Why Some Gamified Classrooms See Huge Gains and Others See Almost Nothing
Why Some Gamified Classrooms See Huge Gains and Others See Almost Nothing
Why Some Gamified Classrooms See Huge Gains and Others See Almost Nothing
In two schools, the same learning app is introduced simultaneously during the same semester. The first school finds its students scrambling to complete more practice tests just to advance to the next level. In the second school, the app gets discontinued in October with teachers explaining offhand that "nothing had changed much". Despite being the same software and used by students of similar ages, their performance is worlds apart - and no one can give a satisfactory explanation for this discrepancy.
This disparity is not coincidental, nor is it determined by how hard teachers have worked on motivating their pupils. As soon as researchers began analyzing gamification practices across multiple studies instead of limiting themselves to single classrooms, it became apparent what specific conditions lead to actual learning through gamification and what conditions amount to mere decoration. The difference between these two scenarios turned out to be quite easy to predict in hindsight.
The Casino-Style Mechanics Educators Borrow Without Meaning To
Points, streaks, levels to unlock, and leaderboards are just a variation on the very same reward structure that a casino floor depends upon, applied to the worksheet rather than the slot machine. This is not necessarily a bad thing; the same variable, increasing rewards that make a game fun can also make problem sets fun. But using the technique without understanding its purpose is precisely what leads a system to feel empty by October.
Learn more about Zodiac Casino, and the comparison holds up further than it first seems: the attractiveness of any reward program, whether in an academic setting or in a casino, is completely dependent upon the underlying structure of the program, and not just the excitement of the façade. This is precisely what Casinos Analyzer did when it constructed its entire system of analysis based upon the actual structure of the reward program, and not the appearance of it. It is a perfect helper when it comes to choosing casinos.
The Number That Surprised the Researchers Doing the Counting
A large-scale analysis involving pooled data from 41 studies and over 5,000 students revealed that the overall effect size of gamification was significantly higher than the researchers had anticipated. While this is a relatively high effect size compared to other education-related programs, an even more interesting fact lies beneath: the effect was not uniform. Some groups of students participating in the studies experienced substantial gains. In other groups, however, the effect was virtually non-existent.
The difference between these groups is what's important. Providing only one figure for the overall effect size makes gamification appear to be a program that always works wherever it is implemented. However, the pooled data tells a different story: gamification works well under certain circumstances but has almost no effect under others.
Where This Kind of Research Actually Gets Checked
An independent education research and development organization has operated since 1934, building assessment tools, running its own research programs, and publishing findings meant to hold up under scrutiny rather than just supporting whatever a vendor is currently selling to schools. It has been doing that for so long that its origins precede those of most of the educational systems which it now investigates. This sort of impartial verification is especially important in the case of gamified learning, in which the vendors of the system have a clear interest in highlighting only those classrooms where it was successful.
Casinos Analyzer fits into this type of function within a less dramatic context, existing only insofar as the entity responsible for promotion of an offer is not the entity best placed to assess its value. An independent research body performs the same function in the case of a school district seeking to evaluate the use of gamified learning.
What Actually Determines Whether Gamification Works
The body of research highlights several variables that distinguish successful classrooms from those with no observable effect.
The age cohort has an enormous impact: the younger age group responded far more effectively than older students, who barely demonstrated any effect at all.
Subject domain makes a huge difference too: science and math yielded much larger gains compared to business subjects or general social sciences.
Completeness of the design was key – the most effective programs were those which incorporated game mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics together in one package.
Length of implementation was superior to novelty: interventions lasting for more than one semester were far more effective than short three-month interventions.
The implementation environment made a difference as well: the in-person implementation was more effective compared to the purely online version.
Neither of these alone suffices to explain the difference between the successful school and the one that quietly abandoned the project. These together define a truly distinct intervention based on how many of them are present.
Why Duration and Design Completeness Carry So Much Weight
The findings regarding duration are particularly important to consider because they run counter to how many schools implement new technology. A shorter trial period, which many budgets can approve, closely resembles the conditions under which gamification had the worst effect on performance in the pooled data. Judging the method by what happens in six weeks would be like testing the tool under conditions that give it little chance to succeed.
The same idea is echoed in the findings on the completeness of the study's design. Using points without game dynamics or aesthetic design – essentially adding a point system to an existing worksheet – was shown to be significantly less effective than not using gamification at all. Incomplete gamification is not a less powerful form of gamification, but rather, a different method altogether.
Signs a Gamified Program Isn't Actually Working
There are several signs that are worth noting prior to dismissing the technique entirely.
Engagement with the game components, such as leaderboards or streaks, without any visible improvement in performance or knowledge.
A sharp decrease in motivation as soon as the initial novelty of the interface wears off, typically within a few weeks.
Students working on easy assignments to accumulate points instead of tackling more challenging tasks.
A less than six-week-old implementation, which, according to the research, should be considered insufficient time to make a judgment.
An isolated use of just one component, such as the use of points without any underlying game framework.
None of these guarantee that gamification cannot work in a particular case. However, these are quite a good indication that the current application of the technique lacks some critical ingredient mentioned in the research.
What This Actually Means for a School Choosing a Program
None of this implies that gamified education is a fad or that those who implemented it and experienced moderate success did anything wrong. It simply implies that the correct answer to the question "Does gamification work?" is never a simple figure. Treating the matter this way leads educators to either overpromise to parents or give up on an effective educational technique. Casinos Analyzer's intuition applies here as well - the surface figures are not the whole story, and the underlying conditions are what really matter.