Chapter 5 Designing Gamification in the Right Way amification is still relatively new as a topic in education and libraries for the purpose of improv- of research. While the use of gamification is ing user engagement and instruction. But the goals of Gbecoming more popular, there are few sys- many gamification projects do not appear to have been tematic studies that assess and measure the impact of clearly set out before the projects began. This is prob- gamification.1 For this reason, many benefits of gami- ably due to the fact that gamification is still seen as a fication are hypothesized rather than verified at this relatively new and experimental strategy. Nevertheless, point. In chapter 2, we saw that gamification of learn- considering various outcomes from a gamification proj- ing is not identical to educational games since the lat- ect in advance and determining which outcome should ter are full-fledged games while the former is only a be given the highest priority can greatly facilitate the lightweight application that applies game elements evaluation and improvement process of a gamification to the learning context. But both the gamification of project. Suppose that an instructor gamifies part of or ReportsLibrary Technology learning and educational games share the same pro- all homework for a class with a leaderboard, points, cess of gamifying learning elements to create the final teams, challenges, missions, and badges. The goal of product. Consequently, the studies that evaluated the this gamification may simply be to increase the number efficacy of educational games are relevant to the dis- of students who submit the homework on time. Or the cussion on the evaluation of gamification projects. goal can be set as better grades from the students in Previous studies about serious games failed to pro- the low performance group, the longer retention time duce strong evidence for their pedagogical efficacy of the subject knowledge taught, or increasing students’ when compared to other instructional methods due to collaboration skills through working out challenges and 2 methodological shortcomings. Furthermore, assess- missions as a team. Setting a clear goal for a gamifica- alatechsource.org ing the effectiveness of an educational game is not a tion project makes it much easier to design the project straightforward task because there are many variables and to evaluate it after it is run. to be considered such as whether a game is of the type If we are gamifying library services or programs, that is most suitable for the learning content in ques- here are some examples of questions that we should tion, whether the learning content itself is suitable for ask in advance. Do we simply want to advertise various a game in the first place, students’ previous knowledge activities taking place in the library more widely? Or February/March 2015 about the learning content, and what their individual do we want to increase the attendance of a library pro- preferences are for a type of game.3 gram? Do we want to use gamification as a way for stu- dents to understand better why plagiarism is unaccept- able? Or do we want patrons to be able to successfully A Clear Goal order an interlibrary loan service on the library web- site? How about retaining the knowledge of different The examples of gamification in the previous chapter citation style formats? Note that these goals are not nec- showed that gamification is currently being utilized essarily mutually exclusive but are not identical either. 29 Understanding Gamification Bohyun Kim Target Group and User Types two different types of people: those who are willing to play for extrinsic rewards and those who are not. Once a clear goal is set for a gamification project, The “player” type refers to those who are motivated to we need to also consider at whom the gamification play by extrinsic rewards. By contrast, the “socialiser,” is directed and what the characteristics of the tar- “free spirit” (a type similar to Bartle’s “explorer”), get group are. For example, at an academic library, “achiever,” and “philanthropist” are motivated to play it would be good to think about whether a particular by intrinsic factors such as social connections, self- gamification project is to be designed for all students expression and exploration, personal achievement and in general or a certain group of students such as fresh- mastery, and a sense of purpose. men, seniors, international students, business school These user types are theoretical abstractions, and students in their summer internship, or students with people in the real world are likely to display charac- poor grades in writing classes, and so on. teristics of more than one of these types to different After determining the target group for a gamifi- degrees. Nevertheless, they provide a useful guide in cation project, another important thing to consider understanding how different motivations are involved is the user type. Bartle classified players in the MUD in gamification and how a gamified application can be (Multi-User Dungeon) games into four types: achievers, designed to appeal to those with different motivations. explorers, socialisers, and killers. (MUD is an adventure For the “player” type, it is clear that offering exter- game played through real-time interaction with other nal rewards, such as a prize or a gift certificate, will players in a virtual world described only in text.) He increase user participation and engagement. For the describes the four types as follows: other types, on the other hand, gamification needs to provide different types of incentives that will appeal to • “Achievers regard points-gathering and rising in them. For example, high achievers in schools with good levels as their main goal.” grades would fall under the category of “achiever” • “Explorers delight when the game reveals its inter- and are likely to be drawn to gamification if the game nal machinations. They try progressively eso- mechanics and dynamics enhance the sense of per- teric actions in wild, out-of-the-way places, look- sonal mastery and achievement. However, gamifica- ing for interesting features . and figuring out tion that focuses on personal mastery and achievement how things work.” would have little appeal to other types of users such • “Socialisers are interested in people, and what as “socialiser” and “philanthropist.” The “socialiser” they have to say. The game is merely a back- type will enjoy gamification that offers a lot of social drop, a common ground where things happen to interactions, while the “philanthropist” type would players. Inter-player relationships are important: respond well to gamification for a greater cause. The empathising with people, sympathising, joking, “free spirit” type will be drawn to game mechanics entertaining, listening; even merely observing such as the detailed customization of avatars, space, people play can be rewarding—seeing them grow and journey-type quests where many discoveries can as individuals, maturing over time.” be made and a lot of detours are available. • “Killers get their kicks from imposing themselves If you are designing a gamified application, on [and causing distress to] others.”4 embedding game dynamics and mechanics that appeal to the target group and providing the type of rewards It is easy to see that people in different user types that are attractive to the motivation of the majority February/March 2015 may prefer one type of game to another. Bartle’s player of them would significantly improve the appeal of types have served as a general framework for other the gamification. For example, medical students are game researchers and a guideline for game designers known to be highly competitive but have little time to even though they are specific to MUD-type games.5 spare beyond their study. Gamification for such medi- Marczewski modifies Bartle’s player types to fit the cal students will be successful if it is designed to have context of gamification as follows. the element of competition and can be played during alatechsource.org a short break. But the members of the target group • player (motivated by extrinsic rewards) may belong to multiple user types. For this reason, in • socialiser (motivated by relatedness) designing gamification, different types of motivation • free spirit (motivated by autonomy) that appeal to different user types need to be care- • achiever (motivated by mastery) fully considered and balanced out instead of overly • philanthropist (motivated by purpose)6 emphasizing one of them over others. In the context of education, thinking about these different types of The main difference between Bartle’s player types users and their motivation in relation to different and Marczewski’s gamification user types is that the learning styles can also be beneficial. Students’ differ- Library Technology ReportsLibrary Technology latter accommodates the fact that unlike games whose ent learning styles should be taken into account as an players always want to play, gamification will have important factor in the design process of gamification 30 Understanding Gamification Bohyun Kim particularly if the majority of the target group prefers match concepts, manipulate numbers, and recognize a certain learning style to others. patterns; Jeopardy-style games are likely to be best for promoting the learning of verbal information (facts, labels, and propositions) and concrete concepts; Other Variables: Gender, Age, arcade-style games are likely to be best at promoting Culture, and Academic Performance speed of response, automaticity, and visual processing; adventure games, which are narrative-driven open- In designing gamification, one should also be aware of ended learning environments, are likely to be best for the fact that variables such as gender, age, and cultural promoting hypothesis testing and problem solving. orientations can play a role in variance in the recep- This means that there is a great need for matching spe- tion of gamified application.