Engagement and presence...and the literature review continues...

 

 The Role of Engagement and Presence in Online Courses 

Engagement is related to motivation, in this instance the motivation to stay engaged in online courses. Maslow (1943, 1954, 1970) suggests that people are motivated to meet certain needs. When one fulfills a need, the person moves on to fulfill the next one. His earliest version of this hierarchy of needs included five motivational needs, often depicted within a pyramid (see Figure to the right). These first four needs are identified as deficit needs.  If these deficit needs are not met, these needs make us uncomfortable, motivating us to sufficiently fulfill these needs. Referred to as growth needs, the last four needs constantly motivate us as they relate to our growth and development.


Maslow also arranged these needs in a hierarchy, indicating that we are primarily motivated by a need only if lower level needs have been met. This means that before cognitive or self-actualization needs can motivate us, we must address the basic deficit needs like physiological, security, belonging, and esteem.  After students meet level 1basic needs and the safety needs of level 2, they next strive to meet the belonging needs of level 3. This level involves emotionally-based relationships in general, such as friendship, intimacy and having a supportive and communicative family. Students who lack these close relationships often exhibit low initiative and low levels of extraversion, impacting their ability and interest in interacting. Faculty can assist here by creating opportunities for students to interact with one another and with faculty, in a gamified environment, by using technology to foster community, one where students feel they belong. Faculty, then, can begin developing engagement by meeting students at their level 3 needs and continuing up through the levels.

Gamifying a class may be one way to help meet these needs. 

A sense of community, also a part of engagement, has been significantly linked to perceived learning (Rovai, 2002; Shae, 2006). Garrison (2007) refers to community as presence, comprised of three types: social, cognitive, and teaching presence. Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) developed a comprehensive Community of Inquiry framework (see Figure on the left) that suggests developing a community of learners is crucial to supporting higher level learning and discussion.

 
 Research suggests this framework provides solutions for studying online learning (Garrison & Archer, 2003; Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, Koole, & Kappelman, 2006). Garrison et al. (2000) argue that any one of cognitive processing, social interactions, or teachers’ facilitation by itself is insufficient for fostering higher levels of critical thinking, but instead, these three elements have to co-exist and interact with one another to optimally facilitate learning (Bangert, 2008).  

Aligning the integration of gamification into online courses using the MDA Framework and the Community of Inquiry Framework seems to be an appropriate place to begin. 

Social presence

Students demonstrate social presence when they project themselves as real people within a community, establishing personal and purposeful relationships. A key point here is for students to recognize they are not here purely for social reasons, but to interact with common purpose for the sake of inquiry. Students need to feel secure to communicate openly and to create cohesion. Swan and Shih (2005) found that group cohesion is significantly related to social presence and perceived learning outcomes. Richardson and Swan (2003) go on to connect social presence with student and instructor satisfaction with and perceptions of a course. Social presence in online discussions has even been identified as a predictor of academic performance and can be used as early detection for students at risk of failing an online course (Joksimovic, Gasevic, Kovanovic, Riecke, & Hatala, 2015).

Teaching presence

Teaching presence relates to the process of design, facilitation, and direction throughout the learning experience to achieve desired learning outcomes. Teaching presence should directly and indirectly facilitate social interactions and stimulate higher levels of cognitive processing. Interaction and discourse play a key role in higher-order learning but not without structure (design) and leadership (facilitation and direction). For example, without explicit guidance, students will likely engage primarily in serial monologues with brief responses rather than truly delving into the topic presented for discussion. This may require faculty to be more directive in their initial posts or in their responses, directing students to solve a particular problem or to require certain elements be present in student responses. Garrison and Archer (2003) suggest that teaching presence is a significant determinate of student satisfaction, perceived learning, and sense of community. Students relate timeliness of teacher direct comments to assignments as increasing their course satisfaction.

 Cognitive presence

Cognitive presence relates to the design and development of instructional materials, enabling students to construct and confirm meaning through related refection and discourse. Cognitive presence is the degree to which the learners can construct understanding through sustained reflection and communication (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, & Archer, 2001). The phases of cognitive presence (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000), in increasing complexity, include (1) Triggering Event (that triggers issues for consideration); (2) Exploration (of issues, through brainstorming, questioning, and information exchange); (3) Integration (to construct meaning based on the ideas generated in Exploration); and (4) Resolution (to build consensus as learners confirm their understanding and apply new ideas to solve problems).

