In response to the other day’s post about the differences between these terms, I have produced my own table outlining the differences. You’ll notice mine is a little more complex. That’s because the differences are more complex than the original one implied.
Note: This image is not to be posted anywhere or re-used without my written permission.
(You are free to disagree with me, just don’t present this table as yours).
NOTE: If You want an updated version of this table, see my post from February 3, 2018:
What’s the difference between serious games, educational games, and game-based learning?
Addendum 2021: A newer version of this chart has been peer-reviewed and published on academia.edu.
Thank you Will Thalheimer for taking the time to pull this all together. This is one of those trite myths that is so popular but that actually has the potential to cause damage.
It’s a great effort, but I’m afraid none of these are quite right. You may want to check out some of the resources on my site (or read my upcoming book)
From the article: http://www.upsidelearning.com/blog/index.php/2015/05/21/games-vs-game-based-learning-vs-gamification/comment-page-1/#comment-1917780
What you are describing under “game” is in fact only entertainment games. There are many other kinds of games, and rewards are not always secondary, nor are they necessarily hard or expensive to build (that would describe AAA games), NOR are story and scenes part of the game (that excludes most puzzle games). When it comes to winning or losing: there are plenty of entertainment games where winning and losing is not possible.
Game-Based Learning:
GBL does not require a game specifically designed for educational purposes – it is the use of games in a learning context. Sometimes just playing the game is intrinsically rewarding is true of any GOOD game. Educational and other serious games rarely have the kinds of budgets that AAA games do, so they are not necessarily expensive. Good design is always hard and that applies to learning as well as all kinds of learning that involve games or game elements. Creating good learning is hard. Adding a game or game elements makes it harder still.
Gamification:
I would say that having optional intrinsic rewards describes BAD gamification. Good gamification is hard to do (as is good design of ANY kind). I would agree that gamification is often added like a skin on top of the content, which is why so much of it is poorly done, and largely ineffective. You may want to check out my gamification resources.
Here are a couple of definitions from my upcoming book that may help to clear things up a bit:
Digital Game Based Learning (DGBL)
Learning of some knowledge, skills, attitudes that happens with the deliberate use of digital games. This could involve learning by playing games, but it can also involve learning through building games. DGBL is about learning with games.
Specifically, DGBL is the theory of how learning happens with the use of (primarily digital) games. Game based learning draws on a variety of other learning theories to explain how people learn with games.
Digital Game Pedagogy (DGP)
As pedagogy is about the study, and theory of teaching, digital game pedagogy is about the study and theory of teaching with games. It is a term not commonly used, but it is meant to highlight the distinction between learning from games and teaching with games. The two terms are closely related but are effectively opposite sides of the same coin – one from the perspective of the learner and the other from the perspective of the teacher.
Game
A game:
Is interactive
Has rules
Has one or more goals
Has a quantifiable measure of progress(or success)
Has a recognizable ending
Gamification
Gamification is the use of game design elements in non-game contexts. It is not necessarily about learning and can be used in any context. Examples include companies that offer points, reward systems, badges, and other incentive-based techniques, usually with the intent of increasing brand association and loyalty.
Serious Game
A game that has been designed to have a purpose other than or in addition to entertainment. While some entertainment games are often used as educational games, such as Sid Meyer’s Civilization, it is the designed intent that classifies a game as serious. Games like Civilization is a game used for serious purposes.
NOTE: For a more detailed and clear table outlining the similarities and differences, see my post from February 3, 2018:
What’s the difference between serious games, educational games, and game-based learning?
Many M.Ed. programs claim to incorporate signature pedagogies in their programs, which often include approaches such as inquiry-based, case-based, and problem-based learning, communities of learners, and more. Teacher education is unique among disciplines in that we are doing what we are teaching. Metateaching has been defined as thinking about teaching (Timpson 1999), but if metacognition is thinking about thinking, and a meta-language is a language about languages, then metateaching is in fact teaching about teaching. If we combine this with notions of signature pedagogies and the idea that we should be modeling what we are teaching, then what does this mean at the graduate level? It means that graduate instructors should themselves be modeling what they are teaching. Wouldn’t signature pedagogy in education be one that actually implements the theories and models being studied in order to teach those same theories and models? Shouldn’t it be one that employs experimental designs and invites the students (most of who are teachers) to examine the course design as it’s being taught? Wouldn’t it make sense to have the students have input into the design and/or teaching? This presentation will examine the common approach to teaching graduate level education courses – the seminar – and suggest an alternate approach that uses the theories and models being taught and where the teaching methodology matches the kind of work the participants will do when they graduate.
Especially common in games for learning is the notion that participants need to be able to win the game, but is it always necessary for the player to win in order to ‘get’ our message? In his studies of productive failure, Kapur (2008) has suggested that failure can be important to learning. Indeed, when we think back on our most memorable learning experiences we often find that these lessons are things learned through failure rather than success. Learning through failure is an effective way to help people learn how to cope with situations where there is no clear solution (Dorner, et al., 1990), and for certain kinds of messages negative messages delivered via games you can’t win may be more powerful than those you can.
