Keywords: Gamification, play, competition, affection, sociability, higher education learning.

Transcription

1 APA: Ejsing-Duun, S., & Karoff, H. S. (2014). Gamification of a higher education course: What s the fun in that?. I C. Busch (red.), Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Game Based Learning - ECGBL (s ). Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited. Gamification of a higher education course What s the fun in that? Stine Ejsing-Duun, Helle Skovbjerg Karoff Aalborg University Copenhagen, Department of Communication, IT and Learning Design, Copenhagen, Denmark sed@hum.aau.dk karoff@hum.aau.dk Abstract: Does play belong to the learning situation? What kind of sociability is promoted in the gamification of education? This article explores how student behaviour and interaction change when introducing game elements into a university course, for example by awarding points for different types of active participation during class. Based on student responses and actions during the course, as well as on the teacher experiences and observations, the article underlines the importance of understanding how the teacher can affect students' motivation, social contact and their experience of the learning situation through a balanced use of learning, play elements and game elements. This paper, which examines a course worth five ECTS points on gamification and comprised 20 students from Aalborg University Copenhagen in autumn 2013, evaluates the course and presents a qualitative data analysis (Flick 2014) of observations and interviews concerning the course. The article's empirical data consists of observations of teaching and audio recordings from the first and last lecture, a 45-minute individual interview with 14 students, 15 questionnaire responses and 16 written student evaluations of the course. Furthermore, the empirical data include 19 responses from the students on their motivation for participating in the course. This paper presents an analysis of how students felt about the interaction they experienced during the gamified course and is based on a specific framework (Bateson 2000) and the type of sociability (Simmel 1979) that occurred in relationship to the play that took place. As a result, this paper contributes to the literature by presenting and discussing its findings on the interaction we design for when using game elements in a learning context. Experimentation and the interactions that take place between peers and with teachers are how students learn about the topic at hand. Inviting students to participate in a gamified course on gamification is a meta-pedagogical approach that allowed students to experience gamification and learn from it. This means that the educational design was also supposed to provoke the students at times. We found that playful competiveness among students promotes more activity, but does so at a cost as students found the approach stressful and limiting. Playfulness that enhances affective and enjoyable sociability, however, can leave room for experimenting and having fun but does it distract students from the task at hand? Keywords: Gamification, play, competition, affection, sociability, higher education learning. 1. Introduction Gamification is a phenomenon involving the use of game design elements in non-playful contexts (Deterding et al. 2011). Using the Youtopia gamification system to analyse the case under study, we awarded students points during the course for completing a variety of specific tasks related to its learning aims. Based on our empirical analysis, we show how students relate to the interaction that the course structure and in particular the game elements enhanced. In this context, this paper discusses the relationship between game dynamics and play dynamics within the learning context. A criticism in relation to the use of games in learning situations is that there is a dichotomy between the game and teaching (Hanghøj 2011). In order to bridge the two and frame the game within the learning situation, it is essential to ensure an appropriate relationship between the learners activities and expected outcomes, while simultaneously making sure that space is available for learners to playfully explore the opportunities the situations offer. In other words, there must be a connection between actions, learning goals and game goals, and this connection must be understood in a nonlinear fashion, as an explorative dynamic that learners can engage in (Ejsing-Duun et al. 2013). If, however, the relationship between the educational demands and the gameful approach is unbalanced in such a way that the playful elements are difficult to find and the evaluation system tracking the students progress is framed as being work related. This dilemma is discussed in relationship to the

2 gamification course by drawing on theories of play (Apter 1991, Bateson 2000, Gadamer 2004, Huizinga 1993, Karoff et al. 2013, Simmel 1979), theories of games and learning (Hanghøj 2011), and gamification in higher education (Sheldon 2012). The main contribution of this paper is to show the importance and role of a playful approach in higher education and to demonstrate how gamification that turns into mere pointification (Robertson 2010) will miss its aim: motivating the learner. This paper shows that balancing a playful approach and the formal curriculum indeed allows the intrinsic motivation of students to grow instead of simply replacing it with extrinsic motivation (Deci et al. 2001). Furthermore, a balancing approach is what the students asked for. 2. Case presentation The elective course, Gamification: Digital games in everyday spaces, was designed to provide students with knowledge