Introduction

In recent years, gamification has emerged as a powerful educational tool, enhancing student engagement, motivation, and learning outcomes. By integrating elements of game design into educational contexts, educators have sought to transform traditional classrooms into dynamic environments that foster active participation and curiosity. This paper explores the theoretical foundations of gamification in education and examines the unique pedagogical benefits offered by the games Super Pie Toss and Knowledge Showdown. Drawing on academic literature, this analysis highlights the specific ways in which these games support evidence-based gamification strategies and align with established pedagogical frameworks.

Gamification in Education: A Review of Key Theories and Principles

The concept of gamification in education is rooted in theories of motivation and engagement, particularly Self-Determination Theory (SDT). SDT posits that individuals are motivated by intrinsic and extrinsic factors and that environments supporting autonomy, competence, and relatedness are more likely to engage learners1. Gamified classrooms provide these supports by allowing students to make choices (autonomy), master challenges (competence), and engage with peers (relatedness). Scholars such as Deterding et al. argue that “gamification can enhance motivation by appealing to individuals’ intrinsic motivations, allowing them to experience joy, challenge, and achievement in learning”.

Educational games often leverage reward systems, feedback loops, and competition to motivate students. According to Hamari et al., “rewarding performance with points, badges, and leaderboards contributes to students’ engagement by providing visible markers of achievement”3. However, these elements can be counterproductive if used excessively, as they may shift focus from intrinsic to extrinsic motivations. In response, games like Super Pie Toss and Knowledge Showdown balance rewards with intrinsic motivators, such as humor and strategic decision-making, which are discussed in detail below.

Pedagogical Benefits of Gamification

Research underscores the value of gamification in promoting active learning, collaboration, and knowledge retention. Active learning—where students participate directly in the learning process rather than passively receiving information—has been shown to improve retention and critical thinking skills4. Games that incorporate challenges or decision points, such as lifelines in Knowledge Showdown, “prompt learners to engage in cognitive tasks that enhance knowledge transfer and application”5.

Furthermore, social aspects of gamification support Vygotsky’s concept of social constructivism, where learning occurs through interaction and shared experiences. Multiplayer games or team-based challenges, as seen in Knowledge Showdown, align with this theory by encouraging students to collaborate, debate, and solve problems collectively. “Socially interactive learning not only enhances engagement but fosters deeper cognitive processing, as students learn from each other’s insights and perspectives”6. Knowledge Showdown thus promotes critical thinking through social learning by incorporating team strategies and decision-making processes.

Digital illustration of a Jeopardy game setup with six team members in different team colors, standing beside a game board displaying various categories and point values.

Teams stand ready in front of a Jeopardy-style board, each representing a different category and point value in an engaging game format.

Super Pie Toss and Knowledge Showdown: Gamified Learning in Practice

Super Pie Toss combines cognitive challenges with kinesthetic rewards, using humor and physical interaction to lower anxiety and make learning enjoyable. Games that incorporate humor have been shown to reduce stress and improve students’ openness to learning7. In a study by Ziv, humor in the classroom “facilitates a relaxed atmosphere that contributes to a positive learning experience and encourages student participation”8. By offering a pie-throwing reward, Super Pie Toss leverages humor as both a motivational tool and a means of reducing the fear of failure.

Knowledge Showdown takes a strategic approach, incorporating lifelines like 50:50, Poll the Audience, and Einstein Eagle, which provide students with multiple paths to success. This design is rooted in constructivist principles, as it encourages students to “navigate through challenges by employing problem-solving strategies, promoting deeper cognitive processing and metacognition”9. By allowing students to make choices about when and how to use these aids, Knowledge Showdown reinforces critical thinking and self-regulated learning.

Comparisons to Existing Classroom Games

Compared to traditional classroom games like Kahoot! and Quizlet Live, Super Pie Toss and Knowledge Showdown offer distinct advantages in terms of emotional engagement and strategic thinking. While Kahoot! and Quizlet Live emphasize speed and accuracy, these newer games prioritize a balance of cognitive and emotional engagement. “Games that incorporate humor and play tend to be more effective in reducing anxiety, thereby making learning a more approachable process”10. Additionally, the strategic elements in Knowledge Showdown such as lifelines, allow students to engage with content in a manner that encourages metacognition, which is less emphasized in other platforms.

Alignment with Educational Frameworks

Super Pie Toss and Knowledge Showdown align with key pedagogical frameworks, including Bloom’s Taxonomy and the Constructivist Model. Bloom’s Taxonomy categorizes cognitive learning objectives into levels, from basic recall to higher-order thinking skills like analysis and evaluation11. Both games provide opportunities for students to engage at multiple levels. For example, while Super Pie Toss focuses on recall and application through rapid questioning, Knowledge Showdown encourages analysis and decision-making through strategic lifelines. According to Anderson and Krathwohl, “engaging students in activities that require higher-order thinking not only promotes mastery of the material but enhances their problem-solving capabilities”12.

Constructivist learning theories, such as those proposed by Piaget and Vygotsky, emphasize the importance of active, social learning experiences. By allowing students to collaborate and make decisions, Knowledge Showdown aligns with Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, where learning is most effective when students work with others to accomplish tasks slightly beyond their current abilities13. Super Pie Toss’s focus on humour and physical interaction also promotes engagement by making learning a socially enjoyable experience.

Conclusion

Super Pie Toss and Knowledge Showdown demonstrate effective applications of gamification and pedagogical principles, offering educators tools that go beyond traditional question-answer formats. By integrating humour, physical engagement, and strategic elements, these games foster a classroom environment conducive to active learning, critical thinking, and social collaboration. Positioned within educational theories such as Self-Determination Theory, Bloom’s Taxonomy, and Constructivism, these games represent a meaningful advance in the use of gamification for educational purposes. Future research could explore the longitudinal effects of such games on learning retention and their adaptability across diverse educational settings.

Footnotes

  1. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

  2. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification”. In Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments (pp. 9-15).

  3. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work?–A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 3025-3034). Ieee.

  4. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.

  5. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & DeSimone, C. (2013). Problem-based learning: An instructional model of active learning. Research on Education, 43(1), 201-213.

  6. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Prentice-Hall.

  7. Berk, R. A. (2002). Humor as an instructional defibrillator: Evidence-based techniques in teaching and assessment. Stylus Publishing.

  8. Ziv, A. (1988). Teaching and learning with humor: Experiment and replication. Journal of Experimental Education, 57(1), 5-15.

  9. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.

  10. Ferlazzo, L. (2020). Reducing Student Anxiety Through Humor and Play in the Classroom. Education Week.

  11. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman Publishing.

  12. Ibid.

  13. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Bibliography

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman Publishing.

Berk, R. A. (2002). Humor as an instructional defibrillator: Evidence-based techniques in teaching and assessment. Stylus Publishing.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification”. In Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments (pp. 9-15).

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work?–A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 3025-3034). Ieee.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & DeSimone, C. (2013). Problem-based learning: An instructional model of active learning. Research on Education, 43(1), 201-213.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Prentice-Hall.

Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Ziv, A. (1988). Teaching and learning with humor: Experiment and replication. Journal of Experimental Education, 57(1), 5-15.