bearded dragon tooth decay

bearded dragon tooth decay

- good morning, everybody. are we good? all right. good morning, everybody. i hope you had a lovely evening last night and that you've b... Januari 07, 2017

- good morning, everybody. are we good? all right. good morning, everybody. i hope you had a lovely evening last night and that you've been having a wonderful time here in new york city. we whipped up a reallybeautiful day for you today. and today's a half day,so hopefully you'll

get to enjoy it this afternoon on your way home or wherever it is that you're headed after the summit. a couple of announcements,i guess, or just comments, i want to thank nancy motando, who's sitting out thereat the registration desk. (applause) nancy, we're talking about you. (laughs) and everybody who helpedto put this together,

including the coat staffand the provost office and the global center and consuelo who i just see there in thedoorway, for supporting and making everything possible. and i want to thank allof you for attending and any of those, lisa andchristine kroll, lisa debuck and christine kroll, and greg catchman, all of you who are tuning in virtually. we miss you.

but we're really glad that youcan follow along virtually. and i want to just thankyou guys for being here and for participating and engaging. all of the faculty and thepeople who are not here usually for whom this isyour first time, i really appreciate you attendingand i'm looking forward to continuing thisconversation beyond the end of the summit in our online communities that we have available for interaction and

hope that you willparticipate in some of the coat activities that wehave and that we offer. so today is the nutn board,the national university technology network boardhas been here with us all week and is here with us today. this is the nutn engagement day. so if you're in nutnwould you please raise your hand, one of the nutn board members? great, great.

so we have featuredtoday some speakers from the nutn board and we also have planned for our final presentationan interactive activity of networking betweenus and the folks from the nutn board, and soi'm very, very pleased to be able to bring nutn to this event to demonstrate the networkingin nutn with you in this real live way. and to help to illustratethe benefits of membership

in the national universitytechnology network. so if you have anyquestions about nutn, if you have any interest inlearning more about nutn, please seek out one of the board members and exchange cards and talk to them. so did i cover everything,did i miss anything? okay, i think not. i think we will get usstarted with the first speaker this morning and i'll set him up for you.

kevin bell is the executivedirector for online curriculum developmentand deployment at the college of professional studiesat northeastern university. and i'm not going toread his bio to you, but i can tell you that beingon the board and having had the opportunity tointeract and talk with him and then also at otherevents, i am very, very excited to have him talkwith us about how gameful design, not gamification,is going to save education.

so kevin, thank you very much for coming. warm welcome for kevin bell. - so i'm going to play withtechnology for a little piece. i've got a bit of acold, sorry about that. this should now be on. that's good. i've worked out i canstand in the middle and you can still hear me,but then i can't see any of the screen so you'llhave to tell me what's up.

so i'll try not to wander too much. so this is it, really. you need aluminum hats and goggles and you do that with all your students and that's pretty muchwhere we're at with that. thank you for theopportunity to talk today. i'm excited about this. i'm actually currentlyteaching a workshop, so i ran slides by some of myparticipants last week

and they didn't all runfrom the room screaming or anything like that. i trimmed the powerpoint. there's actually acouple of people who are unfortunate enough, ithink alex is one of them, to have seen this presentation at olc. so i thought i'll haveto change something, otherwise she'll completelyfall asleep as well i think the other guywho said he'd seen it.

so i'll skim throughwhat i like about this. i mean, there's a bit of theory. i'm british so i use words like waffle. there's a bit of waffle in there. but probably the funnestpart is that there are case studies that i met during the course of my dissertation. i finished my doctorate atthe university of pennsylvania a couple of years ago now,and i kept in touch with

these guys, and what wasfun was i started looking at just how to intrinsicallymotivate students in online courses. so i thought the presentationwas great yesterday. she hit so many of theareas that we were sort of seeing around instructor engagement and i could sort of circumventall of this by saying it doesn't matter howgood the course is, as we heard yesterday, if theinstructor doesn't show up,

whether it's online or face to face. it's not a good experience. so i do tie a lot of thisback to faculty and it's not just sort of the don'thate me and throw me from the room, i think it's areally valid point of what we're trying to do. but the interesting thingwhen i worked with the faculty who were featuredin the case studies was they approached things really differently.

they all had a label of gamification. i actually don't mindchristy and alex giving me a hard time as if i'm goingto pedantically throw them from the room. i don't mind the term gamification. it's a good umbrella termand it does cover a lot of ways that people aretrying to intrinsically motivate students. and you'll see when i getto the four cases that

the faculty approach thisin very different ways. they did things verydifferent from each other, but they all had kind of positive effects. they didn't have huge samplesizes, it wasn't a longitudinal study, so i'm not going toretire on the back of it. but there was enough thereto say this is interesting and we should keep looking at it. so i think gamification'sfine as a broad umbrella, but as you'll see in a secondwhen i dig in, there are

different ways that peopleare categorizing this. and the main reason that isort of avoid gamification now is it's become a bitlike the m word, the mooc word in terms of beingsomething that immediately half the room want torun and scream and hide and the other half aresuper, super excited and they ask when the world ofwarcraft version is coming out. and i use that as a termmeaning what you'll see in this presentation arehopefully not examples that

immediately make youswitch off and say, well, this isn't for me, idon't have that budget. all of the cases that i showwere either bootstrapped by the faculty member himself,sorry, they are all males, or they had minimal techsupport of the kind that i think most of us would have access to. if we've got an lms personwho's pretty smart and can tweak a few things orcan write a few little code elements, then we could all dowhat these people have done.

and what i've said to theclass that i'm teaching this week is let's napkinsketch everything out. if you want to do a leaderboard,hell, do it in excel or do it in word and throw it around. and then when you getthe good feedback and students say, okay, i likethis, i didn't like that, then the bits they likedthat seemed to work are the ones that you could invest in. so i'm kind of against the$50,000 up front simulation

that you buy from avender and then it's stuck and the students allroll their eyes at it. and as i mentioned in theslide deck, it's that element of educational gameswhere they aren't very educational and they're not much fun. i think that's where wewere 10 years ago and hopefully we're gettingbeyond that and starting to dig in a little moreto the reasons why things might work and might motivate students.

my chair at penn almostkilled me and said, if you're doing intrinsicmotivation, particularly for underrepresented minoritiesin online education, we're going to be here for six years. and she wouldn't letme stay for six years. so i narrowed down andi found the cases that were of most interest to mewere people who were coming at this g thing, the gamification thing. but it was more the sort ofmindset of what that meant.

it meant they were kindof trying stuff and they were having a bit of fun andtrying to engage students and this is key, theyweren't afraid of failing. they weren't afraid to try stuff. and one of my theories isthat they're all sort of this, unfortunatelythe same gender, sorry. they're also about the same age. i think one of the slidesmentions just as a note, space invaders came out in 1978,

so is that somethingthat you think, oh yeah, my dad told me aboutthat, or is that something you think, oh yeah, i remember that. if you're the latter, thenyou're probably like me. you're hitting that stagein your career where you may be able to take achance or two without being busted for it. and what i found with mypractitioners, i looked around at one point andthought, oh god, they're

all middle aged white men. and i'm like, look in the mirror. (laughter) so i did that and thought, why is that? and the reason was they'dbeen exposed to stuff like space invaders andthe first, beyond pong, it was pong and breakout,and then they hit space invaders andpeople said, wow, this is actually sort of cool stuff.

then 20 years went byor 30 years or whatever and they had their firstfaculty position or their first administrativeposition and for the first 10 years you're probablyterrified of doing anything that's slightly off trackin case you get busted. and then they hit theplace that some of us are at now where you've gota bit of credibility, not much, and you can maybe try something. and certainly my case isthat we're at that sort of

associate professor, professor chair. they're at a place wherethey felt, i can try stuff and i'm not worried about someone coming in my classroom andsaying, what are you doing? why are you doing this? i've got enough credibilitythat i can try some stuff, damn it, and if it works, great. and if it doesn't, i'lltry something else. so i use the g thing nowas almost the mindset of

let's just throw thatout there and see the reactions on the faces andwe'll dig in a little bit as we go through. okay, it's 9:15, i can start now. sorry. it's ocd or something. so this is building a littlebit on daniel's presentation yesterday, which i thinkmost of us sat through. so i'm going to give you some assumptions.

