This is not exactly history (yet) but the discussion about the recent proposal for a gamification definition proposed by Brian Burke, a research analyst at Gartner, brings new issues that will help to understand the concept of gamification and, therefore, will probably be part of its history.This is what Brian Burke and Gartner propose:Gamification is "the use of game mechanics and experience design to digitally engage and motivate people to achieve their goals"They care to explain in detail the components of their proposal:Game mechanics describes the use of elements such as points, badges and leaderboards that are common to many games. Experience design describes the journey players take with elements such as game play, play space and story line. Gamification is a method to digitally engage, rather than personally engage, meaning that players interact with computers, smartphones, wearable monitors or other digital devices, rather than engaging with a person. The goal of gamification is to motivate people to change behaviors or develop skills, or to drive innovation. Gamification focuses on enabling players to achieve their goals. When organizational goals are aligned with player goals, the organization achieves its goals as a consequence of players achieving their goals.Concerning game elements, not much to say. The examples given are the usual game elements found in gamified applications. Calling them game mechanics or game elements is another issue. I prefer the term "game elements". "Mechanics", in my view, are related to the rules that govern the use of the elements, how are they related and how they can motivate people to achieve their goals.Experience design is, to my knowledge, a new term in the gamification universe. I believe it is related to the player journey (see this post). In the explanation there is a connection to play, which is a central component in gamification.A major issue concerning the definition, that raises most of the discussion, is about "digitally engage". In this definition, gamification can only be applied in a digital context. That is not the view of many gamification researchers and practitioners (or gamification gurus). In fact, the concept can be used in any context, digital or non-digital. Digital technologies can help by providing the platforms to assist the implementation of the concept in a non-digital context, but that is not mandatory. See this post about the different application contexts of gamification.The last part of the definition, motivate people to achieve their goals, is interesting since it focus on the players (the people with goals to be achieved) and not on the organizational goals (that must be aligned with the players' goals). But, in many situations, the target users of a gamified application, may not have such clear goals. In these cases, the gamified application tries to change the players behaviors, to achieve certain goals, that are useful for them but that they are not aware of (or concerned about). Therefore, the goals are set by the organization, and the gamified application tries to motivate the players to reach those goals, that must be clear for the players and that must be, ultimately, the players' own goals. This is particular relevant in educational contexts.To summarize, this new definition and the discussion about it shows that there is still work to be done to clarify what is meant by gamification. It is now clear that is not the same of games or serious games or simulations or game-based learning (as it was initially confused). But the Burke/Gartner definition reveals that we must look deeper into the contexts where gamification can be applied and to the tools that can be used.The most common definition, and widely used in the academia, is still "the use of game design elements in non-game contexts". Simple and straightforward. My own definition adds a second part:the use of game design elements in non-game contexts, to drive game like engagement in order to promote desired behaviours.It points to the goals of gamification, an engagement like the one people experience with games, as a way to promote some desired behaviors in the target users of the gamified application (that can be digital or non-digital). Concerning the discussion about the Burke/Gartner definition, see this posts and discussionsGartner Redefines Gamification: What Do You Think?A response to Gartner’s new definition of gamificationWhat gamification is to me - My definition Gartner is Soooooo Wrong about Gamification…How #Gartner got Gamification WrongThis is the fifth post of the series A Brief History of Gamification. See also,A Brief History of Gamification: Part I - The OriginA Brief History of Gamification: Part II - The NameA Brief History of Gamification: Part III - The DefinitionsA Brief History of Gamification: Part IV - The Evolution

Professor Kevin Werbach released a video with some statistics for the 2014 edition of his Coursera Gamification MOOC that ended in April. These courses were already mentioned before in this blog (A Brief History of Gamification: Part IV - The Evolution):Also with an increasing number of scholars and professionals becoming interested in the concept, along with the general public, the online learning platform Coursera launched in August 2012, a MOOC on gamification, lectured by Kevin Werbach, an Associate Professor from the University of Pennsylvania. The course had more than 80.000 registered students with further editions in 2013 (with 66.000 students) and January 2014 (with 78.000 registrations). After the first edition of the course, Werbach co-authored the book For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business.The video seems to be only available for those who registered in the course. Here are some of the main statistics:A big number of registrations but only a small percentage actually concluded the courses successfully. Still, a great number (around 4500 students).And the final remarks:"Gamification is still a new field and MOOCs are still a new form of learning."

