gamifying e-learning in online learning communities
DESCRIPTION
This report articulates a strategic approach for integrating the best aspects of game design with online learning communities to create e-learning platforms and environments that amplify engagement and the quality of knowledge construction. The first section of this report will outline the theoretical basis for this approach by summarising concepts underpinning constructivist learning models, online learning communities and gamification. The next section of this report will explain how gamification and online learning communities can be integrated by designing e-learning platforms that create tangible goals with manageable rules; set goals for learners/participants that fit their capabilities; provide clear and timely feedback; and eliminate distractions.TRANSCRIPT
Kerem Daldal | 11152776University of Technology, Sydney
2012
Gamifying e-learning inonline learningcommunities
1
Kerem Daldal | 11152776University of Technology, Sydney
2012
Introduction
This report articulates a strategic approach for integrating the best aspects of game design with
online learning communities to create elearning platforms and environments that amplify
engagement and the quality of knowledge construction. The first section of this report will outline
the theoretical basis for this approach by summarising concepts underpinning constructivist
learning models, online learning communities and gamification. The next section of this report will
explain how gamification and online learning communities can be integrated by designing
elearning platforms that create tangible goals with manageable rules; set goals for
learners/participants that fit their capabilities; provide clear and timely feedback; and eliminate
distractions.
Theoretical background
Constructivism
Over the past two decades, constructivist models of education have become more prominent in
elearning design (Koohang et al 2009). In contrast to other models that rely mostly on
knowledge acquisition, whereby knowledge is seen as being transmitted oneway from teacher
to learner (Sfard 1997); constructivist models are learnercentred and aim to keep learners
engaged by enabling them in becoming active in the process of knowledge construction
(EgenfeldtNielsen 2006; Koohang et al 2009). For Honebein, the goals of constructivist models
are to expose students to multiple perspectives; embed their learning in contexts that are social,
2
Kerem Daldal | 11152776University of Technology, Sydney
2012
relevant and realistic; encourage them to take ownership of the learning process; and allow them
to become aware of their role in the knowledge construction process (1996, in Koohang et al
2009).
Online learning communities
One of the best ways in which constructivist models of elearning have been implemented is in
the design of online learning communities that utilise technologies such as wikis, blogs and
discussion forums. These sorts of elearning implementations acknowledge the power of
collaborative learning environments to inform through the aggregation of knowledge (Kilpatrick et
al 2003). They take advantage of Redmond & Lock's four phases of practical inquiry in which:
learners are puzzled or see a problem;
search for information or explanations;
aggregate their knowledge in order to develop a shared understanding; and
develop a solution (2006).
The ability of all participants to interact with, publish and tend to the community facilitates an
environment where ‘innovative explorations, experimentations, and purposeful tinkerings …
often form the basis of a situated understanding emerging from action not passivity’ (Brown and
Adler 2008, p. 14). It should be remembered that it's not enough to just implement the technology
and expect learning to take place successful online learning communities foster 'an experience
of togetherness that extends through time and space' (Wenger et al 2005, p. 2). Instructional
designers should be designing these communities so that 'learners are newcomers and potential
reformers of the practice' and 'teachers are the preservers of its continuity' (Sfard 1997, p. 6).
3
Kerem Daldal | 11152776University of Technology, Sydney
2012
Gamification
Games are a natural fit for constructivist learning models because they are designed to be
deeply engaging and collaborative (Johnson et al 2011; Prensky 2002; Sanchez 2011). The
2011 Horizon Report suggests that aspects of games that make them engaging for players are
replicable for educative purposes these include 'the feeling of working toward a goal; the
possibility of attaining spectacular successes; [and] the ability to problem solve, collaborate with
others, and socialise' (Johnson et al 2011). While the report indicates that educational games
can be difficult to design well (Johnson et al 2011), this doesn't mean that instructional designers
can't take the best elements of game design and use them to scaffold their elearning designs.
