We should not draw any generalizations from such a narrow study (a large third year undergraduate class (n = 142) and a small group (n = 19) of graduate students). But there's much that could be said of it, beginning with the definition of 'game' as (1) rewards for achieving goals (2) rapid feedback cycles (3) governance by rules, and (4) competition. This is obviously too narrow a definition (and it's debatable whether 'game' can be defined at all) and yet the usage here is too broad, and the 'game' involved awarding 10% of the course grade based on economic predictions (for example: announcements of the corproate tax rate). Not surprisingly students found the grading far too random and the effort disproportionate to the reward.
Today: 2 Total: 1111 [Direct link] [Share]
