Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Professor Cliff Lampe Talks About Gamification in Academia (Video)

Roblimo posted about a year and a half ago | from the slogging-through-the-trenches-of-higher-education dept.

Education 123

Professor Lampe is using gamification in his 200-student lecture classes to make them more interesting. He says big-class lectures can often be as boring for the professor as they are for the students. A little bit of game-type action can spice things up and make classes more interesting. Near the end of the video he points out that gamification is becoming popular for employee training in private enterprise, so why not use the concept in universities and other educational institutions?

cancel ×

123 comments

The Fiscal Cliff (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42245991)

Doesn't need a lamp or even the English spelling of it! What is wrong with you people?!

I learned my english through "gamification" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246037)

And that's the main cause why I can't call that english...

But ty again, Sierra :)

yarp!` (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246043)

zlibbo the flibbo for COMMUNISM!

I've always hated gamification (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246045)

Is it just me, or is gamification incredibly condescending?

Re:I've always hated gamification (3, Funny)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246271)

On the contrary, comrade, gamification is scientifically correct, as proven by Lenin and Stalin themselves [kmjn.org] ! With its spirit roused by brotherly competition, there is no end to what the proletariat may joyfully achieve in its struggle to build socialism!

Re:I've always hated gamification (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246457)

Its just you.

Anything that can improve education is a good thing. If the lecture is boring and without any interaction then the students wont remember any of it.

Re:I've always hated gamification (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42247809)

No, " If the lecture is boring then the students wont remember any of it." A lecture can be non-interactive and yet interesting.

Ever watched an interestesting documentary?

And if being interactive was a requirement for me to remember something, then how come I can remember seeing any movies?

Re:I've always hated gamification (2)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about a year and a half ago | (#42249286)

Its just you.

Anything that can improve education is a good thing. If the lecture is boring and without any interaction then the students wont remember any of it.

But does it improve education? Any "next big thing" gets good results from a few dedicated teachers, but their results fail to be replicable for other teachers. This happens again and again and again. I can't find the link, but there was an article posted to /. earlier in the year about a former champion of social networking in the classroom that had stopped preaching it because it worked for him, but not for other people. He came to the same conclusion as most people eventually do: a good teacher is a good teacher, but we don't know and can't define what makes them one.

As for gamification specifically, I remember reading an article (on Gamasutra, I think) back when the word was still so new that most people hadn't heard of it. It was about a study into why people enjoy games, and the results of brain scans showed that the enjoyment was triggered by those areas of the brain involved in learning..

One developer noted that he wasn't surprised by the results. When asked if this was justification for the gamification of education he was strongly against it. Why?

Think about it: games are fun because you're learning. The leads us to the conclusion from that any course that isn't fun is just badly taught. But "gamification" ignores this conclusion and instead focuses on "achievement addiction" -- something which is independent from the actual quality of learning. Gamification is a distraction from good teaching.

And besides, isn't the biggest criticism of modern education that it's too exam focused? What are achievements if not more exams, marks, grades....

Re:I've always hated gamification (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246639)

It's not just you. From The Simpsons season 3:

Principle Skinner: Oh, licking envelopes can be fun! All you have to do is make a game of it.
Bart: What kind of game?
Principle Skinner: Well, for example, you could see how many you could lick in an hour, then try to break that record.
Bart: Sounds like a pretty crappy game to me.
Principle Skinner: Yes, well... Get started.

If the Simpsons were making fun of your idea 20 years ago, you might not want to build a career on it.

Re:I've always hated gamification (1)

jxander (2605655) | about a year and a half ago | (#42247413)

All you've demonstrated is that bad examples of gamification are bad. And that Simpsons can engineer a bad example of something.

Check out the Penny-Arcade link below (I was going to post it, but saw it down there, and don't want to steal the credit)

Re:I've always hated gamification (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42247085)

Is it just me, or is gamification incredibly condescending?

I do not go to any workplace to play games or other "team building" garbage. Gamification is not only condescending, it is the 2000s version of every other management-speak paradigm. Give me a *nix console and get out of my cubicle!

Resource for teachers interested in Gamification (2)

Zrako (1306145) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246051)

As a future teacher I'm already working on a gamification system for my future classroom. I was inspired after watching this awesome edition of Extra Credits on PATV http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/gamifying-education [penny-arcade.com] which is definitely worth watching.

Re:Resource for teachers interested in Gamificatio (2)

fermion (181285) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246803)

There are certain steps in which games are very useful in education. However, most of the time, assessment is the key. That is, how are you going to continually assess students to make sure the class is learning, and not just following patterns or playing a game. Then are they going to be able to transfer the knowledge to a summative assessment, genuine or question and answers, to show that learning that has gone on. Finally, in most cases some standard test is going to have to completed. Perhaps it is a school test, or the SAT, or the GRE, or something else.

I mention this because it is often very effective to teach with games, and the students will be very engaged, but at least in the US we are still very focused on testable outcomes that can be efficiently graded. Therefore we have to build certain skills beyond the content into students. Such as reading and answering the question you are asked. Understanding that not every level, or question, needs to be completed. That there are are rules and processes, but sometimes a question can be asking to you modify those proceses to achieve an efficient product.

Also, there is a big problem in the classroom of looking like tea ching is going, not only for outside observers but also to the students. The students have to be focused on the learning. We have a bunch of games, computer simulations, online assistants that make learning much easier and fun that it used to be. However, either because the students are not focused on the details or because the teachers does not connect the games to the content, learning does not go on. This is a big, and rational, criticism of this teaching process and it is something that must be a focus if one is going to use this process.

A large part of learning has always occurred outside the classroom and what we call 'advanced students' often are able to learn despite what happens in the classroom. What makes a good teacher is the ability to connect with 66% of the population that makes up the average student. Games will be one way to do this, but is not going to make a bad teacher good, or alone save an average student.

Re:Resource for teachers interested in Gamificatio (2)

blue trane (110704) | about a year and a half ago | (#42247013)

"how are you going to continually assess students to make sure the class is learning, and not just following patterns or playing a game."

