"Gamification – what a bunch of bull#$#” – my favourite message I’ve ever received. More on that shortly…

Teaching hasn’t changed for a long time … a long, long time. I’ve been a pretty vocal proponent about my displeasure with education for quite some time. To be clear though, I’m not critical of teachers because we work our tails off for our kids within what we are allowed to do, often over the dreaded standardized tests scores we produce. What I am critical of the system which tends to stifle out creativity in teachers who then become worried about changing things up. I’ve never really been worried about rocking the boat so when I decided to begin my journey into the unknown realm of gamification I knew there would be some backlash. ​

​First off, gamification, or any new teaching strategy or methodology for that matter, often gets misjudged before it is truly understood.  People are quick to point out “holes” or “flaws” in the process because of course, everyone who is not in education knows so much about it or they throw out the “show me the research” card.  It used to be frustrating to me because when my program was criticized I took it to heart. How dare people question my love of teaching, my dedication to my students and my push for innovation. So what was everyone’s major flaw with gamification, “you are just sugar coating everything and using extrinsic motivation, no real learning it happening here.” Actually, if that was what my classroom actually was I would totally be with them, but it isn’t. In the gamification world we call that “chocolate covered broccoli”, meaning you can’t just cover something in chocolate and make it instantly better, like broccoli, because in the end it is still broccoli. In a truly gamified classroom the design, setup, planning and execution goes way beyond that and I’d love to share why it works with you.

Education has 6 fundamental flaws that are evident in some way, shape or form in schools. I’d like to breakdown these 6 flaws and how a truly gamified program addresses each one. I’ll use my program as an example to demonstrate how each one was combated.
​
Here is a little video I came across that illustrates the flaws pretty well, this is also where I selected the wording for the 6 flaws... 

Industrial Aged Values

If you look back into the history of education, school was designed to essentially promote a specific type of student, or in reality a specific product. The system needed to bring about people who were good at following direction, not questioning authority and not bucking the system. The vast majority ended up in factories on assembly lines routinely performing the same tasks. While this may, and I stress may, have worked at the time, the modern world does not reflect these value at all. Of course we appreciate being able to follow instructions and contribute but we need more than that now.

In my program, especially because it is based in science, following direction and order is a fairly useless endeavor. I need to produce thinkers, not robots. Many of the problems we are now faced with require outside the box thinking, collaboration and innovation. I needed to foster this so students in my program do not earn maximum XP (top grades) for doing what has already been done. If their 1st instinct to is Google the solution, I’m not doing my job! I fabricate all of my major quests (major projects) so that they are loaded with details and problems that need to be interpreted and broken down. I awarded bonuses for creativity and award risk taking. Whether the project works or does not work, the process and explanations along the way mean more to me than receiving 30 identical Styrofoam ball cell models for example. I do not want factory workers, my classroom is design to push out creative thinkers and strong collaborators.
 
Lack of Autonomy

When designing my program, I wanted students to understand that they had control and that I trusted them. While I could not re-work my entire school day schedule I could re-jig how my classroom ran. When students quest (work) they are given a series of different quests to complete, each ranging from easy to hard difficulty. This often included bonus and optional assignments as well. Each assignment is worth a different amount of XP and the monthly goal is to hit 1500XP points. Do honour autonomy and choice, I provide them with 2000XP worth of quest, meaning that students can choose which ones they do. This allows them to carefully select the ones they feel comfortable in and progress up to more challenging ones, in essence, they provide their own form of scaffolding. Much to my surprise since I have started this process, over 75% of my students to date consistently attempted more quests than required. Even though they hit their monthly targets they often refuse to sit back do nothing, when by the rules of the game, that is perfectly legal because they earned that time off. Even more incredibly, students regularly show in class and the first thing they ask is, “are we questing today?!” which in a non-gamified classroom would be the equivalent of, “are we working today, I want more work!” By simply providing choice, I’ve been able to encourage students to take risks, put forth more effort and challenge their own creative limits.
 