and experience concerning how games and game mechanics are realised in the context of everyday life (physical) space. The course was held at Aalborg University (AAU) Copenhagen, where problem-based learning, which allows students to learn via problem solving. Working with real cases, often in collaboration with other students (Tambouris et al. 2012), allows students to learn. The gamification course involved specific problems, mostly designed by the teachers. For example, students had to improve Nike s gamification platform Nike+. Comprised of six four-hour sessions, the course had 20 students. Instead of a traditional exam, the class was pass/fail and involved either a three-day assignment or satisfactory active participation. AAU generally defines satisfactory active participation as an attendance rate of 80%, but for the gamification course the pass/fail criteria involved earning at least earn 7000 points by performing study-related activities, including: Posting a personal motivation statement before the course (1000 points); reading the items on the syllabus (200 points); writing a summary of a text from the syllabus (300 points); attending each session (250 points); doing the tasks assigned for each session (before, during and after) (500 points); earning points for different parameters of the best solution ( points); approval of a make-up assignment ( points, depending on scope of the task); making the question of the day (100 points); writing about the course on social media using the hashtag #gamificationaau (100 points); and sharing stories about gamification, relevant resources and additional literature (100 points). The course design was intended to help study the effect on student participation of a course that involved assessing students by awarding points as a means of introducing the dynamic of play and competition. Selecting gamification as the topic of the course also allowed students to gain first-hand knowledge about gamification. In that sense, the aim of the pedagogical approach was twofold: To present theories of gamification and to explore how gamification as a pedagogical approach made sense. Youtopia ( a content management system, was used to keep track of student scores and to allow students to follow their own progress, also compared to their classmates. Youtopia made connecting the gamification to a given activity possible as points and badges could be awarded. Prior to beginning the course, the teachers defined which activities were eligible to receive points and how much weight each activity should be given. This involved a didactic discussion about incorporating the required curriculum. During the course, students registered what they did on Youtopia for approval by their teachers. Approved activities were given a certain amount of points, some of which elicited extra points, for example, if a student was in first place on the leader board. The activities were evaluated in different ways. In some cases, the students rated each other's work, while in others the teachers did the assessing. In one case, a teacher went against the majority decision and gave points to a group that had not received the majority vote. 3. Gamification playability Gamification is a design approach in which game elements are associated with a non-game-related activity (Deterding et al. 2011). When game elements are used in contexts not intended for play, the purpose is not to demand a playful approach to, for example, teaching, but to provide a planning tool that can help keep the learner in the learning process with specific goals in mind. In particular, immediate and explicit feedback can be given on activities related to those goals. One of the reasons for incorporating elements that remind participants about the goal and their progression is to motivate them to continue an activity. According to Deterding (2011), motivation occurs in a given individual when the relationship between a given object's features and an individual s abilities allows the individual to experience that his or her needs are satisfied when the individual interacts with the object. This is consistent with Apter s (1989) definition of motivation as a relationship between feeling

3 the need to experience a certain mood, the objective pursued and the possible means for achieving a certain goal. Gamification of an artefact thus occurs based on creating motivation by using feedback to give the user a clear sense of the goals and the means for achieving those goals. The phenomenon of gamification has been criticised for simply adding a scoring system to an activity and thus leading to pointification (Robertson 2010). Nicholson (2012) argues that gamification through external rewards for certain behaviour reduces the individual's internal motivation over time, replacing it with external motivation. Consequently, gamified processes are not always motivating. In order to keep the individual motivated, one must continue to provide this external reward (Nicholson 2012). The premise in the context of this study, however, is that the individual has intrinsic motivation. If an individual does not have inner motivation, then external rewards can only increase motivation to a limited extent (Nicholson 2012). 