Running head: efficacy of gamification in adult digital education contexts

The Efficacy of Gamification in Adult Digital Education Contexts

Erik R. Fullerton

Purdue University

Abstract

Like all other fields, adult education goes through different trends of thought. One trend that is currently en vogue is gamification. Gamification refers to the addition of games or game-like elements into curriculum with the purpose of enhancing learning. The ubiquity of digital games, existing everywhere from home consoles to tablets and smartphones, has made such games a familiar part of everyday lives. This familiarity makes a progression to their being used in learning environments seem logical on its face. But while game elements have been proven to be highly beneficial in child and adolescent education, their inclusion in adult digital education settings, such as corporate training, has been less well studied. This paper will examine gamification in adult computer-based education in an attempt to determine if there is sufficient evidence to conclude that game elements are beneficial to adult learner motivation and knowledge retention and which, if any, specific elements have been shown to be efficacious.

The Efficacy of Gamification in Adult Digital Education Contexts

The increasing ease of access to computing devices and the internet over the last decade has shifted adult education, in both private and public sectors, more and more towards computer-based options. Too often this so-called eLearning amounts to little more than the digitization of a textbook or manual; what Merrill (2008) has called “shovel-ware”. This raises the question of what can be done in the digital medium to increase curriculum effectiveness.

One concept for increasing the effectiveness of adult learning that is currently en vogue is gamification. There have been many definitions of gamification forwarded, but Kevin Warbach (2013) of the University of Pennsylvania summed it up succinctly when he stated that gamification is, “The use of game elements and game design techniques in non-game contexts.”

In child education this love of game play is frequently utilized and its efficacy is well documented. As Corona (2011) remarks, “Research conducted in the field has shown that recreational activities can teach children different things: to tell stories, to know and be able to count the numbers, participate and be together with others” (p. 408). However, the effects of adding game elements into adult education, whether it be in post-secondary education or in job training environments, is not as well studied. The vast majority of peer-review articles related to the effects of game elements on learning in individuals aged 14 years and older lack an empirical focus and instead concentrate on the theoretical possibilities of their inclusion (Connolly et. al, p. 671, 2012).

The gravitation towards the use of game and game elements in adult computer-based education is likely related to the ever-increasing popularity of videogames and social media. Anderson (2012, p. 2) points out that 70% of American internet users are involved in some form of social media and that game elements are, in part, what have made social media so popular.

Elements that have been borrowed from videogames and social media for digital education purposes include things like points, level progression, branching towards multiple outcomes, the ability to fail or succeed at individual elements, rewards, and social interaction. Prensky (2001) cites a more formalized list of factors which exist in effective digital games:

• 
  Rules
  
• 
  Goals and Objectives
  
• 
  Outcomes and Feedback
  
• 
  Conflict / Competition / Challenge /
  
• 
  Opposition
  
• 
  Interaction
  
• 
  Representation or Story
  

Thus, adding game elements into adult education seems like a logical thing to do —a way to tap into a more attentive, more motivated, and relaxed learner, but there are numerous question that arise about gamification. Foremost among these is if there sufficient evidence to conclude that the addition of such elements is actually beneficial. If implemented correctly, adding such elements can certainly be attention getting, but do they actually help with motivation and learning retention (Merrill, 2008)?

However, there have been many suppositions made regarding why game elements are useful beyond simple familiarity. According to Demirbilek (2010):

Adult learners are problem oriented: In the online learning environment this assumption implies that curriculum should be process based versus content based to allow learners to develop content in accordance with their specific needs (p. 4).

Games fit neatly into the idea of providing a process to be followed. By advancing through the goals of a game one follows a defined process that can quickly be grasped by the user. The learning content is then constructed by the user as they play the game.

Demirbilek (2010) also points towards the fact that an adult learner’s motivation is based on internal factors; as opposed to child in school who is externally motivated by the mandate of a teacher. This internal motivation should, theoretically, be easy to tap into using games through the use of progression and reward elements. The proposed source of this motivation lies in the idea that an adult, being internally motivated, will always want to perform as well as possible in a competition even if they are only in competition with themselves.

