I've been thinking about this idea a lot lately - I think gamifying a single course could produce a modest boost in performance, but it seems like this particular implementation, as endtime pointed out, simply changes some names.
I think this would be a way cool system around which you could base secondary education. But instead of the generic game parallels, you could treat the four years of high school as a sort of mash of character creation and early game exploration. If you had 5 lines of progression (Math, Science, Social Sciences, Art, Language) that went from level 1-10, each requiring passing exams, preparing presentations, or completing projects, you could allow students to naturally find the work that pushes them personally.
The one big thing I think is necessary to really see the benefit of a game-like system in education is the ability to try stuff multiple times.
Consider an alternate version of angry birds. In this alternate version, there are 150 levels, many of which mirror the fun and challenging levels we know and love in the original. The 150 levels are in 15 worlds, each with 5 practice levels and 5 "test" levels. After playing the 5 practice levels as much as you want, you can play the 5 test levels all in a row, precisely once. However you do, that's how you did. That's your score.
Not a whole lot of replayability there. While it can be necessary (especially at the university level) to distinguish between those who are and are not competant in a given field, I think game mechanics can teach us a whole lot more about how to make people want to achieve.
Additional thoughts:
- Unlockables could be really exciting i.e. you have silent study hall until you hit level 4 in any subject, at which point you gain access to the study lounge; if you're level 10 in at least 1 area, you can apply for off-campus lunch
- Incentives for tutoring would be cool. (Think "Prestige Levels")
- DATA! Tracking these things would give unprecedented amounts of data that could provide a lot of insight into the way students are progressing through the material.
- For this to really work, you would have to develop a new system for scheduling courses in high school that more resembled a college. This is not a bad thing. I think giving high school kids a bit more autonomy in deciding how and what they go about learning with their time will produce more well-adjusted, mature adults.
- The specifics of how to implement a lot of these systems are less difficult than you think.
This system and our current system face the same fundamental issue: how do you determine that a student has 'leveled up'? If what gives you 'experience' is flawed, it won't really matter whether a student is getting a level or a letter grade.
Also, if you want to encourage students to try stuff multiple times, you'd have to make sure 'not leveling up' doesn't equate to 'staying back a grade'. Students won't be encouraged to really learn what they need to, but just to get through things as quickly as possible, because Harvard only accepts people who are level 10 in math and science.
For example, leveling up in Calculus would be about solving problems, putting calculus into practice, writing a project using learnt concepts.
Determining if a student has leveled up is easy, they just do. They solve the problem they're given, they complete their projects.
-------------
The idea of customized education, choosing levels and perks and having a clear organization of how things are connected e.g how many levels do I have to complete before I can do project X or understand concept Y
Levels can help understand associations between subjects. Student would build mental models of how things are connected instead of applying formulas on equations like calculators.
I never understood why some subjects were more important than others. You could live your entire life without understanding physics or economics.
When it comes to education, I would rather take choice and exploration over enforcement and standardization.
PS: Reply to your comment is the first part. The rest is just my plug
> Obviously admission requirements will have to change.
This is where the focus needs to be. Big colleges get an enormous amount of applications. They do not have the man power to deeply analyze each candidate. So, they use metrics to filter candidates, such as required course work and a minimum GPA. The current high school curriculum is largely dictated by this, and I don't see that changing with your system because the incentives are the same, whether you call it 'passing an AP calculus test' or 'becoming a level 9 Math student'.
> For example, leveling up in Calculus would be about solving problems, putting calculus into practice, writing a project using learnt concepts.
This isn't that different from how schools work today. How was your grade decided in Calculus? By solving calculus problems. You don't necessarily put it into practice, or write a project, but teachers could certainly assign those things to you. Many science classes give you open ended science projects.
I agree with your intent, and I like you way of thinking, I just don't see it doing away with enforcement and standardization. Yet.