4. Gamification, playing and learning Gamification is often seen as a way to motivate people to do something they are not intrinsically motivated to do. In the gamification course, for instance, students were rewarded with points and badges for their progress, but playing a game is not (only) about earning points and badges. In particular, games sharpen players curiosity, challenge them, present a situation through a perspective other than the players own (via an avatar), and let the player experience a story and act it out (Kapp 2012). In addition to generally having clear objectives, a clear progression and clear evaluation criteria, games provide continuous feedback and a response to the individual s progress. In relation to learning, it is useful to understand gamification as an approach that uses game-based mechanics, and aesthetics and that employs game thinking to engage users, motivate action, encourage learning and promote problem solving (Kapp 2012). An argument for introducing game elements in education is that students are not interested in learning and must be entertained. This premise is a poor starting point for the gamification of a course as the gamification must be based on how to increase intrinsic. In other words: we must gamify with a playful approach. If the goal is to apply gamification with a playful approach as a motivator for learning purposes, considering the notion of sociability introduced in 1917 by German sociologist and philosopher George Simmel s Soziologie der Geselligkeit is useful. Simmel describes sociability as a union with others, as an association constituted by being together for no other reason than to be together. In the context of this study, it is essential that sociability is the pure feeling of togetherness. Simmel (1979, p. 255) wrote that: Since sociability in its pure form has no ulterior end, no content, and results outside itself, it is orientated completely towards personalities. Since nothing but the satisfaction of the impulse to sociability although with a resonance left over it is to be gained, the process remains, in its conditions in its results, strictly limited to its personal bearers (Simmel 1979:255). This quote shows that sociability is a way of being together, constituted by the specific individuals in the situation. For example, when people play, they are together in the moment and their way of being is cheerful. Simmel continues by stating that this cheerful sociability is "the play-form of association" (1979, p. 255), which means that, combined, play and socialising are a key issue. Apart from sociability, the concept of framing in relation to game situations (cf. Ejsing-Duun 2011) is also relevant to our analysis. Frames separate what is and what is not in focus. They enhance the elements that should be interpreted in a special way and dispense of those with no particular significance (Bateson 2000). Like a picture frame, the boundaries of classical single-player video games are often explicit, but are explored and negotiated between players. With regard to a playful approach to gamification, the point is that teachers are able to frame the teaching situation towards playfulness. The term magic circle is often used as a metaphor to describe a frame that separates play and the ordinary (e.g. seriousness, work, daily life). Huizinga (1993, p. 21) explains that inside the magic circle, the laws and customs of ordinary life no longer count. We are different and do things differently. The magic circle suspends worldly laws and customs during the game, according to Huizinga. When we play, we can tease or we can steal. Our actions count differently; they do not mean what they would normally mean. The magic circle is an example of a playground in form and

4 function within which special rules apply: All play moves and has its being within a playground marked off beforehand either materially or ideally, deliberately or as a matter of course. [ ] The arena, the cardtable, the magic circle, the temple, the stage, the screen, the court of justice, etc., are all in form and function playgrounds, i.e., forbidden spots, isolated, hedged round, hallowed, within [which] special rules obtain. All are temporary worlds within the ordinary world, dedicated to the performance of an act apart (Huizinga, 1993, p. 18). As the above quotation indicates, the playground is a temporary, spatial setting dedicated to acts separate from normal behaviour. The limits can be there from the beginning (designed) or established through play, and are not necessarily explicit. Although the term magic circle has been linked to Huizinga in relation to his definition of play, he only used this term a few times, most often when referring to his playground example. Huizinga (1993, p. 21) relates to the boundary between play and the ordinary in his definition of play:... as a free activity standing quite consciously outside ordinary life as being not serious, but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly. It is an activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it. It proceeds within its own proper boundaries of time and space, according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner. It promotes the formation of social groupings, which tend to surround themselves with secrecy and to stress their difference from the common world by disguise or other means. Play stands out from ordinary because it is not serious and because it has specific meaningfulness. Huizinga (1993) also states that actions performed as play do not refer to anything outside of the activity itself. Some students suggest introducing tasks such as baking a cake or sharing a cartoon about a topic to frame learning situations through gamification, which is one way of bringing not serious into focus. The frames Bateson (2000) stresses as key components of play are always established through negotiation and interpretation of intentions. Above and beyond the uniqueness of their content, however, these associations are accompanied by a feeling for and satisfaction with the very fact that one is associated with others and that the solitariness of the individual is resolved into a union with others. This can occur through competition or through togetherness. 