20 Matching Annotations
  1. Aug 2020
    1. future gamification research should investigate specific elements of gamification rather than as an over-arching concept so that the effectiveness of different mechanics can be parsed out.

      see Chapman and Rich (2018), which examined this very thing.

    2. The results suggest that at best, our combination of leaderboards, badges, and competition mechanics do not improve educationaloutcomes and at worst can harm motivation, satisfaction, and empowerment. Further, in decreasing intrinsic motivation, it can affectstudents'final exam scores.

      lowering intrinsic motivation can be harmful to course outcomes.

    3. The results show that course type directly affects intrinsic motivation (apath), where those in the gamified group have lower intrinsic motivation scores,a¼.30, 95% CI [.60,.01], and that higher intrinsicmotivation leads to higher scores on thefinal exam regardless of condition,b¼4.59; 95% CI [.41, 8.77]. However, there is no direct effect forcondition onfinal exam score when holding intrinsic motivation constant,c¼2.15; 95% CI [3.20, 7.50]. Despite a lack of evidence for adirect effect, it is still possible that course type affectsfinal exam scores indirectly via intrinsic motivation.

      intrinsic motivation is tied to course performance. But course type is not significant when intrinsic motivation is held constant.

    4. The interaction effect was significant,F(1.71,110.82)¼5.60,p¼.007, partialh2¼.08.Participants did not differ at Time 1, Time 2, or Time 3 in learner empowerment for the control group. For the leaderboard group, learnerempowerment dropped significantly at Time 2. At Time 3, it remained unchanged, though was no longer significantly lower than the controlcondition.H5was partially supported

      learner empowerment didn't really change from end to beginning.

    5. Although participants did not differ at Time 1, at Time 2 motivation for the control group escalated significantly and wasmaintained at Time 3. For the leaderboard group, motivation dropped significantly at Time 2. At Time 3, it remained unchanged and was stillsignificantly lower than the control condition.H2was supported.

      those participating in the gamified course decreased in intrinsic motivation and maintained this decrease over time

    6. predicted that over time, effort in the gamified course would be lower than the non-gamified course. The Mauchly's test was notsignificant. Video game use was not a significant covariate. Time was a significant factor,F(2,132)¼28.92,p<.001, partialh2¼.31. For bothconditions, effort increased significantly at each time point. Condition was not a significant factor,F(1, 66)¼.10,p¼.75, partialh2<.01. Theinteraction effect was not significant,F(2, 132)¼1.36,p¼.27, partialh2¼.02.H4was not supported.

      effort increased for both groups, but there was no difference between the two,

    7. Althoughconditions did not differ at Time 1, at Time 2, the class satisfaction for the control group remained steady while the leaderboard group'ssatisfaction dropped significantly. The respective groups showed no significant change at Time 3, with the control condition still reportingsignificantly higher levels of class satisfaction than the leaderboard condition.H3was supported.

      satisfaction remained same for control, but dropped for gamified group

    8. Students in the gamified condition were not significantly different from those in the control group atTime 1 or Time 2, though they scored marginally significantly higher than the control group on social comparison at Time 3,F(1, 70)¼3.62,p¼.06, partialh2¼.05. Thus,H1was partially supported.
    9. Participants completed the intrinsic motivation inventory (Ryan, Koestner,&Deci,1991), which contains 22 items such as“I felt like I wasdoing what I wanted to do while I was working on the task”and“I felt that it was my choice to do the task.”Items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree)to7(strongly agree; Cronbacha¼.86).
    10. We predict thatthe social comparison required by leaderboards will facilitate competition, and as a result lead to less satisfaction and promote more socialcomparison over time.
    11. Individuals using a badge system are often initially interested in the task (e.g.,reading), receive something tangible in the form of a badge they can view and show others, and are able to see the requirements forreceiving a badge and thus are not surprised when they earn one.

      don't give rewards for things people are already interested in doing

    12. offering tangible, expected rewards to individuals whoare already interested in a topic may cause them to shift motivations from intrinsic (i.e., because they wanted to) to extrinsic (i.e., becausethey want to earn a reward;Lepper et al., 1973). When the reward is present, one may be interested in completing the task, but once thereward is removed one will no longer have a reason to perform a behavior (Lepper et al., 1973).
    13. Cognitive evaluation theory (Deci&Ryan, 1985)predicts that external events can shape one's intrinsic motivation (i.e., doing it because one wants to, and not due to outside pressures) basedon whether individuals process those events as informational or controlling. If a reward provided for a task is seen as an informational, thenit will make one feel competent and in control, leading to higher intrinsic motivation. If a reward is seen as controlling, it makes one feelpowerless and incompetent, decreasing intrinsic motivation. Studies have shown that giving rewards for a task one alreadyfinds interestingends up harming motivation to do that task (Deci et al.,1999, 2001; Lepper, Greene,&Nisbett,1973). Thus, although there may be benefits togamification, it is also important to examine potential drawbacks as it may hamper the motivation educators are trying to cultivate.
    14. the appeal of a gamified system might be due to a novelty effect, and that positive effects such asengagement and interest decrease over time (Koivisto&Hamari, 2014).

      Gamification effects are not long lasting?

    15. creating a gamified system alone was insufficient to cause an increase in these behavioral measures; rather, it depended onindividual users' interest levels (Hamari, 2013)

      pre-existing motivation makes a difference in performance.

    16. Dominguez et al. (2013)gamified an e-learning platform by applying competition, trophies, rewards, and leaderboardsand found that students in the gamified class scored higher overall and were more motivated, but tended to participate less in class activitiesand performed worse on writing assignments.

      improved participation but decreased performance?

    17. The effect of course typeon students'final exam scores was mediated by students' levels of intrinsic motivation, with students inthe gamified course showing less motivation and lowerfinal exam scores than the non-gamified class.This suggests that some care should be taken when applying certain gamification mechanics to educa-tional settings

      Gamification might work against intrinsic motivation

  2. Jul 2020
    1. Goal-setting and prompt features were positively associated with most dimensions of the gameful experience whereas self-tracking features were negatively associated with immersion and sociability while positively associated with feelings of accomplishment.
    1. Results indicated that condition significantlypredicted number of uses generated,F(4, 235)¼16.62,p<.001,partialh2¼.220. Pairwise comparisons revealed that the leader-board condition (M¼37.52) significantly outperformed the do-your-best (M¼23.84) and easy goal conditions (M¼22.10),

      interesting that the difficult condition pushed people the same as the leaderboard.