What do you know about learning? "Those who can't, teach." Teachers try to validate themselves by requiring students to pay attention to them, or else!

I prefer Socrates's method: teach for free, and don't give exams. If you end up in a state of aporia [wikipedia.org] , that's okay. As Confucius says in The Analects, Book II Chapter XVII: "Yu, shall I teach you what knowledge is? When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it;-- this is knowledge."

Instead of obsessing over whether a student is learning or not, and spending time trying to evaluate others, just concentrate on transferring knowledge; if you want to give assignments, ask the students to figure out something you don't know how to do yet. Work with the students to further knowledge, instead of acting as their adversary and withholding knowledge "with the closed fist of the teacher who keeps some things back" (Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha [accesstoinsight.org] , Part 2, Verse 32).

Re:Resource for teachers interested in Gamificatio (4, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | about a year and a half ago | (#42247847)

Certainly the socratic method and socratic circles [amazon.com] can be a highly effective method to teaching many subjects. In fact, the classic lecture is exactly this. It models the method, and then encourages the student to go out and have dialogues, with students for example, taking on the roles of Simplicio, Salviati, and Sagredo. While this method is useful for philosophical discussions, it has fallen out favor for evidence based discussion as it inherently introduces personality into the discussion.

And it is not really relevant here as we are specifically talking about engagement and grading. It does not matter if students are paying attention to a teacher or box. The key is that student engagement is the issue. Likewise, it does not matter whether grade are added up, or awarded based on tests, or level completed. What matter is that students are graded based on the content and skills they can demonstrate, not how they can manipulate the system to earn points.

This is where the games come it. They can hold the attention of the student. But a game is something that is an adversarial process, where information is held back, and must be unlocked by completed often unrelated tasks. The experience of the student in that a game is often separated from the knowledge and skill is exactly what causes it be difficult to use. For instance, I once used a game that was developed by people who were very smart and very familiar with teaching, learning, children, and assessment. Points were added and levels gained as the student when through the process. Some motivated students did very well. But many students just played the game to win, that is simply figured out what the game rules were, played by those rules, and then exited without significant learning.

Which is why simply saying that counting up, that rewarding the class for success, that being positive and engaging student self esteeem, is not sufficient and has not been sufficient since these things were in wide use 50 years ago, 100 years ago, I mean maybe even 10000 years ago. And what we are talking about is not educating a elite, but educating everyone. And to do that a wide array of methods must be used, not just the favorite or the one currently in fashion.

Re:Resource for teachers interested in Gamificatio (2)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about a year and a half ago | (#42249382)

"how are you going to continually assess students to make sure the class is learning, and not just following patterns or playing a game."

What do you know about learning? "Those who can't, teach." Teachers try to validate themselves by requiring students to pay attention to them, or else!

And those who can't teach criticise those who can. I'm an English professor in a European university and the reason I want my students to pay attention to me is that I really don't want to have to fail students at the end of the year. I'm trying to teach them useful things, and I've got to select what to teach based on a broad variety in levels (the ones into online games are pretty capable, but many of the others have next-to-no ability) so that I can test them all to see if they are capable of surviving in the next guy's class, based on what he's going to teach them.

However much we would like to measure each student's progress against themselves (and almost every teacher would like to do this) the reality is that we cannot teach every student individually, so we need to get them to a shared level so that they can continue to be taught together. If 15 of my first-years manage to learn 15 different subsets of the grammar and vocabulary of English, and I pass them all based on their individual knowledge and not on gaps in the knowledge we would want them to have, there will be no single lesson that the second-year professor can give that will be useful to all of them.

Re:Resource for teachers interested in Gamificatio (1)

jxander (2605655) | about a year and a half ago | (#42247429)

You apparently didn't watch the video. One of the biggest points, and easiest to pull off with minimal cash money ... simply count scores UP instead of DOWN.

That's part of what makes video games fun/addictive. You see a goal, and every step you make works towards that goal.

Re:Resource for teachers interested in Gamificatio (2)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about a year and a half ago | (#42249544)

You apparently didn't watch the video. One of the biggest points, and easiest to pull off with minimal cash money ... simply count scores UP instead of DOWN.

That's part of what makes video games fun/addictive. You see a goal, and every step you make works towards that goal.

Positive/additive marking as opposed to negative/subtractive marking is not a new idea -- it has been proposed many times before. In fact, it is the core principle behind most language aptitude rating now. This is not what gamification is about.

It is one element of gamification, and as with all educational philosophies, one or two good points are held up to champion the entire philosophy.

The key defining factor in gamification isn't the additive marking, though: the key factor is the "achievements" -- that crack-like substance that people add to mindless, boring games to convince us to stick at them long enough for us to generate useful advertiser income. Think about it -- we've probably all played tons of games that aren't "fun", but we just need to finish it. What does that say about teaching? It implies that learning is boring -- it is not "Learning" is fun -- what is not fun is "not learning". So the core principle of gamification is to that the content is far less important than the presentation, and that is extremely dangerous.

It feeds directly into teachers' ego-saving strategies -- "it's not me, it's the student", "it's not me, it's the uncomfortable chairs", "it's not me, it's the colour of the paint" (yes, as soon as a study suggests that green aids concentration, you'll have teachers calling for the school to be repainted) -- and ultimately distracts teachers from looking critically at their material and their classroom skills. The best teachers are constantly refining their lessons based on classroom reactions.

The worst teachers don't refine -- they simply blame an external factor, such as teaching methodology. They jump on the next bandwagon that rolls past and discover it hasn't solved their problems at all. So they blame the system and wait for the next bandwagon. (ad nauseum -- or should that be "ad pension-um"?)

The last thing that education needs is a fad that actively pulls teachers away from thinking about the learning content and diverts their attention to the "paintjob".

