiments of Classcraft and the elements we have decided to use to
define the concept of ludicization.
2 From gamification to ludicization
2.1 Gamification, origin of a neologism
According to Deterding et al. (2011b), the word gamification appeared in 2008 in
the digital media economic sector. It was popularized during different conferences
(Google Tech Talk) by Zimmermann in 2010 and Amy Jo Kim in 2011 (Kapp
2012). Thereafter, the word spread across the fields of academic research, marketing,
and game design (Bonenfant and Genvo 2014). Since, different definitions
have been suggested, such as, BGamification is the use of game design elements in
non-game contexts^ (Deterding et al. 2011b) and Busing game-based mechanics,
aesthetics, and game thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote learning,
and solve problems^ (Kapp 2012).
Gamification should be distinguished from ludification, which means the spreading
of games in culture, a phenomenon described by Henriot (1969) before the
development of digital technologies. Gamification is applied to various fields, such
as urban architecture or employees’ relationships in companies, but the concept
flourishes for the web interfaces design sector. Therefore, whether it is for catching
the attention of consumers or building the loyalty of digital social network users,
gamification is an economic approach of attention (Goldhaber 1997). This approach
aims at optimizing the mental engagement of an individual, ordinarily for
economic purposes.
Etymologically, the word gamification is based on the Latin word facere, which
reflects the idea that it is possible to Bmake the game.^ Therefore, gamification is
considered to be an automatic and non-problematic transformation (Silva 2013). In
their article published in 2011, Deterding et al. improve their first definition by
underlining that gamification is Bthe use (rather than the extension) of design (rather
than game-based technology or other game-related practices) elements (rather than fullfledged
games) characteristic for games (rather than play or playfulness) in non-game
contexts (regardless of specific usage intentions, contexts, or media of
implementation)^ (Deterding et al. 2011a). This definition still suggests that some
specific elements belong to games. However, these authors also consider the experience
of the player so that gamification would consist in addressing playfulness (the experiential
and behavioural dimensions) and in using these dimensions for the design of
structures with ludic affordances (Ibid.).
498 Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:497–513
2.2 Ludicization, play vs. game
Bonenfant and Genvo emphasize that gamification Bconsists in adopting an essentialist
approach of ludic phenomenon^ (Bonenfant and Genvo 2014). Therefore, with the
support of the seminal work of Henriot (1969); Genvo (2013) proposes to adopt the
word ludicization in order to focus our attention not on the artefact but on the situation
that takes place when an individual accepts to play. Sanchez & al. adopted a similar
approach in a work dedicated to develop a theoretical model of play for educational
purposes (Sanchez et al. 2015; Sanchez and Emin 2014).
According to this model, there is no specific game element that can be used to make
a game (gamification), but it is possible to subtly combine elements in order to design a
learning context where play can take place. We consider that the term ludicization is
more appropriate when it comes to design a learning situation that combines educational
purposes and ludic characteristics. Indeed, ludus, the Latin root of ludicization,
means both game and school work. In addition, the suffix B-icization^ does not mean
that it is possible to Bmake^ the game, as suggested by the suffix B-fication^ (facere) of
gamification, but mainly that it is possible to transform the situation (Sanchez 2014).
Indeed, play emerges from an intention, and it is not Bin the materiality of objects, in the
factuality of gestures, that we have some chance to find ludic elements^1
(Henriot
1989). As a result, our approach leads us to inscribe the issue of game-based learning in
the existentialist philosophy and to focus our attention on the meaning of the situation
and the behaviour of the player within a frame that enables its autonomy.
2.3 Research aims
This article proposes a discussion of the gamification concept based on an empirical study.
We describe Classcraft, a platform that facilitates the ludicization of classroom management.
We analyse preliminary results of two experiments in France and Quebec in order:
– To document the implementation of Classcraft in different classroom settings and
to show how ludicization enables the teacher to manage classroom interactions,
– To identify the key elements that have been used for the ludicization process and to
understand how they affect student behaviour,
– We also discuss the implications of the ludicization of classroom management and
reflect on potential tensions that became apparent from this study.
This article does not deal with the efficiency of Classcraft for classroom management.
Though the game has received a lot of positive feedback from users (both teachers and
students), our data does not enable us to measure the added value of the game. However,
we aim at developing a more comprehensive approach of how ludicization may influence
students’ behaviour. This will be done through the concept of reflexive space (Sanchez
2014). Indeed, the core hypothesis of our study is that, rather than focusing on the use of
game elements such as points or rewards in a mechanical way, ludicization consists in
selecting a metaphor for the classroom situation and creating a reflexive space in which
the nature and the meaning of interactions include aspects of both play and learning.
1
Our translation
Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:497–513 499
3 Classcraft, a role-playing game for classroom management
In this section, we describe the game and the context of our experiment in two schools
in France and Quebec.
