{"id":4172,"date":"2014-08-09T11:30:17","date_gmt":"2014-08-09T17:30:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/minkhollow.ca\/beckerblog\/?p=4172"},"modified":"2014-09-12T11:57:01","modified_gmt":"2014-09-12T17:57:01","slug":"gamification-is-scientifically-validated-now-what-gamification-co","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/minkhollow.ca\/beckerblog\/2014\/08\/09\/gamification-is-scientifically-validated-now-what-gamification-co\/","title":{"rendered":"Gamification is Scientifically Validated \u2013 Now What? | Gamification Co"},"content":{"rendered":"Approximate Reading Time: <\/span> 3<\/span> minutes<\/span><\/span>

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

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.<\/p>\n

Now the science is starting to catch up with us. Recent research<\/a> (from Mekler et al. at the University of Basel) clearly shows what we\u2019ve known all along:\u00a0the basic methods of gamification clearly work to drive core behavior<\/strong>. Moreover, if they are presented properly, they are not demotivating<\/strong> as these so called \u201cexperts\u201d predicted. And, in a clear victory for the SAPS model I pioneered \u2013 we\u2019re 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\u2019t around the \u201cstrict construction\u201d of intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation\/reward, but rather that cash itself is a poor motivator.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Here’s my response:<\/p>\n

A SINGLE study, no matter how convincing the results, can NEVER be declared as scientific validation.<\/p>\n

Besides, this claim implies that there is ONE way to do gamification (theirs), which of course is not true.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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<\/strong><\/em> needed<\/em>.<\/strong> This implies that this work is NOT considered to be scientific verification by the authors. It’s a start.<\/p>\n

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\u2019 intrinsic\u00a0 motivation, no actual empirical evidence exists to back this\u00a0 claim.
\nThe findings of the present study suggest that gamification by means of implementing points, levels and leaderboards\u00a0 may be an easy, viable and effective way to drive user behavior \u2013 at least in the short term. Perhaps by establishing a clear\u00a0 connection between user effort and performance, and by\u00a0 providing explicit performance goals, these game elements significantly enhanced participants\u2019 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Gamification is Scientifically Validated \u2013 Now What? | Gamification Co<\/a>.<\/p>\n

If I were looking to hire a someone to design and implement a gamified something<\/em>, it would NOT be this group.<\/p>\n