Two ends of a spectrum are presented in this week's reading. Matera and Dominquez et al seem to represent the more 'practical' or maybe straight-forward end of the spectrum. Representing gamification largely as a way to increase engagement in education for a particular topic by adding game elements and mechanics to the lesson or class. Probably because of educations link with grading and levels, the most straight forward elements to add are grading, levels and leader boards, increasing the external motivation to learn, at least for those who find competition engaging. Dominquez et al's experiment, while underpowered with only 27 students who actively participated in the gamification activities, 31 who tried them out and didn't proceed, and (if I counted right) well over 100 who didn't participate in gamified activities. They did find intriguing results in students who went 'all in' in gamification activities showed increased skill, but less participation in class and lower results in written assignments. The same group in general found the competition in the game elements used drew them in and engaged them in the activities. Given the size and methods for the experiment it is an intriguing exploratory look at gamification in higher education. Though one wonders if those who gravitated to the gamification activities were already those more focused on competition and less engaged by classes and writing. Overall, though the grades across the groups were the same, so gamification in this case was possibly a useful adjunct for a particular subset of students. Matrea's description of his game appears to draw on this same set of preferred gaming elements, adding physical activity and reenactment type 'adventures'. The focus again is making points and in competing with others, with both gamification projects using Leader Boards, and lists of competitors shared publicly within the game. That last feels very close to the 'name and shame' tactics used in activism sometimes to 'coerce' businesses or people to 'do the right thing', and doesn't feel particularly appropriate in educating and engaging students with learning. I do understand that it often does get behavioral results, but they typically seem to be results that only happen when you are looking and don't really stick. Maybe, that is part of the 'externalization' problem that several writers allude to where, players engaging in gamification activities when there is external motivation and may loose what internal motivation they had to begin with, especially in the context where the external motivation is perceived as forced or coercive. Nicholson is at the other end of the spectrum for gamification focusing on making the gamified activity 'person-centered' increasing engagement through making the game responsive and to some extent generated by the players, focusing much more on the player engaging in setting their own goals and building their own content. This version of gamifiation is more responsive to the players context both in interests and skills, but also is more responsive to the social and organizational context of the gamified project. Dealing more directly with things tenuous internet connectivity or students of different skills and backgrounds, than the competitive end of gamification did. However, the 'person-centered' end of the spectrum seemed like it might focus more on the feelings and concerns of the player possibly leaving the content in a lesser position. That leads me back to the spectrum and the consideration that probably need to balance both ends of the spectrum. In health care, we now have 'person-centered (or patient-centered) medical homes' where the idea is that health care decisions are jointly shared by the provider and the patient/client/person with the provider not taking the lead, but rather following the patient/client/person. Outcomes are mixed with clients reporting feeling better about their health care, but concrete measures of health are about the same, possibly as behavior change is much harder than experiments lead one to believe. With dictating working for some, hand-holding working for some, but neither working for all, nor to they combined work for all. Sounds to me gamification is the same, balancing act, played out across multiple student gamers at once, probably a bit like working with a whole community.

Dominquez, Adrian, Joseba Saenz-de-Navarrete, Luis de-Marcos, Luis Ferrnandez-Sanz, Carmen Pages, and Jose-Javier Martinez-Herraiz. “Gamifying Learning Experiences: Practical Implications and Outcomes.” Computers & Education 63, no. 2013 (2013): 380–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020. Entering the Realm of Nobles: Michael Matera. Google + Hangouts, n.d. https://youtu.be/FFG3Vk-MCf8. Groh, Fabian. “Gamification: State of the Art Definition and Utilization.” RTMI 2012, n.d., 39–46. Nicholson, S. “A User0Centered Theoretical Framework for Meaningful Gamification.” Madison, Wisconsin, 2012.