This month I reached the top 12 of the Gamification Gurus (I don't know exactly how, but that's ok). A big climb since last month ranking. And in good company.Leaderboards are a powerful game element that can have different flavors: single player or multiplayer, relative or absolute. To be more exact:Single player, that compare the players latest score to previous scores;Multiplayer that display rankings of near performing peers;Multiplayer that display rankings of high performing peers;Multiplayer that display rankings of near performing friendsSingle player leaderboards are simple individual lists of scores, showing the performance of one player. Multiplayer leaderboards displaying rankings of near performing peers are a usual approach in social games. In rankings of high performing peers, players with a lower score may not be present. That may lead to demotivation, which is a drawback for this kind of leaderboards. Multiplayer near performing peers leaderboards are recommended for use in learning contexts. In education, leaderboards can be an important social game element if correctly used to foster social interactions and avoid the downfalls of competition in this context. Competition is probably the reason explaining why gamified systems in the education sector do not use leaderboards so often. Alternatively, the leaderboard can be anonymous, where each player can only see other players’ scores, but not their names, reducing competition among players. See also Leaderboards: A Social Game Element and Leaderboards: A Social Game Element (Part II).

On Future Of EdTech 101: Automation, Curation And Gamification by Nathan Deardorff:By the year 2050 higher education will be transformed by three trends: automation, curation, and gamification. (...) gamification, the act of turning something that is traditionally not a game into one. It’s like getting a gold star for a good job, but better. A contemporary example of this is the web app, HabitRPG. It takes after other Role Playing Games by giving characters magical abilities, experience points and health. The users can gain powers and experience by completing self assigned tasks. If the tasks are not completed by the due date, the user looses health. This system could be implemented for homework assignments. But the in-class application is far more exciting. Imagine automated tracking of class participation, class grades, and work speed. This carrot-and-stick system would motivate students to earn points by actively engaging in the classroom, and finish their quizzes as quick as possible with highest accuracy. Performance is public via game points or badges. A student who can actively brag that he outscored his classmates in attention, or is the fastest quizzer in the school will feel the euphoria of a job well done, and the other students will feel the stick of motivation to out score their competitor.I don't agree with the definition of gamification (turning something that is traditionally not a game into one) but this article shows the importance of gamification for the education sector.

A literature review can show what are the sets of game elements and game techniques that are commonly used in gamified educational environments. Points, badges, leaderboards, levels and progress bars seem to be the most used elements. Recent research confirms this notion.  Dicheva et al. (2015) conducted a systematic mapping study covering existing empirical work in gamification in education. One of the research questions behind this study was "What game elements have been used in gamifying educational systems?". The study considered 34 articles and conference papers published from 2011 and until the first semester of 2014. Most of the publications occurred in 2013 (19) and 2014 (12). In their study, Dicheva et al., first found what were the most cited game design principles and game mechanics. These terms are considered here as "game elements" and "game techniques", respectively. The study reached the following conclusions: The most used game elements were points, badges, leaderboards, levels, virtual goods and avatars (this one mentioned only in one publication); The most used game techniques were "visible status", "social engagement", "freedom of choice", "freedom to fail", "rapid feedback" and "goals/challenges"; These game elements and techniques were mostly appplied to blended learning courses; Only two papers considered K-12 education. The remainning publications concern higher education and training; Computer Science and ICT educators are the early adopters of gamification; There is a scarce empirical research on the efectiveness of gamification in learningenvironments; The authors of the reviewed papers share the opinion that gamification has the potencial to improve learning.Also Seaborn and Fels (2015) surveyed 31 gamified systems and find that the most employed game elements elements and game techniques were points (18), badges (15), rewards (11), leaderboards (11), challenges (6), status (5), progression (3), achievements (3), avatars (3), mini-games (2), roles (2), narrative (1), time pressure (1), and feedback (1).Farber (2015), refers some "gamification mechanics"  (game elements), used in gamification and quest-based learning. Those elements are leaderboards, badges, modding, avatars, in-game economies, game geography and Easter eggs.Literature reviews revealed that, although several articles and conference papers have been published since 2010, there is still a lack of empirical research on the use and the benefits of gamification. This happens not also in education but also in the other fields of application of the gamification approach. Nevertheless, according to Hamari et al. (2014), education is the most common context found in research. Regarding gamification for the K-12 education more empirical research is needed. Another important conclusion is that gamification does produce positive effects and benefits and gamification of education, in particular, has a potential impact on learning. This review also shows that there is a set of common game components used in most learning settings.Hence, the most used game elements and techniques, mainly according to the studies from Dicheva et al. (2015), Seaborn and Fels (2015), Thiebes et al. (2014) and Hamari et al. (2014), are shown in the following table:References:Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., and Angelova2, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study (in press). Educational Technology and Society,, 18(3). Farber, M. (2015). Gamify Your Classroom: A Field Guide to Game-Based Learning. Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York.Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., and Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? - a litera- ture review of empirical studies on gamification. In proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pages 6-9, Hawaii, USA.Seaborn, K., Pennefather, P., and Fels, D. (2013). Reimagining leaderboards: Towards gamifying competency models through social game mechanics. In Lennart E. Nacke, K. H. and Randall, N., editors, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications, pages 107-110, New York. ACM.Thiebes, S., Lins, S., and Basten, D. (2014). Gamifying information systems - a synthesis of gamification mechanics and dynamics. In Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv.

