Necessary Definitions for Understanding Gamification in Education
Necessary Definitions for Understanding Gamification in Education
Mikolaj Sobocinski
June 7, 2017
12:00 am
Octalysis

A text prepared on the basis of conference and workshop discussions as a result of Questions & Answers sessions. It relates to questions, doubts, and conclusions posed by teachers and conference participants.


Necessary Definitions for Understanding Gamification in Education. A Short Guide for Teachers and Educators.


Abstract

On one hand gamification has been around for 20 years, but on the other, we are just learning how to recognise well gamified courses and then apply them as ready-made solutions for thousands of teachers. The heated debate between gamification opponents and enthusiasts cannot develop if we all do not understand basic terms. Gamification introduced in marketing, recruiting or promoting, shares the same game components employed to enhance engagement, but the school environment has its peculiar features. This makes the whole process of gamifying lessons and courses quite specific in respect to goals, paths to mastery, assessment, recognising achievements, etc. The same applies to the amount of games and playful activities in education; there is no counterpart in business. Still, the discussion concerning the gamification of education has to be based on the mutual consent in respect to basic terms, available and advisable game components, and goals which gamification can and cannot achieve. The following article presents a number of explanations with examples, which should allow teachers and educators ponder on the advantages and disadvantages of games, playful activities, educational games, and gamification, among other (un)related terms.


KEYWORDS: gamification, education, framework, motivation, engagement


Necessary Definitions for Understanding Gamification in Education

A Short Guide for Teachers and Educators


Today, I look forward and I see a future in which games once again are explicitly designed to improve quality of life, to prevent suffering, and to create real, widespread happiness. (Reality Is Broken, p. 16)
Jane McGonigal


Fun from games arises out of mastery. It arises out of comprehension. It is the act of solving puzzles that makes games fun. In other words, with games, learning is the drug. (Theory of Fun for Game Design, p. 40)
Raph Koster


INTRODUCTION


The first and one of the most prominent lessons educators learnt from games and gamification is that players do not have to play any games, but they still do… This may seem a trivial comment, but while facing a group of students, this is something we would all like to see: a group of learners who do not have to learn anything, but they still do… This article presents a few tenets of gamification in relation to education in order to provide educators and teachers alike with down-to-earth definitions and explanations of gamification-related terms while providing a handful of examples as well. Consequently differences between such terms as games, educational games, game-based learning, and project-based learning, should become clear as it is vital in the discussion and in the efficient application of modern techniques and technologies in education, be it gamification or any other methodology. The article is based on the practical approach of an educator with a dozen of successfully gamified course conducted in the last decade. Consequently, provided definitions and examples are finally translated into a number of suggestions and remarks for gamifiers aka engagement designers.


PART I: GAMIFICATION AND OTHER (UN)RELATED TERMS

As foundations are of prime importance when analysing results of complex systems, it is necessary to understand what gamification is and how it differs from other educational and non-educational terms: games, playful activities, game-based learning, project-based learning, etc. One of the most disruptive mistakes is treating gamification as the introduction of games into education, when it can entail the exact opposite. Initially, let it suffice to state that gamification concentrates on designing the experience of users in order to make them more successful in their endeavours, whether at school, at work or at their leisure time. 


Games

Taking a philosophical perspective, one can follow Ludwig Wittgenstein and state that it is impossible to define what a game is. This term simply has to remain in the field of fuzzy categories as it encompasses such different activities as playing marbles, football, and poker, to name just a few examples. Wittgenstein aptly asked “What is common to them all?” (Philosophical Investigations, 1958, p. 31) and promptly added that “if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. (…) [Y]ou find many correspondences (…), but many common features drop out, and others appear. (…) [W]e see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing: sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities of detail” (pp. 31-32). However, Wittgenstein approached games, language, language-games, and other human behaviours from the perspective of actions and meanings which circulate indefinitely in a playful and ever-changing manner shifting their relations according to the momentary needs and immediate environment of interlocutors. If we do not concentrate on language and ‘language-games,’ but on games as such, they take a more concrete form as noted by Johan Huizinga when he claimed that “Inside the circle of the game the laws and customs of ordinary life no longer count. We are different and do things differently” (Huizinga, 1949, p. 12). This is a quintessential element of games as we suspend our disbelief in the impossible, we take on (completely) new roles and follow different rules of conduct, and everyone who is included in the game does exactly the same. As long as we stay in the game, we all behave accordingly. Usually the beginning and the conclusion of a game is marked by a specific rite, as the whole game functions as a ceremony or ritual. According to Wolfgang Kramer games “consist of components and rules and have certain criteria: rules, a goal, always changing course; chance; competition; common experience; equality; freedom; activity; diving into the world of the game; and no impact on reality” (Kramer, 2000). Whether it is a game of marbles, a football match, or a deal of poker, everyone involved knows exactly what to do and what not to do, and under no circumstances can they change those. In addition many games are organised in minute details, there are professionals and tournaments, referees and rewards. Games become defined by organisations and institutions, which develop competitions, and provide medals and remuneration. In this manner we can finally try and agree on what games are, whether talking about chess or Call of Duty.


