Gamification for motivating learning

It has been found that many instances of gamification in an educational context merely add game elements in terms of additions to already existing incentives in the classroom, and this does not utilise games in a more creative way, or exploit the “huge motivational potential of games, play, and extending them beyond games” (Deterding, 2011d). This has “proved detrimental to learning” (Deterding 2014, p. 46), underscoring that “gamification techniques are a critical set of design tools in an educator’s toolbox” (Ramirez & Squire 2014, p. 647).

2.6.2.1 Why games?

The quest to decipher what it is that works so well about games has been a research interest for many years. In 1981, researchers looking to understand why games, and computer games in particular, were so “captivating” (Malone 1981, p. 334), came up with the notion of “challenge” as a motivating factor (Malone 1981, p. 360). It was found that “success … in any challenging activity can make people feel better about themselves” (Malone 1981, p. 360).

Games are shown to “support intrinsic motivation by providing feedback, fantasy and challenge” (Rieber 1996, quoted in Dickey 2007, p. 256). Similarly, “real fun comes from challenges that are always at the margin of our ability” (Koster 2005, p. 97). It is argued that the concept of flow, when someone is completely lost in an activity (Csikszentmihalyi 1991) comes about from “precisely matching challenges to capability” in games (Koster 2005, p. 98). Ultimately, “playing games is the prototypical example for an autotelic, intrinsically motivating activity” (Deterding 2011b, p. 2).

41

2.6.2.2 Why games for learning?

Games would seem to be the perfect medium for promoting learning, because “all humans love to learn when it isn’t forced upon them” (Prensky 2003, p. 2). Bruckman (1999), however, notes that historically, educational games are often more like “chocolate-dipped broccoli” (p. 75), where learning is presented as “an unpleasant core that you need to hide in a chocolate coating” (Bruckman 1999, p. 75). She goes on to suggest that it is possible to design educational games with an awareness of particular educational theories, where certain aspects stand out as important:

 Piaget’s constructivism focuses on the fact that, as in games, there are: o “many ways to solve any given problem;”

 Papert’s constructionism reminds designers that:

o “people learn better when they are having fun, and are doing something they really care about;”

 Vygotsky’s focus on:

o “the social context of learning” allows for the development of the social facets of games (Bruckman 1999, p. 77).

Building feedback into game systems, especially informational feedback, which is shown to have been useful for motivation, should also “prompt the learner to reflect constructively on areas that need improvement and identify things … to increase the effectiveness of learning” (Dörnyei 2001, p. 123). Games offer themselves as a perfect resource for improved learning, because regardless of whether they are designed for instructional purposes or not, game players learn:

to take in information from many sources and make decisions quickly; to deduce a game’s rules from playing rather than by being told; to create strategies for overcoming obstacles; to understand complex systems through experimentation

(Prensky 2003, p. 2).

Games, as described by Prensky, allow players to build on their existing knowledge, and potentially extend the very limits of their abilities. This idea of building further knowledge by repeating previously learned concepts is an important tenet of constructivist learning theory, where constructivists argue that we bring prior knowledge to everything that we learn, and it is the way in which this previous understanding is enveloped into the new material which will ensure its appropriation. As described in Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, students are encouraged to develop beyond their boundaries through guidance from adults or more able peers (Vygotsky 1978, p. 86). This resonates with Krashen’s assertion that language acquisition happens when our boundaries of understanding are continually

42

pushed “‘a little beyond’ where we are now” (1987, p. 21). Games which have their learning objectives blended into the action of the game are pushing the boundaries of those playing, in effect edging them towards their own zone of proximal development, and so it is clear that games can work well to promote a positive attitude towards learning.

We see also that “motivation and learning are closely related values” (Denis & Jouvelot 2005, p. 462), thus suggesting that providing motivational strategies within learning contexts is possible, and desirable. Indeed, games give players the opportunity to experience fun as “the act of mastering a problem mentally” (Koster 2005, p. 90). As noted by Prensky (2003), in their experimentation, game players display emergent behaviour which allows them “to do things that the designer did not foresee” (Koster 2005, p. 128). This highlights a way in which games are excellent for learning, even beyond the targets which the designers themselves build in to the games. In addition, the “personalized and contextualized environment” of a game can lead “to increased motivation and learning” (Dickey 2007, p. 266).

