Design e-Learning Like a Game Developer: Provide Incentives for Good Work
You do something great in a game, you get rewarded. In fact, you even get rewarded if you do something simple like bump into a gold coin. If you bump into it, you collect the coin and eventually you’ve bumped into or walked through enough gold coins to purchase something. Games provide incentives for doing what they want you to do.
The search for gold coins, for example, encourages the player to explore the environment and learn more about the game-space in which they are playing. This is a good thing and is encouraged by the game developers.
When you see a master warlock with all his robes, crowns and staff, you know that player has achieved the highest level possible in the game. The player’s character is rewarded with goodies that are visible and can be worn. Within a game, you are given visible signs of success. A larger character, different weapons and more access to different levels. Game give visible incentives for accomplishments.
Games also provide you incentives for completing a level. They give the player a task like resource the dragon and when the player rescues the dragon, he or she is able to advance to the next level. This is seen as a reward by the player and they work hard to move from level to level. Games provide players with new clothes, powers and abilities when they achieve desired levels of skills or knowledge.
E-learning should provide the same level of incentives for doing the right thing. When a learner is in the middle of a lesson, rarely are they given any rewards for learning knowledge. Perhaps they are given an 80% score on the exam but how do they know that is valuable, how do they know they are closer to their goal.
The learning should provide tokens or rewards for certain milestones and then those rewards can be compared against other players to provide incentive and information to the player related to how well they’ve done versus others. Online courses need to provide learners with specific incentives to let them know when they’ve done the right thing or to encourage them to move around the learning-space.
Posted in: Games, Games video games
Leave a Comment (9) ↓
[…] Design e-Learning Like a Game Developer: Provide Incentives for Good Work | Kapp Notes […]
Thanks for the comment, I responded in a blog posting because you triggered some interesting thoughts I have had for a while about Gamification. http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2011/10/in-defense-of-the-term-gamification-as-used-by-learning-professionals/
Just to clarify this poorly-worded sentence of mine from previous comment: “what we can learn from games…” We can learn a TON from games that can be applied to learning. My point is that of the “game elements” used in gamification, typically only *one* is of good use for learning: feedback loops. Most gamification misses the core of what games are about, and it is this meaty core that learning could benefit from, whether in the form of a “serious game” or, more realistically, applied to non-gamey learning. It is the same core found when one engages in ANY thing-they-feel-worth-doing.
I strongly encourage everyone to take another look at Dan Pink’s TED talk for the first hint, although reviewing the decades of research on which it was based sheds powerful light on where we SHOULD be focusing.
You are simply incorrect about games. Well-designed games do NOT reward and incentivize what they want you to do. Just the opposite. Even the ones that have rewards built in are designed so that the rewards are *never* the reason you are doing it. The best games often use no reward structure *at all* because, as you said, they are intrinsically rewarding activators.
There is a severe potential danger of using *external and introjected regulation* (the two forms of extrinsic motivators used in most gamification/incentivized systems) in learning, because of the undermining effect. Decades of research shows this over and over again… That which is *incentivized* leads eventually to Amotivation — the dead last thing we want.
The strong predictors of sustained, long-term behavior are a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, as you said, but with very specific qualifiers on the TYPE of extrinsic motivation. The two types used in gamification/incentive systems, *external and introjected regulators*, are the two associated with reduced motivation or, at the least, poor performance when unregulated. The two forms of extrinsic motivators linked to significant improvements are *identified and integrated regulation*.
The problem is, gamification is easy. And it builds engagement. But it is a false engagement based around a reward system and *not* sustainable. It is not *like* a drug, it is PRECISELY a drug (the dopamine reward system celebrated by gamification proponents). And like any drug system, taking away the drug leaves you… where? There Is some evidence that under just the right circumstances, we can use extrinsic motivators (the “bad” kind in terms of long-term behavior) as a very quick bridge to the “good” kind, but almost nobody is talking about that. What is most often discussed as “good” gamification is the kind that incentivized “the right things”. Unfortunately, in learning, that is exactly what is known to later potentially destroy whatever intrinsic (and identified/integrated) motivation there might one day be for those activities.
In a nutshell, if we resort to gamification we have given up.
Games, well, that is a whole different thing. (and again, well-designed games do *not* use rewards AS the incentive. It is complicated and subtle to explain all the ways in which the rewards in good games are *not* damaging, though remember… Few games — VERY FEW — are lasting. The games people tend to play for a lifetime, like chess or (in many non-western countries where it is one of the most popular games), the ancient game of go… these have zero reward/incentive structures beyond playing the game itself (desire to improve, challenge matched with skill, etc.).
The best video games have this aspect as well.
What we can learn from games is NOT what is found in gamification, with one exception: feedback systems. What we see as rewards are often serving the purpose of meaningful useful feedback, and the quantified self movement has helped show us that instrumentation and feedback is crucial to most forms of learning and performance improvement.
However the biggest predictor of success is still RELEVANCE, and the stunning lack of relevance in most education and even training programs today is our worst enemy. Gamification will sugar coat that and produce “engagement metrics” that look good. But it will do nothing to improve this, while doing potential harm in the process.
Thanks for this very helpful extension of the discussion – I fully agree with your argument.
You stated that:
“There Is some evidence that under just the right circumstances, we can use extrinsic motivators (the “bad” kind in terms of long-term behavior) as a very quick bridge to the “good” kind, but almost nobody is talking about that.”
Just to help me and others follow up – could you reply with specific references/pointers to this evidence?
I completely agree with the article. If you make students aware of “what’s in it for them” if they learn a particular topic, then there are more chances they’d be engaged. Kids are more likely to respond to positive reinforcements because they become aware that they are doing something good (and hopefully fun).
Cammy,
There is a fine line, however, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Some instructional games rely only on incentives but that is not the case for all games, in fact, a careful blend of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational elements can actually enhance retention and motivation but it has to be crafted carefully or it will not work. Context is key but the engaging design is also critical. Thanks for the comment. See you at TK12
I think there’s a fine line to tread here, Karl. I’ve seen some elearning games where the reward system overshadows the learning and the content. If I care more about the coins and am just on a mindless quest to gather coins, then maybe I miss the whole point of the content. Think it’s really easy to slip into this if the right CONTEXT isn’t applied…or if the clicky-clicky bling-bling factor takes over.
Hi Kaplaneduneering,
I was wondering on a similar note,, I want to be a Video Game Designer.
I understand the hardships of Game Designing, the overtime, the programming, etc.
Ive read several different sources on how to become a Video Game Designer, but each one keeps telling me something different. The only thing in common is to learn C++, which I do plan on doing.
Im just extremely confused on how to learn video game design
Which programs do the professional developers use
what should i focus on learning, as a beginner, in order to design, to start out as an Indie Developer?
I would also like to add that I have no experience at all in this area, I want to start learning, Immediately, so please,tell me what I need to learn and how to go about learning it.
Thanks for Reading
Keep up the good work