Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Engagification

24 May 2011 by Clark 11 Comments

The latest ‘flavor of the month’ is so-called gamification. Without claiming to be an expert in this area (tho’ with a bit of experience in game design), I have to say that I’ve some thoughts both positive and negative on this.

So what is ‘gamification’? As far as I can tell, it’s the (and I’m greatly resisting the temptation to put the word ‘gratuitous’ in here :) addition of game mechanics to user experiences to increase their participation, loyalty, and more. Now, there are levels of game mechanics, and I can see tapping into some deeper elements, but what I see are relatively simple things like adding scoring, achievements (e.g. badges), etc.   A colleague of mine who released a major learning game admitted that they added score at the end to compensate for the lack of ability to tune further and needing to release to appease investors. I get it; there are times that adding in gamification increases bottom lines in meaningful ways. But I want to suggest that we strive a little bit higher.

In Engaging Learning, I talked about the elements that synergistically lead to both better effectiveness of education practice, and more engaging experiences. These weren’t extrinsic like ‘frame games’ (tarted-up drill-and-kill), but instead focused on aligning with learner interests, intrinsic elements of the task, and more. This means finding out what drives experts to find this intriguing, a role that learners can play that’s compelling, meaningful decisions to make, appropriate level of challenges, and more. That’s what I’m shooting for.

The benefits of intrinsic motivation instead of extrinsic have been studied since the late 70’s in work by Tom Malone and Mark Lepper. In short, you get better outcomes when people are meaningfully engaged rather than trivially engaged. Dan Pink’s book Drive lays out a wealth of related research that suggests we need to avoid rewards for rote performance and instead should be focusing on helping folks do real tasks. I can’t remember where I first heard the term ‘engagification’, but that’s just what I’m thinking of.

To me, it’s the right way take gamification, focus on intrinsic motivation. If we’re gamifying, we’re covering up for some other deficiency, I reckon. Yes, there may be times that intrinsic motivation is hard to find (e.g. to get fit), but that probably means we haven’t tried hard enough yet. I recall recently hearing about gamifying kids math problems; yes, but rote problems are the wrong thing to drill. Can’t we find the intrinsic interest in math, solving real problems (like the ones they’ll see in the real world, not on tests)?  I reckon we could, and should. It would take more effort initially, but the payoff ought to be better.

Perhaps gamify if you have to, but only after you’ve first tried to engagify. Please.

Comments

  1. Paul Jacobs says

    25 May 2011 at 5:48 PM

    I like your thinking here Clark. It really is about tapping into people’s motivational and emotional drivers – and different things will appeal to different people for different reasons, some of which may be quite complex. How about the terms ’emotification’ and ‘motivification’? A good game in my view has an element of addiction ‘addictification’- I can remember when I was a child I couldn’t wait to play space invaders at the arcade and progress to the next level – I was particularly motivated to get to the top of the leaderboard, particularly if I could see my friends names on there. I also remember having “fun” playing the game and enjoyed the overall intrinsic challenge. Then the new Casio Calculator launched with an addictive game and I could play it anytime I wanted – it was awesome entertainment ‘entertainification’. With ‘social gaming’ comes that element of community and connectivity. Some people play games like World of Warcraft and Second Life (SL a game or just a virtual world?) for escapism, fantasy, self-expression, a sense of belonging, making real money, something to stay occupied, or just the company of others. If you don’t visit Farmville on a regular basis your crops and livestock will die. Then comes the whole slew of mobile apps with a gaming element like Foursquare – some people like getting badges and the prestige of being the Mayor – others are in it for the deals. LinkedIn has a number of game devices built into it. Then comes Empire Avenue and some commentators are calling the game “fun” and the essence of what social media and gaming is all about – I see EA as something that taps into one’s ego drivers, and a higher level of perceived ‘influence’ and ‘reputation’ is important to many of the players. I’m yet to discover the fun side of this game, but maybe my motivations are different.

    I often see people talking about adding a gaming layer onto existing processes, especially when mentioned in a business application context. I’m not so convinced, and wondering if it would be better to start from scratch and hardwire a gaming experience ‘experiencification’ into it, rather than adding it on top. I see enormous opportunities to do this in a recruitment, learning, HR, and business context. It’s also an opportunity to better understand the hearts and minds of our target audiences.

  2. Kathy Sierra says

    25 May 2011 at 6:21 PM

    …and the research goes on and on… Kids given special rewards (think “badgification”) for drawing with markers begin to draw less than kids not given rewards. Monkeys enjoy solving puzzles but once rewards are introduced, the monkeys given rewards for solving produce more errors and take longer to solve them. All that counter-intuitive evidence adds up to a big fat No to gamification (for me) in scenarios where we need the person to develop the intrinsic motivation and think, create, etc.

    Gamification /extrinsic rewards are appropriate and useful for things where there never WILL be an intrinsic reward, so if it is for flossing or doing chores, by all means. And for encouraging activities that we want to do but are struggling, like exercise, then the clear progress and goal focus is very powerful. But the same people championing things like, say Nike+ do not seem to see any difference between that and gamifying *reading books*.
    (yes there is an exception where gamification / extrinsic rewards are used purely and carefully as a bridge ONLY until the knowledge and skills for the new thing match the challenges and intrinsic motivators can kick in, but… I never see examples of it done carefully in this way, and it is very tricky and risky).

