An Experiment in Structural Gamification of an Online GIS Course

Introduction Recent emergency online learning, forced upon students around the globe as a result of COVID-19, has exposed many challenges to both learner and instructor in the online learning environment (Schultz and DeMers 2020). Among these numerous challenges is that of insufficient time management skills and learner motivation (Rouse 2013). While young people seem to be able to spend endless hours engaged in games, the same does not seem to be true of the learning experience, particularly regarding online learning. Additionally, while these same learners are deeply engaged in online games, with some exceptions, there is little or no long-term benefit outside of the digital badges and awards and the leaderboard score. As these gamers pursue these relatively inconsequential rewards, they are often observed researching strategies for winning, reading blog posts well beyond their normal comprehension level (Haskell 2013). There is something about the attraction of the game itself that motivates the player. Quest-based learning (QBL) is part of a larger set of approaches to learning called game-based learning. It is important to note that while games may be included in game-based courses, there is a fundamental difference between the use of games as learning tools and the general process of gamification (Mallon 2013). Gamification refers to the adoption of some or all mechanics of games that carry with them the allure and addictive behavior (Banfield and Wilkerson 2014; Renaud and Wagoner 2011; Rouse 2013). The mechanics of concern are points (called experience points), badges, levels, leaderboards, challenges, and other incentives and reward structures that motivate gamers. While the mechanics are present to some degree, how these mechanics are implemented is highly dependent on the form of gamification in play. There are two forms of gamification—content gamification in which the course content is converted to games and structural gamification in which the content remains intact and the mechanics are modified to leverage incentives found in games. Structural gamification focuses on the game mechanics that are considered some of the more common reasons that games are so inherently addictive. While generally, but not exclusively, not focusing on making the learning itself “fun,” instead it focuses on course organization, where all assignments—while traditional in their methods of delivery—are considered to be quests to be conquered. While assignments often have prerequisite skills and knowledge, acquired through successful completion of other quests, there is far more flexibility as to when they can be undertaken. In effect, the course, if based on a text, as was the case for my GIS class, does not require that the learner necessarily move linearly through the material. Within the loose structure, the learners have choices regarding taking high-value, long assignments versus lower-value but much shorter time frames. Such an approach allows a college-level instructor the ability to provide at least some of the important characteristics of the personal learning environment, particularly the self-regulation (Dabbagh and Kitsantas 2012) that is increasingly being demanded of today’s millennial learner (Dede 2007). Virtually all the remaining mechanics are related to grading. Unlike normal assignments, quests are all-or-nothing in that if the learner achieves a certain level of accomplishment (normally considered 85%) the learner succeeds in the quest and receives 100% of the reward. This is identical to the testing procedures of the Esri online tutorial modules (Johnson and Boyd 2007). One crucial pedagogical improvement of this approach to grading is that each time a quest is returned, the learner receives feedback from the instructor regardless of the success or failure of the quest. This greatly enhances the amount of student–faculty interaction, a feature considered highly correlated to student success (Lamport 1993; Kuh and Hu 2001). Collectively, there is also a fundamental difference in how course grades are accumulated. In a typical course, one has a limited number of points and as the course progresses the learner continues to lose points, moving from a beginning score of 100% toward an ever-decreasing score. In QBL, the process is reversed in that there are generally more points (called experience points in game parlance) than one needs to achieve a grade of A in the course. In short, QBL-style grading is additive, while traditional grading is subtractive (Figure 1). Other grade-related components include a reward structure that encourages not just completing quests, but doing exceptional work, working hard to complete difficult tasks, and so on. Each of these “rewards” is built into the system as incentives for desired behaviors. Some of these rewards are “achievements” based on completing a substantial portion of the course material. Other rewards are badges that document micro credentials for particular skills, behaviors, characteristics, or knowledge that is considered useful based on industry needs related to the course material. Badging has been