To Örebro University

Gamification gained popularity in the 2010s, with educational professionals quickly adopting it as a way to transfer the motivational effects of games to a learning situation. However, the rapid implementation of gamification without proper planning led to a misunderstanding of the concept, namely that the use of points and rewards is enough. Proper gamification in education requires careful planning and a game-thinking approach to the design of the learning environment. The simple addition of points and badges is therefore a misuse of the gamification concept, which has been referred to as pointsification. This misuse leads to confusion and mixed results as studies using pointsification are often still labeled as gamification. This paper clarifies the differences and uses of gamification and pointsification by analyzing the effects of pointsification in a higher education course and discussing these effects in relation to gamification. The research employs a mixed-methods approach, examining project grades, individual grades, and students' opinions. The objective is to show how pointsification can be implemented in education to lead to better learning in a way that both prevents previously identified problems associated with pointsification and also addresses them effectively. Although the use of points and badges has received criticism, studies have also demonstrated that pointsification can improve student engagement and motivation. As such, pointsification should be considered a distinct concept that focuses solely on the use of points and rewards to motivate students, while gamification should encompass a broader game-thinking approach.

This is the story of a course in higher education that, over a period of ten years, went from being one of the most popular courses, among both students and teachers, to becoming one of the more problematic. Students and teachers felt that the course had many problems that needed to be addressed. For the course round of 2022, the decision was taken to redesign the course using gamification. Research on gamification in education is widespread and many have studied its effectiveness, with varying results. Most of the existing studies have a narrow view of gamification, which both limits its potential and is a risk for counterproductivity. Gamification in education requires careful planning and a game-thinking approach to the design of the learning environment. In this paper, I show how this can be done and what the outcomes may be. In the work, I draw upon motivation theory and gamification literature. Empirical insights are gained through analysing the course over the years and the outcome of the redesign. In this analysis, I make use of course evaluations, the results of a Kahoot quiz and student feedback. The contribution to research and practice is to show how courses can be redesigned into a gamified design that is good for both the students and the teachers.

In this research to practice full paper we describe our implementation of CoI (Community of Inquiry). CoI is a framework for designing an effective online learning environment. It originates from Charles Sanders Pierce’s ideas that knowledge can only be created in a community through inquiry. We applied the framework in a highly interactive course that was forced to be held online because of the pandemic. The theoretical core of the course is cognitive psychology, a topic considered difficult to learn in a short time. Besides describing our implementation, we evaluate the results of the students’ inquiries and compare it with results from the previous year when we did not use CoI for this part of the course. Our findings show that the most important instructional strategy is to facilitate for students to work individually according to a scientific inquiry and then, in a community, use the knowledge gained in critical discourse to build an overall understanding. When the students worked according to this, the results exceeded our expectations, both regarding the depth of understanding and ability to apply the knowledge in ongoing course projects. Because more teaching will likely take place at a distance in the future, as a side effect of the pandemic, we believe that this could be a way to meet an increasing demand for online instruction, especially when designing educational settings for complex theoretical content.

Designing Courses with Digital Technologies offers guidance for higher education instructors integrating digital technologies into their teaching, assessment and overall support of students. Written by and for instructors from a variety of disciplines, this book presents evaluations that the contributors have implemented in real-life courses, spanning blended and distance learning, flipped classrooms, collaborative technologies, video-supported learning and beyond. Chapter authors contextualize their approaches beyond simple how-tos, exploring both the research foundations and professional experiences that have informed their use of digital tools while reflecting on their successes, challenges and ideas for future development.

Electronic government has a history of repeating projects that previously proved difficult to implement. One possible reason for this is that we do not learn enough from past experiences. Lessons are not widely shared and we do not always get the "full story". Only a narrow group have the ability to understand and access research findings. The use of a storytelling approach could make electronic government research more comprehensible, and accessible. It could also be used as an analytical tool to bridge theory and practice. However, storytelling approaches are currently not used within this research field. In this paper, I present an analysis of the value of using storytelling to show how including multiple voices, examining myths, and writing stories could play an important role in dealing with electronic government challenges.

The aim of this paper was to analyze an implementation of the public data agenda to address the lack of empirical research on the subject. The focus of the paper is on the interplay between policy, process and people. The approach was qualitative, interpretive research and data was gathered through interaction, interviews and observations over a period of 20 months. Findings showed that the policies are a bit opportunistic and that it is not clear what data that should be made available to attract citizens to take part in the agenda, raw data or processed data? Furthermore, the incentives for citizens to engage in the public data agenda were not obvious. I therefore wonder, do we believe too much in information? Are we being information determinists?