Gamification in Education Using the WOWCube®: A Tangible Mixed-Reality Learning Device

Ilya V. Osipov [0000-0002-8017-8153]
Cubios Inc. “WOWCUBE”, Sarasota FL 34233, USA
ilya@wowcube.com
DOI: 10.46793/eLearning2025.266O

Abstract. This paper presents the WOWCube® system, a mixed-reality educational device that combines a physical 2×2 puzzle cube with interactive digital gameplay. By uniting tangible manipulation with on-cube visual feedback, WOWCube supports puzzle-based learning aimed at strengthening spatial reasoning, problem solving, and sustained attention while avoiding distractions common to general-purpose mobile devices. We describe the device architecture and authoring workflow, highlighting how educators can create and adapt content for classroom or at-home use. We further introduce an AI-augmented edition in which a friendly digital character provides personalized, data-driven feedback based on in-game performance metrics, offering encouragement, hints, and adaptive difficulty. The paper contributes: (i) a system description and design rationale for a tangible user interface that delivers mixed-reality learning experiences; (ii) a use case and sequence of interactions for AI-mediated feedback from a digital tutor; (iii) empirical observations from an exploratory, in-person pilot and a large-scale online ideation exercise, used to derive user needs and content directions; (iv) a comparison with adjacent TUI/AR approaches; and (v) an expanded roadmap for future classroom studies, accessibility features, and teacher-facing authoring tools. We argue that WOWCube aligns with current e-learning priorities by offering a safe, engaging, and authorable platform for gamified learning in formal and in formal settings.

Keywords: Gamification, Tangible User Interfaces (TUI), Mixed Reality, Educational Technology, WOWCube®, Cognitive Development, Artificial Intelligence in Learning, Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), Authoring Tools, Augmented Reality in Education.

Acknowledgments. The author would like to acknowledge the contributions of WOWCUBE EEE DOO, located in Novi Sad, Serbia, for leading the development of all software for the WOWCube® platform, including its educational and AI-augmented applications.

References

  1. Osipov, I., Nikulchev, E., Volinsky, A. (2015). Study of gamification effectiveness in online elearning systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA), 6(2), 71–77.
  2. Osipov, I., Nikulchev, E., Volinsky, A. (2018). Serious games for education: Benefits and limitations of mobile applications. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2689 2705.
  3. Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O’Hara, K., Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. Proceedings of CHI Extended Abstracts, 2425– 2428.
  4. Mayo, M. J. (2007). Games for science and engineering education. Communications of the ACM, 50(7), 30–35.
  5. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? – A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. Proceedings of HICSS, 3025–3034.
  6. Huang, V., et al. (2017). A meta-analysis of the effects of video gaming on cognitive skills. Psychological Bulletin, 143(9), 849–899.
  7. Paik, S. H., et al. (2017). Internet gaming disorder and mobile gaming: Distinctions and overlap. Addictive Behaviors, 64, 286–293.
  8. Ward, A. F., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., Bos, M. W. (2017). Brain drain: The mere presence of one’s own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 140–154.
  9. Pardo, A., Buehler, M. (2022). Short-form video consumption and attention control in digital natives. Computers in Human Behavior, 135, 107374
  10. Ishii, H., Ullmer, B. (1997). Tangible bits: Towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. Proceedings of CHI, 234–241.
  11. Marshall, P. (2007). Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? Proceedings of TEI, 163–170.
  12. Antle, A. N., Wise, A. F., Nielsen, K., Tanenbaum, J., Girouard, A. (2011). Teaching with tangible and multi-touch technologies. Proceedings of CHI, 1789–1798.
  13. Merrill, D., Kalanithi, J., Maes, P. (2007). Siftables: Towards sensor network user interfaces. Proceedings of TEI, 75–78.
  14. Osipov, I. V. (2016). Tekhnicheskie sredstva cheloveko-komp’yuternogo vzaimodeystviya TUI. Obzor i analiz vozmozhnostey ispol’zovaniya v igrofikatsii [Technical means of human– computer interaction TUI: Review and analysis of gamification applications]. Cloud of Science, 3(4), 572–584. (in Russian).
  15. Lee, J., et al. (2020). Fluid intelligence predicts Rubik’s Cube solving proficiency. Intelligence, 80, 101453.
  16. Lin, L., et al. (2014). Effects of puzzle-solving on students’ problem-solving and spatial reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 473–486.
  17. Cubillos, A., et al. (2019). Speedcubing and fine motor skills: Evidence from competitive puzzle solving. Human Movement Science, 66, 492–503.
  18. Uttal, D. H., Cohen, C. A. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why, and how? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 1–41.
  19. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.

Izvor: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on e-Learning (ELEARNING2025)