Transcript
Page 1: Gamifying e-learning in online learning communities

Kerem Daldal | 11152776University of Technology, Sydney

2012

Gamifying e-learning inonline learningcommunities

1

Page 2: Gamifying e-learning in online learning communities

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

Page 3: Gamifying e-learning in online learning communities

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

Page 4: Gamifying e-learning in online learning communities

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

Page 5: Gamifying e-learning in online learning communities

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

Page 6: Gamifying e-learning in online learning communities

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

Page 7: Gamifying e-learning in online learning communities

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

Page 8: Gamifying e-learning in online learning communities

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

Page 9: Gamifying e-learning in online learning communities

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

Page 10: Gamifying e-learning in online learning communities

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

Page 11: Gamifying e-learning in online learning communities

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


Top Related