The Penny Arcade version is an exercise in naive frivolity: "you can fly" as an alternative to a grade? What ever happened to teaching kids to appreciate knowledge for its own sake and for its own applications? The example task ( finding the quickest path between two subjects ) was of very little pedagogical value. Yes, it is of some pedagogical value, but the idea of bonus points for the "winner" hyperinflates its importance to the student. In effect, you end up marking for students' time, not for what they've learned. Furthermore, the notion of having a winner at all goes against the notion of grading the student as an individual.

And it is not a truism that competition motivates. Those kids lacking agency? They have a pessimistic outlook. They don't expect to win. So they don't take part in the race. I've personally found myself in the "not taking part" category -- mostly when it comes to selling raffle tickets or the like. The person who sells the most raffle tickets gets a gift voucher or something. I know I'm not going to win (others have large church groups, book groups, lots of friends and family locally etc) -- so what happens? I don't even bother taking a single book of tickets. If there had been no incentive, I would have sold one or two. But what's the point of entering the competition if you're not going to win? So what they're proposing is not a cure for alienation, but yet another cause for it. OK, it's alienation for different people, but it's not a cure-all -- it's simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Why not use gamification? (4, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246067)

why not use the concept in universities and other educational institutions?

Because flunking people who don't care about learning is preferable to pandering to them?

Re:Why not use gamification? (2, Insightful)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246275)

Yes this. This time a thousand. This gamification concept is completely asinine. If you are going to a university but you can't be bothered enough to pay attention and actually engage yourself in your own education, even if the material is dull, then just save us all a lot of trouble and stay home. No one is forcing you to go to college.

And to think of the complete arrogance, that you have this amazing opportunity, a once in a lifetime chance to educate yourself about the world, a chance that people around the world would kill to have, to be in your shoes, and you can't bring yourself to pay attention at a lecture because it's not WoW enough for you? If this is you, drop out immediately, and make room for someone who actually wants an education. Sickening.

Re:Why not use gamification? (4, Insightful)

omnichad (1198475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246405)

I'm not sure if I agree. Part of a topic being engaging or not is having it be presented in a way that shows its importance. My favorite class in high school was a history class where the teacher used role-playing to show just why certain decisions were made. Even if it was done for the wrong reasons I think it could still have a positive effect. Even as someone who would pay attention anyway, having an entire class engaged presents far more perspectives than being the only interested student.

Re:Why not use gamification? (2)

Sepodati (746220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246481)

So... if we all can't learn the same way that you do, we're wrong?

Re:Why not use gamification? (4, Insightful)

Pentium100 (1240090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246571)

Except that some parts of this are because of human psychology. I remember one professor saying that you need to lecture no more than 15 minutes at a time, then tell a joke or something otherwise everyone will fall asleep (or just will not learn anything, even though they tried to pay attention to what is being said). Yes, sometimes, the topic is so interesting you can listen for the 1.5 hours, but most of the time you will forget 99% of what was said after the first 15-30 minutes.

As for

If you are going to a university but you can't be bothered enough to pay attention and actually engage yourself in your own education, even if the material is dull, then just save us all a lot of trouble and stay home.

this can be used to justify not having any lectures at all. Anyone sufficiently motivated should just read the relevant books and learn, the professors just needs to give the list of the books to read and then grade the exam/papers.

Why are you opposed to things that make life easier? I mean if gamifying education leads to better educated people, why not do it? If using a wheelbarrow makes it easier/faster to transport snow/dirt/etc short distances, why not use it?

Re:Why not use gamification? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246771)

this can be used to justify not having any lectures at all. Anyone sufficiently motivated should just read the relevant books and learn, the professors just needs to give the list of the books to read and then grade the exam/papers.

Books!? Why coddle the little bastards? If they really wanted to learn, they wouldn't insist on having all that knowledge collected up for them into a convenient little package, would they? No, they'd personally go out and extensively interview every expert in the field, by gum!

Re:Why not use gamification? (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42247763)

Why are you opposed to things that make life easier? I mean if gamifying education leads to better educated people, why not do it? If using a wheelbarrow makes it easier/faster to transport snow/dirt/etc short distances, why not use it?

I've been thinking about this sort of question in the bigger picture. What set me down the path was the political observation that as a party republicans are anti-gay except for individuals like Cheney who have a gay child, the party is also pro-torture except for individuals who have actually been tortured like McCain. So I've been trying to figure out if there is a rule that explains such things instead of just trying to score political points.

What I've come up with is this: People like to create their own "personal" rules for how members of society should behave - generally these rules are simple, even natural, to follow for the person who makes them up. Gay marriage is an easy one - straight people have no interest in getting gay married. It is a rule that is natural for them to follow so they have little understanding of what it is like to be on the other side of that rule. A more trivial example came from the husband of a good friend of mine - he forbid their pre-teen daughter from chewing gum. Not for any health reasons, simply because he thought people who chewed gum looked stupid. Of course he didn't like to chew gum himself so he saw no value in it and came up with this rule that didn't cost him anything.

I see the same thing here - chances are the OP is someone for whom traditional educational methods worked pretty well. That makes it easy for him to endorse the current system - it worked for him, it should work for anyone. Anyone for whom it doesn't work must be defective, lazy, wants something for nothing, etc.

Looking back over my life, I can see how I've made up a bunch of similar rules about both trivial and important things. Those rules haven't really helped me, they just gave me a reason to look down on other people who didn't deserve it. In some cases even to dismiss their humanity. In the long run all it did was make me miss opportunities that were right in front of me. So now I try to question my own assumptions about how people should act, and when they aren't directly hurting anyone I make a conscious effort to accept them rather than disparage them.

Re:Why not use gamification? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246625)

Not to defend gamification, but I think you overly-simplified the issue of engagement in the classroom by making it a student-issue. Even for the most engrossing subjects, if you have a poor teacher it is not unreasonable to expect even exceptional students to become disengaged. I for one love math and statistics, but when had a 1/10 online rated professor teach the subject, I never paid any attention in class whatsoever, opting instead to teach myself afterwards directly from the book. Had the teacher been open to supplemental tools to improve his ability to relay information in new and different ways that made learning a more engaging topic, then I just might have stayed awake during his class and not read the book in a quiet library afterwards.

