Gamification of Learning | Designing Digitally, Inc.

Posted on by
8
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes
BU072083

Original Image replaced. It belonged to Designing Digitally, and although I had linked it to their site, I did not have official permission to use it. They phoned me and yelled at me. They threatened me. I have my own images that I want protected, and would have been happy to take them down, had they asked nicely. They didn’t. They were VERY hot under the collar. After they yelled at me, they hung up on me. Now, I’m no business expert, but I’m pretty sure that’s no way to do business.

A previous post complained about being shut down on several LinkedIn groups because I disagreed with the poster. This is another one. It is quite typical for the kinds of posts seen by companies promising to gamify anything you want.

It makes all the usual claims: gamification makes learning more motivating, engaging, challenging, and fun. Then they go on to mention points, badges, and leaderboards.  Though it may not sound like it, I’m actually a big fan of gamification, but it is important to note that much of it isn’t new at all, and much of what is in fact motivating, engaging, and challenging has roots in sound pedagogy. It bothers me when people make claims they aren’t prepared to back up with research, and it bothers me even more when people attribute something to gamification that is not at all unique to it. I don’t like marketing hype. I like honesty. Apparently the two are mutually exclusive.

Gamification of Learning | Designing Digitally, Inc..

*Note: as this post seems to have prompted Designing Digitally to respond with considerable hostility, I am adding to this post in order to provide the text on which I am commenting.

The article linked above said:

“Experts suggest that challenges should be incorporated into education as a way of engaging learners. Learners who are reluctant might be encouraged to participate by a set of challenges. Utilizing gamification elements in your learning can do a great deal to encourage and engage learners, while challenging them to succeed.”

Here is what I said:

Can you tell us who the experts are that say we should incorporate challenges into learning? Are there any studies that have compared gamified learning interventions with more traditional ones to see if there is any research to back up the claims?

(note: I’m not trying to be difficult; I am genuinely interested in looking up the research.)

I do agree that challenges can increase motivation, but that really has little to do with gamification – it has far more to do with sound instruction.

Other experts* also say gamification is often about regulating behavior, and that the points, badges, leaderboards, and other rewards primarily drive external motivation – which is the opposite of what we actually want in sound learning. The way it is often implemented, gamification is classical behaviorist instruction wrapped in a sexy new name.

I’ve been doing gamification in my courses since long before it was called gamification, and I consult on the design of gamified courses. I find the term convenient for gathering together a host of techniques that, when well thought-out and designed, can create a highly learner-centered environment, but very little of it is actually new, and that which IS new is rarely implemented in either educational OR corporate settings. I see very little that is new in the majority of the marketing literature coming from companies that sell gamification, aside from the name.

*See my gamification pages for some of my peer-reviewed and other publications on the issue here.

Also check out writings and presentations by Sebastian Deterding, Ian Bogost, and Jane McGonigal, among others.

2 people like this post.

Unlike

Gamification is Scientifically Validated – Now What? | Gamification Co

Posted on by
1
Approximate Reading Time: 3 minutes

research, apparentlyA previous post complained about being shut down on several LinkedIn groups because I disagreed with the poster. This is the other article. It claims that the research described in this (one) paper is scientific verification that “gamification works”.

There is so much wrong with this claim that I hardly know where to begin. I have no problem with the research, by the way. The study seems sound and well analyzed. It’s the conclusions drawn by the Gamification Co that I have problems with.

Now the science is starting to catch up with us. Recent research (from Mekler et al. at the University of Basel) clearly shows what we’ve known all along: the basic methods of gamification clearly work to drive core behavior. Moreover, if they are presented properly, they are not demotivating as these so called “experts” predicted. And, in a clear victory for the SAPS model I pioneered – we’re starting to see that a core problem with most behavioral research (going all the way back to Deci/Ryan) may be that they used cash as the incentive/reward in testing. The real tension isn’t around the “strict construction” of intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation/reward, but rather that cash itself is a poor motivator.

If you want a well-thought out detailed analysis of what this study means, check out Sebastian Deterding’s post on the Gamification Research Network.

Here’s my response:

A SINGLE study, no matter how convincing the results, can NEVER be declared as scientific validation.

Besides, this claim implies that there is ONE way to do gamification (theirs), which of course is not true.

There is a growing and well-credentialed body of research on the use of games for learning, and even most of those experts would not make the claims for game-based learning that this article is making for gamification. I think there is a lot of potential in many aspects of gamification, but this kind of pseudo-scientific hype will only cause damage in the long run.

Subjects were asked to tag images. It has nothing to do with learning. They may drive core behavior on a simple task, but this can not be generalized to the claim that “gamification works”. They themselves say that more research is needed. This implies that this work is NOT considered to be scientific verification by the authors. It’s a start.