Call For Papers for the Second edition of "gEducation: Gamification in Education" workshop, co-located within the 4th edition of the Gamification World Congress, that will be held on 10th - 13th November 2015 in Barcelona, Spain.Important Dates:Submission deadline: Deadline Extended to September 15th 2015Notifications: October 5th 2015Workshop: November 13th 2015

Workshop on Personalization in Serious and Persuasive Games and Gamified Interactions (October 4th,  2015) in conjunction withSubmission Deadline: 01.09.2015Topics:Theoretical explorations of the differences and communalities of the notions personalization, customization, adaptation and tailoring.Contributions exploring factors for personalization, e.g. personality, cognitive abilities, gender, persuadability, player types, gamification user types, different states, customization of game input/output devices, preferences in regard to the game interface, game preferences as well as contextual and situational variables.Studies showing the effect of personalization, especially on several relevant dependent variables, e.g. holistic player/user experience, emotional and cognitive appeal, usage frequency and cultural background.The development and validation of new and improved models for personalization e.g. advanced player/gamification user type models.Contributions exploring design practices, guidelines and challenges as well as procedures and patterns, around personalization of serious games and gamified systems.(Industrial) case studies and (commercial) examples of personalized serious and persuasive games and gamified systems (benefits, risks, practical impact).Success stories and stories of failure with regard to personalization of serious and persuasive games and gamified systems. Limitations and requirements of personalization.Studies on the return of investment and costs-benefits analyses of personalization in serious and persuasive games and gamified interactions.Other market- and industry relevant considerations of personalized serious games and gamified systems as well as new business models and opportunities for personalization (e.g. personalization as premium feature).

This year, gamification was not included in the Gartner's Hype Cycle. In the last four years, gamification was part of the cycle: see this post. This gave rise to some comments, like this one: The Hype is Over - Gamification is Here to Stay.What really happened is that Gartner moved gamification to a digital marketing hype cycle:This is also pointed by Toby Beresford in Quora: Why Gamification is not included in the Gartner's 2015 Hype Cycle:As Jorge Simões points out, gamification hasn't gone - it's simply been downgraded from a major "game changer" theme to being a component of another one - in this case 'digital marketing'.  It's worth noting that few gamification practitioners really agree with Gartner's view that gamification is a purely digital technology.In 2014, Gamification was on the "Through of Disillusionment", with a prediction to reach the "Plateau of Productivity" in two to five years. In 2015 in seems that Gamification reached the bottom and was kept out of the cycle. No problem with that. It will probably move to the "Slope of Enlightenment" but Gartner is now considering it just as a digital marketing tool and probably will keep it out of the cycle. But gamification is not relevant just for marketing purposes and it can even be used in non-digital environments (which is not the Gartner's opinion).Gamification is still considered as relevant in Education and several other contexts. Darina Dicheva and Christo Dichev submitted a paper to E-LEARN 2015 (Gamification in Education: Where Are We in 2015?) where they present a follow-up of an initial study - Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study (see this post). In this follow-up (covering the period from July 2014 till June 2015), the authors found that there is "... inconclusive and insufficient evidence for making valid claims about the efficacy of gamification in education". They also point for " ... the drop of the empirical studies reporting positive results and the big jump of the studies with inconclusive or negative results".It seems that, also in education, gamification is reaching the "Through of Disillusionment". Or it means that we still need further research on how to apply gamification effectively.The paper also includes a definition for Gamification in Education: "the introduction of game elements and gameful experiences in the design of learning processes" (I have my definition of gamification in education: the use of game elements and game techniques in technology-enhanced learning environments in order to improve students’ motivation and engagement).References:Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., and Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study (in press). Educational Technology and Society, 18(3). Dicheva, D., Dichev, C. (2015). Gamification in education:Where we satnd in 2015?. E-LEARN 2015 - World Conference on E-Learning, Kona, Hawaii, October 19-22, 2015

