Gamification!?!

For this question I first had to think about what total virtual immersion means? Is it like a head cold where the affects are only felt in one part of the body or is it more? I think most every one first thinks of any number of VR goggles that are now quite ubiquitous and very affordable for a basic VR experience. Often the VR user in a non game application of VR is passively watching content in an immersive virtual mapscape. Here is where the gamification can make the VR experience truly immersive, not perhaps in the physical sense and in touch smell or taste but in the cognitive sense engaging the prefrontal cortex in more complex problem solving and coupling that with VR enhanced occipital lobe excitement. I believe the risk and decision making of game theory create enhanced experiences for a virtual scenario vs passive observation. Things are truly memorable when there is some risk and personal investment on the line. Of course levels of immersion will be different for various individuals, and there is the danger of creating virtual environments that cannot be distinguished from reality creating potentially adverse or even fatal outcomes. I have imagined a not so distant future where historical and even perhaps future VR models of learning could take place on site taking a VR cohort on a time travel journey using minimal resources but creating an extremely immersive experience based on the level of VR equipment used. For example in a medical application, an advanced version of the classic Milton Bradley game of “operation” could be designed to walk surgeons through complex procedures entirely in a VR environment with no danger to a real patient and reward system for each process performed to perfection and penalties for costly slip ups. 

To answer this question was to look  back at our journey through applied game theories, the latest new gamified applications shared by peers, and my own experiences as member of team Megalodon creating gamified classroom curriculum. I thought it best to revisit and capture my own “pearls” over the last ten weeks in this blog to see if my perspective have changed, grown, or remained the same.

WK-1″When I work with adult learners they are usually asked to assimilate a great deal of information in a short amount of time with no contextual basis for their own individual learning style. This manifests in knowledge gaps, boredom, drowsiness or spend more resources having to review it again anyway. It seems that not only games but more specifically the science or game theory in the game could unlock new levels of engagement for any age learner.”

WK-2 “I imagine the sensory aspect of gameplay as an undefined frontier...what parts of the body and brain will be challenged. e.g. Pokemon go brought pokemon gamers out into the real world searching for virtual objects. Was it the game or the hunt and ensuing shenanigans that was the draw? What ever happened to Tamagachi...it seems making engaging games is an ever moving target that appeals to some core cognitive similarities.”

WK-3 “After being inspired by classmates blogs it clear that using game like elements to create sticky learning events is what we all want. Participants that are motivated by either a sense of belonging that goes beyond the content or perhaps options to be successful that may not follow only a few select paths to the glory. Some educators use the points and scoring as a way to build that momentum...I am a fan of the Materas method of building buy-in with rock solid design elements (it looks cool therefore I will try it out) and maybe some compelling user interface elements like augmented reality circa Pokemon go. So now your students are bought into the “ecosystem” of your learning event and the reward currency is within the game itself and motivation incentives become addictive like giving breaks on due dates or extra free time or privileges etc. e.g. work hard...get in game loot!”

WK-4 “An interesting concept was that of “Hard Fun” which to me seems a bit oxymoronic in word construction as everyone knows “easy” is fun and “hard” is just... hard. The idea behind the hard fun would include using cognitive parts of the brain around strategy and achieving objectives. When this is balanced with a students perceived ability to play theoretically this would create a flow state but when out of balance creates frustration and disinterest.”

WK-6 “I was inspired by a game designers (Amy Green) ability to create a game that helps children deal with the challenges of losing a family member with Cancer. She created a game called “That Dragon Cancer” the object of the game is unwinable as it is about the struggle, journey and loss. In describing the game Amy states "We made a game that’s hard to play,“ she says, "because the hardest moments of our lives change us more than any goal we could ever accomplish.” I believe games like this are the “new world” for gamification as the concept of a game, digital or otherwise transforms to meet new challenges we face.”

WK-7 “In Douglas K. ed tech teacher article he shared a few different ways to use the Bartle as a method of understanding his class base to create better collaborative groups. For example after collected students Bartle results he would sort them by percentage in the four gamer domains of Explorer, Achiever, Killer and Socializer. At this point he could allow the student to ensure that teams are built representing each type or he could assign groups of like minded individuals to work on a particular aspect of a project that played to their “type” strengths.”

