Gamifying your course slides
PPT slides from presentation at ANU CAP Innovations Showcase 19/09/2014
[padlet key=’cpb1jqqch2un’ width=’100%’ height=’480′]
Some interesting references and ideas – please feel free to add your own in the comment field at the bottom of the page
Natalie Denmeade – Moodle for Motivation Toolguide
If you use Moodle, this is probably as far as you need to go. (Though there is still interesting stuff down the page) Natalie (@Moodlemuse) has matched moodle tools to Bartle’s player types.
The authors concluded that “the issue is how to facilitate people’s understanding the importance of the activity to themselves and thus internalizing its regulation so they will be self motivated to perform it” (2001, p. 15)
Bogost uses the term exploitation ware as an alternative to gamification
Rose, D. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
There are three strategies to creating content for a wide variety of learners. The first strategy is to think about different ways to present the content of learning- the “what”. The second strategy is to think about providing different activities for the learner to explore and demonstrate mastery of content – the “how”. The third strategy is to give learners different paths to internalize content and become engaged and motivated – the “why” (Rose & Meyer, 2002).
“The concept of putting the user at the center of the gamification project is so critical that it is key in the definition of meaningful gamification: Meaningful gamification is the integration of user-centered game design elements into non-game contexts”
“Another critical component of user-centered design is that of information. In order for a user to understand what is happening, it is important that he or she has more than just a numeric score attached to an activity. Having only a numeric score does not allow the user the information to understand what is really going on and can make the user suspicious and questioning of the motives behind the score. The creation of that scoring system is based upon assumptions and biases of the organization creating the gamification system, and therefore, the user is more likely to perceive the gamification as externally controlling. By making systems more transparent with the goal of providing the user with information instead of providing the user with a score, the user can then create their own games and goals. Constraints on these goals can be provided, if needed, with appropriate justification so that the user has the information needed to make a decision.”
“Meaningful gamification techniques focus on the consideration of aspects of the underlying activity to understand where an integration of game elements makes sense. Even more intriguing is to go beyond games into the integration of pure play elements. A game without scoring can be called play; therefore, removing the scoring elements from a gamification context encourages a focus on the integration of play. An excellent example of this is a subway in Sweden where they added a piano keyboard to the stairs going into the subway, and many more people took the stairs instead of the escalator (Volkswagen, 2009). Perhaps this concept is important enough for its own term: “playification” is the use of play elements in non-play contexts”. (Volkswagen (2009). Piano staircase. Thefuntheory.com. Retrieved from http://www.thefuntheory.com)
“One of the ways to allow users to make gamification experiences that are more meaningful is to allow players to set their own goals. Deterding (2011a) puts it well in his the notes to his Google Tech Talk on gamification: “One practical way to do this is to allow users to set and customize their own goals within the platform. The design challenge here is to support and guide the user in setting long- and short-term goals such that they become achievable and provide experiences of mastery on the way” (p. 37).
” When applying the concepts behind player-generated content to meaningful gamification, the underlying idea is that the designers develop a system where users can create their own tools to track different aspects of the non-game activity, to create their own leveling systems and achievements, to develop their own game-based methods of engaging with the activity and to be able to share that content with other users. Systems where users can transform tasks by adding elements of play and then share their new methods allow creative users to think about how to make a task fun without an external reward. Users working toward the same set of goals can then form communities around those goals. These communities of learners can share experiences and increase their learning around the non-game activity, which OIT suggests is a method more likely to create truly internalized experiences”. (Nicholson, 2012)
Nicole Lazzaro on the four types of fun
Vockell, E. (2008). Education Psychology: A Practical Approach. Retrieved September 17, 2014 from http://education.purduecal.edu/Vockell/EdPsyBook/Edpsy5/edpsy5_intrinsic.htm
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow : The Psychology of Optimal Experience, Harper and Row, New York
The corporate, extrinsic motivation focused side of gamification