Gamification is not Working: Why?

IF 2.4 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Games and Culture Pub Date : 2024-01-31 DOI:10.1177/15554120241228125
John Dah, Norhayati Hussin, Muhamad Khairulnizam Zaini, Linda Isaac Helda, Divine Senanu Ametefe, Abdulmalik Adozuka Aliu
{"title":"Gamification is not Working: Why?","authors":"John Dah, Norhayati Hussin, Muhamad Khairulnizam Zaini, Linda Isaac Helda, Divine Senanu Ametefe, Abdulmalik Adozuka Aliu","doi":"10.1177/15554120241228125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Gamification is a trending topic in the scientific community. It is the art of incorporating game elements and game design principles into non-game context. The phenomenon has garnered tremendous attention especially in the field of education and academics. Yet, since it appeared a decade ago, its ascension both in education and other domains hasn’t been uniform, with several failed and inconclusive results. Consequently, scholars have, over the years, made several efforts to probe why gamification isn’t succeeding as hoped. We attempt, therefore, to contribute to this effort by reviewing and discussing some of the core reasons why gamification seems to be faltering in the field of learning and education. Our findings revealed four (4) factors why gamification could be failing. Shallow gamification which is the simplistic and surficial application of game elements on a learning system or activity without transforming the core experience is one determinant. Overjustification effect, the excessive and arbitral use of rewards (extrinsic motivators), which hampers intrinsic motivation is another success determinant. The ‘badges, points, and leaderboards (BPL) gamification’ (or BPL triad) which refers to the use of basic game elements such as the badges, points, and leaderboards is also one reason gamification is still struggling. Lastly, the overreliance on narrow models and theories to explain or design gamified experiences is identified as a factor for gamification haziness. Our study suggests several antidotes to these highlighted challenges, such as deep intentional designs that transcend surface-level implementation of game elements (what is called ‘deep gamification’). Amidst the spree of excessive extrinsic rewards anyhow, we propose a careful consideration of implementing reward-based game elements, especially in multiple learning settings. Again, a move-away from the narrow and overly used models such as the self-determination theory, and flow theory could open success pathways. As we believe, narrow theoretical lens through which gamification is often viewed serves as a limiting factor, impeding the field's progression and obscuring the full potential of gamification as an approach.","PeriodicalId":12634,"journal":{"name":"Games and Culture","volume":"124 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Games and Culture","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120241228125","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gamification is a trending topic in the scientific community. It is the art of incorporating game elements and game design principles into non-game context. The phenomenon has garnered tremendous attention especially in the field of education and academics. Yet, since it appeared a decade ago, its ascension both in education and other domains hasn’t been uniform, with several failed and inconclusive results. Consequently, scholars have, over the years, made several efforts to probe why gamification isn’t succeeding as hoped. We attempt, therefore, to contribute to this effort by reviewing and discussing some of the core reasons why gamification seems to be faltering in the field of learning and education. Our findings revealed four (4) factors why gamification could be failing. Shallow gamification which is the simplistic and surficial application of game elements on a learning system or activity without transforming the core experience is one determinant. Overjustification effect, the excessive and arbitral use of rewards (extrinsic motivators), which hampers intrinsic motivation is another success determinant. The ‘badges, points, and leaderboards (BPL) gamification’ (or BPL triad) which refers to the use of basic game elements such as the badges, points, and leaderboards is also one reason gamification is still struggling. Lastly, the overreliance on narrow models and theories to explain or design gamified experiences is identified as a factor for gamification haziness. Our study suggests several antidotes to these highlighted challenges, such as deep intentional designs that transcend surface-level implementation of game elements (what is called ‘deep gamification’). Amidst the spree of excessive extrinsic rewards anyhow, we propose a careful consideration of implementing reward-based game elements, especially in multiple learning settings. Again, a move-away from the narrow and overly used models such as the self-determination theory, and flow theory could open success pathways. As we believe, narrow theoretical lens through which gamification is often viewed serves as a limiting factor, impeding the field's progression and obscuring the full potential of gamification as an approach.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
游戏化行不通:为什么?
游戏化是科学界的一个热门话题。它是一种将游戏元素和游戏设计原则融入非游戏环境的艺术。这一现象已经引起了极大的关注,尤其是在教育和学术领域。然而,自十年前出现以来,它在教育和其他领域的发展并不一致,出现了一些失败和不确定的结果。因此,学者们多年来一直在努力探究游戏化未能如愿成功的原因。因此,我们试图通过回顾和讨论游戏化在学习和教育领域似乎步履蹒跚的一些核心原因,为这一努力做出贡献。我们的发现揭示了游戏化失败的四(4)个因素。其中一个决定性因素是浅游戏化,即在学习系统或活动中简单、表面地应用游戏元素,而不改变核心体验。另一个成功的决定因素是过度调整效应,即过度和武断地使用奖励(外在激励因素),这阻碍了内在激励。徽章、积分和排行榜(BPL)游戏化"(或 BPL 三元组)指的是徽章、积分和排行榜等基本游戏元素的使用,这也是游戏化仍然举步维艰的原因之一。最后,过度依赖狭隘的模型和理论来解释或设计游戏化体验也被认为是游戏化模糊的一个因素。针对这些突出的挑战,我们的研究提出了几种解救方法,例如超越游戏元素表层实施的深度有意设计(即所谓的 "深度游戏化")。在过度的外在奖励风潮中,我们建议认真考虑实施基于奖励的游戏元素,尤其是在多种学习环境中。同样,摆脱狭隘和过度使用的模型,如自我决定理论和流动理论,可以开辟成功之路。我们认为,狭隘的理论视角往往是游戏化的限制因素,阻碍了该领域的发展,也掩盖了游戏化作为一种方法的全部潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Games and Culture
Games and Culture Multiple-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: Games and Culture publishes innovative theoretical and empirical research about games and culture within the context of interactive media. The journal serves as a premiere outlet for groundbreaking and germinal work in the field of game studies. The journal"s scope includes the sociocultural, political, and economic dimensions of gaming from a wide variety of perspectives, including textual analysis, political economy, cultural studies, ethnography, critical race studies, gender studies, media studies, public policy, international relations, and communication studies.
期刊最新文献
The Stupid, the Ridiculous, the Camp: How Goat Simulator's “Messy” Design Facilitates Queer Play In Defense of Imagination: Canadian Youth Culture and the Dungeons & Dragons Panic in Canada, 1980–1995 The Inverted Cryptoeconomy: The Search for Endogenous Value in No Man’s Sky Nature Playing: On the Experience of Contemplating Technologically Mediated Nature within the Game World of Riders Republic ‘It's Just Not Safe’: Gender-Based Harassment and Toxicity Experiences of Women in Esports
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1