 My step, then, is to explore how to integrate  the MDA Framework into the Community of Inquiry.

 References

Bangert, A. (2008, September). The influence of social presence and teaching presence on the quality of online critical inquiry. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(1), 34-61.  

Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72.

Garrison, D. R. Anderson, T, & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education 2(2–3), 87–105.

Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2003). A community of inquiry framework for online learning. In M. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education. New York: Erlbaum.

Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M., & Kappelman, J. (2006). Revisting methodological issues in the analysis of transcripts: Negotiated coding and reliability. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 1–8.

Joksimovic, S., Gasevic, D., Kovanovic, V., Riecke, B. E. & Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31, 638-654.  


Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-96.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Religions, values, and peak experiences. New York: Penguin.

Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68-83.  


Rovai, A. P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education 5(4), 319–332.

Shea, P. (2006). A study of students’ sense of learning community in online environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 10(10). Retrieved from >http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v10n1/v10n1_4shea_member.asp

Swan, K. & Shih, L. F. (2005, October). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 9(3). Retrieved from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v9n3/pdf/

MDA aplied to an online classroom - the literature review continues

Now, let's delve futher into MDA and its application to online course design . . . .

Online course design and the MDA Framework

The MDA framework allows designers to consider the game from two perspectives at the same time – they can see the game from the viewpoint of the user as well as from that of the designer - making this a very useful design, particularly if a designer also plays games. This framework, however, can also assist instructors who are considering adding gamification to an online course.

Game mechanics in an online gamified course might include points, badges, leaderboards, statuses, levels, quests/tasks, countdowns, challenges, and virtual spaces. Game dynamics include in-game behaviors and strategic actions and interactions that emerge within the course, including rewards, achievements, self-expression, and competition. As in a gaming environment, the dynamics are often difficult to anticipate, so instructors need to constantly monitor a course to see what types of dynamics emerge and respond accordingly. The aesthetic part of course design needs to be kept in mind while designing as they can be added during design or at the end of design. The aesthetic component focuses on generating an emotional response, in this instance, from the students in an online course, with instructors designing the course experience to be pleasurable.

While faculty often hope that students enjoy their courses, gamification allows faculty to deliberately include items or consider student enjoyment as part of the design process. Faculty could include an element of make-believe or fantasy such as setting up the entire course as a type of role-play where students are working in a business or in an internship setting. Narrative is another possible example of aesthetics, requiring the addition of drama or storytelling. An online course could be set up as a series of challenges or an obstacle course. Another possibility is to set up a course with a social framework requiring all students to work together to achieve goals. A course could be designed as unchartered territory or an expression of self-discovery.

Paramount here is to have a framework for the courses, a theme that connects every item within the course, comprising course aesthetics.Aesthetics, dynamics, and mechanics all work together with each one informing the development and continued revising of the other. The MDA framework of game design can be applied to gamifying a course, but another aspect needs to be considered to help inform best practices in gamification. Does the MDA framework, then, integrate with the role of presence as set forth in the Community of Inquiry Framework?

MDA...the literature review continues . . .

I next started looking at game design and instructional design.... and found the MDA Framework....

Game Design and Gamification

MDA (Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics) Framework provides one approach to understanding games and how gamification works (Elverdam & Aarseth, 2007; Kim, 2015; Robson, et al., 2015), breaking down games into three components from the users' perspective: rules, system, and fun.  From the designer's perspective, this turns into mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics (Kim, 2015; Robson et al., 2015). The figure below shows the progression within the framework. The flow moves from the Designer (or Instructor) with Mechanics, then moves through Dynamics, and on to Aesthetics where the player/student is, moving from the basic components to the emotional response. All three of these components are necessary to maintain engagement and change behavior.

Game mechanics

Game mechanics involve the distinct set of rules that dictate the outcome of interactions within the system. Points, badges, leader boards, statuses, levels, quests, countdowns, tasks/quest/missions, and other particular rules and rewards all fall under the category of game mechanics (Kim, 2015). Three different types of mechanics are extremely important in games and in gamified experiences: set up mechanics, rule mechanics, and progression mechanics (Robson, et al., 2015).

