Produced with Scholar

Work 1: Knowledge Process Analysis

Project Overview

Project Description

Analyze a work according to the "Knowledge Processes" Framework.

Icon for Gamification Theory and Student Learning

Gamification Theory and Student Learning

Introduction

It is probably not a secret to any teacher, but being an educator is tough. Instructors have the challenge of teaching a large quantity of students with the hopes that each individual successfully meets academic standards, while synthesizing the material and using it in other contexts outside of the classroom. This task becomes even more daunting when many students are uninterested, unmotivated, or simply do not see the value of learning a particular subject in the first place. Obviously, there is not a magical solution to this problem, but a natural place to start making “dull” material more accessible is by delivering it in a context that connects with student interest. 

When I was a child (and even still now), one of my favorite activities was playing games.  Board games, card games, video games... it did not matter.  I enjoyed them because they often involved some type of competitive element, incorporated some type of strategy, and had some type of challenge or maybe even adventure.  Most of all, I enjoyed games when they created a sense of community and collaboration with the other participants.  I did not have many opportunities to learn through games in the classroom, but I imagine that it would have enhanced my experience regardless of the subject or specific content.

As a teacher, I have dabbled with adding gaming elements to my 6th grade classes on Ancient Civilizations.  My goals have been to increase my students' understanding of historical concepts by more actively engaging them in the lessons.  Thus far, these attempts have mostly been in the form of simulations.  For example, I have students complete a "survival simulation" in my prehistory unit every year.  Students are competing against a time limit to "hunt" or "farm" enough food, "gather" enough water, and "build "a shelter.  The students who successfully do this "survive" prehistoric times, and those who do not "fail to survive".  Many students tend to enjoy this activity, due to the challenging tasks, competition, and collaborative elements that it entails.  Furthermore, they also come away with a better understanding of how difficult it was for early humans to live within prehistoric conditions.

Additionally, I have also tried to incorporate some technology to increase studnet engagment and learning.  For example, reviewing for an assessment on Ancient Mesopotamia suddenly becomes more fascinating when questions are delivered through a Kahoot! instead of a traditional study guide. A Kahoot! is a learning platform where students attempt to answer as many multiple-choice questions correcty as possible to earn points.  Teachers have the option to add competitive elements such as awarding extra points to students who answer questions correctly in a shorter amount of time, and to students who have a streak of consectutive correct answers.  They can also post leaderboard rankings and call attention to students who are progressing through the rankings, regardless of their position in the class.  The video below shows Kahoot! in action. Many students become enthralled in the competition to score the highest number of points in the class, choose personalized gamer names, and obtain a spot on the leaderboard. These “gaming elements” create an excitable atmosphere, and when these elements are leveraged effectively, the result can lead to a fun and more meaningful learning experience for students.

Media embedded June 30, 2019

Gamification is a relatively new theory in educational psychology that shows a lot of promise in the classroom. According to Chauhan, Taneja, & Goel (2015) define gamification as the following:

Gamification in education is applying game elements and aesthetics to learning. It makes sure the students are motivated to complete the task by adding ‘fun’ element to learning environment. Students get the feeling of accomplishment and success of striving against a challenge. It helps in better student engagement and leads to proficiency. (p. 348)

This work will seek to conceptualize gamification and analyze different theoretical approaches. Moreover, it will examine the applications of gamification in the classroom, as well as potential future innovations. Finally, the work shall discuss the limitations and challenges surrounding the theory and successful integration of gamification elements into educational pedagogy.

Concepts & Theory

The foundations for gamification theory stems from the idea that traditional education has often left students with little agency to learn in their own preferred methodology. Chauhan et al. (2015) concluded in their study that within traditional models, “the delivered course-content is the same for every learner, irrespective of their learning objective, preferences, educational background, skills, etc" (p. 349). Furthermore, Chauhan et al. (2015) emphasized that knowledge becomes more meaningful when it “is constructed by students as a result of their learning experience” (p. 349). Consequently, learning experiences will be mostly ineffective if the lessons are not personalized to meet a variety of learning needs, and do not take students’ interests into account.

Gamification theory proposes that gamified instruction can increase learners’ motivation to engage with course content, which will result in a more rewarding and enriching experience for learners. Hamari, Koivisto, and Sarsa (2014) found in their literature review of empirical studies on gamification that “most of the reviewed papers reported positive results for some of the motivational affordances of the gamification implementations studied” (p. 3028). Motivational affordances include, but are not limited to: points, leaderboards, achievements/badges, levels, story/theme, clear goals, feedback, rewards, progress, and challenges (Hamari et al., 2014, p. 3027-3028). Motivational affordances is an essential part to gamification, but does not comprise the entire theory. Hamari et al. (2014) further conceptualized gamification as consisting of three main parts, “1) the implemented motivational affordances, 2) the resulting psychological outcomes, and 3) the further behavioral outcomes” (p. 3026).  The chart below further breaks down the complexities of gamification.

