gamification

doctorate education gamification ict phd pokemon effect triforce

Meshing GBL With PBL: Can It Work?

-

A photo of an elementary-school girl creating a model with colorful sticks.

Meshing GBL With PBL: Can It Work?.

Project based learning is a thing … and it’s a good thing. PBL brings with it a more open, enquiry based mode of instruction that has benefits in modern classrooms.

So the question is how to leverage PBL and make it mesh with Game based learning (my favourite thing!)? Firstly, game based learning is about incentive. The idea is that the game is a motivating factor that can inspire and help students want to learn. The trick, as Randy Pausch would have been proud to identify, is to make students forget they are learning. When learning is the medium it is incredibly de-motivating and stigmatised. However when gaming is the medium, then learning happens in the background.

PBL is about teaching and assessing skill building within the context of the project. As the project develops, participants show learning through the way they adapt and advance towards the project’s goals. This is observable and, importantly for the teacher, assessable. While it’s an exciting idea, PBL is not yet commonly used in classrooms.

How, then, does GBL use PBL? The answer, according to edutopia, is through using games as collaborative problem solving tools. By presenting a problem within a gaming context, participants can collaborate, use critical thinking, communicate and show creativity. They can take risks to try and solve problems, then learn through their failures. Games are perfect for this because they create an environment where risk taking is safe and possible solutions can be tried again and again. In fact, this idea of repeating a problem until a solution is found is the very nature of gaming!

The most interesting area for me is games as the product of learning. Programming and coding are fields that are developing at an exponential rate. The entire “programming” field barely existed 20 years ago. Programming now spans areas such as computer games, websites, apps, software and a myriad of other areas. The future of programming is beyond our current scope of understanding. Programming and writing simple games is an excellent use of PBL and GBL as a way to teach programming. Writing games can be collaborative and require a diversity of skill sets (graphic design, coding, story writing, design, etc). Such project based learning is easily assessed using conventional rubrics and can be observed within a classroom as easily as the typical projects that teachers are using in classrooms now.

Another method of GBL meshing with PBL is using the often-cited elements of gamification. Projects can be given levels of achievement and mini-goals that have to be completed before moving on to the next goal. Goals can be selected based on their importance and some goals can be ignored if participants feel that it doesn’t meet their final objectives. Badges and other incentives can be used to motivate participants and reward incremental achievements.

Overall, if classrooms aren’t using PBL then they should be. Project based learning helps students develop real world skills and lets them test their abilities and take risks, as well as enhances collaboration and communication skills. The beauty of PBL is that areas within a project can be delegated to members of a group with particular skill sets. Some students are good organisers, some are artists, some are builders and some are thinkers. Each student can participate by contributing their best skills. GBL offers a great medium for PBL. Games can be the motivation for projects. Students can work together to try and infect the world with a Pandemic virus. Or they can make an iOS app. Through gaming, learners are presented with a fun and motivational way to learn … while they’re busy infecting the world with a lethal virus, or while they’re trying to replicate Flappy Bird, they’re learning.

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

More hate for gamification

-

More hate for gamification

The problem with “critics” is that they’ve got lots of opinions … but don’t usually contribute anything productive (other than their verbosity) to the discussion. The problem with gamification is that it has become so popular so fast that critics are lining up to take a swipe and feel good about themselves.

Margaret Robinson’s article from 2010 on gamification goes down the same road as many other critics, including Bogost’s scathing attack (mentioned in the previous post). Robinson is determined that gamification focuses on the least important part of the game. She, like Bogost, says that badges and progress points aren’t intrinsic to the game at all.

But she’s wrong … they are important. Gamification isn’t about the game itself. Gamification is about how a game layer (game elements) can be used as motivators. If we look directly at games we can confidently say that games have motivators. One motivation is to win, to be the best. That motivation is represented by a scoreboard (leader boards can be used as a gamifying technique). If there’s no score or no winner, then many will find the game to be less fun.

Let’s make it more clear through an example. I’m a bit of a poker player. I enjoy poker and I play it when I can. It’s possible to play poker without money and without talking to the other players. But doing so would take away most of the fun … it would take away the motivation to play. See, that’s an intrinsic part of gaming. Sometimes the game itself is not that interesting, but socialising and gambling add to the enjoyment. I play poker so that I can experience the adrenaline rush of winning a big hand and, at the same time, talking with friends over a few beers.

