A Playful Divide of Attention: How Gamified Microlearning
Positions Itself Within the Distracted Present
MA New Media and Digital Culture 10803882
Timo Frans Eduard den Hartog
Admiraal de Ruijterweg 141-3 1056EZ Amsterdam 06 51 58 66 52
timodenhartog@outlook.com Supervisor: Alex Gekker Second reader: David Gauthier Date of completion: 23-06-2020
Acknowledgements
Intrigued by the idea of a distracted present, I became consistently more aware of how the phenomenon has manifested itself through society. Constant disruption and digital stimulation is ostensibly normalized all the while deep attention and use of digital media with integrity seems to be the exception rather than the rule, especially for the younger generations. To write my second thesis around these implications has been an intense, yet satisfying experience that kept my attention throughout. Nonetheless, I cannot understate how this period of research at the UvA was by far the most curious. When the world shook as a result of a pandemic we now cannot unthink, I think every single person had to re-adjust and acclimatize to whatever measures had to be taken. Written in a time when measures of sorts are still in place to some degree, I therefore want to express my sincere gratitude towards the UvA staff for properly handling the unconventional transition towards the digital coverage of the ongoing semester. In addition, a special thanks goes out to Alex Gekker, who was never far away when questions rose or feedback was due. I honestly could not have hoped for better guidance throughout the last several months.
Abstract:
The pervasive nature of contemporary digital media has lead us into the phenomena of the distracted present. Paralleled by a global increase in mobile technology usage and a cognitive shift towards hyper attention, novel methods of digital learning have risen. Concerning these developments, a fine line can be drawn between the essence of Gamified Microlearning applications and the human desire for more. More stimuli, more acknowledgement, and at the same time, more knowledge. Through a critical analysis of game design elements, a broad spectrum of persuasion has been unveiled, uncovering a variety of attentional technologies pertaining to interruption, self-regulation, and temporality. In the end, not all is technocritical as user rationale and instinct can be argued as consistent forces nonetheless. In contrast with explored work influenced by the neurological turn in the Humanities, the apps’ workings show a counterintuitive function as well. All in all, Learning through mobile devices depicts an ambiguous practice dominated by a continuous clash between attention and distraction.
Keywords
microlearning, gamification, mobile applications, interface design, persuasive technology
Table of contents
1. Introduction
5
2. Unpacking Game and Play in Mobile Learning and Other Non-game
Contexts
10
2.1. A theorization of attention in the distracted present 10
2.2. The mobile app as ostenic tool for productivity 13
2.3. A brief history of learning under the distracted present 14
2.3.1. E-learning 14
2.3.2. M-learning 15
2.3.3. Microlearning 16
2.4. A lineage of gameful design 18
Chapter 3: Playful Disruption
24
3.1. The unification of knowledge and achievement 24
3.2. More than meets the eye 29
3.3. Gamified interruption systems 31
Chapter 4: Control Through Temporality
36
4.1. Self-regulation as obstruction for narrativity 36
4.2. Interwoven choice architectures 39
Chapter 5: Malleable Conduits of Attention
45
5.1. User agency in flux 45
5.2. An instrumental value of distraction 46
Chapter 6: Conclusions
48
Bibliography of the literature consulted
51
1. Introduction
W
ith more than three quarters of United States adults in the possession of smartphones, presently, mobile devices are stated to be the most-used digital technology. At the same time, children are spending multiple hours a day with digital technology under their control and there is a significant rise of wearable technology being used worldwide (Bernacki, Greene and Crompton 1). Paralleling the increasing popularity of mobile devices has been a growth of scholarly work on mobile learning. As mobile applications can be seen as sociocultural products, they possess the quality of transferring certain knowledge and meaning (Lupton 441). With the surge in mobile learning applications, this characteristic is strengthened to a new degree. Providing an intermittent stream of learning-related activities to those who subscribe, the wide variety of apps facilitate its users with a stylized and mobile way of acquiring knowledge on their area of choice. In this relatively new form of e-learning, users are often costless and playfully introduced to the underlying concepts and modes of learning whereafter the choice of advancing through an extensive, paid subscription is presented. To confine and present these wide areas of knowledge, the informative content is carefully split into custom modules. Coined by researchers of learning innovation Chris Bailey and colleagues as ‘learning nuggets’, the compact modules are designed and implemented with all of the perceived benefits that come with e-learning practices in mind (2). These advantages range from flexibility in time and space to be used, to the possibilities of virtual collaboration and communication (Conole and Fill 2). All of the above-mentioned elements together fit into the concept of ‘microlearning’ and can be seen as a distinct branch of e-learning itself.One of the most peculiar aspects of the microlearning method is the fact that the design commonly inherits a high dose of ‘gamification’ techniques and thereby transforms the practice of learning into a rather playful experience. By means of gamification, design elements originating from games are implemented into non-game contexts and act as tools to enhance user engagement, productivity, and motivation (Deterding et al. 1). In the specific context of education, the technique can be seen as a tool to realize intuitive and vivid ways of engaging with learning material. This idea initially stems from multiple studies that have shown how gaming generates motivation for pursuing different tasks and helps to stimulate players in a variety of ways (Kingsley and Grabner-Hagen 52). This way, gamified lessons and systems aim to enrich people’s experiences with educational content, thus arguably improving their results within the concerned field of study. Nonetheless has gamification been subjected to a multitude of critical views as well. game scholar and
designer Ian Bogost, for instance, states that “gamification is Marketing bullshit” (n. pag.). Many similarly point out how efforts are made to somewhat “desecrate” and domesticate games by capitalizing on their seemingly useful aspects. Accordingly, game structures would simply make us feel as if we are being rewarded by means of points, peer recognition, and leaderboards (Chaplin n. pag.). Contrasting the widespread scholarly critique on game and play, interface designer and researcher Sebastian Deterding states that play and games have clearly earned a respectful place in society. He presses that gamification should be viewed as merely a symptom of the broader digital convergence of games that represents the rise of a gameful world (24). A world in which play is cultivated and vice versa. A world in which both gaming and learning come together as one in the form of Gamified Microlearning.