3.1 A multiplayer game
Classcraft is a cloud-based platform that works across many devices. The service
requires no installation (other than mobile apps, if one decides to use them). The game
operates on a real-time web engine, so events in the game are pushed in real time to
other users’ devices, much like in a normal online video game. The game acts as
augmented reality in the sense that there is no 3D game world; rather, the game world is
real life, with the game acting as a digital layer on top of it.
The objective of Classcraft is to transform the classroom into a role-playing game
for the duration of the school year. For the teacher, the point is to foster desired
behaviour in students. This behaviour may depend on the different school contexts,
but it is related to classroom management. For example, it is expected from students
that they arrive on time and that they do their homework before the course. They are
also expected to participate in class, help other students, collaborate during school
activities, and get good grades. Classcraft helps to make appropriate and nonappropriate
behaviour clearer to students through a system of rewards and penalties,
depending on the school rules. As a result, it is positive behaviour that enables students
to progress in the game and, for the student, the goal is to gain levels and thus acquire
powers, as well as to advance their avatar and support their team.
Inspired by role-playing video games or RPGs (for example, World of Warcraft), the
first version of Classcraft was conceived by Shawn Young in January 2011. The first
version of the digital platform, which was very basic, was built for personal use. Three
years were then spent improving the rules. The first public version was made available
in February 2014 as a beta version. The official global launch of the game was in
August 2014 (Fig. 1).
Classcraft is not related to a specific school subject, and the duration of the game
depends on the teacher’s expectations (from a few class hours to the entire year). The
students play the game during school hours and outside of class. In Classcraft, students
are placed in teams of four to six members and play as Mages, Warriors, or Healers.
Warriors have more Health Points (HP) than the two other character classes and have
powers they can use to protect their teammates from losing HP. Healers have less HP
than Warriors but more than Mages, and they are the only character class that can
replenish other players’ HP. Mages have the least HP, but they have the most powerful
powers, often benefitting their entire team. Thus, the character classes are based on
archetypes found in RPGs (tank, support, and dps). Based on their character class,
students gain access to powers that they can use as they see fit (as long as they have
sufficient Action Points, or AP). These powers are either related to game mechanics
(heal another player, protect another player, regenerate Action Points, etc.) or to
privileges having an impact on players’ real lives (being allowed to eat in class, listen
to one’s iPod in class, hand in an assignment a day later, etc.). These powers are either
beneficial to the individual or to the individual’s team. Thus, students want to acquire
these powers to help themselves and their teammates.
500 Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:497–513
In order to acquire powers, the player must demonstrate behaviour that is expected of
him by the school, such as participating in class, helping other students, etc. These actions
are rewarded with Experience Points (XP), which are distributed by the teacher, who plays
the role of Gamemaster. These points enable students to level up and acquire powers and
Gold Pieces (GP), which they can use to customize the appearance of their avatar.
However, if a player exhibits behaviour that is inappropriate, such as arriving to class late
or not doing classwork, the teacher can remove HP. If players lose all of their HP, they
receive a sentence and their teammates also lose HP. The sentences are real-life punishments,
such as detention, copying a text, and so on. When players use their powers to help
teammates, they are automatically awarded XP. Thus, students are rewarded for helping
teammates and penalized when their fellows behave inappropriately too often.
Every class, the teacher generates a random event, which has an impact on gameplay
(for example, BEveryone loses 10 HP^) or classroom dynamics (for example,
BEveryone must speak like a pirate for the day^). These events are random and affect
the entire class. Like the powers, sentences, positive actions, and negative actions, these
events can be completely customized by the teacher to adapt the game to their specific
classroom setting.
Because these aspects have a direct impact on the real lives of the players, it is
important for the teacher to customize them so that they are adapted to his students and
classroom setting. For example, one of the default powers is to be able to listen to music
during class work. However, in certain schools this is not possible (or permitted), so the
teacher can then alter the power to change its effect.
Classcraft is first and foremost a web application (it operates in a browser connected
to the Internet). To play, the teacher projects the application in front of the classroom
and manages all aspects of school life. In a setting where students have access to
electronic devices, they can connect to the platform and customize their avatar, activate
powers, and access classroom content. One can also play Classcraft on smartphones
and tablets by using the Android and iOS apps. Thus, the game consists of adding
digital elements to the classroom and ludicizing real-life interactions as they occur,
without influencing the subject matter.
Fig. 1 screen capture of the game
Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:497–513 501
3.2 A large diffusion across the world
Since it launched in August 2014, Classcraft has gained rapid usage by many teachers.
Indeed, as of September 13, 2015, more than 5000 teachers were using Classcraft in
more than 75 countries (eight languages). This represents over 150,000 students
connecting regularly to the platform. This does not include classroom settings where
students do not actually connect to the platform. A class is considered active if more
than 50 game events, concerning at least five students, were recorded in the previous
month. If we take into account inactive accounts, more than 575,000 accounts have
been created in the platform since its launch. Also, more than 1.1 million game events
(using powers, losing HP, gaining XP, etc.) occur each month. The following graphs
show constant growth, from September to December (the drop in the last week can be
explained by the Thanksgiving holiday in the United States) (Fig. 2).
