[game_edu] curious

[Steve Rabin]

I have one more Gamification-ish technique that I use in my class. This technique was first developed in the Comp Sci Graphics class at the University of Washington around 1994 and I heard that they still use it today. It's my understanding that it was developed by the two professors who taught that class originally: Tony DeRose (now a Senior Scientist at Pixar) and David Salesin (now a Fellow at Adobe).

Technique: Bells and Whistles
The idea is that for a given programming assignment, there are lots and lots of ways to expand on it or add features - all of which are for extra credit. So with every programming assignment (for example, a raytracing assignment), there is a very, very long list of extra credit options (perhaps 10 to 15 things), like a giant menu. For the raytracing assignment, the extra credit options would be things like adding motion blur or depth of field. Next to each option is the worth of the extra credit in terms of Bells and Whistles. One Bell is worth two Whistles, so a given option of extra credit might be worth two Bells, one Bell and one Whistle, or maybe just a Whistle if it was pretty easy.

When I originally saw this technique (by taking the class around 1995), it was nebulous how much a Bell would add to the final grade of the assignment (which may have been on purpose). However, I remember looking at the long list of options and I couldn't wait to try and do a bunch of them, putting a big check mark next to each one as I finished it (the assignment was printed out on a sheet of paper, front and back, and it somehow added to the effect, like a menu). Somehow this technique really tapped into my reward system and I wanted to do as many as possible. Having the option to pick and choose was one aspect that really made this technique work.

Aspects that seem reminiscent of games (Gamification):
1. Option of doing lots of different types of extra work (similar to side-quests, perhaps).
2. Grading rewards for doing extra work (extra points for side-quests).
3. Collecting of Bells and Whistles (extra credit isn't just extra points, it's these sort-of tangible objects).
4. Desire to collect as many as you can, perhaps all of them (Gotta catch 'em all).
5. Self-adjusting difficulty level (over-achievers end up making the assignment harder for themselves).
6. Sense of accomplishment once the assignment is done with various extras (completion of the game).

The downside of the technique (as any game designer would know) is balancing. What happens if a student does a ton of extra credit on one assignment, to the point where they can just skip subsequent assignments and still pass the class? There are probably ways to fix this, but it could be a potential problem. In my own class at DigiPen, it usually turns out that not that many people go crazy with the extra credit and the ones that do are over-achievers anyway, so they do all of the assigned work regardless.

My unanswered questions about this technique are:
1. Is the printed sheet of paper a key aspect to this technique? If you just list these things in a PowerPoint does it have the same effect? I suspect not. In my own class I just put it in a PowerPoint, but I feel like it isn't as effective. The idea of a printed menu is much more compelling.
2. Does it enhance the effect if the worth of a Bell and Whistle is nebulous? I suspect it does help. In my own class I nail it down to a specific percentage. Upon reflection, I think I'll try making it nebulous in the future.
3. Should you guard against gaming the system and accumulating too much extra credit? I suspect it's not necessary to worry about this because over-achievers are over-achievers.

So all in all, the Bells and Whistles technique is really a way for students to self-adjust the difficulty level of assignments. While the collecting aspect and extra credit is the carrot, adding all of these extra things to a programming assignment is also deeply satisfying once it's over (sense of accomplishment).

-Steve Rabin



-----Original Message-----
From: game_edu-bounces at igda.org [mailto:game_edu-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of Steve Rabin
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 11:08 AM
To: IGDA Game Education Listserv
Subject: Re: [game_edu] curious


I think you need to make a distinction between "theming" your class like a game and using "gamification" to motivate students. There is overlap, but I think the brilliance of gamification is to use the tricks learned from games to motivate while staying true to the original framework (like a college class). Theming a class like a game, with power ups, lives, or whatever, seems rather gimmicky and feels to me like it just cheapens the class. However, if you can somehow use the concepts developed in games (or psychology for that matter) without being so silly or overtly patronizing, then I think you might have something powerful.


Here is something that I developed in the last year that I just have to share because it works so amazingly (perhaps more related to psychology than gamification):

96%-98% class attendance guaranteed!
It's the Fibonacci Attendence Policy of Doom (TM).
If a student is absent 1 time, they get a 2% deduction to their final class grade.
If a student is absent a 2nd time, they get an additional 3% deduction (total 5% at this point).
If a student is absent a 3rd time, they get an additional 5% deduction (total 10% at this point).
If a student is absent a 4th time, they get an additional 8% deduction (total 18% at this point).
If a student is absent a 5th time, they get an additional 13% deduction (total 21% at this point).
etc...