• Set up mechanics include what shapes the environment of the experience. This includes the setting and objects  and how those objects are distributed to the players. This also includes who the player is playing against - are they known or unknown? Are they internal or external? It is in this component where designers determine the spatial dimensions of the virtual world along with regulating when the experience will happen (i.e., real-time or turn-based and finite end or infinite play). Player structure is also part of game mechanics: how many can play? Is it single or multi-player? Single or multiple teams? Strangers, friends, or allies? (Elverdam & Aarseth, 2007). Although this speaks primarily to game design, set up mechanics are also important in gamifying a course. Will students play/interact individually, in one large group, or in small groups? While most instructors may not begin gamification by using a virtual world, considerations regarding amount of time available to complete a task and whether or not tasks are completed synchronously or asynchronously do need to be address.

•  Rule mechanics shape the goal of the gamified experience (Elverdam & Aarseth, 2007), describing permissible actions as well as constraints that limit those actions to create pressure for the players (Kelly, 2012). If players make the same decisions each time they play, will the results be the same, or is there some element of chance? Do interactions with other players impact the outcome? Rule mechanics can also be topological or time-based. Topological includes spaces where players land - are they rewarded for landing and checking in? Time-based mechanics address whether players have to react within a specific time period and how resources build up or deplete. Objectives-based rule mechanics refers to the effects of specific circumstances, such as completing one level to unlock the next (Robson, et al., 2015). When applying this to a gamified course, instructors might consider actions such as rewarding students who “check in” or complete a task on a holiday or a weekend, those who check in daily, or those who interact with a specified number of other students within a specified time period. Embedding Easter Eggs (a hidden message, or feature, in an interactive work such as a computer program, video game or screen) within content is another example of rule mechanics as is providing students with choices in tasks. 

•  Progression mechanics dictate the reinforcements present in the experience (behaviors with rewarding outcomes are likely to be repeated in the future). This can be done with badges, achievement awards, levels, resources, and such.  The achievements - or rewards - must be valuable to the player or the player may lose interest and stop playing. Having a balance of rewards is most desirable - after all, if everyone earns the top prize, then how much is the top prize really worth? 

Mechanics form the structure for the game experience. On their own, however, mechanics are not enough to change behaviors or boost one's performance. Game dynamics and emotions or aesthetics animate the game experience and facilitate behavior change. It is this interdependence between mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics that signals the designer what changes need to be made to the mechanics to result in behavior changes.

Game Dynamics 

Game dynamics refer to the principles that create and support aesthetic experience. Unlike the game mechanics set by the designer, game dynamics describe in-game behaviors and strategic actions and interactions that emerge during play (Camerer, 2003). Examples of game dynamics include behavioral momentum, feedback, progress, time pressure, and certain abilities that game avatars can develop (Kim, 2015). Dynamics are difficult to predict and can lead to some unexpected behaviors and outcomes which can be either positive or negative. The challenges for designers, then, is to anticipate the types of dynamics that can emerge and develop the mechanics of the gaming experience accordingly.

Game Aesthetics

Aesthetics encompass the various emotional goals of the game: sensation (game as sense-pleasure), fantasy (game as make-believe), narrative (game as drama), challenge (game as obstacle course), fellowship (game as social framework), discovery (game as uncharted territory), expression (game as self-discovery), and submission (game as pastime) (Kim, 2015). Aesthetics, then, are the result of how players follow the mechanics then generate the dynamics. Playing games should be fun and appealing. Assuming that players will stop playing if they do not enjoy themselves, then creating player enjoyment should be the main goal (Robson, et al., 2015).


I wonder how the MDA Framework might apply to online course design.......

References

Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Elverdam, C., & Aarseth, E. (2007). Game classification and game design construction through critical analysis. Games and Culture, 2(1), 3-22.

Kelly, R. (2012). Adding game elements to your online course. OnlineCl@ssroom 14(11), 2-5.

Kim, B. (2015). Designing gamification in the right way. Library Technology Reports 51(2), 29-35.

Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J. H., McCarthy, I., & Pitt, P. (2015). Is it all a game? Understanding the principles of gamification. Business Horizons, 58, 411-420.

Pros and cons of gamification - literature review continued

Next I explored the benefits and challenges of gamification   . . .

