Now about psychology and, in particular, about motivation which are central to what makes gamification effective. Psychology needs to be discussed as people don’t entirely know what makes them do something and motivation is complicated as people are complicated. We are not motivated by the same thing all the time but we are motivated by different things at different times. So we need to think about our players, about different ways to motivate them and about how to deploy motivation in a systematic way.
Prof. Kevin Werbach mentioned two major traditions in psychology: behaviorism and cognitivism. Behaviorism is about looking at behaviours, looking at what people do. Cognitivism is about mental states, what’s internally going on in people’s heads. Both of them are very relevant for gamification.
Now behaviorism says that when we look at a person we know that there are feelings , thoughts and emotions inside but we cannot focus on those internal mental states as they are not scientifically testable. So the behaviorist program is to restrict ourselves to what is external which is called the black box. The idea is what we can test is what goes in from outside and what comes out. Although behaviorism has some limitations when we focus on gamification, it is still instructive for some aspects of gamification design.
The basic notion of behaviorism is two things. One is stimulus. Something which happens externally creates a challenge, opportunity or reaction and that reaction is called response. This is when we can see or observe a certain type of behaviour and that is why this is called behaviorism in response to stimulus. This was first tested by Pavlov in what’s called classical conditioning where he rang a bell and got the dogs to salivate. The idea in Pavlovian conditioning is that the stimulus is instinctively related to the response. So when the bell rings, it automatically produces this response of salivating whether there is food coming or not.
A more important kind of conditioning is associated with B.F.Skinner and is called operant conditioning which is about feedback loop. There is a stimulus and there is a response and based on this pattern there is learning. Subjects learn; they see the consequences of their actions and the consequences actually matter.
So these experiments have the notion that in certain cases people will respond to stimuli and will learn to make associations between two things especially if there are rewards. Observation is important here. We should observe what people actually do. If people respond to to stimulus in a certain way, we should learn something from that. Moreover, feedback loop is important. When the person involved sees some feedback, it produces some response and a process of action. Feedback tends to motivate behavior which is very important for gamification.
Now let’s look at FarmVille which managed to create what is called an appointment mechanic. The idea is that people know that they have to go back to their farm at certain times to water their crops otherwise the crops will wither. So FarmVille got people to learn, as a matter of habit, learning to regularly check their farms This is a behavioral kind of approach which worked well for FarmVille.
Although behaviorism talks conditioning and providing rewards, some benefits that seem valuable even though they are not tangible or worth any money, rewards are still only one piece of the game mechanics. Rewards are powerful and significant in gamification but they should not be the only thing to use in a gamified system.
But why are those rewards so powerful? This is related to brain chemistry, something calleddopamine system – the structure of brain associated with pleasure and learning. Our brains release and reabsorb dopamine in response to certain activities (usually things that find rewarding or just surprising. It causes a learning process and makes people want to engage in the activity. Again this doesn’t always work or doesn’t always work for everyone, but when it does work it is the hit of dopamine.
If we talk about rewards themselves, firstly we should say that there are different ways to give rewards and there are many things that can be rewarded, so effective gamification will think about what can be rewarded, what kind of behaviour the designer want to reward and what the different options are. The goal is to give players/users a set of meaningful choices and a set of options to make the system feel more engaging. Secondly, there are different categories of rewards and one typology of different kinds of rewards is called Cognitive Evaluation Theory which comes from Richard Ryan and Ed Deci. What they developed is a typology of different kinds of rewards that can be used to motivate behaviour. One distinction that they point out is between tangible and intangible rewards. The second one is between expected and unexpected rewards. If the reward just happens, it is a surprise and our brain loves surprises which means that expected rewards are not so cool to our brain. The third set of distinctions is what rewards are dependent on: whether you get a reward without even doing anything, or you get one for simply engaging in an activity, or the reward depends on the completion of an activity, or rewards can be performance contingent, when the reward is given because the task has been done well.
In designing gamification the key is to think about different possibilities for rewards and decide on the most effective ones that will motivate players/users and will ensure that there is a meaningful and rewarding experience for those players/users.
Let’s move on to reward schedules which refer to when the reward is given as opposed to what it is or what it is based on. Behavioral studies suggest that the structuring of reward schedules has significant implications for the psychological reaction that the rewards produce. There are several possible reward schedules. One is continuous reward. It is given for every incidence of the action – it is automatic. The other kind of reward is a fixed ration reward when a reward is given when something happens a certain number of times. The third kind of reward is fixed interval reward (let’s say after each second unit of a course). The fourth category of rewards is variable rewards which is on no fixed schedule. The other three kind of rewards, although they still have some psychological value, can become predictable, and thus dull, as the brain can pick up the pattern. But this last type is the most interesting out of all of them because as we said before our brain loves surprises. However, this type of reward should not be given for doing something that nobody can do, because then it would make it unachievable and players/users may just give up before they can get this type of reward.