When fused together, users are thus seemingly enabled to playfully get to know complex subject matter which might have seemed out of reach beforehand. Looking back at the roots of microlearning, incorporating selected gaming aspects in educational environments has earlier been defined as game-based learning (GBL) and presented countless cases of success in- and outside of classrooms worldwide. The practice of gamification specifically, classifies as a more recent facet of GBL and involves the integration of gaming related elements into non-game objects (Kingsley and Grabner-Hagen 52). These elements commonly represent concepts of ranking and achievement, reinforcing the experience of personal progress. Think of concepts like experience points (XP), badges, and leveling up through completing material as triggers to help learners follow through with their goals and actualize them. All of these examples and more are found in non-game applications nowadays wherein the category of microlearning apps represent a significant part. Reflecting on the ways microlearning makes its way into people’s daily lives, the current ease of plunging into all sorts of educational material becomes apparent. Playing into the hands of the unprecedented popularity of smartphones and tablets, the concerned applications distance themselves from more traditional forms of learning by not demanding any substantial monetary or formal requirements apart from a small monthly contribution. All the while one is commuting or just having some downtime to fill in, microlearning through a mobile device facilitates a contemporary form of low threshold for learning. Through the relatively compact phones and tablets, quick accessibility promotes persistent usage which is said to be a crucial factor to personalized learning (Dingler et al. 2). So, where people nowadays spend a vast amount of time on their mobile devices, bite-sized learning apps seem to act as a fitting response.
I believe that focussing on this singular category of mobile applications can shed 6
light on multiple underlying practices. Considering that some of the most popular learning apps are focussing on such varied fields of study as language education, programming, and meditation, one could argue that the development of the concerned applications implicates a well-defined range of interface- and content-focussed design practices. The practice of microlearning within mobile apps hereby offers new ground as both offering learning objects and playfully designed interfaces. This distinct duality triggered the thought of the applications’ seemingly contrasting by-products of both focus and distraction, possibly affecting users in quite the opposite way. Repetition and accessibility contribute to the integration of bite-sized learning modules into one’s life, and the design of the applications seems to encourage this in multiple ways. This attention seeking aspect of the applications can be seen as a degree of competition between the dozens of installed apps per device that, by means of push notifications among other systems, target users to trigger an increased amount of lengthy sessions of interaction (Dingler et al. 3). At the same time, the popular learning format is also said to have a positive influence on retention and performance (Bernacki, Greene and Crompton 6). In cases of problematic learning, focussing and processing information, using the apps thus might seem well worth the subscription. The aforementioned duality in effect and user experience will make up for a critical layer of the research as vulnerabilities of the user’s psyche are analyzed and exposed by means of an array of interface-focussed theories. The analytical core will conclude by making room for insights on what microlearning applications realize to possibly counter these vulnerabilities and further distinguish themselves from traditional learning methods in a time of overstimulation. Considering this, a fine line can be drawn between the essence of microlearning applications, the phenomena of a distracted present, and the contemporary mode of ‘hyper attention’ that results from media usage. This tension leads me to the framing of this study, which will revolve around the following questions:
1. How does mobile microlearning both conform to, and counter the phenomenon of ‘hyper’ attention in contemporary media culture?
1.1 In what way are Gamified Microlearning applications conforming to the distracted present?
1.2 How are Gamified Microlearning applications possibly countering the phenomenon of hyper attention?
By questioning and exploring these aspects, light can be shed on the ambiguity related to the concerned category of applications within media culture all the while considering multiple facets of the interface and its relation to the attention economy. As the main question can be split into smaller aspects of the thesis, the divide between a main- and two sub-questions is designed to work towards a cohesive conclusion. Taking into account the broad definition and multiple aspects of interface design, the concerned apps can be studied by means of a range of established studies related to new media and digital culture and will primarily relate to digital persuasion, nudging and gamification techniques. In the following chapter I will therefore first shed light on the contemporary attention economy and its related distracted present. Interesting here is the contrast that comes forward when we think about how playfully designed learning objects and their strongly gamified elements pull users towards interaction. Conforming to the distracted present and therefore adding to the seemingly ambiguous usage of the applications is the fact that a common distraction in people’s daily activities is the attraction of the phone itself. The device has made its way into billions of lives and has completely altered and transcended the spatiality that is characteristic to more traditional media use. By affording a limitless connection to whatever its users might find worth at whatever time its users might find fit, the smartphone cannot be unseen in the general picture of the modern world. The unprecedented level of multifunctionality in the form of a smartphone has come with great impact, and not just for the good.
To add to the theoretical framework, I present how practices of mobile microlearning have come to exist as a product of e-learning and how they are initially linked to increased learning efficiency. To support this, I included a compressed historical view on mobile learning (Bernacki, Greene and Crompton 22). This leads up to the development of game-based learning (GBL) and its successive form of gamification (Kingsley and Grabner-Hagen 52). To relate to the different concepts within contemporary microlearning culture, I have produced an overarching analysis of three different mobile applications: Mimo (Mimohello GmbH) which focusses on programming, Duolingo (Duolingo, Inc.) which focusses on language, and Headspace (Headspace Inc.) which focusses on meditation (Image 1,2 and 3 respectively).
1. 2. 3.
Image 1: Mimo (Google Play Store, April 25th) Image 2: Duolingo (Webwereld, April 25th) Image 3: Headspace (Duo Lingo, April 25th)
Mimo and Duolingo are both categorized in the category of Education, and Headspace is classified as part of the Health and Fitness catalogs. Together, these apps represent a selection that can be found in the upper tier of their respective category within both Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store. While all three garnered several millions of users throughout the years, Duolingo even reached a staggering amount of three-hundred million users in 2018 (Lardinois n. pag.). Apart from their popularity, each object comes with their own set of characteristics that divides them from each other all the while implementing the practice of microlearning. By synthesizing arguments from an array of concepts, the focus of chapter three and four will lie on how gameful elements concur and collide within the socio-technical milieu of the distracted present. Herein, chapter three focusses on the exploration of cognitively stimulating design practices and what possible implications underlie them. Consequently, chapter four is committed to an analysis of learning temporalities within the applications. As these chapters put their focus on the applications’ arguable conformation to the distracted present, the final chapter’s purpose lies in the foregrounding of some of the more sought after states of mind as a result of engagement with Gamified Microlearning applications (GMAs). The aim here is to reflect on how microlearning might possibly serve as a tool to counter the distracted present. To conclude the work, a section is added to reflect on the strain of applications and their aspects of conformation and countering of the distracted present.
