- - - - - - - - -
1. What does “gamification” mean to you?
It’s meaningless – people use the word to mean such different things, and in different ways. To some it means adding points and rewards systems to products you buy or use as a way of adding engagement to a brand, to others that might be a prime example of what gamification ‘is not’, and instead gamification is about using game mechanics or play for whatever purpose. It also gets used for marketing, branding and education. Which results in it being a very broad term that means whatever you want it to mean. Just don’t expect anyone you are talking to use the same meaning.
2. Is there a necessity to understand gamification as a technique, rather than a concept, of implementation?
First you have to redefine it. Get everyone to agree your definition, then we can decide if it is a technique.
3. What should (if anything) the industry do to universally understand gamification?
They should do everything they can to avoid using the word, and actually just try and describe what they are doing. Using games to promote engagement in learning or with products? Fine. Using reward schemes for the same purpose? Fine. Using a game with educational content to try to support some specific curriculum? Fine.
But if you call it gamification there can be no universal understanding, because it is a broad term with no universal agreement over what is or is not gamification.
4. With schools still sitting primarily on the side of a theory-based approach with written exams (with the exception of some subjects) and games being predominantly practical, where do games fit in to the current Curriculum for Excellence?
I can’t really answer that. Are schools really as you describe? As far as I understand the Curriculum for Excellence is all about moving away from that form of education. I think you are focusing on Highers, but I don’t really know much about what is happening there.
Anyway, game design and development are explicitly in the CfE in a few places – so primary school children might try and design a game for example. Some other activities that are in CfE revolve around creating art or potentially even creating the game itself.
So games are there. The question is whether or not teachers are going to cover these elements, and whether they are confident and ready to do so.
5. Do you believe gamification can detract from the creativity of an individual in order to meet a pre-determined requirement or set of rules?
If you mean do points-based reward systems reduce creativity – it seems likely. Certainly Chris Hecker’s GDC talk on Achievements does dive into the role of reward systems versus free choice. Certain types of reward are more compatible with free choice, other less so.
Creatively meeting requirements is in itself a skill I guess – but I'm not an expert on creativity!
6. Finally, in your opinion, what more (if anything) can be done to bridge, convince or introduce the concept of games into education?
I had thought that a lot of great work had been happening – driven by the Consolarium – to get games used more commonly in classes. In some cases (e.g. Guitar Hero in primary schools) these are not being used as educational games but as a cornerstone of cross-curricular projects and activities. Others (Dr Kawashima) have a much more obvious educational use.
But I picked up at the Learning Through Games event that the central funding for Consolarium stopped, and that there is no more central activity to really drive this forward – and it is clear that many schools have yet to really engage with the potential use of games.
I think that games are more usually used as a very peripheral activity – educational online games are often used as a kind of ‘free time’ learning activity: Kids get taken to the ICT suite, the teacher might not have any IT teaching in particular, so the kids get to log into Education City and play some games for 40 minutes before the next class. That kind of use is AFAIK quite commonplace, but it certainly isn’t applying the full potential of games, nor is it really meeting the vision of the CfE – but it is perhaps what more teachers are comfortable with.
Game development is something of a different story from using games, but again there are real issues of whether teachers have the skills and more importantly the confidence to bring this into class.
I’d echo Derek Robertson in saying that it won’t really get embedded until it is a mandatory part of teacher training and continuing professional development.
- - - - - - - - -
The wheel of my research is in motion, and I would like to extend my gratitude to Daniel for taking the time to do this for us.
I'd like to know more of your opinions though. If you'd like to get involved with my research, or with Amber Glass in general, please send an email (amberglassbroadcast@gmail.com).
Andrew Reid
Managing Director
It’s meaningless – people use the word to mean such different things, and in different ways. To some it means adding points and rewards systems to products you buy or use as a way of adding engagement to a brand, to others that might be a prime example of what gamification ‘is not’, and instead gamification is about using game mechanics or play for whatever purpose. It also gets used for marketing, branding and education. Which results in it being a very broad term that means whatever you want it to mean. Just don’t expect anyone you are talking to use the same meaning.
2. Is there a necessity to understand gamification as a technique, rather than a concept, of implementation?
First you have to redefine it. Get everyone to agree your definition, then we can decide if it is a technique.
3. What should (if anything) the industry do to universally understand gamification?
They should do everything they can to avoid using the word, and actually just try and describe what they are doing. Using games to promote engagement in learning or with products? Fine. Using reward schemes for the same purpose? Fine. Using a game with educational content to try to support some specific curriculum? Fine.
But if you call it gamification there can be no universal understanding, because it is a broad term with no universal agreement over what is or is not gamification.
4. With schools still sitting primarily on the side of a theory-based approach with written exams (with the exception of some subjects) and games being predominantly practical, where do games fit in to the current Curriculum for Excellence?
I can’t really answer that. Are schools really as you describe? As far as I understand the Curriculum for Excellence is all about moving away from that form of education. I think you are focusing on Highers, but I don’t really know much about what is happening there.
Anyway, game design and development are explicitly in the CfE in a few places – so primary school children might try and design a game for example. Some other activities that are in CfE revolve around creating art or potentially even creating the game itself.
So games are there. The question is whether or not teachers are going to cover these elements, and whether they are confident and ready to do so.
5. Do you believe gamification can detract from the creativity of an individual in order to meet a pre-determined requirement or set of rules?
If you mean do points-based reward systems reduce creativity – it seems likely. Certainly Chris Hecker’s GDC talk on Achievements does dive into the role of reward systems versus free choice. Certain types of reward are more compatible with free choice, other less so.
Creatively meeting requirements is in itself a skill I guess – but I'm not an expert on creativity!
6. Finally, in your opinion, what more (if anything) can be done to bridge, convince or introduce the concept of games into education?
I had thought that a lot of great work had been happening – driven by the Consolarium – to get games used more commonly in classes. In some cases (e.g. Guitar Hero in primary schools) these are not being used as educational games but as a cornerstone of cross-curricular projects and activities. Others (Dr Kawashima) have a much more obvious educational use.
But I picked up at the Learning Through Games event that the central funding for Consolarium stopped, and that there is no more central activity to really drive this forward – and it is clear that many schools have yet to really engage with the potential use of games.
I think that games are more usually used as a very peripheral activity – educational online games are often used as a kind of ‘free time’ learning activity: Kids get taken to the ICT suite, the teacher might not have any IT teaching in particular, so the kids get to log into Education City and play some games for 40 minutes before the next class. That kind of use is AFAIK quite commonplace, but it certainly isn’t applying the full potential of games, nor is it really meeting the vision of the CfE – but it is perhaps what more teachers are comfortable with.
Game development is something of a different story from using games, but again there are real issues of whether teachers have the skills and more importantly the confidence to bring this into class.
I’d echo Derek Robertson in saying that it won’t really get embedded until it is a mandatory part of teacher training and continuing professional development.
- - - - - - - - -
The wheel of my research is in motion, and I would like to extend my gratitude to Daniel for taking the time to do this for us.
I'd like to know more of your opinions though. If you'd like to get involved with my research, or with Amber Glass in general, please send an email (amberglassbroadcast@gmail.com).
Andrew Reid
Managing Director
No comments:
Post a Comment