What Gamification is NOT (2024)

For several years, the Learning industry has been trying to figure out how to integrate meaningful game mechanics into learning contexts. Although research on efficacy in the area of games and learning is nascent, many practitioners believe game mechanics help drive motivation to engage in learning, especially in self-directed learning. However, it's important to understand what the term "gamification" is and is NOT. And,I'd like to go on record as being one who loathesthe term"gamification". I prefer to use the term "game mechanics" in the context of learning design (but, hey, that's just me).

More importantly, it's critical for learning practitioners to determine how and when tointegrate game mechanics in learning interventions. It's difficult at best to successfully strike the right balance between play and learn, so it's key to consider the following foundational thoughts when you're about to embark on the hairy, scary journey of integrating play into your learning design:

• Gamification is not aboutmaking your interventiona game. Successful game mechanics in the context of a formalized learning intervention is about making the learner's real-world context more engaging, realistic and immersive. Only you know the best way to do that based on your specific requirements, culture and systemic constraints. Take from the industry how best to consider the integration of game mechanics, but keep a razor-sharp focus onwhat works in your audience's context and in your organization's structure -- the idea of acceptable play may be different in a financial and healthcare domain vs. a creative arts domain like music or theater.
• More on "game" -- game mechanics in learning is reallyabout determining theplay elements that succeed for your audience. "Game" is a broad and generic term, often connected to commercial games. I tend to focus more on the types of structured play elements that fit best in the learning context: guided, bound by rules, inclusive of systemic feedback loops, supportive and safe, and consistently connected to the organization's values. Angry Birds may not meet all these considerations. Plus, when I use the term "structured play elements" vs. "game", some C-level types feel more comfortable... ;)
• Marketing games are not a true representation of gamification, either. If they do not involve integration of game elements intothe business process they are not great examples of gamification that matters in a learning context.
• Gamification is nota simulation. Simulations put a person into an environment, gamification takes elements fromgames and placesthem into abusiness context.
• "Game theory" is the study of strategic decision making -- it's not gamification.

I have found over the years that designing for real-world context is the best way to transfer meaningful knowledge for specific types of workers. It's natural to integrate play into that context; however, the critical issue is how to design the right play elements. It involves more than downloading a Jeopardy Powerpoint template. It requires thoughtful analysis, deep empathy, and a skillful understanding of the types of play elements that reinforce the identifiedlearning objective. This intersection of design requires a high-level understanding of both play and learning. And with a deeper understanding of what "gamification" is and is not, you can move quicker into designing a more effective experience.