However useful behaviorist approach is, there are some serious limitations to it. One of the problems with it that it leaves out what people think or feel or what is going on in their heads or what really motivates them when they act in a certain way. Now game thinking, we said, is about putting the player in the centre, but if we take a purely behaviorist approach, we might move away from the notion that the player is a human being, so this focus on rewards tends to have some problems as well.
One of the problems with this kind of system is that it may be designed to manipulate people, to make them do things they may not necessarily want to do. It may become like an addiction to them, which is already not a good thing. If we can design a gamified system that may addict people on this rewards system, then that does not mean that we should. Prof. Kevin Werbach compares this kind of behaviorist approach to that of casino owners.
The second problem with this is what is called Hedonic Treadmill. The idea here is once we start focusing on giving people rewards in order to give them pleasure, we will have to keep doing it. Because if people learn to respond to rewards, they are only going to respond to them. And as certain rewards get familiar or boring, we will have to come up with new rewards: make them more interesting, more challenging. So this can put a significant burden on the designer. There are some studies which look into what actually happens when dopamine system is activated. The studies showed that the dopamine system is not really about rewards, it is about anticipation of rewards.
If a gamified system focuses too heavily on rewards, it tends to miss some other kinds of benefits that can be delivered through a gamified system. PBLs are about status and not everyone is interested in or moved by that. We do things for many other reasons: social reasons, altruistic reasons, tangible reasons; so these need to be exploited as well.
The alternative to behaviorist approach is Cognitivism which focuses on opening up the black box to find out what really motivates people to behave in certain ways. In order to understand this, we need to distinguish between different kinds of motivation and rewards. In particular, we need to think about two broad categories called Intrinsic and ExtrinsicMotivation.
Intrinsic motivation is about doing something for its own sake, not because there is any external stimuli, but because we find it rewarding, engaging, fun, or motivating. Here we are not focused on the consequences or any other kinds of benefit that we might get.
Extrinsic motivation is about doing something for some other reason rather than the activity itself. The reasons may be different: it could be money, fame or fortune; or it might be because somebody asked you to do it and you value the person so you do it for them. Gabe Zichermann talks about four kinds of extrinsic reward motivators which he calls SAPS:Status, Access, Power and Stuff. Status as a motivator is what makes us think that it is cool, this is done with leaderboards in particular. Access is about getting access to something that other people don’t have: content unlocking could create the feeling of gaining access to something. Power enables users to do certain things that was a result of their activity: for example, edit other people’s posts or submit posts bypassing moderation. Stuff is about tangible rewards, real things that the user can get in response to their actions. However, motivating these are, we still need to keep in mind the problems discussed above.
The biggest danger of rewards system is that it can actually demotivate by crowding out intrinsic motivation that was already there as it acts like an extrinsic motivator. This is sometimes called over-justification effect and it’s a danger in any kind of system that uses rewards: a substitution effect where the intrinsic motivation goes away and is replaced by a less effective and problematic extrinsic motivation of rewards. The studies discussed in the link for ‘over-justification effect’ demonstrate this quite well.
In the 1970s Ed Deci and Richard Ryan developed the basis for Self-Determination Theory – a comprehensive theory of human motivation which, through many studies, has shown that people are not necessarily always motivated by rewards and, in fact, intrinsic motivation is a more powerful and more effective way to encourage people to act in certain ways.
The screenshot of Prof. Kevin Werbach’s video lecture explains the spectrum of motivational types.
Amotivation is when the users have no motivation whatsoever, they are totally indifferent to the activity.
The broader category of extrinsic motivators is in the middle.
External Regulation is when users don’t really want to do something or maybe they are indifferent to it, but they do it because someone tells them to do it.
Introjection is when we take external motivators and make them our own, mainly because other people will think that I am cool.
Identification is when we take external motivators and make then our own but not because it is important what other people will think, but because we can see some value in it. This is when it is somehow aligned with our own personal goals.
Intrinsic Motivation is when the users do the activity for the pure reason of loving it., because it is rewarding in itself. This is the strongest motivation because it takes nothing external to get them to do the activity.