Points, levels and leaderboards are not only some of the most basic, but also three of the most commonly employed game elements in game and non-game contexts. While it has been argued that they may negatively impact users’ intrinsic  motivation, no actual empirical evidence exists to back this  claim.
The findings of the present study suggest that gamification by means of implementing points, levels and leaderboards  may be an easy, viable and effective way to drive user behavior – at least in the short term. Perhaps by establishing a clear  connection between user effort and performance, and by  providing explicit performance goals, these game elements significantly enhanced participants’ performance in an image annotation task. While significant performance gains were achieved, intrinsic motivation remained unaffected by the mere presence of points, levels and leaderboards. However, designers of gamified services should still be wary of potential social or contextual factors that may determine whether these game elements diminish intrinsic motivation. Also, as these game elements did not increase intrinsic motivation, they should not solely be relied upon to sustain long-term user engagement.

If I were the authors of this study and I had discovered that someone had taken my hard work and twisted it to imply something I didn’t say, I’d be pissed.

Gamification is Scientifically Validated – Now What? | Gamification Co.

If I were looking to hire a someone to design and implement a gamified something, it would NOT be this group.

Be the first to like.

Unlike

Comparing Gamification, Serious Games and Simulations

Posted on by
7
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

Comparing Gamification, Serious Games and Simulations.

BU072083

**** Original Image replaced. It belonged to Designing Digitally, and although I had linked it to their site, I did not have official permission to use it. They phoned me and yelled at me. They threatened me. I have my own images that I want protected, and would have been happy to take them down, had they asked nicely. They didn’t. They were VERY hot under the collar. After they yelled at me, they hung up on me. Now, I’m no business expert, but I’m pretty sure that’s no way to do business.

 

My last post complained about being shut down on several LinkedIn groups because I disagreed with the poster. This is one of the articles that apparently needed to be protected by flagging my post.

This group defines gamification, serious games, and simulation like this:

The term gamification refers to the process of adding game-like concepts and abilities to various applications in order to make them more enjoyable for the user.

A serious game incorporates the same types of gamification elements into a traditional video game that’s designed specifically for learning, marketing or a number of other educational purposes.

A simulation, on the other hand, will mimic a real-life challenge that a student may eventually have to face within the workplace.

Here’s my problem with these definitions:

These definitions are not accurate. If I were a new-comer trying to understand the distinction between gamification, serious games and simulations, I’m afraid these definitions would be confusing. They’re also somewhat misleading.

Gamification is the use of game design elements in a non-game context.

It does not have to be for enjoyment. I realize that much of the gamification that is done in the corporate sector is done to increase revenue in one way or another, but educational goals can be quite different. Gamification in education is not about marketing, whereas gamification in business almost always is.

“A serious game incorporates the same types of gamification elements into a traditional video game that’s designed specifically for learning, marketing or a number of other educational purposes.” I find this very confusing. Since gamification is the use of GAME elements, how can a serious GAME be defined as a GAME that uses GAME elements? This a tautology. The generally accepted definition (since 2003) is: Serious games are games design for purposes other than or in addition to pure entertainment. (first coined by Ben Sawyer, the founder of the serious games initiative).

Finally, (digital) simulations are computer programmed implementations of an abstract model. Sivasailam Thiagarajan, (1998) the noted performance training designer said that a simulation is “a representation of the features and behaviors of one system through the use of another” (p.35). A lot of people mistakenly think that simulations necessarily involve a real life situation, but all that is required is that it be an acceptable implementation of a consistent model. The model can be purely imaginary.

Many non-technical people see simulations and games as being distinct, but in fact, all games are simulations, although not all simulations are games. Games are a subset of the class of software known as simulations. What distinguishes games is the addition of an internal (rather than external) goal.

If you are interested in learning more about games and simulations, I recommend my book: A Guide to Computer Simulations and Games. The full table of contents, full-color images, and the glossary are available on our website: http://minkhollow.ca/books/

There’s also an interesting volume that just came out (available free) that is worth a read: http://gamification-research.org/2014/06/edited-volume-rethinking-gamification-out/ (Note: I do not have anything to do with this publication. I am not an author nor am I affiliated with gamificatio-research.org. I just like the essays.)

Finally, unlike the authors of the original post, I welcome discussion (as long as it’s not rude).

Reference:

Thiagarajan, S. (1998). The Myths and Realities of Simulations in Performance Technology. Educational Technology, 35-41.

Be the first to like.

