Chiefwakka said:
3) my biggest concern is that these kids may have been interested because it was something new. the novelty of the idea may wear off eventually.
Indeed. I'm going back to this said class on Thursday and I will be changing the pace a little bit and will record my findings to address this very concern.
This is indeed an interesting point. I feel the Extra Credits guys even touched on this briefly at the end with their negative comments towards marketing firms: any technique can reach saturation point. Some of the other game-type ideas floating around have already hit this point. Think of the behavioral appeal of clean simple granular game-like interfaces and how their implimentation in online stores has affected purchasing behaviour (Cough, steam game collectors, cough. Also, check out MC Frontalot's site for a perfect application of this.) These once powerful sales methods are losing their appeal (which is good). Think about it, when you first bought an iphone or Wii, didn't you have a slight urge to fill in another app slot on that main screen? But the second, third, forth device employing this method? Nope, it's just another screen now. Or at least is to me personally.
The big fear I'd say is that saturation comes from shoddy or immoral installations. Watch this video by Seth Priebatsch:
http://www.ted.com/talks/seth_priebatsch_the_game_layer_on_top_of_the_world.html
Back?
Now, note his mention of the "social" internet layer. Already we are seeing
burnout of this. This is concerning. What was once compulsive due to how clean and simple it made life has since become a burden because it pushed too far, it reached saturation, and people are turning away in droves. Not necessarily by closing social networking accounts, but paying less attention to individual parts of them. Personally, I'd even attribute these factors to the general failure of social-education sites (smart.fm comes to mind, it's since completely scrapped the social model and become a typical paywall service ala a Rosetta Stone book with monthly fees).
So, back to
applied game theory. I suspect we'll see the same thing here. It will see a meteoric rise, then a moderately rapid but largely unnoticed decay, with a hint of frustration thrown in.
Doesn't mean I'm not a believer that game theory in education can cause good. Quite the contrary in fact; I'm a firm believer, especially considering that selection bias (no sleep due to a Maple Story addiction?) often renders the poorest students the ones most susceptible to these methods. But still, I'd be afraid to put everything on the line on these methods.
Regardless of the outcome, I believe small bits of game theory woven into a classroom will never cease to cause results, even if the larger scale things ultimately become cliche or abused to saturation.
To the OP, Brian:
Thank you for sharing your experiment and detailed observations! Also, applause for employing a control group. I love to read genuine road tests of this theory, such a rarity between all the theoretical videos flowing around the net. I'll eagerly look forward to seeing any more results you come up with.
(As I type this, I'm procrastinating on finishing off a level up reward/achievement scheme for my ES kids. I only have to keep one step ahead of the front runner across all classes. One week ahead, one ahead, one ahead.)