Introduction: Gamification and Learning Theories Today we use games to promote learning, customer engagement, and even crowdsourcing initiatives. Gamification is a buzzword that cuts across the private and public sectors, adult and primary education. In this blog, I will address two main sets of questions. Set 1 What is the relation between learning theories and gamification? Is gamification specifically connected to any of the established theories of learning? If so, which theory of learning -if any- provides the best theoretical basis for the use of gamification in developing training? Or, perhaps, is Gamification a Learning Theory itself? I will argue that gamification is not a learning theory in itself but it is rather a strategy that aims to make the learning event engaging. I will also argue that a light form of gamification can work within either a constructivist/cognitivist or behavioural approach. Whether if we consider a stronger version of gamification, a constructivist approach might be better suited. However in a general sense, gamification is independent of Learning Theories. It can equally sit well within a behaviourist, cognitivist or constructivist framework. Set 2 In which way can learning theories improve the use of gamification in building successful curricula? I will list some of the usual problems encountered with gamification and analyse how we could use learning theories to address those problems. I will conclude with some reflections on how I will modify my use of gamification based on what I have learned about these three major learning theories. Games, gamification, game theory? The term gamification refers to the practice of applying strategies and principles used in the contest of gaming to the learning environment. Here is how Carl Klap [https://www.lynda.com/Higher-Education-tutorials/Gamification-Learning/173211-2.html] describes the building blocks of this practice: A game is a system in which players engage in an abstract challenge, defined by rules, interactivity, and feedback, that results in a quantifiable outcome, often eliciting an emotional reaction Gamification is using game-based mechanics, aesthetics, and game thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote learning, and solve problems. Game thinking is approaching the design process from the perspective of actions and activities, applying the mechanics of games to non-game situations Let me point some elements I have discovered about gamification from personal experience that can help to bring more content to the above definitions. In my job, I came across gamification few years ago when looking at possible ways to help trainers in partner sites adding variety to usual PowerPoint sessions. I looked up at gamification and decided to run a workshop on it using the key ideas gamification suggest. Instead of explaining what games and gamification mean, I started by creating a scenario in which trainers were working for a Game Agency and they were requested to create a game for a certain purpose. The activity was quite satisfactory and taught me some key elements that might come handy to better understand gamification. First, gamification is not the same as using activities in the classroom. Or maybe, there is more to gamification than creating activities. You can add games to a course the same way you add an activity and still use a quite traditional learning structure (Gagne Style). When you use gamification in this fashion, games work as "activities" that enhance the learning experience. The structure of the learning flow is not changed. The learner knows about the objectives ahead of the session. He learns the theory from the teacher/instructor and he then applies the key concepts to his job by using games and other types of activities. A different approach to gamification is however that to turn the curriculum into a game. Going for full gamification actually turns the table upside down. The designer does not use games to refresh or reinforce key learnings. He structures the whole content around games so that the learner is engaged into "playing mode" from the very beginning. Second, gamification does not necessarily involve the use of technology. There is a tendency to understand gamification as computer dependent. You can actually gamify a course without even have a PC in the class. Of course, designers can use video games, tablets and so forth to enhance the training experience; However gamification extends far beyond the use of technology. Gamification does not depend on technology as much as playing a game does not depend on having an internet connection or a game console. What makes a game "a Game"? Consider a game like Pacman after having spent few minutes playing it. What is that makes this activity a game? [Click Here to Play PacMan] When we look at games as different as Cluedo, Monopoly or Tennis and we compare we will notice some common pattern. These are what we call "game aspects"
Not every game will contain the entire list of "game aspects". But a game would not be a game without meeting any of these requirements. Games dynamics refer instead to the type or category of game you might consider. Traditionally we can have:
More on structural and content gamification I want to emphasise on these terms because they are important to understand the link between gamification and learning theories. Karl Klap suggests the difference between two types of gamification. This is what Karl Kapp writes in his website: "Digging a little deeper into the concept of gamification, I think there are actually two types of gamification. The first type is Structural Gamification and the second is Content Gamification "Structural Gamification This is the application of game-elements to propel a learner through content with no alteration or changes to the content itself. The content does not become game-like, only the structure around the content. The primary focus behind this type of gamification is to motivate the learner to go through the content and to engage them in the process of learning through rewards. An example would be a learner gaining points within a course for watching a video or completing an assignment where the assignment or video had no game