I teach the game AI class at DigiPen and it's a 3-hour class once a week for 15 weeks. With this new policy, I get attendence of 48 or 49 students out of 50 enrolled, every class. How do I check attendance? I pass out a sheet of paper at the start of class and at some point during the class I have a class activity that involves putting something on the paper. They put their name at the top and I collect it at the end of class. If I don't have their paper for that class, they get deducted the points.

It seems harsh, but it works like nothing else I've ever tried.
Why does it work? -> LOSS AVERSION + mounting losses

It is very painful to lose points - much more so than gaining points (finding from economics and decision theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion). And since it stacks and grows, the pain becomes unbearable. Students also realize that they may have to miss a class in the future, so they better save their first (-2%) penalty for when they really need it.

Anyways, if you want full class attendance, then this will work. I've done it for the last 3 semesters and believe it or not, people don't fail the class due to attendance - they make damn sure they go every time... (or they drop the class)

-Steve Rabin



-----Original Message-----
From: game_edu-bounces at igda.org [mailto:game_edu-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of Tom Toynton
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 9:39 AM
To: game_edu at igda.org
Subject: Re: [game_edu] curious

I have been refining a positive feedback point system with levels and achievements in my introductory course for the past 2 years, and am working on implementing it into the Capstone experience for the coming year. I have used it at various levels of complexity with some excellent results, but find that excessive game vocabulary creates a large barrier of entry for non-game dev students. This is an issue since my intro course is also taken by other majors for 'arts as catalyst' gen ed requirements. That will change in a couple of years, but for now I have to keep it scaled back to help all students with their understanding of the course structure. (e.g. last fall I renamed all of the resource and discussion areas in Blackboard to things like The Town Crier, The Great Library, The Bard's Tavern, etc, and some non-game students really struggled remembering what was what. It essentially breaks the basic rule of interface design and forces the user to relearn the interface - whic
 
 h can be overwhelming to some of our students. If I keep the names standard to what other courses use, it frees up the students to focus on understanding the point system and other course changes - which is already a big leap for many of them.)

My one major change to what Sheldon is doing is the number of points in the system. Studies in the Psychology of motivation suggest that people place more value on higher numbers. So doing an assignment that is worth 5 points out of a total of 100 is deemed less valuable that doing an assignment that is worth 500 out of a total of 10000 - even though the relative values are exactly the same. And although I don't have any quantitative proof (outside of my fiddling with the numbers over 4 semesters), I believe there are diminishing returns on any number over 1,000. So I now build all of my assignments around a point system that ranges from 250-1000, with some very special assignments/experiences worth as much as 1,500 out of a total of 30,000. But even these numbers aren't final, and I plan on lowering them a bit more for next fall and see how it works out.

One cautionary tale I would like to share about using a points system:
The first semester I tried mimicking standard RPG level progression. So students leveled up quickly in the beginning, and slowed down as they climbed higher in level. That definitely didn't work well, as students thought they were doing really well in the beginning even if they weren't doing all of the assignments, and then got frustrated with their slowed progress towards the end of the class. So I now keep it extremely simple, for them and myself, and make it 1 level per 1,000 experience for every level.



As for teaching gamification, it is a small part of the serious games section of my intro course, and will be covered in more detail in the special topics "Serious Games" course that is running in the fall. But that is it. On the experiential side the most I do is give students the opportunity to suggest changes to the gamification of the intro course during the last week of class for bonus experience.

Outside of my classes, I know of one two-year program that is doing something phenomenal. It is at Camden County CC in New Jersey, and the program is run by Ryan Morrison from Island Officials. The points and leveling up system happens throughout the entire two years in all game courses, and during graduation the students are called up for their diploma not only by their major, but also by their class and level. This should be the first year that students graduate this way, and I am excited to hear how it goes. Getting buy-in by the administration for such a major change is really impressive. I know my college would never go for it. But can you imagine the college dean calling students up... "Kate Smith, Associates in Applied Science, Game Design and Development, and 19th Level Sorceress!" How cool is that?!

Cheers,
Tom

Tom Toynton
  Assistant Professor of 
     Game Development
  Faculty Advisor for 
     Alpha Chi
  Bloomfield College
  467 Franklin Street
  Bloomfield, NJ 07003

--------------------------
-----Original Message-----
--------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 09:49:16 -0400
From: Susan Gold <goldfile at gmail.com>

Do you know of examples in education using gamification as incentives or grading? Of course I already know of Lee Sheldon's example but am looking for others. Also, has anyone added sections on gamification to their courses? 

Thanks in advance,

Susan

_______________________________________________
game_edu mailing list
game_edu at igda.org
http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_edu
_______________________________________________
game_edu mailing list
game_edu at igda.org
http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_edu