Play
Play and playful activities are different. There is also a similar suspension of disbelief, and children can become fairies, dragon hunters, or trains. However, here rules are fluid and identities, as well as behaviours, may change instantaneously. More than that! The beginning of any playful activity may be quite vague just like its ending, which is visible when children state “This is no fun. I’m out’a here!” They mark that the play has just finished a minute before, and the final stages were already falling short – playful activity became an activity, and as such player(s) lost their volition to continue that any longer. In a proper game such behaviour is unheard of as games have rules, settings, equipment, and specific timings; hence, no one can just leave the game or enter it at their will. There are rules to be followed. In play and playful activities there are rules as well, but they are much more flexible and democratic, and there is no obligation involved. Huizinga depicted play as “voluntary activity. (…) Play can be deferred or suspended at any time. It is never imposed by physical necessity or moral duty. It is never a task. It is done at leisure, during free time” (Huizinga, 1949, pp. 7, 8). He stressed it even more by adding that it is “a free activity standing quite consciously outside ‘ordinary’ life as being ‘not serious,’ but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly. It is an activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it” (p. 13). Consequently, playful activities have rudimentary and/or ad-hoc rules, and there are no tournaments with valuable prices to win. Fun and engagement are the reward. What is of primary importance to educators (and gamification designers alike) is discovering this hidden path to engagement and taking students (and users) down the rabbit whole, because they want to do it – not because they have to. 

Games in education
In order to understand what games in educational milieu are, it was necessary to see the difference between games and play. There is a lot of playtime in pre-school and in primary education; however, this does not mean that playful activities necessarily translate to introducing games into the learning process. In order to have that one needs to introduce games as such, with all their rules, timings, setting-up, elements like boards and pawns or cards, with referees, scoring rules, win states, etc. Jean Piaget noticed the connection between the child development, learning, and playing games already in 1930s and 1940s, and he stressed the importance of learning through play, through imitation and experience, rather than through hammering in knowledge without application (Piaget, 1945). Nearly a century later, we still need to consider how much we need to introduce games and how much we should concentrate on playful activities. Nevertheless, it must be stated that when we wish to discuss games in education, then we usually refer to play-time of small children, and to games used for short-term gains and practice. For example after teaching children how to add or multiply, simple games can be played like “who can tell me how much it will be when… ?” There is a separate explanation or elicitation stage, a separate practice stage, and a separate repetition or revision stage. It is usually in the last one where children can play games in order to support the retention of what they have learnt. There are also numerous games used as fillers in between the proper, learning activities. They may facilitate the learning process, but they are on the side of it, and do not function as part of the curriculum or syllabus. Or they are not real games, but playful activates conducted voluntarily during the recess. There is a slight exception in the case of Physical Education, but here students play games because they are learning how to play them, and to improve their agility. 

Game-based learning (GBL)
The story is completely different with game-based learning, where, as the name suggests, the (whole) learning process takes place while playing games or even while making them. Here we do not necessarily explain a piece of material or memorise a fraction of knowledge, but we learn how to play a game and then we play it. That seems to be the only goal. In the process of the game, it turns out that some skills are necessary to continue the fun, and this is the driving force behind learning – the wish to keep on playing and even winning the game. In this manner, children can be induced to learn to read if reading is an indispensable part of the game spanning over days or even weeks. Children and even teens may be asked to do simple and more complex calculations, which are necessary to collect certain amounts of tokens in a game. Those tokens may be later exchanged for some other in-game goods at specific ratios and according to particular rules. This is nothing else but introduction to economics. In due process, through playing games, and through mastering them, learners acquire specific skills and knowledge, which correspond with learning outcomes designed for any other “traditional” course. An extreme version of this approach may be found in schools like Quest to Learn (Quest to Learn, 2017). Here it is not only games provided by educators, but also games prepared by students themselves, which aim at ensuring the learning outcomes. Everything that can be translated to games and playing was adapted accordingly. Institute of Play, which supports Quest to Learn, goes as far as to share their expertise in three brochures: Curriculum Design Pack, School Design Pack, and Systems Thinking Design Pack (Institute of Play, n.d.) among other documents. A thing to note, games in game-based learning, can be “normal” games, and they do not have to be educational-games.

Educational games (in education)
 “Normal” games are designed as games which are supposed to be played in our leisure time, for fun, and for the remuneration of their creators. There is a lot we can learn from them and about them, but this is only required as long as we simply want to play those games more efficiently. When students play football in their P.E., this allows them to build up their stamina and coordination – it is a game in education. Educational games are a different breed. They have rules like games, they have elements like games, they require adequate number of players like games; however, their primary function is to address a very clearly defined learning outcome. Educational games actually pretend to be games, as the fun factor is an additive, and not the goal of those creations. Crosswords prepared by teachers may be an example of those. They resemble a game, they have rules, but their sole purpose is to review a certain list of vocabulary. If there are some students who do not like puzzles, they still have to play this game. For them it does not feel like a game, but only as a more graphically advanced learning activity. Here lies the biggest problem of many games designed specifically for educational purposes – they are not that much fun to play… Still, some educational games may resemble modern complex and highly interactive board games as can be seen in the example of World Peace Game (Hunter, 2011), which may take days of a preparation-play-evaluation cycle  (World Peace Game Foundation, n.d.). Here the educational game becomes so massive, that we need to go back to discussing game-based learning. Whether we like it or not, those terms and their referents will inevitably start overlapping at some point.