elements associate with them other than the fact that the learner received points for watching the video or completing the assignment. The most common elements in this type of gamification are points, badges, achievements and levels. This type of gamification also typically has a leaderboard and methods of tracking learning progress. As well as a social component where learners can share accomplishments with other learners and share what they have achieved. Although, it is possible to add elements of story, characters and other game elements to structural gamification the content does not change to become game-like Content Gamification This is the application of game elements and game thinking to alter content to make it more game-like. For example, adding story elements to a compliance course or starting a course with a challenge instead of a list of objectives are both methods of content gamification. Adding these elements makes the content more game-like but doesn’t turn the content into a game. It simply provides context or activities which are used within games and adds them to the content being taught." Here is an example. Consider you have to create a training module on basic customer service skills. Say the objective is to focus on skills such active listening, clear communication and empathy. If you apply content gamification, you can structure the module like this:
This model respects a typical CD Scheme like the one in the side. You start from the objectives and then move all the way to present the theory, reinforce the content by applying the key ideas, debrief/summarize and finally proof the learning. The use of the gamification here resemble the use of any given activity in a training class. Content gamification suggests a different approach. You could for instance structure the module as a role game, setting a scenario, assigning identities, tasks and point systems. Here you are not setting objectives, agenda, structure at the outset but you are leaving space to the users to act and construct the content based on their key ideas, learning, emotions and response. Using elements of gamification like storytelling you are actually changing the very content of the training leaving instruction at the very end. [Click below button for a further example of Structural Gamification] Gamification and its relation to Learning Theories What is the relation between learning theories and gamification? Is gamification specifically connected to any of the established theories of learning? If so, which theory of learning -if any- provides the best theoretical basis for the use of gamification in developing training? Or, maybe, is Gamification a Learning Theory itself? I have reflected on these questions for the last number of weeks and I came to the conclusion that gamification as a whole is compatible with the three theories of learning. Or in other words, different theories can justify the use of gamification depending on what is at stake: namely, what are the learning objectives, the context, the subject matter and so forth. Games are fundamentally "activities" and activities can be used to fulfil different needs like creating guided stimuli, engaging the long term memory, helping users building connections, providing feedback, creating engagement and fun, stimulate emotions and retention and so forth. Consider behaviorism and games. The behaviourist can argue for instance that using game elements is certainly consistent with his key ideas about how people learn, the role of stimuli, the use of feedback and so forth. Certainly game elements such as feedback, goals, reward, points, levels, failure and replay, scoring well marry with ideas such as Reinforcement, Contiguity, Repetition, Variation typical of behaviourism. This is an example of a game used to check knowledge status ahead of a training session which is a typical idea of a behaviourist approach. https://learnzone.loucoll.ac.uk/activities/Astroschool/story.html Design Heroes contains many more of these types of games and you can easily embed them within an elearning using Articulate Storyline. https://community.articulate.com/ Games like the one above offer a nice example of content gamification and yet they embeds all that is dear to behaviorism. You have points, feedback, targets, objectives, straight sequencing, rewards, failure replayability and so forth. When we consider cognitivism the situation is a bit different and it might be the case that this theory is close to content versions of gamification rather than simple structural gamification. As Cognitivism shares with behaviourism the understanding that knowledge is external and objective. Namely, it is caused by external inputs which then -the cognitivist adds- are analised via mental representations or schema. The essence of understanding is computational hence the parallelism often used between mind/brain and software/hardware. These ideas have then consequences from a CD perspective such as the importance of structured feedback, the role of a layered approach to reach goals, the use of appropriate styles to match learners types, the importance of inner motivation, etc. It is easy to see how gamification can perfectly meet these requirements. As Lee and Hammer (2012, p.3) write, "Games provide complex system of rules for players to explore through active experimentation and discovery [...] Games guides players trough the mastery process and keep them engaged with potentially difficult tasks. One critical game design technique is to deliver concrete challenges that are perfectly tailored to the player's skills, increasing the difficulty as the players skill expands. Games also provide multiple routes to success, allowing students to choose their our subgoal with the target task." So what is the case for constructivism? Constructivism argues that learners build their knowledge out of previous knowledge, experience, preferences and so forth. As Cooper argues (Cooper, 1993, p.16) The key divide between constructivism and behaviorism/cognitivism is that "the objectivists [behaviourism/cognitivism} see reality as external to the knower with the mind acting as a processor of input from reality. Meaning is derived from the structure of reality, with