go through Terry Heick
This article was originally written in 2011 and was recently updated in 2025
Gamification simply applies game-like mechanics to non-game “things”.
The big idea here is to encourage the desired behavior. In this way, “gamification” is equal to installing a mechanic or system for identifying and rewarding behavior. A specific result can be achieved by increasing visibility of nuances, progressive records, and rewards for seemingly smaller (but critical) behavior.
Since it encourages internal motivation through a set of environments created externally, gamification sits at the awkward intersection of internal and external motivations.
While video games are shown for many terms, video games are just an example of the concept of gamification in action, only they are very important games. Video games are interactive, and the digital sequences themselves have been gamified. Otherwise, they are just interactive digital experiences.
In fact, life itself is “gamification” – through informal social competition (“stay connected with Jones”), the Buzz Extreme Coupon can compare receipts, cryptocurrencies and compare 401K portfolios, access to “Platinum” or “Blackinum” or “Black” credit cards, or collect common flying flyer miles. Even inserting a push rod onto a map of every travel destination you’ve visited is a form of “gamification”. Like the Scout badge. You’re making a game from something you don’t have.
Almost all social media is deeply competing – it is easy to “collect” friends, status updates are often used to update the progress or activity of the entire “real life” day, or the “like” button will give you dopamine and identity when you are in line with others who are similar to the same thing. Share the picture or update, and then watch the “like” volume, each volume is like a dot in the game.
See The Difference Between Gamification and Game-Based Learning
Misunderstanding gamification
The current issue surrounding the idea is about definition and more about tone.
Reducing the process of “gamification” to simple whimsical, stupid or teenage things represents a basic misunderstanding of gamification as a process. The classroom has been in the game for many years. Letter ratings are indeed the first subjective assessment of knowledge abilities, but once passed to the student’s hands, they become game components to prove the proof of completing certain tasks, or achieve certain desired goals (mastering standards, meeting tasks requirements, etc.), where Rubrics becomes the guide to completing tasks.
This is the goal, here are the criteria used to establish the terms of quality, now you can try it out and I will evaluate how I think you are performing.
Grade averages are probably the most obvious example of school gamification. Evaluate knowledge through extensive homework and tests and give a letter grade as a trophy because it is a big trophy, the wrong type of FS trophy, but still the trophy. Class ranking? It’s a competition to collect as much as possible, trying to make the neat things inherently messy: learning.
Consider the amount of “3.2 GPA” for learners, their interests, their history, progress and potential. Letter hierarchy is an attempt to quantify understanding and/or performance, hoping to hide the ridiculous complexity of the learning process. By letter level (with Alternative letter grade), in other asynchronous cases, performance obviously becomes synchronous. Through different tasks, different learners of different teachers complete with different learning styles, with an incredibly overwhelming impact of different personal lives – through this different environment, letter ratings try to become a common thing.
But it took a huge price.
In fact, Letter grades are more powerful than learning itself For many, the concepts of knowledge, discovery and self-awareness are covered. Letter grades and test performance are assumed to be reliable knowledge quantification, but anyone tested by rating will know the dangers of this assumption. Using a letter to describe simple, single expressions may be acceptable, but these topics dangerously tend toward self-worth when meanings are transformed into long-term concepts of “knowledge” and “understanding”.
Other examples of gamification? Students of this month, most likely (insert verbs here), Cum Excellent Names, “words” in a movement, and countless other behaviors and icons. However, in the past, learners had much more rewards than visible—personal pathways had more opportunities than identifying them. Learners have more than podium points. The rest were sent to vocational schools.
The nuances of teaching and learning
Research on student motivations shows that students’ motivations are driven mainly by the inherent desire to achieve their goals:
“The main focus of student motivation is goal and goal orientation, and the fifth social cognitive structure is goal and goal orientation. There is a lot of research on the motivation of students and the role of guiding human behavior in motivating and guiding human behavior (Austin & Vancouver, 1996) (1996), but in terms of student motivation, there are two programs that focus on the efforts of students. The nature of the achievement goal or goal orientation. The nature of the goal Motivate and direct behavior in a classroom setting. ”
What is the “nature” of students’ goals in class? (Academic) A good result? (Personal) Your praise? (Social) Peer pressure? Gamification allows a wide range of content areas (e.g. English art) to have few performance metrics (alphanumeric symbols) that can be broken down into more refined and achievable concepts and skills. For example, “writing” can become “expert and spontaneous application” of the “revision process” steps. Achieving this has resulted in them getting badges, trophys or some kind of representative of that achievement – students can understand and can collect over time. Then, each time you use and improve your skills, the badge becomes larger, color or layered or changes in some way to reflect the natural growth of learning over time.
This has been tried to correct: every student will receive a trophy, pass/failed registration, social promotions instead of failed letter grades, while countless other students. But for those willing to think about it carefully, gamification can be further developed. This idea is no more powerful than the ability to document and curate nuances of diverse learners. In gamification, rather than providing only a few slots for the “highest performer”, it is also the ability to recognize the deep personalized nature of learning. Not all students want trophys or gold stickers or are slapped on their heads to “study hard.”
Instead, learners want and need – recognize their unique nature: gifts of past experiences, interests, cognition and creativity, and critical interdependence with those around them. This brings self-knowledge and real locations and provides peer sets and communities that once again provide a larger, important social environment.
The gamification system (if well designed) enables transparency, not only making success and failure, honor and failure, but also making the gamification designer choose highlighted every step of the learning process.
Every deadline is missed, peers with the sentences modified, revisited sentences, scientific processes and long-term segmentation every step, each original analogy, tightly designed paper statements or explore push-pull case factors – each time these ideas and more ideas can be emphasized to demonstrate the purpose of assessment, accountability, and students’ self-advocacy.
In the “perfect” learning model, gamification is unnecessary. However, before we reach this point, it is an ideal choice, in a highly academic learning environment where students are expected to have a lot of non-real content, often measured by “proficiency.”
go ahead
There are as many ways to “success” as personal personality. Here are 21 topicsYingshi century. Gamification not only allows the recognition of these ideas, but also convinces the verification of truly personalized learning. To continue to move towards healthy communities and useful global interdependence, we will not need to simply recognize “different ways of learning” or reward “low-achieving students” half-consciously, but to correct the hurt tradition of overly narrow visions of academic success, a challenge of strict standards and results-based guidance.
This is possible through the creative application of game mechanics and related innovations in curriculum and instructional design, but discussions must go beyond video games and badges, the concept of empowering learners and the almost tendency to expand on the definition of academic success.
This post was reposted from Terry Heick’s 2011 post