you can see the lastone i've already thrown that one out there. but my theory lookingat this, i did a normal, proper education in england. you may have noticed a bit of an accent. and then i came over tothe states for a year because my wife had discovered a master's degree she fancied doingin a place called vermont. and i came over, shewas pregnant, i wasn't.

we met in japan. i go to japan and i'mthe only guy that comes back with a frenchcanadian, that's guaranteed. so we came back and vermontwas the switzerland, it was the compromised solution. it wasn't england but it wasn't canada. and she was going to do her master's in intercultural management, which was cool. a small college called sit, the school for

international training. i was going to sit on top of a hill, study and be an earth father. didn't really work. i stumbled into a placecalled the marlboro college graduate center,which was in downtown brattleboro next to the museum. and this kind of slightlyquirky college president at the main campus, mainwith no e on the end,

at marlboro college, whichwas a small, is a small, liberal arts college inthe middle of nowhere, had decided that this internetthing was kind of cool and he decided to set up,in a very vermont tech-y building in downtownbrattleboro where he launched hybrid programs thatwere about a year long, master's degrees. the minimum credits youcould get to get one was 30 credit, fastpaced, hybrid courses met

once every two weeks and then was online. and i sort of stumbled into that. i'd been teaching english in japan and i'd been trying stuff out. my parents are all teachers,my brother's a teacher, but i'd never had any teaching theory. so i did what i'm doingnow, sort of spoke to a crowd of 50 vaguely engaged people. maybe.

and had no idea what i was doing. but sort of learned, oh, ifi try this and do this and prep a little bit and that sort of thing. so i kind of stumbledinto an mat and thought, oh yeah, this is thereason why that bit works and that bit doesn't work. so i got this matteaching with technology. the grad school wasmarlboro college graduate center and the collegepresident was paul leblanc,

who couldn't make it down yesterday. so i met him, i met himonce when he came off the tennis court andwalked into our classroom and another time atgraduation where he shook my hand and i thought that was kind of it. and then i went off and gota dotcom thing in boston. and got asked to teach,to adjunct for marlboro. they were partneringwith cambridge college and i got a chance tokeep my foot in the game,

if you like, teaching. and loosely kept in touchwith the environment there. fast forward a little bit more. went back and became the director of the graduate center at marlboro. and paul had just gone tosouthern new hampshire, so we missed each otherby about three months. but i inherited mypredecessor's inbox and she had lots of emails back and forth with paul

and i saw a lot of thingsthat he would try and then he'd say, oh, i knowi had that great idea, but i've decided to pull it back. there was a facultymember called mark francim who used to play basketball with a lot. and he said, oh, when isaw mark missing every three point shot he tried,i realized i was putting too much stress on the faculty. so i thought, this guy seemsfunny, seems interesting

and kept loosely in touch. and ultimately i wentand worked at southern new hampshire. i was kind of michellebefore michelle was michelle. she's the evolution of what i did there. i was there from 2008 to 2012 when i oversaw theonline and continuing ed. then she mentioned the start up group that kicked off the innovationcollege for america.

i was the academic lead at that. so it was a greatexperience, a great time. and that's how i've hadthis connection with online slash hybrid. and wedding that to someof the studies we did at penn around policy and access. these were the conclusionsthat i came up with that, again, is drivingquite a bit of this. we want to educate a lot more people.

i'm putting these up asassumptions almost for anyone to say, oh, hangon, i disagree with that. so we want to educate a lot more people. these people are oftencoming from differing backgrounds than our traditional students. we can't build dorms andthings like that fast enough, certainly not lazy riversand things like that. so online's got to have a role somehow. i'm concerned about, andyou heard that question

that came up yesterdaythat was the correct one to ask of michelle. you have models likecollege for america that we all thought, this is a goodidea, this is worth a try, but it's trying to engagethe toughest audience to engage, probably. if it were college for americafor mitt romney's kids, the rich, white kids, itwould probably be fine, it would work well 'causethey'd be socializing

and then they'd come and do some study. the target demo that wewere going for there, single parents workingthree jobs, 5,000 reasons not to do this and maybe one to do it, which is i want to make mylife a little bit better. so if we can accept theconclusion that online's got a role to play, thenthe other part of my thesis would be we've got totry stuff to engage and motivate this audience.

because they have so manyreasons not to persist and we've got to try and wrap that up and give them some encouragementwhen they're in there. okay, so i touched on this. the whole gamificationpiece, the title, anyone, monty python? so you'll hear all theseterms, and i wouldn't worry too much about them, to be honest. the whole gamification, gameful design.

there's a great presentationthat i wrote about recently by a guy calledrobert trippinback out of england where he saysgame dynamics is the term. but there's not a quizand you're not going to get dinged if you use the wrong one. the key bit that i spokeat wcet and someone tweeted this and ithought, i don't think i said it that well, so i copied the tweet. it's this part, it's about the teaching.

and what i think is thatthe technology and now the thought aroundpedagogies moving forward to the extend that we can accentuate the things that good teachers do. and that really is the keyelement with all of this. i don't think we want to say we can put a game in place or a robotor whatever in place and you now do not have to teach. the teacher's not replaced by any of this.

so having said the language,don't worry about it. i am settling on gamefuldesign, so deal with that. and it grew, at least inpart, at northeastern, i got encouraged to do asnhu at northeastern, whch the whole greek and frenchthing comes to mind. it's like speaking a different language. so it's definitely adifferent experience to try and do a snhu at northeastern. things like tenure andgovernance and a provost

who isn't as accommodating as the provost in southern new hampshireall add to the mix. this is being recording, isn't it? i should have thought of that. god. i've got my performance review on march 1. this is going to go down well. so we've built a modelat northeastern that was, in many ways we weretrying to reassure and say

look, we know what we'redoing and this has validity and it's rigorous. so there's a guy calleddick clark, not the dead pop idol, the usc rossierschool of education. mey lead, you may have heard of him, or bror saxberg and others who've done a lot of work on thecognitive science of this. so some of the bits wheni started looking at gameful design it wasfamiliar because of the

work we'd done in cognitive science. so any of the roomwho've looked at learning design and those kind ofareas, when you start to talk about things likechunking content and giving immediate feedbackand not cognitively overloading, there's a lotof that that seemed to me to be the venn diagramoverlap with what i'm calling gameful design. specifically gameful designis looking at what makes

games fun or engaging andit doesn't have to be games. it can be sports or itcan be a book or a movie or a play like the one iwent to see last night. and thinking, why am i engaged in this? why is it holding my attention? i always think when igive this presentation i should somehow put a game in it, because that's what i'm talking about. and one of my colleaguessaid, if you do that,

i'm just walking out of the room. so i won't be doing that. but it's the elements thatmake something engaging and can you boil themdown and can you then apply some of them to teaching? so why go that way, whynot the full on games? this is a new slidefor any of you who have seen the presentationbefore, so enjoy this one. so this theory that oh, my students.

this room, you have tohave your back to someone. this theory that yourstudents are all playing games on their phone all the time,it's actually not true. i am gen x, so millennialsare actually doing less of that than we are. so we who are starting toget old and middle aged, we think our studentsare completely focused on games and things like that. they're not, they're focusedon gamefully designed apps.

and we all are a little bit. if you think facebook andanything you do, and they've added some new emoticonsor whatever this week, you're actually engagingmore typically with apps that are using theprinciples of gameful design than you are playing games. which isn't to say thatanyone who's playing games right now is bad. that's fine if you're doing that.

they do still do them. but millennials do this,what do they call it, they over-index. they actually do more ofthe sort of gameful appy sport, so they'll beon apps for everything. they'll be checking in,they'll be whatever they're doing, facebooking slashfoursquaring, slash whatever, whatever, whatever. but they're not typicallygaming as much as

even we were, so thespace invader generation who's like, oh yeah, thekids are totally into this. you probably don't wantto try and do a retro version of space invaders to engage them. you want to dig intogameful design and say, why are they focused on this and can i put any ofthat in my instruction? so to give you somesort of initial tenants, if you like, to take away,

the lady who presentedon badges yesterday, is she still here? okay, so i'm not going to diss badges, but i think the key element toconsider is the difference between these two. i like that i can zoom between them. so you take a kidshopping and he hates it. you give him a lollipop,he's fine for two minutes and then he's screaming again.

