Making a Game of Troublesome Threshold Concepts

  • Kayleen WoodEmail author
Part of the Advances in Game-Based Learning book series (AGBL)


One of the most common challenges for game-based assessment (GBA) is the test of being pedagogically sound, that is the process of balancing game development, assessment, and the overall game experience. In an exploration of best practice and application of GBA in the classroom, it is first necessary to acknowledge where and what the classroom is now? It is the interface where students access and interact with the content. Also, what does GBA look like in this learner centred environment? It is assessment as learning, with the student as the connector between assessment and learning; they are active and engaged, and use formative classroom assessment to develop, practice, and analyse their own learning. This chapter shows the use of a gamified learning experience at the beginning of the learners’ higher education journey to embed and assess technical threshold concepts. The gamified learning experience employs game design of accounting and finance technical threshold concepts to improve user engagement, learning, and assessment outcomes. This is documented via a Gamification Alignment Table and a Gamification Alignment Model and uses a conversational framework to demonstrate GBA as learning.


Assessment as learning Game-based assessment Troublesome threshold concepts Student engagement 


  1. Arnab, S., Brown, K., Clarke, S., Dunwell, I., Lim, T., Suttie, N., … de Frietas, S. (2013). The development approach of a pedagogically-driven serious game to support relationship and sex education (RSE) within a classroom setting. Computers & Education, 69, 15–30. Scholar
  2. Belland, B. (2012). The role of construct definition in the creation of formative assessments in game-based learning. In D. Ifenthaler, D. Eseryel, & X. Ge (Eds.), Assessment in game-based learning: Foundations, innovations, and perspectives (pp. 29–42). New York, NY: Springer. Scholar
  3. Bergmann, J. (2016, October). Flipped learning network. Paper presented at the Flipped Learning Symposium, Adelaide.Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Camberwell, UK: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, J. B. (2003). Aligning teaching for constructing learning. Heslington, UK: Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
  6. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, C.-H., & Law, V. (2016). Scaffolding individual and collaborative game-based learning in learning performance and intrinsic motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1201–1212. Scholar
  8. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  10. de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134. Scholar
  11. De Villiers, R., & Hess, A. (2019). The magic cloak: Releasing the creative genie in your workplace.Google Scholar
  12. Doran, B. M., Bouillon, M. L., & Smith, C. G. (1991). Determinants of student performance in accounting principles I and II. Issues in Accounting Education, 6(1), 74–84.Google Scholar
  13. Earl, L. M. (2006). Assessment as learning. In W. D. Hawley (Ed.), The keys to effective schools: Educational reform as continuous improvement (pp. 85–98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Earl, L. M. (2013). Assessment for learning, assessment as learning: Changing practices means changing beliefs. Assessment and Learning, 2, 1–5.Google Scholar
  15. Eseryel, D., Guo, Y., & Law, V. (2012). Interactivity design and assessment framework for educational games to promote motivation and complex problem-solving skills. In D. Ifenthaler, D. Eseryel, & X. Ge (Eds.), Assessment in game-based learning: Foundations, innovations, and perspectives (pp. 257–285). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fu, F.-L., Su, R.-C., & Yu, S.-C. (2009). EGameFlow: A scale to measure learners’ enjoyment of e-learning games. Computers & Education, 52(1), 101–112. Scholar
  17. Ghergulescu, I., & Muntean, C. H. (2012). Measurement and analysis of learner’s motivation in game-based e-learning. In D. Ifenthaler (Ed.), Assessment in game-based learning: Foundations, innovations, and perspectives (pp. 355–378). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Healy, M., & McCutcheon, M. (2008). Engagement with active learning: Reflections on the experiences of Irish accounting students. Irish Accounting Review, 15(1), 31–49.Google Scholar
  19. Hickman, L. A., Neubert, S., & Reich, K. (2009). John Dewey between pragmatism and constructivism. Oxford: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kapp, K. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction. Somerset, UK: Centre for Creative Leadership.Google Scholar
  21. Kapp, K. (2016). Choose your level: Using games and gamification to create personalized instruction. In M. Murphy, S. Redding, & J. Twyman (Eds.), Handbook on personalized learning for states, districts, and schools (pp. 131–143). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Center on Innovations in Learning. Retrieved from Scholar
  22. Kealy, B. T., Holland, J., & Watson, M. (2005). Preliminary evidence on the association between critical thinking and performance in principles of accounting. Issues in Accounting Education, 20(1), 33–49. Scholar
  23. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). Abingdon, UK: RoutledgeFalmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laurillard, D. (2016). Learning number sense through digital games with intrinsic feedback. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(6), 32–44. Scholar
  25. Mason, R., Seton, C., & Cooper, G. (2016). Applying cognitive load theory to the redesign of a conventional database systems course. Computer Science Education, 26(1), 68–87. Scholar
  26. Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2006). Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Millwood, R. (2014). The design of learner-centred, technology-enhanced education (Doctoral dissertation). Boston, MA: University of Boston.Google Scholar
  28. Mostyn, G. R. (2012). Cognitive load theory: What is it, why it’s important for accounting instruction and research. Issues in Accounting Education, 27(1), 227–245. Scholar
  29. Schrader, P. G., & McCreery, M. (2012). Are all games the same? In D. Ifenthaler, D. Eseryel, & X. Ge (Eds.), Assessment in game-based learning: Foundations, innovations, and perspectives (pp. 10–28). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Simon, K. (2016). Where is e-learning headed? Relating simulation and gamification to a possible shift in education. Argumentum, 12, 201–215.Google Scholar
  31. Siriwardane, H. (2014). Kiono Bag Boutique: A serial case for introductory financial accounting. Accounting Education, 23(1), 95–113. Scholar
  32. Tennant, M., McMullen, C., & Kaczynski, D. (2010). Teaching, learning and research in higher education: A critical approach. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Thomas, D. T., & Seely Brown, J. (2011). A new culture of learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Lexington, KY: CreateSpace.Google Scholar
  34. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Southern Cross UniversityEast LismoreAustralia

Personalised recommendations