Your reflection notes should be organized to present:

1. Key learning points from the three readings of your choice (a summary)
2. Your reflections
3. References

Reflections is underlined as this is considered one of the most important parts of the learning process. Based on the readings, you must consider your unique experiences and perspectives. Please make sure to identify which articles and/or book chapters you read in the reference section

Gamification of employee training and development

Michael B. Armstrong and Richard N. Landers

Gamification has become increasingly common in employee training. Simultaneously, our scientific understanding of gamified learning has grown. However, there are few resources that pro- vide specific recommendations for science-based gamification in employee training to address the research-practice gap. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to describe our current scientific under- standing of gamification as it can be used to realistically improve web-based employee training. First, because gamification is com- monly misunderstood, we explain what gamification is in the context of training. Second, because gamification is commonly misapplied, research on the effectiveness of gamified learning as related to training design is reviewed. Finally, to provide a clear roadmap for training design, we describe a formal process for gamifying web-based training in a scientifically supported way.

Introduction

Gamification is often used as a corporate buzzword to refer to anything even tangentially game related in the workplace. Scholarly research on this concept has defined it more nar- rowly, as the implementation of game design elements in non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011). This distinction is critical, because games have been in organizational training for decades (Sitzmann, 2011), whereas gamification is much more recent. Beyond training, the number of non-game contexts where gamification may be applied is numerous, but it is particularly common in business, education and computer science domains (e.g. Anderson et al., 2013; Landers & Landers, 2014; Stanculescu et al., 2016). Unlike game- based learning (i.e. 'serious games') that involves the deployment of standalone interac- tive learning experiences, gamification involves the application of game design elements to an existing training method to bring about a desirable change in that method. In the training and development context, gamification is often intended to improve a training outcome of interest (e.g. learning or transfer) when existing training is below effectiveness expectations. The game elements that can be used in this process are numerous, but extant research suggests that to maximize the chances of improved outcomes, elements should

r Michael B. Armstrong, doctoral candidate, Department of Psychology, Mills Godwin Building, Room 250, Old Dominion University, 5115 Hampton Blvd., Norfolk, VA 23529. Email: m..8@odu. edu. Richard N. Landers, associate professor, Department of Psychology, Mills Godwin Building, Room 250, Old Dominion University, 5115 Hampton Blvd., Norfolk, VA 23529. Email: r..s@odu.edu

VC 2018 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 162 International Journal of Training and Development

_bs_banner

be chosen on the basis of existing scientifically supported ties to the outcome of interest. For example, Garris et al. (2002) described the scientific case for linking elements of fantasy and challenge to positive learning outcomes. By challenging trainees to learn, they may exert effort during their learning. By engaging trainees with fantasy, they may become more interested in the content, in turn increasing their effort.

The rationale behind the gamification of training is, at its simplest, that something about a given training program is broken and needs to be fixed. For example, imagine a web-based training program that teaches safety information in a manufacturing organi- zation which relies primarily on lecture videos. Unfortunately, this program is found to be ineffective such that workplace safety performance is consistently poor before and after training; thus, the training designer decides that a redesign is needed. By redesign- ing the training into a more engaging behavioral modeling-styled training, safety per- formance should improve (Burke et al., 2006). There are many potential tools that could be used to accomplish this, and gamification has become a frequent choice among the numerous traditional training redesign options (Denny, 2013). Using gamification, a common approach is to add points or badges to recognize some targeted training behav- ior, such as logging into the training program and completing a module. However, sci- entific research on gamification has revealed that such approaches are not automatically successful and may even sometimes be harmful. In the case of our safety training pro- gram, there are several potential problems. One, points and badges motivate people to change their behavior only if they carry some sort of psychological meaning for the trainee. In short, if trainees do not care about points, adding points to training will change nothing. Two, points and badges are intended to address motivational problems, yet low motivation may not be the core problem with the program. Low training moti- vation is frequently assumed to be the cause of training effectiveness problems, yet there are many other potential causes, such as low supervisor support for learning or a hostile climate for training transfer (Blume et al., 2010). These are problems that gamification likely cannot solve and more traditional solutions should be attempted instead.

Thus, training designers should still adhere to previous guidance on best practices for effective training redesign before attempting to gamify any underperforming training program. Gamification does not replace any existing training methods but gamification can frequently be used to improve such methods. With a strong design foundation already in place, gamification can often be used to improve learning outcomes further through a variety of specific redesign choices inspired by video game and psychological research. Given this background, the purposes of this article are (1) to define gamifica- tion in employee training, (2) to explain when gamification is likely to be effective and (3) to provide a step-by-step training redesign process for gamifying training.