Indeed, Deterding et al define gamification as 'the use of game design elements in nongame
contexts' (2011, p.2) the most important of these elements being the ability of games to keep
players engaged and motivated by creating a sense of cognitive flow (Baron 2012; Prensky
2002; Sanchez 2011). Great game design achieves cognitive flow by:
providing players with tangible goals and manageable rules;
setting goals that are relevant to (and reflective of) players' capabilities;
delivering feedback that is clear and timely; and
keeping players on track by eliminating distractions (Baron 2012).
4
Kerem Daldal | 11152776University of Technology, Sydney
2012
'Flow, boredom, and anxiety as they relate to task difficulty and user skill level' (Baron 2012, p.1).
A strategic approach to integrating gamification with
online learning communities
Integrating the best elements of game design into an online learning community can kickstart a
positive feedback loop whereby learners are motivated (through cognitive flow) to exchange
knowledge in the community; with their contributions to the community resulting in a proliferation
of social interaction and ongoing improvements to the quality of knowledge in the community;
thus, motivating learners to become even more active in the community. Suggestions for
achieving gamified cognitive flow in online learning communities follow.
5
Kerem Daldal | 11152776University of Technology, Sydney
2012
Create tangible goals with manageable rules
With some question and answer (Q&A) style learning communities, these goals might be
selfmanaged as participation could be driven by the identification of a problem encountered on
the job, in the field, etc. Even in established Q&A learning communities and communities of
practise comprising of experts in the field, there are at least established norms and guidelines to
ensure that contributions are relevant and that interactions are peaceable. With other learning
communities, such as those that are established in educational institutions, learners might be
completely new to an area of knowledge and might not even know which questions to ask and
how they can contribute. The presence of teachers and other experts is essential in these types
of communities and they should be assigning tasks that set learners on individual and
collaborative quests to explore and construct knowledge. They should also be present to
answer questions and provide guidance when learners encounter trouble. Baron states that:
Flow breaks down when a player doesn't know what their goals are, how they're
expected to accomplish them, or which new game techniques they're supposed to use to
solve a puzzle. When this happens, gamers disengage and are more likely to stop
playing (p. 2).
The same applies to learners, but educators shouldn't have to bear all the burden especially at
the scale of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Learning management systems (LMSs)
and other learning platforms should:
be designed so that interfaces cue learners to the task/s at hand;
be aware of learners' tasks and progress and only provide new and important information
and tasks when learners aren't highlystimulated with other tasks and information;
6
Kerem Daldal | 11152776University of Technology, Sydney
2012
allow learners to experiment and try variations of approaches to tasks; and
allow learners to visualise a hierarchy of tasks so that it's clear to them how smaller
tasks fit into larger goals.
3D Gamelab is a good example of a learning platform that implements many of these principles.
Set goals for learners/participants that fit their capabilities
Many games make use of computercontrolled enemies/characters that dynamically adapt to the
players' skill level so that players' stress and performance are kept within a zone of optimal
performance (Baron 2012). At present, teachers/experts fill this role in educational contexts by
assigning tasks that they feel are appropriate to the their learners' skill level; and some
educational platforms, such as Codecademy or Treehouse, enable learners to choose
paths/courses that they feel are appropriate to their skill level. However, this isn't an exact
science, so instructional designers and developers should envision systems that:
are capable of gauging students' skill levels and dynamically assigning or suggesting
tasks that are appropriate to individual learners;
can automatically match groups of learners together in collaborative groups based on
skill level; and/or
provide learning analytics that will allow system administrators to do so.
Provide clear and timely feedback
Feedback that is clear and timely allows players of games to make connections between actions
and outcomes, allowing them to understand how their progress on shortterm and longterm
goals (Baron 2012). In terms of constructivist learning models, similar implementations in
educative contexts will let learners take ownership of the learning process and enable them to
become aware of their role in the knowledge construction process. Games have long used
7
Kerem Daldal | 11152776University of Technology, Sydney
2012
progress bars, badges and experience points to help players in tracking their advancement
through the game. 3D Gamelab, Codecademy, Treehouse and Stack Overflow are all examples
of learning systems/platforms that have utilised these aspects of gaming to drive motivation.
