Production 2

How is 'gamification' defined? Critiques? Relationships to DGBL and critiques of schooling more broadly? Why does gamification stand in tension with many theories of play (in and outside of game environments)? Have you experienced 'gamification' (as defined in the text) and what was your response? By contrast, what about experiences of autonomy, play, affinity (inside or outside of games or schools)?

Gamification is defined by Nolan and McBride as "a behavioural marketing strategy that makes use of surface-level game features such as badges, achievements or rewards as an 'incentive' for consumer loyalty" (Nolan & McBride, 2014, p. 596). Gamification as a marketing strategy stems from digital game's success in capturing the attention of consumers, and sustaining engagement. Nolan and McBride (2014, p. 596) also note that the addition of such features may be referred to as a "game layer." In personal experiences, I find gamification to have permeated through many aspects of everyday life, often in unexpected ways. Thinking about Duolingo as a hybrid between casual learning, serious learning, and competition, the EXP function serves as a metric of how much a user has engaged with the platform. On its own, cumulative EXP is not impressive as past lessons can be repeated and modifiers change the temporary accumulation rate, which discounts using cumulative EXP as engagement time or subject expertise. On the other hand, competitive leaderboards get introduced to users early on, with weekly EXP serving as the metric to determine one's position and advancement within a series of leagues. Inadvertently, or deliberately, subscription Duolingo members get access to voice practice lessons which speeds up accumulation of EXP. Although this may seem unfair, more difficult lessons on the traditional learning pathway grant considerably more EXP, which creates some incentive for learning. Furthermore, Duolingo employs various types of badges, many of which are progress based (achievements in mastering 3-mistake limited "legendary" versions of lessons, revisiting and correcting mistakes, learning a set amount of words, and completing lessons without mistakes) - much of this is tailored towards early users, but personal records of longest streak or highest leaderboard position held, or most EXP or perfect lessons in a day keep advanced users engaged. On the commercial side, many fast food chains such as Popeyes or A&W make use of points based loyalty programs. These programs promote customer retention and activity by providing "more value" through discounts and redemptions, or by placing a time limit on promotions or accumulated points. In my experience, I see myself gaming the loyalty programs to "extract maximum value" from points by comparing redemption options to the listed retail sale price, and finding ways to efficiently hit points targets without excessive over/under (residual points that cannot be redeemed in part). In drawing relation to digital game-based learning (DGBL), Nolan and McBride refer to arguments that "digital games can promote collaboration, problem-solving, and communication, experimentation and the exploration of identities ... which are resonant with the use of other technologies in the early years" (Nolan & McBride, 2014, p. 596). However, critics argue that "proponents of DGBL often make causal links between their claims and learning theories ... leading to assumptions regarding observations that are better characterized as coincidences" (Nolan & McBride, 2014, p. 596). For instance, the heavy reliance on the notion of "digital natives," which argues that a new generation of learners who are fluent in digital technologies exist. Nolan and McBride write that critics (de Castell & Jenson) point out that "technology's principal use in curriculum development has had little to do with transformation and far more to do with its principal appeal to educational administrators: its unprecedented capabilities for surveillance, control, and documentation - all basically forms of record-keeping - and so of 'educational accountability'" (Nolan & McBride, 2014, p. 596). Having gone through high school from 2015 through 2019, I can attest to the use of Google Classroom as a tool for "more efficient" control and documentation - beyond the conventional record keeping capabilities of TurnItIn which places a timestamp on submission, Google Classroom goes further by changing ownership and access rules based on submission and return (typically with grade and feedback).