Now all of these may come useful in gamification, but what we should think about is how to utilize these different kinds of motivations appropriately and how to push towards approaches that are more dependent on intrinsic motivation. Under self-determination theory, there are three characteristics of intrinsic motivation: three factors that when they are present suggest that the activity is worthwhile. One of these factors is Competencewhich is about a person’s sense of ability, the sense that they are accomplishing something, solving problems, overcoming obstacles. The sense that they are achieving something within the activity. The second one is Autonomy which is about a person’s sense of being in control. Users should feel that it’s them making the choices. And the third one is Relatedness, the sense that the activity one is doing is somehow connected to something beyond themselves that could have some meaning, sense or purpose. Fitocracy demonstrates this quite well.
Now to game elements. According to Prof. Kevin Werbach, game elements are regular patterns that appear in any game. They can be extracted from a game and applied to a gamified system. When you try to create a gamified system by introducing game elements to it, what you are trying to produce is a certain kind of experience which is not the same as the game itself. The best example of a gamified system would not be the one that uses the most elements but the one that uses them most effectively.
Prof. K. Werbach has developed a framework for gamification elements in a form of pyramid which can be seen on the screenshot of the professor’s video lecture. The notion of the pyramid is that we have a few dynamics, a larger number of mechanics and even a bigger number of components.
At the top of the pyramid are the game dynamics. These are the highest level conceptual elements in a gamified system. These provide the framing for the game. So, for example, constraints which offer meaningful choices and limit players’ freedom; emotions which games can produce ( from sadness to happiness); narrative – the structure that pulls together the pieces of a gamified system; progression – the journey that the player takes; relationships – people interacting with each other.
At the next level are the game mechanics. These are the elements that move the action forward. Some of the game mechanics are challenges – some goal to reach; chance – something that makes the result random; cooperation and competition to have the notion of winning and losing; feedback – very important for players to see how they are doing as this drives them to continue; resource acquisitions – things like rewards, things that can be sold/bought or exchanged.
Finally, game components are at the lowest level of the pyramid. The examples of the lowest level are examples of elements higher up. So, for example, achievements, as opposed to the general idea of challenge, giving the player some rewards attached to doing a set of specific tasks – that is the achievement; or avatars/badges – specific visual representations of those achievements, etc.
There are some game elements that are more common than others and are more influential than others in shaping typical examples of gamification. These are represented by the acronym PBL – points, badges and leaderboards. However important these three are, gamification should never start and end with these three only.
Points are a way of determining how well someone is doing in the game. They can show the relative position of one player against the others or define winning. They can connect up with rewards as well as provide feedback and/or display progress.
Badges are visual representations of one’s achievements/level. They are button-like graphic that go on a profile page or some place where other players can see them. Badges can represent anything and motivate a certain behaviour. Badges also function as credentials and they are a status symbol. (For more information about badges read here).
Leaderboards are about ranking. The feedback these provide is on competition. Not to disappoint their players a number of social games have introduced personalized leaderboards where players see their name in the middle not at the bottom of the leaderboard. Another option of this is friend leaderboards where one competes against their friends not against complete strangers. Think of the leaderboard in FarmVille on Facebook for an example of this. However, learderboards can also demotivate or make them less willing to engage because of the stress they put on players.
But game elements are only a starting point for gamification. By just randomly throwing them into a gamified system, one won’t be able to make it fun and engaging. What makes the elements successful is the way they are put together and that often involves resources some of the higher level. If there is a heavy emphasis on PBLs, rewards may be overemphasized. Rewards are not the same as fun; they aren’t wrong but if they the only thing then there is a danger that the system will not generate the necessary level of engagement and may not actually draw in people with different kinds of motivation.
Further Reading – MDA Formal Approach to Game Design
After leaving Google the founder of Dodgeball Dennis Crowley created FourSquare which was a similar platform to Dodgeball but it was also different from it. While Dodgeball wasn’t very popular, FourSquare became really popular and we can see many people nowadays checking into places through Foursquare. What made it so popular was the fact that Foursquare was gamified, unlike Dodgeball which didn’t offer any incentives to its users whether they checked in or not. You could see where your friends checked in but there was not much else you could do. As it didn’t offer much variety, it didn’t seem to engage people as much as Foursqaure did. However, Dodgeball was very social and allowed users to compete against their friends and to see where they were. But what Foursqaure did was to create a sense of progression by implementing a concept called Mayorships. There are also badges that indicate users’ status and their progress and/or leadership. Foursqaure also built a system which made it easy to notify friends on Twitter or Facebook about one’s progress which created the sense of competition and made the act of checking in more fun. They also introduced special purpose badges and leveling up for checking in at a conference or a health club ot at an airport a few times. It is still just checking in but now it has become a more varied activity. (More on this here)
A takeaway from this story is to view a business problem or a problem in any other context in the same way that a game designer would think about the challenge related to creating a game. So whatever your goal is and whatever problem you have to solve, think about that as a game. If it were a game that participants were playing, what would you do?