i'm assuming it's a he. versus you're doing somethingthat is just exciting by virtue of doing it. i think that's the challenge. i don't mind badges at all. i just question exactly whatwe're achieving with them. i'll quite happily do whati call serendipitous awards. so the class i'm teachingnow, i'm happy to reach out and say, that was thebest post of the week.

thanks for logging inseven days out of seven or whatever, so thepositive pats on the head, if that's what badgesare, i think that's fine. i also think that otherside where it's interesting to wonder where the alternativecredentials will work. it's the bit in the middlethat i'm not sure of where the badge fromnortheastern university saying you're a leader,is that a pat on the head or is that saying you don'tneed the leadership degree?

like i said, i'm not goingto focus too much on badges. but the work i've seen hassuggested that employers aren't going to botherto click through a badge to see your work, to seethat you can do leadership. i think in certain areas,the googles, et cetera, where it's coding skill,it's obviously valid. but i think what we'retrying to do with the work that i'm leading out innortheastern in particular is, how can we make theexperience actually fun.

not have the experience be deadly, but you get a badge at the end. so again, i think there'sa role and if the presenter was still here i would still say this. so i think it's a good discussion to have. so what you're reallytrying to get to, i think, is this place where,wow, the play i saw last night, huey recommended, bythe way, forrest whitaker, he was in it, he wasn't with me.

if you go and dosomething or see something or you're engaged insomething and you think, wow, it's already 11o'clock, that was fun. then that's this conditionthat this guy in particular wrote a lot about, flow. anyone want to have a stabat pronunciation of his name? no? csikszentmihalyi is thebest that i've got at it. so he talks about this.

and j. mcgonigal's kindof, she's cuter, she's younger than him, soshe gets more publicity. but she's sort of takenthis, and if you've read her recent work, superbetter,or the one before, what was her book called, the first one? reality is broken, that's right. and she presented at southby southwest next week if anyone really wants to go. she's just running with thisand that's not to diss her.

she's based her work onlots of different theorists but it's the concept thatsomething that's either painful or miserable or mundanecan be made interesting if you start to throwthings like rules in there. so i'm going to mow thelawn, but can i do it faster than i've ever done itbefore without going over the edges and killing the flowers? there are rules and thereare restrictions that you've put in place.

so i think that's what iwant to explore when we're looking at education. look at things that make,so i mentioned a couple there, rules andrestrictions and challenge. three elements there. as we go through and i show some examples, maybe keep some mental notes as to other elements that you think,that's clearly an important part of a game or an activitythat is going to maybe

engender flow, which means i'm going to engage with it for longer. and that is the best proxywe've got in most cases. i know data analytics isgoing to change the world. i'm not sure that i cansay that to my faculty with a straight face. but as we dig in, wemay see other behavioral elements that we say,that's the key thing. do more of that and you definitely learn.

for now we've got honestlylogins and engagement. and engagement and time ontask correlates to outcomes. my chair was the statsinstructor at penn, so she would shudder when iuse words like correlate because she would reallyfocus in and does it correlate or does it just,you know, is it causation or correlation, all that sort of stuff. but that's what we've got at the minute. so to my mind, the moreengagement you can get,

the better shot you'vegot at good outcomes. and to sort of take this andput it through an example, i'm not really a golfer,but my brother is, some of my family are. half of them are scottish,so that explains that. but they would say, igo out and play golf and wow, five hours went byand i got soaking wet and miserable, but you know what? it was great fun, really.

so i gave you a couple therefor the mowing the lawn, just to give you a few visual examples. playing golf, you've gotclear goals, there are clear rules, you haveto play from the tees, men's tees, ladies' tees,all that sort of stuff. you have to wear shorts. that's not one of the rules. you get pretty immediate feedback. the ball goes in the hole or it doesn't,

or in my case the water or not. and there's definitelya level of challenge. for me it's staying in singledigits when i play a hole. maybe breaking 100 ifi play nine holes, 18. and there's a sense of achievement. it's not easy and when you doit, you feel great about it. so i'm going to skipinto the case studies. these are the four that made the cut. i had a couple of others.

i talked to snhu and theircollege for america process and the lead of that projectis looking at gamification to see if they canincrease the engagement. but they weren't quite there yet. so university of newhampshire was my first one. great guy. did i leave my coffee? thank you. great guy called neil nimon.

he's written a book thatcame out fairly recently that's maybe worth looking up. and you're going to get this slide deck, so you could alwaysgoogle him and find him. microeconomics instructor,arguably not the funnest subject in the history of the world. and also he's the entrylevel microeconomics, so he has a lot ofstudents who have to do it almost as a gen ed requirement who really

don't like it, who feelmath challenged, who feel i can't do this. so he's got that classicaudience of what i would say is weak mindset or poor mindset. they think they're bad it,they are pretty confidant they're going to hateit, and they just need to get it done but time is going to drag. he's not a fan of the extrinsic pieces. so he was very much antileaderboard, anti badges,

that kind of thing. he's all about stories. and he is a facebooker. his wife does something. it's like needlework orcrocheting or something. i don't know, she's in aclubby sort of thing with lots of social interaction and feedback. but his belief is thatstories, that's how we exist, that's how we've educated foryears and years and years.

and his first venture was funny. he's probably, i'm goingto say he's a few years older than me, but ithink everyone is, because i still think i'm 27. but he's a heavier guy, slightly balding. and to demonstrate aprinciple that i won't even venture at guessing, hegot on the tennis court with his ta to showpalaboras, loops, somehow connected to microeconomics.

and he stopped at some point. he's like, here i am, 47,fat, balding white guy trying to play tennis to show. and he realized it wasn't strong. and he'd played with theidea of putting stories in. and you'll see one of the cases later. there is a narrative, it'sa quest, it's an adventure that i or he, the facultymember, sort of envisaged. neil's idea, i think, was brilliant.

what he said was, whyshould i dictate the story? he said i have sweaters olderthan some of my students. so his frame of referenceof saying, hey, let's do a star trek adventure or mine would be a doctor who from the original doctor who. and even his ta, whowas 27, said, i'm 27 and my examples are dated. if you're hitting thevampires when people have moved on to the zombies,you're just so square.

so he split his class andit was really interesting. he had a team of students developing it. he's unh, so they're blackboard based. but they got out intobloggy world, very low tech. the class was split, hewould teach some core principles, you haveto learn this, you have to learn this, sort ofdiminishing returns and these microeconomics concepts. and then the students wouldcreate their own story.

and that was a fundamentalpart of the class, that everyone had tocreate a narrative that used these terms. so there was a mattdamon movie about leaving earth to search forwater around that time. so scarcity was a key part of that. and one of the students wrote a matt damon movie script that featuredthese microeconomics terms. the other student that he shared time with

talked about her grandfathercoming from russia and becoming a citizen. and he and his family hadleft russia because of the scarcity there, et cetera, et cetera. so you've got matt damonand sci-fi and then you've got my actualgrandfather from russia. do you care how the students remember all of the terminology,because they both did. and he ended up in his class,20 students or whatever

it was, it was the key partthey had to share the stories. so you may think, how would you do that? maybe do a doctor who. but i guarantee if youthink about this afterwards you'll probably thinkthat russian grandfather coming to the us. i mean, if that's yourfamily story, you're going to remember that. so the pneumonic tools that they used were

personalized to them. so personalizing may be an aspect. and illustrated the concepts and made them valid for them, the students. he had rules in the class. you had a time limit to develop this, you had to share your story, you had to read other people's stories. he didn't have a leaderboard, but they did

vote up and down or likethe different stories, so there was an element of collaboration and competition. and he had good results. he had a better completionrate than he'd seen in his class the 20 timeshe'd taught it previously. and he had a significantnumber of students who decided they were goingto focus in on economics and continue it.

he had students whowere gen ed approaching who were undeclared who declared that they were interested inexploring microeconomics and economics furtherin their major at unh. so a storyline to illustrate key points. i thought that was an interesting one. i went up to gamification 2013. 2013 was a conference up in waterloo, which is ontario, canada.