This data shows that Classcraft has gained approval from its market and meets the
needs of numerous teachers.
3.3 Elements of play in Classcraft
The design of Classcraft rests on the combination of different game features described
by Caillois (1967). First of all, Classcraft, directly inspired from massively multiplayer
online role-playing games (MMORPGs) such as World of Warcraft, is itself a roleplaying
game (mimicry). An avatar represents each player. Classcraft also leverages
competition (agon). This competition exerts itself against the game itself, which, based
on one’s behaviour, leads to gaining or losing points. It also exerts against the entire
class because the points allow one to advance in relation to one’s classmates.
Another gameplay element that is leveraged in Classcraft is that of randomness
(alea). Indeed, every class starts with a random event that has an impact on the entire
Fig. 2 Traction since September 2014
502 Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:497–513
class. Randomness also manifests itself when, having lost all HP, the player must throw
the Bcursed die,^ which can have profound consequences like detention.
As a result, the design of Classcraft does not limit itself to mobilizing gamification
elements (avatars, points, etc.) but consists of the combination of multiple game
features to create a situation in which the student will find a favorable context to
develop a lusory attitude (Suits 1990). This combination most likely explains some of
the success of Classcraft.
4 Methodology and data collected
4.1 Two experiments in France and Quebec
Other than the results pertaining to traction within a global market, the data we have pertains
more specifically to two experiments that began in September 2014 and have continued for
the duration of the school year. The first one is in a history-geography class (32 students) in
grade 10 at Germaine Tillion lycée in Sain Bel (Rhône, France), and the second one is in
two physics classes (66 students) in grade 11 in Sherbrooke (Quebec, Canada).
In both cases, the schools have approximately 800 students in a well-off social
context. In the case of the French experiment, the class of 35 students had a group of 10
described by the teacher as undisciplined, talkative youths who recognized themselves
as having inappropriate classroom behaviour but stated that they were unable to control
themselves. Many of these students said that they are badly oriented, and many are
anxious about future academic challenges as they arrive at a new school where many of
their classroom peers are strangers. In the case of the Canadian experiment, the students
are generally academically successful and have access in class to a personal portable
computer that is connected to the Internet.
The approach to this study is based on an ethnographic methodology (Whitehead
2004). The aim was to observe how Classcraft was experienced but also to record
information about how the game was implemented depending on the different contexts
and their specific constraints. The participation of the two teachers (co-authors) involved
in giving the course allowed for a holistic approach to the case study design.
The aim was to understand how the implementation was carried out in the two contexts
and which elements are involved for the ludicization of classroom management. The
data collected encompassed in situ observations and feedback from the teachers.
Also, an online survey was made available on the Classcraft platform, which 227
teachers answered on a voluntary basis. The goal of the questionnaire was to determine,
qualitatively, the teachers’ perception of the effects Classcraft has had on their classroom.
Respondents were mostly from the U.S. (61 %), Canada (13 %) and Australia
(7 %). The remainder of the respondents (19 %) were from 30 different countries.
The questions in the questionnaire were the following:
& Which grade(s) do you teach?
& When did you start using Classcraft in your classes (month/year)?
& For each hour of class, how much time do you spend playing Classcraft?
& Classcraft has had a positive impact on student engagement in my classes?
& Please rate the degree to which you agree with the following statements.
Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:497–513 503
& Classcraft has had a positive impact on the general classroom atmosphere.
& Classcraft has increased students’ fun.
& After implementing Classcraft, student attendance has improved (tardiness,
absenteeism).
& After implementing Classcraft, I have seen an improvement in the overall grades of
my students.
& After implementing Classcraft, I have seen an improvement in the overall efficiency
of my classroom.
& The help section in Classcraft is helpful.
& How have you modified the powers to fit your classroom?
& How have you modified the sentences to fit your classroom?
& Have you ever invited students to help you modify the rules or powers?
& Please rate the degree to which you agree with this statement: BClasscraft is more
effective because of student involvement in deciding the rules.^
& How has Classcraft affected behaviour in the classroom?
& How has Classcraft affected your students’ motivation?
& How has Classcraft affected your students’ academic performance?
& How else has Classcraft affected your classroom?
& How has your administration reacted to Classcraft?
& How have the parents of your students reacted to Classcraft?
& How have your colleagues reacted to Classcraft?
The questionnaire aims at drawing a portrait of the use of Classcraft in different
contexts and to gather information for different dimensions: the context for the adoption
of Classcraft, the way Classcraft is integrated into the teacher practices, and the impact
of Classcraft on students’ behaviour and achievements as perceived by the teachers.