Sometimes the game is just a tool. The mechanics of the game are not that important. This is what gamification represents. If we add a game layer to other tasks then we add a motivation. Gamification includes rewards, and it also includes socialising.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/gaming/2011/03/i_dont_want_to_be_a_superhero.html

More criticism. This time targeted at gaming guru Jane McGonigal. Through her Tedx talk, McGonigal talks about her heal and some experiences relating to that. Particularly she relates how she used gamification and roleplaying to help her recovery. 

Heather Chaplin, the author of the piece, says that games aren’t that fun and “gaming” isn’t for everyone. This is another common criticism of gaming and gamification – it isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution.

Well, no … of course not! Nobody who is a proponent of gamification is saying such a thing.

The truth is that we all DO play games. We play various games in our daily lives. Some people play cards, some collect coupons or air miles. Some play sport and others play tetris on their smartphone. Everyone plays games … but not everyone plays the same type of game. That’s not the same as saying not everyone finds games appealing, which is a falsehood.

Gamification covers this problem too by acknowledging multiple approaches to motivating people to play. Level up systems, for example, are a combination of small (like an incremental number) and big (like a major “level”). This is important because some people are motivated by different goals. Some people like to see the incremental gains (immediate, short term goals) and others prefer the larger gains (long term goals). Both work together to motivate. The same with leaderboards – global leaderboards motivate those who wish to be the best. Social leaderboards motivate people who want to try and beat their friends. Some people are motivated by certain badges. Others are motivated by completely different goals or achievements such as social status.

A great “real world” example is scouts. Scouts get badges for proving that they have a certain skill. Once they demonstrate a skill they get a patch or badge. The badges give a scout status in the community (global leaderboard) and amongst their friends (social leaderboard). When the scout gets a certain number of badges they can get a promotion (level up). 

All of these ideas are older than the internet and computers. Gamification isn’t creating something new, it’s just identifying systems and motivational strategies that have been around for centuries.

The main criticisms of gamification is that it doesn’t focus on the most important part of the game (ie the actual game) and that games don’t appeal to everyone. 

Complete rubbish! The game and the rewards for playing are equally important. Everyone is motivated by different rewards, so gamification is a multi-faceted approach which acknowledges such. Finally, whether critics want to admit it or not, everyone DOES play games. Grandma may not play shooter games like Call Of Duty, but she does collect the supermarket discount stamps (that’s a game) and she does play bridge on Thursdays (another game). She doesn’t collect stamps because she thinks its fun (it’s not fun at all). She collects the stamps because there’s a reward (free stuff). She doesn’t play bridge because she enjoys the technicalities and math involved in the game. She plays because she can chat with her friends and is motivated to beat them (and win status as a good player).

See, gamification is everywhere. 

It’s too easy to criticise something because it’s popular. It’s much harder to take a more measured approach to understanding that gamification offers real potential in education. Games and gamification are valid tools for motivating people to participate and learn … it’s sad that we still have to fight this war over justifying the place of gaming in our culture.

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

Persuasive Games: Exploitationware

-

Persuasive Games: Exploitationware

Ian Bogost’s vitriolic attack on gamification, in my opinion, is somewhat scathing and unwarranted. His premise is that gamification focuses too much on the game layer of points and systems used to attract and motivate – rather than focusing on the actual game itself. Bogost’s contention is how gamification is able to be used by advertising and companies to manipulate people. He refers to gamification as ‘exploitationware’ in an attempt to use rhetoric and word-smithing to position gamification as, well, evil. 

My contention with Bogost’s view is that he’s looking for reasons to hate gamification and the tenets it supports. While a game layer over the real world may not be everyone’s cup of tea, there’s definitely merit to the idea – as well as historical precedent to justify it.