While I am not suggesting that gamification be the answer for all teachers everywhere, and it certain contexts it can be almost condescending in implementation, using gamification as a supplemental tool in a teachers arsenal can greatly improve classroom engagement. Not everyone who doesn't pay attention is an arrogant lazy bum.

Re:Why not use gamification? (2)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about a year and a half ago | (#42249638)

Not to defend gamification, but I think you overly-simplified the issue of engagement in the classroom by making it a student-issue. Even for the most engrossing subjects, if you have a poor teacher it is not unreasonable to expect even exceptional students to become disengaged.

While I don't agree with you about gamification (I'm in the "assinine" camp and I've explained my reasons elsewhere in this thread), you're bang on here.

I've studied as an undergrad in 3 different universities, taking courses from 8 different departments in total. My first university is recognised as one of the best in the world -- Edinburgh. And I can tell you, the difference wasn't just down to the students (although I'm sure it helped that they could cream off the best and brightest). No, the place is an excellent university. The teaching was top class. The classes were academically rigorous and the tutorials built on each other progressively to ensure that any student that attended and remained attentive would have the required knowledge to pass the assessed tasks issued at the end of the unit.

The other two... not so much. The biggest difference was the tutorials. There was no offer or opportunity to have a tutor assess and monitor your work during the unit. You were thrown into the end-of-unit assignment with unconfirmed assumptions about the task. A large part of your mark was blind luck -- did I understand the teacher's intended task? And worse: once you got that bad mark back, you weren't expected to do anything with it -- you weren't going to be assessed again, so there was no motivation to go back and actually learn from it.

In both those universities, I complained that they weren't providing motivation to learn -- in both cases they said that this wasn't their job; they provide the opportunities, not the motivation, and the motivation has to come from the student.

I pointed out the differences between these universities and Edinburgh. The response? Edinburgh can do that because they're one of the best universities in the world. No; Edinburgh is one of the best universities in the world because they do this.

We already have models of good teaching in academia -- why faff around with unproven fads when we have methods that have been tried, tested and proven effective over generations that we could implement instead?

Re:Why not use gamification? (1)

jxander (2605655) | about a year and a half ago | (#42247553)

You're right ... every lecture should be delivered in the most droll monotone available. We need to get a hundred Ben Stein clones up in our colleges and universities. That way only people who REALLY want to be there will an education. Also, no chairs. Or pencils. Laptops and other electronics are right out. If you want to take notes, stab it into your flesh. No one is forcing you to go to college, right? If you can't stand for 8 hours while bleeding, drop out immediately and make room for someone who actually wants an education.

[end sarcasm]

Your claims of this being asinine, are in fact, asinine. Anything that can be done to make subject matter more approachable should be done. Anything that can be done to help students retain the knowledge should be done. And not just people who want an education. Everyone. It's elitist attitudes like yours that lead to the widening gap in education levels, that directly lead to the stupifying effect we feel every day.

Maybe you're a big fan of Jersey shore and honey boo boo. Maybe you like that everyone is willing to roll over and get groped by the TSA every time they travel. Maybe you're loving big pharma's stranglehold on the market, and the litany of "side effects" we hear associated with every new miracle cure they invent to cure a condition that didn't exist 5 years prior.

Personally, if I have to make lectures a little bit more WoW, that's a small price to pay for imparting some real knowledge and critical thinking skills onto the general populace.

Re:Why not use gamification? (2)

pthisis (27352) | about a year and a half ago | (#42248183)

You're right ... every lecture should be delivered in the most droll monotone available. We need to get a hundred Ben Stein clones up in our colleges and universities.

I think you have that backwards. Gamification is an attempt to make lectures and learning more droll*, an adjective that the post you were responding too seemed against. And monotones are rarely droll, though Ben Stein's is a notable exception. Having someone as smart and funny as he is up there teaching seems like a pretty good approach.

* Droll: having a humorous, whimsical, or odd quality [merriam-webster.com] .

Re:Why not use gamification? (1)

EvanED (569694) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246419)

Because flunking people who don't care about learning is preferable to pandering to them?

And, of course, constantly flunking someone is the best way to get them to care.

Re:Why not use gamification? (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246493)

If it's even possible to flunk someone "constantly," you're doing it wrong.

Re:Why not use gamification? (1)

EvanED (569694) | about a year and a half ago | (#42247079)

I assumed you were being a little hyperbolic and followed suit.

You do realize that there are C and D students too, right? And my statement applies to them as well...

Re:Why not use gamification? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#42247341)

why not use the concept in universities and other educational institutions?

Because flunking people who don't care about learning is preferable to pandering to them?

Why stop at gamification?
I mean... playing computer games is so 2000-ish. Let the twittification start...
(on top of being modern, this comes with the advantage of flunking even more people without an inner call for the topic)

*ducks*

Popular vs. Effective (2)

rsborg (111459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246073)

Has there been any efficacy studies with respect to the workplace gamification of employee training? Not just efficacy in the employee being "trained" with the content, but actual outcomes based on the employee absorption of the training? I know that in some workplaces where I've been, being given time for training is considered a "perk" and the lower-performing (and perversely the ultra-effective) folks don't to go.

The real issue is that unlike a game, your status is a pale reflection of reality - many people in real life are very "stats oriented" while others view measurement of stats about their progress as limiting and depressing, and not reflective of their true worth (to the organization, as a person, etc). At one point, I vacillate between one extreme and another.

"I am not a number... I am a free man" sayeth the Prisoner.

Perhaps we should integrate this training into project and management methodologies such that training really reflects what you've actually done, and then try to "improve" absorption of the training by gamification.

Re:Popular vs. Effective (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246345)

I think the problem is deeper than that. Back 20-30 years ago, going to a university, regardless what field, meant something. You had a goal, and some very solid rewards at the end. Lots of career oportunities and possibilities. Today, the whole process is cheapened, by students, teachers and society.

Perhaps this system will work better, especially in today's society. But just like the current one, it will have it's holes and many will suffer because of them.