A COIED 2015 - Conferência Online de Informática Educacional tem início já na próxima segunda-feira, 12 de outubro. O programa completo e detalhado está disponível aqui. As inscrições ainda estão abertas (até 11 de outubro).Participação no programa de workshops com Vamos ver o que dá ...Para já, aqui fica a sessão de abertura:

We recently finished working on our branding, and one of the first changes we made were to our logo (I won’t elaborate on why we changed the old logo, except that it was, well, old). We decided to put some thought into it - mainly on how to communicate our beliefs about what next generation gamification should do. Our logo designer presented us with great options. Initially she offered elements that were closer to "fun" - but gamification isn’t about fun at work. It’s about using game mechanics to drive meaning and skill into employee workdays, giving them the enjoyment of mastery and aligning them with corporate goals. That’s why we narrowed down our choices to the following three options: One has a medal: One a star, like those awarded by teachers to students that do well: One a winner’s podium: Initially we were attracted to the medal, turning the letter "v" into a ribbon from which a medal hangs. The podium looked less attractive. Yet we thought about medals - weren’t our views on gamficiation the exact opposite of badges, medals and points? Did we think that gamification required more than simplistic "points" - but rather to encourage a richer view of the behavior affected, leading to a more skillful mastery acquired? That’s why we opted for the podium and the person above it. Gamification isn’t about assigning points and badges. Gamification empowers employees because it teaches them the skills they need to master their trades. That makes employees into winners.

Gamification, or the use of game mechanics to increase engagement in non-play activities, is becoming more mainstream. Yet, we see that just using points or leaderboards doesn’t always make the cut. Can narratives be used to make gamification more enagaging? the answer is yes. Here’s how: According to Karl Kapp, there are two types of gamification: Structural Gamification which is based on existing content, badges, points, leaderboards and similar tools; and Content-based Gamification which uses game simulations with elements such as story, goals, feedback and play. According to Kapp, the he main difference between the two is that structural gamification rewards "natural winners", the top ten percent who tend to be at the top of the leaderboard on a regular basis. Content-based gamification engages the middle 70 % employees, those whose behavior modification, through motivation and inspiration, would make a bigger change. Reeves and Read in their book Total Engagement: How Games and Virtual Worlds Are Changing the Way People Work and Businesses Compete" list the ten ingredients for great multiplayer games. These, in my opinion, are great pointers of what makes games truly engaging and immersive.  This is the short of it: Self-representation with avatars; three-dimensional environments; narrative context; feedback; reputations, ranks and levels; marketplaces and economies; competition under rules that are explicit and enforced; teams; parallel communication systems that can be easily configured; time pressure. Let’s focus on the third element of "great games": "narrative context". "Good games have good backstories - galaxies at war, people who need rescue, or places that may soon be destroyed. Such narratives guide action and organize character roles, rewards and group action", say Reeves and Read. Stories have important emotional advantages that keep people engaged. Being human implies that stories are a way of generating meaning. Stories are important to basic human thinking and the process of making sense of the world. They are important to emotional experience and social expertise. When we stick to the facts, sometimes we find the facts are plain uninteresting. But stories always are. Narratives can be used for gamification - brining in enagagment, meaning and clear calls to action, showing employees how to get on a path to mastery. Here are some key benefits of using narratives for gamification: Narratives tell players what to do A narrative helps the playereasily understand his path to mastery They increase excitement and attention If there is conflict within the narrative players will always want to reduce it and they will always strive for a resolution. When conflicts are resolved people feel good. It is easier to form memories when something is told as a story, and therefore better undergo on-boarding, learning and training Narratives can easily hold complex scenarios, requiring behavioral change on multiple levels rather than keeping players focused on just one KPI Game mechanics promote competition, but mixing group narratives within them promotes cooperation. Using narratives together with gamification, and using them consistently over time, can have great results. Narratives make engagement easier and longer. When teams play "contests" or "leagues" (playing the same game over and over again, with an opportunity to re-collect a new score each week) the organization can implement a continuous improvement process with sustainable results. Even if an individual or a team did not do well one week, they are likely to do better the following week. An important outcome of the continuity and game repetition is a path to mastery achieved by the employee. Narratives can be used to communicate complex business goals, creating a holistic alignment of game mechanics to the underlying business goals. For instance, balancing between the different, sometimes contradictory requirements for good customer service can be better done through a narrative.  Stories capture the imagination of our internal primite selves.  Using them can help employees engage and see how their efforts tie in to the greater enterprise goals.

We’re incredibly proud to announce our newest case study: "How Yahoo! increased its customer service KPIs by 10% in two weeks’ time". It’s available here, in our case study section. It features the story of how we quickly and effectively gamified Yahoo’s customer service, across geographies and teams, to create a lasting and sustainable improvement in KPIs.