Scholarly Critique #2: User-Centered Gamification
Scholarly Critique #3:
After reading Nicholson (2012) article “A User-Centered Theoretical Framework for Meaningful Gamification” I was really inspired. The author actually evaluated games and learning relevant for an instructional designer, not a just a game designer. For instance they begin the article with a clear and concise explanation of gamification, which is “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (p.2).
The author states the relationship between games and learning occurs by framing the importance of the activity for the user done using the following methods: Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), Situational Relevance, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and Player-Generated Content (Games 2.0) (Nicholson 2012). These theories provide frameworks for which a designer or educator can be begin to create relevance, meaning, and
motivation for the learner.
The social dimensions of game play, according to this author, are related to two theories: self-determination theory and player-generated content. Self-determination theory states that rewards should be based upon gaining or losing status that tap into the ego (Nicholson, 2012, p. 3). In other words, playing on the learners’ sense of self through rewards creates a powerful motivation factor. According to the theory of player-generated content, when games allow the player to generate their own content and they tend to share leading them to whole new online affinity groups.
The player experience, according to Nicholson (2012) is best explained as the need to create meaningful gamification systems. Meaning for the player is a narrative the author assumes to understand, by using a user-centered framework. The author doesn’t really attest to learning occurring, using most of these theories, he only insists that meaning for the learner is being developed. The author almost insists or implies that by increasing the motivation, relevance, and different contexts applied then learning will occur.
Based on this article I have learned several concepts that I can apply to instructional design. The author mentions that the best way to determine the relevance for the user is to ask. A simple “game-like” element to make the learner feel engaged is by involving the learner to acknowledge their background. For me, I will ensure that every training program or course I create begins by asking the user to identify what information is relevant to him or her, instead of just presenting a menu. Additionally I learned that the user should have some ability to customize, modify, or generate material in the program, based on the theory/practice of player-generated content. In line with being able to create or generate I must also allow the user to share, provide them with a online community in which to increase their engagement. This method can be applied as simply as adding a social media icon to a page during the course.
Following this reading, I want to know why the author chose these theories to focus on? Since they don’t appear to be the full gamut of experiences gamer designer creates when they design games. I also want to know what relationship that author does see between the user sense of intrinsic motivation in a game versus schools.
Overall, the article was very well-written, and provided an interesting insight in to what makes games really tick from a user’s perspective.
