Other
by ICE Blog Admin

Align the Game to Your Aim: Considering Gamification through the Lens of Self-Determination Theory

By: Nicole Damari, MD, MS, Christine Zhou, DO

We’ve all been there: your opponent won the game of Monopoly 20 minutes ago, but somehow the game drags on. A particularly competitive player turns a casual game of Catan into a shouting match. You feel demoralized playing Super Smash Brothers when you are clearly outmatched. You sit there, having lost any motivation to keep playing, just waiting for the game to end.

Our prior installment discussed some of the benefits of leveraging games in education, one of the key reasons being the obvious: games are fun. Beyond fun, and perhaps through fun, they can promote motivation and engagement. However, as anyone who has ever played games can attest, games are not always fun and motivating. Some game moments – like the ones described above – can quickly become the opposite. If motivation is one of the potential benefits of game-based learning compared to more traditional methods of instruction, what are the specific game elements that genuinely improve player motivation?

To explore this question, let’s focus specifically on gamification. While definitions vary, for our purposes here, we will define gamification as the application of game design elements to non-game contexts. This is unique compared to serious games, which are games designed with a goal other than entertainment (Deterding et al 2014). Given that the process of gamification involves isolating and applying specific game elements to other contexts, it is a rich area in which to explore the question of which elements can be motivational.

The range of potential game elements to leverage in gamification is wide. We think often about points, badges, and leaderboards, but game elements also include levels and progress mechanics, narrative structure, competition, teamwork, feedback mechanisms, fictional currencies, challenges and quests, avatars, discoverable content, immersive environments – the list goes on (Singhal 2019, Abadi 2022, Al-Rayes 2022, van Gaalen 2020). The potential unique benefit of gamification is that it can allow individuals to isolate specific game elements that can promote a target outcome without committing to a full game (Alsawaier 2017). To realize this potential, theoretical or empirical alignment between the chosen game elements and the intended educational outcomes is critical (van Gaalen 2021). Skipping this step leads to “rhetorical gamification”, which is using game elements to yield the appearance of a game without attention to aligning those game elements with outcome goals (Landers 2019). As an example, consider a required workplace module that awards points for every video completed. Winnable points are certainly a well-recognized game element, but is it aligned with the educational goals of the module?

The explanatory theoretical framework most often cited within game-based learning literature is Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Krath 2021). Broadly, SDT posits that the development of motivation relies upon the fulfillment of three psychological needs: competence, connection, and autonomy (Ryan & Deci 2020). Distinctions are also made between three levels of motivation: amotivation, extrinsic motivation (fueled by outside factors), and intrinsic motivation (fueled by internal factors). The more the three needs are supported, the more movement there is from amotivation to intrinsic motivation.

Within this framework, let’s revisit the workplace module that awards points for videos completed and what the intended effects of awarding points might be. First, points can be viewed as an extrinsic motivator, either with extrinsic motivation as the primary goal, or with the intent of using extrinsic motivation while simultaneously cultivating a space for intrinsic motivation to develop (Singhal 2019, Alsawaier 2017). If the former is the objective, it should be so with caution, as extrinsic motivators alone may not result in a sustained effect (Alsawaier 2017). If the latter is the objective, we need to consider how adding points to an educational module impacts the constructs that support intrinsic motivation: competence, connection, and autonomy. For example, if points are attached to notable achievements, they might be internalized as a recognition of competence. If individuals have a choice as to how they approach earning or gaining points, this may promote a sense of autonomy. Finally, leaderboards as a mode of social comparison, or teamwork as a way to earn points together, can create feelings of connection.

If this is all true, however, then why does so much of the literature highlight the opposite effect – that the addition of points may actually decrease intrinsic motivation or worsen performance and engagement? (Abadi 2022, Alsawaier 2017). This is called the “Overjustification Effect” – the introduction of external rewards leading to a decrease in intrinsic motivation. We can use the same theoretical framework we used to understand the potential benefits of awarding points to understand its potential harms. For example, if points are attached to activities that feel irrelevant, they may fail to produce the intended support of competence (Abadi 2022). If awarding points is seen as controlling or if there is little choice in how to participate in the educational activity or earning points, this can harm autonomy (Ede 2022). If points are not paired with features like teamwork or leaderboards, we may lose the opportunity to promote connection.