Since gamification, as a new buzzword and a popular term in digital media, hit the mainstream, several advisory and research companies, consulting firms and others start to draw some forecasts about the future of gamification. Most of them use the concept in marketing and enterprise perspective and state how gamification will impact business.GartnerGartner, an information technology research and advisory company, stated thatIn 2014 most companies will have at least one gamified application. In 2014, a gamified service for consumer goods marketing and customer retention will become as important as Facebook, eBay or Amazon, and more than 70% of Global 2000 organizations will have at least one gamified application. By 2014, 80% of current gamified applications will fail to meet business objectives primarily due to poor design; By 2015, more than 50 percent of organizations that manage innovation processes will gamify those processes (in Gartner Gamification Report 2011);In 2015, 70% of the world’s largest enterprises will be using gamification (in Gartner Gamification Report 2011). Since 2011, Gartner added gamification to its "hype cycle for emergent technologies", pointing for a period of 5 to 10 years for mainstream adoption. Before 2011, gamification was not yet part of the cycle (see the 2010 Hype Cycle).Gartner uses hype cycles to track technology adoption: after the "peak of inflated expectaions" pe- riod, technologies will fall into the "trough of disillusionment". Then, they will start evolving to the "slope of enlightenment" and some of them will reach the "plateau of productivity". By 2013, gamification was at the "peak of inflated expectations". "We think it is still on track (...) In our 2013 Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, we place gamification at the ‘Peak of Inflated Expectations’. We continue to believe it will move into the ‘Trough of Disillusionment’ in 2014." (Brian Burke, Gartner's research vice president).M2 ResearchIn 2011, M2 forecast that the gamification market would reach $242 million by the end of 2012 and that he global market for gamification apps and services will grow to $2.8 billion by 2016.Deutsche BankDeutsche Bank predicts the market size of gamification to $4.2-5.3 billion within the enterprise space only (source).Markets and MarketsM&M, a market research company and consulting firm, predicted that the gamification market is estimated to grow from $ 421.3 million in 2013 to $5.502 billion in 2018. IEEEThe IEEE - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, said last February, that their members anticipate that 85 percent of our lives will have an integrated concept of gaming in the next six years. While video games are seen mainly for their entertainment value in today’s society, industries like healthcare, business and education will be integrating gaming elements into standard tasks and activities, making us all gamers (source).They did not say how they get this insight from their members.Pew Research Center and Elon UniversityA May 2012 Pew Research Center and Elon University survey of more than 1,000 Internet experts and users showed that they were about evenly split on gamification’s future: 53% believed it would become widespread with some limits, while 42% said it would not transform into a larger trend except in specific situations (source). The experts answered the question: Will the use of gamification, game mechanics, feedback loops, and rewards to spur interaction and boost engagement, buy-in, loyalty, fun, and/or learning continue to gain ground and be implemented in many new ways in people’s digital lives between now and 2020? (source) Other predictions for 2014:No longer just hype, gamification will emerge as a powerful engagement tool to increase customer loyalty and conversions. Major global corporations from Oracle to American Express are already diving head first into gamification, with Oracle gamifying their annual Open World conference in late 2013, and American Express betting big on gamification for customer engagement and employee compliance. Businesses are understanding that gamification is much more than "PBL" points-badges-leaderboards, and instead a powerful program which requires nurturing over time to continue increasing relevant and high-value user behavior, and ultimately long-term engagement (source).Concerning education and e-learning, there are also some forecasts: Gamification is all set to pick up speed in 2014. The concepts of Game-based Learning (GBL) and Gamification will gain acceptance as valid learning strategies.The report The Future of Gamification from the Pew Research Center and Elon University also stated that some scholars and educators, too, have become interested in harnessing the potential of gaming mechanics and sensibilities as tools for advancing learning. A "serious gaming" movement has arisen to apply gaming techniques to such realms as military and corporate and first-responder training programs, civilization and environmental ecology simulations, K-12 educational programs on subjects like math and history and the sciences, news events and public policy campaigns, problem-solving strategies in the natural sciences, and even physical exercise programs.  The Horizon Report 2014 - Higher Education Edition points to a two to three years time-to-adoption horizon for the adoption of gamification in the higher education field: While a growing number of educational institutions and programs are experimenting with game-play, there has also been increased attention surrounding gamification — the integration of gaming elements, mechanics, and frameworks into non-game situations and scenarios. Businesses have embraced gamification as a way to design incentive programs that engage employees through rewards, leader boards, and badges, often with a mobile component. Although more nascent than in military or industry settings, the gamification of education is gaining support among educators who recognize that effectively designed games can stimulate large gains in productivity and creativity among learners."Accurate or not, these predictions brought new highlights for gamification that become a new trend, not only in business, but in many other areas, like education and training. We are in the middle of 2014. Let's wait and see if the 2014 forecasts are accurate.To end, some stats from 2013.This is the sixth post of the series A Brief History of Gamification. See also,A Brief History of Gamification: Part I - The OriginA Brief History of Gamification: Part II - The NameA Brief History of Gamification: Part III - The DefinitionsA Brief History of Gamification: Part IV - The Evolution A Brief History of Gamification: Part V - The Definitions (Again)Comments are welcomed!