Stack Overflow, in particular, is interesting in terms of how it lets users to upvote others'
contributions to the community; earning them reputation points, badges, and in turn, more
privileges to create content in the community. Instructional designers and developers should
take care, however, that these aren't simply (ab)used as behaviourist rewards for positive
behaviour (EgenfeldtNielsen 2006) they should be an accurate and informative reflection of
learners' outcomes and/or contribution to the community.
Eliminate distractions
As outlined earlier, extraneous information should be kept to a minimum, while new tasks and
information should be reserved for times when learners aren't overly stimulated with other
objectives and information. It also goes without saying that userinterfaces should be designed
along best humancomputer interaction (HCI) principles and should not be cluttered or replete
with unnecessary features. One of the issues with online learning communities is that the
quantity of participants' contributions can be as detrimental as it can be beneficial. A large
amount of content can mean that useful information gets buried beneath information that might be
less useful. Search functionality helps of course, but a novel way of ensuring quality can be to
crowdsource quality control to the community as Quora and Stack Overflow have done by
allowing participants to flag the most useful answers. Deterding et al explain that some of the
greatest promises of gamified systems is the ease of access to 'more ecologically valid user
data on the different kinds of experiences and natural categories that arise from interaction with
these systems' (2011, p.6). Looking into the future, crowdsourced quality control has the
potential to be integrated with technologies similar to Google's Knowledge Graph that can
8
Kerem Daldal | 11152776University of Technology, Sydney
2012
intelligently aggregate and index the most useful information into informative summaries of
existing knowledge from which learners can delve deeper should they wish.
Conclusion
By leveraging elements of game design that make gaming so intrinsically motivating namely
cognitive flow instructional designers can create positive feedback loops that increase
participation in online learning communities; improve the quality of contribution; and boost
educational outcomes for participants.
9
Kerem Daldal | 11152776University of Technology, Sydney
2012
References
Baron, S. 2012, Gamasutra, Cognitive Flow: The Psychology of Great Game Design, SanFrancisco, viewed 11 June 2012,<http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/166972/cognitive_flow_the_psychology_of_.php>
Brown, J. & Adler, R. 2008, ‘Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0’,EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 119.
Deterding S., Dixon D., Khaled R. & Nacke L. 2011, 'From Game Design Elements toGamefulness: Defining "Gamification"', MindTrek, vol. 11, pp. 17.
EgenfeldtNielsen, S. 2006 Overview of research on the educational use of video games, NordicJournal of Digital Literacy, [online] viewed 11 June 2012,<http://www.idunn.no/ts/dk/2006/03/overview_of_research_on_the_educationaluseof_video_games>
Honebein, P. 1996, 'Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments', in B.Wilson, Constructivist learning environments, Educational Technology Publications, NewJersey, pp. 1724.
Johnson, L., Adams, S. & Cummins, M. 2012, The New Media Consortium, The NMC HorizonReport: 2012 Higher Education Edition, Austin, Texas, viewed 11 June 2012,<http://www.nmc.org/publications/horizonreport2012higherededition>
Kilpatrick, S., Barrett & M., Jones, T. 2003, University of Tasmania, Defining LearningCommunities, Launceston, viewed 11 June 2012<http://www.crlra.utas.edu.au/files/discussion/2003/D12003.pdf>
Koohang A., Riley L. & Smith T. 2009, 'ELearning and Constructivism: From Theory toApplication', Interdisciplinary Journal of ELearning and Learning Objects, vol. 5, pp. 91109.
Prensky, M. 2003, 'Digital GameBased Learning', ACM Computers in Entertainment, vol. 1, no.1, pp. 14.
Redmond, P. & Lock, J.V. 2006, 'A flexible framework for online collaborative learning', Internetand Higher Education, vol. 9, pp. 267276.
10
Kerem Daldal | 11152776University of Technology, Sydney
2012
Sanchez, E., 2011, The European Commission, Key Criteria in Game Design: A Framework,Quebec, viewed 11 June 2012,<http://www.reseaucerta.org/meet/Key_criteria_for_Game_Design_v2.pdf>
Sfard, A. 1998, ‘On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one’,Educational Researcher, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 413.
Wenger, E.,White, N., Smith, J.D. & Rowe, K. 2005, 'Technology for communities', CEFRIO, vol.5.2, pp. 215.
11