Learning folks! If you are serious about understanding and using principles of Gamification in your learning projects, Prof. Kevin Werbach is offering his superb and FREE online course on Gamification at Coursera starting this month (November)!
Yes, this does require a few hours of work each week for the six week duration–but the assignments are fascinating and fun. You will walk away with a head full of great ideas that you can actually use. I consider this course a “don’t miss” for anyone in the learning field.
Folks: If you’ve been wondering about the principles of Gamification and how to apply them to your eLearning and other projects, you really owe it to yourself to take this free MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) by Professor Kevin Werbach on Coursera. It is fun, challenging, and will give you lots of understanding and ideas.
It is starting 1/26, and you can still sign up. Do it now! You’ll be very glad you did.
If you’re following the discussion around Massive Open Online Courses (or MOOCs) and how they fit (or don’t fit) into higher education, you might find a September 3rd article from the Chronicle of Higher Education interesting. It concerns a leading MOOC professor, sociologist Mitchell Duneier of Princeton, who decided to step away from the current MOOC environment when Coursera approached him about licensing his content for use by other institutions. His chief concern is that this kind of “franchising” of MOOC content could encourage states to cut funding for traditional colleges. And he’s right to be worried.
I admire the integrity of Professor Duneier’s decision. In both academia and corporate America, we’re all still figuring out how MOOCs fit into the blended learning picture. And at this early stage, every high-profile decision could set a precedent. As I noted in my recent blog post and podcast, I certainly agree with those who advise caution about the naive notion of viewing MOOCs as a “magic bullet” to reduce higher education costs. But education costs are steadily rising, and in this economy being able to afford a quality education is a problem that seems likely only to worsen. Given the advent of MOOCs and the persistence of economic challenges in America, the current educational model does need to change. And after all, evolution is the most natural of processes. So, what should we do?
While I respect Professor Duneier’s intentions, I don’t think that stepping away from the discussion is the way to move things forward. The conversation around governance needs to happen now. Logically, when new policy needs to be shaped, we look to our leaders. And the instructors who are most in demand are likely to have the strongest voice in helping to shape protections around how MOOCs should best be leveraged in academia–including how to protect funding for brick-and-mortar colleges (and their professors) at the same time. Lawyers can always be engaged down the road as needed, when it comes time to formalize the wording of the protections. I hope today’s leading (and let’s acknowledge it: pioneering) MOOC instructors can be persuaded to come together and form an independent governance board or amicus curiae consortium that will help shape recommendations for the much-needed guidelines. It won’t be easy taming such an amorphous subject. But it needs to happen. I would certainly nominate Professor Duneier and also Professor Kevin Werbach of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania to such a group of academic superheroes. MOOCs represent enormous learning potential–we just need to work together to manage that potential responsibly for the greater communal good.
Whatever your position on this question, the article from the Chronicle of Higher Education makes for thought-provoking reading. Click here to read the full article. Add a comment here to let me know what you think!
IF YOU’D LIKE TO LISTEN TO OR DOWNLOAD THE PODCAST VERSION OF THIS POST, PLEASE SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM. ENJOY!
I disagree strongly with a recent article about the purported “dangers” of Massive Open Online Courses, or MOOCs, on slate.com. The author’s generalizations about MOOCs, and the overall tone of the piece, are especially disappointing coming from a professor. Many of the Comments after the article are far more enlightened than the article itself. The author sounds like someone afraid of inevitable change, worried about his own job, and blind to the real benefit that MOOCs can represent–including to him.
I’m not saying every MOOC is a winner. Heck, I’ve only taken one such course so far, and I’ve heard from colleagues that some are complete crap. But you know what? That happens at brick and mortar colleges, too. Even Ivy League ones. And there, it costs a lot more. I can only say that my first MOOC experience was excellent. The video lectures were engaging and interesting. I actively debated the wording on some quiz questions in the discussion forums, and received an answer from the professor himself. He disagreed with some of my points, but eventually agreed to regrade one of the questions based on the feedback. There were even a few “open house” video hours where the professor met with a handful of students from the class to discuss specific aspects of the main topic (which was Gamification, another oft-misunderstood topic in education). Best of all, the three homework assignments were genuinely thought-provoking, and I had a great time completing them. I’ve posted them individually on this blog, in fact, if you’d like to explore them. True, the peer grading system for the course I took was imperfect, but it worked well enough, and having graded my share of undergrad papers while in grad school, I found it all very manageable. Oh, and the course was free.
