[game_edu] curious

[John Hopson]

In case it helps, the only specific example of gamification within the
games industry itself that I know of is the achievement system used by
Bioware to help properly distribute their internal testing.

http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1012434/Development-Telemetry-in-Video-Games



On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Jacques Carette <carette at mcmaster.ca> wrote:


>  On 01/05/2012 7:39 PM, Katrin Becker wrote:

>

> On 01/05/2012 3:37 PM, Steve Rabin wrote:

>

> 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.

>

>  I can answer some of your questions. I used a similar technique in a very

> large 1st year CS class I used to teach. I called it the bonus system. At

> the time, we had a 1st year enrollment of about 1200 and the abilities of

> the students were all over the map. My original goal was simply to provide

> challenging options for some of the better students, while at the same time

> making sure that the "average" students could still get an A doing the

> "normal" work.

>

>

> [...]

>

> I have used a rather similar system (inspired by something one of my

> first-year math teachers used, many years ago).  Most assignments have a

> range of 'bonus' components to them.  However, the difference is:

> 1. there is no maximum.  some bonus items (which are extremely hard) might

> end up with a student getting 20/10 for an assignment.  There is no cap.

> 2. the worth is somewhat nebulous, though I tend to give maximums.

> Similarly, I tell them that the bonus component will be marked more harshly

> than a normal assignment.

>

> With one student, this really helped him hugely: without the bonus, he

> would have had a C- in the course, with the bonuses, he got an A+.  He was

> very good, he just had a real issue with tests.  He's now a rising star at

> Microsoft.

>

> For my game design class, this really works well: when I ask students to

> do critical analysis of certain aspects of games (typically one assignment

> focuses on physics, another on gameplay) and give bonus marks for

> appropriate illustration via 'movies' of their points, a large fraction of

> the class really goes all out.

>

> Jacques

>

> _______________________________________________

> game_edu mailing list

> game_edu at igda.org

> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_edu

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/game_edu/attachments/20120502/eee99a27/attachment.html>