2. Unpacking Game and Play in Mobile Learning and
Other Non-game Contexts
2.1. A theorization of attention in the distracted present
E
ncompassing work on mobile learning, gamification, and the distracted present, the following sections lay a foundation of understanding the core of the thesis. To first situate the variety of practices associated with GMAs and their role in this thesis, I establish an idea of the socio-technical milieu in which digital media are currently often produced and consumed. The conscious implementation of Gamified Microlearning techniques can be seen as a means of further enhancing learning efficiency, not only as a novel learning method but as a reaction to a series of weighty “mutations” in media user practices. By this I mean mutations resulting from changes in both private and working environments that will be further scrutinized in the following chapters but teased here.First of all, usage of mobile technology skyrocketed in the last two decades for people in all stages of life (Bernacki, Greene and Crompton 1). Added to this, the same time frame entailed an ever-decreasing collective attention span related to digitization and evolved content dynamics of cultural items in overall. (Lorenz-Spreen et al. 6). This distinct trend amidst the rise of global mass mediation characterizes the times in which modern microlearning objects really took shape. By taking into account what role human attention and cognition play in relation to contemporary media, the milieu can be defined further. Critical media scholars Patrick Crogan & Samuel Kinsley examined this near-pervasive media milieu by following Marazzi’s definition of the ‘attention economy’ in which “human attention can be seen as a scarce but quantifiable commodity” (1). Almost 50 years ago cognitive psychologist Herbert Alexander Simon described a causal relation between our scarce attention and the wealth of information we as humans already had access to at the time, stating that this wealth logically instigated “a poverty of attention” (Simon 40). This poverty is consequently linked to humans’ diminishing ability to process information when faced with its overabundance. As has been the case through an ever-increasing range of media devices, services and systems ever since, an even more significant set of stimuli is set out to affect the individual’s brain and remodel the state of one’s memory (Terranova, 2012 5). From an economic point of view, attention being scarce and quantified thus makes why it is much desired, commodified, and exchanged by thirds.
As the continuous enhancement of mobile technology has provided us with an evolved sense of connectivity, strict terms of both temporality and spatiality have been
dissolving simultaneously. Considering in what manner this affects our mental welfare, even the sole presence of a nearby smartphone is said to impair people’s cognitive capacities. By affecting both the available working memory capacity and ‘functional fluid intelligence', a so-called smartphone-induced ‘brain drain’ is said to influence both consumers’ decision-making and welfare (Ward et al. 149). An additional interesting approach of thinking about attention as scarce cognitive resource here is how the internet has played its role as a crucial entity within this economy. Along these lines, technocritical publicist Carr states that we are seduced by the internet’s “rapid-fire delivery of competing messages and stimuli” that makes us give in to this rather inhumane stream of information quite easily (51). He has also made a case for the net being an interruption system that counters the natural flow of impulses our brain is initially mapped out for (Carr 55). The data floods we are subjecting ourselves to therefore causes to short-circuit our thoughts and change the brain’s mental makeup. Ensuing Carr’s net criticism, media theorist, internet critic and author Geert Lovink coined a ‘neurological turn’ in the humanities (n. pag.). Among the broad range of scholars that adopted neurological research findings is Katherine Hayles. In a much-cited essay the postmodern literary critic defined what forms of attention can and should be separated. (187). Here, she differs between the notion of ‘hyper attention’ and ‘deep attention’. Hyper attention can be seen as the ever-increasing engagement that is needed to keep humans interested and stimulated, whereas deep attention revolves around a steady stream of concentration on individual objects for prolonged duration. Hayles argued already at the time of her writing that the transforming media environment would generate challenges to education and highlighted the contrast between the two modes of attention. What is coined as a generational shift in cognitive styles creates tension between the more traditional expectations of educators and the contemporary preferences of the younger generation (Hayles, 188). This distinct preference can be linked to the deluge of new media forms and the manner in which they are produced and consumed. In terms of production, Crogan and Kinsley refer to the arrangement of ‘attentional technologies’ (12). While contrasting ‘attentional techniques’, the prominent implementation of the former exerts what philosopher and publicist Bernard Stiegler terms ‘psychopower’. This power connotes the idea of manipulating the brain and conforming to a consumption-based form of attention. Stiegler directly links ‘the detriment of deep attention’ to the rise of new media as it plays host to this force (94). As many developers take part in the previously mentioned competition for attention and have proven to shape design elements and methods in order to re-direct attention towards their cause, a state of ‘cognitive capitalism’ can be identified. This notion revolves around the manipulation of perception with
corresponding economic benefit in mind (Ash 3). Pertaining to GMAs, the design of interface elements can be leveraged by conducting attention and provoking positive affect. The various attentional technologies to be explored in this work can be argued as the exact tools that suffice this goal. Throughout this work it becomes clear how attentional technologies are implemented in GMAs and what consequences they arguably bear.
Business scholars Davenport and Beck attend to a slightly more autonomous idea of attention and frame it as initially rational and conscious: “Attention is focused mental engagement on a particular item of information. Items come into our awareness, we attend to a particular item, and then we decide whether to act” (20). This idea implicates a causal state of attention, relying on rational decision-making behavior. The causal link of attention is therefore not of an originally problematic nature, yet at the same time malleable as commodification of cognitive capacity influences a subject’s rationality and form of distributed attention (Crogan and Kinsley 7). What role the concerned applications play in this malleability will be of discussion in the next chapters.
Social science researcher James Ash expands on the role of interfaces as site of new economies of power and attention. By bringing a selection of the previously introduced ideas together, he facilitated the trigger to my train of thought with his work. In his writing, he substantiates the way a distracted present has resulted from the variety of media that is presented through digital interfaces and in what way this affects human cognition (Ash 2). Among the capacities that risk to be impaired are imagination, long-term thinking, and careful reflection. Arguably, the harm done to these exact human qualities then leaves nothing but room for the earlier mentioned mode of hyper attention to step in and obey the ever-scattering impulses distributed by the new media industry. From this view, it starts to become clear what education issues Hayles presents. All in all, the distracted present that results from the currently common form of hyper attention is a questionable reality that can be scrutinized through various objects and practices. Similar to Deterding, Ash is aware of how some of the logics I just introduced have effectively made their way into broader processes and technologies in everyday life. He therefore states that it is important to further investigate and explore these logics to understand other interfaces (4). This work is an attempt to do exactly that. To delineate the matter and start grasping how this notion interconnects with e-learning, gamification, and user experience, I continue by introducing and exploring a series of overarching concepts related to those fields. Together, the following sections will provide a theoretical language to fall back on.