Games beyond education
There is also a huge variety of games specific to geographical locations, cultures, traditions, religions, ethnicities, social classes, generations, technologies, etc. Usually we play them from very early age without thinking about their educational value. One of the most impressive groups of games of this type is Mancala also known in its variants as Bao la Kiswahili, Congkak, Kalah, Oware or Toguz Kumalak (Mancala World, n.d.). They have been played for centuries, if not millennia, with two major goals. One is obviously pastime, and the game must have been extremely effective and popular to stand the test of time in so many locations. The other is learning (Mancala World, n.d.). Interestingly enough, games like Mancala support learning basic mathematics as well as logical thinking, cognitive skills, predicting outcomes of actions and behaviours, simulating natural cycles or even understanding agriculture. It is difficult to state that it is solely a game or an educational game, when it can be used easily as a simulation of complex processes. Definitions fall short when Mancala educates even when there is no schooling. On the other spectrum of games beyond education, it is indispensable to mention Sid Meier’s Civilisation in all of its instalments (Moby Games, n.d.). Given enough time, this game alone can support or even create foundations to learning foreign languages, general history of the world, history of social change, warfare, economics, politics, development of sciences and humanities, impact of religious beliefs on the masses, etc. And still, Civilisation, like Mancala, is just a good game. There are many more games which splendidly support education. Honourable mention should go to 80 Days (inkle, n.d.), Detective’s Choice (Delight Games, n.d.), or Monopoly (Parker Brothers, 1997 [1935]), although the last one is a vindictive representation of social strife and “the unfairness of the prevailing economic system” which “serves only to empower landlords…” (Q, 2013). Those games will be played by students even without the support of educational institutions. They truly surpass education while supporting it simultaneously. Minecraft is another example, but with multiple versions, modifications, and paid educational servers (Mojang, 2017), it can be seen as a game, playful activity, educational game, game beyond education, or as a ready-made digital-game-based learning-environment on its own.

RPGs, LARPs, and ARGs…
There is also another group of games, which originated aside of education, thrived successfully away from the academia, and eventually started reshaping grass-roots learning and schools. Starting roughly in 1970s with Dungeons and Dragons (Gygax & Arneson, 1974), the role-playing games (RPGs) scene gained momentum and transformed both gaming and reading communities en masse. In any variant of RPGs, whether played as table-top games or modern video games, the focus falls on the story and the characters created or adopted by players, who interact with each other, and who influence the plot by their actions and choices. The boom of RPGs, together with yet-another revival of fantasy and SF genres in fiction, gave rise to live-action role-playing games (LARPs) already in late 1970s. Here players not only imagine and describe their actions, but also dress up, act out, and eventually organise whole camps for dozens or even hundreds of deeply immersed players. All actions and behaviours are strictly guided by the theme, rule books, specific features of individual characters, story-line, etc. In one of the most lavish enterprises, a real battleship was used for a 5-day long LARP recreating the experience of a famous science fiction TV series “Battlestar Gallactica” (Projekt Exodus, 2017). Finally alternate reality games (ARGs) find players in the real world, usually assisted by modern technologies, who interact with other players and characters in real time and real locations. Their actions influence the development of the story, and unlock specific zones and subplots. Due to immense immersion, RPGs, LARPs, and ARGs are highly engrossing, emotional, and create unforgettable experiences. When themes or individual tasks coincide with world history, politics, economy, etc. players willingly invest their time and efforts into mastering necessary knowledge and skills. Those games, unjustly patronised, can have an astounding and long-lasting positive effect on students and the whole learning process. In Polish schools, teens relived the tensions of WW2 by impersonating the resistance, civilians, and occupying forces. Preparations and analysis took weeks, but a simple one-day long gameplay allowed thousands of students to experience the hardships of a war-torn country. A ‘simple’ game opened students’ eyes when discussing history, literature, social sciences, politics, psychology, stereotypes, etc. In Denmark, Østerskov Efterscole goes as far as preparing the whole curriculum based on LARPs. For example, during the Roman Republic Week in German classes the “teacher, representing a gothic warlord, presents [students] with territorial claims for his tribe, and they have to negotiate in German” (Østerskov Efterscole, n.d.). Eventually, whether in a table-top format, RPG, LARP, ARG, or with the help of digital games, immersive and story-driven approach opens new possibilities to games and gamification in education.

Digital-games based learning (DGBL)
Richard Van Eck touched upon the topic at least twice in his two articles spanning a decade. According to his analysis there truly is no other way but to start teaching students of all ages with digital games (Van Eck, 2006) (Van Eck, 2015). Maybe the education process has not lived up to expectations, maybe teachers and students are not really ready for it, but the time is nigh. On one hand there already are hundreds of thousands of available computer games, video games, console games, mobile games, etc. The industry developed enormously. On the other hand there are educational games, simulation games, serious games, computers are widely available and so is the Internet. Modern teachers use technologies on daily basis, so there is only one more step necessary to allow education reflect the reality – the majority of humankind plays electronic games while learning simultaneously. Previously mentioned Quest to Learn school applies a number of video games. Students in their free time also learn from games like Sid Meier’s Civilisation. The trick lies in finances and planning as we would have to reiterate nearly every single class and lesson we may think of. Benefits are worth it, according to Van Eck, but for a variety of reasons (Sobociński, Restless DGBL? Some (Practical) Comments, 2015), we are not expecting those result in foreseeable future. Still, it seems that a mixture of project-based learning and digital-games based learning can be the real game-changer of education in the new millennium.