Gamification in research and practice

Within the definition of learning gamification provided above, there are still many dif- ferent approaches to gamifying training; it is not a monolithic concept. Broadly, it involves integrating game elements into either training content or training methodol- ogy. As an example of gamifying training content, Armstrong and Landers (2017) gamified a technology security training program by incorporating elements of game fiction (i.e. story) into that content without changing any other aspects of the presenta- tion. Content was previously presented to trainees as bullet lists on a web-based slide- show presentation. Although the content was informative, trainers in the organization were concerned that learners found it dull. To fix this problem, the program was gami- fied by converting each bullet into a story beat within a larger cohesive fictional story.1

1 Importantly,gamificationusingnarrativediffersfromstorytellinginthatgamificationinvolvesthe direct conversion of existing materials into a story. In contrast, training with storytelling typically relies on using specific, practical anecdotes to make course content more relatable, and storytelling content is typically designed by consulting subject matter experts to gather such anecdotes. Thus, narrative gami- fication is a broader concept; it could involve storytelling, but any type of narrative can be used if appropriate to training needs.

Gamification of employee training 163 VC 2018 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The direct conversion of material into a narrative emerged as a promising approach here because research suggests that narrative genres of writing are typically viewed by people as more entertaining, engaging and relatable than purely descriptive or explan- atory text (Narvaez, van den Broek, & Ruiz, 1999), the type typically found in training. In this case, the authors found that training satisfaction was more positive for gamified narrative training content than for the original content despite meeting fully identical learning objectives. As an example of gamifying training methodology, elements of feedback might be incorporated into an online training module. Trainees could earn points or badges for completing a given module, indicating their status, knowledge, or participation within the system. These features are not tied directly to the content but are instead tied to the behavior of the trainee within the training system.

Given this difference, there is an inherent tradeoff to gamifying content versus gami- fying method. When gamifying content, gains are potentially more transformative. By reinventing content, an entirely 'new' training program can be created from the seeds of the old one. Such transformative change comes with a degree of risk, because train- ing designers may transform the content so completely that it is unrecognizable and no longer meets its original training objectives. This type of risk is mitigated when gamify- ing method, because the content remains absolutely identical. However, uncritical application of this type of gamification can backfire if the game elements are viewed as superfluous or manipulative by trainees. There is also less potential impact when gami- fying training method than when gamifying content. Thus, redesign needs must be carefully articulated before considering either approach in isolation or, more com- plexly, both approaches simultaneously.

Much research and practice on gamification focus upon the use of points, badges and leaderboards, which are among the simplest game elements and serve as primarily extrin- sic motivators (Armstrong et al., 2015; Seaborn & Fels, 2015). For example, if a trainee behaves in a desirable way, that trainee may be awarded a certain number of points that are displayed on a public leaderboard. This is therefore a gamification of method, not con- tent. This type of gamification is generally based on classic psychological learning theory, with the intent that awarding points for good behaviors will reinforce those good behav- iors (Landers et al., 2014). Depending upon the design, trainees may also be motivated by the goal of being placed high on the leaderboard in comparison with others, which is self- regulatory and more intrinsic in nature (Landers et al., 2017b). Badges, which are typically digital tokens representing some sort of personal achievement (Antin & Churchill, 2011), are also potentially motivating to learners as reinforcers or can be used as public recogni- tion of expertise in a given domain (Landers et al., 2014). This collection of game elements is often attractive to training designers due to its ease of implementation and low cost of implementation. However, critics of point, badge and leaderboard gamification suggest these elements are shallow attempts to motivate learning. Additionally, some scholars view this practice as manipulative, taking an active stance against the use of these game elements for extrinsically motivating people (Bogost, 2011).

Despite the negative connotations surrounding point, badge and leaderboard gamifi- cation, its effectiveness in learning can be positive. Dicheva et al. (2015) reviewed the lit- erature and found 34 studies of gamification in education and learning contexts. The authors concluded that game elements like points, badges and leaderboards were gen- erally found to have positive effects such as higher learner engagement, increased attendance and participation, and minimization of the gap between high- and low- scoring learners. The authors also concluded that gamified learning was in general more motivating and interesting compared with other learning systems. More recent studies have continued to find positive results for point, badge and leaderboard gamifi- cation while using theory-driven approaches to maximize learning and performance. Landers and Landers (2014) used an online leaderboard to drive college student engagement with course material, which increased student learning. Landers and Arm- strong (2017) found that points and leaderboards increased college student perceptions of a future training program. Mekler et al. (2017) found that the use of points and lead- erboards increased performance quantity in an image-tagging task, which was consist- ent with meta-analytic evidence tying extrinsic motivators to quantity of performance

164 International Journal of Training and Development VC 2018 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

and intrinsic motivators to quality of performance (Cerasoli et al., 2014). The generally positive findings surrounding point, badge and leaderboard gamification suggest that it can be effectively integrated into training designs in order to improve motivation to learn and learning performance, but that the goals implied by these game elements must be chosen carefully to be successful.