6. Analysis Our analysis shows how gaming in the form of giving points and providing a space for sociability and play is important to the students and thus sheds light on how gamification impacts student interaction. First, the analysis explores the framing of the course, which is followed by an examination of the students discussion of the nature of the tasks given and the relationship between work and play. Finally, the interaction between students is analysed with emphasis on the way they behave together. During the course, sociability was actualised in two important ways: 1) through competition and discussion, which is also the approach (1997) describes in his play study of Italian children and a disagreement among them; or 2) through enjoyment and affection, which leaves no room for discussion, just being, and is a type of sociability that is about agreement (Gadamer 2004). Games revolve around artificial conflicts (Salen and Zimmerman 2004) that players engage in solving and where they can cooperate or compete to achieve either agreement or disagreement. According to Huizinga (2008), play assures elasticity in relationships, thus permitting tensions that would not otherwise be tolerated if the individuals experiencing them were not playing. In the evaluation of the course, students mention the desire for sociability as an important part of participating in a learning process. One student, Kevin, 1 suggested including additional playful tasks in the gamified course. He imagines how a wheel of fortune could work in the course: "When you click the wheel of fortune task, a random assignment appears that might, for example, involve baking a cake for the team. They [the tasks ed.] should be a little 1 The names of informants are changed in the article out of courtesy.

5 more frivolous, like drawing a simple gamification cartoon or uploading a telling image from your next group work. It should be posted where the rest of us might notice that, ha, ha, it s fun, or cake is on the way." Kevin expresses a desire for a more cheerful approach towards the tasks, one that promotes having a laugh or eating a cake together. A need exits to frame the sociability towards something merrier. It is important to observe how gamification of the course allows for different types of sociability, which leads tithe question: How can teachers take this kind of sociability into account when a course is designed and held? Student course evaluations show that they focus not only on themselves, but also take their peers into account. For example, Dave is concerned that weaker students will be adversely affected because of the competitive spirit that frames sociability in a gamification situation, a comment that arose after Kevin stated that he tried not to be too active in presentations to avoid placing his team members at a competitive disadvantage. We are interested in how sociability constitutes in the gamified learning process, which leads to another question: How can we take this form of sociability into consideration as educators? The interview indicates that students consider and are affected by the way game elements influence their actions. This is reflected in Dave s comment about weaker students subsequent to Kevin explaining how he held back during presentations. Megan, on the other hand, dislikes how she gets bitchy about the points other students give her team. Highly motivated by the competition, she ended up winning, also because she completed several extra tasks that were not mandatory for the course. In order for the students to shift back and forth between the this is a course and this is play framesets, the teachers and students need to maintain focus on the game itself, which is done through framing. If this does not occur, interest in participating in the game decreases. The students suggest, for example, that who is leading the high scores should be checked during class. The attention given to the game should be continuous, an idea that a student named Eve points out: I think it's really important to keep [the state of the game] fully updated so that players receive immediate feedback and thus feel like part of the game. During the course players needed to register their activities independently to claim the points they had earned, but the teachers needed to approve what they recorded. Delayed approval had a negative effect on establishing a game frame during the course. There was a consensus among several students that registering points was tedious at times because: Registering points was more like work, while others enjoyed collecting their points. Some students registered points just to pass the course, but nonetheless felt earning points motivated them. One student suggested that at the beginning of each lesson the class should note who was at the top of the leader board in order to give the gaming aspect of the course more prominence. After this suggestion was made, another student added in jest that then we could make fun of the person with the lowest rank, which caused the class to laugh, even though the idea was meant seriously. The suggestion shows that stressing the importance of the leader board would affect the way students interact toward a more competitive state of mind. In their written evaluation of the course, students noted that the high score approach was not necessarily a good idea because it would be difficult to avoid giving people already good at the subject another success experience and having the poorer students (who are the ones you most likely will want to motivate) experience yet another defeat. In addition to implementing