This presentation explores a class of games where ‘winning’ doesn’t look the way we expect it to look. Some games don’t allow players to win at all, in which case the ‘message’ is effectively a cautionary tale. The authors refer to these games as “games you can’t win”, and they form a distinctly different approach to game design (examples include: Sweatshop, Darfur is Dying, and September 12th). This presentation will examine the philosophical background of games in education, the design of serious games, and look at both accidental and deliberately designed unwinnable games and how this relates to learning objectives.
Interested in using games in the classroom but not quite sure how?
My upcoming book will have an extensive set of supplementary materials, from summaries of the theories and models discussed in the book, to templates of lesson plans and teacher guides.
It will also include a list of 100 or so instructional strategies that have either been designed specifically for game based learning lessons, or that have been adapted to work with games.
We are having a conversation on one of the lists I’m on about the use of technology in the classroom. A colleague of mine who is not really in favor of tech in schools said that tools do not make one competent, they allow one to compensate for a lack of competence. His position was that technology displaces other things because it is simpler, or cheaper.
One of the metaphor examples used was this terrific video that pitted a man with a weed whacker against one with a scythe.
This video made me go right out and sharpen my scythe….
Then I used it.
HOWEVER, being a big fan of appropriate technology, I would still use my weed whacker around the trees, and in rocky places, and places where the ground is uneven, and up against the steps,…..
I will grant that it can be true that tech can allow one to compensate for a lack of competence, especially if people are trying to avoid having to become competent at something. The scythe/weed whacker metaphor struck a chord with me.
I have BOTH a weed whacker and a scythe. (How many people can say that these days?)
I have a farm. In order to make the most appropriate use of the tools available to me, I actually need additional competence. Knowing about the advantages and disadvantages of a variety of tools and knowing when to use which one requires considerably more competence than knowing how to use any single one of them – regardless of how ‘techy’ that tool is. New tools can add to our competence – they don’t need to displace it.
Contrary to popular opinion, rural life is far from simple, and it has taught me a great deal about the importance of competence in many things, as well as the importance of retaining competence with “old fashioned” techniques and technologies.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
I am a big fan of appropriate technology.
Let’s stick with the scythe vs weed whacker metaphor for a bit longer and see what that might mean.
I have a small farm, so I don’t have large combines or hay-making equipment, but I *do* have several acres of “lawn” and several more of hay – all of which need cutting, and ALL of which can be used as feed for one or more of the farm animals we have here. Not wasting it is important to me.
Some years ago, we bought a riding lawn tractor. Did it allow us to compensate for some lack of competence in cutting the grass some other way?
Nope.
In fact, it has added to my set of competencies for dealing with large amounts of grasses.
It DID allow us to cut a much larger portion of our 3-acre lawn in a much MUCH shorter time.
We STILL use a small gas-powered mower for some places (and now that we have more time, we have found several new uses for it).
We STILL use a non-electric push mower for some places.
We also use the following (ALL for cutting various kinds of grasses in various kinds of places):
grass clippers
hedge clippers
weed whackers
scythe
my hands
horses
Did gaining more competence with a scythe teach me to use a mower, or vice versa?
You Bet.
Gaining more competence or expertise with a scythe teaches me more about its possibilities and limitations. If I pay attention to WHY I’m using it (rather than betting caught up in the wonderfulness that is the scythe), then I can also come to understand the task, which in turn can help me to be more competent with the mower. I understand what I am mowing – IOW
the task becomes the subject and the tool, merely an object.
I know a lot of people seem to think that the kind of surveillance is necessary, that it somehow keeps us safer, and that if you have nothing to hide then you should have nothing to worry about.
Unfortunately, none of those things are true.
Here’s a test for those of you who say you have nothing to hide…..
Can I come over and look through all your dresser and desk drawers?
Can I read your diaries?
Can I tell everyone exactly who you have phoned in the last year and how long you spent talking to them? (Can I tell your employer? Your wife/husband/partner? Parents? Children? Church?)
How about telling everyone where you spent money and how much?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, then you too must say no to surveillance.
Before it’s too late.
“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”
NOTE: If You want an updated version of this table, see my post from February 3, 2018:
Will at Work Learning: Mythical Retention Data & The Corrupted Cone
It’s a great effort, but I’m afraid none of these are quite right. You may want to check out some of the resources on my site (
Instructional Strategies for Use with Games
I have a farm. In order to make the most appropriate use of the tools available to me, I actually need additional competence. Knowing about the advantages and disadvantages of a variety of tools and knowing when to use which one requires considerably more competence than knowing how to use any single one of them – regardless of how ‘techy’ that tool is. New tools can add to our competence – they don’t need to displace it.