Start by thinking about people involved in your system as players. This means that you should build your system around your players who should be in the middle of the game, because to players the game revolves around them, it’s no way about who built it or what purpose it is supposed to serve. So your business should be built in a way that your players are at the centre.
Secondly, your players do not only need to have a feeling that the game revolves around them but they also need to feel that they are in control. So think about how to create a system where players feel that they are in control and they can make their own choices.
Finally, the goal of a game designer is to create a sense of play for a specific purpose. Play is a feeling of free motion with a set of constraints and the purpose is to get the players playing and keep them playing.
Now about some basic design rules. First of all there is the face that players need to be involved in a conceptual journey, i.e. their walk through the game needs to have a beginning, a middle and an end and ideally in some sort of progression. Basically the steps are onboarding (getting the player into the game), scaffolding (providing the necessary training) and mastery at which players feel that they have achieved and/or accomplished something. (There is a very clear example of this in Zombie vs Plants game.) Secondly, there should be balance – not too hard, not too easy; not too many choices, not too few choices, etc. Balance is something that a game needs at every stage. Third design rule for gamification is to take something that is not game-like and make it feel game-like by creating an integrated experience. (Read a review of Turntable.fm to get a feel for this).
While creating gamified systems it is important not to forget about the aspect of fun which is what makes playing engaging and makes us want to continue doing whatever it is we are doing. So the categories of experiences that we would create the feeling of fun are as follows:
- problem solving,
- chilling out,
- imagining and daydreaming,
- role playing,
- and just being silly.
Having taken the course in Gamification on coursera.org, I took a while to read and re-read a few articles before getting down to blogging about it. Although the course mostly focused on gamification of businesses the concepts are still very useful to know about in order to apply to education gamification. I decided to summarize what I have learnt through a series of blog posts and then try to think of how to apply all this in education.
As Professor Kevin Werbach said: “Gamification is often misunderstood and is not always the best or right solution. (See GamifyForTheWin.) Gamification is not about making everything a game. Gamification is the opposite as it says that we are still in the real world and that we should find elements in games which can enhance the experience that we are having, find a meaning for those experiences and make them more rewarding by creating motivation.”Gamification is the use of game elements and game design techniques in non-game contexts. An example of this is Nike+ which turned sporting and physical exercise into a more enjoyable and rewarding experience by employing game elements to motivate achievement.Game elements are a toolbox – the tools that you work with to create a more rewarding pr motivating experience for users. These are: points, levelling up, badges, avatars, resource collection, leaderboards, etc – parts of a game that can be pulled out and re-used in non-gaming services.
What we do might still be game-like but the rationale for the experience is something outside the game; some purpose that has a validity or an intention independently of the experience of the game which is non-game context where the objective is outside the game.So gamification is about creating contexts which involve a combination of game elements, game design and purpose other than playing a game.
We were told that without understanding what games are, we won’t be able to understand what gamification is. Bernard Suits says that every possible game can be defined based on 3 concepts:
- games have a pre-lusory goal – there is an objective to a game;
- games have constitutive rules that turn the activity into a game;
- lusory attitude – players follow rules voluntarily even if they limit their freedom.
Games create a boundary between us and the real world, they put us into a magic circle where the rules matter. When we are in that magic circle, we follow the rules more than the rules of of the real world. The challenge for gamification is to put the users into that magic circle and if they feel that it is important and it matters, they will be motivated to play and to respond to the incentives that a gamified system provides.
The stages in writing, which are recursive and overlapping, are:
- Pre-drafting – deciding what you are going to write and thinking about the project
- Drafting – writing actively
- Revision – re-thinking what you have to write
- Editing/Proof-Reading – polishing
- discussing with others
|Screenshot of Prof Comer’s Video Tutorial|
|A Screenshot of a Video Tutorial explaining the discussion stage of the project.|
Writing a Critical Review, University of New South Wales
The Book Review or Article Critique, University of Toronto
Critical Reading Towards Critical Writing, University of Toronto
Active Reading, Open University UK
Active Reading Strategies, Princeton University
Writing a critical book review, Australian National University
Thompson Writing Program, Duke University
A Review of Online Learning
A Review of Alone Together
What makes a good critical review, Monash University
So what does design actually mean? Prof. Kevin Werbach gave us his synthesis of different viewpoints of many people that highlights some of the major aspects of design thinking.