Ten years ago, I was among the top 10 for math in my high-school, stuff taught in first and second years of college, but because my average grade was just that, average, I couldn't get into a better college. Do I feel cheated? Yeah, I do.

The trades / hands on part is missing from college (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42247329)

The trades / hands on part is missing from college and college is not employee training.

Now tech schools don't get the respect they should and they should not be part of the college system.

Re:Popular vs. Effective (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246433)

I have to think that with the level of engagement being higher - if you in any way make use of an idea before committing it to memory rather than try to just memorize it rotely, you have a much better chance of retaining that information. I haven't seen any studies, though.

Fun (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246083)

It's no longer fun once someone forces you to do it. Then it just becomes insulting. Doubly so if you already know what they're trying to convey and will be penalized for poor performance at the game despite mastery of the material.

Re:Fun (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246187)

It's no longer fun once someone forces you to do it. Then it just becomes insulting

Speaking of the company christmas party and team building activities... This lack of effectiveness guarantees promotion of gamification

Re:Fun (2)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246321)

Look, Hatta, we've already been over this: the pieces of flair aren't mandatory. They're self-expression. You want to express yourself, don't you?

Re:Fun (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246387)

It's no longer fun once someone forces you to do it.

Seems to me if you are paying to learn (University), you're the one forcing you.

Re:Fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246615)

If you have a mastery of the subject you probably shouldn't be in his introductory course now should you? ;-)

Yeah, sounds fun, not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246175)

Students don't care about fake points and badges. We already have points you earn in a course, they are called grades. As a university professor who has tried out gamification, most all students literally lie to your face and tell you it's a great thing (because they think that's what you want to hear) when they really didn't care about it at all. You find this out when you actually become friends with some of the upperclassmen they provide you an inside ear.

Re:Yeah, sounds fun, not really (1)

Sepodati (746220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246451)

What kind of technique did you use and what kind of class was it?

Re:Yeah, sounds fun, not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246585)

Rather than jumping on me about it, try finding/doing a real follow-up study on a gamified course. Let's see the real benefit of adding metapoints. Even students who enjoy the toy realize later it was a waste of time.

Re:Yeah, sounds fun, not really (1)

Sepodati (746220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246605)

It was a simple question. Do you have a link to such a study that I can read?

Re:Yeah, sounds fun, not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246707)

I do not, I was asking for one. It was a computer programming course. I made use of achievement badges/levels and a leader board of points earned for students helping other students.

Boring? (5, Insightful)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246211)

Honestly, if I'm paying $500 - $1000 *per lecture*, I'm going to sit and pay attention no matter how boring the material or the professor is. I realize that some professors or subjects are dull beyond comprehension, but you're actually *paying* to be there so sit up and listen. Get a good night's rest, read the material before coming to class, engage yourself in the discussion (or if there is no discussion, engage yourself in an internal discussion with questions).... no need to dress up like cartoon characters to make the class interesting like we're teaching 3rd graders with uncontrollable ADD. This is college. These are (ostensibly) adults. Give me a break.

Re:Boring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246277)

Besides as someone else said, 200-person classes are meant to weed out those who can't pay enough attention and do well enough at simple courses to progress to the Real Stuff. It's educational Natural Selection. Don't break the ecosystem.

what about the filler and fluff classes that force (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42247397)

what about the filler and fluff classes that force you to take that can cover stuff that you will never use or stuff that only helps on jeopardy.

Re:what about the filler and fluff classes that fo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42247839)

You mean the ones that teach you how to write an English sentence?

Re:what about the filler and fluff classes that fo (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#42249174)

It's an attempt to provide a rounded education, I believe that should all have been done by the age of 18 before you go to college, but I get the impression that in the US you can graduate high school while being functionally illiterate.

Re:Boring? (2)

Mephistophocles (930357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246347)

+100.

I'm as geeky as anyone here, trust me - but this crap is just wasting time, and not something I'm going to spend $80K+ for. If I'm paying for a college degree, I don't want some stupid kindergarten dress-up class.

And BTW, if you are really so undisciplined and trite as to need to be entertained at every turn, you don't need to be enrolled in a higher learning institution. Assembly line, etc ought to suit you just fine.

Re:Boring? (1)

Sepodati (746220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246559)

I don't think it's as black and white as everyone _needing_ to be entertained. It's just a method. University isn't going to turn into a skill tree where you choose a class and can't graduate until you reach level 65 and defeat the team of evil mascots...

Re:Boring? (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246831)

University isn't going to turn into a skill tree where you choose a class and can't graduate until you reach level 65 and defeat the team of evil mascots...

Actually, aside from the evil mascots, it already is this. Replace "skill tree" with "majors" and "level 65" with "600 credits" and you're there.

Re:Boring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246577)

If you're paying $500-$1000 per lecture or whatever, you should receive a state-of-the-art learning experience. Chalk and talk has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. If science shows that gamification or laser puppetry are better than traditional lectures for learning, we should demand it.

Re:Boring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246591)

In addition, I'm not sure games necessarily help you learn, at least not in all fields. In Linguistics, for example, it's pretty settled science that you need a set amount of semi-structured repetition in order to actually acquire the grammar or vocab point. Once students are fairly confident in the grammar/vocab point, then you can move onto freer practice. If you want to include games in your lessons, that's where it makes sense. (At least in Linguistics -- I'm sure it varies by field.)

With foreign language acquisition, if you take this guy's GAMES GAMES GAMES GAMES! approach, you'll just wind up with a modern version of the 1980s American language student -- i.e., someone who graduates summa cum laude with a four-year degree in Spanish/French/whatever, but can't actually have a conversation in the target language. We all know what good that's done America and Britain...

Re:Boring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246659)

I'm going to sit and pay attention no matter how boring the material or the professor is.

I respectfully disagree. The purpose of education is to learn something, not to attend lectures; if the lectures are so boring that I don't learn anything, I might as stop wasting my time, and read the material on my own. I'm speaking as a physics major with 21 university courses under my belt; I've attended lectures in only 5 courses, but so far have 11 A's and 5 B's.

but you're actually *paying* to be there

Not everyone is paying to be there; in countries like Norway, all universities are run by the state, so there are no tuitions.