Unlike

The Value of Discussion

Posted on by
4
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

CT23I often comment on the flaws of academia – the backstabbing, bullying, posturing, and so on. I have recently discovered (OK, don’t laugh) that the corporate world is worse – at least, when it comes to discussion.

snap01561I am a member of numerous groups on LinkedIn and I sometimes contribute to discussions. Coming from academia and especially coming from science, I am more inclined to comment when I disagree than when I agree. I’ve never been a fan of those endless “Yay for You!” posts. They don’t add anything to a discussion, and many seem to just be kowtowing. I learn much more from following and contributing to a discussion where people have differing viewpoints. Say what you will about the Academy (and I’ve said plenty), many of the discussion forums I’m on allow for some pretty heated debates.

Naturally I assumed that the same was the case on LinkedIn groups. Apparently not. I realize that what people often post to LinkedIn is a thinly disguised plug for their company or product. I’m OK with that, so long as it’s not too blatant. However, I’ve discovered that some of these posters – often ones ranked as “top contributors” – shut down discussion if it disagrees with them.

A few weeks ago I saw a post where the poster used a story to illustrate an example and it turned out that the example had come from somewhere else. Being an academic, I suggested he credit the original source of the story. Instead of taking advantage of an opportunity to make himself look good by crediting the original source, he sent me a private message asking me to remove my comment because it detracted from the “message”.

There have been a few posts on gamification that have been broadcast to numerous groups – one on the definitions of gamification, serious games, and simulations, and another claiming that gamification has been scientifically verified (no, really). I’ll say what I think of these in separate posts, and you can decide for yourself. What prompted THIS post is the fact that I am now begin moderated on all the lists where these two posts appeared.snap01560 My posts were neither spam, nor were they irrelevant. However, they did not agree with the line these folks were trying to feed us.

Now, most of the time, in the Academy, this is how we start discussions. If everyone agrees with what we are saying, there’s nothing to discuss. It’s often when people disagree that the really interesting ideas come up. Apparently, the authors of these posts chose to have me censored rather than address my comments (or learn something new?).

Sad, really. Had they responded instead of trying to shut me down, I might not have written this post.

I also wouldn’t remember them as people I never want to do business with or as people I will warn others to avoid. Somehow, I don’t think that was their goal.

 

Be the first to like.

Unlike

Weekly Web Round-Up (to August 2, 2014)

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

ChangeGamer – Home

“ChangeGamer promotes the use of computer games to study themes such as energy, climate change, natural disasters, the environment, economics, politics, history and science. The main function of ChangeGamer is to find high-quality games, and to create student activities for each of those games. The vast majority of games are free, browser-based, and playable on a number of different platforms (e.g. PC, Mac, iPad, etc.). All of the posted activities are free and have been tested in middle and high school classrooms (Gr.7-12). The activities are continually being updated based on feedback from teachers around the world. We have created answer keys for a number of the student activities where applicable – if you are a teacher and require any of these email us through the contact page using your school email address. “

tags:gamification, game, iste2014, serious_games, schools

In the Bustling, Interactive Classroom, A Place for Digital Games | MindShift

“Part 14 of MindShift’s Guide to Games and Learning.

If there’s one thing we know for sure, it’s that today’s technologies will one day be obsolete — we shouldn’t be too enamored with any particular educational tool. Teachers will always be the most important role in the classroom.

Although ed-tech has a lot to offer, even the most interactive, adaptive software cannot provide the social and emotional benefits that a good teacher can. Early psychoanalytic research already made it clear at the beginning of the 20th century: the relationship between developing children and adult figures is important. Good teachers (especially in the younger grades) understand that they are responsible not only for transmitting new ideas and information, but also for creating a collaborative classroom structure that models, reinforces, and encourages positive social behaviors.”

tags:classroom interactive games

Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2013 | Scholarly Open Access

“The gold open-access model has given rise to a great many new online publishers. Many of these publishers are corrupt and exist only to make money off the author processing charges that are billed to authors upon acceptance of their scientific manuscripts.

There are two lists below. The first includes questionable, scholarly open-access publishers. Each of these publishers has a portfolio that ranges from just a few to hundreds of individual journal titles.

The second list includes individual journals that do not publish under the platform of any publisher — they are essentially independent, questionable journals.

In both cases, we recommend that researchers, scientists, and academics avoid doing business with these publishers and journals. Scholars should avoid sending article submissions to them, serving on their editorial boards or reviewing papers for them, or advertising in them. Also, tenure and promotion committees should give extra scrutiny to articles published in these journals, for many of them include instances of author misconduct.”

tags:journals open_access predatory publishing

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

Be the first to like.

Unlike

America shows us, again, how NOT to do Education.

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

In an era of high-stakes testing, a struggling school made a shocking choice.

Wrong Answer

By

Annals of Education July 21, 2014 Issue

s-p-04-03-05-2Really, the choice is hardly shocking.