Benefits of gamification

Gamification has long been used in business and industry to solve problems. Companies use internal gamification to improve productivity while fostering innovation, enhancing camaraderie, and deriving other positive results from their employees. External gamification is usually the result of marketing objectives, designed to improve the relationship between the company and its customers, thereby increasing engagement, identification with the product, customer loyalty, and ultimately increased revenue (Werbach & Hunter, 2012). This is also important for educators. Applying gamification to an activity or a course has been linked to increased involvement and engagement, fostering ongoing relationships (Prince, 2013). Increased engagement often leads to increased retention by using internal motivation (Burke, 2014). Gamification, then, provides a way to enliven content and discussion. Robson, Plangger, Kietzmann, McCarthy, and Pitt (2015) suggest that gamification’s strength comes from tapping into the motivational drivers of human beings by using reinforcement and emotion. Positive and negative reinforcement encourage behavior repetition and behavior changes. Behaviors leading to satisfying outcomes are more likely to be repeated while those leading to unsatisfactory outcomes are likely to be extinguished.

Concerns of gamification 

Designing gamified content often takes a significant amount of time and effort, sometimes requiring the assistance of a local game development company. Application of game techniques may well be beyond the skills of an instructor. Unlike designing linear lectures or a static online learning module, gamification might require creation of a storyboard, narrative, flowcharts, or prototypes, in addition to cycling through experimentation, assessment, feedback, and modification. Another concern is that research is split as to whether or not to use gamification in education: there is no guarantee that gamification will making learning objectives easier to understand and achieve. Some research suggests that depending upon users and context, gamification shows positive effects (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014; Nevin, et al., 2014), in contradiction to other research suggesting that some game elements are ineffective in supporting learning outcomes (Christy & Fox, 2014; Hanus & Fox, 2015). Another concern is that learners might not take a gamified course as seriously as one that is not gamified. Kim (2015) suggests that gamification needs a goal, a reason behind gamifying a course or a training and that without that goal, there is no reason to gamify.

Yet another concern is motivation. In broad terms, motivation can be divided into two types, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation is often driven by some external reward or punishment while intrinsic motivation comes from personal ambition or enjoyment. Some scholars suggest gamification is too focused on extrinsic motivation to harness intrinsic motivation. A consideration in designing a gamified course, then, is to include game elements that trigger both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

Well, the benefits are strong, but so are the challenges.....  I can do some of the instructional design - at least the lower level type - and my mind is spinning as to how to handle the motivation piece....

The next piece in my puzzle is to explore instructional design and gamification...

References

Burke, B. (2014). Gamify: How gamification motivates people to do extraordinary things.  Brookline, MA: Bibliomotion, Inc.

Cristy, K. R., & Fox, J. (2014, September). Leaderboards in virtual classrooms a test of stereotype threat and social comparison explanations for women’s mat performance. Computers and Education, 78, 66-77.  


Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014, January). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. Paper presented at the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.

Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015, January). Assessing the effects of gamification in the study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers and Education, 80, 152-166.

Kim, B. (2015). Designing gamification in the right way. Library Technology Reports 51(2), 29-35.

Nevin, C. R., Westfall, A. O., Rodriguez, J. M., Dempsey, D. M., Cherrington, A., Roy, B., Patel, M., & Willig, J. H. (2014).  Gamification as a tool for enhancing graduate medical education. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 90(1070), 685-693.  

Prince, J. D (2013). Gamification. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 10(3), 162-169.

Robson, K., Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J. H., McCarthy, I., & Pitt, P. (2015). Is it all a game? Understanding the principles of gamification. Business Horizons, 58, 411-420.

Werbach, K, & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press.

Gamifying an online course - should I or shouldn't I?

I am still tossing around the idea of gamifying an online course.  I see pros and cons, and I am pretty sure how to do it...but just because I can do it, does it mean that I should? My training keeps whispering to me, "What  does the research say?"

So, I listened to that voice, and read, and thought, and wrote, and read, and thought, and wrote......and, even talked to a few current students, and, well......this series of blog posts follows my journey, my literature review as I explored this topic to decide whether or not I should gamify an online course...

NOTE: I process as as I write, so for me, crafting a literature review afforded me a great opportunity to read,peruse, and ponder.

Ready, Set, Go! ?