the mind processing symbolic representation of reality. The constructivist, on the other hand, sees reality as determined by the experience of the knower. The move from behaviorism trough cognitivism represents shift in emphasis away from an external view to an internal view. To the behaviourist, the internal processing is of no interest. To the cognitivist the internal process is important only to the extent to which it explains how external reality is understood. In contrast the constructivist views the mind as builder of symbolics -the tools used to represents the knower's reality. Constructivist views reality as personally constructed, and state that personal experience determine reality and no the other way around." Games can surely facilitate this construction. Here I am not thinking about mechanical games like pacman but more about storytelling, strategy games, analytical games which rely on the power of synthesis and interpretation. What I learn during a games can be completely different from what other people learn because during the game I construct the meaning in a different way. My learning takebacks will depend on what I did before, the persona I have built over the years, my knowledge, my ideas. No story and no game will have the same meaning for two individuals. To conclude, when I look at gamification and learning theories I realise how
Improving gamification on the light of Learning Theories I work in the customer service industry dealing with online payments and e commerce. Most of the programs I design are tied to PayPal product/process (how our product works, what types of process we follow in given cases and so forth) and soft skills (how to deliver key information to customers). My curricula are normally split in New Hire Curriculum and Post Certification Curricula. I sometime deliver the content myself and sometime run a Train The Trainer session and have other trainers complete the delivering. Some of the problems I encounter might be specific to a given class or situation (market, country, tenureship of the partner site, in house/outsourced etc). But overall the usual feedback include:
My interest in gamification sparks from the need to find solutions to some of these issues while fulfilling operational needs. My goal is to build curricula which are engaging still informative and operationally sound (i.e., they help staff to reach goals like Average Handling Time, Net Promoter Score, Resolve Rate, Agent Satisfaction and the operation to smoothly run). We do not have the possibility to take people out production for hours so we need always to balance between training priorities and operational priorities: what is good from a learning perspective and what is good from an operational perspective. Can I use gamification for everything? There are elements that cannot be gamified. When I create a module I need to think about time, cost, service level. I need to think about metrix impact, short and long term investment, technology, business demand. Whatever tool I use, I must be sure to make the most of it. When i consider gamification I need to ask, Is this the best tool/strategy for this chunk of program? Games take time and if you do not know how to use them, where to use them, why and when, you risk to waste time. Reviewing Learning Theories over the past 5 weeks have helped me to focus on the key objectives I want to achieve (theory) and to make a more efficient use of games and other learning tools. If I think about the 5 Ws of journalism, I can say that I had the What in gamification having tackled this in the past few years. Learning theories have helped me to scope the remaining Ws
Key ideas in Learning Theories have helped me to refocus on what to look for in a curriculum, what objectives I should have and what strategies I can use. Having to summarise, these are the ideas that stand out for me From Behaviourism Pre Assessment to gauge knowledge - where should training/instruction start? Sequencing- The importance of approaching learning via steps Logical FLow- The need to sequence the training event following schemas like the Gagne Model Use of continuous feedback From Cognitivism The importance of Intrinsic Motivation as opposed to purely extrinsic Motivation The importance of Active involvement and mind connections The key role of previous knowledge From Constructivism The need for information to be presented in a variety of different ways Supporting the use of problem solving skills that allow learners to go “beyond the information given” Assessment focused on transfer of knowledge and skills Above ideas will help me to create more effective training and also to make a more efficient use of gamification. They will provide me with do and do not in the use of games and gamification. Linking theories and gamification practice, these are the list of dos and do not. DOs Use games to assess knowledge- This can be done either to run pre content exercises and gauge audience knowledge or at the end to check knowledge acquisition. eLearning Heroes and even Kahoot are great options Explain games and tie them to the curriculum objectives- Make sure to link the game to the learning objectives, providing full and clear instruction to play and then debrief. Use games to boost motivation but do not overdo. The problem I have encountered with using games was the inability to know how to use it and "dose" it . Gamification will work better if clustered with instructional moments, facilitation, mentoring and so forth. This will help audience to gain knowledge via different "modes" and then having time to reflect and process. Be mindful of VAKs difference and personality types- One size does not fit it all. Games must be adapted to different styles and also be respectful of personality types (Like MBTI Personality Profiles) Use games to create engagement- This can be done at every stage either with educational aims but also as ice breakers. Use games to make training more collaborative and active Use games to create a stronger connection between classroom and work Conclusion Click Video Below
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Alessio GemmaA traveler across things and people, places, arts, encounter. ArchivesCategories |