The author of the slate.com article paints a nightmarish vision where MOOCs will put classroom professors out of work, or at least greatly diminish their pay, and also rob students of the richness of a real professor-student relationship, not to mention a good education. I earned my undergrad degree from Harvard. In the larger lecture courses, the well-known professor showed up at the podium and gave his canned lecture (in fact, one fellow was famous for reading from the same dog-eared index cards, jokes and all, that he had apparently used for over twenty years; and no, the jokes weren’t particularly funny). In some cases, if he was in a particularly giving vein, a professor might take a few questions before heading back to his House for lunch. That was it for professor-student contact for the big lectures. For those larger courses, the real learning happened in the subsequent House-based breakout sections with the teaching fellows and classmates, and the learning effectiveness rose or fell based on the quality of the section leader and the student’s own level of participation.
The Coursera MOOC I took certainly qualified as a large lecture course. Initially, almost 10,000 students enrolled–although that number diminished significantly by the end of the course, once people realized there was a genuine workload involved. The professor delivered enthusiastic video lectures, but also dipped into the online discussion forums pretty regularly, and his teaching fellows answered the rest of the questions in a variety of active forum discussions. In other words, the teaching model and the student experience were not all that different from what I experienced on campus at Harvard. MOOCs might seem most threatening to a professor at a small college, perhaps, where there can be closer regular contact with professors. I certainly experienced that in some of the smaller courses I took at Harvard, and yes, it was more satisfying. But even there, I think such a professor at a small college complaining about MOOCS would be missing the point.
I don’t think anyone expects or intends for MOOCs to replace brick and mortar education. Any brick and mortar institution out there telling itself it can downsize the teaching staff in any significant way in favor of MOOCs as a budgetary “magic bullet” is kidding itself. But I would also say that any Professor who dismisses MOOCs is also not facing reality. MOOCs are evolving as a result of the global need for more, and more affordable, just-in-time, location-agnostic learning. We all need to keep pace with the ever-faster rate of change and the ever-increasing level of competition in the world around us. I would suggest that MOOCs should be viewed as simply another optional component of a blended learning solution.
Already, the job description for “college professor” in many cases is evolving to include teaching at least some content online, if not in a MOOC, then in a private online course. MOOCs are still finding their audience, and learning how to deliver their product for maximal impact. MOOCs are also still finding their price point. After all, some MOOC creators are for-profit organizations. If the purveyors of MOOCs become too greedy, MOOC use will quickly become self-limiting. But if the one course I’ve taken so far is any indication, the audience is out there all over the world, and the potential learning benefit is enormous. Like any other form of education, ultimately, you get out of it what you put into it. As Hamlet says: “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” I think MOOCs are both inevitable, and full of potential. It’s up to us to shape that potential and make it what we need it to be.
The Gamification course I took was with Professor Kevin Werbach from The Wharton School at UPenn via Coursera, and while Coursera (unlike Harvard’s EdX) is for-profit, the course I took was free. Professor Werbach will be offering it again on Coursera this fall; I heartily recommend it to anyone in any business. The author of the slate.com article needs to step back, calm down, and find his new place in the current, tech-inclusive bigger picture of education. Because MOOCs represent an opportunity to learn for both students and professors.
If you want to read more on this topic, I encourage you to check out this recent lengthy article from the New Yorker magazine.
Here is my submission for the third and final assignment in Professor Kevin Werbach’s excellent (and, I will mention yet again, free!) Gamification course on Coursera. To have the best sense of the progression of the course, I would suggest that you start by reading my first assignment, and my second assignment before exploring this one. Both build up to the length and depth of this final assignment. My assignment submissions are all copyright 2013. If you like the way I approach these projects, consider engaging me to consult on your next initiative! I love putting my mind to challenges like this one.
