{"id":3869,"date":"2014-05-30T11:54:47","date_gmt":"2014-05-30T17:54:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/minkhollow.ca\/beckerblog\/?p=3869"},"modified":"2019-05-08T16:29:41","modified_gmt":"2019-05-08T22:29:41","slug":"7-not-key-learning-points-on-gamification-axonify","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/minkhollow.ca\/beckerblog\/2014\/05\/30\/7-not-key-learning-points-on-gamification-axonify\/","title":{"rendered":"7 [NOT] Key Learning Points on Gamification | Axonify"},"content":{"rendered":"Approximate Reading Time: <\/span> 2<\/span> minutes<\/span><\/span>

\"ID-100263233\"This came across my feed today. I can’t leave this unanswered, because I’m really getting tired of this sort of unfounded sales drivel.<\/p>\n

7 Key Learning Points on Gamification | Axonify<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Now, I do not know these people or this company, and I have no personal beef. I’m using this article as a way to highlight some of what’s really wrong with the corporate gamification ‘scene’, and why, if they continue pushing this stuff, they will be responsible for yet another failed fad.<\/p>\n

I actually think gamification done right ISN’T a fad. Some of it is indeed new, but a lot of it is simply good teaching, and gamification is a handy umbrella term for a collection of ideas that didn’t have anything to unify them till now.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Let’s go through them in order:<\/p>\n

Learning Point #1: Game Popularity is a Formula<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Yeah. Right. The idea that you can guarantee success by following a formula is the kind of magical thinking that gave us software engineering. You know the kind that believes that hiring dozens of mediocre programmers and making them follow a formal “process” will result in well designed, bug-free software.<\/p>\n

Making a good game is HARD. There is no simple formula.<\/p>\n

The author claims that their company has figured out the formula as a result of testing and releasing 100’s of games. The formula, they say, is to make the game multi-level, challenging and fun. I suppose 30+ years of research into games and game design isn’t worth mentioning. This is NOT new, and they sure as heck didn’t invent it.<\/p>\n

Learning Point #2: Game Play Variety is Critical<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Of course. We’ve known for decades that this kind of variety is critical in learning. Also not new, nor did they uncover any special secret here.<\/p>\n

Learning Point #3: Leaderboards Drive Competition & Community<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Maybe in marketing, but NOT, I repeat NOT true in learning generally. In fact more and more we are realizing that competition is counter productive when it comes to learning. It also tends to destroy community.<\/p>\n

Learning Point #4: Physical Rewards are Key to Participation<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Also not true. What IS key to participation is that the rewards be meaningful. Now I suppose if you can only think in terms of material stuff, then, sure, physical rewards are better than virtual ones. By the word physical<\/em> is not the opposite of virtual<\/em>. Real Life is (sort of – I’m not convinced that all words have opposites, but this comes closer).<\/p>\n

Learning Point #5: Learners Prefer the Term \u201cCoach\u201d Over \u201cAvatar\u201d <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Whatever.<\/p>\n

Learning Point #6: Employees Like to See Their Progress<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Everyone likes to get feedback and see that they are progressing. This isn’t news.<\/p>\n

Learning Point #7: Social<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

What? The first 6 “points” were actually statements of some sort, and now we get a single word as if we’re supposed to know exactly what it is about “social” that’s key. A lot of people actually DON’T like to socialize in the way that most salespeople think. I suspect most salespeople are extroverts and can’t even begin to imagine that there might be people who don’t think exactly like they do. The article says that 15% of their users engage socially every day. That actually doesn’t sound like a lot to me.<\/p>\n