Course with employment: "The profession of a Methodologist from scratch to PRO"
Find out moreManipulation of gamification and other pitfalls of its application
Comprehensive gamification provides ample opportunities for a creative approach to learning, but some training specialists This technique can be abused, often without realizing the consequences. Gamification should serve educational purposes by helping students achieve their learning goals, but sometimes it is used with hidden intentions. In such cases, although game elements may appear to be aimed at improving the educational process, they can actually lead to negative student experiences. This is due to the manipulation of their behavior through game mechanisms, which can negatively impact learning. It is important to use gamification consciously and ethically to ensure a positive learning experience and effective knowledge acquisition.
Common instances of gamification manipulation involve the use of game elements to increase user engagement. This can take the form of reward systems, levels, achievements, and contests. For example, many apps and websites use points and badges to motivate users to actively engage. Another common technique is the creation of artificial scarcity, where users receive bonuses or rewards for completing tasks within a limited time.
Also seen is manipulation through elements of social proof, where users see their friends or acquaintances achieving success, which encourages them to do the same. It's important to note that these methods can be both beneficial in improving the user experience and can also cause dissatisfaction if used too aggressively or in a misleading manner.
Gamification should ultimately be aimed at creating a positive experience and stimulating genuine user interest, not simply manipulating their behavior.
Manipulation of students' game choices is aimed at achieving specific results required by the gaming system. This can manifest itself in the form of forks in game options during the learning process, when participants are offered a choice between several outcomes: a learning option, a game strategy, a specific topic, or an assignment format. The mere presence of choice does not constitute manipulation if, under equal conditions, all offered options do not offer clear advantages to participants. It is important that students can freely navigate the possibilities without feeling pressured by the system.
Anti-case #33 is an important study in the field of marketing and project management. This anti-case examines the errors and failures that can arise during project implementation. The focus is on analyzing the causes that led to negative consequences and offering recommendations for their prevention in the future.
Studying anti-cases helps companies learn from the mistakes of others and improve their strategies. It is important to understand that every failure is an opportunity for growth and optimization of work processes. Therefore, analyzing anti-cases, such as Anti-Case #33, becomes an integral part of a successful business.
This anti-case focuses on how poor communication within the team, the absence of a clear strategy, and ignoring customer feedback can lead to project failure. It is recommended to implement regular assessments and strategy reviews to minimize risks and increase the chances of successful project completion.
Therefore, Anti-Case #33 is a valuable tool for studying the problems companies face and finding effective solutions to overcome them.
We can offer students a variety of topics for preparing reports or completing assignments, while focusing on certain topics. This will allow students to earn more game resources or receive additional bonuses when choosing a specific topic. The instructor may not directly announce the increased compensation, but hint at it or refer to future bonuses that participants can earn during the training. This approach will increase motivation and interest in the learning process.
The main problem is that even if students initially lean toward your proposed approach, they may sense some vagueness or a catch. This can make them question the wisdom of adhering to game-based learning rules, especially when ambiguous situations arise. Even if you employ such approaches with the best intentions, aiming to steer students down the right path, it's important to consider how this may impact their perceptions and motivation.
Some students will undoubtedly choose your proposed path and will likely appreciate your help. However, there will also be those who feel they are being steered in a certain direction. This can lead to resistance and distrust of both the gamification method and you as a teacher. It's important to balance direction and freedom of choice to minimize negative reactions and create a trusting atmosphere.
If you feel the need to prompt students to make the "right" choices, it may indicate a lack of trust in their potential. This lack of trust will be felt. Instead, it's better to organize the learning process from the start so that students can make the right decisions on their own. Later, you can discuss the consequences of each choice with the class, which will become a valuable experience for their development.
Follow the key principle of gamification: empower students to be independent. This approach not only promotes their development but also leads to amazing results for both you and the entire group. By encouraging independence, you create conditions for active participation and engagement, which ultimately has a positive impact on learning and performance.
Manipulation with promises of prizes or gifts that are impossible to obtain is a common practice. It can be carried out both consciously and unconsciously, as a result of errors in the calculations of the game economy. While an unintentional error can be easily corrected by providing students with additional incentives to obtain the desired gifts, deliberate manipulation can cause dissatisfaction and reduce motivation to learn. It is important to consider these aspects to avoid negative consequences and maintain student interest.
