By the age of 21 millennials and Gen Z have spent over seven thousand hours on video games. They have spent only two thousand hours reading.
I have harbored reservations when it comes to the prevailing discourse around gamification in education. It struck me as peculiar when students were given the opportunity to select their own unique characters or avatars, complete with game boards and scoreboards. And to top it off, there were toy prizes and stickers involved. It left me wondering, what exactly is happening here? From Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey to the Tiger King — circuses have slowly faded out of existence due to animal rights work. But … they are back; in another form … your neighborhood classrooms in the form of gamification. (At least that was my initial impression of this new ed-talk fad.)
I admit, I’ve tried gamification once as a way to spice things up. To give an extra challenge to a student who needed it, I went up to him after all the exams were distributed, took his, ripped it into pieces, placed a tape dispenser next to the pile and said, “You better solve the puzzle and then finish your test before class ends.” He did. He got 100. It wasn’t that fun.
Gamification is the application of typical elements of game playing (e.g. point scoring, competition with others, rules of play) to other areas of activity (i.e. classrooms), typically as an online marketing technique to encourage engagement with a product or service. As a cynic of gamification, I attend a session on it at SXSW EDU a couple of years ago. The focus was using the principles in the workplace. The session was a case study on Amy’s Ice Cream (Austin, TX). It was quite interesting.
Having students run around the classroom and down hallways on a scavenger hunt while learning about the periodic table seems thrilling especially if they need to scream uncontrollably when they get the next clue, but I think about what impact this has on other areas of teaching and learning. Because students today are playing more games than reading, must we now turn learning into a game? I am not suggesting that learning should not be fun. But also, fun and games are not synonymous.
The goal of the relationship to learning has always been for it to be internalized. And games thrive on its external motivators. Are we now priming a different type of culture? Will the existence of lifelong learning diminish if we move away from internalization? Is it the best decision to turn things into a game to get enjoyment and/or engagement?
Recently I re-examined gamification again, in the natural cycle of revisiting and reflection to ideas, especially ones I don’t like. It clicked. Gamification is actually a new label to what educators have previously called, “good teaching.” Characters, game boards, and prizes are actually NOT elements in gamification.
This is gamification:
As with a video game or any type of game, view a course as a journey.
Those on a journey have a purpose. What is to be expected — will there be projects? how will students be graded? are there test retakes? corrections? Providing students a map (syllabus) - knowing what is to come gives comfort. This does not eliminate possibilities of additions or eliminations down the road, as with any game there needs to be surprises. Those surprises need to selected carefully and use sparingly.
Emotions of a journey need to be present: joy, anticipation, fear, elation.
If the course is too easy, it won’t be challenging, if it is too challenging, it will be defeating. Therefore the game needs to be carefully developed.
Value the growth (learning).
Players (students) need levels to go through, feel that they have conquered something. The succession of quizzes or other designed assessments can serve this purpose. The emergence of the popularity of standard-based grading speaks to this value.
Need for competition and community.
Healthy competition in the classroom is tricky. I am generally not a fan of Kahoot! or other quiz like competitions. Students love them and they also love Juuls. I find that competition to be usually against an area I highly value - mistakes. Mistakes are springboards for connections; they give clarity and depth to material which happen when students engage.
Be dramatic.
Everyone loves drama. Teachers who are vivid in their explanations and/or presentations can provide experiences for students to remember. It isn’t always about the selection of particular activities or demonstrations either - depending on the group and dynamics, things can be exciting for some and not for others.
When teaching VSEPR Theory - a theory that predicts the shape of molecules - I use 2 or 3 pieces of string (same length) knotted in the middle. I ask for two volunteers - just as hands go up, I put the clarifying detail it should be two people that don’t like each other. I select 2 people quickly and fabricate a story between them where they are enemies. VESPR Theory can be pretty difficult for the average student - as it expects them to have some ability to mentally conceive of 3D space. But if you evoke everyone’s worst enemy — people start having a better idea where they want to be in a space that is as far away from each other as possible. For many, the theory then begins to click.