Gamification – Missing the Mark

Gamification has been a trending topic in the corporate learning space for years.  Ever since it became evident that engagement, retention, and enjoyment could be enhanced, training departments have attempted to leverage the magic of games to make their learning materials better.

Attending conferences such as the eLearning Guild’s DevLearn and the Games + Learning + Society Conference, I’ve seen some excellent examples of engaging learning provided through game-like interfaces.  The example that jumps out most readily is a shoe box sorting game designed by Allen Interactions.  This game had associates place boxes of shoes into the correct shelving location as they came onto the screen at an increasing pace.  The game was not only enjoyable to play, but was also rooted in one of the key elements of keeping the shoe store operational – organization of the back room. 

From an academic and theoretical perspective, much of the gamification debate comes down to two camps with battle lines drawn in September 2011.  One camp is rooted in elements such as badges, points, and rewards that make content more engaging.  The other believes that games are engaging because of the attempt and intrinsic reward of overcoming challenges.  The identifiable representatives from the respective sides are  Gabe Zichermann and Sebastian Deterding.  Their debate two years ago initiated from the publication of Zichermann’s book ‘Gamification by Design’ and Deterding’s scathing review of it.  The debate raged on for several posts from each side, characterized (with links) in the following post, ‘Response to Gabe and Sebastian’s #gamification discussion’.

Unfortunately, for many, the reality of gamification in corporate environments isn’t to level of what’s understood above.  Rather than argue about the motivation of the learner while engaging with a game – is it the mechanics or the points and leaderboard – the ‘games’ that are created are simply typical eLearning content with game-sounding labels added to them. 

Completing multiple choice questions to earn virtual coins or earning three points every time the next button is clicked doesn’t appropriately gamify a learning experience.  The level of engagement isn’t enhanced by the pig’s lipstick, but rather the understanding of gamification is muddied for those involved in designing, developing, or viewing the content. 

Rather than attempt to apply game elements to typical learning content, if a game is the appropriate and desired outcome, gameful design should be applied from the beginning.  By looking at the content and asking “how would you make a game out of this?” you can begin to understand how to make a game out of learning it.  From the Allen Interactions shoe store example, you can make a game of putting away boxes by quickly tossing someone boxes at a decreasing interval to see how well they perform.  The training game version does just that.  However, when attempting to train someone on a task that isn’t (or shouldn’t be) time-bound, other variables come into play.  In behavioral interviewing module, an interviewee’s engagement with the position could become a progress bar to help the interviewer understand how their questions or behavior are influencing the candidate.  For a budgeting module, a manager could attempt to perform the team’s function for the year while staying within the budget.  If there are metrics and data surrounding an experience, it can likely have game mechanics applied to it.

Does the application of game mechanics to learning make that game fall into the Deterding camp of gamification?  It depends.  If the interaction would still be considered an engaging game with challenges someone would work to overcome even when stripped of points, badges, and leaderboards, it may.  However, even if it is only the points that help the learners become more engaged with the learning content (that they were only going to view once or twice anyway) and retain it a bit better, it may hit the mark at which the learning designer was aiming.