• Both should be fun.

• Both should view failure as acceptable.

• Both should allow one to level up.

Mr. Anderson designed his class as a video game. It is a highly effective learning environment.

• Students learn... a lot! Test scores and engagement may rise.

• Student behavior may increase.

• Students increase in creativity and innovation.

• Naturally, gamification facilitates real-world application.

• As students complete activities, they increase in digital literacy.

• It can help increase introverted student engagement.

• Learning transitions naturally outside of the classroom.

• Cognitive demand increases.

• Learning is more tangible.

• Students get immediate feedback.

• Students learn teamwork and problem solving.

• Students have clear goals for improvement.

Cons

• It is time consuming to develop an effective model.

• It may be challenging to integrate in your classroom.

• Students may focus on the "game" rather than the content.

• Extroverted students do not thrive as much as introverted students.

• Students may be discouraged if they feel like they are at the "bottom of the leaderboard."

• Work may prioritize speed over accuracy.

• Students might work for extrinsic reward instead of internal goal of understanding.

• Equity issues can arise around technology.

I think gamification is a wonderful tool that can meet the diverse needs of students, make learning fun, memorable, and provide students with tangible evidence of meeting learning goals. I think schools are losing their appeal as they lose their fun, a problem especially faced in the secondary realm of education.

I also hold this in tension that standards need to be met. Fitting standards into gamification is challenging to do well. It seems impractical in a math class, where much of the learning takes place from direct instruction and student practice. I would love to use gamification in these practice problems.

I will say, I had a professor last semester use a gamification model! I learned so much in that class and felt more engaged than ever. In his class, we played a game modeling Survival of the Fittest. That is, he dumped out screws, nuts, bolts, pennies, gummy worms, and metal balls on the ground. We were each given a tool to pick up. Some students received a spatula, some a spoon, and some a pair of tongs. Whoever had the most points, won! After the game, we discussed how some tools allowed for learning to take place better.

This professor also had us play a game where we discussed the importance of protecting land. We played a simulation game where we were each given a canoe and land. We were told to maximize our resources. After the game, we talked about how Hunter-Gatherers used tools.

I think something like this, using games to model topics and ideas, is a more effective method than using a "leveling up" system, where students compete with each other to "win." I value academic safety in my classroom, where each student feels brilliant and capable. Having a leaderboard of the top students may disqualify and discourage students who feel "dumb." It may value correctness over perseverence.

A teacher uses a castle game where students work together to destroy another team's castle. They may attack if they get the problem correct.