Project-based learning 
Project-based learning is to some extent similar to (digital) game-based learning. Just like introducing games does not mean applying game-based learning, also introducing projects does not entail project-based education. If projects are supposed to function as part of the education process, they should not lie aside of it. This means that a significant amount of material to be learnt and to be practiced must disappear from “normal” lessons. Also grading of presentations or tests would need to be shifted to grading project deliverables. Only then can projects fill the gap and have enough teaching hours. Only then will students start learning those abandoned but significant amounts of materials and put them to practice. Project-based learning should be based on the information gap and problem-solution relations. The missing knowledge should not be provided by the teacher during “traditional” lessons, but must be requested by students who are trying to solve specific problems, reach adequate solutions in order to deliver verifiable results. For example students may be asked to prepare modern versions of classical paintings (Malanchini, 2012). While they sift through classical art, they learn about styles, perspective, symbolism, philosophy, techniques, history, biographies, etc. While re-inventing selected masterpieces they inevitably refer to contemporary culture, technologies, and so on. In due course they learn everything which would be expected of them in history classes, graphic design, world literature, and others. This is an example of a well-designed project-based learning, where the project itself encourages (and makes) students learn what they need, and then checks the results in a practical fashion. However, project-based learning does not need to stop at individual instances and classes, as proved by the Tinkering School, where students spend their time failing on daily basis in order to succeed in the long run (Tinkering School, n.d.). In game-based learning, the need to play games was the driving force. In digital-game-based learning, the ease of accessing information and the skills in using modern technologies supported the learning process. In project-based learning, the internal need to do something interesting, something new and different, something that stands out or even operates on its own pushes students to acquiring knowledge and skills.

Simulation (Games)
Another type of games may also do the similar trick, and just like project-based learning, create a new and effective setting for education. The majority of users probably associates simulations with playing games as pilots or racing drivers. However, there is more to it. The famous game The Sims (The Sims, 2017) refers to the simulation of everyday life, and this is the gist of this type of games. They mirror a specific aspect of life or profession and replicate their most important elements. There is no need in repeating reality word-by-word as the goal of simulations is different. They are designed to create a safe environment for problematic situations: how to fly in dangerous weather conditions, how to drift on snow, how to deliver supplies to earthquake survivors, how to outmanoeuvre invading forces, how to invest money, how to convince your spouse to redecorate the living room, etc. In real life consequences can be dire, but in simulations it is extremely safe to learn on mistakes. For this reason, they have been used extensively in military schools, medical departments, corporate onboarding, wedding preparations, or even in enhancing competences of national administration. In Lords of the Valley (Lords of the Valley, n.d.) government officials act (as the word ‘play’ does not reflect the level of responsibility and engagement) as farmers, factory owners, towns-folk, NGOs, banks, and various governmental institutions. In the course of the simulation individual players have to cope with unpredictable weather conditions and flooding. They need to decide how much they want to invest in their own backyard, how much to set aside, and how much to share with others in maintaining dams and irrigation systems. The simulation is difficult and usually ends up in a disaster. But this is exactly its purpose. Actors have to find out that while living in a society, they have to cooperate thinking of mutual benefits. The additional lesson for the government administration is the decision-making process and response time. It is better to make mistakes and act rather than to be too reluctant; disasters do not wait for relief to arrive. Explaining those relationships is possible, but simulations (and serious games) allow involved parties to live through the experience, make mistakes in a safe environment, and then repeat, and repeat, and eventually spread good practices.

Serious Games
The topic of games in education and training is far from finished. There is a whole branch of games and game studies relating to serious games, which can be viewed as an extreme version of educational games or another name for video simulation games. The general public does not encounter them that often as they are usually prepared for large companies, military and intelligence institutions, hospitals, local and domestic administration, etc. Even CIA does not frown on serious board games as it seems that one of the most effective ways of practicing analytical skill is playing serious games (Machkovech, 2017). They may resemble traditional board games with a board, tokens, cards, envelopes, and time constraints (Hall, 2017) but the training overshadows entertainment. In relation to the general public, serious games can be used for a variety of reasons like teaching entrepreneurship, sciences, recruitment, or consequences of drinking and driving (Serious Games Institute, n.d.). The difference between educational games and serious games is how serious the outcomes may be to individuals and the public. Serious games can literally save lives by preventing disasters, they develop skills at most vulnerable professions, and from the perspective of the serious goals, the fun factor may be hugely underdeveloped.

Games for Change
Finally there is also a group of games and game-like activities which are designed to change the behaviour of specific groups or the whole humanity. This is especially important when tiny differences in daily routines of masses translate to substantial improvements to the whole wide world. As described by Games for Change non-profit corporation, they empower “game creators and social innovators to drive real-world change using games that help people to learn, improve their communities, and contribute to make the world a better place” (Games for Change, n.d.). Various companies, institutions, governments, NGOs, schools, etc. create and promote a number of social campaigns and games for change, which are supposed to solve major issues domestically and globally: poverty, economic or social exclusion, famine, conflicts, humanitarian relief, political awareness, nuclear threat, global warming and climate change, overuse and shortage of fossil fuels, natural disasters, food distribution, obesity, and so on and so forth (Cobb, n.d.). One of the most prolific examples is the Free Rice 2.0 game (the United Nations World Food Programme, n.d.) where players match words with definitions and each correct answer provides rice for the hungry. Some could argue that this is a gamified campaign or a campaign with a serious game at its core, but ‘game for change’ theme is undeniable.