This questionnaire also aims at identifying the core elements of Classcraft that teachers
take into consideration in order to ludicize classroom management.
5 Lessons learned from the school experimentations
The purpose of this article is to document the implementation of Classcraft in different
classroom settings, to identify the key elements that have been used for the ludicization
process. In this section, we describe the way the game was played in the two contexts,
and we analyse the results of these experiments.
5.1 Description of two experimentations
To experiment with Classcraft in her classroom in Sain Bel (France), the teacher
followed the tips given on the website: Once they are introduced to the game, the
pupils can choose to play or not. All the pupils, boys and girls equally, agreed to play
and were asked to choose their five teammates following the teacher’s instructions:
Each team should contain different kinds of pupils, slow achievers and good learners,
with or without behavioural difficulties. It should be noticed, however, that this rule has
been only partially followed and many students groups were rather homogeneous.
504 Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:497–513
Boys appeared to be more involved in the game, but some girls were also deeply
committed with the game competition.
The parents have been informed, and they have shown some interest in the game, if
not being totally enthusiastic about the project. During the meeting dedicated to present
the game, they asked questions, and some of them sent positive feedbacks like, BI would
have liked to play this game when I was a pupil.^ As advised by the headmaster, some
rules of the game have been modified for compliance with the current code of conduct of
Sain Bel. He particularly insisted on the fact that all pupils must be treated equally. In
addition, what is explicitly prohibited by the current code of conduct—such as using
mp3 players, audiphones, and eating in class—cannot be allowed in the game. The
modifications have been designed by the pupils themselves during dedicated class
sessions. Some powers that violate the code of conduct (eating in class, playing music)
have been replaced by equivalent and compliant ones. The players had to understand the
aim of the power and the reason why it is forbidden in the code of conduct. For instance,
Beating in class^ is not allowed because it causes some additional work for the cleaning
staff. It has been changed to Beating a sweet^ since Beating a sweet^ provides an
equivalent pleasure to Beating in class^ without creating the need for additional cleaning.
Then a Bdebating session,^ whose subject was BClasscraft, a perfect game for
Germaine Tillion high school?^ took place among the pupils. During the debate, the
pupils were asked to reflect on the experience and to identify the model of a ‘good
student’ implemented into the game. The teams were invited to produce short videos on
the same subject. On these videos, they formulated the image of classic teaching and
the main characteristic of a ‘good student’ at school, as well as the aspects of the game
they enjoyed the most: freedom, positive feedbacks, and powers. This ‘debating
session’ plays the role of a debriefing session dedicated to foster reflection and
metacognition (Garris et al. 2002; Gee 2003).
The game is now played each lesson, but the teacher faces some technical difficulties:
The computer in the classroom cannot be used to show the game platform because
it is filtered out by the firewall. For two months, the teacher used the mobile application,
disturbing both the class (because she was forced to look at the phone instead of
the pupils) and the game (because she was unable to show the website). She is currently
using her own computer together with a mobile phone connection to show the website
and manage the computation of the points.
As for the experimentation in Sherbrooke, the teams have been chosen by the
teacher himself, based on the previous student achievements, so as to obtain balanced
teams in terms of scholarly performance. The default rules have been used. Neither the
parents nor the administrative staff have been previously informed about the game.
They did not interfere during the experiment. The game has been played during each
lesson, without technical problems, and the pupils accessed the platform using their
personal computers. This experimentation occurred in the game’s creator’s classes, so
no modifications to the core rules were necessary.
5.2 Comparison of the two experiments in terms of level of use
The experimentation in Sain Bel resulted in a total 1705 game events for the duration of
the school year in a single class, whereas the experimentation in Sherbrooke resulted in
11,969 in one class and 11,186 in the other.
Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:497–513 505
On average, players in Sain Bel had 44.3 events attributed to them (gaining XP,
losing HP, using a power, etc.), with a standard deviation of 13.2. The players in
Sherbrooke had an average of 334.6 events each, with a standard deviation of 64.7
(Table 1).
A breakdown based on gender is presented in the following table:
This comparison of the two contexts shows that the levels for the use of the game
vary among contexts and players. This is probably due to the difference between
teachers’ experiences and commitments. For the Sherbrooke experimentation, the
teacher is also the author of the game. In Sain Bel, the teacher uses the game for the
first time. However, there is no difference based on the gender of players in terms of
number of events attributed to them.
5.3 Feedback on the Sain bel experimentation
The teacher stressed that the game is an efficient way to enhance motivation about
scholarly work: Work groups are often built as in the game, and the accomplishment of
the scholarly productions is greater, especially for slow achievers. Oral participation
also increased in particular because the teacher intensified the usage of Classcraft to
reward actions. They earn points by answering questions (10 XP), being involved into
classroom activities (60 XP), or helping another student (75 XP) or the teacher (20 XP).
