Abstract
Though most of the literature
examining "gamification" in learning environments focuses on digital
games and applications, use of game elements to "gamify" the
classroom experience, or development of (usually digital) games to enhance
student engagement, motivation, and other measures of affective learning,
almost none of the literature approaches gamification as an exercise in
role-playing. This article examines development of a role-playing simulation for
the author's advanced public speaking classroom. This approach was inspired by
the Reacting to the Past movement in
history education, but differs in several important respects. A critique of the
approach and suggestions for improvement are offered.
Romans…
in Space! "Serious Games" in the Advanced Public Speaking Classroom
In the last decade-plus, "gamification" has become
prominent in discussions of teaching and learning, building upon earlier
scholarship in experiential learning, especially David Kolb's (1984) Experiential
Learning Model (See also, Bergsteiner & Avery, 2014; A. Kolb & D. Kolb,
2005; Schenck & Cruickshank, 2015). The term "gamification" was
first used by Nick Prelling in 2002 in the context of developing user-friendly,
electronic device interfaces (Marczewski, 2012; Pelling, 2011), but the definition of
gamification most cited in the literature is the use of design elements characteristic for games in non-game
contexts (Deterding, Sicart, Nacke, O'Hara, & Dixon, 2011, p. 13).[1]
Because the concept first emerged in digital communication, much of the
literature available focuses on digital uses. Burke (2014), for example,
defines gamification as, “the use of game mechanics and experience design to digitally engage and motivate people to
achieve their goals” (n.p.n., emphasis
mine). Thus, theories and many applications of gamification were developed
under a digital paradigm, so commonly are adapted to gamification models
following the same paradigm.
Hunicke, Leblanc, & Zubek (2004) developed the
mechanics, dynamics, aesthetics (MDA) framework to describe the essential
elements of computer game design, and their work has been taken up as part of
the broader understanding of gamification, as such (see also (Robson, Plangger, Kietzmann, McCarthy, & Pitt, 2015). Further, gamification has
been deployed across divergent contexts in a variety of practical applications,
including commercial uses and marketing, though its application in those areas
has not been without controversy (Bogost, 2011; Zicherman, 2011). Gamification also
is used as a means to add game elements to non-game leisure activities, as in
the Zombies, Run! mobile application
for walking and running (and zombie) enthusiasts (https://zombiesrungame.com), and
the Hero's Journey workout, a 60-day,
bodyweight workout routine gamifies fitness development using a fantasy role-playing
game framework (http://darebee.com/programs/hero-journey.html). Gamification
also has a somewhat older counterpart in corporate, emergency response, and
military training as the "Serious Game" (Cook, 2005).[2]
It is important to note a tendency within the literature on "Serious
Games" to emphasize that, though gamification may include game-like
elements, such games are not always supposed to be fun or enjoyable.
Gamification in
Education
It may well be, as Marc C. Carnes (2014) notes, that
"play," as such, has a long history of vilification in educational
literature, and that bringing the "fun" elements of games into more
serious, non-game contexts may smack of subversion of authority and order. Nonetheless,
educational gamification has proliferated, both in the classroom and in the
literature. Dicheva, Dichev, Agre, and Angelova (2015) have reviewed the broader
literature covering gamification in education, noting that, "there are
many publications on the use of gamification in education but the majority
describe only some game mechanisms and dynamics and re-iterate their possible
use in educational context, while true empirical research on the effectiveness
of incorporating game elements in learning environments is still scarce (p. 83).[3]
The Washington, DC-based Educational Advisory Board, a for-profit consultancy, issued
a report including a broad overview of game-based learning (GBL), suggestions
for implementation and learning outcomes, and a list of challenges facing those
adopting GBL practices (Patel & Vasudevan, 2013).[4]
It is increasingly possible and acceptable (even desirable)
to gamify a variety of features of educational practice, in part because of the
proliferation of games and gamification in other areas of life. Deterding
(2014b) uses the term "gamefulness" to describe the increasing
tendency for elements of games and gaming to influence the broader culture,
suggesting that, "If ludification of
culture captures how games and play increasingly inform other domains of
our everyday life, we also can and must speak of its counterpart: the cultivation of ludus” (p. 23, emphasis in original). That is, since public
and private life now feature games and game elements so prominently, and in so
many forms and contexts, it grows increasingly simple to include gamification
in education. Students recognize game elements as part of the grammar of public
culture, and are able to apply them in non-game contexts. However, readers
should also be cautious in the assumption that all students in all cases either
will recognize gamified elements, or will to apply them in the way(s) intended
by instructors. As with other literacies, facility with gamified elements is
unevenly distributed among learners, despite growing salience in the broader
culture. Even where gamification is implemented successfully in learning environments,
learning and affective outcomes still may be uneven (E. Boyle, et al., 2016; Connelly,
E. Boyle, MacArthur, Hainey, & J. Boyle, 2012).
Gamification of
Public Speaking
Given the breadth of examples of gamification and game
design applied in educational contexts, even in just the last decade, it might
surprise readers that the subject of gamification in the present work—an
advanced public speaking course—drew inspiration from entirely different
sources. In this case, the major influences are tabletop role-playing games, a
movement within history/humanities education known as Reacting to The Past (Carnes, 2014)[5],
as well as game dynamics derived from this author's experiences with video
games like the Civilization series
and board games like Diplomacy. The author's
goal was to develop an advanced public speaking course in which a game-like
simulation provided students with a shared, fictional context and opportunities
to role-play within that shared context in completing in-class assignments and
activities. The use of simulation originated from the author's successful development
of a group decision-making exercise in several semesters' basic public speaking
courses. In those simulations, groups of students pretended to be members of a
foundation selecting students for scholarship grants. They developed criteria
for selection, chose "winners," and each group presented their
selection process, their results, and then justified their choices in a
15-minute Q&A session in which the audience pretended to be members of the
public and board members of the fictional foundation. As a test case, that
activity demonstrated the applicability of simulation in the author's public
speaking classroom and resulted in improved student learning outcomes in the
persuasion module for that course. It also suggested the possibility of
extending such simulation to cover an entire semester's speech activities.