Gamification
Although the previous description of games for change may already hint what gamification is and can do, so far only games and various approaches to their usage – entertainment and education – have been addressed directly. Gamification is actually not a single entity presented above. Gamification does not refer to games, to games in schools, to games in education, or even to learning. Gamification is concentrating on something smaller then games, but using it for great purposes. According to Gabe Zichermann “gamification engages users and changes their behaviour with the best ideas from games, loyalty, and behavioural economics” (Designing Gamification Level 1 (Basic), 2013). This neat definition manages to encompass many various approaches to gamification as well as a number of goals posted in front of it, but it is still too vague for gamification freshmen. It focuses on creating engagement, but does not explain how this can be done. Lee and Harper perceive gamification as “the use of game mechanics, dynamics, and frameworks to promote desired behaviors” (Lee & Hammer, 2011). In their article they referred to education, and this definition reflects quite well what happens when we gamify school and academic course. There are elements of games, but not games, and the focus is on changing behaviours, not on providing entertainment. 

PART II: GAMIFICATION AND GAME ELEMENTS IN EDUCATION

Further help comes from Kevin Werbach and Dan Hunter who not only state that gamification is “the use of game elements and game-design techniques in non-game contexts” (For the Win, 2012, p. 26), but they also supply a precise description of those elements. As simple as it can be, when gamifying any activity in education or elsewhere, we need to think at three levels by applying necessary elements which link game dynamics, mechanics, and components (Werbach & Hunter, 2012):


 Picture 1. The Game Element Hierarchy According to K. Werbach and D. Hunter

Game Element Hierarchy According to K. Werbach and D. Hunter

Source: (Werbach & Hunter, 2012)


At the highest level of abstraction are dynamics 

  1. 1. Constraints (limitations or forced trade-offs) 
  2. 2. Emotions (curiosity, competitiveness, frustration, happiness, and so on) 
  3. 3. Narrative (a consistent, ongoing storyline)
  4. 4. Progression (the player’s growth and development) 
  5. 5. Relationships (social interactions generating feelings of camaraderie, status, altruism, and so on)

(…)


Mechanics (…) 

  1. Challenges (puzzles or other tasks that require effort to solve) 
  2. Chance (elements of randomness) 
  3. Competition (one player or group wins, and the other loses…) 
  4. Cooperation (players must work together to achieve a shared goal) 
  5. Feedback (information about how the player is doing) 
  6. Resource Acquisition (obtaining useful or collectible items
  7. Rewards (benefits for some action or achievement) 8. 
  8. Transactions (trading between players, directly or through intermediaries) 
  9. Turns (sequential participation by alternating players) 
  10. Win States (objectives that makes one player or group the winner—draw and loss states are related concepts) 

Each mechanic is a way of achieving one or more of the dynamics described. (…)


Components are more-specific forms that mechanics or dynamics can take. (…) 

  1. Achievements (defined objectives) 
  2. Avatars (visual representations of a player’s character) 
  3. Badges (visual representations of achievements) 
  4. Boss Fights (especially hard challenges at the culmination of a level) 
  5. Collections (sets of items or badges to accumulate)
  6. Combat (a defined battle, typically short-lived) 
  7. Content Unlocking (aspects available only when players reach objectives) 
  8. Gifting (opportunities to share resources with others) 
  9. Leaderboards (visual displays of player progression and achievement) 
  10. Levels (defined steps in player progression) 
  11. Points (numerical representations of game progression) 
  12. Quests (predefined challenges with objectives and rewards) 
  13. Social Graphs (representation of players’ social network within the game)
  14. Teams (defined groups of players working together for a common goal) 
  15. Virtual Goods (game assets with perceived or real-money value) 

Just as each mechanic ties to one or more dynamics, each component ties to one or more higher-level elements.


There are many publications, webpages, and frameworks, which can be helpful in gamifying courses, but the set provided by Werbach and Hunter serves as a decent starting point. It allows to see the gamification structure both from top-bottom and bottom-top perspective. Although there are hundreds of available game elements, so Webrach and Hunter’s list is far from exhaustive, it provides a representative selection with straightforward explanations. A different approach is offered by You-kai Chow, the inventor of the Octalysis organisation of core drives and related game elements (Actionable Gamification - Beyond Points, Badges, and Leaderboards, 2015). According to him, humans are driven by eight major needs, and these can be associated with specific game elements catering for those expectations (Chou, Octalysis – complete Gamification framework, n.d.).


Picture 2. Octalysis – core drives and related game elements

Octalysis

Source: (Chou, Octalysis – complete Gamification framework, n.d.)


Eventually, what we see is that gamification is strictly connected to game elements: dynamics, mechanics, and individual components. However, gamification is everything but introducing games. As Gabe Zichermann (Designing Gamification Level 1 (Basic), 2013) presents it, gamification is the process of designing engagement through tapping at game elements with a precise knowledge of human psychology and behaviours. The easiest gamification, hence most common in schools, will see the introduction of points, badges, and leader boards, often abbreviated as PBLs. Although this may be seen as gamification, more and more examples as well as the knowledge of playful activities, RPGs, and project-based learning, proves that the introduction PBLs is also the most superficial approach. After all we play games not (only) for points, badges, and leader boards, but for actions, challenges, and recognition. PBLs only present the achievements, but they are rarely a core drive on their own. Similarly in schools, only a handful of students will do their best for grades and certificates alone – peers, teachers, events, community, etc. are more important for the majority already accustomed to the life-long learning perspective.


A renowned portal for gamers, Board Game Geek, provides the following list of most important game mechanics, which gamification designers may find useful. Here the focal point lies with 51 mechanics (Board Game Geek, n.d.), but in gamified solutions, in a gamified classroom, students will see specific activities and game elements, which are driven by those mechanics. This means that together with dynamics, the list can be easily grown to around 100 when combining all game elements presented so far. Best games, and gamified solutions, apply only a handful of those, but make relations strong and meaningful, in order to engross users and to spur their progress.