2.2. The mobile app as ostenic tool for productivity
B
y accommodating learning objects, contemporary mobile devices positioned themselves as conduits of attention. Considering the devices simultaneously house all sorts of other applications, various practices relating to user interactions and its corresponding information streams come to mind. The first of these comprises the tracking of the self. Mostly focussed on self-reflection and optimization, Lupton states that a quantified self is what results from the harvesting of data concerning the self. The fact that new mobile technologies collect, analyze, and spread this form of the self brings about novel tension between users’ awareness of the self and external expectations. Although useful to develop a certain awareness about one’s digital practices, the private form of self-tracking and consequent stream of information is also said to initiate forms of narcissism and self-obsession (Lupton 105). New media scholar Alex Gekker speaks of the way traceable sets of numbers are used to constitute to the ‘quantified self ’ (108). The term of ‘casual power’ that Gekker coins and defines additionally reflects a distinct aspect of the power relations between designers and users in digital environments. Herein, the earlier mentioned concept of playfulness is considered to be an attitude found in certain objects. In his work, it is suggested as a term for “understanding how playfulness-within-objects changes the nature of the power relations between designers and users in digital environments” (Gekker 113). Even though his paper focusses on a relatively nuanced view, I consider this to be an interesting line of thought and will reflect on it in congruence with the analysis. Along the same lines, Gekker offers an insight on a reductionist approach to the design of media. This approach aims at the increase of user attention by exerting control and guidance by decluttering interfaces (Gekker 119). To understand the phone as a privately mediated object and position its self-tracking properties, a concept of ‘digital presence’ has been introduced. This presence embodies the degree of on-ness related to a device and represents the fashion in which it ceaselessly tracks and actively notifies users of their presence (Pink and Fors 231). A related concept termed ‘digital copresence’ revolves around the social, and communicative affordances of digital technology. This idea thus tends to focus rather on the connection between different people through devices than the relationship between users and technology directly (Pink and Fors 232). Considering GMAs afford a multitude of trackable statistics, I will elucidate what role these personal and social data streams plays in relation to user attention. With an additional focus on multiple data streams, Hassoun explored the implications of multitasking and how the matter plays part in how the devices act as conduits of attention. He additionally notes a trend of'simultaneous media use' (SMU). As a “new norm of the digital age”, Hassoun presses that certain populations are quickly conforming to the usage of various media at the same time, disregarding its effect on cognitive capabilities (272). Having microlearning applications housed on phones and tablets therefore arguably makes users vulnerable for what implicates from the distracted present.
Adding to the overall understanding of stimulating design within the applications is a look on aesthetics as these qualities are proven to influence more than meets the eye. A study carried out by Kumar, Muniandy and Yahaya explores this field. In their write-up they have clarified the effect of different forms of aesthetics within e-learning. They state that user engagement and efficiency can be affected or even disrupted by means of different design tactics (Kumar, Muniandy and Yahaya 253). To fully comprehend the significance of the discussed theory up till this point, a clear idea should be presented on how a convergence of learning and digital technology came about.
2.3. A brief history of learning under the distracted present
2.3.1. E-learning
T
he alliance of learning and gaming in mobile applications has not solely been affected by the effects of mass mediation and the tenacious grip of connectivity. Firstly, when understanding digital learning in relation to contemporary microlearning applications, there are several moments of interest to be found in recent history. Historicizing the specific language associated with various forms of digital learning here allows for a conceptualization of Mimo, Duolingo, and Headspace’s position. Generally defining each structure of electronically supported learning and teaching, e-learning seems to be the first term to encapsulate the usage of information and communication systems for the purpose of implementing learning processes (Crompton 11). Making up for a significant development within the practice of e-learning has been the integration and transformation of the World Wide Web (WWW) throughout the 1990’s. While the web grew out of its ‘read-only’ character into that of a ‘read-write’ one, interactivity and web dynamics increased. This made way for worldwide educational entities to offer learning-management systems (LMSs) (Crompton 11). With LMSs in place, a novel way of digital mediation between educators and students was initiated. At the same time, this development can be noted as a start of distancing between the two entities. This development has been key to later establish microlearning practices defined by their personalized character (Göschlberger and Bruck 2). The distance created as a result oflearning instigated not only a more individualized learning tradition, but would also be the starting point of a reciprocal relation between the internet and education that could very much be affected by the fluctuating attention that arguably goes with networked media. Having been criticized widely and linked to a diminished form of attention, this notion on networked media goes in line with what Carr theorized as the internet’s rewiring of the brain. For instance, he states that online stimuli affect bodies’ cognitive capacities and, therewith, the ability to learn (Carr 83). Considering the role connectivity plays in the attention economy it becomes clear how learning from this point has slowly embraced interruptive technology to arguably clash with it in a later period of time. I will further address this from the next chapter on. Apart from this distinct relation, the rise of networked education created opportunities for privatized instances to design and distribute learning objects more easily. This structure of development is behind a vast amount of mobile microlearning applications, including the three primarily highlighted in this work.