Re:Boring? (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246665)

wow, go in some place like France or Cuba or whatever place that gets it right, then you'll rather be paying $500-$1000 *per year*, if that.

Re:Boring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42247187)

Come to sweden and it will cost you nothing.
Students usually complain about the cost of course books though, and many try to find them online instead, and they do.

Re:Boring? (1)

aaandre (526056) | about a year and a half ago | (#42247577)

The fact that education is expensive does not mean its quality is high. Boring and un-engaging lectures will put a student to sleep regardless of how much they pay and whether or not they believe they "should" be awake. Putting responsibility on students in this situation is asking them to react in a non-natural way to the circumstances.

Lecture-based education is inefficient and broken by design.

"Gamifying" unnecessarily boring material does not make it better and tries to address the wrong issue.

Ideally college engages discussion and critical thinking, rather than demanding listening to a monotone voice reciting facts which can be easily referenced and never remembered.

Re:Boring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42248581)

I think this is the biggest problem. Students don't have the sense for how much they/parents/government is spending on their education. Most university students have barely worked, if at all, before they spend $20,000 to $50,000+ a year on education. It's just more high school, but with bigger parties for them.

The Joy of Gamification (1)

Jonah Hex (651948) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246301)

If you add "gamification" to adult websites you'd have the perfect setup, hit all the pleasure centers. Hmm maybe I should revisit adding rewards to my own website and get some more naked women involved. I initially played with a reward system and decided that I didn't want to force "participation for points", maybe it will help if done as game/reward! - HEX

i.e. Get off my lawn! (1)

Sepodati (746220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246431)

I've never read so many "get off my lawn" posts about a topic. It's a technique. Not everyone has to use it. I know... it's different. And that scares you, but it will be okay.

I don't know that this would be a method I'd enjoy or not, but if it helps people actually learn a topic instead of memorizing answers, then I'm all for it.

Re:i.e. Get off my lawn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246699)

I think there is a little more to it than that, to be honest. There comes a point beyond which academic life is about proving not solely that you can successfully swallow when spoon-fed, but that you are also capable of operating the spoon without grown adults waving it around for you and making aeroplane whoosh noises.

Of course people learn in different ways, but if people learn one good skill from university education it would be to go out and get themselves the motivation they need to figure out the answer their own darn selves, without having to be led on by bloody Steam achievements. I liked badges when they did'em in Portal 2, but what's enjoyable in the context of setting tasks for yourself in an otherwise samey sandbox environment is not necessarily appropriate for students spending, in UK money, £9,000 a year. Even if it works in the short term, the job they get after graduating is unlikely to feel inclined to model their management strategy accordingly.

Incidentally 'that scares you, but it will be okay?' - exactly the attitude that pisses me off about gamification in the first place. Students are, by and large, grown adults. So are employees. You know how annoying it is when you attend an event and end up with some artsy event facilitator insisting that you do trust exercises or play corporate bongo drums, no euphimism intended? We're busy people, ffs. People who want to experiment with gamification should get hold of some research subjects and get right to it, but they should remember that their students are not, as such, research subjects.

college for all at the cost of hands / trades is b (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42247497)

college for college for all at the cost of hands / trades is bad over all.

* There is lot's thing that don't need 2-4-6++ years of pure class room.
* Not all people do good in areas where you need do good on cramming based tests vs more hands / open book tests.
* Parts of the tech fields move way to fast to fit well into the college time tables.
* Lot's of college don't have as many teachers who have done real hands on work that the tech / Community Colleges have.
* We need more stuff like the german dual education system.
* The higher levels of college are geared to staying in academia.
* CS are some colleges is high level theory that has big skills gaps with other parts of the IT field.

Professor is getting paid! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246509)

I believe this is the same guy: http://umsalary.info/?FName=Clifford&LName=Lampe&Year=0&Campus=0

Too much gamification (1)

Ravn_Silvalar (1201173) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246515)

Funnily enough came across this article about the benefits and disadvatages of gamification about a month ago.
http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2012/11/gamification-does-it-make-business-more-fun-or-it-just-exploitationware [newstatesman.com]

Apparently too much gamification can be a bad thing, as we'll become immune to it. But on a small scale can be an effective tool.

Looks awesome!! (1)

McSnickered (67307) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246527)

That would be SO fun! Wizards, dark magic, 12-sided dice, and even LARPing ... uh ... what was the class about again?

Is this seriously the final video? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246595)

Immediately in the video I'm struck by the heavy breathing of someone off camera which becomes incredibly distracting. Then we make it a whole 45 seconds in before a video clip with audio cuts over the interview so neither are understandable.

I stopped watching the video after the second instance of a clip stomping over the interview and decided to read the transcript. This is when I discover that Mr. Rozeboom can't get through the fact that the (surprise!) lady who was social media director didn't choose to dress up as Xena. /facepalm.

This is a pretty awful example of an interview, /.

Re:Is this seriously the final video? (1)

samzenpus (5) | about a year and a half ago | (#42247181)

I guess It's hard to glean from the transcript, but if you watch the video I think it's fairly obvious that I was feigning surprise that the Social Media Director wouldn't want to dress as Xena after it was suggested to her. It was easy to get through actually, because the suggestion was ridiculous.

Well (1)

Jiro (131519) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246663)

There is a reason why "gaming the system" is a negative term. The skills to play the game are never quite the same as the skills to do the job.

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246787)

You are assuming that putting gamification in the classroom makes the system vulnerable to "being gamed." Hint: it doesn't.

devil's advocate reply (1)

HPHatecraft (2748003) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246693)

is that this isn't such a bad thing.

looking at many responses so far, they could be interpreted as:

1) students now are immature, undisciplined
2) study should not be fun, study/learning should be hard work

why? because it was for you?