Acting

Action / Movement Programming

Action Point Allowance System

Area Control / Area Influence

Area Enclosure

Area Movement

Area-Impulse

Auction/Bidding

Betting/Wagering

Campaign / Battle Card Driven

Card Drafting

Chit-Pull System

Commodity Speculation

Co-operative Play

Crayon Rail System

Deck / Pool Building

Dice Rolling

Grid Movement

Hand Management

Hex-and-Counter

Line Drawing

Memory

Modular Board

Paper-and-Pencil

Partnerships

Pattern Building

Pattern Recognition

Pick-up and Deliver

Player Elimination

Point to Point Movement

Press Your Luck

Rock-Paper-Scissors

Role Playing

Roll / Spin and Move

Route/Network Building

Secret Unit Deployment

Set Collection

Simulation

Simultaneous Action Selection

Singing

Stock Holding

Storytelling

Take That

Tile Placement

Time Track

Trading

Trick-taking

Variable Phase Order

Variable Player Powers

Voting

Worker Placement



There is much more to gamification than PBLs, and thorough and effective system may actually skip PBLs in favour of more subtle elements with deeper impact on intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Gamification stands for designing experience, through the usage of game elements, with the aim of establishing an environment which reinforces and prolongs desired behaviours. It does not have to look like a game, it does not need to resort to games, and it should not be confused with amusement. Various systems and game elements listed above, present a plethora of choices for gamification designers, teachers, and educators.


PART III: EXAMPLES OF GAMIFICATION IN EDUCATION


In education we need to concentrate on specific goals defined by ministries of education, with pre-designed time slots, holiday intervals, national curriculum, exams, certificates, etc. It is a highly specific environment. This uniqueness has been addressed by such products as ClassDojo (ClassDojo, n.d.) and Classcraft (Classcraft, n.d.), which introduce ready-to-use gamified systems into institutional education and home schooling. While employing different graphical aesthetics, the general rules behind both of those platforms are similar. They provide a system where teachers award students with points and badges, arrange quests and missions, establish short-term and long-term goals, and everything can be managed on an individual scale or with a more team-centred or group work related perspective. They can also be used to some extent as Learning Management Systems (LMS) by providing access to data and communication between principals, teachers, students, and parents. In case of paid variants of Classcraft, the whole system can manage most, if not all, exchanges between students and teachers inside and outside of the classroom, hence providing a fully-fledged gamified learning environment. 


Similar options are available in Moodle when badges and additional plugins are installed. Here everything depends on the version of both the platform and those plugins. The enriched Moodle can display personal progress in the course, allow individual grading of achieved tasks, award points and badges, access content only after fulfilling pre-designed requirements, etc. What can be of additional value, Moodle can also award Open Badges, which were designed as a global system for recognising achievements between individuals, educational institutions, and employers (Open Badges, n.d.). Open Badges initiated by Mozilla, allows even a simple gamified design to generate verifiable and graphically pleasing, simple certificates. They can be awarded for smaller achievements like passing term exams, or for more prolific achievements like graduating from a school in a Top 5 tier. The teacher or the institution chooses and verifies the requirements.


At Kazimierz Wielki University (KWU), a group of academic teachers (Michal Mochocki, Aleksandra Mochocka, Piotr Szrajber, Mikolaj Sobocinski) introduced gamification into our courses roughly since 2009. First we applied various tables and equations in Google Sheets. Later we also added shared documents and simple graphical representations of progress in Google Apps linked with our Moodle courses. Results and responses were varied, but from our perspective, engagement, responsibility for actions, and final grades were always higher than in control groups. The author of this article designed and conducted the following courses while at the English Department of KWU: Phonetica; Brief Encounters, Secrets, and Lies; Green Slime; and riˈæktə(r). They all shared similar traits which are easy to introduce into a traditional classroom and syllabus, while stimulating systematic work and responsibility. 


  1. narrative – explains the course and the gamified grading system; may explain importance of course structure, schedule, and specific dates; distances students from seriousness of academic courses while providing safe environment for learning from failures; can function as the major entertainment factor (pirates, monsters, discoverers, renown authors, etc.) without actually changing the course structure 
  2. points & badges – traditional grades create averages which make it difficult to achieve better grades after initial failures or mistakes; averaged grades do not reward learning on trials; points are added in order to reach adequate levels, so any input and every trial is recognised as part of development, no matter how small; badges reflect achieving adequate amount of points (levels) as well as scoring points for specific tasks 
  3. rudimentary or no grades – points and/or badges instead of grades allow students to focus on tasks (quests & missions) more than on grades; grades may have different weights (final exams vs short quizzes) which is difficult to see, while points and badges can show it consistently and in a very simple fashion throughout the course; some grades are necessary for the educational system, while not being that important in the learning process, so the differences can be reflected through points, badges and their types or levels
  4. quests & missions – small/simple and large/difficult tasks, arranged in a meaningful single path or diverging tree-like fashion; allows to divide material into smaller and larger portions that are meaningfully related with the ability to learn on mistakes
  5. variety of small tasks – quests & missions can be driven by classroom activities or exams, but there should be a variety of those in order to recognise different learning styles: presentations, tests, written assignments, classroom management, preparation of classroom and online materials
  6. skills, achievements, and badges – well defined skills present why students need to learn specific chunks of material; they should be placed on different levels of the course path; achievements which are challenging and meaningful pinpoint and measure reaching required or optional skills; badges reflect development and various levels of knowledge; all should extend above the standard level for grade A allowing average and top students to excel without a glass roof of 100% of course points
  7. individual and team tasks – different paths to mastery recognising different personalities and cultural traits
  8. boss fight – final exam or course quiz which can become simpler or even disappear completely if/when students achieve specific skills, achievements, points, levels, or badges; marks final stages of levels or the whole course through skills necessary to conquer the boss rather than through knowledge which needs to be accumulated
  9. window of opportunity – some (in my case most) tasks can be retaken many times within two weeks, which allows quicker and slower students to adjust the schedule to their abilities, learning styles, and unforeseen obstacles
  10. partial or complete optionality – no or nearly no parts of the course are compulsory; optionality is always limited by national and university regulations, e.g., 50% attendance in contact classes; shifts responsibility from teachers and institutions to students who can choose from a variety of quests & missions
  11. schedule – strict with surprises or loose but strongly dependant on students’ participation
  12. real outcomes – published students’ journal, social experiments conducted inside and outside of classroom, collections of topic-based materials; anything which can stand outside of the course and be presented to friends, family, prospective employers, etc.