A video with a definition for gamification, the origin of gamification and some predictions by Karl Kapp (published in this post). The definition is applied to learning and instruction and is based on the same ideas of the latest Karl Kapp's book on the subject (see this other post). The differences between gamification, learning games and simulations are also presented.The video includes also Kapp's notions of structural gamification and content gamification:Structural gamification: the application of game elements to propel a learner through content with no alterations or changes to that content, only the structure around the content. Content gamification: the application of game elements, game mechanics and game thinking to alter content to make the content more game like. See also these posts about the history of gamification:A Brief History of Gamification: Part I - The OriginA Brief History of Gamification: Part II - The NameA Brief History of Gamification: Part III - The DefinitionsA Brief History of Gamification: Part IV - The Evolution A Brief History of Gamification: Part V - The Definitions (Again)A Brief History of Gamification: Part VI - The Predictions 

The debate about what the definition for gamification should be is far from being over. After the definition from Brian Burke and Gartner  (see A Brief History of Gamification: Part V - The Definitions (Again) ), more definitions saw the light of day:Andrzej Marczewski publish in his blog the post Defining gamification - what do people really think? where he presents an "average definition" for gamification: creating more game-like experiences in non game contexts. He points that this definition "does not include anything about why or how, just what it is". His proposal results from an average of a list of other definitions (some from  gamification gurus), looking at the most common concepts present. He concludes by saying "we are all trying to make more engaging experiences for people using ideas that games have been using forever".A different approach is proposed by Rajat Paharia, the founder of Bunchball, in A New Day for Gamification, or Is It? For him, gamification is motivating people through data. He comments on Burke's definition stressing that it could be enhanced with less emphasis on game language, avoiding the use of terms like "players". For Paharia, gamification is not about games and not about play. He even quotes Brian Burke about gamification not being about fun. In short, Rajat Paharia's view of gamification is very enterprise and business related and gamification is more than that. Finally, and recently, Kevin Werbach, the man behind the well-known MOOC on gamification, has a paper ((Re)Defining Gamification: A Process Approach) discussing and explaining his new definition: the process of making activities more game-like. The main change here is the notion of gamification as a process. In Werbach's view, his definition "creates a better fit between academic and practitioner perspectives". Most definitions rely on the use of game elements, in what he calls the elemental definitions, Using game elements in non-game contexts is not the same as transforming that context into something more game-like. To do that, a process is needed. The process can transform the activities to be more or less game-like. Therefore, the frontier between gamified and non-gamified settings is wider. He points that in education, the fact that a point system is used (the grades), it is  not possible to say that school activities (e.g. examinations) are gamified. At least, it means that education is a good non-game context that can be gamified as others mentioned (e.g. Lee and Hammer's Gamification in Education: What, How, Why Bother?). Werbach's definition is also aligned with the "average" definition from Marczewski.Could the new Kevin Werbach's definition replace the widely used definition from Deterding et al., the use of game design elements in non-game contexts?Some final remarks about what is gamification:It is not the same as games, but it is about games. If it is not about games, why call it gamification in the first place? If it is about games, the users of gamified applications can be called players, to highlight the idea, but this is probably not very important.Is is not clearly just about digital engagement. Is is about engagement, regardless of the medium, with a digital or non-digital approach. But digital tools can be very helpful. It is not about play, but it must feel as play, and it must be fun (how to define fun, anyway?). The importance of fun is the reason of the concept's name, the fun part of games, that lead to gamification.Data plays a central role in a gamification process because it drives the relation between the gamified application and the players. Again, digital tools can be very helpful.And it has a clear purpose: motivate people to change their behaviors and feelings about something that is not a game and is perceived as boring, unchallenging or without value. Making the thing (some activity in a non-game context) more game-like, by