Rote memorization, an un-engaging speaker, dry material, are things that don't help learning.

why not leverage the brain's natural inclination to seize on the interesting thing? Maybe these kids, young adults, whatever go in with the best intentions, they are serious-minded, and this is a way to learn even faster? No one said that the curriculum itself will be dumbed down.

Re:devil's advocate reply (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246741)

2) study should not be fun, study/learning should be hard work

why? because it was for you?

No, because the workplace is hard work. If students get to the end of their studies without having developed some capacity to deal with hard work that they don't have any particular urge to do, then have we really done them any favours in the end?

Re:devil's advocate reply (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246919)

No, because the workplace is hard work.

It is, but there is no reason that gamification cannot be applied to workplace settings as well.

Re:devil's advocate reply (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42247053)

There's also the fact that "fun" and "hard work" aren't mutually exclusive.

Re:devil's advocate reply (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42248635)

Yeah. All workplaces could be fun, fun, fun.

*rolls eyes*

Re:devil's advocate reply (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#42249150)

2) study should not be fun, study/learning should be hard work

why? because it was for you?

No, because the workplace is hard work. If students get to the end of their studies without having developed some capacity to deal with hard work that they don't have any particular urge to do, then have we really done them any favours in the end?

Agreed. You end up with over-entitled recent graduates who think they shouldn't have to do all the boring stuff that everyone else does, because they're such precious snowflakes who need to express their creativity without distractions from the dreary everyday world.

There's a reason it's called "work" to differentiate it from "fun". At work, you are there to do what you're told, not what you want to do. If you have to spend a day photocopying (or something) too bad if it's not in your 1337 job description.

I wonder how many slashdotters here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246703)

are actively against gamification as being kindergarten-esque and condescending, all the while refreshing their stackoverflow profile to see if they've gotten any new badges.

Irritating audio (2)

RCC42 (1457439) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246711)

Okay two main problems with the audio:

The interviewer breathes loudly into the microphone while the interviewee is talking. It's kind of gross.

Secondly, when the two different scenes are mixed together (interview and in-class video) the speaking in one distracts from the other.

Re:Irritating audio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42248673)

Also:
1) Why the F*** is the interviewer panned left and the interviewee panned right? It's almost painful to listen to.

2) why doesn't the video player fit horizontally? (firefox 1024X768)

Bad idea (1)

Sperbels (1008585) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246735)

Had a friend taking some programming classes at a local community college. Helped him with the class and his programming at work afterward. In the class, they both semesters writing some dice game. It was a waste of time. Totally de-emphasized the most important elementary concepts. Afterwards I had to teach him everything they should have covered in class.

SI 110 is a phenomenal class (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42246817)

One of the Best classes I have ever taken. Students now have an incentive to learn, study, come to class, and do well. This class is enthralling in every aspect possible. I recommend that everyone take it, Lampe and the GSI's are great.

It's about effective teaching (5, Insightful)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246883)

Compare a course where you would retain 30% of the content with a course where you would retain 70% of the same content: which would you choose?

Everyone whining about "pandering to the unmotivated" is missing the point: the current class/lecture model started over a thousand years ago and is not optimized for learning. In this century we now know much more about the neurological underpinnings of how people learn, so it makes sense that we should try to optimize the process.

College (or an online course, or work-related training) should be as effective as possible. Some lecturers have this figured out, but most don't.

Stanford is considered a hard school not because the material is difficult, but because it's presented in a way that's hard to learn. Only the brightest and most motivated students can thrive in that situation, which helps to build the "best and brightest" reputation. The reputation comes not from quality of education, but difficulty of education.

(Check out the online videos for Probabilistic Graphical Models [coursera.org] by Dr. Daphne Koller at Stanford. Alternately, check out her book on the subject [amazon.com] . The book is largely unreadable, and the videos are dreadfully obtuse. Her class at Stanford is well known as a weeder.)

One great aspect of the ongoing MOOC revolution is that everyone is competing on an open field. Instructors using more effective techniques will be perceived as better teachers while the "old-school, cannot change, it's always worked for me" crowd will be left in the dust.

Gamification is a technique for more effective teaching.

Re:It's about effective teaching (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42247149)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. As someone who attends a liberal arts college, I hear all the time about how awesome it is that we have good instructors who present the material clearly and unpretentiously.

The truth of the matter is that my courses cover significantly less material that the courses taken by my friends at Stanford and MIT. It's no wonder that our instruction is "better" -- our instructors are spending the same amount of time on roughly half the content!

Furthermore, this approach tends toward a very "applied" style in which "jargon" is avoided in favor of ideas. Practically, this often means that the more difficult problem sets are abandoned (it's all just jargon and escalation, right?) in favor of the easier problem sets. You may retain more information when this approach is used, but -- from personal experience -- you don't learn how to think more clearly and deeply (or even more quickly.) A more practical implication is that I don't understand conversations between people in my field (industry people OR researchers) because while I "understand" the "ideas", I don't have the necessary language to know what's being discussed.

Now, I use MIT's Open Courseware courses in addition to going to lectures.

Also, please note that this isn't "good school envy" or some form of angst/anger at my alma mater. I've enjoyed my undergraduate experience, and through independent studies I've had the opportunity to engage (on my own) with some very exciting subjects at a deep level. Unfortunately, I can't say my core coursework taught me much of anything.

Re:It's about effective teaching (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42247205)

You are right with your point that, "when a more effective teaching method can be used, it should be used."

But I think you are missing a point of college: it is half-way between pandering and the real world. In the real world, no one holds your hand. You need to be able to teach yourself things if you want to thrive in the real world. No one is going to give you a game to teach you in the real world.

A professor is not a teacher, he is a person with knowledge. He will impart that knowledge for you to absorb any way you can, but it's up to you to absorb it. Teachers are for elementary school. Later in life, you will not even have a person willing to share knowledge with you. It will be upon you to pry it out of the depths of experience.

Also, Stanford is better than other schools. Compare it to the software engineering program at SJSU. You can get a master's degree at either school, but there is no doubt which will give you better knowledge and skill.

Re:It's about effective teaching (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42247211)

So. How many people at Stanford are downloading things like MIT Open Course ware, and skipping the lectures?