The Final Assignment:
This last challenge was about a fictional web site, “ShareAll,” that is in the collaborative consumption space (like ZipCar, Uber, etc.) We were told that the company already has a patented technology that will allow people to share any product or service easily via their web site. We were also given the following specifics:
The submission had to address the following aspects of Professor Werbach’s recipe for successful gamification:
1. Define business objectives
2. Delineate target behaviors
3. Describe your players
4. Devise activity loops
5. Don’t forget the fun!
6. Deploy the appropriate tools
Since we were limited to 1500 words, I framed my response as a direct answer to the points noted above.
1) ShareAll’s defined business objectives:
Justifying a gamification approach to meet these business objectives: A gamified web site and matching mobile app would be an ideal way to accomplish these objectives. It would offer:
Motivation: It would offer extrinsic value to participants in terms of free or discounted access to desired products and services, and other tangible and intangible system rewards as noted below. It would also intrinsic value by building a highly engaged local and global community with trusted relationships, a sense of personal autonomy and competence, paired with relatedness and shared commitment to sustainability and helping others.
Meaningful Choices: The site/app will offer a variety of choices in assets, and how they can obtain and leverage them, as well as choice in how they access the site (pc, tablet, smartphone), appealing to the widest audience possible.
Structure: We can use the “rules” of the system functionality we design to promote and reinforce the desired transactional and sustainability behaviors.
Potential Conflicts: ShareAll has no conflicts with other rewards structures, giving us complete freedom to design a system maximizing both profits and sustainability.
2) Delineating target behaviors:
The key here is to encourage habitual behaviors, steadily increasing ShareAll profits through earning, trading and spending Shares. Specific success factors (for example: a certain number of transactions/month, total transaction value/month, community projects completed/month, etc.) will be defined by ShareAll. We can validate that the behaviors are manifested and contributing to ShareAll’s objectives by tracking analytical data including: logins, DAU/MAU, virality, activity volume, successful referrals, social interactions, and more. Participants know they are doing well by number of Shares, points/badges/leaderboard, and Reputation ratings earned (as well as by how much fun they’re having!). They can also track communal accomplishments via statistics like overall emissions reductions (shared vehicles), carbon footprint savings, cost savings compared to non-collaborative consumption sites, and more TBD with ShareAll.
3) Describing participants (players):
Demographics: Since ShareAll is a marketplace for all asset types, there is no limit to your target audience (other than local legal age restrictions).
Psychographics: We’ll appeal to all four basic aspects of participant motivation. Examples:
Compete: Earn points to unlock more levels, earn merit badges, and leaderboard standings based on number and types of assets shared, assets leveraged, and participants helped/expertise demonstrated.
Collaborate: Share opinions and solutions with neighbors in posts and chat rooms. Weekly community challenge of a real-world problem from anywhere on the globe: invite participants in teams of three or more neighbors to devise a sharing-based solution leveraging site assets. ShareAll picks best proposed solution, posts congratulatory article on the site’s Helping Hand page about how team partnered to create their solution, and contributes toward implementing the proposed solution.
Explore: Site prompts participants with suggestions for exploring sharing new asset types and new ways to volunteer, based on their profiles and activity pattern.
Express: Award points for donating original music, art, and avatars to the global neighborhood for customizing neighbor profile pages. Earn points and enhance Reputation by contributing helpful comments and suggestions on posts, “voting up” helpful answers from others, and volunteering.
4) Devising activity loops
We’ll leverage Engagement Loops and Progression Loops to onboard participants quickly and keep them coming back regularly.
Engagement Loop examples:
Progression Loops: Over time, Participants grow along two feedback-based Reputation paths:
5) Don’t Forget the Fun!
To encourage habitual site usage, we’ll incorporate multiple Fun types (Easy, Hard, People, Serious), employing principles of positive psychology, for example:
6) Deploying Appropriate Tools
Here are examples of elements for deploying this gamified web site and mobile app strategy:
Public pages, including:
I recommend a Pilot period (example: 3-6 months) with a select number of neighborhoods around the globe to obtain and study a representative set of actual system usage/behavioral data, and survey feedback to determine what best motivates participants to make transactions and encourages sustainability. We would then adjust the system and launch it to the general public. Remember that running such a site is an organic, growing process. Details of rewards/levels system may need to evolve with the active population to keep the site fresh and continue to meet the stated business objectives. Also, based on name and branding recognition, we should consider pursuing an ongoing celebrity endorsement from (pardon the pun) Cher!
