Gamification

The EdTech 532 class I'm taking this semester uses a gamification structure. From what I can tell, most of the students in the class are finding this class structure motivating. I have felt like the class curmudgeon because I am having a completely opposite reaction. I'm not motivated. I'm not engaged. I'm doing the "quests" just because I need to in order to earn enough points to "win" the class. Today I discovered why I feel the way I do. I watched this video by Dan Pink about what motivates us. He pointed out three key elements that lead to better performance and personal satisfaction, which are important influences on motivation. I discovered that, for me, gamifying a class took away these three factors.

1. Autonomy You're probably scratching your head. How could I not feel autonomous in a class where I get to choose my assignments, I don't have deadlines, and I rely on no one else in the class to get my work done?First, the "free choices" are not really free. I have to do some quests in order to unlock other, unknown, quests. I have rarely found that the quests I do supply learning necessary to the quests I unlock. As a person who, admittedly, is too logical for her own good, I'm frustrated by things that have no rhyme or reason. I choose some tasks that I'm not really thrilled with in order to open up greater choices that, hopefully, I'll like better. Secondly, autonomy as a key to better performance is not so much about choices as it is about being able to set your own course--figure out how you want to get from point A to point B. This sense of autonomy is like knowing you have to drive to the store, but you can get there any way you choose. In EdTech532, I know point B is a game model. I know I need to learn a few things before I can start working on the game model, but the quests I have encountered so far are out of alignment with the type of game I want to make. I can't say I'm not learning anything from the quests. It's more that the quests are taking me on a meandering path of detours and I'm not quite sure when I'll ever make it to the highway where I'll have greater access to the tools I need to build a game. As I mentioned, as I complete quests, more quests are unlocked. I am starting to see greater options in some quests, so the highway may not be far off.
2. Mastery Each time I complete a quest, I earn points. I can't master a quest. Either I do it and get points, or I don't do it and don't get points. I assume if I didn't reach some level of expectation, I would be asked to do the quest again, but I have no idea what the level of expectation is. I only know what the minimum requirement is. I've been given some "awards" for my outstanding work, but I do not know what I did to earn those awards. I don't know which quests I did at a level of performance worthy of an award. I can't aim for mastery when mastery is not defined.
3. Purpose This gets back to the fact that I'm too logical for my own good and don't understand the purpose of many of the quests. I feel like I'm wasting my time playing games. I understand that I need to explore a variety of game types in order to know what I think works or doesn't work. And I need to be pushed to explore game types I don't like because I'm not building a game just for myself. I know I just need to be patient as "all things will be revealed" eventually. I just don't get it...yet.

Putting what I've learned about drive back into the context of gamification, my opinion based on my current experience is that a gamification "shell" will not provide sustained motivation. You can't just put points on assignments and call it a game. But if you can incorporate a feeling of purpose and mastery and a sense of real choices, gamification may work on a longer term. What I think may be the most challenging to incorporate into the gamification model is mastery. Students have to have an understanding of the meaning behind the points they earn. Reaching the level of "cadet" with only the understanding that you got there by earning 500 points will not contribute to a student's sense of mastery. The student needs to feel that he/she improved in some way as an outcome of doing the activities that contributed to a 500-point score.

Related articles

• Gamification: more than fun and games, it's about engagement (gigaom.com)

Too Distracting?

Photo provided by Homer Township Public Library

Mixed messages abound when it comes to using digital educational tools. The media and societal opinion would have you believe that technology is the savior of our education system. A meta-analysis of games is discussed in an article titled The Effectiveness of Games of Educational Purposes: A Review of Recent Research, by Josephine M. Randel. The article reports that out of 67 studies over a 28-year period, only 22 studies favor games. The rest show no difference between games and conventional teaching methods.

Today I read an article by Richard Clark titled Cognitive and Neuroscience Research on Learning and Instruction. He poses an interesting reason why we may not be seeing the results in games we are expecting. It boils down to distractions. Clark sites the following:

Another recent insight from extensive research on cognitive load theory (Mayer, 2004; Sweller, 2006) concerns the destructive power of common features of multi-media instruction . . . When instruction provides distractions such as music, animated agents who give us advice, tabs that allow us to get additional information, pages of text to read on the screen and key information embedded in irrelevant contextual information, we must spend effort ignoring the irrelevant to select and learn the relevant information (Clark & Choi, 2007).

It appears that the bells and whistles often thought to make digital learning more engaging cause more harm than good. Even help text can be distracting depending on how it is presented.

So what about games? The gamification drum is beating louder every day and is even being used in businesses to motivate and engage their employees. Games, even with their distracting elements, engage students, hook them, and make them WANT to learn...right?

A number of studies and reviews of studies that examined the benefits of games have been conducted (for example, Chen & O’Neil, 2005; O’Neil, Wainess, & Baker, 2005). All of the studies that have been published in reputable journals have reached a negative conclusion about learning from games. Apparently, people who play serious games often learn how to play the game and perhaps gain some factual knowledge related to the game – but there is no evidence in the existing studies that games teach anyone anything that could not be learned through some other, less expensive and more effective instructional methods. Even more surprising is that there is no compelling evidence that games lead
to greater motivation to learn than other instructional programs.

No greater motiviation... Wow! I feel like I have been sold a bill of goods from those who push the gaming trend. They make huge promises of motivation and engagement. They rarely promise educational gains, which I always thought was suspicious. But now...not even motivation.

This article by Clark had no good news for technology in its current state. He gave some recommendations for the design of digital learning tools (not games) that were proposed by Mayer in 2001. (You can read a summary of the design principles in this wiki article.) I can see these design elements in new learning tools, but I haven't found a learning tool that has followed the advice of eliminating distractions.

The best advice I can give for teachers and parents looking for that magic tool that will make it easier for your student to learn...buyer beware.While it is fine to use new technology that your students/children enjoy, don't expect it to take the place of conventional learning. As far as the research shows, we just aren't there yet.