Addressing Student Motivation with Gameful Design

By Kevin Streeter, Michigan State University, Master of Arts in Educational Technology

Motivation is at the heart of all change and all achievement. Practices that will increase student motivation while not diminishing the standards or watering down the content are highly sought after by educators, parents, and legislators alike. Yet identifying exactly which practices or elements of practices that will further this goal is a daunting task. Since games are intrinsically motivating, the topic of "gamification" in education (or better stated "gameful design") has been a promising area of research since the term was coined by Northwestern University professor Steven Deterding in 2011 (Dicheva, Dichev, Agre, & Angelova, 2015).

So what makes games fun and why are students (and adults) willing to invest hours into playing them? Simply layering supposed “fun” activities (game elements) on top of perceived unpleasant activities (learning) is akin to what Bruckman (1999) refers to as “chocolate-covered broccoli.” This was the paradigm of early attempts at gameful design in education. Current models are more holistic and seek to address actual psychological needs.

Before we dive in too deeply, it will be helpful to gain a wider view and consider why people do things in general. PENS (player experience of need satisfaction) is a game design theory based upon the psychological construct of Self Determination Theory. SDT argues that humans choose actions for one (or more) of three reasons: autonomy, acting freely in accord with one’s own wishes and goals, competence, the experience of one’s ability to make real change, and relatedness, or connection with others (Deterding, 2015). When a potential action meets a need, there will be increased motivation to undertake that action.

In educating our students, if the teacher uses activities that appeal to at least one of the three SDT needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) and shows students clearly how the activity applies to one of these needs, then students are more likely to be motivated by the activity and more likely to persist in giving attention and sustained effort because the result of the activity is now meaningful to them in some way. As illustrated in the game above, it is difficult to "catch" all three elements in the same activity, but when a teacher finds an activity that manages to do that, then metaphorically speaking, the "points" really rack up in terms of a quality educational experience.

Since I mainly teach freshmen, the responses from students in that grade level constituted half of the total responses. There were forty-three students identifying as male, forty-two identifying as female, and one student declined to answer the gender demographic question. The socioeconomic status of some of the students would be considered on the mid to high range of the spectrum for our local area, but many also come from working-class families. Regardless of socioeconomic background, a large percentage of the students would be considered high-achievers. 

Relatedness is the second need that proponents of SDT point to as key to increasing motivation. These two graphs on the social aspects of why students play games were eye-opening. On the graph on the left, the importance of connectedness to the students was readily apparent since 73% of the respondents replied with an important (4) or very important (5) rating. Only 10% of the students replied that social aspects played little or no role in motivating their choices. Looking at the graph on the right concerning which social aspects are important, competition and socializing stood out. As an educator, this speaks to knowing our students. For some students, competition will motivate them strongly, but this will not work uniformly for all students. Some students are motivated by connecting with others rather than demonstrating superiority. It is up to the wise teacher to select and tailor activities to best motivate all as many students as possible in the way(s) that will produce the greatest results.

Concerning the third SDT aspect, autonomy, I turned to the qualitative feedback and noticed that a few students mentioned this as the reason why they liked to play games. Befitting the psychology of the age, exploration, agency, and experimentation emerged as prominent themes. One student said, "Video games let you do things you would never get to do in your regular life." Talking specifically about sports, another said, "I enjoy what the game has to offer. It allows for me to do what I want, and how I want to do it, without other people judging the way I do it."  Another said, "I like role-playing games because I can play whatever role I want."

Most psychologists will agree that learning is engaging and motivating. Children are hardwired to explore their world and inquire about why things are the way they are and how things work. Meaningful learning is intrinsically motivating because what is learned is applicable to the students' own lives and to their growth. So why are many school-aged students tuned out and disinterested by school? Motivation becomes extrinsic in nature and students come to school and “learn” because they are required to by the state or to placate their parents or to earn a grade and to “graduate” to the next level.

In specifically thinking about video games, why would many prefer to spend countless hours battling imaginary enemies and winning virtual sports championships instead of spending time learning things which they will most likely use in their current and future lives and careers? Games are intrinsically motivating and people often choose to take part simply because they are fun. The question in play in gameful design is how to incorporate the motivating effects of game elements into areas in which motivation is often lacking. A secondary question is which elements to include (Dichev, Dicheva, Algelova, & Agre, 2015).

How can we inject the excitement and engagement of games into educational experiences? From what I have learned in my research and from the survey results from my students, I believe that focusing on the elements of relatedness, autonomy, and competence in the selection and implementation of class activities will bring out the best efforts from our students. Specifically, focusing on a worthy challenge will bring the greatest dividends. Challenge is at the heart of the gameplay experience. By definition, a game consists of a series of challenges that a player is trying to overcome by their actions in the pursuit of a goal and by abiding by the rules that make those actions challenging. 

Challenges meet all three psychological needs. When a player overcomes a challenge, they experience a sense of competence. When a player is able to choose which challenges they will undertake or select the strategy and method by which they will attempt to overcome them, they are exercising autonomy. Finally, overcoming challenges together or receiving affirmation from others on the completion of a particular challenge satisfies the human need for relatedness.

Challenges are motivating for two other reasons. The uncertainty of whether a challenge will be met leads to curiosity and emotional investment. This sense of focus and immersion can lead to less time spent thinking about unpleasant aspects of a person’s life. Csikszentmihalyi explained why games can be good for one’s mental health when he said that the “deep but effortless involvement that removes from awareness the worries and frustrations of everyday life” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 49). 

Challenges should be designed so that they match but push a player’s abilities. If a challenge is too difficult, it may produce anxiety, create frustration, and cause the player to cease playing. On the other hand, if the challenge is too easy, it will not produce the motivating uncertainty and sense of competence upon completion and likewise, cause the player to cease playing.

Some teachers and researchers believe that games, usually specifically referring to video games, have nothing to do with education and have no place in the classroom. On the other end of the spectrum, some are willing to wholeheartedly embrace the latest promising fad with the hopes of snagging the attention of their students. I believe that a middle path exists where we can learn from game design what elements make games so engaging and then apply these lessons to our curriculum and to our teaching. 

In choosing activities, we are best served by selecting ones that meet one or more of the three self-determination theory needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Specifically, focusing on the element of challenge and showing students how these challenges meet one of these needs can help teachers engage and teach their students worthwhile lessons that make sustain their effort for long periods of time. For only with sustained effort can real change happen and real skills develop.