Beyond points, badges and leaderboards, scattered research suggests that lesser- studied game elements like challenge, narrative and immersion, among others, also have potential for improving training design. Landers et al. (2017a) synthesized much of the research regarding these potentially powerful game elements, summarizing how and why these elements can be effective in learning contexts. For example, elements of conflict or challenge (Malone, 1981) can be implemented through best practices in goal-setting theory (e.g. Locke & Latham, 2013). Setting a specific, difficult goal should provide an optimal level of challenge for a learner that is neither too easy nor too difficult, a feature that is desirable and motivating in many games (Garris et al., 2002; Landers et al., 2017b). Based upon research on the psychology of language, narrative or game fiction is another promising element for improving learning. Narrative genre texts are more easily under- stood and more readily remembered than other text genres (Graesser et al., 1980). Immer- sive game elements (i.e. the way players are represented in the game such as with avatars or game pieces, visual and audio stimuli, and the sense of safety; Bedwell et al., 2012) can also be used in learning contexts by inducing a sense of presence in the learning environ- ment (Landers et al., 2017a). Immersion can be used to enhance the psychological fidelity of the learning environment, which has been demonstrated to lead to more positive learn- ing outcomes in simulation and game-based learning (Brydges et al., 2010; Norman et al., 2012). Immersive context can facilitate learning in multiple ways, including the provision of multiple perspectives, situated learning and transfer of training (Dede, 2009).

The effectiveness of these lesser-studied game elements is generally positive, although little research has isolated the effects of these game elements. Generally, gamified training or learning using these elements combines them with other elements, particularly points and leaderboards. This results in an overall gamified learning effect from which is difficult to identify the most impactful game elements or element combi- nation; however, this overall effect of 'gamification as it is generally studied' is positive (Hamari et al., 2014). Further research is needed to disentangle the main effects and interactive effects of game elements used in learning (Landers et al., 2017a). Fortunately, the serious games literature can give some idea of the effectiveness of these elements in learning contexts. The game element categories that form the basis of gamified learning theory (Landers, 2014) were originally studied by Bedwell and colleagues (2012), who summarized research on the effectiveness of those game element categories in serious games with various learning outcomes. Thus, their findings are a reasonable starting point for predicting the effect of these game elements in learning. Most notably, con- flict/challenge was found to have positive effects on motivation to learn, declarative knowledge and knowledge application. The authors also concluded that narrative had a positive impact on motivation to learn. Sanchez and Van Lysebetten (2017) updated that research by conducting a meta-analysis on training games and learning outcomes, analyzing the same game element categories, finding large effects for conflict/challenge on affective (d 5 0.75) and behavioral knowledge outcomes (d 5 1.04). The authors also found large effects of narrative on behavioral (d51.15) and declarative knowledge (d 5 0.95). The effects of immersion elements in games were somewhat weaker, but still effective at increasing declarative knowledge outcomes (d50.53). Thus, not all game elements work in the same way to influence learning; different game elements affect different learning outcomes to differing extents. For this reason, effective gamification of training is created by targeting specific game elements to specific training needs. Thus, we next present a step-by-step process for training redesign using gamification.

How to effectively gamify training

As noted earlier, it is important for instructional designers to treat gamified training as they would any other training redesign method. Training designers should follow the

Gamification of employee training 165 VC 2018 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

instructional system design or ADDIE model (Goldstein, 1980): conduct a needs assess- ment, use theory to develop an initial training design, implement the training and con- duct a training evaluation, redesigning and reevaluating as necessary. Training designers must first establish what the goals of training of the training will be by iden- tifying problem areas in performance, knowledge or skills. Once training needs and goals are identified, the training, education and psychology research literatures along with best practices in instructional design should guide the initial design of training in such a way as to fill the needs and goals identified in the needs assessment. It is during this step that gamification should be first considered; if the addition of game elements appears that it would better achieve training goals than is possible otherwise, such ele- ments should now be considered and implemented if appropriate. For example, if training designers develop excellent content but are confident that trainees will not find it engaging, gamification may be appropriate. After conducting the first training sessions, data should be collected and analysed to evaluate the effectiveness of the training. If game elements are included in the training, their effectiveness should be evaluated explicitly, in comparison to and in combination with other training features and designs. If the training is found to be ineffective, the instructional system is repeated, iterating on the needs, design and evaluation methods until the desired out- comes are reached.