Inauthentic Learning

I really have an issue with the regurgitation of information. Yes, knowing is good. Knowing things because you simply have to results in you forgetting that information when its requirements are met (i.e.: writing the test). On a serious note, how many tests and quizzes do you actually remember from your schooling? Students need to experience their learning and not just be a simple part of it. In a truly gamified program, the students are immersed in the scenario and theme, connect to the narrative and set their own personal expectations. As they quest in land of Scientia Terra, the knowledge is being applied practically and retained with a much greater consistency. I once had a student write a test and hand it back to me saying, “you know, I didn’t study for this because I just knew it, it’s like when I was questing I was studying!” and I replied, “it’s almost like I designed it that way!” I want students to connect to what they are doing and through experiments, construction, battles, games, puzzles, riddles or completion of challenges they become immersed in their learning and just simply a bystander in it.
 
No Room for Passion

Many classrooms are so tightly controlled that when a student wants to try something out of the ordinary it is often shut down before it begins. I have experienced this first hand as a student and did not want my classroom to reflect this so I created work and marking systems that were specific enough to ensure the material is covered and understood but vague enough to ensure it does not lock any student down to a specific way of thinking. Students begin to infuse their passions into their projects. I’ve received heavy metal songs about cells to coffee mugs that explain diffusion. Art pieces that teach me about eyes and vision and children’s books that my daughter actually requests I read to hear at night before bed. My letting students dive into their passions, their work becomes a true reflection of themselves and not of me.
 
How We Learn

I totally get that we learn in different ways and require different resources to make learning happen. Some prefer that we instruct orally while others need to see it and experience it. In my classroom, I aim to reach all of these different ways of learning. I spend, on average, less than 200 minutes lecturing in favour of an average of 400 minutes questing. I present students with the base goals and materials and during questing, they dive deeper into it. It gives me time to mill about the room talking with individual, or small groups of, students in order to check in on their understanding. They also ask more questions during these times because they are not the center of attention with everyone looking at them. They feel less pressure and more confidence.
 
Lecturing

While I admit I do lecture in order to teach, I use a different platform to accomplish it. I learned about live content delivery system and have fallen for one known as PearDeck. PearDeck allows me to simultaneously cast my lecture from my screen onto their own personal devices, all they need is an internet connection. While doing this, students can reply to me, or the group, anonymously, giving voices to the shy in your room. It promotes a greater discussion and a deeper learning than what I used to do, which was admitted just talk at students, throwing information at them in mass hoping they would pick it all up. There are other live content delivery systems you can check out as well such as TopHat, SplashTop and NearPod.
 
So in essence, you can see that a gamified classroom runs far deeper than just sugar coating learning and, to come back to the first line of this post, it is not a bunch of bullshit. When done properly, it promotes a deep learning, fosters creativity, invites passions into the classroom and encourages collaboration...among other things. Mine runs ever deeper in certain area. Students arrive excited for class and wanting to learn more and do more. I guess you could say, true gamification is more than chocolate covered broccoli.
​
And hey, if the haters keep coming at you, don’t worry, just read this incredible quote by world renown author and psychologist Brene Brown … 

Until next time ... 

- Master Heebs

Yes, you read that title right...

Throughout our careers as teachers we come across a lot of different challenges. Sometimes those challenges are small and easily manageable while others are huge and difficult to even comprehend. Sometimes the challenges we face break our hearts while others ignite a passion in us even we did not know we had. Regardless of the scale or magnitude, at the end of the day, we need to address those challenges and this is yet another one of those stories! 

When I started my adventure into the realm of gamification, I knew that I would be embarking on a journey that would be filled with challenges. So much in the world of "gamification in education" is still emerging, even more so when I first undertook this journey 3 and half years ago, that I mentally prepared myself for the negativity I would inevitably face. Surprisingly enough, I received very little backlash as my students jumped on board immediately and this was soon followed by their parents and my admin. I began to push my students outside of their comfort zones in my classroom, pushing them passed their own perceived, educational boundaries and into a world of education they had not experienced. While it all seemed to be working out well, when it came to evaluating work, I was getting the same ol' stuff. In short, I was still losing the battle to Google. What do I mean? Even though the work was presented differently, the first approach was almost always, "Google it!" instead of "Think about it!" 