Later, in planning for SACS-COC reaccreditation, the
author's university hosted a series of meetings to discuss proposals for the
quality enhancement program (QEP) portion of accreditation, a program to be
developed around experiential learning. Shortly before these discussions, the
author had discovered the Reacting to the
Past movement in the humanities, and began to consider development of a
game-like simulation in an advanced public speaking course. "Reacting"
games treat history as a resource for students' experiential learning, not
simply requiring that they learn historical facts, but also allowing them to
participate by role-playing prominent "characters" in important
historical events. Later that spring, the author fielded a game-like simulation
in an advanced public speaking course, as proof-of-concept, but low enrollment
in the course and the experimental nature of the simulated content achieved
uneven results. While most students "bought in" to the simulated
element, their limited numbers resulted in group-think when making important,
in-game decisions, while the game itself was designed to create some degree of
conflict of interests among participants. The game's intent was not simply to
produce conflict, mind you, but some speech activities (e.g., in-class debates
between game factions) did not go as well as they might have. Also, not all of
the other assignments proved as useful as originally conceived. They would need
either to be revised or reconceived entirely. However, it also was clear that our
game-like simulation, whatever its shortcomings, had resulted in greater-than-normal
student attendance and generated substantial engagement and excitement among
the enrolled students. The course, though the results were not optimal, had
worked to an extent that was difficult to ignore, and provided important lessons
for extension and improvement of that first experiment. In spring semester 2016,
a new version of the course was offered. In this work different aspects of
course and game design will be described and assessed. Broader topics include
course design and game design and their interaction, specific game elements and
course speech activities, and integration of the university's learning
management system in a course of this kind. Finally, student assessments of
learning, engagement, and specific game elements will be considered.
Omega Station:
Romans… in Space!
The broader conceit of this simulation was founded upon a
speculative fiction, one in which the Roman Empire had never fallen, and in
which they were beginning to engage in space exploration and limited colonization
of the solar system. The choice of a fictional context was intended both to
provide a real-world analog for their public speaking activities (e.g.,
deliberation and debate) but also to free their instructor from the confines of
actual history. While the Reacting to the
Past movement was inspiration for this approach, this author is not an
historian, and a speculative future allowed for a situation in which just about
anything could (and did) occur. This game design element was intended to
provide a sense both of mystery about the outcomes of the narrative and some
degree of player agency in how that narrative unfolded. Also, this future-Roman
conceit was designed to allow your author (the game master, or GM) to draw upon
the real heritage of Roman history, particularly its tradition of oratory, and especially
upon the life of Marcus Tullius Cicero, perhaps the greatest Roman orator of
all. It was hoped that the connection to tradition would also foster a desire
among the students to take the simulation more seriously than not, a desire
that was only partly realized in play. In this narrative, five praetorian
families (Benedocto, Medicari, Novari, Palatina, and Skora) had been sent to
run an asteroid mining facility (Omega Station) the fictional place where all
of the action took place. Twenty students were assigned randomly to the five families
(four each), and placed in a seating arrangement in close proximity to the
other family members. The praetorian families and their interactions would
serve as the social basis for the game element of the course, but that game
would require tight integration with the course requirements, for a variety of
reasons to be addressed in the next section.
Course Design vs.
Game Design
One overarching goal for the course was that the speech
activities should be central to our concerns. While the game was important for
adding a sense of context, it should not be what we spent our time doing in
class. For this reason, game "turns" were made part of the homework
for the class, resolved between class sessions, and reported to the students
via the university learning management system's discussion application. The
game's mechanics are reported in a later section (see, "Game Mechanics").
The course itself, however, needed to be designed in such a way that the
overarching narrative provided context for in-class speech activities. This was
attempted through selecting speech activities appropriate to the narrative
context, and structuring them such that each built upon the results of the
others, making the game's narrative emerge from the actions taken, in-game and
in speeches, by the student/players. In practice the relationship between the
speech and game elements proved to be a somewhat uneasy marriage, but produced
a definable story arc matched to the pace of the semester's meetings. The space
available in this writing does not permit extensive treatment of the
game/speech interrelation, but a brief summary follows, below, after an
overview of the "game mechanics" portion of the course (see "Speech
Activities"). The game rules used in this course are included in the
appendix to this work, for readers interested in viewing them.
Game Mechanics
The game mechanics for enacting this setting included use of
"characters" (one for each student) in the manner of a computer or
tabletop role-playing game (RPG). Lay discussions of tabletop RPGs almost
inevitably lead to reference to ur-games like Dungeons & Dragons and various "geek" and
"nerd" stereotypes, but using RPG characters in the classroom provides
students with personalized narrative spaces for creativity and improvisation,
and enables the development of group narratives based on individual character
arcs. For these reasons, tabletop RPG characters provide an important means to
engage communication students through immersive and interactive play, with
space for narrative and interpersonal improvisation. To define this narrative
space, two different role-playing games were used, and then combined with
several author-designed game mechanics.