and i went up becausei was needing another case study and didn't reallyfind one in the presenters and was about to think,oh, this damn country. my wife's canadian. and sat down next to this guy greg andres, who's a great guy. also, again, sorry,balding, white, middle aged. but in a triathlete, sohe's healthy at least. and what was interesting with waterloo was

actually no one had told me. northeastern, we're a bit siloed. so i'm going up here, great. turns out subsequentlynortheastern had really been formally in contact withwaterloo because waterloo have a co-op programand they seem to do it really well, northeastern has a co-op that we've had for centuries that is sort of an appendage we're tryingto make more use of it

and make it more valid. but waterloo, the studentsgo out on a co-op. while they're out theydo some online courses. they really struggle toengage the students in those online courses becausethe students are out in the real world. and that lack of overlapbetween real world focus, get the job done, andoh, academic crap, stuff i have to do online.

they were seeing a real disconnect. so greg took this course,which was business ethics and gamified parts of it. now, his was moodlebased, i'm pretty sure. moodle or canvas. i"m going to go with canvas, actually. his was canvas based. and he had a tech supportguy, so he was the only one who had any techsupport for any of this.

neil, who i just mentioned,had tas and grad assistants who played with blogs, butbasically no tech assistant no budget. this guy reckoned histech guy put in what they added up to about $10,000worth of coding time and effort, so there'sa price to this one. but what they built outwere little scenarios where they were presentedwith an ethical dilemma that was connected to awork environment and the

students had to respondto the dilemma with what they would do. it was scored, but it wasreally the answers weren't you're right, you're wrong. it was, well, that'sinteresting that you think that, let's talk about it. so he's really tryingto broker discussion. he had leaderboards,which you can see there. those of you who aregoing to ask the further

question, advisable toanonymize the leaderboard except for your score, soyou can see that you're third in the lead but youcan't see that mel's above you or below you and that sort of thing. so you saw where youwere in the leaderboard. he got that boy thingwhere the boys rushed ahead and did all the games so they could be top of the leaderboard. so the leaderboard maybedidn't help him that much.

he felt that discussionswere a little richer. i'll give you an exampleof one, i'm not sure if it's the one that's on the screen. he gave the ethical dilemmawhere you're going for a job interview and thepotential employer says, i want to look at yourfacebook profile 'cause i want to know what sort of person you are. do you give the employer accessto your facebook profile? in the scenario that he'ddrawn out, let's say i

was going for the jobinterview but i knew that ian was also going forthe job interview and we're kind of friends,i'm not that keen on him. i have a clean facebookprofile and i'd be fine with an employer seeing it. i know that he parties,sorry, and drinks heavily and there's pictures of topless. so i know ian and i knowwhat this employer's asking is a bit dubious, really.

i shouldn't have to give him my facebook. but i know if i give him my access and say yeah, yeah, definitely,he's kind of knackered. 'cause he either says tothe employer, you can't see mine, which is good'cause i look like the cooperative one, or he says, okay, you can and then they're goingto see him in new orleans and all these other places that he's been. so that was the ethical dilemma.

that's an example. so you can see, thecanvas pop uppy thing was just a presentation of a scenario. they clicked through it,they got to pick an option, and then they had to discussit and write about it. and their performance pushedthem up a leaderboard. so it was very simplistic. it was the most techy in terms of build, but not something thatyou couldn't replicate

with discussion boards and quizzes and even a rudimentary leaderboard. i sent my class last nighthow to make a leaderboard on google docs, which i googled and found. so there's definitelyways that you can do this at zero to low cost, i would say. greg got good engagement,he got good feedback from the students, sortof quantitative data from him, particularly.

but what i found with thisone, i've been talking about this before in theworkshop that i was doing, we talk about let'sreduce fear of failure. and yet you're all frightened to try this. what these guys all got,even the very low tech, i interviewed a lot of studentswho took these courses, the students were hugelyappreciative of anything these faculty did, just to try stuff out. they got next to nonegative feedback about the

technology or it being clunky. they were just soappreciative that someone tried something. and in every case, someelements clearly worked. so the feedback was, oh, itwas great that he tried it, we really appreciated it. and you know, this bit seemed better. so i mentioned being40 something and maybe not being on the firstrung of the career ladder

encourages you to take risks. but what i've seen fromthis is that anything that you try will be generallywell received and if it's very low tech and you getgreat feedback, great, then go and talk someoneinto spending some money. so i think the trying is asappreciated as the actual outcomes in many places. just going to have a sip. so this was a mooc, which was fun,

because i hadn't anticipated doing any. kevin yee's an instructor,very interesting guy. phd in german and worked at disney, which seems like a slightlyambiguous set of circumstances. i'm just picturing donaldduck barking in german at someone, quacking in german. so anyway, interesting background. he'd also worked in game design. he'd been a gamer, he wasvery interested in that,

then he moved on, got aproper job, got a life, as we all do. and he was on the facultyuniversity of south florida. but he also had that, whatwas interesting, two or three of my cases werethe faculty person who got pulled into helpingwith the technology. so he had been asked toplay with canvas to be the early adopter whowould then help faculty subsequently learn thetools and get on board.

he'd seen this moocthing come along and he was anticipating 50 facultyover the next few years saying, i want to do a mooc. so he decided to playwith canvas to see if he could support his own mooc. he chose fairy tales, whichwas an interesting selection. and built this all out. so he did have some badges. so an extra challengewith a mooc that haven't

been in the other classesso far and that's the 1,400 people who signed up for it. and that's small for a mooc. so he thought aheadabout that and thought, i can't be grading thousandsor hundreds of papers, that sort of thing. so i'm going to say threeaspects of his thing were interesting. he had badges, that was okay.

what was interesting wasthe way he applied that. and he used what he looselycalled the harry potter protocol, which morecorrectly, i looked it up, is the dependent hero contingency. so it's not gryffindor and hufflepuff. so that means that basicallyyou're dividing a big number of students into student groups, which has a double effect. a, you don't have tograde everyone's work,

and b, everyone feels alittle bit of pressure slash competition notto let the team down. so when hermione losespoints for gryffindor, she's devastated, it's horrible. and then when she gainsthem back it's great because she's given back to the group. so this dependent hero contingency is an interesting element that he threw in. and he's a great guy, actually.

i just bumped into him lastweek for the first time having worked with himfor a couple of years. he built in this dependenthero contingency, aware of the fact thathe was not going to be able to keep up withthe class and he still couldn't keep up with the class. so his badging kind of fell away. so he had a couple of reallygood concepts in there that were worth exploring.

the third thing thatreally was his main thing was that he buried eastereggs through the course. so looking for facial recognition there. so anyone who's playedgames or, i mean, they're in lots of things, videos, dvds, whatever. sometimes developers willbury little tiny hidden bonuses, like you've found an easter egg. he buried things in thetext of his text heavy pages and throughout the course.

i would say he's in theslightly above, well no, quite a bit above youraverage faculty member's technical expertise, buthe's not a programmer. so he would do thingslike in the canvas system put in some pages and maybe on a period or a full stop would put a link. so if you think of thesize of that on a small text page, it's pretty hard to see. he would put white texton a white background.

i like that one. he would put hints inthe alt tags of an image. and by going throughthese, the students could click on something and they would get some sort of reward. i ripped this off. this is what you shoulddo, just rip things off. so in my class that i'mactually currently still doing, it's a workshop for olcaround how to gamify

or gamefully design a course. i inherited a lot oftext and i thought, oh, that's deadly to get through. so i did similarly intheir system put links. and i didn't know what the hell to link to 'cause it's an artificialconstruct and they're playing a game so i can talk about games. so i did some weeblypages and basically just put encouragement and then a number.

so hey, the first clue is seven, great. when they clicked throughand got all of the clues, and each clue hadsort of a hint to the next one. so when they clickedthrough and got all of the clues, they had afinal number which was the answer. and the answer was 42. okay, can you explain why42 is vaguely amusing?

again, certain age, white guy, i tell you. he's my people. there was a movie, film, in england. well no, the book was,hang on, correct me. i don't want to talk about it. douglas adams, was he english or american? he's english, i thought so. most of the actors have english accents, so i was assuming.

