Gamification in Education: What, How, Why Bother?

In their article titled “Gamification in Education: What, How, Why Bother?” Joey J. Lee and Jessica Hammer are trying to define, evaluate and explore the potential use of gamification in educational settings. They do this by discussing what gamification is, how it might be done, and finally they discuss some of the risks and benefits of using gamification. They state that gamification “attempts to harness the motivational power of games and apply it to real-world problems” (Lee and Hammer 2011, p1), and since the biggest problem they identify in education is motivation they see an intuitive fit.

What?

Lee and Hammer start their discussion on by noting that education would already seem to have several game type elements involved, such as reward systems, 'leveling up' through year levels and badges or grades. They go on to use some examples of what gamification might look like where students gain rewards (points for extra reading, an 'on target' badge for attendance and homework completion, and a 'lead detective' title for good questioning). They state that while the current rules surround school situations reduces student motivation, replacing the current rule systems with gamified structures could increase student motivation and engagement.

Leblanc (2004) points out that while some sorts of rewards can help increase intrinsic motivation, some types of rewards will stifle it. Lee and Hammer's examples of gaining points for reading an extra book or earning a badge for completing homework are both examples of rewards that are given based on success but earning a badge for attendance, for most students, this will fall into the category of reward that will stifle intrinsic motivation.

While they are not claiming here to be making an exhaustive list of what types of game elements could be utilised in gamification, they do only include examples of only one type of game element, namely points. Detarding et al (2011) identify five game elements (including reward structures) and Costikan (2002) also identifies five game elements however, he does not include reward structures as a game element. One critique of gamification is that the the points or reward structure is only one game element and a minor one at that. Some might say that this has more in common with pokies than gaming, especially considering that, according the Leblanc, the types of rewards that might be employed could decrease intrinsic motivation and make students respond only to extrinsic rewards.

Lee and Hammer go on to list a few examples where gamification is being used to increase student engagement, motivation and achievement. One example they site is Lee Sheldon at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Lee Sheldon runs a course on designing MMO's, massively multiplyer online games. He has designed his curriculum to use the lingo of the MMO's and also the game elements in order to increase student engagement and achievement. He has done more than add points to his course, he has added game elements such as large social groups called guilds, competitions, quests, small groups or party's. All of these elements combine to make the course material fun, interesting and student engagement has increased (you can read his critique/dissection of the experience here).

How?

Lee and Hammer claim that gamification works in three critical areas, cognitive, emotional and social. At a cognitive level, gamification can provide students with concrete immediate goals and also supply multiple ways of solving the problem. Lee and Hammer explain that both of these, the immediate reward for achieving and the choice in how to solve the problem both increase student engagement.

When they come to discuss how gamification can help motivate students on an emotional level, they focus on the fear of failure. They argue that failure is a normal part of gaming, where often “the only way to learn how to play the game is to fail at it repeatedly, learning something each time” (Lee and Hammer 2011). Where failure in a normal school setting is often linked directly to the students grading and feedback comes in the form of end of year report cards, failure in gaming is just another part of the learning process. Lee and Hammer claim that because gamification shortens the feedback cycles, students are given more feedback on their performance as the progress, it gives students a way to cope with failure and end up viewing it in a positive light.

While this might be the case in some situations, games have a certain amount of risk aversion built in. Save points in single player games means that taking a risk is not really a risk at all, nothing will be lost and failure simply means a small amount of time lost. So while games might create an environment where taking risks is easy, it might be because there is no perceived risk. Players are not often forced to play on after a bad decision and if they want to, they can always reload a previous saved game. While giving students more opportunities to fail in a classroom setting along side more feedback could lead to students more able to cope with taking risks, we also learn from gaming that taking away the consequences of taking risks can also be harmful.

According to Costikyan (2002), struggle is an important game element and while it can be competitive or non competitive without it games are not fun. When considering reducing risk in order to reduce the fear of failing, it would be important to keep in mind that it must not be done at the expense of the 'struggle'. Making the 'game' easier could lead to a reduction in the amount of fun that students could experience.

Why bother?

While Lee and Hammer do see many benefits form using gamification in education, they do acknowledge there are risks. Making extra work for teachers, creating a situation where students only learn when external rewards are offered, and also that the playfulness that is a large part of gamification may be forced and so the students could be turned off. However, having identified these risks, they do not offer any explanation on how to avoid them other to say that some gamification attempts will succeed and others will not. The risk that student intrinsic motivation may be reduced due to the rewards being used to reward participation or performance rather than success is underplayed here, but also the fact that schools are not the only place that this sort of motivational system is being used. Gamification is being sold as a marketing technique, business management system on top of the similar types of game elements being used in social media games such as farmville to addict players and to drain their wallets. If we use gamification in schools in a detrimental way, the effect will not just last while the students are at school but could make them more familiar with and willing to participate in marketing schemes that abuse these game elements.

While there are risks involved, taking game elements and adding them to the classroom does have the potential to not only make learning fun and enjoyable, but to increase the engagement and motivation of students. It could also be a great chance to teach students about how gamification works so when they encounter it outside the school setting they are aware of the risks and are better able to make use of the benefits that companies or marketers are offering in a gamified structure.

References

Costikyan, G. ( 2002) I Have No Words & I Must Design: Toward a Critical Vocabulary for Game.

Sourced at http://www.costik.com/nowords2002.pdf

Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L.E., Dixon, D. 2011. Gamification: Toward a Definition. In CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop Proceedings, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Sourced at http://hci.usask.ca/uploads/219-02-Deterding,-Khaled,-Nacke,-Dixon.pdf

LeBlanc, G. (2004). Enhance Intrinsic Motivation Through The Use of a Token Economy, Essays in Education, vol. 11, Fall. Sourced at http://www.usca.edu/essays/vol112004/leblanc,pdf.pdf

Lee, J. J. & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in Education: What, How, Why Bother? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15(2). Sourced at http://www.gamifyingeducation.org/files/Lee-Hammer-AEQ-2011.pdf