Tag: learning

I read a post this morning by Nigel Green – Four G’s: Gartner, Gamification Getting Things Done & Game Theory

A nice post, fair enough. But the part that made me choke on my cornflakes* was this quote from Gartner’s Steve Prentice:

We all do Gamification already. Gamification is when we create a To Do List and enjoy the satisfaction of ticking items off and finally completing the list. It gives us focus and goals to achieve.

No, no, no, no, no! When I tick a task off of my To Do list it’s because I damn well made myself do it in spite of not wanting to. It’s called “discipline”. Do I need another word for this?

What’s the value in using another word for something I already do? When I’m on my daily jog I set myself small goals to make it more interesting, such as “run to the next lamp-post”. “Gamification!” goes the cry. Setting goals and achieving them is now “Gamification”. Groan. So what added value does this re-branding provide? To me, none. To a consultant, an academic, or an author, possibly a whole lot – opportunities for workshops, for consultancy, perhaps a paper, or a trend-setting “How To” book.

A quick Googling of the neologism led me to this article from How Stuff Works:

McGonigal believes that if people worldwide could play more, not less, in the right game scenario, their experience could help solve some of the world’s biggest problems like hunger, poverty and global conflict.

My heart sinks.

And this:

In his 2010 book “Game-Based Marketing,” co-authored with writer Joselin Linder, Zichermann defines a related term he coined: funware. Funware describes the everyday activities we’re already engaging in that we consider a game. Zichermann explains that business should look for ways to apply funware in their marketing. Funware, he says, is the core component in applying gamification to business.

My heart sinks even further. This is the kind of nonsense Douglas Adams would have included in the “B” Ark.

But, sadly, I need to get back to work, there’s a bug I need to fix. Damn, if only I had some Funware to fix it.

(* Disclaimer – I don’t actually eat cornflakes for breakfast, preferring instead that prince of foods, the muffin)

Most of the recent anti-MOOC commentary by the cleverati sounds more like sour grapes to me. One bogus argument is that courses achieve a low completion rate. 10% of several thousand is doing OK by anybody’s book.

Here are some comments from Tucker Balch who’s actually taught a MOOC:

The cost for a MOOC is zero. All a student need do is provide an email address, and click a button labeled “sign me up.”

Failing a course at a university is costly in many ways for a student. Besides the time and funds lost, there’s the cost of that “F” on the transcript. There are no such costs associated with MOOCs.

But MOOC completion rates aren’t really low in the context of Internet engagement. A click through rate of 5% for a google ad is considered a strong success. Convincing 5% to engage intellectually for 8 weeks is, I think, a big deal.

A refreshing change to the the tiresome armchair punditry of those who typically haven’t taken a MOOC or taught one. It reminds me of the brouhaha in the 1980s when the UK Musician’s Union tried to limit the use of Samplers because they feared that “real” musicians would be done out of a job. That’s the real issue here isn’t it? The bogus edutech cleverati weren’t consulted, MOOCs have been launched without their (unwanted) say-so, and they’re basically out of a job.