Advancements in training are evident, ranging from computer-based training to online training and massive open online courses. Recent advancements include gamification, in which training incorporates game elements, such as badges, ratings, leaderboards, and other game-like rules. The idea of gamification is introduced because not all trainees are always motivated to attend training. Some lack motivation, which leads to poor outcomes and high dropout rates. Hence, it is anticipated that gamification makes training engaging and fun.
Gamification in Teaching Programming
But does gamification work for all trainees equally? Researchers Luiz Rodrigues and colleagues at the University of São Paulo seek to answer this question on whom gamification works for and how. They selected Computer Science students, notably those learning programming, because students face problems with syntax, logic, and problem-solving. Students who faced difficulty in writing programmes are often frustrated, demotivated, and drop the course. This is a major issue because unmotivated learners performed poorly and retained limited knowledge. Gamification can increase intrinsic motivation (one of the motivators of self-determination theory), the internal drive for learning for its own sake, which helps engage with training and retain knowledge.
The study was conducted over six weeks with 19 Brazilian undergraduates in the first year of an algorithm class who were learning conditionals, loops, and arrays. Participants were randomly distributed into experimental and control groups. The experimental group used a gamified Moodle with badges, missions, and team activities, while the control group used standard Moodle. It was anticipated that gamified Moodle would increase autonomy, competency, and socialisation, increasing intrinsic motivation. Weekly surveys, quiz mission (quiz) completions, and learning improved pre-and post-test measured motivation.
Gamification promotes (but also hinders) learning via increasing intrinsic motivation, predicting high test scores in the experimental group. However, this effect changes over time and with student familiarity with programming. Students with low familiarity initially took gamification positively, but their motivation declined gradually or turned negatively as they may have been overwhelmed with the concepts. Students with some familiarity initially took gamification neutral or negative, but their motivation grew over time, showing adaptation. Interestingly, gamification did not increase quiz completion rate, meaning that it does not always generate the desired outcome. These findings highlight the gamification promise to improve programming education, but it needs modifications to prevent boomeranging.
How has cyberpsychology advanced?
Luiz Rodrigues and colleagues advance the field of cyberpsychology, which studies technology’s impact on human behaviour, cognition, and learning. Cyberpsychology evolved in the 1990s with an initial focus on internet addiction and virtual realities, but later studied the impact on education/training as education booms. Rodrigues and colleagues’ study offered nuanced, longitudinal evidence on psychological mechanisms of gamification in a real setting, linking human-computer interaction with motivation.
Cyberpsychology literature has many gaps. Researchers studied the impact of gamification within the computer science or programming domain. However, most of the studies lack pre/post-testing, moderators (age, sex, or familiarity), longitudinal testing, and most focus on behavioural outcomes. These issues are important because the lack of pre-testing did not inform initial motivation between cohorts, the lack of longitudinal effects did not inform gamification impacts over time, the lack of moderators concealed on whom/why gamification works, and without learning theories, it is difficult to identify how gamification works.
Luiz Rodrigues and colleagues have overcome all the gaps in the literature. Their research is grounded in SDT, which shows how intrinsic motivation is mediated by cognitive gains, moving the focus from behaviour to cognition. Monitoring weekly changes informs an increase/decrease in motivation, high for some experienced participants, while low for novice ones. This reject one size fits all approach in gamification, warranting adaptation. The literature also neglects experiment duration and prior knowledge regarding the topic, often considering gamification as positive or null without justification. Rodrigues and colleagues overcome this gap by focusing on duration and familiarity, highlighting personalisation. Thus, Rodrigues and colleagues set a very high bar for future studies through methodological rigour, informing whether gamification works. But for whom/how?
Ethical, Legal, and Cultural Issues
Even if gamification is not without disadvantages, it has limitations. Ethically, if gamification has optional tasks that offer additional points, as in the Luiz Rodrigues and colleagues study, this leads to coercion. Students would participate to boost grades, which blurs voluntary participation. Another daunting side of the gamification is the possibility of exploitation. Students or employees may work harder to achieve outcomes in gamification than they would otherwise. This situation can affect their wellbeing because of the overall effort they would put in. Hence, the developer of such platforms must be careful to avoid exploiting the users. There is also a possibility of manipulation, as gamified elements may push users through game cues in a specific way that the users would not act otherwise. This leads to distrust between users (employees/students) and the developer.
There are also legal issues in gamification. Students or employees share data with the gamification platform explicitly or implicitly during their use of the platform. The game developers must handle the data carefully because this data is the property of users. The data must be used for its intended purpose; otherwise, it would hurt the user’s trust. Likewise, the gamification platform collects data on users’ motivation. The authority using the data must not misuse it for promotion or evaluation purposes, which could lead to discriminatory actions. Gamification also risks violating the privacy of users. Posting of scores, ratings, or badges of other users on a leaderboard allows tracking the performance of everyone. Those who score low may feel humiliated. A gamified platform must allow users to decide what data to share or keep private.
Finally, each culture has a different attitude towards competition, hierarchy, and public recognition. Leaderboards and showing scores of an individual publicly may act as a motivator in individualistic cultures, but may lead to discomfort or loss of face in collectivist cultures or high power-distance societies. Moreover, gamification allows to complete task at the convenience of the student or employee. If the users have different routines and lifestyles, this will affect the usage of the platform, so this may lead to different results in different cultures.
Final Thoughts
Gamification is an emerging intervention that can be beneficial for students or employees. Those will reap maximum benefits from it who will know how to adapt it.