using what games have that can be used outside games, can engage people and motivate them to act properly regarding the thing's objectives.All these definitions make their contributions: Burke with the focus on motivation and engagement as the purpose of gamification, Paharia with the focus on data and Werbach and Marczewski with the focus on the process of creating game-like experiences.See also these other posts about the history of gamification:A Brief History of Gamification: Part I - The OriginA Brief History of Gamification: Part II - The NameA Brief History of Gamification: Part III - The DefinitionsA Brief History of Gamification: Part IV - The Evolution A Brief History of Gamification: Part V - The Definitions (Again)A Brief History of Gamification: Part VI - The Predictions

Slides of the lecture held in June 18, 2014, in a session of student projects presentation of the course Computer Games Development of the MSc in Informatics and Computing Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto. Palestra MIEIC Junho 2014 from Jorge Simões

A message sent by Sebastian Deterding to the Gamification Research Network:The Gamification Lab and the Hybrid Publishing Lab of Leuphana University just released a nice Creative Commons-licensed edited collection of contributions that are "Rethinking Gamification". The PDF is freely available online, the print version will follow soon.AboutGamification marks a major change to everyday life. It describes the permeation of economic, political, and social contexts by game-elements such as awards, rule structures, and interfaces that are inspired by video games. Sometimes the term is reduced to the implementation of points, badges, and leaderboards as incentives and motivations to be productive. Sometimes it is envisioned as a universal remedy to deeply transform society toward more humane and playful ends. Despite its use by corporations to manage brand communities and personnel, however, gamification is more than just a marketing buzzword. States are beginning to use it as a new tool for governing populations more effectively. It promises to fix what is wrong with reality by making every single one of us fitter, happier, and healthier. Indeed, it seems like all of society is up for being transformed into one massive game.The contributions in this book offer a candid assessment of the gamification hype. They trace back the historical roots of the phenomenon and explore novel design practices and methods. They critically discuss its social implications and even present artistic tactics for resistance. It is time to rethink gamification!ContentsIntroductionResetting BehaviourNiklas Schrape: Gamification and GovernmentalityPaolo Ruffino: From Engagement to Life, or: How to Do Things with Gamification?Maxwell Foxman: How to Win Foursquare: Body and Space in a Gamified WorldJoost Raessens: The Ludification of CultureReplaying HistoryMathias Fuchs: Predigital Precursors of GamificationFelix Raczkowski: Making Points the Point: Towards a History of Ideas of GamificationReframing ContextFabrizio Poltronieri: Communicology, Apparatus, and Post-History: Vilém Flusser’s Concepts Applied to Videogames and GamificationThibault Philippette: Gamification: Rethinking ‘Playing the Game’ with Jacques HenriotGabriele Ferri: To Play Against: Describing Competition in GamificationReclaiming OppositionDaphne Dragona: Counter-Gamification: Emerging Tactics and Practices Against the Rule of NumbersMatthew Tiessen: Gamed Agencies: Affectively Modulating our Screen and App-Driven Digital FuturesRemodelling DesignSonia Fizek: Why Fun Matters: In Search of Emergent Playful ExperiencesScott Nicholson: Exploring the Endgame of GamificationSebastian Deterding: Eudaimonic Design, or: Six Invitations to Rethink Gamification   

Gartner recently released their 2014 Hype Cycle for emerging technologies. Gamification is mentioned, as in the previous editions of 2013, 2012 and 2011 (gamification was not in the 2010 edition). Gamification in the 2014 Gartner Hype CycleSee A Brief History of Gamification: Part VI- The Predictions, to watch the evolution of gamification in the hype cycle since 2011.Evolution of Gamification in the Gartner Hype CycleAs expected, gamification is now on the "Through of Disillusionment", with a prediction to reach the "Plateau of Productivity" in two to five years. As Mario Herger puts, this is not a "bad thing":Here [the "Through of Disillusionment"] we have realized that it is ‘just a technology’ with good qualities which has promising opportunities but turned out not the be the solution for everything. Technologies in this state are often regarded with a lot of criticism (‘’see, told you that it wouldn’t work") until the real proper application is found and it fights its way back up the slope of enlightenment onwards to a plateau of productivity.So, gamification seems to be on its journey to become an effective technology. It is expected that in two years it might be in the "Slope of Enlightenment".See also Gartner Hype Cycle: Gamification and Big Data in 2012 and 2013.

