Paper exploring the link between gamification and it possible impact upon deep learning

1. Marcus Leaning

2.  Interested in gamification and its
relationship with learning.
◦ Media education in Higher education
 Want to look at:
◦ The idea of gamification (may skip this bit if everybody has
covered it already)
◦ Hamari, Koivisto and Sarsa (2014) analysis and account of
the three part model;
◦ Gamification and engagement and why we need more of
something else…

3.  The modification of an
activity with aspects of
games to encourage
participation and
engagement.
 Used in lots of different ways:
◦ Conscious engagement to modify own
behaviour – apps to gamify fitness
and well being;
◦ Manipulative – get people to behave in
a certain way though indirect means.
Fig app –
Create your plan
from common
wellness goals;
build a
supportive
community and
share and
celebrate your
successes!

4.  Not a new concept – star chart,
house points, weight watchers…
 Term first used by Pelling in
2002/03.
 A fast growing industry and area of
interest, possibly past its peak in
business but not in education and
other areas.
 Gatner’s hype cycle…

5. 2011

6. 2012

7. 2013

8. 2014

9.  Specific definition has been argued over –
E.G.:
Marczewski
(2012)
The application of gaming metaphors to real life
tasks to influence behaviour, improve motivation
and enhance engagement
Huotari and
Hamari (2011)
a form of service packaging where a core service is
enhanced by a rules-based service system that
provides feedback and interaction mechanisms to
the user with an aim to facilitate and support the
user’s overall value creation
Deterding et al.
(2011)
the use of game design elements in non-game
contexts
Kapp (2012) using game based mechanics, aesthetics and game
thinking to engage people, motivate action,
promote learning and solve problems

10.  Central to these definitions is the understanding
that gamification is a process applied to an
existing service or experience which will result in a
different (and hopefully enhanced) experience for
users.
 Moreover, the transformations will involve the use
of various aspects of games – either:
◦ games design – making the activity into a game
◦ elements or mechanics – using bits of games
 Kapp (2012) argues gamification is only truly the
former).

11.  Deterding (2011)- games design involve
rules distinguishes between games (rules)
and play (free play – less rules).
 Draws upon Callois’ (1961) spectrum of
paidia (play -no rules) – ludus (rules and
often competitive).
◦ ‘Purist’ gamification is design driven activities bound by
rules;
◦ ‘gamish’ gamification is more about play, not rules.

12.  Game studies scholars (Fransca, 2003) add
the idea that games utilise a different form of
semiosis to that historically used in textual
analysis – games require an analysis of the
ludic experience (participation) not simply the
narrativistic one (observer).
 What is it like to play the game rather than
watch it.

13.  Gamification involves adding a different form of
experience to an activity, adding a new layer to
an existing process that incorporates a new level
of symbolic or ludic meaning above and beyond
the merely instrumental activity of the task.
 The gamified aspect has a semiotic value distinct
and additional to the instrumental action of the
original activity.
 The new layer of meaning provides a greater
experience for the user and encourages
participation with the transformed activity.

14.  Hamari, Koivisto and Sarsa (2014) identify
three components to a gamified activity:
◦ Motivational affordances - the opportunities the
gamified activities give the subject;
◦ Psychological outcomes - the resultant change in
feeling about an activity during and after the
activity;
◦ Behavioural outcomes - the change in behaviour
following the gamified activity.

15.  Most research on engagement – getting people to
engage with education or training or the core
‘wrapped up’ activity eg:
◦ increasing participation in training, education and
instruction in general (Kapp, 2012),
◦ various classroom activities (Charles, Bustard, & Black,
2011; Cronk, 2012; Kapp, 2012; Sheth, Bell, & Kaiser,
2012)
◦ e-learning platforms (Denny, 2013).
 Very much Hamari, Koivisto and Sarsa’s (2014) first
category of motivational affordances.
 Most research is about how to secure ‘engagement’ -
do stuff to win the game or play it better - very little
research on psychological and behavioural outcomes
– what happens post engagement.

16.  Lots of research distinguishes between:
◦ ‘surface’ learning – in which students gaining only a
superficial understanding of a topic, specific facts and
figures which will serve them in assessment or activity
◦ ‘deep’ learning – more profound, critically aware form of
learning in which students become aware of the
structures, main ideas, principles and forms of
successful application of their knowledge (Biggs and
Tang, 2007).
 Gamification that focusses upon engagement and
motivation - Hamari, Koivisto and Sarsa’s first
category - seems to fall into the first category.

17.  Deep learning has similarities to Hamari, Koivisto
and Sarsa’s second and third aspects – the
psychological and behavioural changes.
 Very few studies that look to attainment in core
activity (performance in assessment) or the
longer term or deeper impact rather than uptake
/ engagement.
 Those studies that have been done see mixed
results:
◦ Positive - Barata, Gama, Jorge, & Goncalves, (2013);
Denny, (2013).
◦ Limited or no impact (Leaning, 2015) or mixed results
and impact upon other areas (Domínguez et al., 2013).

18.  Attention needs to be paid to the latter two of
Hamari, Koivisto and Sarsa’s triumphiate.
 Move attention away from the ‘quick win’ –
recognition that engagement is just the start.
 Studies which explore ongoing psychological
and behavioural transformation rather than
just participation.
 Not yet a mature industry (still 5 years away)
– still at the persuasion stage where sales are
linked to the short term measurable – not the
longer term and often unquantifiable - result.