Let’s talk about classroom learning for a moment. A teacher decides that she needs to motivate students to learn more. This is every teacher’s desire. So the teacher decides to use sticker systems, stamps and candy. The teacher also offers rewards to students who perform well … this is gamification! The idea of giving students stickers (10 stickers and you get a reward) is no different to frequent flyer miles, no different to 10+1 coffee coupons. Stamps and points are the same. Giving prizes for reading 10 books in a semester is another reward system. Adding a game layer to the real world has been a trend for over 50 years. It’s a method to motivate participants and provide incentive to play the game. Often, that game is for profit (fly the same airline, rather than their competitors, and you get benefits).

When we look at the history of using games in education, the game itself is rarely the motivation – the reward of winning, prizes, status and other symbols are the reason we play. Numerous studies have shown that education based computer games are a failure because they don’t motivate students to keep playing. This is something “dark lord” Game Zichermann has stated on numerous occasions; the best games are not games made by educators. 

Now, I concede that Bogost is concerned with how gamification is used to monetize (and profit from) participants. It’s a somewhat persuasive methodology. However it’s inevitable that private industries will jump on the gamification bandwagon. Business, and advertisers, are always early adopters of new ideas. If you want to know what works, look at what private companies are doing!

Rather than investing in positioning “serious games” and “persuasive games” and “gamification” against each other, I wish that Bogost would consider that games and game methodologies (including gamification) can all be applied to education with considerable benefits. All of us who are pushing for change in education are on the same team.

I’d rather we spent our time focusing on what’s good for kids in schools. It doesn’t matter if you hate the word ‘gamification’. What matters is that the ideas can be applied to learning. 

Dedicating a few thousand words to rhetoric is a waste of words.

doctorate education gamification phd pokemon effect triforce

“This Game Sucks”: How to Improve the Gamification of Education

-

“This Game Sucks”: How to Improve the Gamification of Education

Sarah Smith-Robbins looks at the idea of gamification and how it’s being applied to education.

Gamification is the application of game mechanics such as points, badges, and levels to non-game processes. Through the use of gamification techniques businesses (and potentially education) can motivate people to participate in the games that are being devised. This idea isn’t new. Education has been using points, status and achievements for a century. Private industry has used elements of gamification as well. Mileage cards, shopping stamps and coupon systems are all a form of gamification.

The problem, according to Smith-Robbins, is that that education is not very good at using game systems to motivate students. Part of the problem is that the game isn’t fully understood by those who are playing (ie students).

A game has three elements – a goal, obstacles, and is either collaborative or competitive. A goal is the win condition – the outcomes required to end the game. The obstacles are challenges of various difficulty the participant needs to overcome. Obstacles are a good thing because, as we all know, a game that’s too easy is no fun. Finally games are  cooperative (beating the game by working together) or competitive (beating the other players). 

Education, if it’s a game, isn’t using these elements very well. Is the goal “learning” or is the goal “getting a job”? What are the obstacles: critical thinking skills or getting past assessment (by any means necessary, including cheating)? Is education collaborative (working together to acquire knowledge) or competitive (fighting for better jobs and more money)?

If the game of education can’t be changed, then it can be improved by making the game clearer to the players (students). To quote the article:

  • Make goals clear, and explain how the course, major, or degree prepares learners to achieve those goals. Ensure that students align on the goals and want to achieve them.
    • Spend as much time in class and on the syllabus covering the importance of the learning goals as is spent explaining the grading system of the class.
    • When writing assignment descriptions, include a “How you can use this in the future” section.
  • Make progress transparent to each learner. Grades and assignment completion are not the only ways to measure progress toward achieving the goals.
    • Give students a way to track their progress on each learning goal of the class. An online checklist that students fill out on their own can help them stay on track.
    • Create commodities for desired behavior. For example, hand out poker chips to students who contribute in class; a student who cashes in ten poker chips earns a “Top Contributor” badge.
    • Add peer voting to class activities such as discussions and online forums. Allowing students to identify the contributions that they see as valuable will highlight good models for other students to follow, as well as provide positive feedback to the contributing student.
  • Think about your own game play. Reflection can reveal insights into innovations that can be leveraged in education.
    • Consider the game apps on your phone or iPad. How do you decide which to play and which to ditch? What makes a game “fun” to play?
    • Ask students which games they play and how they learned to play them. Talking about how we learn can help students improve their own techniques.
Scroll to Top