anyway, a film calledthe hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, very whimsical,quirky, strange, weird. and in one of the scenes,they develop the smartest, correct me if i'm wrong,the smartest computer in the history of time and everything. and they go up to it andsay, right, tell us what's the answer to everything? life, the universe, andeverything, thank you. and it says, oh, youneed to leave me to think

about that for 10,000 years. and they come back and they say, okay, now tell us what's the answer? and he goes, 42. and they're like, what do you mean? well, if you don'tunderstand the question, you're not going to understand the answer. so anyway, my clues whichif they got it added up to 42 and the lastpage says, you've got

the answer now, you have to tell me why that's the answer andyou have to email me it. so the first woman emailsme and said, oh yeah, the answer's 42 and it'sthe hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, i'm like,wow, you were quick. she said, yeah, yourweebly pages, your first one was called clue one html. the second one was called clue two html. i'm like, you fucking idiot.

so she completely gamedthe system, which is obviously a concern. i quickly went in andchanged from clue three, i changed to artichoke.htmlthen apple then cube then whatever. and i didn't give her the prize. so i got a hitchhiker'sguide to the galaxy t-shirt. she got a runner up prize. someone else cheated bylooking at the source code

and looking for links in the source code. people cheat. well, she didn't findthe clues, so you know. but again, it worked'cause it was an exercise that showed damn, people cheat. it also showed that peopleengage with the content. now, i have three kids, two of them girls. so i do fairy tales, butit's not really my thing. i read these pages a hell of a lot.

i can tell you quite a lotabout, for example, the cinderella story, theoriginal origin where the ugly sisters or whateverchop their toes off. it's this blood andguts and loose toes and they're really nasty, theoriginal grimm versions of the fairy tales, grimm with two m's. before walt disney with one s. before he got hold ofthem and made them all princesses in flouncy dresses.

they were pretty nasty. so i could tell you alot about the content. yee was probably thegeekiest in terms of looking at his stats and his data. and he would be able totell you how long people spent on each page of each content. he said one womanaccessed and read the page 27 times, there wasn't aneaster egg on that page. he was tough.

i would say after a while,look, there's not an easter egg here. but even just that. so think about what he's doing there. so these badges, therewards, the incentives, that didn't work. his leaderboard, maybe the competition. but the search. here's one, appropriatelevel of challenge.

if you make those eastereggs impossible to find or for some people theyfeel they're impossible to find, they're done in 10 minutes. i can't do this. and i had that in myclass of educators who were exploring gamificationor gameful design. i get the email, oh i'mremedial, can you give me more information about this? i'm like, well, you're notand you've got to find stuff.

i would say, i had 30 orso in the class altogether, i probably only had about10 who sent me an answer and about seven who got it right and about five who didn't cheat. so maybe not the biggestsuccess in the history of online education, but yee certainly showed a lot of engagement with the content. moocs around that time andeven probably currently, retention, persistence,completion rate around

4%, 5% typically. he was up like 8% to 10% completion. which again, not changing the world, but 1,400 starting, 140 finishing. his completion rate wasabout double what was typical at the time for moocs. so something he did kind of worked. as i said, the dependent hero contingency i think's interesting.

what you do with badges isobviously worth exploring. but it was specifically hishidden challenges within the text that made studentsengage with the text and hopefully not just look for the eggs, but also read the text. i would say that was the case in my case. because he was very cleverwith the way he hid them and you had to read through carefully. just one more.

so this is the last one. so think back to neil nimon where he said, make your own story and it can be your grandfather coming from russia or matt damon coming from hollywood or whatever. petruzella was more, hewas the biggest gamer of the group. great guy as well, very energetic, fun. he teaches a philosophy class at the mass

college of liberal arts,which is a north hampton, massachusetts, i think it is. and he created this course that he called dungeons and discourse. again, dungeons and dragons,all that sort of stuff. but his as well, like nimon's,was a gen ed philosophy course that a lot of people had to do. his catch area, histarget demo, he has a lot of low ses first generationminority students.

fragile learners, if youwant to call them that, new majority students some are calling. his course was a hybridthat met once every two weeks and in between he took them out, i'm pretty sure his wasmoodle, and he built out a land through which they had to travel and find scrolls. so he went completelyoer, open ed resources. didn't assign a textbook.

and put content in placesthrough this imaginary land where the students were wandering. so the students picked upthese scrolls, got information. i don't remember all ofthe realms, but there were in the realm of logoswhere logical thinking was espoused and all that sort of thing. and they would pick up clues and hints. parallel to that, he builtthem all a personalized page in moodle.

so you had your own pageand the students were given license to choosetheir own image or avatar and personalize the page to an extent. one of the students said,yeah, that was my goal, i wanted to be the most trickedout wizard and so forth. so they got to personalize their page. and they were given an amount of gold. again, very low tech,so sort of a gif image of a gold coin and you start with 50.

your gold decayed at therate of two or three a day 'cause you had to live and you had to eat and that sort of thing. when it got together inthe hybrid face to face section of the hybridcourse, they had what he called a marketplacewhere he rewarded students for good questions with gold. great question, five gold coins. great question, 10 gold coins.

and they'd build it back up. he struggled to keep upwith the gold updates and the students saidthat that aside, they thought this was great. he had two or three run throughs. he as well was one ofthe ones who said that his declaring a philosophy as a major went from four students to seven students. so again, those numbers arenot significant significant,

but he saw that repeatedin the two or three times during the study when he taught the class. the student feedback was effusive. they loved this, theythought it was great. by the time he got throughthe first class and got to the second, atthe end of major modules or maybe it was midterm, and at the end he set up what he called a boss battle. again, looking for thegamers in the audience.

when you get through agame, often at the end of the stage or somethinglike that, you have a big fight against a big monster, the boss. and it's tough. by that stage the hope isthat you've invested enough time and energy thatyou're going to persevere to beat the damn thing. because if you have aboss battle at the start, you wouldn't have theskills, you wouldn't have

the expertise and youwouldn't have the commitment thinking i'm going to beat this. so he had the boss battleat the end where someone would come and arguerhetorically against the class. and that person was arguingfallacies or whatever. so i'm not going to go topolitics, but imagine someone standing up and makingstatements, this is true and this is true and thestudents had to debunk his arguments is what they put.

and once he got throughthe class the first time, he started to invite alumniof the previous class to come back and be the boss. and he was astounded at how much they'd retained from the class. so someone who'd takenthe class two or three sections ago came backand said, okay, now i'm going to tell you howyou're all wrong and that's wrong and you don'tunderstand that and the

principle of this is this. and the students had to go,well no, because according to socrates, blah blahblah, again not a philosphy major, so excuse me. but he had them argue backand forth and they had to try and defeat theboss at the end of this. and he said, oh it was great. costumes were worn. so people got really into it.

the face to face part was interesting. he said it had a coupleof other effects that were really interesting. the students all said thatit was really fun to be in a class where more people participated. because you were gettinggold for your questions. so 20 people would shout outrather than two or three. petruzella noted, he's avery thoughtful guy actually, he noted that itdemocratized the class from a

gender, from a minority, fromhis teaching perspective. and i'm doing it. i don't know why i'vefocused on ian and the guy who knew hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. there are people whoseeyes i have not made contact, and it's not 'causei've got a thing about bearded white guys. maybe i do. i don't know.

people talk about yourteaching style and how you teach to your own teaching style. so when i teach, i taughtweb design a couple of other courses, project management, i would screenshotdreamweaver and i'd be like, okay, you click thisbutton 'cause that's the button i click. and then i started toget students say, i use the drop down, is that all right?

no, don't use the drop down. i'd tell them to do what had worked for me and then having done 500 screenshots and developed webpages and had a student say, i found a youtube video,i realized i was done. so my first assignment in that class was, find something thatteaches you this course that you need to know. so they would come up with youtube videos,

audios, whatever, whatever. so point being, there's asubconscious if nothing else, a tendency, i guess,that we have to focus on certain students. you don't intend it. when you make it a gameand everyone has to participate by definition,you are democratizing that participation. and he felt that was areally key element of his

course and from theexperience, to the extent that he was called before thefaculty, writ large the senate or the curriculumcommittee, or both of them, to really talk about what he'd done and how this could work. so it's interesting, again,i mentioned they're all different, he prescribed a narrative. maybe at first, againprobably a 50, 50 in the room, dungeon discourse, yeahthat sounds great, oh god.