    If we go down the gamification path with learning (and this is different from actual learning GAMES), we have pretty much given up all hope of creating real motivation for the thing we hope people will do. I get the fact that we are often doing a terrible job of providing relevance for learners, and that we fail the “why should I care?” test. But the answer is not gamification. If we have to gamily to get people to engage, then we have already lost the battle and we simply get activity for the sake of the external reward system. That might look like engagement, but of course it is so unlikely to lead to meaningful and useful outcomes. If we cannot provide relevance, we are far better off dropping the topic completely rather than trying to “sex it up”. if we cannot find a compelling use-case for the topic, why is it even there in the first place? And if it truly IS relevant, there ought to be a use-case scenario that makes that stunningly clear (flight simulators with a potential to crash are the extreme example).

    Oh, sorry for the rant but this whole gamification hype is deeply disturbing to me. I know a fair amount about learning, and a whole lot about game design. And most of what is described as gamification is little more than a dressed up slot machine. Operant conditioning FTW! Which might not be a problem if it were simply a temporary gain that evaporated and left people back where they started. But as the research suggests, some forms of gamification leave us with a motivation deficit, and that is one thing we surely do not need.

    I also gave a personal story where, as a horse trainer, I nearly gamified one of my horses to death. Literally. But that’s for another time. Anyway, I am so glad you posted this. I am finding very few allies in my “do not put us in a Skinner box, bro” campaign.

  3. Paul Jacobs says

    26 May 2011 at 6:25 AM

    Hey Kathy – just glanced upon your video presentations – there is some real thought provoking stuff there – will go back and have a more in-depth look. Pleased you left a comment!

  4. Suzanne Aurilio says

    26 May 2011 at 4:46 PM

    I don’t think we can talk about gamification in education or in general, and exclude talking about consumerism, the ethos of our times. Consider the act of shopping as compared to going to an art museum. Consider the expertise developed to be a savvy consumer as compared to understanding a work of art, and the value we place on each as a society. Gamification is in Baudriallard’s terms, just another simulation designed to reify consumerism. “Disneyland exists so that the rest of America seems real”. If you unpacked consumerism/consuming/consumption and did so without an ethical lens, it’s still rather mundane as far as human (cognitive) experiences go.

  5. Clark says

    29 May 2011 at 2:01 PM

    Fabulous feedback, folks, thanks for the contributions. I think gamification has really touched a nerve, for good and bad, and we want to be thinking about it, not just going for the easy win. Of course, then we get to thinking about what our values really are, but that, I think, is wise.

  6. Kathy Sierra says

    29 May 2011 at 2:21 PM

    Thank YOU, Clark. This is a tricky and controversial topic, and I recognize that being anything less than enthusiastic for gamification today puts one in the minority. I spoke with Dan Pink about his thoughts on gamification and why he has not yet weighed in (given his work with Drive), and his response was, “These are crucial and subtle issues, but where greed is involved, subtlety vanishes.” It is tough to make the subtle points, and even tougher when we do not yet have clear understanding and agreement on terminology, etc. But again, thank-you!

  7. James Hobson says

    29 May 2011 at 2:36 PM

    Clark,
    I’m currently reading Jane McGonigal’s excellent book ‘Reality is Broken’ – thoroughly recommend this for anyone interested in using posotive psychology to engagify and gamify their learning design!
    Regards,
    James

  8. Chad Udell says

    31 May 2011 at 7:41 PM

    Clark, As usual, timely and insightful. Thanks for this.

    I also came across this nice piece on how slapping badges on everything doesn’t solve anything… http://innovationgames.com/2010/12/gamification-badges-and-points-are-missing-the-point/

    Learning isn’t Foursquare… Though I might want to be the mayor of my office. ;-)

Trackbacks

  1. Engagify Before You Gamify | Brian Dusablon says:
    25 May 2011 at 8:42 PM

    […] – Clark Quinn – “Engagification” […]

  2. Exploring trends in learning: what is your experience with gamification? | Julian Stodd's Learning Blog says:
    4 January 2013 at 5:24 AM

    […] Quinn has already shared an article he wrote in 2011 exploring this topic, and it’s a great place to start. If you don’t already subscribe […]

  3. FocusAssist by Mindflash: A New Low in Elearning Development | onehundredfortywords says:
    22 August 2013 at 1:36 AM

    […] That we are unable to create content that resonates with our audience. That we are unable to engagify. That we are unable to realistically asses knowledge and performance. That we are unable to create […]

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Clark Quinn

The Company

Search

Feedblitz (email) signup

Never miss a post
Your email address:*
Please wait...
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

Pages

  • About Learnlets and Quinnovation

The Serious eLearning Manifesto

Manifesto badge

Categories

  • design
  • games
  • meta-learning
  • mindmap
  • mobile
  • social
  • strategy
  • technology
  • Uncategorized
  • virtual worlds

Blogroll

  • Charles Jennings
  • Christy Tucker
  • Connie Malamed
  • Dave's Whiteboard
  • Donald Clark's Plan B
  • Donald Taylor
  • Harold Jarche
  • Julie Dirksen
  • Kevin Thorn
  • Mark Britz
  • Mirjam Neelen & Paul Kirschner
  • Stephen Downes' Half an Hour

License

Previous Posts

  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006

Amazon Affiliate

Required to announce that, as an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Mostly book links. Full disclosure.