Let's double back here quickly if you are new to my blog or even new to me. I teach grade 8 sciences and I want to help kids connect to the incredible science that exists around them. I want them to realize the world in which they live is full of innovation and inspiration. So back to it ...

No matter how engaged they were in the concept, or the subject as a whole, was I ultimately doing anything different if they did not want to think in the end but revert back to what other people have done? Therein lay my next challenge! Could I design work that was more challenging and fostered a deeper level of thinking? I had no choice in my mind, it was a must if I wanted my gamified program to achieve its goals! 

So where does the dragon blood come in? Well, while doing a little research, I came across an article that I knew would change the game, pun intended, forever...

While doing a little research for an upcoming class, I came across an article titled, "The Blood Of Dragons Could Destroy Antibiotic Resistance". Of course, based on my medieval themed, gamified classroom, I could not help but read this article! Also it said dragon blood - amaing! As I dove deep into it, light bulbs began to go off in my head and immediately I was on to something. 

*Side Note* If you want to check out the article here a link to it --> Dragon Blood

So the article in a nutshell explains how we are in a potential future crisis if we cannot come up with ways to combat the frightening rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria. It further explains, and this is the key part, how scientists noticed how Komodo Dragons, those giant, living breathing dragons, could eat seemingly anything and be fine. It got scientists thinking, and in turn, it got me thinking. 

Coming back to science, one of the most fundamental principals of science, is observation. Scientists, researchers and the generally creative, are constantly looking at the world around them for inspiration. They are not looking towards Google or the Internet but are looking at the world around them for ideas. Could I design work based around this fundamental principle? Could I design work that triggered observation and not Googling? 

This is where the idea for work, or what I call "questing", presented in the form of a year long running narrative, was born. Early on, during my initial attempts at gamification in 2015, I was just giving out assignments as individual stories that were not connected. The wording was too simple and not driving a deeper level of thinking and I was quickly noticing this. All of the work I received was too simple, and concerning similar. Simple searches yielded their research methods and experimental steps, one by one. This is where the blood of a dragon made me a better teacher! 

Scientists in this story posed a question to themselves that was not easily "Google-able". They simply asked themselves how can certain animals eat things which are clearly full of bacteria and not get sick? They then took this question and began exploring different animals, ultimately leading them to great scavenger and hunter, the Komodo Dragon. Going deeper, they hypothesized their needed to be something in their blood, or somewhere inside of them, that killed these dangerous, bacteria filled, meats the Komodo Dragon was choosing to eat. Putting it all together they have taken a monumental step forward in their research by observing the world around them. 

Back in class, I redesigned my work to reflect their (the scientists) thought process. I re-worded my quests to be presented in two parts. Part 1, the introductory document which set the tone for the scenario. This helped the students get into the proper mindset of the game. It often contained clues buried within that would help them when they received part 2, clues such as location, surroundings and the like. Part 2, contained the actual task they had to complete. The actual task they needed to complete was not entirely obvious all the time, it needed to be pulled out via observation. It left for some interpretation, and that is what I wanted. I wanted students to read the task, piece together the details they discovered via a deeper level of observation and put it all together. Incredibly enough, students started to catch things I did not even notice I had hidden amongst the wording. Work quality and submission rates began to increase and overall, I began to receive work that was finally explored first rather than Googled first. In a truly unexpected twist, student would walk into class asking me if we were "questing today!?" I responded by asking them if they knew they were asking me for more work? Turns out they knew exactly what they were asking for, and were quite excited about it. Edu-win! 

So, that is how the blood of a dragon, unexpectedly challenged me to become a better teacher. One who himself became more observant in the end. 

What will your "dragon blood" be?

Until next time...

- Master Heebs