It has been a while since the last post ...Returning back to the main theme of the latest posts, gamification, here is a field with high potential to apply the concept of gamification: driving, from the driving lessons to the behaviors of licensed drivers.Who will care about this? Obviously, those concerned with driving teaching, the driving schools, and also insurance companies. This is where concepts like UBI (Usage-based Insurance) or PAYD (Pay as You Drive) can cross paths with gamification. As found in Wikipedia, "gamification of the data encourages good driver behavior by comparison with other drivers". And there is already a platform to do this: Himex. And some insurance companies are using it.This platform needs additional hardware in the vehicle to gather data about drivers' behaviors. Then, by applying gamification techniques, the platform can give the driver (the player) feedback about how she or he is driving by looking to the journeys made in a virtual map.The video below is a presentation of the Himex UBI Platform:The aproach to gather the players data (using external devices) is one the four approaches to monitor and collect the data in a gamified system (see this older post):Using some external device: in this kind of gamified systems, a smartphone or another specific device or gadget is used to keep track of what the player is does in a given activity context. The device synchronizes with a website to upload the collected data and the player is rewarded with the usual points and badges, compare with other players or share achievements with friends. The best cited example of this kind of systems is Nike+. By using a smartphone, a specific watch, an iPod or other Nike devices, players can track sports activities like running. Similar examples, using their own devices, are Fitbit and Zamzee, the last one targeting a younger audience. Another interesting and funny example is HAPPIfork, an electronic fork that monitors eating habits.

Gamification: Where We StandKarl Kapp recently made a status report on the implementation of gamification in the end of 2014, looking particularly at the education and training field. The forecasts pointing to a much more massive adoption of this concept did not actually occur. This, however, is not surprising if we consider the gamification route in the Gartner Hype Cycle (see Gartner Hype Cycle 2014: Gamification on the Through of Disillusionment).Kapp also points to the different perspectives of the concept that still exist. There are many definitions for gamification and that goes for a long time (see A Brief History of Gamification: Part VII - The Definitions (Again and Again)). Also, terms like "game mechanics" and "game elements" need to be clarified.What is "Fun"?One key issue in Kapp’s post is the notion of "fun" and how it could be related to learning. Fun is part of games and, therefore, a concept to be addressed by gamification designers. But, how to use "fun" in gamified learning contexts? And, what is to be "fun", after all?Watch the video below:Publicação de Enduro Bikes - Moto Enduro.Is this fun? To watch, for most people, certainly. How about riding those motorbikes? For me it would be a disaster. I do not know how to ride a motorbike, and surely it would not be fun for me to try to do what the guys on the video are doing. But for them, it must have been fun. They have the proper skills; they can face the challenge, control what they are doing and have an immediate perception of how they are performing.The concept of fun varies from person to person. Something considered fun for some can be seen as dangerous and frightening for others. An activity can only be fun if it the person sees it as motivating and it involves a degree of difficulty compatible with the person’s capabilities.Fun and FlowA person, who performs a particular activity with a high degree of involvement and commitment, implies that the person will feel pleasure doing the activity. Feeling pleasure, produces a wellness sensation that causes the activity to become fun, with the activity not necessarily seen as such or as containing some entertainment component.This balance between the capabilities of the person and the challenges posed by the activity, also forcing a full concentration on the task execution, is the main ingredient of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow. "Flow" is the key to fully enjoy what we do and to achieve a full life.The fun that arises from a flow state is what Nicole Lazzaro calls "hard fun" (see The 4 Keys 2 Fun). Raph Koster, who wrote the Theory of Fun for Game Design, also states that "when there's flow, players usually say afterwards, 'that was a lot of fun'". But he also points "there can be flow that isn´t fun". Again, the notion of fun is dubious. For Koster, "fun is about learning in a context where there is no pressure, and that is why games matter". "No pressure" means that players are allowed to fail without penalty, and they can try again and again until they succeed. Games offer a safe place to fail and, in each try, players can learn something more.The 4 Keys 2 FunFun and GamificationGamification designers should not primarily design things to be fun, but to be deeply engaging and meaningful. A proper balance between a person’s  skills and the challenge they face, an immediate feedback on how they are doing, a sense of control and autonomy about how to achieve the goals are what is needed to reach a flow state. If the flow state is reached, the activity will be fun for the person performing it.Concerning gamification design, fun must be seen, mainly, as a consequence of the process rather than a design requisite. This does not mean that a user interface should not be pleasant and nice with the proper aesthetics.Kapp advises to "position gamification as a method of engagement, not as a way to have 'fun'", but remembers that "if 'fun' sneaks in, all the better".Learning, Fun and GamificationFor learning to be fun, we do not need to teach with cartoons or funny videos. We have to make learning meaningful and engaging and let the students reach, as close as possible, a flow state. Then, learning will become fun.On how to apply gamification, Kapp in his report asks the right question: "one of the things gamification is doing in the learning arena is forcing us to ask the question, 'When learning occurs within a game (and it can), what elements of the game and in what situation does that learning occur?'"Games can teach us how to keep players engaged. Games are made of several design elements and work according to specific techniques. Gamification purpose is to find out which of these elements and techniques should be used and how they should be used in non-game contexts.  The final goal is to get people feel the deep levels of  engagement experienced in games by approaching a flow state.