Peer Feedback on My Submission:
As with the two prior assignments, each submission is graded anonymously by five randomly-selected peer students. All five of my graders gave me the top score of “5” yet again for this final assignment. And here is their written feedback (again, one left no written feedback):
Once again, I really appreciate all the great feedback I received from my peers in this excellent course. And, no, I don’t write proposals for a living, but I’ll take the compliment! If you have interest in exploring how Gamification might enhance your own projects, I would urge you strongly to check on Coursera to see when Professor Werbach is offering the next session of this terrific, thought-provoking course. And if you’d like to talk about how you can incorporate subtle elements of Gamification in your eLearning and classroom training, get in touch with me. There are so many possibilities.
Here’s my homework from the second assignment in Professor Kevin Werbach’s thought-provoking (and free!) Gamification course on the Coursera MOOC. To have the best sense of the progression of thought in the course, you might want to check out my first assignment here before reading this second assignment. All of my assignment responses are copyright 2013.
The Second Assignment:
The scenario this time involved an inquiry from the Mayor of a mythical mid-sized U.S. city. The Mayor wants to address the issue of health and obesity in city workers. Here are the facts we were given:
We were asked to provide a high-level proposal for an internal, gamified solution to help the Mayor achieve his goals by appealing specifically to both intrinsic (doing something for its own sake) and extrinsic (i.e. tangible rewards) motivators. It could be high tech or no-tech, but had to be realistic in either case. Maximum submission length: 500 words. In my submission, I noted the intrinsic/extrinsic elements in brackets.
Introducing an intranet (city employees only) web site and matching mobile app: “The Virtual Gym,” with different areas, like a real gym:
Warmup Area: All employees enter on login, and answer one fun daily quiz question about value of stretching, and dangers of obesity. Informative feedback; employees can retake question until they succeed. Points (decreasing each attempt), and access to other rooms, awarded for correct answer, and for every five logins. Employees also earn points for contributing helpful questions for game updates. [Extrinsic: Feedback Loop, Fixed Ratio, Completion Contingent, Status, Access; Intrinsic: Competence, Relatedness]
Employees can then choose one of three “rooms” [Intrinsic: Autonomy]:
Team Room, containing:
Weight Room, including:
Locker Room, including:
The Lobby (available from all screens):
Peer Feedback on My Submission:
As with the first assignment, this one was graded anonymously and randomly by five of my peer students. Again, I earned a perfect score of “5” from each of them. Here is the written feedback I received (one person didn’t include any):
I hope this gives you ideas of how you might incorporate some elements of gamification in your own projects. How might I improve this submission? Let me know your thoughts in the Comments section!
SIGN UP NOW FOR MY EXCLUSIVE QUARTERLY TIPS NEWSLETTER! USE THE SIGN-UP FORM ON MY HOME PAGE TO RECEIVE MY FREE NEWSLETTER WITH TIPS, THOUGHTS, AND IDEAS TO HELP YOU ENHANCE YOUR OWN PROJECTS. THE NEXT ISSUE COMES OUT THIS TUESDAY!
I’ve done a number of posts already about my experiences with Professor Kevin Werbach’s excellent (and free!) Gamification course on the Coursera MOOC system. Professor Werbach has given me permission to share my work on the course assignments, so here is the first of three. I will post the other two in subsequent weeks. If you read all three of the posts coming in this series, you’ll get at least a sense of the arc of the course. I can’t recommend it highly enough. And I believe Professor Werbach plans to offer it again this fall.
Assignment #1 Details:
We were presented with a scenario where a cereal company is introducing a new line of breakfast pastries. The assignment was simply to determine why gamification could represent a smart element to add to their marketing campaign. We were not asked to recommend elements of gamification for this assignment; only to demonstrate why gamification could be beneficial to the company’s marketing plan, based on what we learned in the course lectures. The length was limited to 300 words or less. We were given the following facts:
We were tasked with providing as many reasons as possible for why gamification would be a good addition to their marketing, including as many specifics relating to the scenario facts as possible within the word limit.