For some commentators, the problems with educational games as identified by Bruckman (1999), need to be addressed as far back as the design phase, where “a successful educational game must integrate the learning with the game play mechanics, rather than as an addition to (them)” (Linehan et al 2011, p. 1981). A game’s “focus on repetition and discipline” (Linehan et al 2011, p. 1982) and its ability to adapt to student performance (Linehan et al 2011, p. 1986) mean that games are an excellent way to promote learning.

Kapp introduces the idea of gamifying the content, in addition to the structure of the system, when he suggests that:

well-designed educational games blend a task-related story with interactive game elements to help the player learn the desired behaviors, actions, and thinking patterns that support the desired outcome within a particular context

(2012, p. 42).

An important aspect of games, in that they are more likely to help something learned to stay in the learner’s memory, is also highlighted by Kapp when he says “a well-crafted game-based story focused on helping learners to solve problems educates learners and is easily recalled when the actual situation arises” (2012, p. 42).

Researcher James Paul Gee has written extensively on the power of games as educational media. He suggests that humans:

43

think best when they reason on the basis of patterns they have picked up through their actual experiences in the world, patterns that, over time, can become generalized but that are still rooted in specific areas of embodied experience

(Gee 2014, p. 9).

Gee finds that, in active learning, there are three things involved: “experiencing the world in new ways, forming new affiliations, and preparation for future learning” (2014, p. 24). Games are therefore the natural way of harnessing these components for promoting such active learning. He sees “the game as a system and a designed space” (Gee 2014, pp. 34-5), offering opportunities for designers to develop games which build on players’ abilities and enhance them further. Unlike Bogost (2011, 2014) he sees manipulation as not necessarily negative, as people can be manipulated positively, such as being manipulated to learn (Gee 2014, p. 36).

Just as Dickey (2007) saw the personalised environment as conducive to learning, Gee sees that a learner can “customize the identity the game offers him” and for him, this “is an important feature of good video games” (2014, p. 37). This personalised, customised approach to games is seen to be extremely beneficial in an educational context, where the learning can be tailored to the individual.

2.6.2.3 Why gamification, not games?

Even as early as 1981, the language that would ultimately be adopted by gamification scholars was in place in the literature connecting games, motivation, and learning. One study looked to identify “the features that make computer games captivating (so that they can) be used to make learning – especially learning with computers – interesting and enjoyable” (Malone 1981, p. 334).

Subsequently, this discussion turned to goals that are:

 “personally meaningful” (p. 356);

 differentiated between “fixed” and “emergent” (p. 358);  infused with “performance feedback” (p. 358);

 identified as having “variable difficulty” and therefore offering “multiple level goals” (p. 358);  offered along with “hidden information” and “randomness” (p. 359).

This entire discussion prefigures aspects of games which have subsequently been identified as relevant in the quest to make successful gamified systems.

44

Game designers repeatedly return to the concept that it is what is at the core of the game that is most important (Brathwaite & Schreiber, 2008; Andersen et al, 2011; Linehan et al, 2011; Ferrara, 2012a; Aparicio et al 2012; Ferrara, 2013), and gamification is seen to have something very different at its core than games do (von Ahn, 2006). In the case of gamification for learning, the core of the system is the learning that the designers aim to have their participants experience. The core of a gamified learning system is behaviour change (Linehan et al, 2011), and a journey through such a system can be seen as a “cognitive apprenticeship” (Ramirez & Squire, p. 632), if it is well designed.

As we have seen earlier, if used judiciously, the “persuasive” properties (Llagostera 2012, p. 12; Ferrara 2013, pp. 298-302) of game elements used in gamified learning systems can encourage learning to take place. In writing specifically about gamification for education, Ramirez and Squire (2014) list a number of game elements which work well in educational applications. They discuss the use of:

 just-in-time feedback;  well-ordered problems;

 the ability to learn through failure

(Ramirez & Squire 2014, p. 629).

This last aspect, concerning failing without serious consequences, is particularly important for “effective educational interventions” (Ramirez & Squire 2014, p. 629). They caution that “gamification structures, such as achievements, can function to promote learning if used carefully” (Ramirez & Squire 2014, p. 638), however, they are adamant that “gamification techniques are a critical set of design tools in an educator’s toolbox” (Ramirez & Squire 2014, p. 647).