This reminds me of how CS courses were at school. Since I was an computer enthusiast, some portion of the material was known to me, and I was able to use tricks that weren't taught. Fortunately most professors and TAs were willing to grade based on the assignments working as opposed to them demonstrating that my warm body was in the lecture hall. There were exceptions... like the time my perfectly functioning state machine did the job, but the TA was looking for some rote methodology that produced a different kind of machine. I had a good grade in the course and didn't have time to take it to the prof, and figured complaining about a TA wouldn't help me. It still grates on me though when I think about it. For the most part college was very open, free, and didn't have too much BS like this; but there were definitely moments.

Re:It's about effective teaching (1)

aaandre (526056) | about a year and a half ago | (#42247585)

So... Stanford: our education is so shitty that only the brightest and most committed retain anything!

Re:It's about effective teaching (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42247713)

Probabilistic Graphical Models [coursera.org] by Dr. Daphne Koller at Stanford

The course slides use Comic Sans as a font? Most horrible idea ever. Other than that, the course materials look quite ok, but as usual with mathematical material, reading and listening to it does not help much anyway - you need to work with the stuff yourself. A good presentation only helps marginally.

Re:It's about effective teaching (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42247877)

(Check out the online videos for Probabilistic Graphical Models [coursera.org] by Dr. Daphne Koller at Stanford. Alternately, check out her book on the subject [amazon.com] . The book is largely unreadable, and the videos are dreadfully obtuse. Her class at Stanford is well known as a weeder.)

I'll have you know that I at least, as a Ph.D. in a related field, have no problem what-so-ever with any of those lectures. They are terse and succinct, describing only the necessary details of probabilistic graphical models to an audience already familiar with both probabilistic models and graph theory.

Corrupt (1)

dcollins (135727) | about a year and a half ago | (#42246927)

"why not use the concept in universities and other educational institutions?"

At first glance I read that as, "why not use that to corrupt universities and other educational institutions?"

I know how! (2)

Sebastopol (189276) | about a year and a half ago | (#42247123)

We can have a scoring system where they ask questions about the lectures afterwards and award a lettered badge...

we should call them ...

EXAMS! /facepalm

I only had one boring lecturer in my 4 year BS/EE, I -loved- lecture, especially physics, thermo, AI, and mechanics.

Whine whine whine.

Games can work ... but only with some depth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42247409)

There's no way I'm turning a class into a gaming exercise unless the educational benefit is a little deeper than button mashing, random luck, or playing roles.

One of the exercises I do is a game, but it lasts all term, students work in groups, and it is a realistic model of a real-world process -- a combination of a science and business process. They get a bit of "fake" money to work with, set up a company, get an artificial "world" to explore on a limited budget, and they get to practice real techniques in the artificial world to find the "prizes". If they do the scientific analysis right, they can increase the odds of finding a prize enormously (it isn't a random process), the scientific techniques are what I teach over the whole term, and their mock business will be more successful if they apply what they learn. This is not a game for its own sake, but a way to get some applied experience without needing a few million dollars and a job at an actual business to learn some hard lessons. Some mock companies do go bankrupt, but even that isn't necessarily bad if they are shrewd about how they sell their assets (companies can merge/buy-out others).

The students are naturally competitive in this situation. They get scored well for meeting certain goals during the exercise, most of which are easy to achieve if they put in some effort, but which they will fail if they don't (i.e. it's fair if they actually do something). For the course overall, it's not worth that much -- 10% -- and the amount of work needed to get a decent mark on that part of the course is proportional. But it is surprising how much extra work they will voluntarily put in for the achievement of getting the highest score among their peers. All the reaction I've gotten so far has been positive in terms of how much fun it is and in terms of what they have learned. I've run it for 3 years so far and make it a little more elaborate each time, but the basic formula of making it an application of lecture material and letting them "play" a bit with those principles does seem to help. I think of it a bit like a lab that would be impossible to do in the real world, but in an artificial world it is doable.

However, although I think the "game" principle can work, it can't be a mere kindergarten-style exercise. It took me weeks to set this thing up with a realistic world and rules that genuinely emulated the real-world situation. "Gamification" for it's own sake or purely to keep student attention seems ridiculous to me.

stop with the games (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42247555)

I am so sick of this. Part of academic rigor is cultivating the discipline to pay attention to things you are not immediately interested in. I-pads have helped erode attention span to alarming lows. Students and professors need to suck it up.

This is why I dropped out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42247651)

This kind of bullshit is why I dropped out last year, as a senior in a very respected informatics school. I landed a job paying well over the average of new grads too (10 k short of double!) so the piece of paper didnt matter too much I guess...

I was insulted that I paid over 1500$ for a course that involved pretty much nothing but watching movies about technology and commenting on how people interacted with it...I didnt work my ass off putting myself thru university to write an essay on the technological principals we learn from Treminator and The Matrix, I acn do that bullshit fine with my friends, a netflix subscription and a case of beer.

Fuck this douche bag and Fuck College!

Educational Game Development (2)

degeneratemonkey (1405019) | about a year and a half ago | (#42248155)

I have been working in this industry for nearly a decade, and as far as I can tell, the entire concept is complete bullshit.

It's basically a circle-jerk for hacks who fancy themselves as revolutionary designers or educators. The reality is that there are no substantive results to speak of with regard to an improved learning experience. Nobody has managed to (legitimately) quantify the efficacy of game-based learning in any convincing way.

Still, I will keep going for my slice of the hype-pie before it all disappears.

Re:Educational Game Development (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42248609)

In my experience as a teacher games/jokes as a break work well, but only when the lecture is too long to begin with. Maybe they should just shorten lecutre to 20 to 30 minutes. Have a short discussion/break, and then continue another 20 to 30 minutes.

Re:Educational Game Development (1)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about a year and a half ago | (#42248729)

Educational games are bull right now. But how predators learn to hunt as babies is gaming. It can be done.

Gamification (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#42249130)

Anyone over 10 who uses that word seriously is a fucking moron.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...