Chances are many of us have played games at some point in our lives, possibly even in a classroom setting. Games are not limited to recess, but teachers have used spelling bees, educational bingo, memory games, crossword puzzles, word searches, role – plays, ice breakers, and a variety of puzzles as a method of assessing knowledge, delivering content, and even encouraging students to interact with the content. Game show-based activities, such as Jeopardy (Simkin, 2013), Wheel of Fortune (Buckmaster & Craig, 2000), and Deal or No Deal (Chow, Woodford, & Maes, 2010) have integrated technology into classroom game play, used as teaching games, while offering a framework to guide class discussion. Using games as an instructional method has grown in popularity and has been linked to motivation, engagement, bridging the digital divide, learning from mistakes in a gentle environment, and even increased learning (Aldrich, 2009; Dignan, 2011; Kapp, 2012; McGonigal, 2015; Prensky, 2005, 2005/2006, 2008). If using games as an instructional technique has such positive results, perhaps taking this a step further would be even better: gamifying a course. As this idea shows much promise, the concept of gamifying an online course is worth further exploration.

Gamification is not about building a full-fledged game. It is about using some of the elements of games, offering more flexibility than a game. Werbach and Hunter (2012) define gamification as “the use of game elements and game design techniques in no-game contexts” (26). Kapp (2012) adds to this definition: “Gamification is using game-based mechanics, aesthetics, and game-based thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote learning, and solve problems” (10). Gamification should not be confused with game concepts such as gaming, game theory, serious games, or simulations (Brigham, 2015). Gamification is often used to enhance goals outside of the context of a game, such as the goal of healthier living. Gamification does differ from a game, however. A game is a self-contained unit with a definite beginning and end. Unlike a game, gamification lacks a clear beginning, middle, or end. Instead, gamification uses game-based elements and strategies to increase engagement, motivation, learning, and even solve problems. Gamification in education often includes games, game-like activities, or game elements to enhance learning, 
motivate students, or increase course engagement.

Obviously the goal of gamification is to create a game or series of activities in which people want to invest their time and energy - to remain engaged, to persist. Mechanics may involve levels, earning badges, point systems, scores, even time constraints, all frequently used in courses already. Alone, game mechanics are not sufficient to turn a boring experience into an engaging one, but they are essential building blocks of gamification. Aesthetics also add to the game or learning experience. This could include graphics, usability of the interface or LMS, and clarity of presentation. How a game experience is aesthetically perceived impacts one’s acceptance of the experience. Game thinking requires one take an everyday experience (or concept to be taught/experienced) and convert it into an activity that includes elements of competition, cooperation, exploration, and storytelling. To teach computer software skills, for example, an instructor or course designer could craft a story line for the course where the students are interning and are given specific tasks to complete using various software. This could also be the management of a virtual factory where students not only have to deal with manufacturing, but budgeting, inventory, and human resource issues. Students learn leadership skills while guiding others on quests. To motivate learners, the tasks need to be neither too difficult nor too simple. Driving participation in an activity is a vital piece of gamification.

Gamification promotes learning as many of the game elements are based on educational psychology and instruction design techniques. Faculty have long assigned points for activities, have provided corrective feedback, and have encouraged collaboration. The change here is that gamification adds another layer of interest while finding new ways to combine these elements to create an engaging activity that engages, educates, and motivates learners (Kapp, 2012). According to Mohl (2014), “Gamification is just plain fun” (24).

So....why can't learning be fun?  What other benefits to gamification are there?
  

References

Aldrich, A. (2009). Learning online with games, simulations and virtual worlds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brigham, T. J. (2015). An introduction to gamification: Adding game elements for engagement. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 34(4), 471-480.

Buckmaster, N., & Craig, R. (2000). Popular television formats, the student-as-consumer metaphor, acculturation, and critical engagement in the teaching of accounting. Accounting Education (9)4, 371-387.

Chow, A. F. Woodford, K. C., & Maes, J. (2010). Deal or No Deal: Using games to improve student learning, retention, and decision-making. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 42(2), 259-264.

Dignan, A. (2011). Game frame: Using games as a strategy for success. New York: Free Press.

Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game based methods and strategies for training and education. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

McGonigal, J. (2015). It’s time to think like a gamer. Psychology Today, 48(5), 82-89.

Mohl, L. (2014). Serious fun - How HR can up the game. Workforce Solutions Review 5(3), 24-27.

Prensky, M. (2005). “Engage me or enrage me.” Educause Review, 40(5), 60-64.

Prensky, M. (2005/2006). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8-13.

Prensky, M. (2008). Turning on the lights. Educational Leadership 65(6), 40-45.


Simkin, M. G. (2013). Playing Jeopardy in the classroom: An empirical study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 24(3), 203-210. 

Werbach, K, & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press.