so you're going to get that. but the fact that hegot them to buy into the narrative did have a very positive effect. he had more students focus on philosphy. and his takeaway from this,which i think is probably the key point that i'd liketo push on, is that students who come in who havethe negative mindset who have the fear of studying,if they're first generation most of us can say, ohyeah, i'm going to that

college 'cause my dad wentto that college or i'm going to be a lawyer'cause my mom's a lawyer. a lot o the generation thatwe're talking about now that i think daniel waslooking at, they don't have those intrinsic motivators,they don't have those reasons to persist. so anything you can build in. he felt that the studentsthat were philosophy-phobic or maybe in nimon's casewere economics-phobic

if you can get them playinga game and they think they're maybe failing the game rather than failing the discipline,they'll persist hopefully to the point where they getenough subject matter expertise that it becomes engaging and intrinsically motivating of its own. so the students whotalked about the philosphy class, that language is great. because they had the young,hip, cool kid language

but they were using philosophy terms. they were very intrigued. and they've got enoughinto the discipline to say philosophy is interesting by itself. so his theory that hewas going to push on was, let's try and use this inintro courses, in courses with first generationstudents, maybe low ses, fragile learners because we'reused to failing at games. this is a quote, i'm notjust using bad language.

you fail at a game, youdie, you get shot, you get pissed, you get up,and you do it again. you fail at philosophyor maths or economics and you are crap, that'snot a quote, you're crap at economics, you're crap at maths, you're crap at philosophy, youcan never do it, i don't know why i started to try this. so the failure thing iscompletely morphed there for whatever reason.

but if you can, as he did,get the students failing at a game rather thanfailing at a discipline, then they might be ableto engage enough with the discipline that by the timethey realize they're studying a discipline, they actuallyfind it quite interesting. okay, so the mental notesthat you're all taking. so these are some ofthe commonalities that seem to be really playing a role here. couple we haven't talkedabout or not much.

the aesthetics, the fear offailure was definitely in there, rewards, level of challenge. these were the bits thati looked across the cases and discussed with thepractitioners and we started to take away that these arethe bits that seem to be influential. these next three are alittle more detailed and then i promise i'll get to wrap up. so what might be going onhere is this is sort of

building on the cognitive science bit. it's really hard to learn new stuff. and you have a very limitedwindow where you can do that before you startto get completely fatigued. and it's analogous, thiswasn't my idea, someone mentioned this, to cycling uphill. if you're in a class andyou're learning new stuff, it feels like cycling uphill. i'm not going to read the slides.

if you're doing somethingthat you're comfortable with or you've done 1,000times that you feel really good about, it's like cycling downhill. so how do you make everyone hate learning? only new knowledge,information, heavy classes without practice. and think about that, that'snot what happens in games. if you were to pick a game. so angry birds, my firstangry birds reference.

when you start, you have one bird that you catapult across and it hits things. when you get throughthe first five levels, they give you a differenttype of bird that does something different. it took me a while to work that out. there's a little onethat splits into three. and then once you do another five screens, they give you another bird that blows up

when it hits stuff. so in the course of gettingthrough the first 10 screens, you're quite often throwinga bird that you really know what it's going to do. and then once in a whileyou'll get a new one that you're not quite sure. so you're doing stuffyou're comfortable with and then you're givensomething new that you don't really know what's happening.

so this is what i thinkwe're trying to do with gamefully designed courses. you're trying to encourageskills that people, you're encouragingstrengths that people have. you're giving them thingsthat are somewhat familiar and then you'reinterspersing that in a game with new knowledge. so all of those examples,that clearly was what was going on, and at least part of it.

the students were tellingthe narrative and very comfortable talkingabout my grandfather who came from russia becausewe talk about that in family history time, have done for the last 10, 20 years. so that's like my comfort food. that's the bit that i'mreally happy with, that i'm an expert in, that itfeels really close to me. and then i'm tying it into cycling uphill.

i'm tying it into scarcityand return on investment, another microeconomics stuffthat's kinda new for me. but this is comfortable. so i'll keep talking about my grandfather. and then this happened and then. so i think that's what itake away as one of the key elements for this, that you're mixing, what games do is they mixskills that you pick up with new skills and theyencourage you to play

with both of them so you eventually become familiar with them all. at the end of this journeythere's the boss fight where you put it all together. that could be a capstone or a thesis or a final class project. so when i do thispresentation, i have to talk to a lot of faculty. and this is genuine, it'snot just to placate them.

i realize that when youbreak down those elements and start to think aboutwhat good teachers do, they do a lot of this anyway. so this is over two slides. so as i say, you'll get these afterwards. but the bits that are in bold are the bits that i'd say i'd certainlymake the case good teachers do or completelyintend to do unless they're a bit strange.

so providing feedback. i'll stay on that one for now. so rules exist. you've got a deadlinefor a paper, you can't plagiarize, you can'tcopy, whatever, whatever. feedback, most instructorsi think would agree that it's a good ideato let someone know if they're completely messing up or give them positive feedback if they are doing well.

i don't see level ofchallenge on here, which confuses me, but appropriatelevel of challenge is another one i'd sayis certainly a thing that good teachers do. most teachers don't liketo completely confuse the heck out of everyonein the class, nor should they try and say, okay,today we're going to do basic addition. you don't want to come under, you don't

want to come over. so a good teacher will reassure a student, try and reduce fear of failure. go on, alex, just tryit, you can do maths. you're not stupid. and the students have clear expectations. so these are now the sameslides again with the red bits the things thati think technology and gameful design can help with.

so if we agree thatfeedback is a good thing, then in a face to faceclass you've got a couple of windows for that, maybe a week. in a typical online class,i don't know about you, but i find it really hardto get my phd tenured research faculty to be 24/7 in online. just don't do it. and again, to the feedbackyesterday, the lack of immediacy of feedbackis a concern for people

who are fragile who think theyare terrible at everything. so i would certainly arguethat with rudimentary technology you couldbuild in means to give immediate continualfeedback, even if it's only formative, even if it'sonly a multiple guess and you're on the right track, keep going or you haven't quite got this, goand try this extra resource. that's what the adaptivelearning tools are doing. and we're working with oneof the providers right now

and i actually see quitea lot of overlap there. so i think a good adaptivelearning system that's implemented can do a lot of this as well. but even if you don't havethat budget and you've not gone that routethen you've got quizzes in blackboard, you'vegot rudimentary ways that you can give automated feedback. some of the other piecesthat technology can help with, what i think isgood about the time now

is that you can set upa blog in five minutes. you can do some rudimentarysocial media type interaction immediately. you can use tools thatstudents are already using. so you can certainly developsome of these things, a sense of progression,journey through the materials, student having control. some of those other bits,aesthetics i think is actually underemphasized.

that's hugely relevant justthe feeling that someone has when they hit the course. and this notion of effortless involvement. those two pieces come together for me in like the ipod when it first came out. and if you've seen any ofthe 300 steve jobs movies, his focus on it has to bebeautiful, it has to be simple and my mum, bless her, isjust getting online and getting sorted and that sort of thing.

she wants the manual. i'm like, you don't get manuals now. you just kind of play withit and twiddle a button and push something and you learn. so that's the effortless involvement. if you're lms or your system or your class or your online materialstake a phd to work out then you're not going to be giving out any phds any time soon.

this is just a graphicthat pulls those previous things together. so i think there's a biggroup here, and again, i think this is key. you are not replacing aninstructor with a game. you're looking at whatgood slash great teachers do already and agree ofvaluable parts and saying, with gameful design wecan really accentuate some of these.

if we all agree this is agood thing, let me help you make more of it. there's a gray area andi know in this one the text is too small, so alexwill pdf and send around. yeah, we played with this because we were chasing grants and things. so not proud of this slide at all. student intrinsic motivatorsfor persistence in online learning.

i do like the phrasecopernican revolution. and this one's had some debate, but again, going back to my doctorwho days, which were not that long ago, it wassaturday night, 6 o'clock. we had to be there because the tv told us we had to be there andwe all watched it and then we talked aboutit at school on monday. so it was almost like werecircling around the tv. if you look at netflix now,i think it was my buddy

robert i was talking tothe other day, and he was saying how he onlybinge watches stuff now. because we don't want to watch one tv show then get in a different mindset and watch a different one. we want to do 10 shows. i took a big internationalflight and watched the whole final series of madmen one after the other. it revolves around me now.