It is important to recognize that gamification theory does not simply equal educators utilizing the gaming techniques mentioned above and subsequently enhancing the learning experience of all students. Landers (2015c) observed that among many instructors today, “many of these efforts are atheoretical, meaning that the teachers using them don’t necessarily have a well-grounded reason for gamifying. Instead, they often gamify with the intention of making learning more ‘fun’” (para. 1).  My motivations for incorporating gaming elements, mentioned in the previous section, show that I am one of the educators that falls into Lander's statement.  Unfortunately, a lot of teachers may have too many responsibilities and not enough time to do a full research analysis on how gaming tactics work.  However, this is a critical piece to use gamification or any other educational theory effectiviely. 

Furthermore, Hamari et al. (2014) found that “the largest studies in [their] review reported that… engagement by gamification can depend on several factors, such as the motivations of users or the nature of the gamified system” (p. 3028).  The Dilbert comic strip does a great job illustrating that gamified elements, such as badges and awards, will not incentivize every student.  If the extent of a teacher's efforts relies on these elements, some students may view gamification as a gimmick, and the results will not match the expected outcome.

 

The Theory Behind Gamification

According to Landers (2015b), the theory of gamification can be broken down into three key propositions (p. 760-763). Each of these statements will be analyzed over the course of this section.

Proposition 1: Instructional content influences learning outcomes and behaviors. This proposition addresses the concerns mentioned by Landers and Hamari et al. mentioned above. Gaming characteristics certainly play a role in influencing learning and behavioral outcomes. However, these qualities cannot be the isolated link between these variables and lead to successful learning. Landers (2015b) asserted the following caveat in his study:

Critical to the success of any gamification effort is that the instructional content in place is already effective. The goal of gamification cannot be to replace instruction, but instead to improve it. If the instructional content does not already help students learn, gamification of that content cannot itself cause learning (p. 760).

In other words, throwing in some points and badges to a project will not yield improved results from students, especially if the project does not already differentiate instruction to account for multiple learning styles. As explained in an earlier section, Chauhan et al. (2015) emphasized that a one-size-fits-all approach to education does not fit the needs of learners when it utilizes a linear method to share knowledge, and “courses have a predefined curriculum and presentation strategies delineated by the educator.” (p. 349)

Proposition 2: Behaviors/attitudes influence learning. Landers (2015b) found that “for gamification to be successful, the behavior or attitude that is targeted by gamification must itself influence learning” (p. 761). Similarly, Hamari et al. discovered in their analysis of previous gamification studies that the qualities of the users themselves was a major aspect identified across many of them (p. 3029). Consequently, a sound instructional foundation from the educator must also include an intentional effort to identity behaviors that can lead to increased learning. Effective gamification will then be constructed to incentivize the student behavior desired by their teachers. Landers (2015b) referenced an example from Hattie, Biggs, & Purdie (1996), which found that strategies such as note taking and reflection on learned material would lead to greater learning gains (p. 761). Therefore, Landers (2015b) concluded that “engagement in such strategies is a promising focal behavior. Thus, gamification that provides game rewards for high-quality notes or allows learners to control the frequency of meta-cognitive reminders is likely to improve learning” (p. 761).

Proposition 3: Game characteristics influence changes in behavior/attitudes. This is a critical preposition in gamification theory due to the multiple causes and effects involved, but might be overlooked by someone who is implementing gaming techniques in the classroom, but is unfamiliar with the theory behind it. In short, the characteristics of the games can positively or negatively affect learners’ behaviors and attitudes. Furthermore, learners’ behaviors and attitudes will directly impact the quality of learning itself.

To exemplify this connection, Landers (2015) cited a study for Wilson and colleagues (2009), who suggested that by “increasing the level of adaptation of a game to learner ability, learner cognitive strategies (a behavior) will be increased. Similarly, the use of more specific rules/goals in games can increase motivation to learn (an attitude)” (p. 10). Chauhan et al. (2015) looked at the game characteristics and behavior relationship more broadly, stating the following:

Students tend to focus more when they are given a challenging task. The gaming elements like difficulty levels, points, ranking, virtual gifts promotes student motivation and encourages them to become skilled in the subject they are learning. Students collaborate with each other in a better way when gaming elements are introduced in the learning process. (p. 349)

Application & Innovation in the Classroom

There are a wide variety of games on the market today that incorporate various types of tasks, challenges, reward systems, etc. Similarly, gamification can and should take on a wide variety of forms in the classroom setting. Chauhan et al. (2015) noted that gamification can comprise of both self elements and social elements (p. 350). Self-elements consist of options such as points, badges, levels and virtual goods, content unlocking, and secret tips (Chauhan et al., 2015, p. 350). Conversely, social elements, such as leaderboards, can encourage interaction and healthy competition among students (Chauhan et al., 2015, p. 350). The following video shows Quizzizz, a platform that uses both self elements (points) and social elements (leaderboards) to promote student engagement and incentivizes students to perform at a high level on a formative or summative assessment.

