Bobbie Hoobler

EdTech 504
25 September 2016

Gamification: A Constructivist Approach

“Perception is reality.” It’s an old saying that touches on the importance of appearance.

Sometimes the way something is perceived is more important that the way it really is. When it

comes to learning, Constructivism maintains that the way that we understand the world depends

on the way that we perceive it. Constructivists do not deny reality; but, meaning is not acquired,

rather it is created. (Ertmer & Newby, 2013) As a learning theory, Constructivism maintains that

learning activities alone will fail if students are not allowed to engage and interpret new ideas.

(Cobern, 1993) Unlike Cognitivist theories which believe that knowledge is transferred from

one person to another; Constructivism says that individual experiences determine a learner’s

world view. (Ertmer & Newby, 2013)

There are two main Constructivist views. The first, Individual Constructivism based

mainly on the work of Jean Piaget who believed that constructive learning activities were an

individual process separate from any cultural artifacts. Dev Vygostiskian, on the other hand,

emphasized learning within cultural and social settings. (Smith, 1998)

Gamification is a relatively new Constructivist approach to education. Gamification is

the application of game design theory and strategies to non-game related fields. The primary

goal of Gamification in education is to increase student engagement. Since well-designed games

have no problem engaging not only young people but people in general, it makes sense to look

for ways to integrate game design and instructional design.

 One of the primary roles the constructivist designer is to align and create authentic and

relevant experiences for the learner. (Ertmer & Newby, 2013) This particularly relevant today

when students increasingly see school and schoolwork as irrelevant. Gamification creates an

alternate reality for students, making school look and feel more like a video game than a typical

classroom. This shift attempts to accomplish two primary things. The first is engage the

students in a fashion that they are familiar with. Secondly, by creating a game like an

environment, it provides a relevance for why the learner should engage with the class.

Some of the changes are simple vocabulary changes like calling assignments “quests,”

groups “guilds,” or exams “Boss Fights.” Other changes are procedural. Grading in a gamified

classroom represents a larger procedural change. Instead of students grade being determined by

the percentage of correct answer the student provides over the course of the term. A student

starts with zero points earning “experience points.” as he or she completes assignments. As the

student accumulates experience points, the students “levels up.” A student gets an “A” in the

course once they have earned a pre-determined number of experience points and level. The

primary purpose of these changes is to “anchor learning in meaningful contexts.” (Ertmer &

Newby, 2013) These contexts are meaningful, for the student.

Vygotsky’s identifies three zones of activity. The first represents the current

understanding of the learner. In this zone, he or she may complete the task without assistance.

The second zone, the Zone of Proximal Development the learner may achieve the task with some

guidance or instruction. Finally, the third zone represents tasks that are out of reach of learner

even with guidance. (Gillen, 2000) Game design has similar zones of engagement. The first

being trivial tasks, the third impossible. Game designers try to keep players in the second zone

where tasks are challenging but achievable, keeping the player engaged but not frustrated.
 Cooperative learning in a major factor of Constructivist learning theory. Knowledge is

fostered through interaction with others. (Loyens, Rikers, & Schmidt, 2009) Gamification

encourages cooperative learning through the use of “guilds.” Guilds, like many aspects of a

gamified classroom, are largely a vocabulary change to create an alternate reality in the class.

Guilds are groups of students who are working together on class projects. Unlike typical student

groups, however, guilds are often permanent and will continue to work together throughout the

term. Like students, it is also possible for guilds to earn points.

Perhaps the most powerful aspect of a gamification in education is the use of Quest-

Based Learning (QBL). QBL addresses several principles of Constructivism. QBL offers

students a list of “quests” or assignments that they may choose from in order to complete and

submit for experience points. Students are not required, nor are the expected to complete all

available quests. The multiple quests are there to provide students with choice, giving the

students agency in choosing their path through the course. Along with agency QBL allows the

instructional designer to “revisit content and different times, in rearranged contexts, for different

purposes, and from different conceptual perspectives.” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013)

The Constructivist learning theory states that learning can only occur when the learner

conceptualizes new experiences. Learning can not be transferred from one learner or teacher to

another. Whether you are an Individual Constructivist, like Jean Piaget or a Social

Constructivist, like Dev Vygotsky; Gamification is an excellent tool to facilitate learning.

Bibliography

Cobern, W. W. (1993). Constructivism. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation,

4(1), 105. Retrieved from

 http://libproxy.boisestate.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr

ue&db=tfh&AN=7443220&site=ehost-live

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing

Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective. PIQ Performance

Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71.

Gillen, J. (2000). Versions of Vygotsky. British Journal of Educational Studies, 48(2), 183–198.

http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8527.t01-1-00141

Loyens, S. M. M., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2009). Students’ conceptions of

constructivist learning in different program years and different learning environments.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3), 501–514.

http://doi.org/10.1348/000709908X378117

Smith, E. (1998). Social constructivism, individual constructivism and the role of computers in

mathematics education. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(4), 411–425.

http://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(99)00007-3