Gamification In Children

Sir Ken Robinson states that, “Children are living in the most intensely stimulating period in the history of Earth” (TheRSA). They’re getting distracted by Iphones, television, recreational video games, etc. Which is leading to a possibly rampant misdiagnosis of ADHD in children across America. This is important to gamification because it exemplifies the dissonance that instructors may express towards this idea of bringing play into work. The students are going to require mental stimulation from an alternative source to keep their attention upon their work. Gamification introduces a method in which mental stimulation is a possibility through intractability with the coursework. One way that we saw this was through the implementation of

badges to produce intrinsic motivation. However, this is not the only game mechanic professors aim to borrow to enhance their courses.
Another game mechanic that may be used to implement gamification would be an adjusted grading scale. I claim that the current grading scale that exists in modern education has a few flaws, and that there exists a solution to these problems. An example of one of these issues is the mere grade that a student receives on an assignment. As children grow up they become accustomed to weighted grading scales that determine their proficiency in a subject. Moreover, students begin to correlate the grade that they receive with their own self-worth (Dittmann). To remedy this, we need to consider the grading scale as a whole for a moment. The grading scale, as it is now, determines the amount of proficiency that a student possesses within that certain subject area. I know that my opinion is not a popular one when I state that this shouldn’t be the only indication of a student’s worth. A scale of 0-100 should not determine how valuable a student is, based solely on comprehension of course material. Educators, we share a common goal regarding these student’s schooling. We both want these children to be prepared for their futures by teaching them to practice our methods and to learn our ways. Yet, we also want these students to become well rounded individuals that have the ability to follow their dreams. We cannot distinguish the precious flame of these children’s academic careers.
The solution is not to change how we grade students on their coursework. This is an existing structure of education that can be enhanced to improve the output result of the student. Rather, the solution lies in setting up the game mechanics to work for us. In the specific case of creating a solution for student’s grading scale we can look to the game mechanic of the leaderboard. Mr. Levin developed a leaderboard for his classroom that accounted for a multitude of variables. A few of these variables are common ones that would be seen on any grading scale such as homework scores, quiz grades, and presentation points. In addition to this however, Mr. Levin has included variables such as “other” and “badges.” These extra variables are a possible solution for creating well rounded and academically successful students. First, focus on a struggling student. There are two types of underperforming students, one who gives up on trying to succeed, and another who tries to do well but fails. We do not want to leave the child who gives up behind, nor do we want to fail students who are putting in their best effort. We stated already that Levin’s badges level the playing field for students. It achieves this by rewarding students who show the desire to succeed, the students who show the responsibility to come to class everyday with their textbook. Levin believes that by adding in these extra variables into the mixture of his grading scale he can help underperforming students. This approach is helpful for discouraging the evaluation of student’s worth, yet it doesn’t prevent the demoralizing idea of being ranked out of 100.
This is where one key characteristic of Levin’s approach sets it apart from other researcher’s methods, and what’ll create yet another hybrid gamified mechanic that may be applied to a modern-day course.

Levin agrees that a student should not be judged on a 100-point scale, rather students shouldn’t have their knowledge scored as a percentage value at all. Instead, he proposes a system where assignments, quizzes, tests, etc, are all based on “experience.” This is borrowing an element from video games in which characters’ progress over time through the experiences they transverse through. He suggests creating a strange conversion factor that would be used to convert a student’s score from a percentage into a value of experience. This is to discourage the student from attempting to devalue themselves. Since students are ranked in a value of experience, they are free to consider these assignments they complete as tasks that yield personal knowledge that they’ve acquired regarding the subject they are working on. The more knowledgeable they are in the area that is being tested, the more experience they’ll receive (up to the maximum score on the assignment). Whereas, if the student doesn’t perform very well in a topic they’ll see that they do not have a very high amount of experience in that topic. To encourage the student to better themselves the student should be given opportunities to retake course material to gain more experience. Levin’s badges are incorporated

into this grading scale as well to encourage students’ academic growth. Ensuring that a student who was unprepared for class in the past, but now comes to class ready to learn, will be a goal of Levin’s badge implementation.
I’m in agreement with Levin’s badge and grading scale adjustments.

We both understand that schooling is vital to a child’s development, and that creating an ideal hybrid system from the start will be the only successful way to implement gamification into a classroom. However, these game mechanics are not going to work in every classroom environment. One may argue that high schoolers and college students would completely disregard the purpose of gamification so long as they received the grade they were searching for. They have the existing grading scale ingrained within their mind that they wouldn’t be able to prevent themselves from asking, “How much experience is this assignment out of?” I’m in complete agreement with this argument, and I do not believe that this version of gamification would be as successful for mature age groups. Similarly, I don’t believe kindergarten students would have a strong understanding of what responsibility and perseverance is in terms of their academics. This version of gamification can be used effectively at a time in a student’s life where they are not worried about what grades they are receiving and where they are willing to improve upon themselves. This age range can vary however, it seems that students would possess this mindset around their middle school years from as early as fifth grade up until

eighth.
This age range should not discourage college professors and substitutes who instruct mature students from implementing gamification. Professors should still attempt to seek out knowledge in how to go about gamifying their classroom to engage their students. When properly setup, gamified classrooms will produce positive results. Specific implementations need to be devised prior to classroom injection regarding what age group the classroom will hold. The student’s age will help create the mechanics that will bet fit these student’s needs. At the moment, authors are continuously publishing mechanics that they’ve been able to incorporate into their classroom. The results of these studies can be considered, which can help guide professor’s future classroom implementations.