Education 2.0 & 3.0

Students regularly turn to games for fun after school. But the wall between games and the classroom has been thinning in recent years. Now, researchers are helping to develop games to help young players become better students.

The University of Southern California (USC) and its partners are launching a new project on this topic, funded by a $2.7 million Investing in Innovation (i3) grant from the U.S. Department of Education. The funding will fuel the development of a digital game created to improve the "identity-based motivation" of students in middle and high school to become better learners.

In a news release, USC Dean’s Professor Daphna Oyserman said the project will reinforce the effects of action and consequence, "making the future feel relevant and connected with the present."

“We are excited about figuring out how to harness student motivation to improve success not through good intentions alone but by taking the time to carefully test the conditions in which an innovation works,” said Oyserman. “Our short-term goal is to improve academic outcomes; in the long run, the project should create a larger cohort of students ready for the next step—college and beyond.”

Via Miloš Bajčetić

Gamification works because our responses to games are deeply hard-wired into our psychology. Game design techniques can activate our innate desires to recognize patterns, solve puzzles, master challenges, collaborate with others, and be in the driver’s seat when experiencing the world around us. They can also create a safe space for experimentation and learning. After all, why not try something new when you know that even if you fail, you’ll get another life?

The surface dimension of gamification is motivation through rewards: Earn some points, top the leaderboard, get a badge, win a prize, and repeat. Behaviorists such as the legendary B. F. Skinner called this operant conditioning, and it does work … to a point. If there’s really no point to the points, users lose interest. That’s apparently what happened to marketing-driven Samsung Nation, one of the most prominent early gamification examples. Today it’s nowhere to be found on the Samsung website.

Shallow gamification can even be harmful, if it’s used to manipulate people toward results that aren’t truly in their interest, or if it suggests that rewards are the only reason to do otherwise intrinsically engaging activities.

The systems that avoid these pitfalls take games seriously. In a good game, the points and the leaderboards aren’t what really matter; the true reward is the journey. Gamification systems that emphasize progression, provide well designed informational feedback, and look for ways to surprise and delight their players can remain engaging for the long haul.

It’s still early in the development of gamification as a business practice. In the next stage, expect gamification features to be incorporated more consistently into software and content platforms, the way social media capabilities are today. And look for systems to take advantage of the wealth of behavioral data from user interactions to refine their effectiveness, as online games have done for years. When you see people glued to their phones or their computer screens they just might be learning or doing their jobs.

Via Miloš Bajčetić

The failure of praise
Research has found that praise can actually undermine performance and self-esteem in many contexts. One study found that praise for intelligence leads to the belief by the recipient that their intelligence is fixed, and thus not something that they can influence through action or effort (Dweck, 2007). This is critical because intelligence is in fact malleable, and improved by taking risks. Students grow when they try something difficult that might lead to failure. Because failure is one of the most important tools for learning, growth requires a mindset that embraces challenge and the potential for failure.

But students who are praised for intelligence do not seek challenges. When given the option of trying a difficult task that could lead to failure and growth, or an easy one that will not risk failure but produce no growth, those offered praise for their intelligence tend to choose the latter, thus undermining their growth. Worst yet, when forced to do a difficult problem they will quickly give up if failure appears on the horizon (Dweck, 2007).

In essence, these students are becoming dependent on praise because it is wrapped up with their self-esteem. They start thinking that the goal of school is praise, or grades, rather than learning. They become risk-adverse in an effort to prevent blows to their self-esteem. They will even lie about their achievements in order to avoid the appearance of failure. Dependency on praise stunts growth, creates a fragile psyche, and even a sense of helplessness that undermines achievement (Kamins and Dweck, 1999).

Praising one’s intelligence and achievements also can undercut performance by muddling the real message needed for growth (Hylanda, 2001). One of the most common mistakes instructors make is to use the “feedback sandwich” with students. Their feedback starts with the good, then stating the real issues with the work, and ending with something good again. Here again, the model is used under the belief that it keeps up the student’s spirits, but in reality it only confuses the message. The student reads only the positive at either end and ignores the real message in the middle that they need to hear in order to improve, or they recognize the dissonance between the conflicting messages and wonder how they really did. “Gee,” they say to themselves, “the beginning and the end tell me this is great, while the middle says that there are all sorts of problems, so which is it?” The feedback sandwich can even reduce respect for the instructor since students will soon learn that no matter what they hand in, the instructor will praise it along a predictable formula, making the feedback meaningless and something to be ignored.

Via Miloš Bajčetić

By Carri Schneider - 10 recommendations for being intentional about inspiring lifelong learning based on experiences from our family.

Via Tom D'Amico (@TDOttawa)

The Definition Of Intrinsic Motivation

A decent working definition of intrinsic motivation is “motivation that stems directly from an action rather than a reward.” Dr. Richard Ryan and Edward Deci explain in their Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions & New Directions.

“Intrinsic motivation is defined as the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfaction rather than for some separable consequence. When intrinsically motivated, a person is moved to act for the fun or challenge entailed rather than because of external products, pressures, or rewards….In Self-Determination Theory, we distinguish between different types of motivation based on the different reason or goals that give rise to an action. The most basic distinction is between intrinsic motivation, which refers to doing something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable, and extrinsic motivation, which refers to doing something because it leads to a separable outcome. Extrinsic motivation thus contrasts with intrinsic motivation, which refers to doing an activity simply for the enjoyment of the activity itself, rather than its instrumental value.”

Put another way, if a student studies for a test to make a qualifying grade to play for the basketball team, that would be an example of extrinsic motivation. Another example? Studying to “get good grades.” And as you probably know by now, its polar opposite, intrinsic motivation, is the more powerful of the two, though not necessarily more common.

In the following video, Daniel Pink explores the incredible impact of intrinsic motivation on performance, innovation, and the way we learn. While he frames the idea around “business,” he is clearly discussing learning and performance, which is why we’re all here, yes?

 

Via Sharrock, Tony Meehan, Dean J. Fusto