2.3.2. M-learning
As mobile devices improved and transitioned from an elite possession to a common device, the term of mobile learning gained significant recognition in 2005 (Crompton 11). Practically, mobile learning revolves around the balance and fusion of learning and technology as interconnected entities and has resulted from the conversion of e-learning practices into mobile digital environments. Throughout the years, though, debates have kept going on what definition suits the term best. After multiple definitions spread by means of scholarly work, four central constructs seem to reappear related to mobile learning: pedagogy, technological devices, context, and social interactions (Crompton 1). An abundance of colleagues included these constructs in their own take on the term, yet research of educational technology Helen Crompton and colleagues revised and reduced their rather ambiguous definitions to the one I will continue to use. Their variation encompasses the “learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices” (Crompton 2). Crucial to this definition is the fact that these ‘multiple contexts’ represent the diversity of learning environments in which m-learning suits its purpose and what external actors potentially lie behind experience. Adding to the contextual diversity, one should take into account that m-learning objects are not limited to be solely developed, distributed, and regulated by formal academic entities. Sessions of learning can thus be self-directed and rather spontaneous in
contrast to more traditional learning settings. As for the “social and content interactions” referred to in Crompton's definition, all the while m-learning might provide for a more decentralized manner of learning, it affords to connect and communicate with peers, educators, and the world through mobile technology. As m-learning facilitated connection with whomever might fulfill a valuable role in the learning process, this crucial development further eliminated constrictions on time and space traditionally related to education (Bernacki, Greene and Crompton 2). By playing host to these properties altogether, m-learning embodied a format of digitally distributable learning objects. As developers started producing them for mobile software stores of choice, mobile learning environments became increasingly available to people from all walks of life.
2.3.3. Microlearning
In addition to the characteristics of m-learning, alterations to the design and practices of learning content in mobile learning objects helped realize Mimo, Duolingo, and Headspace. As the time-consuming practice of absorbing vast fields of study by traditional means does not easily fit into everyday mobile-enabled life, the deconstruction of learning units and their re-arrangement into more manageable modules characterizes the design of microlearning objects (Dingler et al. 1). These modules, are subsequently formed using micro-content also known as nuggets and are perceived to increase overall user engagement and performance. To give a glimpse on the perceived learning efficiency of microlearning, a research was conducted on two groups of primary school students in 2018. While one was taught by means of microlearning, the other was subjected to traditional learning methods. The six weeks of teaching resulted in a compact, yet clear empirical exploration. Among the most interesting results were a significant average of eighteen percentage points difference in rate of pass as a result of five performed exams without prior notice. Between the two different learning methods this result was in favor of the microlearning group. Additionally, a steep rise in learning motivation was evaluated by the group being assessed through microlearning practices. In the case of widely distributed mobile applications, the topically focussed content is generally designed as simple as possible to consequently be taken in while presented on mobile devices (Göschlberger and Bruck 2). This makes for the possibility of planning and completing varying amounts of educational content spread over whatever time or environment a user sees fit. Apart from this postmodern flexibility, the concept of microlearning and its underlying practices can be positioned in the distracted present for multiple reasons.
Firstly, the flexibility of interacting with learning content plays into the hand of 16
users’ dispersed attention. Whether speaking of an audience mostly consisting of ‘digital natives’, or rather of a middle-aged working class learning for leisure, the engagement with microlearning applications could arguably fit in every lifestyle. The relationship between microlearning and this techno-cultural development will later be clarified extensively, and plays a key role in the thesis. A variety of work will help strengthen the arguing and positioning of this relationship.
Secondly, the method of microlearning as a way of processing information has been paralleled with the rapid changes in worldwide connectivity, especially the internet. Arguably, one is already dealing with information by means of microlearning when ingesting Google results or simply by checking incoming email. Subjects intermittently allocate their attention to small units of information as they repeatedly come across participating digital environments. These now quite common activities were made all the more accessible because of widespread mobile technology and played into the hands of the attention economy as our contemporary socio-technical milieu. The adjacent informational abundance and scarcity of attention that have gotten to characterize late modernity can therefore be seen as stimulating forces in the further blossoming of microlearning practices.
To gain further insights on these practices and understand their designed intent, a selection of scholars provided supporting works. As a first, computer scientist Tilman Dingler and colleagues looked into microlearning sessions and what accessory assets are included in them. They retrieved their findings by analyzing language learning applications and, additionally, building their own. They focussed on the design of the microlearning aspects and in what way the applications exploited the concept. Dingler et al. further explored a variety of methods within design practices and how this impacts the efficiency of learning through applications and stimulates user attention (3). Part of their writing acts as impetus for my arguments. Additionally, Göschlberger and Bruck explored competitive gamification for microlearning, thus bridging two of the main concepts from this thesis. By looking into the behavior of one hundred seventy-five employees using gamified microlearning, they retrieved knowledge on the effects of competitive game design elements and the social aspect of gamification. Furthermore, they press that microlearning happens informally and is often driven by individualist triggers. This leads up to their definition of microlearning as a specialized form of self-regulated learning that puts the emphasis on a somewhat personalized learning environment (Göschlberger and Bruck 2). Initially defined by educational researchers Barry Zimmerman and Dale Schunk,
regulated learning encompasses an idea of autonomous learning in which resourceful individuals become “masters of their own learning” (Zimmerman 4). These individuals are theorized as a profoundly different type of learner that possesses an abundance of qualities to embrace nonstandard learning conditions (Salmani Nodoushan 2). With this in mind, part of my claims revolve around the applications’ self-regulated workings and explore a possible exploitation of the individual. From the same state of mind, Göschlberger and Bruck present a framework on game design elements which I incorporate throughout the following chapters. Before this, the framework is clarified in the next section.
2.4. A lineage of gameful design
T
o supplement the bite-sized nature of microlearning practices, a technique of gamifying interface elements is often applied at the development of learning objects. In general, this form of element design aims at converting common learning structures into playful alternatives to increase overall learner engagement. Mimo, Duolingo, and Headspace have all been influenced by gamification in their own way, and because of the broad understanding of the concept it is important to clarify what implications can be associated with it. This will help understand the established relation of gamification to learning practices and its outings in the various applications. Game-based learning (GBL) can be seen as the foundation from which the notion of gamification has flourished. It comprises the fulfilling of educational goals by means of video games and has an extensive history of supportive scholarly work realized around it (Kingsley and Grabner-Hagen 52). The definition of gamification is diverted from GBL but, contrarily, defines the practice of implementing gameful elements into non-game applications instead of the other way around. These elements vary widely but are all said to positively affect user engagement and satisfaction. This in turn affects the overall experience of learning and, arguably, its effectiveness. Researcher of sociolinguistics James Paul Gee affirms the relationship of gaming and critical thinking by phrasing “games are just well-designed experiences in problem solving” (19). Terminologically, it becomes apparent that gamification has been through multiple mutations and its historical origin can be found in a series of different ideas apart from GBL. After its premier documentation in 2008, the term has been shadowed by multiple alternatives like ‘funware’, ‘playful design’, and ‘productivity games’ (Deterding et al. 1). In conjunction with this clash of terms, the definition of gamification has been subjected to heavy discussion within multiple game-related communities. Deterding et al. have made efforts to contextualize and define theconcept of gamification, clarifying possible bridges between the educational and gamified aspects of microlearning applications.