The first game, Microscope:
A Fractal Role-playing Game of Epic Histories (Robbins, 2011) was intended
to provide an explanation for the students' characters—player characters
(PCs)—of the history of their families and of how Rome had come to space. It
helped us answer the question of what had happened differently than what is
recorded in the actual historical record. During the second class session, the
author led a session of Microscope to
answer the question, "How did Omega Station come to be?" Suffice it
to say, without going into too much detail, that the students surprised your
author. They demonstrated great, often confounding, creativity in the unfolding
narrative with unexpected events (e.g., alien artifacts discovered under the
ice of Antarctica, a deep space shooting incident with unknown
extraterrestrials, etc.), important ancestors of the Five Families (e.g., Jimmy
Skora, Jr., Will Ferrell Palatina), and other oddities. The outcome of the Microscope game shaped the emergent
narrative over the course of the semester, though not always in the expected
ways.
The other RPG used was Apocalypse
World (Baker, 2010) from which three specific game mechanics were selected.
Two of the mechanics were used to provide player characters with role-playing
archetypes (e.g., Face, Spymaster, Prospector, Tactician, etc.), with
associated "moves" allowing each member of each family to contribute
during game turns in specific, unique ways. The Face role was mandatory (as
leader of the family), but then each family selected others from among several
others. Not all roles could be covered by the remaining three players, ensuring
that each family had particular strengths and weaknesses compared to other
families. This design element was developed to necessitate inter-family
cooperation as the players discovered the limits of their in-game actions. There
also was need for a resolution mechanic for actions with uncertain outcomes. Apocalypse World uses two six-sided dice
as a means to resolve actions taken in the game. The resulting die rolls would
provide chances for success, success with consequences, and failure of in-game actions taken by
characters. In the case where different characters engaged in opposed actions,
two rolls were made and compared. In all cases, the author used this game
mechanic to improvise narrative outcomes, rather than specifying die roll
results, so as to maintain students' narrative immersion.
Several original game mechanics also were employed in this
game, including an asteroid mining mini-game and a social intrigue mini-game.
The asteroid mining element was the means through which each family generated
income. The income could be used to buy ships, bid on exclusive mining rights
in the nearby asteroid field, or (in an unexpected move by players) to bribe
other families to take specific actions in favor of one's own family. Wealth
generated in the asteroid mining-mini-game resulted in a "score" that
added to each family's victory points, though the "leader board" was
kept secret until midterm and then again at end-of-semester. The social
intrigue game dealt with attempts at spying on other families, discovering
upcoming Complications dictated by the game master, and enhancing the
reputation score of one's own or defaming that of the other families. Each of
these game systems, in combination with character roles and their associated
"moves" allowed each student to affect the narrative course of the
game (Complete game rules are included in the Appendix to this work).
Speech Activities
One of the greatest challenges faced in running this
class was keeping the "class" and "game" portions
relatively independent of each other. While it may not be immediately clear why
such separation is important, it was critical. The course has programmatic student
learning outcomes, which must be achieved regardless of course format.
Incorporation of RPG content into the course was an aberration, and focusing
too much on the game would detract from students' ability to learn to deliver
various types of speeches needed to achieve specific learning objectives. So,
it was necessary to ensure that the "game" portion of the course occurred
outside of class time (for the most part), while at the same time providing
context (and some content) for the actual, in-class speech activities.
Speech activities in the course began with a research-based
informative speech, but most assignments emphasized effective deliberation and
policy argument, including group deliberation, policy speeches, and policy
debates. The informative speech required each student to provide a response to
a specific research question dealing either with Roman history (e.g., "Who
was Marcus Tullius Cicero and what were his accomplishments?") or with
possible human futures (e.g., "How could asteroid mining help development
of space-based industry and activity?"). Beginning with the Roman history,
we moved to the current space programs (government and private industry), trans-
and post-humanist theory, and speculation about the human future in space.
Students were, at the same time, accomplishing course-specific outcomes (e.g.,
completing research, crafting and delivering a research presentation) and providing
everyone in class with a sense of the broader context of the simulation
comprised by the game. The goals of the informative speech demonstrate how the
author attempted to negotiate between the "game" and the
"class" elements of the course, such that students were able to meet
specific learning objectives for the class but also remained engaged in the
context of the game.
Beyond the informative speech, the speech activities were
designed to build cumulatively, allowing students to scaffold learning outcomes
from one assignment to the next. So, a Faction Deliberation assignment explored
the elements of effective policy, and required each family to develop a
response to a policy question (e.g., "What should be done to prevent
piracy among the families?"). The Policy Speech required each student to
provide a stand-alone policy argument that included all of the required
"stock issues" logically required for such a speech (e.g., harms,
inherency, plan, etc.). Finally, the Faction Debates required to students to
debate matters of policy, each student receiving a chance to argue for both the
affirmative and the negative side, in different speeches, in a modified
parliamentary debate format.
The class and game elements, by mutually reinforcing each
other, provided an immersive experience and a "serious game" in which
students' speech activities had broader meaning. They weren't simply delivering
speeches in a class, but giving speeches with longer stakes based in a shared
narrative framework. Moreover, the speech activities were developed in such a
way that "playing the game" did not interfere with the learning
objectives to be accomplished by students taking the course. While the
"game" remained separated from the "class" by requiring
that game turns be accomplished in the days between class meetings, as
homework, all of the speech activities required in the class were founded in
the context provided by the game. The broader effects of this immersion were
(for most students) increased engagement in speech activities and a real sense
that there was something at stake, besides simply completing assignments.
Learning Management System
The course used the university's chosen learning management
system (LMS), Desire2Learn, including
features used in other courses (e.g., grade book, attendance records). In this
course, however, the discussion/forum features also were employed. A separate
forum was developed for each of the five families, where they could enter their
game moves for processing of game turns, communicate with each other, and
otherwise engage with the "game" portion of the course. Using this
feature provided several advantages. First, it kept game discussion in a space
accessible outside of class sessions. It also provided a means to keep records
of student interactions and game "moves," making it easier to process
and review game turns and their outcomes. Finally, it allowed the instructor to
communicate directly with individual families, rather than with the whole
class. Two other forums were included in the LMS, one for directly addressing
rules and procedures questions, and one allowing for open discussions among the
families. However, those saw little (rules and procedures) or no (open
discussion) use over the course of the semester.
