When starting these readings I was highly interested in the perspectives that were being put forth. One of the main concepts that was highlighted in the reading was the power of words. I am very familiar with the term “gamification” however I did not have any knowledge of the pushback against this terminology. According to Merriam Webster, gamification is “the process of adding games or gamelike elements to something (such as a task) so as to encourage participation”. (2010) Simple and straightforward. As with many things that seem simple they become much more complicated when their layers are pulled back. According to Ian Bogost “names offer powerful ways to advance a position” (2011) and this is especially true when it comes to gaming. This concept of words having power and cheapening or making something seem more intriguing due to words was repeated throughout. I have personally experienced a lot of frustration when it comes to the way companies approach their applications and “games”. For example, I have an app for healthcare that tries to assign points in response to health care milestones. This is the easy prepackaged way that the articles address gaming. Bogost coins this “pointsification” as a more accurate description of this process.” (2011) Applying this process to games makes it easy and marketable and “allows organizations to tick the games box without fuss.” (Bogost, Persuasive games: exploitationware, 2011)
This leads us to a separate problem. Gamification is Bullshit states that “-ification is always easy and repeatable” (Bogost, 2011). It takes credibility away from people who work very hard to create meaningful games. By using “gamification” “it takes games—a mysterious, magical, powerful medium that has captured the attention of millions of people—and it makes them accessible in the context of contemporary business.” (Bogost, Persuasive games: exploitationware, 2011) So where does this leave us? We have corporations who say that what they are doing is simply making their apps user friendly and those within the gaming community that say that it is ruining games. There must be a happy medium where the companies can make their apps user friendly and interactive without simply using a check in the box strategy. What worries me most is that “children need to know when they are being targeted by commercial appeals, and how the information they provide can be used by commercial corporations.” (Buckingham, 2007, p. 48) When this is not made plain it becomes very easy to trick children into giving out information they would otherwise keep to themselves. After discussing what makes gamification so insidious I also noted what the articles discussed in regards to what makes games good. “Good games confront players in the initial game levels with problems that are specifically designed to allow players to form good generalizations about what will work well later when they face more complex problems.” (Gee, 2003) Games should grow with the learner. They shouldn’t be a tick in the box method that fills the quota for a producer. “Games can show us how to get people to invest in new identities or roles, which can, in turn, become powerful motivators for new and deep learning in classrooms and workplaces.” (Gee, 2003) This, of course, relates back to connected learning. There should be “weaving” or connecting ideas and knowledge across different pools of knowledge. (Cazden, 2006) Gamification could be good if used in this way, but because the word has this connotation behind it there is no way for it to regain the positive power it could have. I have loved games like Minecraft that allow for me to create new worlds within the game. Some players have made complete replicas of their towns and cities. True building skills and work that correlates back to future careers and real life. Why wouldn’t we encourage this for children (and adults)? It is from these readings that I understand how gamification is bad because of the way that the producers cheapen true game design and the process of games. On the other hand, the readings also addressed how 'good' games can be used in educational settings even when not directly connected to the content due to connected learning. The learner is able to create scenarios that they would normally not be able to experience and learn from it. Games deserve more than to be simply "gamified" versions of boring concepts. Works CitedBogost, I. (2011). Gamification is bullshit. Wharton Gamification Symposium. Ian Bogost. Bogost, I. (2011). Persuasive games: exploitationware. gamasutra, 1-4. Buckingham, D. (2007, November 1). Digital media literacies: rethinking media education in the age of the internet. Research in comparative and international education, pp. 43-55. Cazden, C. B. (2006). Connected learning: "weaving" in classroom lessons. Pedagogy in Practice (pp. 1--18). University of Newcastle. Gamification. 2011. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamification Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. ACM computers in entertainment, 1-4. Steinkuehler, C., Squire, K., & Barab, S. (Eds.). (2012). Games, Learning, and Society: Learning and Meaning in the Digital Age (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139031127
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorEllie E. Archives
November 2017
Categories |