tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10313978.post4205641800679254198..comments2023-11-03T06:03:50.388-07:00Comments on The Learning Circuits Blog: Broadening the Definition of Gamification for L&D Professionalsjayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16271633210993298646noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10313978.post-52158017229115273692012-01-20T02:29:25.225-08:002012-01-20T02:29:25.225-08:00A few quick points:
1) In a Behaviorist model, th...A few quick points:<br /><br />1) In a Behaviorist model, there is no such thing as behavior that results from anything other than punishment or reward – termed in their jargon as positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, or negative punishment. These are the only motivators for all behavior. All environmental stimulus is a form of behavior control (though, we are usually not being "controlled" in the sense of being directed towards any purpose). <br /><br />2) Operant Conditioning is an attempt to use stimuli to direct us towards some designed purpose. Gamification is the attempt to use stimuli to direct us towards learning something. Gamification <i>is</i> operant conditioning.<br /><br />3) The concept of reinforcer is being used improperly. A thing is only a reinforcer if it results in a desired change in behavior. If game points bore me, points are not a reinforcer by definition. A reinforcer is any stimulus change that increases the likelihood of a continued behavior.<br /><br />4) "Rewards", "bribes", or "incentives" – such as grades, sales commissions, promising goodies to children, etc. – are not reinforcers unless they consistently produce the desired behavior. Since most "rewards" only work for a very short time, these are not reinforcers (this is one fundamental misunderstanding, often confused – Alfie Kohn's book included). A reinforcer is not synonymous with an offered "reward".<br /><br />5) The splitting of hairs over "intrinsic" or "extrinsic" is not required. Either a stimulus is a reinforcer or it is not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10313978.post-90103611614925966542012-01-12T13:40:33.745-08:002012-01-12T13:40:33.745-08:00Well... I have spent a lot of time talking with Se...Well... I have spent a lot of time talking with Sebastian about this and at least a little with Amy Jo Kim. Sebastian is as passionately against the pure skinner implementations as I am. When I say virtually all game scholars and professional game designers are against gamification, you're right, a *few* have been willing to overlook what characters *nearly all* gamification in favor of the view that there can still be *smart* uses (as Amy Jo puts it). <br /><br />Sebastian almost never uses the word any longer, because he too has realized that even "game-based thinking" is a largely meaningless term also taken over by the marketing side.<br /><br />I believe the gamification == operant conditioning is because almost every one of the "thought leaders" actively using the term are almost entirely using rewards/incentives as the basis. The fact that gamification examples almost always include customer "loyalty programs" is a typical example, as is the use of badges and leader boards. <br /><br />I realize that mostly we are disagreeing on whether it is appropriate to still use that word. My stance is clear, and others are shifting theirs as well. If you notice, Amy Jo nearly ALWAYS adds the qualifier "smart gamification", and Sebastian has all but abandoned the word completely (and Jane McGonigal still uses "gameful" and usually avoids the word gamification). Sebastian himself rips apart the phrase "game thinking" as used by gamification proponents in his scathing review of the "Gamification by Design" book.<br /><br />We all agree that there is great value to bring to the world, especially education, from the practice of game design. I spent a decade singing those praises myself including teaching it as UCLA. But I still feel gamification has become far too synonymous with all the trappings of games -- most especially the visible rewards -- without any of the heart and soul.. The things as Sebastian says that ACTUALLY makes games enjoyable. ALL game designers that I have ever encountered, and Sebastian agrees, believe that they are designing games that are NOT based on extrinsic motivation. Yet (nearly) all examples of gamification ARE.<br /><br />(again, excluding Serious games, learning games, or anything that is an Actual Game).<br /><br />Does that mean we cannot DO "good" gamification by applying the true lessons that *actual* game designers know and use? Of course not. But in my opinion, that word has been burned and cannot be retrieved. If too many people hear "gamification" and the first thing that pops in their head is "badges", we have far too much work to do in order to undo this.<br /><br />So I stand by my position that gamification is driven by operant conditioning, while games (the good ones) are not. That a few smart people are using the word "gamification" to describe other uses of things-we-learned-from-game-design does not change this... And sadly, those are the outliers.<br /><br />Look at every gamification vendor (currently a new darling for VC's) and you will find platforms, API's, consulting based entirely around rewards/incentives for driving behavior. It is the foundation of their marketing and their product. They are determining how this word is used, though I WISH with all my heart that everyone was listening to you and Amy Jo and Sebastian and able to appreciate the subtle and complex distinctions.<br /><br />As I said in your other post, You will continue to make thoughtful, optimistic posts about it and I will continue to make knee-jerk anti-gamification rants. Everyone wins! :)Kathy Sierranoreply@blogger.com