Games also appear to present a veritable panacea for Constructivists facing the problem of developing curriculum for the digital milieu. Brent Wilson of the University of Colorado, Denver effectively elucidates the principles of constructivism (Reiser, 2012):

• 
  Learning is an active process of meaning-making gained in and through our experience and interactions with the world.
  

• 
  Learning opportunities arise as people encounter cognitive conflict, challenge, or puzzlement, and through naturally occurring as well as planned problem-solving activities.
  

• 
  Learning is a social activity involving collaboration, negotiation, and participation in authentic practices of communities.
  

• 
  Where possible, reflection, assessment, and feedback should be embedded “naturally” within learning activities.
  

• 
  Learners should take primary responsibility for their learning and “own” the process as far as possible (p. 45).
  

Virtually every modern theory of instructional design that can be applied to digital education can be served, at least on a rhetorical level, by the inclusion of game elements into the curriculum. For example, instructors are now supporting situated learning theory through a category of instructional tools known as serious games. Serious games are games developed specifically to integrate a simulated experience for the purpose of instruction (Guillen-Nieto, 2011 p. 436). These detailed simulations of real-world tasks are becoming increasingly common in the healthcare sector as well as other industries. The ability of digital games to support situated learning ideals is espoused by Shaffer et. al (2005) when they state:

…video games are powerful contexts for learning because they make it possible to create virtual worlds and because acting in such worlds makes it possible to develop the situated understandings, effective social practices, powerful identities, shared values, and ways of thinking of important communities of practice.

In fact it would be more difficult to find an instructional design theory that wouldn’t be positively served in some way by the inclusion of game elements and digital games specifically. Those that strongly adhere to Fleming’s (1992) VARK model of learning styles should view digital games as the perfect teaching tool as they can be designed to provide elements of all four areas (visual, auditory, reading-writing, and kinesthetic).

Proponents of Merrill’s (2002) First Principles of Instruction theory would also be well served to consider the addition of game elements into their digital curriculum. Digital games are inherently problem-centered, they can be designed to activate past experiences and introduce new ones, demonstration and consistency of new concepts or skills are again inherent, and application comes as part of the goals game element. Merrill’s fifth and final principal, integration, can also be supported through digital games, as illustrated by Merrill’s (2002) own observation that, “One of the main attractions of computer games is the increasing skill level that is apparent in the player.” The learner’s desire to exhibit and compare the knowledge and skill gained from playing a game against his or her peers is the integration.

Empirical Literature

The illustrations above are but a few that could be made to support digital game use in adult education. Given this wealth of examples of the relationship of game elements to sound and accepted instructional design doctrine one could draw the conclusion that digital games are beneficial to adult learners if implemented correctly. In fact, Guillen-Nieto (2011) posits that “the potential benefits of using video games as ideal companions to classroom instruction is unquestionable” (p. 436).

However, suppositions often seem logical at their inception only to break down in the face of empirical study. Therefore, despite the promise game elements seem to have for adult computer-based education, one could be forgiven for being leery of arguments based solely on inductive reasoning. Merrill (2002) makes the point that while multimedia and game elements are often touted as being synonymous with motivation, the reality is that any such attention grabbing devices provide fleeting benefits at best; the true motivation comes intrinsically with the act of learning itself.

There are many articles written regarding the benefits of gamification on learning and their relationship to instructional design theory, Dickey’s (2005, p. 80) assertion that “game design may assist instructional designers in the development of problem-based, project-based, and constructivist learning environments by looking at the roles of narrative, role playing, learner positioning, and interactive choice” is just one example of the type of anecdotal support proponents of gamification have to draw on. Yet empirical evidence for their use has remained obscure and disorganized (Connolly et. al, 2012).