Imagine a situation in which you are starting game-based learning. You are introduced to the rules and provided with a list of valuable prizes, along with the conditions for earning them. You enthusiastically dive into the game and successfully complete the first tasks. However, you soon realize that achieving the grand prize will require significantly more effort. Despite your efforts, you realize your chances of receiving the grand prize are minimal. Earning less valuable prizes proves easier, but the most coveted prize for high-quality completion remains out of reach. Analyzing your actions, you come to the conclusion that you initially had no realistic chance of success. This leads to a decrease in trust in the game system, and many students lose interest in gamification, mistrusting all game rules and promises. It is important that game mechanics are transparent and fair so that participants feel motivated and confident in their actions. This manipulation may be driven by a desire to maximize student motivation for high-quality learning while maintaining the prize budget. In this situation, it makes sense to either offer students less valuable but more accessible prizes in large quantities, or organize a raffle for a single valuable prize among those who achieve predetermined results, while providing incentive rewards to the remaining participants. This approach will create a competitive atmosphere and maintain a high level of engagement in the learning process.
If you are unsure of the budget for expensive gifts for students, it is best not to base your expectations on this. When developing a game, it is recommended not to include such incentives in the list to avoid disappointment and focus on other, more affordable reward options.
A special case of manipulation is when you hide the list of gifts from participants in advance, creating intrigue and hinting at valuable prizes. However, announcing that the gifts will be modest can negatively impact student trust. Restoring lost trust will be extremely difficult.
Collective responsibility in learning. This manipulation is often encountered when the educational program developer strives to engage all participants and avoid a situation where someone drops out of the process. However, the learning format is typically individualized, and each student is solely responsible for themselves. At some point, the game system, while maintaining an individualized approach, begins to introduce additional rules. For example, if someone fails a task, the entire group faces a more challenging task, or rewards are canceled if some participants fail to achieve the game's goals. Such mechanics can promote group cohesion, but they can also cause stress and negative perceptions of the learning process among individual participants.
In this context, we aim to motivate less successful students to put in more effort, while stronger students can support those who are lagging behind. However, this approach may be perceived by some group members as unfair punishment, which creates tension and negative emotions. It's important to find a balance so that every student feels included and supported, which ultimately contributes to a more harmonious educational environment.
Players are focused on their own results and are not required to monitor the progress of others, which is not their job. This role should be fulfilled by the game system, which should motivate users to improve their performance. Imposing responsibility for other players often leads to negative consequences.
- to a conflict between successful and lagging students: the former will be clearly dissatisfied with the results of the latter and will try to rush them, which will cause reciprocal dissatisfaction and increase the resistance of the lagging ones;
- to even greater irresponsibility of the lagging ones: realizing that now they are not only responsible for their results, they can take the position of “everyone owes me” and generally refuse to complete tasks independently, hoping for help from successful students;
- to a loss of motivation among successful ones - especially if what is described in the point above has already happened: as soon as they understand that they now have to make efforts “for themselves and for that guy” and can no longer fully influence their game results, they can also stop completing tasks and very quickly become lagging ones.
Working collective responsibility in gamification can be effective, but for its successful implementation it is necessary to carefully select the format, taking into account the specific The objectives and characteristics of the learning process. This approach is not always suitable for all situations.
Changing game rules during the learning process without prior agreement with the group can be a common practice. This is often done with the aim of improving participant performance, especially when it is clear that the group is not reaching its full potential. However, such manipulation can also be a consequence of design errors in gamification. When a teacher identifies flaws in the game conditions during a training session, they may try to quickly make changes, which can cause dissatisfaction and confusion among participants. Therefore, it is important to agree on all changes in advance and take into account the group's opinion to avoid a negative impact on the learning process.
Unexpected changes to the rules during game-based learning can be perceived by students as a violation of the agreement. Changes to the rules require compelling reasons, such as moving to a new learning stage or game level. Even in these cases, the basic principles of gamification regarding the overall game logic must remain unchanged. Otherwise, students may feel cheated, deprived of the promised rewards, which in turn leads to a decrease in motivation and resistance to learning. Therefore, it is important to maintain transparency and consistency in rules to maintain trust and interest in the educational process.
If a rule change is truly necessary, communicate this to students in advance and justify the changes in gameplay, for example, through the achievement of educational goals. This will help ensure understanding and acceptance of the innovations, which in turn will enhance learning and participant engagement.