 
Media embedded June 30, 2019

The increasing popularity of gamification has prompted educators and others to suggest the application of more advanced gaming lexicon. In his article on Edutopia, McCarthy (2016) advocated that students could have opportunities to gain experience points and level up, complete boss challenges after obtaining the necessary knowledge in a lesson, create their own learning path through free play, and participate in special events to earn custom badges and achievements.

There are several exciting opportunities for innovation using gamification theory. Some established gaming platforms, such as Minecraft, have been adapting their software to be used in educational contexts and encourage improved behavioral and learning outcomes. The platform, which has been around since 2009, has developed a specific version called Minecraft: Education Edition over the last few years.  This platform gives students clearance to interact with their teachers and lesson objectives through a creative medium, as they develop their own worlds and collaborate within them to show mastery of concepts.  

Media embedded July 8, 2019

Perhaps gamification concepts, which focus on differentiating for the needs for the learner, can be utilized in MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses). This might mean that learning no longer has to be restricted to the traditional confines of a classroom- such as time and physical space. Students could be completing MOOC courses that utilize gamification techniques outside of school, as well as meeting for some traditional classes inside school, for a blended learning experience. Grunewald, Meinel, Totschnig, and Willems (2013) found that “some common functionality of e-learning platforms (such as MOOCs) fit into a gamification system, in precise all kinds of quizzes (which gain points) or the reception of learning material (which can show up in an overall progress display)” (p. 379-380). 

Media embedded June 30, 2019

It could also be interesting to see gamification elements infused with technologies in their infant stages of development, such as augmented reality (AR).  According to Chauhan et al. (2015), augmented reallity is, "a concept in which the real world is enhanced by blending it with the visual world" (p. 349).  Basically, a digital image is overlaid or projected into our own everyday surroundings, which can then be interacted with by the user.  A visual overview of augmented reality is provided below, which also shows how it differs from virtual reality (which itself could personally immerse students within MInecraft-like worlds).  Augmented reality could take gamification into the real world.  For example, using the survival simulation game mentioned in the introduction of this work, students might use "augmented" tools to construct their own shelters to survive in prehistoric times.  The program could then give students points or awards based on factors such as the effectivness of their chosen building materials and techniques.  

Media embedded July 8, 2019

Admittedly, logistical concerns over readily available access to technology and philosophical discussions regarding the digital divide would be obstacles for implementation. However, gamified platforms such as Minecraft, MOOCs, and AR have the potential, when combined with deliberate and intentional instruction, to revolutionize student motivation and academic achievement.

Challenges

The possibilities are great for educators who embrace gamification theory. Nevertheless, there are several important factors that can make implementation of gamification techniques ineffective. Hamari et al. (2014) said as much in their review of empirical studies on the theory:

All of the studies in education/learning contexts considered the learning outcomes of gamification as mostly positive, for example, in terms of increased motivation and engagement in the learning tasks as well as enjoyment over them. However, at the same time, the studies pointed to negative outcomes which need to be paid attention to, such as the effects of increased competition, task evaluation difficulties, and design features. (p. 3028)

The usage of gamified learning to meet the needs of all diverse learners is impossible, just as any other educational technique will not be effective for an entire student population. Furdu, Tomozei, & Kose (2017) found that “motivators like points, badges, [and] leaderboards are not effective for students who aren’t naturally competitive, and if these elements will have a central role, the students will finally lose their interest” (p. 58). Even among students who are open to learning through gamification, different experience levels with the process of gaming itself makes “categorizing appropriate gaming elements for specific audience is difficult” (Chauhan et al., 2015, p. 350).

Moreover, gamifying learning will not be effective if the teacher or other deliverer of the gamified content is inexperienced within this domain. Chauhan et al. emphasized that successful implementation “demands training of teachers to integrate games meaningfully into their total curricular activities” (p. 350). Conversely, even an experienced teacher with the ability to create a high quality, gamified curriculum may also not see positive results. According to Hamari et al. (2014), “Some studies showed that the results of gamification may not be long-term, but instead could be caused due to a novelty effect” (p. 3028).