1. Design is purposive: it has a goal. It’s not about making something beautiful or creating a process that does a certain thing. It’s about trying to achieve some objective and everything in that process has to tie into that objective. And the design of a gamified system has to constantly refer back to achieving that goal.
2. Secondly, it’s human-centred; it is designed around people. So it’s about coming up with solutions for people, which means that we have to think about the experience people are going to have; real people who want to achieve something real in their lives. Design thinking is about pushing for the experience and keeping in mind what that experience actually looks like to people. We have to remember here that the experience of the player is not the same as the experience of the designer.
3. Third element of design thinking is balance. The idea is that we need to have a balance of algorithms and creativity to address people’s experiential needs and not to miss opportunities for creativity and innovation because those tend to lie outside formulas. But we should also focus on what’s in the middle: focusing on what we do when there is some data, but insufficient data to give us a clear structured algorithm. And this often involves abductive reasoning developed by Charles Sanders Peirce. Essentially, this is about inference from insufficient information. So, we don’t have enough information to reach a judgement but we’ve got a rough explanation; we start with the best explanation we’ve got and then we make an inference from there. So we try and jump from there and make that abductive leap using intuition but basing it on some kind of foundation.
4. Finally, design thinking is iterative, it inherently expects that we are not going to get it right the first time, but we are going to have to try, fail, learn and try again. Thus iteration means doing the same thing multiple times but improving over time through the process. So you start with a rough prototype, then you play test it by letting some real people actually try and play with it. You observe what the experience is like, how game mechanics works, how the rules work, etc, and based on that you iterate and improve.
Prof. Kevin Werbach and his colleague Dan Hunter have developed a 6-step process for implementing a gamified system + questions and tips we should bear in mind in order to develop a people-orientated ganified system:
Step 1 – Define your business objectives. What is this system designed to accomplish? What are its goals?
Step 2 – Delineate target behaviours. What is it that you want people to do? Gamification is about encouraging people to do certain things. Thus, you need to start out with an understanding of what those things are.
Step 3 – Describe your players. Who is going to use the system? What do they like? How can the sstem respond to the different kinds of player that you have.
Step 4 – Devise your activity loops. There are two types of loops that move the action in a gamified system forward. They are engagement loops and progression loops. This is where you structure the core micro and macro level game play aspects. (to be discussed in more detail)
Step 5 – Don’t forget the fun. Fun is important. The system has to be engaging.
Step 6 – Deploy. Use the right tools for the right job. Use the right elements and the right structure. Put them into place in the gamified system.
The first step in the gamification design framework is to define business objectives. Now, business objectives can be about anything but not about players accumulating points and badges. These should be the goals that the gamified system is supposed to accomplish. Points and badges are the way the system works; they are the intermediate step that the system puts in front of the player. So what we need to think about here is what the ultimate goals are and what will define whether the system is a failure or a success. So how to catalogue business goals for a gamified system? Prof. Kevin Werbach offers a few concrete steps to take. Firstly, make a list of all the business or other (education or health) goals you want the system to achieve. List everything you can think of and be as specific as possible. Then rank the list: number the goals you mentioned according to to their importance, trade off the ones that are in conflict against the others that are really important to you. Next step is to cut out the ones that are not really your business objectives. You should be left with the most important goals, not the means to achieve something, like badges or points, which are part of game elements. Next get rid of everything that is not an ultimate business objective. Finally, justify each remaining objective. By doing this we generate a list but we also can start to see what needs to be resolved and what needs to be play-tested through the process as the system is designed.
Step two is to delineate target behaviours. This is what you want your players to do and it is important again to be as specific as possible. And again you need to figure out what the success metrics are. In other words, what will tell you that the gamification project was a success, what will let you decide that you achieved the goals. If there are any conflicting points, do the same as with business objectives – rank them. Finally, decide what the analytics are. What are the ways of measuring the path towards the success metrics by virtue of the activity on those target behaviours. There is a variety of different analytics to use. For example, DAU (daily average users) and MAU (monthly average users) And this is a ratio of these two numbers. The ration can tell you how engaging your site is and how many returning users there are. The second analityic is called Virality. This is the rate at which people refer their friends to your site and those come t see it. Finally, another one is virtual economy. And this is about how much activity is happening on your site, what the level of usage is and how much interaction there is. So, all of this tells us a lot about how the system is operating.