Pupils ask about their points, albeit not systematically, and they work hard to get them.
Nevertheless, behavioural problems have not disappeared completely. This highlights
the fact that the teacher’s role remains complex even in a playful situation. When
the teacher acts as game master, their role is not deeply changed. The assignment of the
points is not automatic: The teacher is still the one who evaluates and punishes. He
sanctions chatting (10 HP), insolence (20 HP), slacking off on schoolwork, or anyone
breaking the rules of the learning community as cause for losing Health Points. But the
nature of the punishment changes. Explicit game rules accepted by the players constrain
the assignment of the points, and positive actions induce explicit positive
feedbacks.
An important goal of the game is to build upon collaboration between pupils to
induce better behaviour from those who show frequent misconduct. But collaboration
between pairs, understood here as working toward a common achievement, remains
problematic. It often takes the form of mutual assistance for scholarly work. It exists
outside the strict game context, through direct as well as remote relationships (phone,
Facebook). Involved pupils did not think to claim their points for such mutual
assistance. Also, misconduct in class did not always lead to collaboration. Indeed,
watchful pupils sometimes failed to show their teammates the correct way to take part
Table 1 Average number of events per player, by gender
Boys Girls
Average Stand. Dev. Average Stand. Dev.
Sain Bel 45.1 15.9 43.6 10.4
Sherbrooke 342.3 71.4 327.3 57.9
506 Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:497–513
or speak in the class. Also, when it comes to choosing powers, individual powers were
strongly preferred to collective ones. With the teacher being reluctant to withdraw
health points, teams seldom stuck together. Since then, the teacher has intensified usage
of the game, including for punishments. This has induced the pupils to rely more on
collective powers. The players are now eager to acquire collective powers.
5.4 Feedback on the Sherbrooke experimentation
In Sherbrooke, the game is played every lesson, so about three times a week per group.
As in Sain Bel, the teacher reported increased motivation and deeper engagement in
class work. Pupils tend to show more participative behaviour in every dimension of the
lesson, including answering questions and working in class. They want to claim points.
XP is attributed for participating well in class (75 XP), asking a pertinent question (100
XP), and helping other students online (75 XP) while HP is removed for tardiness (10
HP), making fun of another student (20 HP), or handing in homework late (30 HP).
Pupils on the same team are more united than in the Sain Bel case. They help team
members when they lose health points. Usage of powers as a mutual assistance device
is common, and they show the ability to self-govern. As the teacher often withdraws
health points, pupils often feel unsafe, so they must develop survival strategies or
modify behaviours not to lose health points (and gain experience points).
Also, computer access to the game allows for interactions between pupils without
disturbing the course. They then have more opportunities to assist one another, to visit
their status, and to train their partners. They then also show more interest for the game
since their interactions are more frequent, even on a voluntary basis.
5.5 One game, different plays
A positive effect can be attributed to introduction of the game for the two experiments.
However, classroom observations show that the ways the game is adopted differ among
the two contexts. Different factors seem to play a role on how the game is
played, such as school acceptability and technical considerations (such as the
Internet connection and the availability of computers for the teacher and the
students). The way the students are committed with the game also varies among
students depending on the context. Thus, these experiments also emphasize the
crucial role of the teacher who:
– adapts the game to the school context
– maintains the role of game master
– helps or does not help the students to reflect about their experience
6 Classcraft, a reflexive space
The purpose of the article is also to discuss the implications of the ludicization of
classroom management. In this section, we offer an analysis of the game and observations
based on the concept of ludicization as defined in the first section and on the
answers provided by teachers to the online questionnaire.
Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:497–513 507
6.1 From simulation to metaphor
Digital games are generally based on a digital model that allows for reproducing a
reference situation, an ordinary and real situation. This situation might be, for example,
a physics system (Angry Birds2
), a historical period (Civilization3
), or the management
of a city (Sim City4
). The term Bsimulation^ refers to the idea that, based on this digital
model, it is possible to reproduce a reference situation and to get experience from that.
Thus, it refers to the idea of an Bexperience of second kind^ in contrast with a Bfirst
kind,^ which is about the Bimmediate experience^ (Varenne 2006) with the reference
situation. Therefore, simulation is a field for experimentation that allows living a true
empirical experience without any consequence. This aspect of simulation is very often
highlighted by authors who are involved in research into game-based learning. It is also
used to design games for educational use. However, in the case of Classcraft, the idea
of simulation does not account for the environment developed in the game. Classcraft
can be seen as a trope (Sutton-Smith 1997). It means that, merely to simulate a
reference situation, the expressed ideas within the game are interpreted differently in
order to build an imaginary world. The classroom becomes a battlefield where teammates
cooperate and compete with other teams of players. Teacher T14, expresses the
idea that this imaginary foster students commitment. In addition he also explains how
he reinforced the Bepic^ character of the game: BI have changed the explanation of
powers to be more BepicB. Exams are battles. Classes are trainings, etc.^
Although Classcraft is not based on a simulation, there is an analogical relation
between elements of the game and those of the classroom organization. For example, in
Classcraft, mutual educational support is represented as powers that the healer can use
to Bheal^ teammates or exclude them by pushing them to Bfall in battle^; detention is
represented by death. Simulation becomes a metaphor with a hidden meaning that is of
acceptable academic behaviour, which is behind the imaginary world of Classcraft.