This is a story about how a bunch of caring, dedicated teachers resorted to cheating in order to keep their schools intact. The American preoccupation with competition and testing, the notion that every year must be better than the last, and the idea that “big data” can tell you everything you need to know turn good teachers into criminals or push them out altogether.

First No Child Left Behind, and now Race to the Top. And the stick always seems to be bigger than the carrot.

“Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of this hat.”
“AGAIN!? That trick NEVER works.”

Really. It doesn’t. The way to get the best performance out of that mule is NOT a system of rewards underscored with threats of punishment.

It’s really quite simple (though often not cheap). The way to get the best performance is to feed it well and treat it with respect.

2014-07-16_11-31-00_wmIn what many Americans would call a socialist move, Finland developed a school system that is now the envy of the world. Their goal was *not* beating everyone else; improving test scores wasn’t even on their radar. Their goal was to provide a good solid education for everyone. By focusing on how to improve learning conditions for the average and struggling students, they ended up improving learning conditions for ALL. Rather than try to motivate teachers through threats, and tests, they decided to trust their teachers and give them more (more money, more qualifications, more time, more help, ….).

Sheesh. Take a lesson America. Get over this ridiculous notion that competition breeds quality – except for the very few at the top, mostly what it breeds is resentment – and, cheating.

2 people like this post.

Unlike

Another End of an Era – Ray the Duck

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: < 1 minute

Ray in his prime.

The end of an era.

Ray, hatched April 1997 – lived till July 31 2014.

Ray taught me an incredible amount about resilience and learning – and that you really can teach an old duck new tricks.

 

Ray in his prime.

He became blind more than 4 years ago (cataracts) and learned how to follow the other birds by sound as well as memorizing where the food and water was.

 

Once he could no longer get around well enough to follow the flock, he learned how to find his way around in various pens. He learned the sound of me dropping grain on the ground near him, and a host of other things.

Ray and Gomez.

Ray relaxing with Helen (duck) and Ra (rabbit), both also retired.

Thanks Ray!

Ray having his bath. 🙂
(About a week before he died).

Be the first to like.

Unlike

Academic assholes and the circle of niceness | The Thesis Whisperer

Posted on by
Reply
Approximate Reading Time: 2 minutes

THIS explains why I got such a hard time in two of the Faculties where I studied and taught at UCalgary. Department Heads, Deans & Associate Deans: once this kind of culture gets started, only those who are assholes can get into administration.

Academic assholes and the circle of niceness | The Thesis Whisperer.

Jerks step on, belittle or otherwise sabotage their academic colleagues. The most common method is by criticising their opinions in public, at a conference or in a seminar and by trash talking them in private. Some ambitious sorts work to cut out others, whom they see as competitors, from opportunity. I’m sure it’s not just academics on the payroll who have to deal with this kind of jerky academic behaviour. On the feedback page to the Whisperer I occasionally get comments from PhD students who have found themselves on the receiving end  — especially during seminar presentations.

It’s fairly well known that you can’t be too outwardly nasty (although you might be surprised at the amount of down-right aggression that goes on), but academia seems to either attract, or foster the development of a passive-aggressiveness that is equally toxic and, if we want to highlight what the Academy is actually supposed to be doing, completely counter-productive to the advance of knowledge. What’s less well-known, is that people who raise the bar for the group are also disliked, and in the Academy, that often means that these people are subtly and sometimes not-so-subtly punished for being good. Sycophants and flatterers are rewarded, of course, but very often those who are actually good at what they do are a threat to those who run things, and must be either kept in their place, or driven out.

Sutton claims only a small percentage of people who act like assholes are actually sociopaths (he amusingly calls them ‘flaming assholes’) and talks about how asshole behaviour is contagious. He argues that it’s easy for asshole behaviour to become normalised in the workplace because, most of the time, the assholes are not called to account. So it’s possible that many academics are acting like assholes without even being aware of it.

What it really comes down to is that even if you tell yourself that you are not part of the culture – if you keep to yourself and do your own thing without bothering anyone – you are actually helping the asshole. Like Barbara Coloroso says, there are no bystanders. This does not only apply to kids in schools – it also applies to faculty in higher ed.

What about you? Are you an asshole? Are you one of the people who turns away while colleagues are bullied or abused? One thing I am pretty sure of, if you are one of the very few who is willing to stand up for someone – the ally – you are unlikely to get ahead in a great many institutions.

For my part, I’d rather be on the periphery and keep my principles intact. Every now and then, I actually come across another academic who is *not* threatened by the fact that I actually am very good at what I do. Those are the people who earn my respect.

Be the first to like.

Unlike