The widespread implementation of digital game design elements in non-game contexts was made clear to the public as Foursquare was launched in 2009. The mobile application encouraged users to digitally check-into physical locations and consequently rewarded them with virtual points, badges, and titles. In the same year, FarmVille (Zynga) was released and became a blueprint for monetizing game design. Users became eager to pay real currencies for a virtual counterpart only to spend them on ways to play more efficient. “It’s all money in and no money out!”, author and gamification evangelist Gabe Zichermann shouted on a Google Tech Talk while substantiating the low-cost opportunities constructs like these are able to create (2010). After Foursquare and FarmVille, a trend was seemingly set and these gameful mechanics designed to boost engagement quickly inspired others in interaction design and digital marketing to achieve effects of such (Deterding et al. 1). This development also kickstarted academic research interest and in turn led Deterding et al. to author a firm definition of gamification. As for its novelty, the notion of letting other design practices inspire the form of interfaces can be traced back to the 1980s (Deterding et al. 2). From then on, the work in the field of HCI started to focus on the engaging aspect to be implemented in interfaces. ‘Funology’, also known as the science of enjoyable technology, was established as user experience gained credibility as a distinct field of study. All the while exploring the inventiveness of game design, the concept of ‘playfulness’ emerged and gained traction (Deterding et al. 2). Nonetheless, playfulness was defined in dissimilar ways where characteristics of the user experience like curiosity and efficiency were often overlooked. While game-like concepts were previously converted to purposes in the military, education, and business, the 2000s gave rise to digital forms of those ‘serious games’. These can be defined as “any form of interactive computer-based game software for one or multiple players to be used on any platform and that has been developed with the intention to be more than entertainment” (Ritterfeld, Cody and Vorderer 6). This came hand in hand with heightened interest in the user experience and design aspects of such video games which were designed to efficiently convey learning material (Deterding et al. 2). This is where gaming and learning profoundly came together in recent history and where a possible foundation for gamified learning experiences was created. Taking in the dynamic yet engaging character of gamified practices, it also brings to mind how the contemporary fusion of learning and gaming situates itself in the zeitgeist. When, for instance, referring to the notions of hyper and deep attention noted by Hayles, it is significant to explore how gamification relates to
these forms and possibly conforms or counters them.
Deterding et al. argue that gamification partly overlaps with the aforementioned concepts and trends within interaction design and the game industry, yet define the term as something singular that should be more specified (2). To be precise, they note gamification as ‘the complex of gamefulness, gameful interaction, and gameful design’ from which they extract the following compressed definition: “Gamification is the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (Deterding et al. 1). Besides the most widely used definition, information technology researchers Juho Hamari and Kai Huotari explained gamification from the perspective of service marketing. They propose gamification as a form of service packaging where “a core service is enhanced by a rule-based service system that provides feedback and interaction mechanisms to the user with an aim to facilitate and support the users’ overall value creation” (Hamari and Huotari, 2011 6). This definition plus more of Hamari and Huotari’s insights make for a valuable addition to understand the applications’ marketed workings.
In union with some of the following details, these are the two main perspectives to take into consideration throughout the core of the thesis. To further elucidate the distinction of gamification, ‘gamefulness’ can be seen as the counteract of the broader ‘playfulness’ where the latter is related to playing and the first is related to gaming. At first glance playing and gaming seem rather interchangeable, but both can be connected to the dialectic relationship of ‘paidia' and ‘ludus’ respectively. Initially articulated by French sociologist and philosopher Caillois, paidia reflects pleasurable play as an instinctual energy that stimulates the subject and offers a relatively free form of play (Kendrick 8). In this context, ludus reflects the more complex form of play which contrastingly encapsulates the compliance to rule systems which are premeditatedly designed with certain goals and outcomes in mind (Deterding et al. 3). If one would relate these two poles of play to rather traditional means of learning, paidia relates to the impulsive manifestations of exploration through material and the understanding through instinct. Ludus, on the other hand, embodies a more rigid structure of understanding as strategy and tactics become workable. By separating and exploring both ludic and paidic characteristics, a subject’s relation with gamified microlearning environments can be further understood in terms of compliance and adaptability. The degree to which these characteristics are present in the applications makes for an additional layer of analysis as it becomes feasible to get a better grasp of what forms of choice architecture, nudging, and persuasion are inherited by the apps. As a result, the earlier mentioned causal state of attention and GMAs’ role in both the attention
economy and distracted present become more clear.
In the same way gameful elements converged with pedagogic structures, Ash stated that logics underlying game design have been “bleeding out into broader processes and technologies in everyday life” (4). In terms of software this becomes evident as utilitarianism and hedonism are nowadays bound to intertwine and increase the perceived joy of interaction (Morschheuser et al. 220). To further illustrate this overlapping, it is important to clarify that consequent to the early beginnings of game-based learning, a ‘ludification of culture’ has acted as an additional force in altering the ideas of game and play. Media scholar Joost Raessens introduced this idea to denote the way video games act to stimulate playful goals and facilitate the construction of playful identities (52). While I would not go as far as to calling our current era the ‘ludic century’, qualities of the playful have been increasingly informing broad domains of culture and everyday life, including media practices (Deterding 1). Opposed to the ludification of culture, Deterding states that rather a ‘cultivation of ludus’ can be seen in the rise of gamification. From this point of view, a trend of social, cultural, and economic actors intruding and affecting games and play can be understood. In the same vein as Hamari and Huotari proposed through their definition, gamification then rather acts as a method to improve marketing and monetization instead of informing the mundane with gamefulness (Deterding 2).