Furthermore, the distance between the metaphor and the reference situation (the
second degree in the game) gives power and ontological significance to the game
because as in literature or art in general, the metaphor captures the essence of a situation
that it describes. Therefore, Classcraft is a refined form of the classroom organization,
and the player is led to focus on the core of the situation. Classcraft can be considered
as a way to metaphorize the functioning of a classroom as a battle combining
collaboration and competition. This metaphorization is a core element of the
ludicization process. The meaning of classroom interactions is changed, and
ludicization refers to the fact that Classcraft merely consists of transforming the
classroom situation, the meaning of students’ behaviour, and the students’ experience
rather than introducing a game in the classroom. This dimension is mentioned by
numerous teachers who answered the questionnaire as T15: BIt is tons of fun, and helps
to build up a great relationship with students. There is no start to the lesson without the
daily event. It is also quite useful that rules are set for students as well as the
gamemaster [sic]. There is an atmosphere of mutual respect as all have to play by
the rules.^ Some teachers also mention a total change of the classroom atmosphere: BI
2
https://www.angrybirds.com/
3
https://www.civilization.com/en/home/
4
http://www.simcity.com/
508 Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:497–513
have had a major issue with disrespect in class. We just had two big HP hits in two
days, and it was amazing to see them talk to each other and collaborate and strategize
in a way that they never would have before^ (T7).
6.2 Game appropriation and students’ commitment
Another important game dimension is the ability to encourage students’ commitment.
Teachers usually consider that students’ motivation is linked to points and rewards (BI have
had students who would come in and refuse to do their work until I remind them that it will
affect ther [sic] CC points. They then decide that they better work, or they will be behind
everyone else in points.^ (T9) but also to game features such as alea and competition
(BStudents look forward to the random events and powers being used in the class.^ T13).
Teachers also mention that students’ commitment is achieved by transforming
educational goals into play goals: BDuring their day-to-day work, giving XP is invaluable
to show the students the desired behaviours^ (T97). Thus, for students, decoding
the teacher’s expectations becomes easier. The goals are clear since it is not about
behaving in class anymore but about interacting according to the game rules in order to
earn points. The devolution (ie., the transfer of the responsibility to students) of the
teachers’ goals (Brousseau 2002) is made easier because the game changes the meaning
of their goals, and the game rules are a simple way to put those expectations into words.
In addition, each player is represented by an avatar, which is a projective identity
(Gee 2003) in two different meanings: BStudents are very disappointed if they can’t
have time to access their characters in class^ (T49). First, it allows the players to have
a self-experience through introjection. For example, they are led to check the relevance
of the decisions they make by earning or losing points. Second, the avatar, an
emblematic figure of a warrior, mage, or healer, becomes the projection of an identity
that is being built and an experimentation field that allows it to be built: BI have used
Classcraft as a way to review lessons. I have created my own ‘boss battles’ as a way of
doing that. Students imagine themselves as their characters ‘fighting’ with their
classroom knowledge. It’s very motivating to them^ (T106). Roles played by students
help them get involved in the situation: BI have one kid with serious anger issues. He
picked his character based on being able to take quick breaks with his power, and has
gotten better about controling [sic] his anger so he doesn’t lose points^ (T2). For T33,
this commitment refers to the game merely than the classroom: BThe focus for now is
only in the game. Still lack the commitment of the class with discipline and study^.
6.3 Feedback and sense of competence
With Classcraft, feedback taking the shape of earned or lost points or learned powers is
the response given by the game environment to the players’ actions. Several teachers
underline this point: BThey are aware of the benefits of doing well^ (T31). These
feedbacks are also sometimes positive feedbacks and, even if they take the form of a
sanction, they seem to be well accepted by students: BThe opportunity of being
encouraged whenever something positive is done makes a real difference for students;
they love it, and they also accept much more easily when they do something wrong,
taking the risks and consequences, and assuming what they do, which is essential^
(E47). Feedbacks are not only reinforcement modalities used to design games based on
Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:497–513 509
a behaviouristic approach, as described by Block & King (1987). They are information
with potentially high semantic content that have to be analyzed and interpreted in order
to rethink the implemented strategies if necessary: BOn the whole, it’s helped just to
make the students more aware of their behaviours in class^ (T71). From a feedback
perspective, what makes this game different from a regular class situation is that this
feedback is continuously generated (Mayo 2009). The game offers the students a space
of liberty in making decisions. It also gives them information about the consequences
of their choices, information that is necessary for the decision-making process: BWhen
students realize that points are being taken away because of behaviour, they start the
behaviour around and seeing what they can do to earn points back^ (E6). At any
moment, players can judge the relevance of the decisions they are making. Giving
feedback is made possible by the fact that the teacher is constantly collecting information
about the players’ actions and therefore about their ability to follow the classroom
rules. So, the game provides the right environment for developing autonomy because it
offers the players the liberty of choice and action as well as information, in the form of
feedback, which allow them to practice their liberty of choice and action. The game is,
in this case, considered as a reflexive space (Sanchez 2014).
