Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Robin Turner
BUSEL / BALEAP Conference, 2012
Abstract
Games have always been a staple of English language teaching, but their use has been concentrated at elementary levels;
in contrast, English for academic purposes is often thought of
as too serious to warrant games in class. At the same time,
gamification has become a buzzword in education, business
and social activism. This paper draws on the practice of gamification not only to show that games have a place in the EAP class,
but more importantly, to demonstrate how we can learn from
games to make learning more playful. In particular I show how
certain characteristics of online games make them addictive
notably clear long- and short-term goals, constant feedback, enhanced self-image, flow, and the balance of collaboration and
competitionand how we can try to introduce these qualities to
EAP courses.
Despite its current popularity, the word gamification was practically unknown before 2010. There is thus some disagreement about
what it means, or indeed whether the word is worth using at all,
but the general view is that it refers to applying the mechanics of
gaming to nongame activities to change peoples behavior (Bunchball, 2010, p. 2). Educationalists often make a distinction between
gamification and game-based learning, with the latter referring
to the use of actual games and the former simply to the use of game
features; however, in this paper I shall use gamification broadly to
include both of these. While hangman, for example, is a game, not a
gamified activity, the insertion of word games into a curriculum can
still be seen as gamification, because a curriculum is not a game.
Whether they use the terms gamification, game-based learning
or serious games, there is considerable interest among educators
in applying the power of games to learning in the hope that we
can harness the spirit of play to enable players to build new cognitive structures and ideas of substance (Klopfer, Osterweil & Salen,
2009).
Games have always been a staple of English language teaching
(ELT), but they are far less common in Englsih for academic purposes (EAP). In an online survey I conducted of 32 colleagues at
1
are presented with but do not interact with it. (This is why educationalists who speak of interacting with the text are talking nonsense.) It is this characteristic of play that makes it so suitable for
learning. In particular, play at its best produces two types of peak
experience: flow and fiero. The former term was coined by Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi (1991) to indicate a state of intense absorption in
a challenging activity, such as climbing a rock face, performing music or, of course, playing a game: play is the flow experience par
excellence (p. 36). The term was immediately taken up by game
designers, as was fiero, originally an Italian word meaning pride
but now taken to mean the sense of elation felt on achieving success
in a game (scoring a goal, solving a puzzle, finishing a level etc.).
Fiero is associated with release of epineprine, norepinephrine and
dopamine (McGonigal, 2011, p. 47), which enhance memory (Saraf,
2009).
The means by which play produces these states have been listed
by Caillois (2001) as agon (rivalry), alea (chance), mimicry (roleplaying) and ilinx (disorientation, as in bungee-jumping or fun-fair
rides). These may be understood as modes of play and are usually
combined; for example, poker combines agon and alea, Dungeons
and Dragons combines alea and mimicry, and so on. Arguably activities which only contain one of these four modes are either not
games or are on the periphery of the games category; we may gamify by exploiting one of these modes, but this does not necessarily
produce a game. To these modes I would add enigma 2 to indicate
the puzzle-solving aspect of play. Again, this is important affectively:
puzzles arouse curiosity and are claimed to stimulate release of betaendorphine, adding to the neurochemical cocktail of play (McGonigal, 2011, p. 47).
Moving on to more complex skills, I wished both to handle a difficult academic text (Goodwin, 1985) and introduce students to decimal outlining to prepare them for their term paper. To this end,
I prepared a game using an interactive whiteboard where students
had to drag subheadings to the appropriate place in the outline (to
make it easier, I colour-coded them for level; e.g., third-level headings such as 1.3.2., 2.1.4. or 3.2.3. were all green). Again, this
was a team activity, with most of the time being devoted to reading and discussing the text (which they did in English because of
the aforementioned points penalty). Student reaction to such games
was generally positive. Online polls of students half-way through
the course and after the course had finished showed the following
results.
Midcourse
(n =40)
4.0
4.1
4.3
Agreement
(15)
Postcourse
(n =29)
4.3
4.0
N.A.
N.A.
4.4
N.A.
4.0
Continual feedback
As well as having clear, achievable goals, players need to know how
close they are to achieving them. In many games this is simply provided by a score; in strategy games players can compare their forces
and territory with those of their opponent; in the aforementioned
quest to kill ten orcs, killing eight orcs is a sign that you are close to
completing it (and even if you dont know how many orcs are in the
caves, each dead one is a sign that you are doing something right).