Game designer and author Jane McGonigal initially introduced the concept of gamefulness and justified it as an addition to the established definition of playfulness to stress the qualities exerted from gaming (“Gaming can make a better world”). By implementing McGonigal’s notion, Deterding completes a systemized terminology of gamification consisting of three elements. Firstly, the idea of gamefulness reflects the experiential and behavioral quality of games. Secondly, gameful interaction which revolves around the artifacts that afford that same qualities. And finally, gameful design that defines the usage of game design elements to achieve gamefulness (Deterding et al. 3). To identify and consequently categorize game elements from whatever non-game object they might occur, boundaries have to be set. Therefore, to clarify what elements do and do not fall into the ramifications of gamified elements, Deterding et al. suggest to include only elements that are characteristic to games and therefore “found in most (but not necessary all) games, readily associated with games, and found to play a significant role in gameplay” (4).
To further specify game design elements related to microlearning didactics, software researchers Bernhard Göschlberger and Peter A. Bruck explored the Octalysis Framework (2-3). Originally introduced by author Yu-Kai Chou, this model presents a systemized way
of clustering elements within eight categories (Image 4). Each category resembles a specific ‘drive’ that influences user interaction pertaining to, for instance, Ownership and Possession or
Scarcity and Impatience. Together the eight comprise a balanced out spectrum that
differentiates between positive or negative reinforcement, logic, calculation, creativity, and socialness. It is especially useful for this thesis because it embodies a classification on which to fall back on whenever an unexplored kind of element first appears throughout the analysis. The concerned categories from the framework will then be outlined shortly after which the characteristics of the elements in general can be understood better. While the framework indicates general course, it also provides room for deviations and specifics at the same time. It affords a structure in which engaging aspects can be singled out methodically and consequently provides justification for what possibly motivating, devaluating or rewarding influence underlie them.
Image 4: The Octalysis Framework (Wikipedia)
As a foundation, the model not only helps to shed light on the more unforeseen implications lying behind the game design elements. It additionally assists in interpreting the subject’s relationship with the applications and its elements. This direction throughout the critical assessment of design elements makes it feasible to link various facets of application design and persuasive technology in a structured yet elaborative manner. By understanding what persuasive properties underpin the various elements, it becomes clear
how they possibly act as to change people’s attitudes and behaviors when analyzing them throughout the consequent chapters.
From this point on I will take you through a variety of chapters that, together, impose to construct a bigger picture of Mimo, Duolingo, and Headspace in relation to the introduced socio-technical milieu. Hence, the next chapter starts offering insights on the application’s persuasive characteristics found in a selection of stimulating design practices. A series of nudging elements taken from the apps is analyzed to bring strength to the idea of microlearning applications conforming to the distracted present’s causal relation to attention. The idea here is to view how design elements come into our awareness and what steering power characterizes the underlying design practices and persuasiveness of the apps. By intermittently referring to the aforementioned Octalysis framework a consistent bridge between the overarching didactic attributes of learning and gaming becomes clear. Correspondingly, a foundation is laid down that affords to expand on and give context to the possible power relations between users and designers in the latter segments of the thesis. In addition, I aim to bring in perspective how the apps’ systems of nudging conform to the idea of a multitasking subject and add fuel to the fire in their own respective ways. References will be made to Crogan and Kinsley’s views on the attention economy and Davenport and Beck’s idea of attention. Dingler et al. plus Kumar, Muniandy and Yahaya’s explorations of stimulating design substantiate a section on stimulating aesthetics as well.
Chapter 3: Playful Disruption
3.1. The unification of knowledge and achievement
P
rensky states that the video games industry possesses an expertise on motivational design, triggering players to persist at chasing their goals and increasing perseverance (1). I argue that this overall focus on enhancing consumer determination represents the crux in both successful learning and gaming design.While taking part in either of them could prove for very different motives, successfully meeting the inherent goals within the processes of learning and gaming depends on rather similar didactic attributes. As subjects get involved in either of these processes, they generally set goals and attain a degree of intentionality all the while sets of tools extend cognitive functioning and facilitate them in working towards the goals. In my experience, Gamified Microlearning applications (GMAs) embody the similarities between the two processes and have managed to fuse principles of both gaming and learning together in intuitive ways. A significant part of this fusion is brought forward by the element design of the applications. These elements encompass the working interface of the applications, which are individually designed to trigger specific user activity and add to the overall experience of content interaction. To govern the desired experience, developers aim to stimulate the subject’s senses and emotions through conscious design choices. This form of governing stems from the idea of implemented ‘choice architectures’, set up to nudge individual choice within the interface (Thaler and Sunstein 143). Bearing this in mind, developer goals and user interaction can be intrinsically linked and explored.
From this section on, an underlying structure according the Octalysis framework sits in place. To substantiate the initial traction of investing time and effort in GMAs, the premier category originating from the framework I introduce is linked to elements that confer a sense of Epic Meaning and Calling. Confronting users with a greater cause and definition of what is to be gained overarches why both learning and gaming can be found interesting in the first place. If users are prone to identify themselves with the presented goal, users are likely to get themselves invested for the long run (Göschlberger and Bruck 2). In Mimo, as a user you are working through paths of curated lessons. Reaching and completing the final segments of each path will unlock a personalized certificate to confirm you have successfully grasped an idea of that specific aspect of programming (Image 5). As a path prohibits you to enter randomly picked lessons, but instead guides you to the end in
Image 5: The path to a certificate in Mimo (personal screenshot)
an orderly fashion, you are frequently reminded to the validation and reward that awaits you in the end. Even though these certificates are untethered from any recognized academic value, the sheer inclusion of a digital document resembles the effort that has been put into earning it. The esteem that results from realizing goals like this is what Franck also notes as the accumulation of attention. Conforming to the idea of the attention economy, he states that knowledge can be seen as the capitalized attention we have become dependent on (Franck, 2010). Even though the certificates embody the fulfillment of a large set of tasks and goals, an arguably less epic but rather persistent sense of development and accomplishment is being fed to users by an extensive system of additional elements. This feeling represents a second category of the Octalysis Framework and further encompasses the degree in which engagement with, and awareness of progress and distribution of awards is handled (Göschlberger and Bruck 2). In the case of GMAs, I argue that elements pertaining development and accomplishment interplay with the category of
Unpredictability and Curiosity. Apart from locked content and the withholding of rewards,
the element of surprise can be argued as a consistent drive to initiate users into frequent interaction.