Wk-8 “Matera, in his classroom by building a “common language” was creating a highly functioning team environment similar to what you would see at a startup tech company with a culture of success! When I develop training for an employer I often start by asking questions around common language and company culture to help build a narrative that incorporates these elements into the design.”

WK-9 “As an example of how I would like to model game mechanics in the classroom, I attended the Association for talent development conference in Cupertino last march and sit in on a breakout session by Accenture. Accenture employees get a prompt to collaborate in all forms of social learning through a game called the Addo Agnitio Award—Latin for share knowledge—or A3 for short. Employees complete “missions” by earning A3 points when they connect, contribute, or champion within learning boards, The Stream, communities, or other social learning channels. (ATD Learning)By completing missions, participants earn badges like “Rock Star” and “Guru.” Scores are reset each quarter to give newcomers a chance to shine. The badges are displayed on each employee’s Accenture Knowledge Exchange page, and a leaderboard shows profile photos of top scorers for the week, month, quarter, and all time.”

WK-10 “I have had approximately 300 learners pass through my trainings and the highest engagement activity as reported by post class survey is a game/activity I do called “look up look down”. I do it directly after lunch as participants are returning bleary eyed from lunch to a stuffy training room. The game is simple but always produces laughter and a small amount of discomfort having to look directly into someone elses eyes. What I have learned from this is that a game does not have to be complex to get buy in but it does need to get all players involved at a certain level, possibly be a bit uncomfortable momentarily, and have some winners to celebrate. I have participated in trainings leveraging virtual treasure hunts for competency specific treasures...In the past six months I also have mixed it up with creative based activities asking participant what examples of great look like and then asking for drawn illustrations of their ideas along with words that capture the essence...Its cool to see an ER doc from Boston engaging and laughing with an environmental service tech from Scammon bay along with a nurse from Michigan. Play allows us to perform better than a standardized setting might allow. When we are in newly formed learning/game groups, a galvanizing key is the connection of our fellow teammates, if there is minimal connection it is difficult for each to know each other and share strengths that can make the team more powerful.

This weeks reflection is short in that, my time was spent researching applications introduced in fellow classmates blogs. Erika has used OSMO in the past with her classes. I remember when OSMO first came out at the time my son was about 3 years old and I was working at Apple so the timing was perfect. I was a great blend of iPad playing and manipulatives very engaging and cool, I am impressed that OSMO continues to innovate with new storylike based ways to use the OSMO platform. Cheri and Galina both shared there experiences with ClassDojo which I found very cool, this interface is clean, simple and powerful. Cheri had some great ideas around creating guilds to craft more effective teams. This plays into a bigger theme that gamification of the classroom does not mean going out and designing a game from scratch...incorporating game mechanics e.g. rewards, levels into existing platforms can time travel your class forward to the good and memorable experiences your are trying to create with out the intellectual jet lag of learning something entirely new. Yep I signed up for my new ClassDojo account for some testing! I also enjoyed Sam’s recommendation for ClassCraft where the point it too gamify but the students are involved in the creation process from the start. It also has a robust backend that supports integrations with Google, Microsoft and Clever platforms. So in short my mirrored reflection is that of appreciation to all the suggestions that came from this weeks responses! 