In practice, using the discussion forums did not work as
well as planned. In some cases, students forgot (or were not particularly
engaged by) participation outside of the speech activities. This failure to
engage sometimes had the effect of slowing down the pace of the game turns.
Originally, the class was supposed to complete twenty-five turns, but only
nineteen had been resolved by semester's end. Processing the game turns also
became increasingly cumbersome as the semester progress, simply due to the
overwhelming amount of information.
Complications
In-game narrative intrusions, termed
"complications" in the game, were introduced at various points in the
semester. Complications took the form of narrative descriptions of in-game
events to which the families, and individual players, would have to react or adapt.
The author had used such a narrative device in the scholarship board
simulation, described above, to good effect. With the introduction of such
complications, players might be moved to respond creatively to unanticipated
challenges or take advantage of unexpected opportunities. One such complication
also served as a means to demonstrate the concept of deliberation. Early in the
semester, once the students had a basic grasp of the mining/wealth generation
part of the game, those functions seemed routine to many. However, the news of
a miners' strike (Complication!) created a situation in which asteroids
captured for mining could not be used to generate wealth for the families. On
the instructor side of the equation, there was no specific answer or outcome
sought. It was important merely as an exercise through which the concept of
deliberation could be introduced, so that the students might get some
experience prior the Faction Deliberation assignment. A full session of the
class was set aside to address a specific policy question, "What should be
done to end the miners' strike?" This session created both an opportunity
for learning, but also a series of narrative consequences that would continue
to unfold over the course of the semester.
In practice, thatclass session was organized as a
legislative deliberation. Individuals (speaking for themselves or for their
families) were invited to contribute to a broader understanding of the causes
of the strike, the conditions resulting from it, possible remedies and their
potential advantages/disadvantages, and even to consider the broader framework
of values underlying the discussion. This was the first occasion when a student
suggested a violent solution to an in-game problem—literally killing the strike
leaders to bring the others in line. This caused a great deal of controversy,
and motivated others to advance less violent solutions. Though the problem
ultimately was solved in peaceful fashion, by implementing safer working
conditions and granting time off for vacations and free transport to Terra
Roma, at least one student continued to be troubled, stating in the course
assessment (discussed in next section):
I didn't like the
idea of a violent game. In the hall way, after a debate speech I gave where I
made a claim against a class mate, this class mate actually continued the fuss
about a claim I made against him. This can be dangerous. Violent games get
people engaged and it can go overboard sometimes. (personal communication,
April 2016)
The author was not notified of
the incident at the time it occurred, but it clearly indicates that narrative
immersion can generate passionate responses, and that it's important for
instructors using such course designs to account for possible negative
interactions, both between students and between individual students and game
elements. While some themes might be completely out-of-bounds for the course
(e.g., violent or eliminationist rhetorics, sexually explicit content) it's
also important to find ways to include explicit discussion of what is/is not
acceptable in terms of interaction, game themes, or even specific game
mechanics (e.g., piracy) in the context of students' personal growth and
development. While the author believes it's important that students engage
with, and learn to discuss productively, a variety of themes that might come up
in class (even troubling ones), such latitude should also include discussion of
interpersonal empathy, honoring of diverse viewpoints, and professional
interaction with one's colleagues.
Assessment of
Course
At the end of the semester, students were asked to complete
an assessment of the course. Several quantitative items asked them to report self-assessment
of course learning outcomes, level of engagement with various course elements, changes
in confidence in public speaking, and prior experience with various types of
game activities. Open-ended items asked them to reflect upon their initial
expectations, lessons learned, impact of the game upon in-class speeches, what
they enjoyed least/most about the class, and "other comments about the
game or class." While there is not sufficient space to review all of these
elements, we will consider the students' assessments of their learning
outcomes.
Self-Reported Learning Outcomes
The course in question has the following learning outcomes:
- Students will be able to deliver oral and
written communication appropriate to instructor-specified situations and
audiences.
Assessment: Oral presentations and
accompanying written work evaluated with associated rubrics.
- Students will develop significant academic
research for appropriate oral and written communication.
Assessment: Oral and written work
evaluated with associated rubrics.
Several questions were asked regarding learning outcomes,
and student responded to them using a Likert scale indicator, with
"1" indicating lowest/most negative assessment, and "5"
indicating highest/most positive assessment of the item. Nineteen of twenty
students responded to the assessment.
Learning Outcome 1
Q4: As a result of taking this class do you feel you are
able to develop oral presentations tailored to specific situations? (Avg 4.37, N=19)
Q5: As a result of taking this class do you feel you are
able to develop oral presentations tailored to specific audiences? (Avg 4.42, N=19)
Students provided strong positive
self-assessment, for these items, of growth in their ability to create
presentations adapted to specific situations
and audiences, with 15 and 17
students, respectively, reporting "4" and "5" results, and
none reporting "1" or "2" results. Further, analysis of
students' open-ended responses suggested that some of this self-assessed growth
resulted from the game and narrative features of the course, particularly the
contiguity between the role-playing elements and students' ability to perform
in specific speeches. In brief, playing a role provided students with a better
sense of the connection between self-as-speaker and the co-constructed
narrative framework. Their speeches were not simply being addressed to a
"pretend" audience that is unknown/unknowable because it's
hypothetical, but to a specific, known audience and situation which, though it
is based on pretense, is both known and possesses a certain narrative coherence
contiguous with specific assignments. The shared framework afforded by game
play allowed for a clearer sense of the audience to whom their speeches were
addressed, and the available means of persuasion for addressing that audience.