These components of application design encompass a significant part of what makes both gamification and microlearning work as tools of productivity and are therefore represented in many different ways throughout the apps. In either Mimo, Duolingo, or Headspace the learning content is split in nuggets that come in the form of courses,
lessons, or segments. Completing the nuggets gains you experience in both a literal and digital sense. In the guise of experience points (XP), progress is quantified and often assessed by the app to unlock additional content and increase one’s personal level of experience. XP and the corresponding user level thus parallel the effort made by the users and represent a visual tracking record to be re-assessed at any given time. Where Mimo maintains a general user level to track progress, Duolingo distinguishes many forms of progress through quantified achievements. These vary from earning a certain amount of XP or completing lessons without mistakes. Headspace minimizes these forms of measurement by simply presenting three forms of progress: Total time mediated; Sessions completed; Average duration of session. When considering the excessiveness in combination with the attracting aesthetics that progress-related elements like these conform to, a disconcerting side of application design can gradually be argued. The apps’ abundance of stimuli triggers what is theorized by Hayles as a mode of hyper attention. Reflecting the younger generation’s influence on contemporary design, hyper attention affords low tolerance of boredom and an ever-evolving urge for frequent stimulation (Hayles, 187). Take, for instance, the interface of Duolingo where the completion of a single lesson can lead to the accumulation of crowns, flames, lingots, and an increase of multiple skill levels (Image 6). Taking in knowledge while repetitively being overflown with the mentioned game design elements illustrates to what intensity the implementation of these
Image 6: Accumulation of various resources in Duolingo (source: Reddit)
sorts of stimuli in GMAs can come. Opposed to Duolingo and Mimo, Headspace’s focus on instigating mindfulness suffices to consistently keep the user’s attention on the long-term epic goal. The app largely omits the mentioned stimuli and can be said to reward the user with the realization of enhanced inner peace and calm. Not to say that the presence of mentioned stimulating elements comes without function or cause. It does, however, indicate to what degree the interface design of such GMAs is linked to implications of the distracted present. While younger generations form an ever-growing class of digital natives and hyper attention is automatically cultivated through contemporary media usage, additional implications of this cognitive mode arise implicitly. Among them is the affected plasticity of the brain throughout childhood and adolescence. Hayles notes that this “implies that the brain's synaptic connections are coevolving with an environment in which media consumption is a dominant factor” (192). These days, the tracking of the self can be viewed as an indispensable facet of that environment. Not merely in social media or health & fitness apps, but just as well in digital learning environments.
I therefore argue that the affordance of numerous statistics have made GMA’s useful environments to expand users’ capability of self-tracking. By facilitating gamified forms of progress and achievements, designers have enabled users to quantify acquired knowledge in a more tangible form. Also, where formal assessments and documents represent accomplishment in a rather delayed manner at very isolated points in time, gamified progress elements realize a continuous form of progress-tracking. As a consequence, users are able to self-reflect at any given time and provided with the possibility to adjust their future engagement with the content and enhance results swiftly (Lupton 442). At the same time, by reducing knowledge to a quantified counterpart, GMAs afford users greater capacity to an arguably marginal form of comparing and relating. This brings me to the Octalysis’ category of Social Influence and Relatedness and the way user ranking is integrated in GMAs (Göschlberger and Bruck 3). Given the networked affordances implemented in the apps, the way ranking is inherited by Mimo and Duolingo acts as a very peculiar aspect of their workings. Ranked leaderboards and their corresponding statistics represent a form of in-game reputation respective to each individual player and portray an additional competitive element in the app. Attributes like user level and badges are one of the first statistics to be taken into measure in relation to other users and, depending on the way different leaderboards are ordered, metrics are used
to sort users and disperse them through the rankings. What follows from comparing these metrics with thirds is the notion of, in the case of GMAs, acquiring knowledge as a quantified performance (Lupton 446). As quantification reduces and enumerates things, energies, practices, and perceptions into “uniform parts”, viewing one’s knowledge through numbers makes for an arguable norm of what value lies behind the quantified (Grosser 5). In turn, this makes leaderboards a somewhat reductive depiction of who is actually best or most knowledgable. Comparable with contemporary social media usage, attention resembles an abstract quality that is presented by means of ‘likes’, ‘views’, and ‘followers’. Within these social domains ‘better’ statistics in terms of following and likes are often experienced as competitive achievements possessing particular value (Veszelski 419). Along these lines, new media scholar Benjamin Grosser asked why we are not “satisfied with stability in the face of quantification” (3). To this, he answers that our “desire for more” hails from both evolutionarily developed human needs and the pervasiveness of capitalism. Essentially, what then lies at the centre of this desire is our need for frequent confirmation of personal worth as a result of social interactions (Grosser 4). Information science scholars Juho Hamari and Jonna Koivisto also confirmed that social influence, positive recognition and reciprocity indeed affect people’s engagement with gamified services (2015a 342). Considering then, that competitiveness revolving around the mentioned statistics takes a prominent position inside GMAs, I argue that the integration of competitive units like leaderboards play into our need for personal worth and are not much different from the social networks that represent a significant share in current attention marketization. The competitive and social features inherent to GMAs thus feed into our desire to impress through quantification and act as a significant attention conductor alongside the actual learning process. Depending on the user’s personal character traits, obtained badges, certificates, or user level can additionally be seen as concrete achievements to show off to other users. The juxtaposition of these achievements through ranking thus mirrors a form of digital copresence that instigates a distinct way of connectedness through measuring (Pink and Fors, 232).
Moreover, I argue that the tracking and comparing of one’s own learning progress brings about practices of disputable valuation and conforms to concurring digital landscapes of self-obsession. Duolingo facilitates this by automatically sharing the variety of ‘skills’ and their respective levels to your friends in-app. What results here is a relationship that is formed by measuring, and consequently, comparing achievements within the app. This makes me conclude that ranking within GMAs arguably operates as an
attentional technology. To underline this, I draw from the idea that paying attention to the actions of others on assemblages of digital media potentially provokes the act of mimicking (Terranova, 2012 7). In the context of GMAs, the various explored social properties thus prompt users to exhaust some of their already scarce stock of attention to a form of competitiveness. Once invested, the apps afford a multiplicity of tactics to attain frequent stimulation. While continuing to explore this field, aesthetics within interfaces will prove as an example of how visual design nudges users in competing and, consequently, sustaining rank.
