Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (17)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (15)
Similar to Does Gamification Work?
Similar to Does Gamification Work? (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Does Gamification Work?
- 1. Does Gamification Work? (Hamari, Koivisto & Sarsa, 2014) Daniëlle Duijst – 11266988 MSc Information Studies – Human Centered Multimedia Technology Enhanced Learning 23/02/2017
- 2. Content 1. Gamification and related concepts 2. Does gamification work? (Hamari, et al) 3. Practical examples 4. Q&A
- 3. “Applying game mechanics and game design techniques to non-game activities” Gamification
- 4. Quick question Gamification relates to what kind of motivation?
- 5. Four types of players (Bartle, 1996) Killer: wants to win Achiever: wants to book results Socializer: wants to collaborate Explorer: wants to understand
- 6. MDA Framework (Hunicke, LeBlanc & Zubek, 2004)
- 7. MDA - Mechanics & Dynamics Mechanics: Points Levels Challenges Virtual Goods Leaderboards Gifting Win Conditions Dynamics: Reward Rank (status) Progression Individuality Competition Altruism Narrative Lead to
- 8. MDA – Aesthetics (8 types of fun) 1. Sensation – Game as sense-pleasure 2. Fantasy – Game as make-believe 3. Narrative – Game as drama 4. Challenge – Game as obstacle course 5. Fellowship – Game as social framework 6. Discovery – Game as uncharted territory 7. Expression – Game as self-discovery 8. Submission – Game as pastime Which one, do you think, is most relevant for learning applications like Duolingo?
- 9. So, does gamification work? (Hamari, Koivisto & Sarsa, 2014)
- 10. 24 empirical studies High-level research question: Does gamification work? Literature Review: Results Dependent/Independent variables Contexts of gamification Types of studies Structure Paper
- 12. Motivational Affordances (in accordance with Webster and Watson, 2002) Leaderboards (10) Points (9) Achievements/Badges (9) Challenge (7) Levels (6) Story/Theme (6) Feedback (6) Clear Goals (4) Rewards (4) Progress (4)
- 13. Psychological and behavioral outcomes Behavioral outcomes (behavioral change) 21 papers Psychological outcomes (motivation, attitude, enjoyment) 12 papers
- 14. Research Methods Quantitative (17) Qualitative (2) Mixed Methods (5)
- 15. Contexts of gamification Education / Learning (most common) Negative outcomes (competition, evaluation difficulties, design features) Work (crowdsourcing systems) No explicit studies in Marketing context
- 16. Reported Results Most reported positive results Only 2 studies found all of the test positive Engagement by gamification depends on several factors • Motivation of users • Nature of gamified system Novelty effect (long term) Removing gamification Both qualitative/quantitative have positive and negative perceptions
- 17. So, does gamification work? But some conditions should be taken into account: Not all gamification elements are effective Qualitative observations highlight important factors • The role of the context • Qualities of the users Use thorough methodologies to research gamification Yes!
- 18. Discussion Can we intrinsically motivate people by using gamification elements?
- 19. Time for some practical examples Based on Motivational Affordances
- 20. Practical example: Codecademy Motivational Affordances Feedback (when submitting) Progress Clear goals Achievements/Badges Points
- 21. Practical example: Fitbit Motivational Affordances Feedback (stars, praise) Progress (step count) Clear goals (dashboard) Achievements/Badges Leaderboards Challenge
- 22. Practical example: Duolingo Motivational Affordances Points (XP) Challenges (time, social) Achievements/Badges (Topics) Levels (Leveling up by XP) Leaderboards Feedback (on answers) Clear Goals Rewards Progress
- 23. Practical example: Duolingo Motivational Affordances Theme
- 24. Thanks for your attention Any questions?
- 26. References 1. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014, January). Does gamification work?--a literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 3025-3034). IEEE. 2. Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. Journal of MUD research, 1(1), 19. 3. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004, July). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI (Vol. 4, No. 1). 4. www.duolingo.com 5. www.fitbit.com 6. www.codeacademy.com
Editor's Notes
- Welcome everyone, My name is Daniëlle and I’m presenting today the paper about Gamification from Hamari, Koivisto and Sarsa.