Moreover, the instant feedback increases the students’ feeling of competency. Indeed,
losing points or even experiencing Bdeath^ in the game is feedback that can be perceived
as negative play-wise. However, because of the ludic context, negative consequences are
less severe. It is always possible to go forward by carrying out actions to earn points and
Bresurrect^ in the game. This negative feedback does not alter the feeling of being
competent while positive feedback, such as earning points or evolving in the charts,
increases the feeling of competency. This point is very important to note since the feeling
of being competent is a key aspect of academic motivation (Ryan and Deci 2000).
7 Conclusion
Some criticism that may emerge from our experiments is that Classcraft is an attempt to
increase students’ exposure to computer games on top of the exposure that they already
have outside of school. We think that there are at least two arguments that can oppose
such critics. Firstly, there is a need for every student to reflect on what it means to play
digital games. Playing Classcraft under the control of a teacher and reflecting about
their experience of play might enable students to develop a critical perspective about
games and also to foster media literacy. Secondly, we consider that designing game-like
situations for classrooms offers the opportunity to change students’ school experience
so that they derive more pleasure from classroom activities.
The observations that we were able to make show that, depending on the setting for
the integration of Classcraft, the game is not experienced in the same way by all
students. These observations promote a model of gamification that consists of considering
the experience of the students, rather than looking at the game itself, and they
confirm that a game is consubstantial to its player. The game experience seems to
depend on a multitude of factors, among which we have identified the institutional
acceptability of the game, the equipment available in class, and the way the teacher
presents and implements the game. Among these different factors, the role of the
teacher and his own appropriation of the game are key.
510 Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:497–513
Another lesson that we learnt from this experiment relates to gamification from a
theoretical perspective. From the implementation of Classcraft, we learnt that gamification
does not consist in using game elements such as points or rewards in a mechanical way or
using Bgame design elements in non-game contexts^ (Deterding et al. 2011b), but rather in
metaphorizing a situation to conceive of a reflexive space where the nature and the
meaning of interactions are modified. Thus, ludicization consists of a reconfiguration of
the class setting. This ludicization translates itself in the implementation of new interactions.
In the game Classcraft, students are, for example, led to make decisions to Bsave^
other students. Nevertheless, it is mainly the meaning of normal interactions within the
classroom that is redefined. It is not about the student adopting behaviour to conform to the
class rules but rather about adopting behaviour that, because it takes into account the rules
of the game, leads to progressing within it. This progress materializes itself in points or
other elements that then can be visualized in the platform. In Classcraft, the classroom
rules are translated into arbitrary game rules. In this sense, we can say that Classcraft is a
metaphor of class life. Indeed, it constitutes a refined version of the reference situation, and
the player is incentivized to bring his attention to what is at the heart of the situation. This
metaphor allows for the implementation of a reflexive space within which the player can
test his ways of behaving because his decisions translate into immediate feedback. This
reflexive space thus fosters autonomy.
The importance of adapting gamification to the players’ profiles has been emphasized,
and different methods have been proposed (Challco et al. 2015, Xu and Tang
2015). Ludicization offers the opportunity for a new perspective for game design. It
emphasizes that the player matters and that the focus should be put on the interactions
of this player with the game (considered a system of rules implemented in an
artifact) rather than on the game itself. This approach is in line with contemporary
approach for game design, such as agile methodologies (Highsmith
2002) or user-centered design (Norman and Draper 1986), where users are
involved in the early stages of the design process.
Does Classcraft consist of the integration of a game into the classroom or in the
ludicization of classroom management? The border between game integration and
ludicization is blurry. Ludicizing does not consist of using game elements in a mechanical
way, but rather in conceiving a reflexive space where the meaning of interactions is
modified. The change of this meaning, the second degree of the situation, is one of the
core elements of the ludicization process. The behaviour expected from students is not
fundamentally changed. They are expected to adapt their behaviour to the ordinary rules of
the school. However, the meaning of the actions performed by students is changed by the
game mechanics and the metaphor: healing or protecting another player vs doing group
work, regenerating Action Points vs doing school work … The difference between game
integration and ludicization lies in this transformation. The second degree of the situation
that stems from the game metaphor, the autonomy offered to the player, the arbitrary game
rules, and the challenge are different features that build a space that has ludic affordances
and gives the player the opportunity to develop his lusory attitude. As a result, the
classroom is not the only context with a codified set of rules that can be
ludicized. Indeed, Classcraft could be easily transferred to other contexts, such
as the workplace, where there is a need for autonomy and engagement.