In an effort to illuminate the topic Thomas Connolly, of the University of West Scotland, lead a team who studied the literature with a purpose to organize all empirical findings on the subject. Their meta-analysis covered 129 peer reviewed articles including articles containing empirical research on digital games used in learning contexts for adults and adolescents over the age of 14 years. Connolly (2012) opined that given the amount that has been written on the subject of the impact of games on learning, very little high-quality evidence exists to support or refute the supposition that games are beneficial in teaching knowledge acquisition, behavior change, soft skills, or in affecting motivational outcomes; these being the elements that adult educators would be most interested in enhancing.

The evidence that does exist is decidedly mixed. Some articles discussed by Connolly (2012, p. 668) highlight this dichotomy, such as a study that showed no increase in knowledge retention for pediatric students between game-based learning and the use computerized flash cards. However, it was noted that the pediatric students reported preferring the game-based learning because they enjoyed it more.

Another interesting outcome reported by Connolly (2012) was that from a study of students learning about heart physiology. The inclusion of a competitive game into their curriculum did not have a positive impact on performance, but when feedback regarding the accuracy of their responses was added, performance improved.

Connolly’s article provides the best summation of the empirical evidence available regarding gamification and he concludes that the work in the field lacks the breadth and scientific rigor required to make definitive conclusions. However, he concludes that there is enough evidence of positive impacts to stimulate further study.

Connolly is not the only researcher to comment on the lack of good empirical evidence in the field. Deanne Adams (2012), of the University of California, Santa Barbara and her team also laments this gap in knowledge. She set out to do a scientifically rigorous test on the use of narrative to enhance learning outcomes in adults. Her results showed evidence to that narrative did not improve learning. She found that:

…students who learn about the biology of diseases by playing a narrative computer game learn less and report more difficulty in their learning experiences than do students who receive a straightforward PowerPoint presentation that is devoid of the game narrative and hands-on activities (p. 241).

However, Adams (2012) also cautioned that other formulations of narrative gamification could have proven to be more effective than her effort.

Discussion

While the inductive reasoning behind gamification seems to fit lock and key with accepted instructional design pedagogy, we are neither able to deify or vilify gamification based on empiricism given the current body of research. As in the Connolly (2012) analysis of the pediatric study outlined above, one often finds a situation where there isn’t improved performance between learners using instruction with game elements and a control group, but the gamification group anecdotally reports more enjoyable outcomes.

The question then becomes how valuable this positive anecdotal response is to the specific instructional goals of an individual situation. Unfortunately, there were no studies found that dealt rigorously with the positive psychological aspects of this type of post-learning positivity over time and its influence on future learning objectives. This is certainly one, of many, directions future research should undertake.

For now, those implementing gamification into computer-based curriculum will be best served by attempting to craft game elements in keeping with accepted instructional design theory and follow the instruction with sound performance evaluation techniques. There is simply not yet enough evidence to delineate the exact manner gamification should happen or indeed if it should happen at all.

References

Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2012). Gamification: Experts expect ‘game layers’ to expand in the future, with positive and negative results. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved October 1, 2013, from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/

Connolly, T., Boyle, E., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59(2), 661-686.

Corona, F., Perrotta, F., Polcini, E. T., & Cozzarelli, C. (2011). The new frontiers of edutainment: The development of an educational and socio-cultural phenomenon over time of globalization. Journal of Social Sciences, 7(3), 408-411.

Demirbilek, M. (2010). Digital Games for Online Adult Education: Trends and Issues. In T. Kidd (Ed.), Online Education and Adult Learning: New Frontiers for Teaching Practices (pp. 212-222).

Dickey, M. D. (2005). Engaging By Design: How Engagement Strategies in Popular Computer and Video Games Can Inform Instructional Design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(2), 67-83.

Fleming, N.D. & Mills, C. (1992). Not Another Inventory, Rather a Catalyst for Reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11, 137-155

Guillén-Nieto, V., & Aleson-Carbonell, M. (2012). Serious Games And Learning Effectiveness: The Case Of It’s A Deal!. Computers & Education, 58(1), 435-448.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First Principles of Instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(3), 43-59.

Merril, M. D. (2008, August 11). Merrill on Instructional Design. YouTube. Retrieved September 14, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_TKaO2-jXA.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.