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.

Going from good to great in the workplace often means employing gamification to motivate your workforce. Pay and perks or plain supervisor authority aren’t enough: you need to stoke people’s internal fire with drive and purpose. Gamification, the use of game mechanics to alter behavior is a great way to do this, since it taps into the deepest drives that make us human: the need to do well, to feel a sense of purpose and to understand the story we’re in.   There are many gamification offerings; some use the old school points and badges. Others use more modern approaches, using narrative based games that tie seamlessly into corporate applications. But in this post I want to take on offline, old -fashioned and timeless games and apply them to workforce motivation. All they require is a pen, paper and some sticky tape, yet they are bound to make performance better.   This idea popped into my mind when I was visiting a call center.  I noticed this raffle (pictured here) used by one of the managers. I was suddenly reminded of the power and beauty of the offline games I used to play with my pals as a child: raffles with tiny crumpled notes, intense games with elaborate point counts and leagues. I remembered the triumphs and immense sense of drive and fun these games had.   So to pay tribute to the power of games that don’t happen on a screen, I decided to list five ways to gamify work, for free:   Pat on the back games One of the main ways to motivate people is to thank them for a job well done. In this game, played once a week, employees and managers participate together. Each employee pats someone on the back and mentions what for. Once several rounds are played, the pats on the back are counted, and a winner is announced. Take care not to reward your top employees alone. Make sure to reward people for different metrics (pats on the back for different reasons) or measure different metrics each time. This way, employees remain motivated to win a game that is played weekly, with different rules each time.   Pay it forward Get a larger box and many smaller boxes to nest in it. A matryushka of boxes. Each box contains notes depicting behaviors that represent the values of the company.  The first to play opens the box and gives the note to the person (in the team / floor / etc.) which he thinks best represents that  behavior. The receiver keeps the note and opens the next box, and so on. The winners are those with the most notes. This game promoted recognition of team efforts and helps employees clearly understand how corporate goals should be aligned with on the job daily activities and behavior.   Stick figure games This involves putting up a certain character (a mascot, a stick figure etc.) - cut into several pieces, like a puzzle. The character can be made of paper, of magnets or cardboard. The goal of the game is to assemble all pieces into a complete character. All pieces are received by the players once they meet a certain goal. However, the two last pieces can only be received if goals are exceeded. Stick figures can be displayed on the wall of fame or next to the employee’s desk.   Card collecting This game works best for onboarding new employees. Employees collect cards for each new person they interact with in the organization, just like kids collect baseball cards.  Additional cards are given for participation in workshops, courses, quizzes and reading materials. Cards are required to fill an album, reflecting the learning path the employee underwent when joining the organization.   Raffles Set a goal for employees, measured by a certain metric. Every time the goal is met, they get a ticket for a raffle. Once a period, have a raffle and distribute the prizes. The best prizes can be shared with co-workers (such as food and beverages). This spreads the fun and instills a sense of teamwork. While top-achievers usually collect more raffle tickets, the randomness of the raffle lets the medium achievers win as well, motivating the top 70% and not the top 5-10%. Hey, everyone should get a chance to win!  