if i want to watch a certainshow at a certain time or five certain shows, it's me. i like that phrase acopernican revolution. it's saying the student,to an extent, wants to feel that they're in controland that they're in the center of this, so themore tailored an experience you can give them where they have control, they may be making thenarrative or they may be taking on a role andpersonalizing and making

an avatar, but they feelthat sense of control. and i think that is animportant part of where we're at with the technology. we can start to do that now as well. i mentioned the project we're on now. we did get first in theworld, fitw, funding. and our target is to complete stem degree completion for transfer students only within a dedicated subbrand of northeastern

university called the lowell institute. the lowell institute's beengoing for about 150 years. it was whatever theequivalent of powerpoint was 150 years ago. northeastern was trying toeducate the masses of boston with basic science andtechnology training. the descendant of thatoriginal founder is on the northeastern board now. so with him and with thefirst in the world funding

we're trying to ramp upthis institution that will increase underrepresentedminority completion of stem degrees. and it tied nicely withthe stuff i'd been doing in my research throwingacross the gameful design and saying this isdefinitely worth exploring. so we have a bs in it degreethat we're playing with in a traditional online andthen a gameful design online. and we're hoping to getthe numbers and the effect

to see that there's ahopefully significant uptick in, first of all,engagement, which we think will lead to persistence. so that's where we're going with that. i'm happy to bore peoplewith that more later. and we boiled this down. so all those elements that italked about, the intrinsic motivators that whencombined may engender flow, we put into a matrix.

again, text too small for you to read. but i would make the case and say a good syllabus and a decentlms rules, yeah sure, effortless involvement, pretty much. sense of progression,could be, sort of, yeah. and then our theory isthat we can push those things further out by implementing gameful design principles, soyou're going from that which let's say that retains atx, this hopefully retains

at x plus something that's significant. so i think to wrap up, itis a challenge and it's this question of are wegamifying, are we producing educational games, is it serious gaming? is it gameful design? i think this is thereally hard thing to do. i think to try and thinkthat you're going to rival the world of warcraftsor the pick your game. the budget for that wassomething like $75 million

all told, so if you'vegot that funding, super. congratulations. where i've seen gamesimplemented, some have been pretty decent. before i got to northeasternthey worked with one of those vendors whodeveloped the courses, put them online, and thentake 80% of the revenue. good business model. and to give them credit,they build our courses

pretty well, some of them had simulations. the school of businessloves to show you the somalian pirate kidnappingnegotiation scenario. but they can't tweak it. they built the simulationand it's pretty good and the first time you see it, yeah, okay. the 10th time you want to pokeyour eyes out with a fork. but it's engaging, but theycan't edit it, they can't change it, it's now very dated.

are there still somalian pirates? you're going to be lockedinto some cultural references that are dubious. if you are gamefullydesigning and course and just accentuating certain elementsand seeing the effect, you can go back and domore of that or move to the next one and say,right, let's really work on the aesthetics. my understanding, having looked and worked

with those cases, is pick them. if you've got 10 criteriathat you think, yeah, looks like these willhave an effect, then find a faculty member who is interested in this and say, okay, let's look atimmediate corrective feedback. how can we ramp that up in your course? and even if you only do one thing. so i hope people aren't disappointed, but i try and get people away.

i personally try andget people away from the let's build a game thatteaches everything and does everything, becausethis is what you're competing with, you'recompeting with games and budgets and hoops andpsychologies that are so expert that you're going tostruggle to either educate or have fun or probably morelikely struggle with both. so i've thrown in the referencesthat i've used in this and my contact details are in there.

we're not bad on time. i haven't left a great deal of time. i'm certainly around, buti'd love any questions, thoughts, or reactions. and as i say, the feedbacki've got, the students said yeah, it would havebeen great if it was automated, if it was more3dish and that sort of thing. but to a person they saidit was great, it was fun, we really appreciategerol or neil trying this

and i got quite a kick out ofit, i was really surprised. so sketch stuff out, usecheapy versions to see if they work. you don't have to go fullyin and commit tens of thousands of dollars. i think there are certainlythings in there that you could work on tomorrow. and so you know what,i'm just going to work on the aesthetics, i'm going to get nicer

graphics for my course. it probably won't make youthe savior of higher ed, but it may just retain thatone student who is just feeling like they're done and don't have the confidence to keep going. thank you for your time. throw me questions, thanks. yes sir? - so my question is, i think gamification

has a marketing problemwhen you're talking to faculty in higher ed,you say, hey, why don't you gamify your course ormake it more like a game. and it's like crickets. but if someone's like,everyone wants more student engagement and if you give them an example that's gamified but youdon't use that word game, they buy in. do you see this as a problem with faculty?

- i do, it's like you said. it's definitely half the roomwants to run screaming and the other half are interested. i've started to talk about,i mean, we talk about gameful design it's still the g word. so i think people get that intrinsically motivating students. that one slide with thelollipop versus the whee, we can all kind of see that.

that's a really simple metaphor. a pat on the head and an encouragement 48 hours after you madea discussion board post, i don't really feel it. but if just by doingit you can make mowing the lawn interesting. so i think to push thedevelopment of this, i would certainly withfaculty talk about intrinsic motivators and engagement.

i wouldn't and don't touchthe gamification word too much except that pennfaculty made me do it. and actually this shamelessself promotion, if i ever get it done, i did a postsession on my dissertation and got asked if i wouldproduce a book that they want to title gamification. i'm like, ugh, can we change it? so i don't know. i've had online 3.0 as a title and i think

that sucks as well. but i think student engagement,intrinsic motivators. and this is genuine. i mean, i hope you get a chanceto see paul leblanc speak. michelle's great, paulleblanc is a very genuine guy, he's a very smart guy,he's a very focused guy. and he's great, great fun. his greatest strength ishe is genuinely interested in making people's lives less crap.

and he's had a greatdeal of publicity at snhu and college for americamaybe hasn't broken even on revenue, butit's gotten millions of dollars of publicity. so he's done very, very well. but even when i startedat snhu and they were pretty fledgling in theonline, his goal was to get students who wereliterally the walmart shop floor and trying to get them up to

middle management. and he's had that laser focus. and i think if you tiethis, whatever we call it, to the demographic changesthat we're all seeing and saying, hey, you mightfeel comfortable right now at your northeasternor your suny with the student demographicyou've got, but think 10 years from now whenyou're going to have so many first generationstudents, minority students,

and significantly lower ses students. i reference paul because i think there's a genuineness to this. you have to look at thechange in demographic of students, you haveto consider engagement and intrinsic motivation. so if you can tie that together and get an educated room of faculty to say, look, we have to agree on this, then you maybe

don't have to go the other way. i think that is what paul's done. he's really said, look,i'm genuine about this. we need to try different things. and he's the one with thereduced fear of failure. he went for that, he wentto the board and asked for substantial amountsof money for things that may not have workedand may still not work. but he tried and i thinkthat's all we can do.

we can say, look, there'sa clear challenge. there are clearly waysthat look interesting that could help. now work with me on this. so you're right, thegamification thing's a double edged sword. and i'd be wary aboutusing it, to be honest. but intrinsic motivation, engagement, change in demographics.

i think those bits you can't deny. sorry, that was a long answer. - [voiceover] any other questions, nate? - [voiceover] i haven'tused these mics before. did that work? - it's wonderful. - [voiceover] awesome, so inyour comment about how you wanted to poke your eyes outwith a fork after you watched the canned simulationfor the 7,000th time,

have you experimentedwith open educational resources as a solutionto being able to more highly tweak, to use yourword, the learning materials? - yeah, the one that i'mtalking about there, because it was vendor produced intheir platform, we couldn't. i don't even know what it was built on. absolutely in terms of the,oh we also at northeastern before the grant work were doing quite a lot with storyline, whichit allows quite a bit of

animation and in terms of tech level it's a step up from your powerpoint. but a well intentioned lms educator. i don't know, your basiclevel of tech support could probably helpwith that quite quickly. so we've built in not ascomplex as the somalian pirates, but we've builtin small simulations, animations, dragon drop,immediate feedback. and that is something that you can edit.