One of the teachers reported that his students do not complain anymore about being
in detention in Saturday morning. Indeed, due to the ludicization of classroom
Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:497–513 511
management, the meaning of detention is now changed and the player is led to accept
the bad consequences that result from Bdying^ in the game. From this stems the
question of player emancipation. The player, in accepting to play the game, accepts
to trade his freedom for a freedom constrained by the arbitrary rules of the game (Duflo
1997). Ludicization of classroom management should take into account this ethical
issue by offering students the opportunity to reflect about their experience and to
consider how the behaviour learned during the game can be transferred to nongaming
situations.
References
Block, J. and King, N. (1987) School play. New York: Garland.
Bonenfant, M. and Genvo, S. (2014) ‘Une approche située et critique du concept de gamification’, Sciences du
jeu [Electronic], vol. 2, Available: sdj.revues.org/286 [24 Oct 2014]
Brousseau G. (2002) Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Didactique des mathématiques, 1970–
1990, translated by Balacheff, N., Cooper, M., Sutherland, R. and Warfield, V., Dordrecht: Springer
Netherlands.
Caillois, R. (1967). Des jeux et des hommes. Le masque et le vertige (2nd ed.). Paris: Gallimard.
Challco, G. C., Moreira, D. A., Bittencourt, I. I., Mizoguchi, R., & Isotani, S. (2015). Personalization of
gamification in collaborative learning contexts using ontologies. IEEE- Latin America Transactions,
13(6), 1873–1881.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. and Nacke, L. (2011a) ‘From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness:
Defining BGamification^’, Envisioning Future Media Environments - Conference proceedings,
MindTrek’11, Tampere, pp. 9–15
Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L. and Dixon, D. (2011b) ‘Gamification: toward a definition’, Gamification
Workshop – Conference Proceedings, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver,
pp. 1–4
Duflo, C. (1997). Jouer et philosopher. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: a research and practice
model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467.
Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Genvo, S. (2013) ‘Penser les phénomènes de ludicisation à partir de Jacques Henriot’, Sciences du jeu
[Electronic], vol. 1, Avaible: sdj.revues.org/251, [2 Jan 2016]
Goldhaber, M. H. (1997) ‘The Attention Economy on the Net’, First Monday [Electronic], vol. 2, no. 4.
Available: firstmonday.org/article/view/519/440. Accessed 25 Apr 2016.
Henriot, J. (1969). Le jeu. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Henriot, J. (1989). Sous couleur de jouer - la métaphore ludique. Paris: José Corti.
Highsmith, J. (2002). Agile software development ecosystems. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional.
Kapp, K. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Mayo, M. (2009). Video games: a route to large-scale STEM education? Science, 323(5910), 79–82.
Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. (1986). User Centered System Design: New Perspectives in HumanComputer
Interaction. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). ‘self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation.
Social development, and well-being’, American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Sanchez, E. (2014) ‘Learning, serious games, and gamification’, Inmedia, Available: inmedia.revues.org/814
Sanchez, E. and Emin, V. (2014) Toward a model of play: an empirical study. In Busch, C. (Ed.), The 8th
European Conference on Games Based Learning, vol. 2, pp. 503–512.
Sanchez, E. and Emin Martinez, V. and Mandran, N. (2015) ‘Jeu-game, jeu-play vers une modélisation du jeu.
Une étude empirique à partir des traces numériques d’interaction du jeu Tamagocours’, revue STICEF
[Electronic], vol. 22, no. 1, Available: sticef.univ-lemans.fr/num/vol2015/04-sanchez/
sticef_2015_sanchez_04.htm, [25 Nov 2015]
Silva, H. (2013) ‘La « gamification » de la vie: sous couleur de jouer? ’, Sciences du jeu [Electronic], vol. 1,
Avaible: sdj.revues.org/261, [6 jan 2016]
512 Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:497–513
Suits, B. (1990). Grasshopper: Games. Life and Utopia, Boston: David R. Godine.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Varenne, F. (2006). Les notions de métaphore et d’analogie dans les épistémologies des modèles et des
simulations. Paris: Petra.
Whitehead, T. (2004). What is ethnography? Methodological, ontological, and epistemological attributes.
Paper presented at the EICCARS Working Paper.: University of Maryland, CuSAG.
Xu, Y. and Tang, Y. (2015) ‘Based on action-personality data mining, research of gamification emission
reduction mechanism and intelligent persona-lized action recommendation model’, In Rau P. (éd.), Crosscultural
design methods, Practice and Impact, Los Angeles: Springer.
Educ Inf Technol (2017) 22:497–513 513