Comments
I've been thinking about this idea a lot lately - I think gamifying a single course could produce a modest boost in performance, but it seems like this particular implementation, as endtime pointed out, simply changes some names.
I think this would be a way cool system around which you could base secondary education. But instead of the generic game parallels, you could treat the four years of high school as a sort of mash of character creation and early game exploration. If you had 5 lines of progression (Math, Science, Social Sciences, Art, Language) that went from level 1-10, each requiring passing exams, preparing presentations, or completing projects, you could allow students to naturally find the work that pushes them personally.
The one big thing I think is necessary to really see the benefit of a game-like system in education is the ability to try stuff multiple times.
Consider an alternate version of angry birds. In this alternate version, there are 150 levels, many of which mirror the fun and challenging levels we know and love in the original. The 150 levels are in 15 worlds, each with 5 practice levels and 5 "test" levels. After playing the 5 practice levels as much as you want, you can play the 5 test levels all in a row, precisely once. However you do, that's how you did. That's your score.
Not a whole lot of replayability there. While it can be necessary (especially at the university level) to distinguish between those who are and are not competant in a given field, I think game mechanics can teach us a whole lot more about how to make people want to achieve.
Additional thoughts:
- Unlockables could be really exciting i.e. you have silent study hall until you hit level 4 in any subject, at which point you gain access to the study lounge; if you're level 10 in at least 1 area, you can apply for off-campus lunch
- Incentives for tutoring would be cool. (Think "Prestige Levels")
- DATA! Tracking these things would give unprecedented amounts of data that could provide a lot of insight into the way students are progressing through the material.
- For this to really work, you would have to develop a new system for scheduling courses in high school that more resembled a college. This is not a bad thing. I think giving high school kids a bit more autonomy in deciding how and what they go about learning with their time will produce more well-adjusted, mature adults.
- The specifics of how to implement a lot of these systems are less difficult than you think.
This system and our current system face the same fundamental issue: how do you determine that a student has 'leveled up'? If what gives you 'experience' is flawed, it won't really matter whether a student is getting a level or a letter grade.
Also, if you want to encourage students to try stuff multiple times, you'd have to make sure 'not leveling up' doesn't equate to 'staying back a grade'. Students won't be encouraged to really learn what they need to, but just to get through things as quickly as possible, because Harvard only accepts people who are level 10 in math and science.
Obviously admission requirements will have to change.
My understanding of levels is like the Euler challenge. http://projecteuler.net/index.php?section=problems&page=...
For example, leveling up in Calculus would be about solving problems, putting calculus into practice, writing a project using learnt concepts.
Determining if a student has leveled up is easy, they just do. They solve the problem they're given, they complete their projects.
-------------
The idea of customized education, choosing levels and perks and having a clear organization of how things are connected e.g how many levels do I have to complete before I can do project X or understand concept Y
Levels can help understand associations between subjects. Student would build mental models of how things are connected instead of applying formulas on equations like calculators.
I never understood why some subjects were more important than others. You could live your entire life without understanding physics or economics.
When it comes to education, I would rather take choice and exploration over enforcement and standardization.
PS: Reply to your comment is the first part. The rest is just my plug
> Obviously admission requirements will have to change.
This is where the focus needs to be. Big colleges get an enormous amount of applications. They do not have the man power to deeply analyze each candidate. So, they use metrics to filter candidates, such as required course work and a minimum GPA. The current high school curriculum is largely dictated by this, and I don't see that changing with your system because the incentives are the same, whether you call it 'passing an AP calculus test' or 'becoming a level 9 Math student'.
> For example, leveling up in Calculus would be about solving problems, putting calculus into practice, writing a project using learnt concepts.
This isn't that different from how schools work today. How was your grade decided in Calculus? By solving calculus problems. You don't necessarily put it into practice, or write a project, but teachers could certainly assign those things to you. Many science classes give you open ended science projects.
I agree with your intent, and I like you way of thinking, I just don't see it doing away with enforcement and standardization. Yet.