Matera, speaks about the importance of theme at the outset of story creation for your game. Most often I have a groups of adult learners that are being exposed to new on boarding information or a new software application or process. Naturally an explorer theme is the obvious choice, however it don’t believe its as easy as picking out a “Tomb Raider” theme and your set to gamify. Depending on the content of the training this may come off as campy and unprofessional. The idea is to transform the learning into a lighter and more involving process without losing focus on the long-term results. Primarily for the classroom environments I work in, the audience is new or existing employees learning what it take s to be successful in their new role or if already in role how to master a new competency. As the labor market becomes more competitive, a talented employee enjoys a lot more freedom in where they want to work. The trend is that Smart companies are focusing on two key factors to attract and retain the best people: employee engagement and employee experience. However, these terms are often confused. Simply put, employee engagement is the ongoing part of the employee experience, and the employee experience is the journey a worker takes with an organization. Experience can be parsed into seven distinct units: attract, hire, onboard, engage, perform, develop, and depart. The majority of an employee’s time will be spent engaging, performing, and developing. Engagement describes the base material, emotional, and social needs that must be met for an employee to perform their work well. The two inform each other, and both need to be addressed if your high performers are going stick around.  With all that said its no surprise that modern employees simply do not have their needs (in terms of engagement and experience) met. Creating engaging relevant stories can help, Matera speaks of four key areas of story development: theme, setting, character development and adding conflict to the story of your game (Matera pg. 72-73). In the past I have used role play scenarios having participants act out/role play various learning moments. The gamification pivot here would be converting a live classroom role play into an online simulation with the “character” development and “action” that Matera speaks of in his book.

Chapter seven delves into the mechanics e.g. Levels, experience points, or in other words the cool things you are playing for. Ultimately, these incentive mechanics have pros and cons appealing to some players and not others. As an example of how I would like to model game mechanics in the classroom, I attended the Association for talent development conference in Cupertino last march and sit in on a breakout session by Accenture. Accenture employees get a prompt to collaborate in all forms of social learning through a game called the Addo Agnitio Award—Latin for share knowledge—or A3 for short. Employees complete “missions” by earning A3 points when they connect, contribute, or champion within learning boards, The Stream, communities, or other social learning channels. (ATD Learning)

By completing missions, participants earn badges like “Rock Star” and “Guru.” Scores are reset each quarter to give newcomers a chance to shine. The badges are displayed on each employee’s Accenture Knowledge Exchange page, and a leaderboard shows profile photos of top scorers for the week, month, quarter, and all time. Creating gamified storylines can be double-edged sword. You have to ensure you are motivating the right behaviors.

References:

[1] Matera, M. (2015). Explore like a pirate: Gamification and game-inspired course design to engage, enrich, and elevate your learners. San Diego, CA: Dave Burgess Consulting,Incorporated.

Looking back over the week, and reading many a blog, I am inspired greatly by the application and dedication it take to be an educator today with the added layer of technology. WE already ask our teacher to do so much, oh by the way please learn this new system and start using it by next week in class...I am constantly reminded of the need to let the technology and technospeak get out of the way to allow the “flow” to happen. I enjoyed the understandings shared in blogs around “common language” and can relate as many organizations race to get the own business cultures rallied around these concepts. Interestingly I was responding to another classmates post on this and it reminded me of a TED talk on body language and the measurable effect it can have on us. I believe this is where some of the magic lies in using game language and games themselves to push the rewarding effects of learning into new areas. We have already looked at data around the faces and mindsets we display when playing so too the behaviors and body language are part of the learning as well.

Working in technology for many years, there seemed to always be a new self help book on building up skills to be more successful, organized, a better leader etc. In 2005, I had a manager/mentor that read many of these types of books. Up to this point I had never really given “self improvement books” a chance as the “buzz words” in the books seemed flashy and geared towards selling books rather than real world results. This particular mentor changed that perception as he was wildly successful and credited his ideas, business culture concepts and business lingo to the books he was inspired by. Often organizations such as AT&T, Xerox, and even Apple develop internally or purchase systems for measuring competencies, performance and developing a common language based around said competencies for building successful employees. I was reminded of this as I read chapter 4 of Matera’s book on the language of learning. On pg. 38 Matera calls out his own inspiration from a fellow teacher and friend Adam Moreno on the concept of “purpose driven learning”. This style of learning being identified by ten qualities of highly successful individuals: confidence, creativity, enthusiasm, effort, focus, resilience, initiative, curiosity, dependability and empathy. Matera, in his classroom by building a “common language” was creating a highly functioning team environment similar to what you would see at a startup tech company with a culture of success! When I develop training for an employer I often start buy asking questions around common language and company culture to help build a narrative that incorporates these elements into the design. No one wants to work toward “hollow or nebulous goals” at work so the journey in your design should allow for learner ownership in driving the process. (Matera, 2015)  Matera references Gabe Zichermann work in gamification, creating the SAS model for motivation and the G Summit for expanding game mechanics in business education and non entertainment industries. Gabe has a great TED talk on kids and game effect on intelligence here: https://www.ted.com/talks/gabe_zichermann_how_games_make_kids_smarter#t-354563. I find it intensely inspiring to hear data the supports positive neurological growth benefits when using various gaming platforms, however I do believe in moderation as we can ill afford cognitive gains at the expense of other undiscovered developmental drawbacks.