It is not surprising, then, that gamification in the business world has
focussed on PBL: points, badges, leaderboards. All of these are
forms of feedback: points tell you how much of something youve
done (and by implication try to make you feel good about it); badges
are signs of definite achievements (the equivalent of levelling up in a
computer game); leaderboards let players compare their achievements to others. Tripadvisor.com, a website where users review
hotels, restaurants and other holiday attractions, is a good example:
members receive badges with titles like reviewer or contributor
after completing specific numbers of reviews, and periodically receive e-mails telling them how many people have read their reviews
and how close they are to their next badge. In academia we try to
do the same thing with grades and written feedback; the problem is
that unlike games, feedback cycles tend to be long (Lee & Hammer,
2011, p. 3). If writing an essay were a computer game, students
could see their grades for language, organisation and so forth going
up or down as they were writing the draft. As it is, they normally
have to wait weeks between submitting an essay draft and receiving comments or grades. Unfortunately in the case of essays it is
near impossible to shorten the feedback cycle, though using LMS
software such as Moodle can at least minimise delivery time and, if
essays are read in order of arrival, allow students who submit earlier
to receive feedback earlier.
As mentioned earlier, though, essays should be alternated with
smaller tasks for which feedback can be given more quickly. Quantitative feedback need not always be related to grades. For example,
I frequently put quizzes on the course website (Moodle); these are
voluntary and the results do not affect students actual grades (although doing the quiz does increase an online participation grade).
The purpose of the score is simply to let students know how they are
doing, and sometimes compare scores with other students, since the
high scores are automatically displayed (obviously publishing the
low scores would be neither motivating nor ethical). Course websites can also borrow a feature from computer games in the form of
a progress bar (Sheldon, 2011, p. 237). I tried this using a Moodle
plugin, and later noted that courses offered on Coursera.org used
the same feature. Although it contains no information students could
not gather elsewhere, it provides an encouraging and immediately
updated visual impression on how much of the course one has covered.
Investment in loss
The term investment in loss comes from the tai chi master Cheng
Man-ching (1981, p. 24) and describes, amongst other things, the
attitude of deliberately putting oneself in positions where one will be
beaten so as to improve ones technique. It is also a good description
of how players typically approach computer games: Roughly four
times out of five, gamers dont complete the mission, run out of time,
dont solve the puzzle, lose the fight, fail to improve their score,
crash and burn, or die (McGonigal, 2011, p. 64). That gamers are
happy to fail so often is remarkable, and a stark contrast with the
education system. Games maintain this positive relationship with
failure by making feedback cycles rapid and keeping the stakes low.
The former means players can keep trying until they succeed; the
latter means they risk very little by doing so. In schools, on the
other hand, the stakes of failure are high and the feedback cycles
long. Students have few opportunities to try, and when they do, it
is high stakes. (Lee & Hammer, 2011, p. 3) Another factor is that
playing a game even when you are losing is generally more fun than
academic work; nobody says Oh well, I failed the exam again, but I
sure had fun studying for it!
Nevertheless, we can take small steps to allow students to fail
creatively. In a way, the practice of drafting essays is a form of
creative failure, in that we do not expect a first draft to be as good
as the submitted version, and while we may give a grade to indicate
how well it would have done, we should never give real grades to
drafts; otherwise, they are by definition finished works. We would
also do well to allow one or two grades to be discounted as a kind
of Get out of jail free card or to allow students to select which
assignments they will be graded on as mentioned earlier.
10
References
Behavior management softwareClassDojo. (n.d.). ClassDojo. Retrieved September 26, 2012, from ttss
Bogost, I. (2011, August 8). Gamification is bullshit. Ian Bogost Video game theory, criticism, design. Retrieved April 25, 2012,
from ttsttsstst
Bunchball, Inc. (2010). Gamification 101: An introduction to the use
of game mechanics to modify behavior. [White paper.] Retrieved
May 2 from ttststss
t
Caillois, R. (2001). Man, play and games. Chicago: University of
Illinois Press.
Cheng Man Ching (1981). Tai chi chuan: A simplified method of
calisthenics for health and self-defense. Berkeley, CA : North
Atlantic Books.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperPerennial.
Driver, P. (2011, December 31). The irony of gamification. Digital
Debris: location,movement, space and language learning. Retrieved April 25, 2012, from tttrstrs
rrtP
Duong Ngoc Chau. (n.d.) Do games help students learn vocabulary
effectively? Lac Hong University. Retrieved April 25, 2012, from
tts
Goodwin, M. (1985). The serious side of jump rope: Conversational
practices and social organization in the frame of play . The Journal of American Folklore 98 (389), 315330.
Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo ludens. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Ltd.
Kaye, L. K., & Bryce, J. (2012). Putting The Fun Factor Into Gaming: The Influence of Social Contexts on Experiences of Playing Videogames. International Journal of Internet Science, 7 (1),
2327.
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S. & Salen, K. (2009) Moving learning games
forward. Retrieved October 27 2012 from tttt
rsrsrrr
Lee, J. J. & Hammer, J. (2011) Gamification in education: What, how,
why bother? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15 (2). Retrieved
May 2012 from tttrsr
12
13