The third step is to describe your players. The basic starting point will be to learn about players’ age, where they are from, income level, etc. This would be useful for marketing strategy. Psychographics can be useful here too. What do you know about their behaviour? What do they like to buy? However, this will differ depending on who the gamified system is for: your employees or customers. But a very important aspect to learn about your players is what exactly motivates them. As a starting point what can be said about the different types of motivations that the players have? This is important because as it has been said before gamification involves motivation. Finding out what motivates players can help to create a system which will allow various forms of accomplishments. So, how to define different kinds of players in a gamified system? A solid starting point here would be Bartle’s Player Type.
|Screenshot taken from Players who suit MUDs|
When Richard A. Bartle was studying early multi-user dungeons, he discovered certain recurrent patterns and four broad types that he could fit players into. Although the model is debatable, it has proven to be very durable. Players may be one or two of the types depending on a system. They may also change category/type from game to game.
- Achievers – want to overcome obstacles, to achieve something, probably get recognition for their achievements;
- Explorers – want to interact with the world, want to see what is possible within the system, want to explore and try out;
- Socializers – want to interact with other players (as opposed to interaction with the world), want to be in teams, want to chat, want to be part of community, for them social experience is more important than achievements;
- Killers – they don’t just want to win, they want to destroy other players, they want to impose themselves on other people, want to be in control of the situation, want to feel that they are the ones that keep the group alive.
A gamified system also moves forward through so-called progression loops. Basically, these are the steps that a player needs to take to get from start to finish. But because the whole journey may seem too overwhelming and even scary to the player, the journey has to be broken down into smaller parts: challenges, completing which the player will eventually get to the finish line. So, this is one kind of progression loop where the player moves from start to finish through intermediate steps which are designed in a way that the player has a sense of relative ease of individual steps; the player has a sense that each task is doable and achievable. The player can see the next step and the ultimate goal seems more within reach which can also motivate.
Another way to think of progression loops is as a player’s evolution in the game, the player’s development from a newbie/novice to a master. This is typically done through rising and falling action. So the first step is onboarding: the process of getting the players to the point where they know how to play the basics of the game on their own, preferably within the game itself. Then they start moving up to a higher level and at some point they need to have a rest. If the difficulty of challenges constantly increases, it might be too challenging to complete the steps and get to finish. Players need a break, an easier task to complete after some difficult ones. Basically, the difficulty level should go up and down, up and down and then they can get a really hard task, typically called boss fight, which is a demarcation point of getting to the next level or segment of the game. This is also an opportunity to demonstrate mastery over that part of the game. After boos fight, players should get some more rest and continue their journey. The challenges should, of course, vary not to make the game boring.
So, a well-designed gamification system will have a well-structured engagement loops that ensure that feedback pushes towards motivation which pushes towards action, etc. It will also have well-structured progression loops which get the player from the early easy stage to the hardest stage of mastery through a set of processes that allow them to progress through the game.
The final elements of Prof Werbach’s gamification framework are fun and deployment of appropriate tools. It turns out that it is easy to lose sight of fun element in a gamified system, especially if there is a heavy focus on PBLs (points, badges and leaderboards). This doesn’t mean that PBLs cannot be fun, but because they are external motivators, they might not be fun at all times. A gamified system needs to be a bit more engaging than that. It should possibly have some puzzles, problems, surprises, etc. It should try to address different types of fun that players would be interested in. I talked about the types of fun in a previous post.
The final step in the design process is to deploy appropriate tools. In my previous posts I have talked about the toolkit that Prof Werbach shared with us. There are about 30 tools to use and this shows the richness of the palette that a gamification designer has to work with. You can’t design the system until you have asked all the right questions and come up with provisional answers and then, after this has been done, we still need to sit down and think about the different options and tools that can be used and then pick the most appropriate ones for the aim. After this we will have to play test the system, improve and play test again. The system will need more improvements until we have a system that works for real people.
I have decided to embed my artefact on my blog as I have all my reflections for Digital Cultures and E-Learning here. This way I can keep everything in one place.
I am looking forward to your comments.
View on Prezi
The more I read and watch, the more questions I seem to have.