References:

[1] Zichermann, G. (2011, June). How games make kids smarter. Retrieved October 18, 2018, from https://www.ted.com/talks/gabe_zichermann_how_games_make_kids_smarter#t-354563

Best infographics of 2018

Exploring the Bartle test was fun and conflicting as I found some of the answers challenging because i like both the options equally. In the end I was heavily skewed to the Explorer style of game play. This seem to play out for all of the blogs I read for this assignment week. After reading the additional materials, I believe that the Bartle test was a great start especially for MUD type games, however a majority of gamers play games of a different architecture and as such the classification should evolve to meet the characteristics of these player groups as well. How cool would it be to be part of creating a relevant Bartle 2.0 type test that could organize gamer characteristic/attributes/ similar to what Pandora or Spotify does for music. This would allow for complex collaborative combinations based on profiles of gamer play styles.  But is that really the goal?  Should we be using better user analytics to build super teams?  Yes we want to create compelling game the minimize “player churn” is it going to far to preselect based on a criteria? Or is understanding our fellow players motivations more powerful for the achieving the learning goal?

World champ MUD game platform as recommended by Bartle himself:

https://www.achaea.com

Initially I was surprised at my result (posted in this blog), as I went through the questions I felt like my stance on what kind of gamer I was changed depending on the question and sometimes in conflict with previous answers. After reading  the class assignment materials I have a much better understanding of my result. The qualities of an “explorer” according to the Bartle are that of problem solver, collector of knowledge, and surprise, surprise...that of a teacher. I could definitely align with the statement: “Explorers are often those kids who will do all of the work for a project — then forget to turn it in. They’ve already gotten the value from the project. Turning it in for the grade is just not at the forefront of their minds.” (Kiang, 2016) When you have a base line for understanding your player audience its easier to tailor the experience for engagement. In Douglas K. ed tech teacher article he shared a few different ways to use the Bartle as a method of understanding his class base to create better collaborative groups. For example after collected students Bartle results he would sort them by percentage in the four gamer domains of Explorer, Achiever, Killer and Socializer. At this point he could allow the student to ensure that teams are built representing each type or he could assign groups of like minded individuals to work on a particular aspect of a project that played to their “type” strengths. Richard Bartles work goes into detail about the interactions between each of the categories of MUD player type, with this information adjustments can be made in World, interaction, player and acting to skew the player type experience towards balance or equilibrium.(Bartle,1990a) Bartles work was based on early (1970) MUD models of game play, advancement in every category of game play has rendered Bartles work as useful but not as valid based on current user types. Additionally Bartles model was not intended as a universal model for all digital game play and ultimately not empirically based. (Dixon, 2011) In Dan Dixons abstract he references the work of Nick Yee and his research based approach moving away from “gamer type” classification to more behavior and psychosocial. Essentially all the work done on the motivations and characteristic of digital game play is insightful and can be used for designing better interactions, and experiences for players however should be used as a guide for game design and not as the rule for gamer classification, especially with the complexity of the current gaming culture.

References:

[1] B. (2016, January 06). Use the Four Gamer Types to Help Your Students Collaborate - from Douglas Kiang on Edudemic. Retrieved October 13, 2018, from https://edtechteacher.org/use-the-four-gamer-types-to-help-your-students-collaborate-from-douglas-kiang-on-edudemic/

[2] HEARTS, CLUBS, DIAMONDS, SPADES: PLAYERS WHO SUIT MUDS. (1990). Retrieved October 13, 2018, from http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm#1