Manipulation through labeling ineffective behavior is a common tactic used to control and influence people. This method involves assigning negative labels or stereotypes that influence individuals' perceptions and behavior. Often, such labels create biased attitudes, which can lead to decreased self-esteem and motivation. Effectively countering this manipulation involves recognizing one's values and self-confidence. Exposing such manipulation methods helps improve interpersonal communication and create healthier relationships. It's important to develop critical thinking to avoid such manipulation and maintain objectivity in assessing your own behavior and the behavior of others.
Anti-case #34 is a study of a failed example that demonstrates the shortcomings of a strategy or approach in a specific area. In this anti-case, we highlight the key mistakes made and analyze their consequences. This will not only help us understand how to avoid similar failures in the future but also draw valuable lessons for the successful implementation of projects. Discussing such anti-cases helps improve processes and the quality of decisions made, which in turn leads to more effective results.
In the previous chapter, dedicated to simple gamification, I mentioned the "quiet day" badge—a striking example of manipulation of game elements. As a reminder, the gamifier aimed to increase student engagement and encourage them to turn on their cameras during online classes. In this context, not turning on the camera was viewed as undesirable behavior that needed to be eliminated. A badge was awarded at the end of the lesson to participants who had not turned on their cameras or demonstrated any activity. In addition to the badge, additional tasks were offered, creating an incentive for engagement. This approach demonstrates how gamification can influence student behavior and increase participation in the educational process.
How effective do you think this method was in motivating the group? There are alternative approaches to increasing participant engagement in the training. One effective method is holding a drawing for a prize among those who complete certain activity conditions. This drawing can be held at each lesson, with the winner selected randomly. This not only motivates participants but also creates a positive atmosphere conducive to learning.
Often to indicate Badges or titles are used to encourage undesirable behavior. Despite attempts to soften this manipulation with humor, it can still be perceived negatively. Why does this perception arise?
- Much depends on the culture of the specific training group (or company, if the training is corporate) – to what extent it is generally accepted or not accepted to joke around with each other and how the students perceive it. I have encountered cultures for which teasing is a good tradition, perceived with humor, and cultures where even innocent teasing can cause serious offense.
- The age and status of the people playing with you are also important. It's one thing if you use a joke badge in a group of students. Quite another if you give such a badge to a high-ranking official. This is a very difficult moral dilemma. Not handing it out is a disregard for the game rules, and the group will no longer adhere to them, deciding that "everything is clear here, there are no rules" (and then you yourself will ruin the game-based learning in the eyes of the group). And handing out a badge could be the start of a "silent war" with the offended participant.
- Individual character traits should also be kept in mind: some will laugh at themselves or the title they received and forget it, some will create a scandal and go into violent resistance, simultaneously turning half the group against you, some will smile and then, as they say, backfire on you.
The marking situation can be complex, but having extensive coaching and teaching experience can help resolve it. However, I believe it's best to avoid such provocations from the outset.
When analyzing gamification projects during mentoring or training, I often ask, "What problem does the chosen mechanic or element solve?" Particularly in the context of labeling losers, an additional question arises: "What is the purpose of using such a risky approach to achieve educational outcomes?" It's important to understand that successful gamification should be aimed at solving specific problems and creating a positive experience for users. Using controversial methods, such as labeling losers, can negatively impact participant motivation and engagement, so the choice of approach and its potential consequences must be carefully considered.
When designing an educational game system, it is necessary to carefully consider how the rules will guide students toward effective behavior while discouraging them from inappropriate actions. It is important to note that rules regarding errors can be formulated more neutrally and impersonally, for example, through a penalty system. This approach may be perceived as fairer than less strict measures, such as introducing negative titles. This will create a sense of objectivity and may increase students' motivation to follow the rules.
It is important to note that any intervention, regardless of its nature, can make students feel unsafe. This feeling threatens successful learning, as it interferes with the achievement of educational goals. For students to reflect on their experiences and acknowledge their mistakes, they need to feel safe in identifying their weaknesses and shortcomings. Otherwise, they will not be able to develop more effective behavior patterns. A game system in which every moment is filled with the expectation of manipulation does not create a comfortable learning environment. Instead of resorting to short-term manipulation, we should cultivate in ourselves and our students a culture of fair and long-term play based on rules and enjoyment of the process. This approach promotes deeper and more productive learning.