The 2014 FIFA world cup is making everyone at GamEffective half dazed. Did The 2014 FIFA world cup is making everyone at GamEffective half dazed. Did you see what the Dutch team was up to? Did you stay up half the night to see the third game of the day? and how Gamification can help you ?     How Gamification Can Leverage Your Employees’ Fascination with the FIFA 2014 World Cup The 2014 FIFA world cup is making everyone at GamEffective half dazed. Did you see what the Dutch team was up to?  Did you stay up half the night to see the third game of the day? Once in a while grand sporting events mesmerize everyone with the narrative beauty of Greek mythology and great performance of professional sports. At these intersections of sports, global competition and unforeseen results, work seems, well, less interesting. Ever since the FIFA 2014 world cup began I am trying to figure out what glues millions of people across the globe (including myself) to the TV. What’s more interesting is that the people following the world cup are a diverse set: their passion for soccer (or football, depends on your nationality) crosses countries, social status, gender and age. The reason the world cup is so engaging is because it has many elements that appeal to the basics of human nature, and to our deep affinity for games, competitions and narratives. Here’s what’s compelling in the FIFA world cup: Competition: the world’s best 32 national soccer teams all compete for one coveted world cup. A Game: this isn’t just a competition, this is a game with rules and clear metrics - goals Narratives: the world cup lasts for a whole month. Each national soccer team builds its own narrative during the world cup - the underdogs, the failed champions, new and old fashioned game tactics, the heroic efforts and the shameful losses. It all melds into one experience that is memorable, emotional and compelling. Team based: the competition isn’t personal. The Spanish team even proved that a team of stars isn’t enough and that it’s all in teamwork… A continuous effect with a sense of advancement - the FIFA world cup lasts a long period of time, resulting in an experience of intensity and continuity. Belonging - people root for the teams they care about and the ups and downs of the teams move them emotionally. Surprises - if the best team "on paper" would always win the world cup wouldn’t be that interesting. Part of the interest comes from the surprises and even the effects of luck and coincidence on a personal or team level. Fun - last but not least, following the world cup is a lot of fun   All this can be used to motivate employees. You can choose a gamification platform to do this: we offer gamification themes that combine fantasy sports and therefore many of the reasons that make the world cup compelling in the first place. These let employees compete against their colleagues, company benchmark or their own target. The combination of a weekly event, the game and league is engaging. But back to the world cup. Are you forced to wait patiently till it’s over? Do you need to live with the fact that employees are compelled by the world cup and less by work? I have some good news for you. You can use the World Cup to create a mini-world-cup themed gamification contest that’s fun and great for business. Fantasy sports are a great way of getting employees super involved, and of communicating company targets and goals, together with the importance of team plays. Mixing fantasy sports with the 2014 FIFA world cup is a great way to mix the pleasure of the games with the business of work. Here’s how you do it: Have each team/employee prioritize their favorite national teams at the world cup. Decide on a metric for the week. The team or individual with the best score gets their first choice and so on, down the priority list. Getting a team you don’t like can be a great motivator… Track the games each week. "Winners" get a small group prize: food, an outing together, time off. Send out fun emails tracking every team’s progress; organize joint viewing if possible. You can also distribute tiny flags - attach them to emails etc. At the end of the second week, re-allocate teams based on performance. To get the favorite team at the end of the world cup, you gotta work hard… Choose the metric for the next week - and have each team/person get a new team to "sponsor" according to that metric Eventually, one of the teams/individuals will win the world cup. Celebrate.   By Guy Fogel, Customer success manager at GamEffective  

I recently overheard an interesting conversation between two friends that are triathletes. One of them was very excited about an upcoming race: he’s in better shape than last year, he said, he’s hoping to get to one of the top three results for his age bracket. The other friend, who has just begun training a year ago, on doctor’s orders (he was in bad shape before that) said "I’m into completion. Not competition". smart city narrative Many enterprise Gamification deployments emphasize competition and leaderboards. Yet sometimes giving employees a sense of completion works better As a Gamification designer, this struck me as conveying a much ignored insight about motivating employees. Not everyone wants to be at the top of the Leaderboard - that doesn’t mean they are losers or lazy - for these people it’s also about the journey. Sometimes, as we all know, poorly designed Leaderboards can even be de-motivating and ignore the real growth and attempts made by the non-top-performers who are nevertheless performing exceptionally well. Companies should take that into account. Motivating with Leaderboards alone, focusing on fostering competition doesn’t work for everyone and shouldn’t. Strive to give your people a sense of completion. What is a sense of completion? A sense of completion is the satisfaction you usually experience when a job is well done. Clean dishes. A 10 K run. A well-mowed lawn. An organized office. From a Gamification point of view, completion indicators are the game mechanic that gives you the same feedback - you did well. One of the best-executed examples? - The profile completion bar on LinkedIn. Add a picture, a career objective, more details about your past experience - and the bar moves closer to 100%. Get to 100%, or even 80% and sense completion. Would have LinkedIn motivated you to the same extent, if you were just pushed to complete your profile more than your other LinkedIn connections? I doubt it. Knowing that your profile is 100% is better than knowing it took you three years to get to 100%, while your connections completed theirs, two years ago… Completion touches many points in the lives of employees. For instance, a new employee, set on acquiring skills and knowledge within their new workplace isn’t necessarily interested in a Leaderboard. They are definitely not motivated by it. Yet the employee will greatly benefit from many milestones that signify completion - of a course taken, of a certain knowledge transfer, of a key skill acquired, of the first time they managed to do something well on their own. That’s why at GamEffective some of the training and employee on-boarding game narratives use completion-focused narratives, such as a Smart-city (build a city)/FarmEffective (Build a farm) and more. Additionally, avatars that track employees shouldn’t always show how they are doing compared to others; show them how they’ve progressed by themselves. Completion game mechanics give people a sense of personal achievement. They also have no losers - and guarantee that no one will get lost in the process. In cases where employees can set their targets, the sense of completion will also arise from a strong sense of commitment. Completion is also independent of other employees’ timelines. Change management is also a scenario where Gamification should focus on progress and completion and not competition. When gamifying the onboarding process of a new CRM software or an internal social network, or an innovation and knowledge collaboration system, the point isn’t about competition. It’s about completion of the transition into a system. An additional nuance in game design is the difference between measurement and completion (for an excellent description, go here). Measurement measures how well you’ve done - compared to others. For instance, in Candy Crash, you’re rewarded not just for completing a level, but on how well you did that compared to others. Completion is more autonomous, focusing on the completion of the level and not on how well it was done - compared to others. Sometimes measurement is best; sometimes completion is better. Completion isn’t the same for everyone and it shouldn’t be. That’s why we advise managers to be able to set different, individualized completion indicators and benchmarks for different employees. This rewards people for realistic targets of learning, training and task completion. It lets them experience the job satisfaction that comes from the sense of a job well done. Use that satisfaction; your employees deserve it.