While reading Transhumanist Values and Transhumanist Declaration, I kept on wondering whether we are going to become some form of a robot. Do we really want to be viewed as species that can be “remold in desirable ways”? I don’t really think I want to. Why do we need to apply medicine and technology to overcome our basic biological limits? Aren’t these limitations what makes us who we are? Are we trying to become superheroes or something? Isn’t this going to create more problems for us than solve any? If we all start living longer or dying later (which is the same thing), where are we all going to be living? I am not really sure but, I think, transhumanism raises more questions than answers any. The idea of “uploading our consciousness onto computers and leaving our body behind” is terrifying.
Now if we view Robbie in a transhumanist sense then we can say that it/he (nor sure which one) is more human than non-human. But is it/he really? So, it/he feels lonely, it/he misses his friends, it/he wants to ‘die’ on Earth (motherland). Does this make it/him human? It/He has a body of metal (basically, not made of meat) and a metal mind. Is this what we are going to become in the future? Robbie wasn’t born, it/he was made/created – that already doesn’t make it/him human, does it? It/He claims it/he made a choice of religion, but why would it/he choose religion? Possibly as a gratitude to its/his creator(s) who perhaps was(were) a Catholic? I don’t believe that it/he could have made the choice consciously. The interesting part for me in the film was Robbie made-up world, where it/he invented friends of its/his kind and they together fix things and learn from each other. An AI understanding the importance of collaboration and learning from others – that’s amazing! Not all humans understand that, so is Robbie better?
Now Gumdrop is a bit different because she doesn’t have the metallic voice of Robbie. If I was just listening to the film, not watching it, I would have thought that it was a human being being interviewed.
Ok we may have new kind of species living around us, but I still wouldn’t say that they are human beings. Well, for me they are not. We will have to learn to live with them and treat them fairly as stated in the Transhumanist Declaration. But will we be saying that they are human? Gumdrop is funny with a great sense of humour, but she is still a robot. I would like to befriend her, but I am afraid with the appearance of her species, many people would want to enslave them.
The next film actually made me depressed.
As far as I understand, there are more problems with the idea of transhumanism in this video than solutions. “Nobody wants to be entirely organic (oh, really?!), or get old, or die”. In my opinion, it is OK to use transplants if one lost a limb and needs a replacement to be mobile, but using artificial legs or arms because they are non-organic is beyond my understanding, I am afraid. Are we going to make artificial ‘spare parts’ fashionable and continue the present trend of judging people by their possessions? But it is not simply some gadgets, it is going to be parts that people have installed? What is better about that?
It is interesting or depressing to see that even in this transhumanist vision of the world, there are still homeless and sick people who do not seem to have a hope for a better life. Does that mean that even in this new world we are not going to address these serious problems?
“…for whatever you can afford” – which, to me, means that not everybody is going to be able to afford these parts which will widen the gap between the poor and the rich even more. In addition, people in this society look horrifying and utterly unreal to me, so are the ones who decide not to have these implants (possibly because they want to be ‘organic’) going to become outcasts? That doesn’t sound like an improvement, does it? Or is it just me?
The ability to “back up your memories and implant them back into new you” may be useful in education because many things that we learn at school are forgotten if not used and the ability to remember what you have learnt may be good. But that sounds very much like a computer which backs up the data to restore it if it crashes. If we are going to live forever, can’t we study the same subject again?
Avatar Days – World of Warcraft has been one of the most popular games for quite a while (it aparently surpassed 10mln registered users in 2011) and, I think, many people play it to escape the reality. One of the players actually says that he is the same in the game as in real life, but some others I think would choose to act differently from what they do in real life. The other players in this video talk about making decisions that they are unlikely to make in real life. So maybe this is what they want to experience and the game gives them that chance.
And it’s not just that. There is also a mention of recognition and reward which are so rare in real life. And this is true. Games provide this opportunity thus making people want to play more and more. They also seem to allow people feel better about themselves. Although I am not really very keen on non-stop gaming, I think that playing a bit a day will not do any harm.
Jane McGonigal actually believes that if we play 3 hours a day, we may be able to make the world a better place. Her talk is really thought-provoking and she claims that it is possible to save the world by turning the task into a game.
The game layer on the top of the world
To be honest, I didn’t really see any connection with education in Toyota’s Real Deal advert. An avatar buying a car, or whatever he is doing, from another avatar doesn’t look very real. “There is nothing real in this town, just pixels, pretends…” What is he then? Is he real? Didn’t look real to me, just like anybody else who is supposed to be unreal.