Why gamification could help sales:
Engagement gap: The target audience (18-35 years) represents a demographic already strongly engaged with gaming and social media. Adding social gamification to the marketing campaign would be a natural, compelling way to engage this new audience voluntarily.
Choices: Allowing players to make autonomous choices within the game-like environment could mirror and introduce the audience to different product choices (flavors, ways to enjoy them). Players end up exploring more of the product line while exploring more of the game, and in doing so, discover for themselves a solution to their desire for something ready-made that isn’t kid’s food.
Progression: A game-like environment could tap into the human psychological desire for progression by including a progression mechanism driven in part by demonstration of product purchase volume or product knowledge, deepening the player’s investment in the product and brand.
Social: We learned in Professor Werbach’s lectures that female players favor more social/casual gaming experiences, and since they are 65% of this target audience, emphasizing the social element in the game-like environment would have strong appeal. It could even be expanded to include earning donations to popular altruistic social causes, to further enhance engagement and product/brand loyalty.
Habit: If the game-like environment is appealing enough to keep bringing players back out of habit, we are also directly and indirectly encouraging them to keep buying the product as part of that habit, which is the primary business objective.
Fun: The game-like element of the campaign can help associate the new product with having fun, making both purchasing and playing more likely to become habit for the players, and also more likely to spread by positive word of mouth to even more players (i.e. more potential customers).
Peer Feedback on My Submission:
Each homework assignment is graded by five anonymous peer students in the course, chosen completely at random. I received a top score of “5” from each of my five graders. Here is the written feedback I received from them on this assignment:
Professor Kevin Werbach’s excellent Coursera offering on Gamification concluded last week, and I have just received my Verified Certificate of completion. I wrote a blog post about my experience with the course, and since that post, I participated in the final Video Office Hours with Professor Werbach, which was both fun and interesting. I also received my peer ratings for my final project (a perfect score from all!), and I really appreciate the terrific things my peer reviewers said about my work.
Here’s the Video Office Hours session, which focused on a discussion of Ethics and Compliance in Gamification:
If you’re visiting this site, chances are you’ve already heard something about MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses), and in fact you may be way ahead of me in taking advantage of them. My undergrad alma mater, Harvard, has partnered with MIT, Berkely, and other notable institutions to offer free courses on their MOOC site, EdX. And lots of people all over the world are already taking advantage of the free offerings on Coursera, as well.
Granted, MOOCs may not be for everyone. Completing a MOOC offering may bring you a certificate, but it does not translate to any form of college credits or formal degree. So, it depends on your needs. I’m fine with that “learning for learning’s sake” model. Many offerings tend to run for a few weeks, like a continuing education class. If you have been curious about the possibilities of MOOCs, the price is certainly right to find out if they will work for you. I was seeing some good buzz online for a Coursera session about Gamification, taught by Professor Kevin Werbach of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Gamification is the process of applying the motivational principles typically used in gaming (video, online, etc.) to other environments (like business or education) to motivate learning and behavioral change. (It does not mean literally turning everything into a game.) I have always tried to incorporate subtle elements of gamification as a means of engaging learners in the eLearning courses I develop. Some organizations are more open to it than others, but I think more are finally starting to catch on to its potential. I came by my own knowledge of gamification principles by osmosis over many years of being out there creating eLearning courseware, playing the occasional game, and being a professional actor (which is all about playing freely and intuitively). But I hadn’t formally studied the history and psychology of gamification, so it seemed an ideal topic for exploring the MOOC experience itself.