Most importantly, educators need to be cautious regarding how long-term gamification may affect student motivation and self-worth. The system must differentiate instruction in a way that meets the learning abilities of different students and gives them multiple routes to academic proficiency. Additionally, there cannot be completely open public access to the identities of the “winners and losers”, as the system might create social distinctions within the classroom, which could result in negative behaviors toward those with “lesser scores” or “few badges”. Furdu et al. (2017) summed up these concerns and others with the following statement:

Some drawbacks of using gamification in an excessively or wrong way must be considered. By making play mandatory, gamification might create rule-based experiences that feel just like school. The effort, not mastery, should be rewarded, and the students should learn to see failure as an opportunity, instead of becoming unmotivated or fearful. Activities need to be designed so that students can repeat them in case of an unsuccessful attempt. Feedback can be used as a correction of students’ actions and should be a stimulus to their further activities. Also, the trainers should balance metrics with real engagement. (p. 58)

Teachers can potentially lessen some of the negative effects of gamification theory with a few strategies. First and foremost, gamification (or any educational strategy) should ideally not be the only method for delivering curriculum. This fails to account for the various needs of diverse learners. Additionally, teachers who wish to implement gamification would be wise to spend the time self-educating within the field, as well as attending professional development workshps. Finally, teachers who wish to utilize gamification in the classroom must take care to avoid turning the classroom into an entirely competiive atmosphere. This further alienates some diverse learners, and can undermine the collaborative atmosphere that many teachers try to foster with their students.

Conclusion

Gamification theory, when applied intentionally, has the potential to literally be a gamechanger for student learning and engagement in the classroom. This new type of instruction could revolutionize how we as teachers interact with our students, while allowing students to connect with course content and form experiences on a level unprecedented in traditional schooling. There are certainly challenges and limitations that must be overcome, but the future looks promising for gamified learning.


References

Adams, S. (2013, May 19). [Comic Strip]. Retrieved from https://www.dilbert.com

Becker, K. (2018). Gamification of Learning: Good VS Bad [Diagram]. Retrieved from http://minkhollow.ca/beckerblog/2018/08/14/evolution-of-the-good-vs-bad-gamification-chart-part-1-2/

Babii, A. (2014). Gamification strategy in business [Illustration]. Retrieved from https://www.istockphoto.com/vector/gamification-strategy-in-business-gm462488743-32442160

Chauhan, J., Taneja, S., & Goel, A. (2015). Enhancing MOOC with Augmented Reality, Adaptive Learning, and Gamification. 2015 IEEE 3rd International Conference on MOOCs, Innovation and Technology in Education., 348-353. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITE.2015.7375343

CNET. (2018, August 6). Augmented reality vs. virtual reality: AR and VR made clear [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOKJDCqvvMk

Cormier, D. (2010, December 8). What is a MOOC? [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW3gMGqcZQc

Furdu, I., Tomozei, C., & Kose, U. (2017). Pros and Cons Gamification and Gaming in Classroom. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 8(2), 56-62. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.09337

Grunewald, F., Meinel, C., Totschnig, M., & Willems, C. (2013). Designing MOOCs for the Support of Multiple Learning Styles. Scaling up Learning for Sustained Impact. EC-TEL 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8095, 371-382. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40814-4_29

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does Gamification Work? - A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification. 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, p. 3025-3034. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377

Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996) Effects of Learning Skills Interventions on Student Learning: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99-136. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066002099

Kahoot!. (2017, August 2). Kahoot! Played Across the World- Share the Joy [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGLy9jyGjkU

Landers, R. N. (2015). Causal path from a game element to learning outcomes through mediational learner attitudes/behaviors, as proposed by the theory of gamified learning [Diagram]. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Causal-path-from-a-game-element-to-learning-outcomes-through-mediational-learner_fig2_314221053

Landers, R. N. (2015). Developing a Theory of Gamified Learning: Linking Serious Games and Gamification of Learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45, 752-768. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878114563660

Landers, R.N. (2015, January 15). Psychological Theory and Gamification of Learning [web log comment]. Retrieved from http://neoacademic.com/2015/01/15/psychological-theory-gamification-learning/

McCarthy, J. (2016). Gamifying Your Class to Meet the Needs of All Learners. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/article/gamifying-your-class-john-mccarthy

Minecraft: Education Edition. (2016, January 19). Minecraft: Education Edition [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=183&v=hl9ZQiektJE

Studiotale. (2019, March 9). Quizizz Animator Explainer Video- [For Teachers] [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNFWg16s6aw

Szerovay, K. (2019). Gamification- Part 1: UX Knowledge Base Sketch #92 [Illustration]. Retrieved from https://uxknowledgebase.com/gamification-part-1-73a7c7afd4d1

Wilson, K. A., Bedwell, W. L., Lazzara, E. H., Salas, E., Burke, C. S., Estock, J., Orvis, K. L., Conkey, C. (2009). Relationships Between Game Attributes and Learning Outcomes: Review and Research Proposals. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 40, 217-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108321866