It’s also important to consider player-related factors. Players who are amotivated may be more responsive to the same extrinsic rewards that might be ineffective or harmful to an intrinsically motivated learner (Hanus and Fox 2015). Some suggest that gamification may also be more effective for those who have the choice to participate, as this promotes autonomy (Mekler 2017).

Once we determine whether we can produce sustainable motivation through gamification, it’s important to ask the further question of what we are motivating. Consider again the concept of awarding points for videos completed. While this may at a quick glance appear to be a design that could motivate engagement with the material, it may actually be incentivizing participants to achieve these extrinsic goals without learning – like, for example, completing as many videos as fast as possible to maximize points earned (Abadi 2022). 

In summary, even adding a single game element to an educational activity requires thoughtful consideration. To check for alignment, we consider the following questions as we approach the gamification process:

  1. What is the goal of the educational activity?
  2. What is the barrier to learning within the activity you are trying to address with gamification?
  3. Which game element is best aligned with the goals you identified and why?
  4. What is the expected outcome of the gamification intervention, based on theoretical or empirical frameworks?
  5. Are there any behaviors beyond your expected outcomes that the gamification intervention might incentivize?

Though we use the classic example of awarding points here, the possibilities of gamification are expansive. As with any educational session, care must be taken to ensure that the chosen approaches are theoretically or empirically aligned with intended educational outcomes and motivational goals. When that alignment is achieved, gamification becomes rich with potential.

References

  1. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., Nacke, L. From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining “Gamification”. Paper presented at the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference, Tampere, 2014.
  2. Mirzaie Feiz Abadi, B., Khalili Samani, N., Akhlaghi, A., Najibi, S., and Bolourian, M. “Pros and Cons of Tomorrow’s Learning: A Review of Literature of Gamification in Education Context”, Medical Education Bulletin, 3, 4, 2022, 543-554. doi: 10.22034/meb.2022.350941.1063
  3. Landers, R. N. (2018). Gamification Misunderstood: How Badly Executed and Rhetorical Gamification Obscures Its Transformative Potential. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(2), 137-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492618790913 (Original work published 2019)
  4. Singhal S, Hough J and Cripps D. Twelve tips for incorporating gamification into medical education [version 1]. MedEdPublish 2019, 8:216 (https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2019.000216.1)
  5. Saja Al-Rayes, Fatemah Ali Al Yaqoub, Asma Alfayez, Demah Alsalman, Fahad Alanezi, Seham Alyousef, Heba AlNujaidi, Atheer K. Al-Saif, Razaz Attar, Duaa Aljabri, Sama’a Al-Mubarak, Mona M. Al-Juwair, Sumaiah Alrawiai, Linah Saraireh, Amjad Saadah, Arwa Al-umran, Turki M. Alanzi. Gaming elements, applications, and challenges of gamification in healthcare. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked. Vol 31, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imu.2022.100974.
  6. van Gaalen, A.E.J., Brouwer, J., Schönrock-Adema, J. et al. Gamification of health professions education: a systematic review. Adv in Health Sci Educ 26, 683–711 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-020-10000-3
  7. Alsawaier R. “The effect of gamification on motivation and engagement.” Internal Journal of Information and Learning Technology. 2018, 31(1)56-79.
  8. Krath J, Schürmann L, von Korflesch H. “Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning.” Computers in Human Behavior. Vol 125, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963.
  9. Ryan, E., & Deci, E. (2020). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation from a Self-Determination Theory Perspective: Definitions, Theory, Practices, and Future Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article ID: 101860.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
  10. Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019
  11. Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K. (2017). Towards understanding the effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 525–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.048
  12. van Roy, R., & Zaman, B. (2018). Need-supporting gamification in education: An assessment of motivational effects over time. Computers & Education, 127, 283– 297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.018

The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The University of Ottawa. For more details on our site disclaimers, please see our ‘About’ page