Eventually, we prepared and conducted classes at Gamedec: Game Studies and Design department. We adopted a theme from a famous Polish book series (Przybyłek, 2012) by creating professions and bonuses together with actions cards (Sobociński & Mochocki, Karty Gamedec do druku, 2015), thus combining the narrative with game mechanics and the syllabus (Sobociński & Mochocki, Gamedec "W matni", 2014) for a three-year long bachelors course. Given time and enthusiasm, thanks to gamification everything can be achieved (in education). From the perspective of this article, the presentation of the whole Gamedec is impossible due to its scope, but all necessary materials, articles, presentations, and workshops can be easily accessed online.


PART IV: FINAL REMARKS


Our education is already gamified, at least to some extent. Individual grades correspond with points. Certificates and diplomas function like badges. Grade Point Averages (GDPs) are used by schools, colleges, and universities to stratify prospective students just like multiplayer games do in leader boards. We are already there and there is no denying it. Those elements belong to games and to education, because that is how we measure and recognise progress in most human activities. Tasks, which stand for quests and missions, and responsible individuals are graded, rewarded, and compared. However, believing that points, badges, and leader boards (PBLs) is everything that gamification has to offer is a huge misunderstanding. As was already presented, gamification utilizes dozens if not hundreds of game dynamics, mechanics, and components. Limiting the whole discussion of gamification in education to PBLs is unjust and futile – we already are using PBLs in education on daily basis! Besides, gamification does not aim at introducing game elements to education. It has a completely different goal, namely, enhancing engagement, immersing students in the learning process, developing positive learning habits, and promoting the acquisition of knowledge and skills. Game elements are the path, not the goal. Fun is the bonus on the path, not the purpose. However, in order to understand and honestly discuss advantages, disadvantages, and applications of gamification, we must first agree on what gamification is, and what it is not. We need to see differences, similarities, and overlapping of fuzzy categories represented by such terms as: games, playful activities, simulations, game-based learning, educational games, and finally gamification.