- First I will explain the concept of Gamification and related concepts. Then I will describe how to paper looks at it Thirdly, I will show you some examples of gamified applications And lastly I will answer the questions from you guys. If you have any questions, you can ask them also during the presentation.
- Gamification is the concept of applying game mechanics and game design techniques to engage and motivate people to achieve their goals. Not to be confused with serious games where people learn by actually playing: Game based learning
- Before we start to dive deeper, who thinks gamification relates mostly to extrinsic motivation? Who thinks intrinsic? Both? Extrinsic, because it’s external motivations. Intrinsic, because of the self determination theory Both *Most students said extrinsic *Some said both I asked this question to make everyone already think about gamification in a way that it could be intrinsically motivating.
- When we are talking about gamification, we are going into the field of game design. Bartle found in 1996 that there are four types of players, motivated by different things: de Killer – Gets motivated by winning from others de Achiever – Gets motivated by booking results and excel de Socializer – Wants to collaborate with others de Explorer – Wants to understand everything in detail Disclaimer: It was based on MUD’s – Multi User Dungeon
- Another common principle of game design is the MDA framework: Rules, System and Fun Game mechanics as “the particular components of the game, at the level of data representation and algorithms” Game Dynamics as “the bigger picture, how Mechanics and components are working together” Game Aesthetics as “How the user is experiencing it, how much fun it is” Useful because the MDA framework forces us to think about our rationale for considering some of these game elements
- How are Mechanics and Dynamics related? Here are some examples: Mechanics : data representation and algorithms Dynamics : big picture aspects, the system
- LeBlanc et al, describe the Aesthetics as 8 types of fun when playing a game. Which game aesthetic do you guys think is mostly relevant for e-learning? I think Challenge because you can present learning challenges as obstacles you have to overcome, and that can be fun.
- To answer this question, we will dive a bit deeper in the paper of Hamari et al.
- How is the paper build up? 24 empirical studies were examined Question Does gamification work? Literature Review covers The results Independent variables such as Motivational affordances Dependent variables such as the psychological/behavioral outcomes Contexts of where the gamification is used And the types of studies that were conducted in the reviewed papers
- In the paper from Hamari et al, they say that gamification has three parts and in this review they focused on: What motivational affordances the reviewed studies have implemented as dependent variables (I think this is a mistake in the paper and it should be independent variables, because the affordances influence the psychological outcomes) What psychological outcomes have been measured as possibly both independent and dependent variables (Dependent because the motivational affordances influence the psychological outcomes, and also independent because these outcomes influence the behavioral outcomes) What behavioral outcomes have been measured as dependent variables.
- Related to the game mechanics we saw before from the MDA framework, we saw in the paper of Hamari et al, that they created a list of motivational affordances of gamification. The numbers represent the amount of times they found this affordance in the 24 papers they reviewed.
- Most of the studies examined behavioral outcomes: Behavioral 21 papers And less examined outcome: Psychological 12 papers
- The research methods being used in the examined papers were mainly done in a quantitative way (17 papers). 5 papers used mixed methods (5) and 2 papers researched in a qualitative way.
- Gamification of education or learning was the most common context for the implementations. Most of the papers gamifying work were conducted in crowdsourcing systems. All studies in education were positive, but some negative outcomes were: Increased competition Evaluation difficulties Design features Marketing: gamification and purchase behaviour, is an interesting and potential successful field. In the end of this presentation, I will show you an example.
- Reported results from the reviewed studies are: Most reported positive results, but only for some motivational affordances Only 2 studies reported that the result was positive with all the motivational affordances Engagement by gamification depends on factors like motivation of users or nature of gamified system Novelty effect: some studies showed that gamification effects might not be long term Removing gamification has a negative effect on users that are still engaged, because probably they feel frustrated about losing earned badges/points.