so i mentioned this before. steal, borrow, whatever. with open ed resources,certainly you can switch them in and out. if you are doing yourown build, then honestly i would start with what you got. we're a blackboard school. start with your lms an start throwing up google docs or whatever you use and that

you can deal with. and when you start to gettraction, maybe explore a storyline, or i forgetthere's another one that's sort of similar. and then if you wantto push it from there, then there are a lot ofreally interesting companies out there. we're working with cogbooks, an adaptive learning provider.

smart sparrow are fun, theydo a lot of simulations and animations as well. realize it. there's a bunch. so you get the $20 buy in, which is you. and then you get maybe the middle one, the greg, the university of waterloo. get your it guys to help you. and then if and when you can prove some

proof of concept, then i would suggest go on up to maybe self editable. and then if you want to go for it and build a complex one, do it. but i guess my main point is there's buy in at low levels. so i don't feel you're wise to jump in and go full on simulation. fine, if it's oer andyou can find them, great.

i would link to those. yes, sir? - [voiceover] so in theexamples you gave, a lot of them weren't so much the leaderboard style of the gamification aspect. and we know that not allstudents are intrinsically motivated by competition. so did you see in thecases where the course did have that leaderboardaspect that there were

students who didn't engage, that there was either a certain populationthat wasn't really engaged with that, orwas it a self selection process that they knew they were getting into that in the firstplace and so we don't know if students whothat wouldn't work for just don't opt in? - it's a good question. it's why we bundled inthe matrix, the c's,

this competition,collaboration, cooperation, or something like that. so i think you're wiseto think about the human interactions that go on there. i've not seen and ipersonally agree with you. i don't recommend the participate in this and you might win style of leaderboard. i think there's an interestto the middle ground of i'm doing okay, buti think you can give

that feedback in ways that are probably better than a leaderboard. so in all of my casesi think there were two who sort of used leaderboards. kevin sort of fell away, neiltotally didn't want them, and gerol had them and he was the one that said the boys rushedahead and said, ah, i'm top of the leaderboard for two weeks and then disengaged.

so i think, again, ifyou can present it as intrinsically pat of the experience, fine. and that might be why kevin was going with the dependent hero contingency. sorry, one final anecdote, i promise. my dad was a teacherin a really rough area outside newcastle, whichis northern england. and he came across andsaw my graduation at penn and it was great.

he's a ginger so he gotcompletely sunburnt, didn't wear a hat. and he kept telling me howbecause i use big words and was finishing a doctorate, he didn't understand any of my stuff. and then i was talkingto him at one point and explaining a bit moreand he shared that in 1970 something, so newcastle's famous for three things, anyone?

coal. coal and? beer and? thank you, football as well. correct answer. so coal, beer, and football. coal and beer weren't really going to work with his under 11's. so what he did was heidentified the floor,

none of them could spell anything. so he did league tables for spelling. and in the british soccer,unlike your american football, if you finishbottom of the league, you can get booted downto the league below. it's called relegation. and then if you do well you get promoted. so he had two divisionsand students were at risk of relegation or getting promotion.

and he had studentswho would be so excited about doing spellings andkids who were terrible who would work really, reallyhard and his deputy head, which is like vice principal,at some point said, you have to stop because of the two at the bottom of the league. it's disappointing for them,it's upsetting for them. so i get it. on the other hand, inthe '70s my dad was doing

stuff that i'm likelike, this guy's a genius he just never told me. he was doing stuff thatmotivated a lot of students. so i guess my point is ifyou're going to accentuate anything that's motivatingand somehow avoid that piece, so i don't know. that's why i worry about a leaderboard. it's hard, even if youanonymize, you still have that sense that someoneis bottom of the league.

so yeah, i think there areprobably better ways to give feedback and acknowledgmentand reward than saying you're top of the league. but again, none of the students complained in these examples, theyappreciated the effort. but yeah, it might be thatone where your administrators will be sensitive to that as well. yes sir, in the back. - [voiceover] making our coursecontent accessible to all

learners is very importantand i'm wondering what your thoughts are in termsof gameful design and how we can make gamefuldesign accessible for all users and inclusive. - were you lurking in my class? i got the very same questionfrom my online section that's going on last nightand i haven't answered it there either, so thank youfor making me think about it. i think because you'reshifting from simulations and

world of warcraft tobasically good instruction with immediate feedbackthat is probably text based, i don't see that alot of the gameful design elements, and i'm trying to think. i don't see that a lot ofthe gameful design elements have an issue with that. i mean, aesthetics arguably. i mean, alt tagging images,transcribing videos, those are things thatobviously if you've got a

student who's visuallyimpaired, the efforts you make on aesthetics are goingto be less effective there. and that's a shame buti don't see anything even in the cases thati worked with where i thought, ooh, that's a red flag. so i think so long asyou're diligent and do the transcriptions and do the tags and make it screen reader accessible. none of them did anything with technology

that took them into the realms of this is a problem, as far as i saw it. now if we're going to simulations and interactivity at a very high degree, that would certainly be a concern. and again, that couldbe a strength when you pitch to faculty or administrators. because we are consciousof that, we are not going to world ofwarcraft, so you don't need

to give me $50 million,which will probably be a win win i would think. they'll probably be happy with that. sneak one more? - [voiceover] okay, one more. - [voiceover] hi, i wasjust wondering if you can talk a little bit aboutdifferences in how maybe women and girls take on the ideas of gamification and games compared to?

- i think it's maybe connected,so the cliche is that the boys compete and thegirls want to collaborate. in my online class it's interesting. i've asked people todig into something that engenders flow, so some of them did games, some of them did other things. a lot of the responses igot from some of the women were that they don't likecompetition, but they really pushed themselves against the game.

so i think if you, i honestly don't have a pat answer to that. what i've seen from thedata is there are as many girls gaming as boys. so my earlier slide wherei said maybe it's not about millennials gaming,but if it is, then that gender balance seems to be there. what i've seen, speakingas a male, what i've seen in the gender split wheni've done work on this

is that the males arecomfortable with the chest beating, look at me, i'm top of the board. whereas the women kind of subtly compete. and actually although theywill often say, i don't like to compete, they reallylike to push themselves and challenge themselves. so i think competition ismaybe more ostentatious on the male side and it'ssubtle and it's there on the female side.

and again, these arethings i think that you've got to just try and beopen to the feedback. so again, as with theleaderboards, i think competition is definitely one to be cautious of. but then how does thatspeak to appropriate level of challenge? because you want to push people. white water rafting's the example. it's tough, it's difficult,but you finish it and

you have such a sense of achievement. that one of the golferwhere she got a hole in one or whatever. you want the challengeto be such that you feel like you're competing with something. it might be with the system. i think the leaderboardostentatious is a bit of a man, a guy thing. i think you're right to be wary of it.

but i think it would bea disservice to say we're not going to make it challenging for alex. because i know alex andi know she's going to grit her teeth andchallenge herself if not compete with others. - [voiceover] i just haveone last question, sir. thank you for a veryinteresting presentation. do you have an example of a course which uses well designed gameswhich you could make

available to us so thatwe could see a model? - no. - [voiceover] you know, janet,i don't know if you were here last year, i don't knowif you were here last year. but landon phillipspresented last year and actually showed hisphotoshop course that is an extraordinary exampleof gameful design. - [voiceover] that's on the coat site? - [voiceover] it's on thecoat site, it's a presentation

that you can go look at. - [voiceover] thank you. - and also for this classi'm teaching right now, i don't think they would have a problem. i'm pulling together resources. there are a lot of opened games and resources that are good that show some of this. it is difficult to get youaccess into a blackboard protected class that's gotsubtle gameful elements in.

i have a fullerpresentation that has more. my dissertation has morescreenshots and stuff from the examples that i've given there. and i mentioned i'm working on a book that i'm never going to finish,so don't worry about that. i'll share my resource list from the class and i don't advise youread it all, but skim through my dissertation, which i'm happy to throw across as well.

and then if you see meon the book tour in 2025. thanks very much for your time. i'll be around and enjoythe rest of the session. - thanks very much, kevin. we're going to take a 15 minute break and then christy fordis going to follow up and so about 15 minutes.