points and leader boards, the aim of the course was also to promote a playful approach. One student pointed out that during the course an increased focus on being playful and experimental, both in terms of using new technologies and the development of games, emerged. She found this development to be positive and motivating. The exchange below between two students presents a suggestion for improving the course and shows how they thought play elements could in fact be promoted even more in the course. They emphasised the importance of having challenging activities in order to experience a sense of flow and that doing well in performing course activities should elicit in-course rewards: Megan: [the course] must be challenging, but it should still be accessible [...] Kevin: [ ] in fact there is no progression in this [course]; you can enter whenever you want, and then move ahead. So we talked about building up the system where you had

6 to participate in the earlier lessons to gain access to subsequent tasks. Access to additional texts would not be possible unless you had read today's text. In this conversation, the students discuss how studying more could be used as an actual reward. This indicates that they assume that studying is part of the game and that studying and playing do not need to stand in strong opposition to one another. The subsequent comment by Megan stresses that a balance needs to exist between being playful and being goal oriented: We think that one particular challenge was how telic the course became because, damn it, it's about education and obviously it looks to the future, and of course we have certain objectives. But couldn t it be possible to do something with Youtopia to make it a little more playful and a little more fun? In order to challenge this dynamic, Megan and her partner suggest making a wheel of fortune that would provide participants with random, light-hearted tasks, e.g. bringing a cake to a lesson or making a brief gamification comic strip. Ideally, the activities should be a combination of both random and planned activities. In play, the level of self-determination is a key factor. Megan and Kevin also emphasise this and point out a considerable challenge in the course: It s a challenge that pretty much all of the course goals were determined in advance by the teachers. This is why we d like to suggest making some user-generated challenges. We suggested finding a non-academic description of gamification to lure people with. It might very well be interesting and inform you about new trends. According to several of the students, it was important that the course challenged them in different ways and that it focused on more than just one type of challenge, e.g. reading texts. Another student suggested that token rewards, such as a chocolate bar or a hug, should be given that were neither points nor badges and that existed independently of the game. Implementing this would imply expanding the magic circle beyond typical course activities and goals. Depending on the rewards, this idea could also affect the way students were together towards a more playful interaction. By setting up goals themselves participants would, they imagine, feel more ownership toward the points earned. A system like this would involve choosing tasks that were in keeping with the framework of the course and the tasks would have to be approved by the teachers. Thus the activity does not maintain its purpose in itself. Two students noted that: In order for us to have some educational accountability [the task] must be approved by a teacher and the teacher would decide how many points you get for completing the task. They add that points might not be the right kind of reward as they perhaps move the focus away from the activity and towards the reward, thus spoiling the playful approach to the subject matter. The following statement by two students indicates that they see earning points and feeling playful as opposites: There was a lot of focus on points and not so much on "play" or [it was] more fluid. But not everyone felt this way. Two students lamented that: There had been too much group work, which was more play than learning. Some of the academic [content?] was lost. More lecturing [was needed]. To these students play and learning do not go hand in hand. They connect activities within the framework of academia as not being playful and therefore request more lecturing. A few (three) students replied that getting points was disruptive sometimes. One of them wrote that this was because the focus suddenly shifted to chasing points. This affected student interaction because they had to give each other points. Participants relate to each other through the feedback they give and receive. A few recognised that they did not give fair feedback (amount of points) and did not appreciate the feedback they received from others either. This was partly because points provided peer feedback, but also affected the giver s own position in the high-score rankings. One student explained that: people were very strategic, and began setting up game frameworks internally in order to continue playing. The teachers also observed how students became much more focused when tasks were assessed; this focus, however, was primarily on their score rather than on the formative assessment. Students also stated that they preferred being assessed by the more competent teacher because this teacher was not part of the game and could thus provide a fairer, more qualified assessment. 7. Discussion This paper has shown how a balanced approach towards gamification and sociability is preferred and important when it comes to using gamification in a learning process.