Training needs assessment should be used to establish the problem area(s) in a train- ing system. Consider the typical problem areas in training. There may be a lack in knowledge, skill, attitude, motivation or possibly a lack of transfer. Once the need is identified, designers should consider if gamification of training would be useful in resolving those deficiencies. Surface (2012) detailed an effective approach to take when determining this. First, a training designer must identify the issue or need in question and whether addressing that issue is worth the time of the organization. Second, the issue or need must be clearly specified. This involves determining if the need itself can be met through training better than other organizational interventions. Third, if train- ing is determined to be part of the solution to the issue in question, data can be col- lected to determine the precise nature of the need (e.g. how large a gap in trainee knowledge may be). By analyzing these data, decisions can be made regarding learning objectives, training design and budgets. Finally, an evaluation on the training needs assessment process itself is needed, to see if the course of action taken and its subse- quent results were actually derived from the training needs assessment study, or if something went off-track along the way.

After training needs or gaps are established, existing learning theory should be used in training design to address those gaps. The theory of gamified learning (Landers, 2014; Landers et al., 2017a) provides guidance in deciding whether and which game elements are appropriate design features for closing training gaps. This theory pro- poses the effects of gamification are indirect; their impact on learning is always through specific psychological and/or behavioral changes. Landers and Landers (2014) tested this theory by adding a leaderboard to a long-term project assigned in a course, finding that the leaderboard increased the amount of time people spent on the project and that the amount of time was related to learning outcomes. Thus, gamification influenced learning through its intermediary impact on time on task. To apply the theory of gami- fied learning to a given training design, the instructional designer must therefore first use extant research to identify behavioral, attitudinal or otherwise psychological varia- bles that directly affect the learning outcomes identified by the needs assessment. Once a behavioral or attitudinal variable has been identified, the instructional designer can then turn to research again to identify which game elements impact that behavioral or attitudinal variable. The most difficult aspect of implementing game elements to increase learning outcomes in this science-based way is knowing which game elements are available for use and how those game elements are theoretically tied to psychologi- cal variables. As noted earlier, the most current treatments of the science of game ele- ments are described by Bedwell and colleagues' (2012) taxonomy of game attribute categories and Sanchez and Van Lysebetten's (2017) meta-analytic results. If specific advice cannot be found there, the broader research literature on games for learning is

166 International Journal of Training and Development VC 2018 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

currently the best source of information for inspiration in gamified learning research and practice. Journals at the intersection of human-computer interaction and educa- tion, such as Simulation & Gaming and Computers in Human Behavior provide a substan- tial portion of this research base.

Once a training design has been gamified, data should be collected to evaluate its effectiveness at meeting the needs of the redesign. Surveys, knowledge and skills tests, interviews or focus groups can be used to collect data on training outcomes and antece- dents. Using a training evaluation model to guide this step of the process is suggested. Landers and Armstrong (2017) developed a training evaluation model relevant to a gamified learning context. The model includes typical learning outcomes such as reac- tions to training, learning, behavioral transfer and organization-level results while also accounting for individual differences like attitudes toward learning technology (e.g. game-based learning) and experience with learning technology (e.g. experience with games). If the training design is found to be ineffective, the instructional design process should begin again from the start. Training needs may have been incorrectly specified, the training design may not align with the training needs specified (including the use of game elements) or any other number of training-related issues such as measurement issues or trainee motivation.

Conclusion

In this note, the concept of gamification in the context of training has been explained, the rationale behind gamification of training has been described, the research on gami- fication's effectiveness has been reviewed and a step-by-step process for gamifying training has been provided. Using traditional instructional design principles, instruc- tional designers can identify when gamification is appropriate and use science-based techniques to better meet their organization's training needs. Thus, we hope this article aids understanding of gamification by training designers and sparks interest in the use of game elements in a science-driven way in both research and practice.

Critically, research suggests that gamification of training, including the use of points, badges, leaderboards, challenge, narrative and immersion, can be used to positively affect learning outcomes. Despite this generally positive message, caution is required. Gamification will be most effective when it is used in conjunction with instructional design principles; simply adding game elements to training without carefully reason- ing through the psychological impacts is unlikely to lead to desirable change and may even harm outcomes. As video games continue their march from common to ubiqui- tous and as user experience becomes more critical for training departments, under- standing the difference between legitimate, scientific gamification and fake gamification (Landers, in press) will only become more critical for training designers.