Bibliography


  • Board Game Geek. (n.d.). Board Game Mechanics. Retrieved September 2017, 11, from Board Game Geek: https://boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgamemechanic
  • Chou, Y.-k. (2015). Actionable Gamification - Beyond Points, Badges, and Leaderboards. Fremont, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.kw/books?id=jFWQrgEACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Yu-Kai+Chou%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQjaeVlZDWAhUMcRQKHc4DA8QQ6AEIJjAA
  • Chou, Y.-k. (n.d.). Octalysis – complete Gamification framework. Retrieved September 6, 2017, from Yu-kai Chou: Gamification & Behavioral Design: http://yukaichou.com/gamification-examples/octalysis-complete-gamification-framework/#more-2275
  • Classcraft. (n.d.). Overview. Retrieved September 12, 2017, from Classcraft: https://www.classcraft.com/overview/
  • ClassDojo. (n.d.). ClassDojo. Retrieved September 2017, 12, from ClassDojo: https://www.classdojo.com/en-GB/
  • Cobb, J. (n.d.). Learning Games – 26+ to Change the World. Retrieved August 24, 2017, from Mission to Learn: https://www.missiontolearn.com/learning-games-for-change/
  • Delight Games. (n.d.). About. Retrieved August 30, 2017, from Delight Games: http://www.delightgamesllc.com/about/
  • Games for Change. (n.d.). About. Retrieved August 24, 2017, from Games for Change: http://www.gamesforchange.org/about/
  • Gygax, G., & Arneson, D. (1974). Dungeons & Dragons: Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures. Tactical Studies Rules (TSR).
  • Hall, C. (2017, June 22). The art and craft of making board games for the CIA. Retrieved August 24, 2017, from Polygon: https://www.polygon.com/2017/6/22/15730254/cia-board-game-volko-ruhnke-coin-series-gmt-games
  • Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens. A Study of the Play-element in Culture. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd .
  • Hunter, J. (2011, March). Teaching with the World Peace Game. Retrieved August 21, 2017, from TED: https://www.ted.com/talks/john_hunter_on_the_world_peace_game
  • inkle. (n.d.). 80 Days. Retrieved August 30, 2017, from inkle: https://www.inklestudios.com/80days/
  • Institute of Play. (n.d.). Resources - Quest to Learn. Retrieved August 20, 2017, from Institute of Play: https://www.instituteofplay.org/quest-school
  • Koster, R. (2013). Theory of Fun for Game Design. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media, Inc.
  • Kramer, W. (2000, December). What is a Game? Retrieved August 27, 2017, from The Games Journal: http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/WhatIsaGame.shtml
  • Lee, J. J., & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in Education: What, How, Why Bother? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15 (2), 146-151. Retrieved from https://www.uwstout.edu/soe/profdev/resources/upload/Lee-Hammer-AEQ-2011.pdf
  • Lords of the Valley. (n.d.). Retrieved from Lords of the Valley: http://lordsofthevalley.games4sustainability.org/
  • Machkovech, S. (2017, March 15). The CIA uses board games to train officers—and I got to play them. Retrieved August 24, 2017, from Ars Technica: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/03/the-cia-uses-board-games-to-train-officers-and-i-got-to-play-them/
  • Malanchini, M. (2012, May 15). Education in Italy. study visit "Academic Writing Skills, Necessity for Education & Work". Bydgoszcz.
  • Mancala World. (n.d.). Education. Retrieved August 27, 2017, from Mancala World: http://mancala.wikia.com/wiki/Education
  • Mancala World. (n.d.). Mancala. Retrieved August 22, 2017, from Mancala World: http://mancala.wikia.com/wiki/Mancala
  • McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World. New York: Penguin Books.
  • Moby Games. (n.d.). Sid Meier's Civilization. Retrieved August 27, 2017, from Moby Games: http://www.mobygames.com/game/sid-meiers-civilization
  • Mojang. (2017). Minecraft Education Edition. Retrieved August 27, 2017, from Minecraft Education Edition: https://education.minecraft.net/
  • Open Badges. (n.d.). About. Retrieved September 12, 2017, from Open Badges: https://openbadges.org/about/
  • Østerskov Efterscole. (n.d.). ØSTERSKOV IN ENGLISH. Retrieved August 29, 2017, from Østerskov Efterscole: https://osterskov.dk/kontakt/in-english/
  • Parker Brothers. (1997 [1935]). Monopoly. Parker Brothers Real Estate Trading Game. Retrieved August 30, 2017, from Hasbro: https://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/monins.pdf
  • Piaget, J. (1945). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. London: Heinemann.
  • Projekt Exodus. (2017, August 29). information in english. Retrieved from Projekt Exodus: http://www.projekt-exodus.com/?page_id=82
  • Przybyłek, M. (2012). Gamedec Verse. Retrieved Augusut 27, 2017, from Gamedec Verse: http://www.gamedecverse.com/en/
  • Q, D. (2013, April 3). Monopoly. Retrieved August 30, 2017, from DanQ: https://danq.me/2013/04/03/monopoly/
  • Quest to Learn. (2017). About Q2L. Retrieved August 20, 2017, from Quest to Learn: http://www.q2l.org/about/
  • Serious Games Institute. (n.d.). GameStore. Retrieved August 29, 2017, from Serious Games Institute: http://www.seriousgamesinstitute.co.uk/games/
  • Sobociński, M. (2014, October). Phonetica. Retrieved August 20, 2017, from Ideatorium: http://www.ideatorium.ug.edu.pl/pliki/inspiracje/gamifikacja/kurs_Phonetica_2014_Mikolaj_Sobocinski.pdf
  • Sobociński, M. (2015, December 29). Restless DGBL? Some (Practical) Comments. Retrieved August 24, 2017, from academia edu: https://www.academia.edu/19880278/Restless_DGBL_Some_Practical_Comments
  • Sobociński, M., & Mochocki, M. (2014). Gamedec "W matni". Retrieved August 27, 2017, from Ideatorium: http://www.ideatorium.ug.edu.pl/pliki/inspiracje/gamifikacja/kurs_GAMEDEC_W_matni_2014_M.Sobocinski,_M.Mochocki.pdf
  • Sobociński, M., & Mochocki, M. (2015, March 24). Karty Gamedec do druku. Retrieved August 27, 2017, from https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-VrkA5g4kUjNUxnVkZXNjRjd0U
  • The Sims. (2017). Overview. Retrieved August 27, 2017, from The Sims: https://www.thesims.com/en_GB/features/overview
  • the United Nations World Food Programme. (n.d.). Free Rice. Retrieved August 30, 2017, from Free Rice: http://freerice.com/#/english-vocabulary/1379
  • Tinkering School. (n.d.). Our Philosophy. Retrieved September 6, 2017, from Tinkering School: http://www.tinkeringschool.com/our-philosophy-2/
  • Van Eck, R. (2006, January 1). Digital Game-Based Learning: It's Not Just the Digital Natives Who Are Restless. Retrieved August 23, 2017, from EDUCAUSE Review: http://er.educause.edu/articles/2006/1/digital-gamebased-learning-its-not-just-the-digital-natives-who-are-restless
  • Van Eck, R. (2015, October 12). Digital Game-Based Learning: Still Restless, After All These Years. Retrieved August 23, 2017, from EDUCAUSE Review: http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/10/digital-game-based-learning-still-restless-after-all-these-years
  • Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the Win. How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business. Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press.
  • Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. (G. E. Anscombe, Trans.) Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
  • World Peace Game Foundation. (n.d.). About the Game. Retrieved August 21, 2017, from World Peace Game: http://worldpeacegame.org/the-game/
  • Zichermann, G. (2013). Designing Gamification Level 1 (Basic). Retrieved June 15, 2017, from Udemy: https://www.udemy.com/designing-gamification-level-1-certification








Category : Education Gamification

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

RSS
E-mail
Facebook
Twitter
fb-share-icon
LinkedIn
LinkedIn
Share
WhatsApp