7 This paper shows how sociability is affected by the gamification of a course. Students interacted with each other using the game elements for competition in a way that was experienced as being fun for some, sometimes motivating, but also as something that had a negative influence on the sociability among the students. Some students suggested challenges that would promote playfulness and experimentation, while others warned against turning the class room into a sandbox. Preferences for play and game dynamics among the students are contextualised within the specific situation, depending on the students relationships and prerequisites (Ejsing-Duun 2011). Thus, the situation will offer different challenges with each group of students. This makes it somewhat challenging to prepare the course and much less predictable for the educator to predict student reactions towards the course (Biggs and Tang 2011). Sensitivity to the situation is required in order to respond to the sociability that emerges (Simmel 1979). Consequently, no single solution exists that will satisfy every student s needs and interests. The educator, however, needs to consider the balance between course content and play and game elements in relation to the coarse goal and student preferences. The course in this study was an example of a meta-pedagogical approach whose aim was not to show how to gamify in the right way, but to allow the students to experience the topic at hand. This approach can prove to be the answer to the challenges described above since it affords a way to learn about one s own learning processes and those of one s peers. Our analysis of this course showed that provoking students by using different playing and gaming elements was productive. Students were able to reflect on their own preferences and to articulate these (Ejsing-Duun et al. 2014). This accommodates a situation in which educators and students can reflect upon the learning practice and process together and learn from it. 8. Conclusion Game elements are often used in learning contexts to motivate students to learn. This article shows that game elements not only affect motivation (in a negative or positive direction) but also influence how students interact with each other and are together. This sociability is central to the learning environment and thus the outcome of student participation in the course. The article does not argue against a competitive approach, but encourages educators that use gamification to take into account cohesion and the affective and enjoyable sociability that are also a part of play. References Apter, M. (1989) Reversal Theory Motivation, Emotion and Personality, London: Routledge. Apter, M. (1991) 'A structural-phenomenology of play' in Apter, J. H. K. M. J., ed. Adult Play: A Reversal Theory Approach, Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger Bateson, G. (2000) 'A Theory of Play and Fantasy' in Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Chicago: University: Chicago Press, Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011) Teaching for quality learning at university, McGraw-Hill International. Corsaro, W. A. (1997) 'The sociology of childhood', Thousand Oaks. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R. and Ryan, R. M. (2001) 'Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again', Review of Educational Research, 71(1), Deterding, S. (2011) Situated motivational affordances of game elements: A conceptual model, translated by. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. and Nacke, L. (2011) From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification, translated by ACM, Ejsing-Duun, S. (2011) Location-Based Games: From Street to Screen, unpublished thesis (Doctoral), Aarhus University.

8 Ejsing-Duun, S., Hanghøj, T. and Karoff, H. S. (2013) 'Cheating and Creativity in Pervasive Games in Learning Contexts', Proceedings for ECGBL 2013, 8. Ejsing-Duun, S., Hanghøj, T. and Rikke, M. (2014) Gamfication af undervisningen, Aalborg Universitet København, unpublished. Flick, U. (2014) An introduction to qualitative research, Sage. Gadamer, H.-G. (2004) Sandhed og Metode. Grundtræk af en filosofisk Hermeneutik., Århus: Systime Academic. Hanghøj, T. (2011) 'Playful knowledge', An Explorative Study of Educational Gaming. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing. Huizinga, J. (1993) Homo Ludens: Om kulturen oprindelse i leg (Eng.: Homo Ludens. A study of the play element in culture) 2. edition ed., København: Gyldendal. Kapp, K. M. (2012) The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education, John Wiley & Sons. Karoff, H. S., Ejsing-Duun, S. and Hanghøj, T. (2013) 'Playing and Gaming: Studied trough an informal learning setting', in European Conference on Game-based Learning, Porto, October, Nicholson, S. (2012) 'A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification', Games+ Learning+ Society, 8. Robertson, M. (2010) 'Can't play, won't play', Hide&Seek: Inventing new kinds of play, Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. (2004) Rules of Play. Game Design Fundamentals, The MIT Press. Sheldon, L. (2012) The multiplayer classroom: Designing coursework as a game, Cengage Learning. Simmel, G. (1979) 'The sociology of sociability', American Journal of Sociology, 55(3), 7. Tambouris, E., Panopoulou, E., Tarabanis, K., Ryberg, T., Buus, L., Peristeras, V., Lee, D. and Porwol, L. (2012) 'Enabling Problem Based Learning through Web 2.0 Technologies: PBL 2.0', Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(4).