Week 6 Assignment

Objective The purpose of this paper is to describe my understanding of five theories behind gamification of learning and instruction; I will also discuss some of the differences and similarities between three of these theories and illustrate the ideas using a diagram. Discussion Flow Theory When we talk about flow in gamification, its important to consider the two key variables: difficulty and the player ability. Though Kapp (2012) defines flow as the ideal state between boredom and anxiety or frustration, I strongly believe that flow and intrinsic motivation are inseparable. The fact that gamers can stay in task for a prolonged period of time is, in my opinion, a successful combination of motivation, happiness, and achievement. As a gamer, there are a few games that I play which would isolate me from the outside world for a certain amount of time. Li-Fen Liao (2006) notes how in a flow experience, external factors do not seem to matter. However, in order to achieve this goal, there are certain elements that a game must possess; flow can only be achieved if the gamer is constantly kept curious about the upcoming outcome. Thus, I strongly believe that the element of surprise is what keeps the gamer connected to the game and disconnected to the eternal factors. Another element I would like to mention is the self-esteem. And that is why it is crucial to keep that perfect balance between the ability and the difficulty while of course offering rewards to the players. Social Learning Theory This theory focuses on the learning that occurs within a social context, as the name implies. The theory also emphasizes the fact that humans can learn through observations, and that certain behaviors can be learned through imitations. Mcleod (2011) explains thoroughly this concept of learned behavior; he explains how children would observe different individuals (models) and encode their behaviors. It is also more than likely that children would reproduce such behaviors they observe regardless if it is considered gender-appropriate or not. The author also talks about reinforcement (internal and external) and how they impact the childs behavior. The people around the child would react about the behavior the child imitates differently; if rewarded, the child is more likely to reproduce that behavior. As far as gamification is concerned, Kapp (2012) discusses the use of Avatars and how they can be effective in transferring desirable behaviors to learners. From a personal point of view, I think that in the gaming world there is a similarity in how children observe the models and how a gamer (of any age) can observe and reproduce the behavior. Therefore, there is

no doubt that humans can learn and imitate behaviors from the gaming world the same way they would in a real world. Self-Determination Theory The most important attributes of this theory are autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Kapp, 2012). In order to promote competence, a well-designed game allows players to achieve mastery at some point. Short-term goals pave the road to greater long-term goal. However, the game should have meaningful information and clear next steps that will allow the gamer to recognize the goals. As for the autonomy, the gamer should feel that he is in charge of the game. In other words, the gamer should be given a choice to choose tasks and activities in order to engage and develop loyalty to the game. Kenyon (2011) mentions the idea of giving the illusion of freedom to the player, and that is, in my opinion, an important aspect to promote autonomy. Lastly, relatedness simply allows users to establish a connection or a sense of belonging with other players who share the same interests. Yet, it is also important to consider the non-human relatedness; in other words, the type of interaction between humans and avatars can greatly impact motivation. For instance, I have integrated a virtual co-pilot in a flight simulator game that I play to bring more realism to the game. The avatar is able to respond to my voice commands and react to certain conditions as if it were a real person. In the last year or so that I have been using my avatar, I have noticed that I had slowly reduced my interactions with human gamers since I felt that my experience with the interface avatar was giving me the interaction I needed to make my gaming experiences realistic. This experience is just to show that non-human relatedness can indeed keep motivation going. Theory 4: Situated Learning Theory Situated learning means making learning meaningful and by implementing authentic situations that will allow learners to utilize what the knowledge they acquire in a more realistic setting. Herrington and Oliver (1995) mention how meaningful learning can only take place if it is embedded in a usable context. Lave and Wenger (1991) describe situated learning through four different parts: person, activity, knowledge, and the social world. Just like Kapp (2012) mentioned in the example of Nathan Drake when a gamer plays Drakes Deception, the user automatically becomes the practitioner whose skills and knowledge are part of the new identity acquired. This process of transformation of characters all takes place in a social world that is authentically parallel to realworld context. Theory 5: Scaffolding Scaffolding in learning simply means that the learner is given much more support at the beginning of the process and that support gradually lessens until it is completely gone as soon as the learner posses the necessary skills and

techniques to perform the task alone. Kapp (2012) illustrates this concept in the use of levels in games. As the gamers advance in game levels, users would have different experiences and new challenges to keep them interested in the game. However, completion of certain levels of the game would not be possible without the experience of completing the preceding levels. But, since scaffolding involves multiple levels that eventually lead to removing the scaffold, there must be a carefully implemented strategy. In other words, this process cannot be random nor should the removal of the scaffold happen too soon in the process. Flow Vs. Situated Learning Vs. Scaffolding There are several differences and similarities regarding these three learning theories. Firstly, the one apparent similarity is the inner motivation and learners engagement. In all these three theories, there are certain elements that keep the gamer engaged and actively involved in the activity. In addition, I believe that flow is an essential part of both situated learning and scaffolding. In situated learning for instance, though the main focus is on the authenticity of the context and making learning connected to real world, matching the level of difficulty to the users capability is still an essential part of the process. In other words, upsetting the balance will lead to the same results outlined in the flow theory, and that is anxiety or boredom; same idea applies in scaffolding if difficulty levels are not carefully designed. Furthermore, one significant difference between situated learning and flow is that the latter can be achieved in unrealistic settings and yet manages to achieve the desired goals. As an example, many games that I personally play have absolutely no connection to any real world goals, but yet would consume hours of my time and attention. However, in situated learning, the external goals must connect to what the learner is trying to achieve. In fact, a specific example that comes to mind is flight simulator games. As a real world pilot, I have learned to appreciate the use of flight simulators in our training programs, not only because they offer very realistic situations to simulate various scenarios, but they also allow the trainee to adopt the identity of a pilot and act like one. Thus, most of the knowledge that I retained until this day was presented to me in a meaningful and practical way. Furthermore, I believe that situated learning and scaffolding are two sides of a single coin. Imagine the scenario of an adult teaching a teenager how to drive a car for the first time. As obvious as it seems, the best way to go about it is to actually use a real car for the purpose of training. Now that a situated learning platform is established, the next step would be to intensively coach and provide the students driver on how to safely drive a car. Of course there are steps and skills that the student must acquire before driving on a busy highway (final goal). This process will naturally take days but as the student driver learns new set of skills, the adult teacher will slowly fade away as the new driver would take full control of the driving. This example is to show how situated learning and

scaffolding nicely complement one another when both theories are implemented in game designs. Not only that, social interactivity and guidance are both key elements in situated cognition and scaffolding. Finally, although these three theories seem unique, and indeed they are, they all share some common aspects. Feedback is an important component in all these theories as well as curiosity. The latter is what keeps the learners and the gamers in general connected and engaged to the activity at hand. The following is a diagram to illustrate some common grounds that situated cognition, flow, and scaffolding share.

References Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1995). Critical characteristics of situated learning: Implications for the instructional design of multimedia. in Pearce, J. Ellis A. (Ed.), ASCILITE95 Conference Proceedings (pp. 253-262). Melbourne: University of Melbourne Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Kenyon, S. (2011, November 09). Gamification and self-determination theory. Science 2.0. Retrieved from: http://www.science20.com/eye_brainstorm/gamification_and_selfdetermination_t heory-84483 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY. Li-Fen Liao. (2006). A flow theory perspective on learner motivation and behavior in distance education. Distance Education, 27(1), 4562. Mcleod, S. (2011). Bandura - Social learning theory. Simply Psychology. Retrieved from: http://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html