The instructor's evaluations of their speech and debate
performances tended, with some exceptions, to support the students' self
assessments. The degree to which these students addressed both this specific
audience and the specific situations to which their speeches pertained,
demonstrated superior results when compared to other more "standard"
iterations of the course. They knew whom they were addressing, and they were
better able to determine what situation-specific arguments might move this
audience.
Learning Outcome 2
The second learning outcome, however, was not achieved at as
high a level. In this case students were asked:
Q6: As a result of taking this course do you feel better
prepared to answer a research question as part of developing an oral
presentation? (Avg 3.84, N=19)
In this case, only 13 students reported
positive (4 or 5) results, while 5 reported neutral (3) and one student
reported a negative (2) result. In future courses of this type, the author will
address this shortcoming by requiring additional research in both of their
prepared speeches (informative and policy), and spending more in-class time
discussing the importance of research and factual argument in policy
deliberation.
In this case, the instructor's evaluations support the
students' own self-assessment. While most of the informative speeches
demonstrated effective use of research, including appropriate citation
techniques, the depth of research was not as profound as it should have been,
based on assessment of the annotated bibliographies submitted to as part of
their written work. Further, while students were asked to complete an ungraded
outline in preparation of the speech, only a few of them actually completed
that component. In future courses of this type it will be important to
integrate the research, writing, and speech components more explicitly, and to
make the written components more rigorous.
Assignment Specific Outcomes
The author also was interested in student assessment of
specific assignments used in the course, including evaluation/critique of
students' own, and other students', speech and debate performances. The
following questions and results captured those elements of the assessment:
Q7: As a result of this course do you feel better prepared
to evaluate and critique your own oral communication performances? (Avg 4.37,
N=19)
As with Learning Outcome 1, students
reported strong positive assessments of growth in their ability to evaluate
their own performances. The self-critique assignment asked the students to
write a minimum of three pages, and to "provide description and analysis
of your speech performance, and describe specific goals for improving it… [and
to] discuss your role in the simulation, and how you incorporated it into the
performance you gave, the topics you covered, and so forth" (course
syllabus). While many of the students demonstrated insight and attention to
detail in completing this assignment, the instructor's evaluation of these
assignments noted that self-assessment of learning and development often took a
secondary role to description of the speeches' game-related content. In the
future, it will be important to include additional discussion of effective
self-critique process, and to develop an assignment more focused on speech
performance and improvement.
Students also were required to critique others' performances,
and were provided with rubrics with which to do so. It was assessed as follows:
Q8: As a result of this course do you feel better prepared
to evaluate and critique other people's oral communication performances? (Avg
4.21, N=19)
Students reported relatively strong
positive self-assessment of their abilities to critique others, but the
instructor's assessment is somewhat more negative. Simply put, the rubrics were
not the best instrument for the job, as they simply required that students check
boxes and assign scores. They were simple to complete, but resulted in shallow
assessment of others. It is one thing to assess something as effective or
ineffective, but another to suggest what changes or improvements might be made.
In the future, it will be important to require that such assessments be
justified using specific, detailed notes, and require provision of actionable
feedback.
Discussion
Experiential learning theory suggests that deep and
authentic learning is supported by curriculum that allows students to become
engaged actively with material, to experience learning through action and not
simply through rote learning or context-free practice. This author believes
that a course based around game-like simulation including role-playing game elements
is an effective way to provide effective experiential learning in an advanced
public speaking class. However, such an approach creates significant
challenges, even when the instructor is well-acquainted with both the course
material and the means to simulate situations in which persistent role-play is
possible.
Among the greatest challenges is understanding (and
accepting) that, while some students will become very engaged in such a course,
it may lack appeal for others. Further, it is impossible to know in advance how
many students, or which ones, will be productively engaged by the simulation.
While the author's students, in general, reported high engagement and interest
with the course when it was run in this manner, approximately ten percent of
them stated explicitly that the approach was not something that interested
them. They would have preferred a more standard approach to the course, and the
"game" failed to engage them. As noted above, even getting them in
the classroom is no guarantee that the students will engage the course as
expected. Some will not. Also, it's difficult to determine in advance what
kinds of assignments, when included in a game-like simulation, will help
students best to learn the expected knowledge and acquire the requisite skill
sets. Even when "the course" and "the game" are well-matched,
students' engagement and learning are not assured. A student can be a creative,
engaged role-player in the game, but
still demonstrate average or poor ability in completing required work for the course. That said, the same
situation would seem to pertain to any form a course might take: Some students
will engage, some will do the work, and others will not. At least with an
immersive scenario like the one described in this work, more students tended to
be more engaged, and, very importantly, they actually attended class at a
greater rate than non-game iterations of the course. Further, no students
dropped the course and no one failed to achieve a passing grade, something
unprecedented in the author's experience.
Another significant challenge represented by using a
game-like simulation is that it's nearly impossible to play-test such a
scenario in advance of implementation. The only time an instructor is able to
assemble enough "players" to fill a course is when they come into his
or her classroom. This makes it difficult to align coursework with simulated
elements during the first iteration of such a course. However, assuming that
one's academic department and institution are supportive of this sort of
approach to instruction, further iterations of the course get progressively
better. This assertion is supported by the author's previous experience using
immersive games in a basic course in public speaking. Successive uses of a
group speech based in a role-played situation allowed for better results.
