Response to Designing Gamification in the Right Way

1.     Identify the topic

The author introduced his topic by referring to the latest news in this field, which is that gamification is a new topic of research and few is done on the impact of it. Then, the author establishes his main argument that an educational game should be evaluated according to many variables such as “whether a game is suitable for the learning content”, “whether the learning content is suitable for a game in the first place”, “students’ previous knowledge”, and “individual preferences”.

2.     Define key terms

Gamification

Gamification of learning: apply game elements to the learning context; educational games: full-ledged games (share the same process of gamifying)

3.     Discuss (the development of arguments)

After defining the topic, the author develops his arguments by explicitly explaining the variables he mentioned in his thesis statement.

-A clear goal: game instructors should consider various outcomes or goals and decide the priority of them, which is beneficial to evaluation and improvement process.

(Possible goals: better grades from the students in the low performance group; increase students’ collaboration skills through team works.)

- Target group and user types: he verifies target groups by listing, and he introduces two ways of classifying players, which are Bartle’s “four types: achievers, explorers, socialisers and killers” and Marczewski’s five types: player, socializer, free spirit, achiever and philanthropist.  Also, he explains the difference between these two ways of classification, which is that Marczewski identifies two types of people: extrinsic and intrinsic players. He also points out the complexity of real world.

-Gender, age, culture and academic performance: for each point, the author makes an example to justify.

-Learning Content: the author points out that we should understand how different types of games work and how do games align with learning. Different games can promote different purposes of learning. Then he refers to Kapp’s seven types of knowledge corresponding to its suitable game.

4.     Examples (to illustrate / reinforce the argument)

·      When the author explains the part of a clear goal, he reinforces his argument by specifically making examples in education and library settings.

·      The author lists target groups in library setting, including “freshmen, seniors, international students, business school students,” “students with poor grades in writing classes.” From the list, readers can clearly understand the variety of target groups, which should be considered carefully.

·       When the author talks about user types, he gives definitions after each type of player. Furthermore, he makes concrete examples for each type. For example, “external rewards” like prize or a gift is more suitable for “player” type, senses of “personal mastery and achievement” should be the focus of “game mechanics and dynamics” to “achiever” players, “socialiser” type are into social interactions, and “free spirit” type are attracted by discoveries.

·      It’s meaningful to note that the author involves many others’ research results when he discusses the influence of gender, age, culture and academic performance, like “Kron et al.”, “Wohn and Lee” and “Kanthan and Senger”.

·      When the author explains the relationship between learning content and games, he lists specific games including card games, jeopardy-style games, arcade-style games and adventure games, and each of them has potential for different purposes.

When I read this article, I was impressed by the idea of user types that different people are psychologically different when they are involved in gaming process as some are intrinsically motivated but some are externally appealed. This stresses the variety of characters and incentives in students and the careful design of games in order to fit different target groups, which is really student-centered education.