How the Aleph venture capital fund is encouraging "karma" through pay it forward gamification. We all want to be part of a better society. When thinking about employees, a corporate culture or the business environment we’re in, we’d like people to do good deeds regardless of whether they will be reciprocated, earning "good karma" (the quasi-buddhist take) or actively engaging in "Pay it forward" (the less buddhist take). Pay it forward is a great concept and has the power to create re-occurring cycles of good deeds. The idea is simple - when someone does you a favor and you cannot repay them, you can repay some else, that also needs a favor or a good deed done. This creates a sense of good luck and a ton of positive vibes. Encouraging "pay it forward" in the corporate world has real benefits. Imagine an employee who, upon joining the company, receives support, informal mentorship or just a few great tips from another employee. Imagine that new employee paying it forward a year later, to a newly joined employee. That’s a workplace everyone would like to part of. We’ve even suggested a pay if forward game a while ago, in this post. What about Karma? According to Wikipedia "Karma means action, work or deed; it also refers to the principle of causality where intent and actions of an individual influence the future of that individual. Good intent and good deed contribute to good karma and future happiness…". Karma in the workplace sense is doing good deeds for the sake of doing them. That’s why reddit uses Karma Points. It uses them to reflect "how much good the user has done to the reddit community". Reddit explains how karma is created: "the best way to gain karma is to submit links that other people like and vote for…".  Actually my favorite part in the reddit Q&A is the answer to the question "why should I try to accumulate karma?". The reddit Q&A appeals first to the game and leaderboard lust in all of us, responding with the question "why should you try to score points in a video game?".  Only then it advises you to "look at things from a less competitive and more altruistic perspective… don’t set out to accumulate karma; just set out to be a good person, and let your karma simply be a reminder of your legacy." That’s why I was delighted to see an attempt at gamifying karma - or gamifying pay it forward. In a post titled "Add Good Karma to your Life", Eran Shir from Aleph VC announced yesterday a beta for an app that seeks to get people to pay it forward. It’s directed at the ecosystem of Israeli entrepreneurs so that startup founders can help each other. What other name could the app have but Karma? Karma is a "A mobile app dedicated to entrepreneurs who want to help each other, Karma is not another social network or about growing a volume of users. We’ve built Karma to give members of the startup ecosystem a way to ask for help, give help and share knowledge. Karma is about value and access, not vanity" One of the principles behind karma is a Pay it Forward Economy. He’s how Shir describes this: "Pay-It-Forward Economy - We help each other out of the goodness of our hearts, but sometimes incentives can be useful to get the ball rolling. That’s why we’ve added a pinch of gamification to Karma. Helping others and referring them to others will award you with Karma points. Karma has a leaderboard, where we celebrate the most helpful members of the community and some of the functionality of Karma, e.g. the breadth of audience to which your requests reach, will be dependent on your Karma points status. At Aleph, we will also provide unique ways for you to redeem your Karma points e.g. office hours and invitations to special events. Down the line, we envision Karma points becoming a currency and forming the basis of our pay-it-forward economy". Karma is in beta. I’ve registered for it. The next post in this series will hopefully include some (anonymized) screen shots and some take aways about gamification of a pay if forward economy using leaderboards.