Experience with adverse outcomes and conditions provide opportunities for
instructors to improve the course and its delivery. As a result, students'
experience of the simulation/scenario and achievement of desired learning
outcomes improve relatively quickly after the first iteration. It is worth
taking the risk, and learning from the mistakes that one will inevitably
encounter, when fielding either a discrete assignment or, as in this case, an
entire course relying on role-play, game-like simulation, and the various
course work such scenarios support.
Finally, the "game" element of this course was
complex, perhaps needlessly so. Though it hasn't been discussed extensively,
the sheer amount of bookkeeping required for logging individual players moves
and their results was nearly insupportable, requiring at least an hour per turn
to document, to process, and to notify students of the results. This alone
slowed down the game, and took time away from more productive elements of the
course's implementation. As suggested above, only a few students really
relished the complexity of the game elements (e.g., turns, character
"moves," etc.) and some outright hated them. In design, these
elements were supposed to make the simulation more "real" and promote
immersion. Instead, they may have created a situation where the complexity caused
many students either to be confused by or to tune out the "game" part
of the course. Nonetheless, most students were deeply engaged by the more
narrative elements, and enjoyed role-play as an element of their experience in
the advanced public speaking course. In future iterations, the course might
benefit by emulating the "foundation board" exercise from the basic
course in public speaking, dropping the rules-heavy elements, and engaging in
more improvisational role-play to drive the emergent narrative. The narrative,
in fact, seems to be what drives most of the engagement. Students are
interested in seeing what comes next, and engaged in taking part in the story.
Even simpler "gamified" elements like leader boards and achievements,
as used in this course, didn't have the effect (or as much effect as intended)
of increasing student engagement through competition between the families. Most
didn't care, and some disengaged because their team wasn't "winning."
Others became so engaged by it that they violated significant professional and
social norms, making other students uncomfortable, as discussed above.
"Gamification" in that sense may not be suitable for every classroom.
Even with these challenges, this author's experience using
the Omega Station: Romans… in Space!
simulation in an advanced public speaking classroom was overwhelmingly
positive. Most of the students remained engaged throughout the semester, taking
part enthusiastically in the class activities and nearly every student attended
every class. During discussion with students at the end of the semester, many
of them were effusive in their praise for the course. Even those who were less
engaged acknowledged that they appreciated the experience, though it was not
one they would care to repeat. The author plans to offer a modified,
"rules-light" version of the course in Spring 2017, and to improve
upon some of the more problematic elements described in this work.
Conclusion
Gamification has become an important part of educational
practice, and even classrooms that are not "gamified" in the sense
discussed here may include elements of "gameful" culture brought into
being by video gaming and other forms of play. Gamification in education, as
described in academic literature, is relatively new in its development, only
emerging in the current millennium. Though it relies on older work scholarship
in experiential learning, much of it is concerned with digital-based learning
games, simulations and, in many cases, just the inclusion of gamified elements
to supplement more traditional education. In this work, the author has
described a rather different approach to gamification in the advanced public
speaking classroom, one that emphasizes role-play, improvisation, and
narrative. This approach has its roots in tabletop role-playing and relies on
students' interaction with each other, with their instructor, and with course
materials and activities specifically tailored for such face-to-face
interaction. While not without its flaws, this sort of gamification provides a
useful means for increasing student engagement and enhancing students'
abilities and confidence in public speaking.
References
Baker, D. V. (2010). Apocalypse
world. Lumpley Games.
Banfield, J., & Wilkerson, B. (2014). Increasing
student intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy through gamification pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 7(4),
291-298.
Barnard College. (2016). Reacting to the Past. Retrieved
from http://reacting.barnard.edu/reacting-home
Bauermeister, M. C., Greer, J., Kalinovich, A. V.,
Marrone, J. A., Pahl, M. M., Rochholz, L. B., & Wilson, B. R. (2016).
Preparing students for leadership through experiential learning. Journal of Leadership Education, 15(3),
31-41.
Bergsteiner, H., & Avery, G. C. (2014). The
twin-cycle experiential learning model: Reconceptualizing Kolb's theory. Studies in Continuing Education, 36(3),
257-274.
Bilgin, C. U., Baek, Y., & Park, H. (2015). How
debriefing strategies can improve student motivation and self-efficacy in
game-based learning. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 155-182.
Bogost, I. (2011, August 9). Gamification is bullshit. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/gamification-is-bullshit/243338/
Boss, S. J. (2002). Students take history into their own
hands. The Christian Science Monitor.
Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0813/p14s02-lecs.html
Botte, B., Imbellone, A., Marinensi, G., & Medaglia, C.
M. (2015). The ludic and narrative components in game based learning: A
classroom training experience. Paper presented at the European Conference on Information Management & Evaluation.
Boyle, E. A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Gray, G.,
Earp, J., Ott, M., . . . Pereira, J. (2016). An update to the systematic
literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer
games and serious games. Computers &
Education, 94, 178-192.
Bramesfeld, K. D., & Good, A. (2015). The game of
social life: An assessment of a multidimensional poverty simulation. Teaching Sociology, 42(2), 92-103.
Burke, B. (2014). Gartner redefines Gamification. Retrieved
from
http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_burke/2014/04/04/gartner-redefines-gamification/
Cain, J., & Piascik, P. (2015). Are serious games a
good strategy for pharmacy education? American
Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 79(4), 1-6.
Carnes, M. C. (2005). "Reacting
to the Past" series pedagogy manual. New York: Pearson-Longman.
Carnes, M. C. (2014). Minds
on fire: How role-immersion games transform college. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Cate, C. A., & Albright, G. (2015). Supporting
student veterans: Utilizing game-based role-plays with virtual humans to build
military cultural competency and helping behaviors in faculty and staff. Online Learning, 19(1), 48-63.