Now that I’m nearing the end of the six-week session, I’m taking a break from working on my final homework assignment (yes, there’s homework!) to record my thoughts about the experience so far. Right off the bat, I have to tell you that I’m having a blast. Given that the number one element of successful gamification is FUN, I’d say the course is doing its job very well. Professor Werbach’s video lectures are genuinely engaging, and interesting. His sense of humor and enthusiasm for the topic are infectious, and his expertise is apparent in every aspect of the way the course is run. Each week he releases two hours of lectures, broken down into manageable chunks of 8-12 minutes each. The lectures include unscored quiz questions at instructionally sound intervals (roughly every 5 minutes) to make sure you’re getting–and retaining–the key points. And then there is a scored quiz most weeks. While I’ve done well on the scored quizzes, there have been a few questions I think could be better worded. So, I took advantage of the course’s Discussion Forums to post my thoughts. Despite having probably 10K+ students still enrolled by this point, darned if I didn’t receive a reply post from Professor Werbach himself! I was extremely impressed by that. It’s a given in MOOC-land that you shouldn’t expect or seek out direct contact with the professor–after all, the ratio of students to professor is astronomically unbalanced. But I have seen Professor Werbach and his staff post responses to a number of items on the forum, reinforcing the conviction that while the student body is huge, and there is no brick-and-mortar classroom, there is still someone at the head of the class, keeping an eye out for student questions. Granted, he didn’t agree with my suggestions about clarifying a couple of the questions, but that’s his prerogative. He did acknowledge that a high volume of participants agreed with me on another question, and noted that it is under review for possible retroactive regrading. I know the professor understands that for a lot of his students, it’s not about the points, it’s about the clarity of the learning experience, and we all want to contribute to that. What I love is that our exchange made us both think again.
In addition to the lectures and the quizzes, there have been a total of three homework assignments. The first, 300 words maximum. The second, 500. The last, for which we have been given two weeks, is 1500 words. Due to the course’s Honor Code, I can’t discuss the details of the assignments, but I have found them to be fascinating, and a lot of fun to complete. Who grades all of these submissions, you ask? In MOOC-land, because of the volume of participants from all parts of the world, homework is reviewed using a peer assessment model. Each participant is required to review and rate five submissions from fellow students. The grading rubric is somewhat simplistic, but it basically gets the job done. And constructive comments are welcomed, which is great. Having both taught and graded extensively while I was in graduate school, I’m no stranger to the task, and I take that grading responsibility very seriously. I have not had a lot of comments on my own homework, but have been getting top scores, so I guess I shouldn’t complain. A couple of the comments have been a bit disappointing, however; they made it clear that the reviewers were not reading as attentively as I would hope. But then, once in a while I had harried Teaching Assistants do the same thing on my papers at Harvard! Taken all in all, the peer assessment system works well enough. I confess that I did enjoy one comment on my second assignment: in the section for “What would have made this submission better was…” the reviewer responded simply: “if the author had been paid for his work!” I like the sound of that.
There are definitely pros and cons to MOOCs, and from conversations I’ve seen online, it sounds like there’s quite a range of quality from one course to another, so be sure to shop around. If you’re dependent on face-to-face learning, MOOCs don’t offer that with the teaching staff per se, but you do often have the option of participating in local meet-ups with other enrollees. I haven’t had the free time to do that, but it looks like plenty of others are taking advantage of it. And for this course, Professor Werbach has also done three “Office Hours” videos where selected students pose questions of general interest and he responds. Otherwise, as I’ve noted, you have to post your questions to the Discussion Forums. But at least in this course, as I mentioned, I’m seeing the Forums get a lot of attention from Professor Werbach and his staff. And yes, it’s true that the peer review and grading rubric of the homework assignments could be more in-depth. But then I remind myself of the pricetag for this learning experience: IT’S FREE! So, honestly, who can complain? If you’re in the Learning profession, or in any business, and are curious about how the principles of gamification might benefit your processes, I encourage you to keep an eye on Coursera’s listings and jump if Professor Werbach repeats his course in the Fall. It’s well worth the time you invest.
Another reason I’ve found this first MOOC experience working for me is one of the same reasons I enjoy creating eLearning for my own clients: it’s great when learning can be truly self-paced, and self-motivated, taken from anywhere at any time that the learner finds convenient. So my garden has become my classroom, and that suits me perfectly. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to put out a few sunflower seeds for the chipmunks, refresh the nectar tray for the orioles, and then get back to my homework!