- The big question is again: does gamification work? Yes, but certain things should be taken into account. Not all the gamification elements (motivational affordances) are effective. When using them seperately could have a different effect than using them combined. Qualitative observations highlight important factors, therefore when using gamification, it is important to also do qualitative research, because in this way you discover essential things. Like in this research, where they found out that the role of the context plays an essential role, and the qualities of the users. Qualitites of users means that users interact with the gamified systems in a different manner and therefore the experiences can differ. Also the methodologies have to be more rigorous, because most examined papers used a small sample size, some lacked control groups, some could have done better statistics, timeframes of the experiments were short, there was lack of clarity in reporting the results.
- As we heard in the lecture on Tuesday, intrinsic motivation works mostly more effective than extrinsic motivation. Do you think it is possible to motivate people intrinsically by using gamification? No, because gamification only exists of external rewards and therefore gamification can only motivate extrinsically. Yes, according to Deci’s self determination theory: if an extrinsic motivator is found to be meaningful, pleasurable and consistent with a person’s worldview, he/she can adopt it as though it were intrinsic.
- Feedback, when you submit your answer you get immediately explanation if it’s good or wrong and why. Progress in measurement of days Clear goals, when you do a specific track, you see which steps you have to take Achievements/badges, when finishing a special track, or receiving certain amount of points. Points you receive for finishing excersises.
- Feedback: you receive stars for achieving amount of steps or praise after doing a workout Progress: you see your steps, calories, etc. in a dashboard kind of style Clear goals: when the circle is not filled yet, you see you have that as a clear goal of the day, or you manually set goals Achievements: you receive achievements when walking a lot for example Leaderboards: you can compare your step count with friends Challenge: you can challenge your friends, who walks most in the coming weekend.
- As we heard yesterday, Duolingo’s main selling point is gamification. They basically use all the motivational affordances mentioned in the paper of Hamari et al. Clear goals, because the user can see which badges or net yet gold, and the skills/topics are divided in a clear way. Rewards are also in the form of Lingot points Progress in progress bars, after finishing an exercise but also when you are actually practicing a topic, you see how much time or questions are left.
- Recently, Duolingo launched a chatbot (only Iphone) to learn languages in a conversational way. This related to the “story’ affordance. It’s interesting to see that 1 application uses all motivational affordances proposed by Hamari et al.
- Relationship of gamification and purchase behaviour: it is in fact a very interesting field, and the last couple of years companies are using gamification more often to increase purchase behaviour Do you agree with the Novelty effect: is the tendency of people to increase performance because their interest is increased. I think this could be true for some cases, but the loose of interest/performance could also happen because the gamification wasn’t implemented in a good way, the context was wrong or the user’s motivation decreased. Like if they only gave a star for every answer questioned right, nothing else, its not really motivating in the long term. Does gamification increase the quantity of the motivation value or it changes the quality of how one approaches the learning process This is an interesting question, I think gamification can increase the value of motivation for some people and for others it changes the way they look at the learning process. For some people, it is very motivating to get a star, they need a lot of feedback to get motivated. But they aren’t really aware of that they are in a learning process. While some other people might not need this star to be motivated, because they are intrinsically already motivated enough to do this task, but they can appreciate and find it fun that the learning process is approached in a different/gamified way. Another way to find if gamification is effective in a learning situation: I think with this study, they wanted to also find out other things than only effectiveness, in this case: They found different contexts of use, different outcomes (behavioral/psychological) and the research method different studies used, so that’s interesting. How would I test if gamification works? I would try to focus more on a specific context. I would have one group not using the gamified learning system (control group) and one group using the gamified system. If it’s for a learning context, I would probably do a before and after measuring of a grade. The problem is with such a study, that you can only conclude something about 1 context. So the conclusion would be gamification in e-learning works (or not). When you want to say something about the general concept of gamification, you have to compare different studies with different contexts.
- I thought this was an interesting example of using gamification in marketing, already in 2011(!). You collect bonbons to create your own magnum in the end. They collaborated with different brands and you can control your avatar through websites of these brands, and interact in a quite nice and funny way with these websites. They increased their marketing KPI’s massively.