Chang, J. W., & Wei, H. Y. (2016). Exploring engaging
gamification mechanics in massive online open courses. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 177-203.
Chen, Y., Burton, T., Mihaela, V., & Whittinghill, D.
M. (2015). Cogent: A case study of meaningful gamification in education with
virtual currency. iJet, 10(1), 39-45.
Cheong, C., Filippou, J., & Cheong, F. (2014).
Towards the gamification of learning: Investigating student perceptions of game
elements. Journal of Information Systems
Education, 25(3), 233-244.
Cicchino, M. I. (2015). Using game-based learning to
foster critical thinking in student discourse. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 9(2).
Coccoli, M., Iacono, S., & Vercelli, G. (2015).
Applying gamification techniques to enhance the effectiveness of video-lessons.
Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge
Society, 11(3), 73-84.
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T.,
& Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence
on computer games and serious games. Computers
& Education, 59, 661-686.
Cook, D. (2005). Serious Games: A broader definition.
Retrieved from http://www.lostgarden.com/2005/05/serious-games-broader-definition.html
Courage, R. (2004). Getting into history by getting into
character. The New York Times.
Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/nyregion/getting-into-history-by-getting-into-character.html
Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & Sáez-López, J. M. (2016).
Game-based learning and gamification in initial teacher training in the social
sciences: an experiment with MinecraftEdu.
International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 13(2). Retrieved from doi:DOI 10.1186/s41239-016-0003-4
Deterding, S. (2011). Situated motivational affordances
of game elements: A conceptual model. Paper presented at CHI 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
http://gamification-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/09-Deterding.pdf
Deterding, S. (2014a). Eudaimonic design, or: Six
invitations to rethink gamification. In M. Fuchs, S. Fizek, P. Ruffino, &
N. Schrape (Eds.), Rethinking
Gamification (pp. 305-331). Lüneburg, Germany: Meson Press.
Deterding, S. (2014b). The ambiguity of games: History
and discourses of a gameful world. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The gameful world: Appoaches, issues, applications
(pp. 23-64). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L.
(2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining "gamification".
Proceedings of the 15th International
Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, 9-15.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O'Hara, K., &
Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Using game design elements in non-gaming
contexts. Proceedings of ACM CHI 2011
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2425-2428.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979575
Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G.
(2015). Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3),
75-88.
Erenli, K. (2013). The impact of gamification:
Recommending education scenarios. iJet, 8(1),
15-21. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v8iS1.2320
Faiella, F., & Ricciardi, M. (2015). Gamification and
learning: A review of issues and research. Journal
of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 11(3).
Fan, K. K., & Xiao, P. W. (2015). The effects of
learning styles and meaningful learning on the learning achievement of
gamification health science curriculum. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5),
1211-1229.
Farber, M. (2016). Gamify your classroom. Education Digest, 81(5), 37-42.
Fleischmann, K., & Ariel, E. (2016). Gamification in
science education: Gamifying learning of microscopic processes in the
laboratory. Contemporary Educational
Technology, 7(2), 138-159.
Gordon, N., Brayshaw, M., & Grey, S. (2013).
Maximising gain for minimal pain: Utilising natural game mechanics. Innovations in Teaching & Learning in
Computer Sciences, 12(1), 27-38.
Groh, F. (2012, February 14). Gamification: State of the
art definition and utilization. Paper presented at the 4th Seminar on Research Trends in Media Informatics Ulm, Germany.
Hamzah, W. M. A. F. W., Ali, N. H., Saman, M. Y. M.,
Yusoff, M. H., & Yacob, A. (2015). Influence of gamification on students'
motivation in using e-learning applications based on the Motivational Design
model. iJet, 10(1), 30-34.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v10i1.4355
Han, H. C. (2015). Gamified pedagogy: From gaming theory
to creating a self-motivated learning environment in studio art. Studies in Art Education, 56(3),
257-267.
Hunicke, R., Leblanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A
formal approach to game design and research. Paper presented at the Challenges in Games AI Workshop, Nineteenth
National Conference of Artificial Intelligence, San Jose, CA.
Jagoda, P. (2013). Gamification and other forms of play. Boundary 2, 40(2), 113-144.
Jagoda, P., Gilliam, M., McDonald, P., & Russell, C.
(2015). Worlding through play: Alternate reality games, large scale learning,
and The Source. American Journal of Play, 8(1), 74-100.
Jamaludin, A., & Hung, D. (2017). Problem-solving in
STEM learning: navigating games as narrativized problem spaces for 21st century
competencies. Research and Practice in
Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1).
Jenson, J., de Castell, S., Thumlert, K., & Muehrer,
R. (2016). Deep assessment: An exploratory study of game-based, multimodal
learning in Epidemic. Digital Culture & Education, 8(2),
21-40.
Kim, B. (2015a). The popularity of gamification in the
mobile and social era. Library Technology
Reports, 51(2), 5-9.
Kim, B. (2015b). Gamification: Examples, definitions, and
related concepts. Library Technology
Reports, 51(2), 10-16.
Kim, B. (2015c). Game mechanics, dynamics, and
aesthetics. Library Technology Reports,
51(2), 17-19.
Kim, B. (2015d). Gaming in education libraries. Library Technology Reports, 51(2),
20-28.
Kim, B. (2015e). Designing gamification in the right way.