E-learning doesn’t really have to be that. Can we really expect a schoolchild to be disciplined enough to study fully online? Not many will, I think. If we are talking about school education, then what is wrong with flipping classrooms? I use technology to enhance my learners’ learning experience and to provide them with some extra activities that they can do if they choose to. In many cases they do because they feel that it helps them to improve their grammar and vocabulary, their writing, listening and reading skills. They feel that there is individual approach because there is always a message from me, their pages bear their own names, and we meet 3 times a week. So what is wrong with that? Yes, there is a mixture of technological and natural, but I simply don’t see it as a negative development. In contrast to what Lowell Monke claims in his article The human Touch, I see a great improvement in my students’ writing skills.
In the second video, Heart to Heart, Adam’s need to talk to his wife face-to-face about something important is re-asserted here, which matches what Steve Kolowich discusses in his article The Human Element. However, I think, there is some information missing in the article. What level of education is the drop-out level high? Is it about free courses or paid ones? The drop-out level seems to be high in free online courses, because many people register just out of interest, they don’t really warm up to the course, or they can’t manage their time effectively enough to complete the course. What I would really like to know if the drop-out rate is high in distance MA courses. Many people who choose the online option do so because they need the degree and they either work, or cannot afford the ever-increasing fees of universities. Do they really stop the course having paid for it partially or in full? The notion of building online presence has been around for quite a while and I agree with that. It is always nice to hear your tutor’s voice or see what you lecturer looks like like it would happen in a classroom setting where you also get to know what your tutor/lecturer/professor likes or dislikes: little human things about a person who teaches you. And this can be done in an online course through Social Forums or Google Hangout, etc.
The film made me go through an array of emotions from happy to sad. Do we say that technology has manipulated my emotions? As human beings we do react emotionally to what is happening around us, be it technological or real.
The man’s loved one is in a life-threatening condition and he is dreaming about things he would do for her if she survived whatever has caused her condition. Isn’t it what we all do when things go wrong? Don’t we all dream about things we would do if they were different? Doesn’t it make us feel different? So why call what the man does emotion manipulation by technology if all he does is he dreams but using holographic tools.
And the last clip They’re made out of meat made me laugh to be honest. If we view the aliens as iPhones and iPads, then it seems that aliens are some of the meat’s dream. Now the question that wasn’t of interest to the aliens was that animals are also made of meat, does that make them human too?
“Have we always, sometimes or never been human?”
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines human as
If we think of ‘human’ in terms of the adjective then it seems that anything with a human trait could be defined as human. And this is how I think Prof Fuller sees it – just as an adjective. What do we do with people who behave in an inhumane way? Do we brand them non-human? Many people do horrible things, but what shall we call them? Aliens? Isn’t that in itself a form of discrimination? Maybe we could classify them humanity into kind and unkind to make it easier to define human?
Wouldn’t ability to feel, to love, to hate, to laugh or to cry be human only characteristic of humanity, especially the last two? Isn’t it biological enough evidence not to claim that the Bible is the only reason we know we are human and that there is no biological reason for this? As far as I remember from Biology classes at school humans are the only species that walk upright. Isn’t it a reason good enough?
I believe that technology can help us fight against discrimination. Since the day I started using Facebook and taking online courses, I have made many friends from around the world and am more aware of their real problems and worries than ever before. News is biased or it is not what really happens, the Internet helps us connect with others, network and get to know other cultures.
- easy to set up and use;
- there is a lot of support available on the Web in the form of video and written tutorials;
- they can be made public and private, which is a great fetaure in education;
- they can improve the blogger’s writing skills.
- pages on blogs are static and all the posts go to the home page;
- posts and comments are not moderated before they are posted so there is always the risk that someone will post something inappropriate and only the administrator of the blog can delete the post, which means that offensive comments will be visible until the administrator sees them;
- the teacher will have to decide when to delete a comment as this may be viewed as abuse of freedom of speech by the learners.
In terms of pricing and school logo inclusion, schools can choose the wikimatrix site to choose the wiki that is most appropriate to their needs.
- great tools for collaborative writing;
- page history is available so teachers can reverse a page back to previous times;
- as many pages as needed can be created.
- pages can be deleted by mistake;
- when doing team writing, an individuals ideas are incorporated into one whole and success is down to the team not the individual, which may demotivate the individual who came up with most ideas;
- if a not hosted wiki is chosen, then a special training is required for the person who will be responsible for wiki hosting and maintenance.
- easy to create;
- can be embedded into a blog or wiki;
- learners can add content to it too.
- quizzes sometimes are not saved the first attempt and created questions are not saved so users have to write them again;
- playlists are collaborative and any user can add content to it which may not be reliable. However, this can be deleted;
- if a playlist is long, users may become demotivated and may not want to go through it.