Why Gamification is Malarkey

Abstract

Within education, gamification is described as an emerging trend, a tool, and possibly the holistic approach of a new pedagogy (Biro, 2013; Dicheva, Dichev, Agre, & Angelova, 2015).  Supporters of gamification state that, if done properly, you can increase student satisfaction, engagement, effectiveness and efficiency (Urh, Vukovic, Jereb, & Pintar, 2015).  Within my own context of teaching in higher education, this is a very appealing proposition; the ability to harness the power of games without the difficulty of trying to implement games within my courses.  And like many, I’ve been drawn in by promotional-style conference presentations that tout the many advantages of gamification and how easy it is to implement.  At first glance it all seems very innovative and exciting.  But not all gamification is created equal, and there are those who are outright against the idea.  Ian Bogost (2015) is one such individual.  In his infamous article, Why Gamification is Bullshit, he even goes so far as to re-label it as “exploitationware” created by marketing consultants with the sole purpose of deception and profit.  While I agree with his underlying issues around the vagueness of the term, I felt that his reasoning did not do his argument justice and did not apply to the use of gamification in educational contexts.  With this paper, I hope to revisit his idea.  I do this not from the view that gamification is bullshit, but with the view that it shows evidence of malarkey; a term designed to obscure, mislead or impress (Malarkey. dictionary.com unabridged.).  Beginning with some counterarguments in support of gamification, I use this paper to focus on the false novelty of gamification, its lacking research, and the problems associated with its subjective application.