Library Technology Reports, 51(2),
29-35.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles
and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 4(2), 193-212.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential
learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Lang, J. M. (2014a). Being Nehru for 2 days. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Being-Nehru-for-2-Days/147813
Lang, J. M. (2014b). How students learn from games. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved from
http://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Students-Learn-From-Games/148445/
Lang, J. M. (2014c). Stop blaming students for your
listless classroom: How the use of games as a teaching methodology has the
potential to break the long history of student disengagement in college
learning. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Stop-Blaming-Students-for-Your/149067
Leaning, M. (2015). A study of the use of games and
gamification to enhance student engagement, experience and achievement on a
theory-based course of an undergraduate media degree. Journal of Media Practice, 16(2), 155-170. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14682753.2015.1041807
Marczewski, A. (2012). Gamification: A simple introduction. Raleigh, NC: Lulu.
Marklund, B. B., & Taylor, A.-S. A. (2016).
Educational games in practice: The challenges involved in conducting game-based
curriculum. Electronic Journal of
e-Learning, 14(2), 122-135.
Michael, D., & Chen, S. (2006). Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform. Independence,
KY: Cengage Learning.
Niculae, R., & Duda, M. (2015). Gamification as means
of getting from e-learning to experience in architecture. eLearning & Software for Education(2), 88-93.
Nordby, A., Øygardslia, K., Sverdrup, U., & Sverdrup,
H. (2016). The art of gamification; teaching sustainability and system thinking
by pervasive game development. The Electronic
Journal of e-Learning, 14(3), 152-168.
Olsson, M., Mozelius, P., & Collin, J. (2015).
Visualisation and gamification of e-learning and programming education. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13(6),
441-454.
Palmer, M. (2016). Red versus blue: Cold War games. Agora, 51(2), 51-58.
Patel, T., & Vasudevan, N. (2013). Developing game-based learning in the
classroom. Washington, DC: Educational Advisory Board.
Pelling, N. (2011). The short prehistory of gamification.
Retrieved from https://nanodome.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/the-short-prehistory-of-gamification/
Robbins, B. (2011). Microscope:
A fractal role-playing game of epic histories. Seattle, WA: Lame Mage
Productions.
Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J. H., McCarthy, I.,
& Pitt, L. (2015). Is it all a game? Understanding the principles of
gamification. Business Horizons, 58,
411-420. Retrieved from
Roselli, T., & Rossano, V. (2015). Focus on:
Gamification and serious game for learning. Journal
of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 11(3), 7-12.
Schenck, J., & Cruickshank, J. (2015). Evolving Kolb:
Experiential education in the age of neuroscience. Journal of Experiential Education, 38(1), 73-95.
Sheldon, L. (2012). The multiplayer classroom: Designing
coursework as a game. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Spöttl, G., & Schulte, S. (2015). Work process based
learning and serious games--didactical concepts and objectives for competency
development. International Journal of
Advanced Corporate Learning, 8(3), 50-53.
Susi, T., Johannesson, M., & Backlund, P. (2007). Serious games--An overview. Skövde,
Sweden: University of Skövde.
Tulloch, R. (2014). Reconceptualizing gamification: Play
and pedagogy. Digital Culture &
Education, 6(4), 317-333.
Ulicsak, M. (2010). Games in education: Serious Games. .
Retrieved from Bristol, UK:
https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/FUTL60/FUTL60.pdf
Urh, M., Vukovic, G., Jereb, E., & Pintar, R. (2015).
The model for introduction of gamification into e-learning in higher education.
Paper presented at the 7th World
Conference on Educational Sciences, Athens, Greece.
Vagg, T., Tabrica, S., Ronan, N., Plant, B., &
Eustace, J. (2016). A web-based 3D lung anatomy learning environment using
gamification. eLearning & Software
for Education(1), 556-560.
Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It's not
just the digital natives who are restless. Educause
Review, 41(2), 16-30.
Wilson, D., Calongne, C., & Henderson, B. (2015).
Gamification challenges and a case study in online learning. Internet Learning, 4(2), 84-102.
Zeynep, T., Zeynep, A., Kara, K., & Goktas, Y.
(2016). Gamification and education: Achievements, cognitive loads, and views of
students. iJet, 11(7), 64-69.
Zicherman, G. (2011, August 29). Gamification is here to
stay. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/gamification-is-here-to-stay/244232/
Notes
[1]
See also Deterding, Dixon,
Khaled, and Nacke (2011)
and Deterding (2014a).
[2] See
also Michael and Chen (2006); Susi, Johannesson, and Backlund (2007); Peterson
(2012), Chapter 3; Cate and Albright (2015); Roselli and Rossano (2015); Spöttl
and Schulte (2015); Bauermeister, et al. (2016).
[3]Additional,
recent works not included in Dicheva, et al. (2015) include, Adams, Mayer,
Koenig, and Wainess (2012); Banfield and Wilkerson (2014); Bilgin, Baek, and
Park (2015); Botte, Imbellone, Marinensi, and Medaglia (2015); Bramesfeld and
Good (2015); Cain and Piascik (2015); Chang and Wei (2016); Chen, Burton,
Mihaela, and Whittinghill (2015); Cheong, Filippou, and Cheong (2014); Cicchino
(2015); Coccoli, Iacono, and Vercelli (2015); Cózar-Gutiérrez and Sáez-López
(2016); Erenli (2013); Faiella
and Ricciardi (2015);
Marklund and Taylor (2016); Niculae and Duda (2015); Nordby, Øygardslia,
Sverdrup, and Sverdrup (2016); Olsson, Mozelius, and Collin (2015); Palmer
(2016); Ulicsak (2010); Vagg, Tabrica, Ronan, Plant, and Eustace (2016);
Wilson, Calongne, and Henderson (2015).
[4]
See also Tulloch, (2014); Urh,
Vukovic, Jereb, & Pintar (2015); Van Eck (2006).
[5] See
also Barnard College (2016); Boss (2002); Courage (2004); Lang (2014a, 2014b,
2014c).
