Developing a love for playing games: a clarification of why Digital Video Games Approach is not Gamification

Abstract

Background: In recent years there has been a growing interest in potential pedagogical tools to be used in Physical Education (PE), and specifically in games. This has involved the exploration of both Gamification and Digital Video Games Approach (DVGA). Both are viable pedagogical tools for any teacher, and each have clearly different intentions for impacting student learning. Unfortunately, and despite several distinctions, they have been misinterpreted. Purposes:The first purpose of the study is to offer a clarification of how these tools have emerged in PE and their underpinning mechanisms. This clarification explains their conceptual differences and similarities, with pedagogical implications. The second purpose is to highlight how understanding of this clarification can develop teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and support more optimal usage and better impact positive student outcomes in PE.Key Arguments: PE teachers are responsible for delivering high quality teaching and learning experiences which are informed by well-reasoned decisions of which blend of pedagogical tools to use, when and why. Unless a clarification is provided concerning Gamification and DVGA, these tools will continue to be used sub optimally. In short, we clarify that Gamification is underpinned by increasing motivation in the short term, through improving the attention and engagement of students. In contrast, the underpinning of DVGA is metacognition, and this tool seeks to deepen student understanding; a distinct (we suggest) longer term agenda.Discussion: There is ongoing debate concerning the importance of a meaningful PE curriculum and how to engage students through games using a range of pedagogical tools. Gamification and DVGA are tools which share some commonalities (such as choice, challenge and 3 feedback), but they also have distinct differences (such as planning, assessment and progressions, differentiation and the teacher's role).Conclusions: By improving teachers' PCK about the purpose and underpinning mechanisms of Gamification and DVGA, they will be better equipped to decipher which pedagogical tool to use, when and why. As a result, teaching is more likely to deliver optimal impact for students to increase potential for developing a love for playing games.

Contemporary pedagogy? The use of theory in practice: An evidence-informed perspective

“…( 67 ),], it has been recommended that “conditions being imposed on games emphasize a particular technique” [p. 188 ( 55 )], bearing a strong procedural resemblance to the manipulation of constraints in practice. This emphasis on the manipulation of “types” of fidelity has continued with a recent conceptual problem-solving emphasis ( 68 ). A consistent research finding being that learning is supported by the provision of the minimum necessary level of fidelity, based on participant needs, to reduce extraneous cognitive load ( 69 ).…”

Framework for Ethically Designed Microtransactions in the Metaverse

“…Persuasive technology refers to systems designed to change attitudes or behaviors through persuasion and social influence, but not through coercion [31]. Gamification, conversely, involves applying gamedesign elements in non-game contexts, aiming to enhance user engagement and motivation [32]. These techniques can encourage specific player actions in video games and enhance the overall gaming experience.…”