Motivational, Ethical and Gamification Issues in Crowdsourcing Liam Murray1, Marta Giralt2 School of Modern Languages & Applied Languages University of Limerick liam.murray1, marta.giralt2{@ul.ie} Abstract This paper investigates a number of important issues related to ethics, motivation and gamification. Gamification has previously been presented and identified as an area containing high potential for learning (Perry, 2015), and may therefore be judged worthy of investigation when applying crowdsourcing techniques. In addition, this paper will cover issues related to learner retention and motivation. We will further pursue this area by including major points on ethical and motivational considerations, drawing upon our previous research on gamification (Buckley, et al. 2018) and aim to relate them to crowdsourcing. Keywords: Gamification, Crowdsourcing, Gaming, Motivation “moved to do something” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 54), 1. Introduction however, it may also be about the “choice” of an action and the “effort” expended on it (Dörnyei, 2001, p. 7). Whilst Gamification has been defined as the use of game design elements in non-game contexts, and has proven to be highly other researchers believe that more importantly than ‘effort’, a player’s in-game behaviour is driven more by effective in motivating behavioural change. It must be individual volition than by external factors (Fenouillet, pointed out that this does not necessarily mean making everything into a game. By interpreting game elements as Kaplan & Yennek, 2009, p. 49). Therein lies the rub between ethics, motivation and gamification. In this paper, “motivational affordances” (Deterding, 2011; Jung, we will explore and discuss the important implications of Schneider, & Valacich, 2010; Zhang, 2008), and formalising the relationship between these identified these three aspects and how they relate to each other and to crowdsourcing. elements and motivational affordances, it is our conviction that gamification can be effectively used to improve software systems across many different and distinct 2. Background application domains. Offering as a background to the different aspects that are The research reported here seeks to illustrate the direct going to be discussed in this paper, we will present the relationship between game elements and motivation, and outline of the different sections that are covered and proposes the more systematic employment of a strictly developed in it. With gamification being one of the main defined type of gamification. concepts and ideas that we are discussing, some definitions We will show a previously developed framework which need to be considered and briefly examined to set the linked the most commonly-present game elements with the ground for one of the main questions: “how much components of a psychological motivational model known gamification is required?” As we are also exploring as Self-Determination Theory. The ongoing goal is to motivational and ethical issues, it should be noted at the inform system designers who would seek to leverage the outset that when employing gamification we are attempting gamification of such game elements what they would need to change or modify a behaviour or behaviours to employ as motivational affordances. In order to do this, After reviewing various pertinent theories and we will show comparisons of game elements and a recently terminologies related to game elements within the gaming established framework, known as GaMDeF - literature, we chose 3 main sources (Fitz-Walter, 2015; “Gamification–Motivation Design Framework” (Buckley, Seaborn & Fels, 2015; Werbach & Hunter, 2012) to build DeWille, Exton, Exton, & Murray, 2018). Furthermore, we the GaMDeF (Gamification-Motivation Design will reveal the various interrelationships that exist within Framework) model which is presented, extended and game elements. localised here. This consolidated and evaluated framework However, gamification is not without its critics, as it is brings together 19 game elements with 3 of the main currently practised in the world of marketing and customer components of motivation. Finally, we will discuss the use loyalty. Zichermann (2011) believes that he only needs to of gamification and games to collect data generated by provide users with rewards and status, in order to users as implicit crowdsourcing technique and ethical encourage them to participate in a system. This reductivist considerations will be debated. approach to presenting the powerful influence of games as nothing more than rewards exasperates games critics such 2.1 Definitions as Bogost (Bogost, 2011, 2014), and Deterding (2011b), At its most basic, we can define gaming as the ‘willing who sees Zichermann’s approach as allowing customers to acceptance of a challenge’. Ferrara (2013) has be “(fleeced) to the benefit of the company”, rather than convincingly shown that games “are able to communicate games that enhance or improve the gaming experience. persuasive messages” (p. 294). While this can be seen as a Deterding (2011b) goes on to claim that Zichermann lauds negative phenomenon, where innocent game players are those game designers that “dupe customers”, manipulating exploited by gamification designers, Gee (2016) has long them to undertake tasks they would not otherwise do, and argued that persuasion can be used for positive behavioural Bogost (2011) characterises the resultant systems as change. Accordingly, Ramirez and Squire (2014) suggest “exploitationware” and worse. As regards motivation, this that gamification (the use of game design elements in non- may be described in its simplest form as the sense of being game contexts) should be an item in an educator’s EnetCollect WG3 & WG5 Meeting, 24-25 October 2018, Leiden, Netherlands 40 motivational toolbox. The inevitable caveat comes from Iacovides et al, (2013) who show how games are increasingly incorporated into online citizen science (CS) projects as a way of crowdsourcing data; yet the influence of gamification on volunteer motivations and engagement in CS projects is still unknown. They found that game elements are not necessary for attracting new volunteers to a project; however, they may help to sustain engagement over time, by allowing volunteers to participate in a range of social interactions and through enabling meaningful recognition of achievements. Their findings have also been strongly supported by evidence from Fort et al. (2017). 2.2 Motivation and self-Determination theory There are “over twenty internationally recognized theories of motivation” (Dörnyei, 2001, p.12), but it is way beyond our scope to cover them all. Instead, we concentrate on SDT, a theory proposed by Ryan and Deci (2000) which suggests that Competence (mastery e.g. boss fights), Autonomy (choice e.g. DownLoadable Content) and Relatedness (social connection e.g. World of Warcraft or Fortnite) are the constructs that drive motivation. SDT extends Constructivism (individual constructing their own meaning), with the individual being afforded the chance to experience Autonomy. Table 2: The consolidated, evaluated GaMDeF (Gamification– Motivation Design Framework) When these mental models allow for feelings of competence, autonomy and relatedness, then the learner is more heavily involved in their own learning. Games, as described by Prensky (2003) enable players to build on their existing knowledge and extend the limits of their competences. This concept of creating additional knowledge by repeating previously learned tasks is, of course, an important part of constructivist learning theory, where constructivists argue that we bring prior knowledge to everything that we learn, and it is how this previous understanding is enveloped into new material which defines its appropriation. 2.3 Key question: how much gamification is required? There is therefore an established direct relationship between game elements and motivation. A previously developed framework linked the most commonly present game elements with the components of a psychological Table 1: Comparison of Game Elements Mentioned in motivational model known as the Self-Determination Three Major Sources. Theory. Our aim was to inform system designers seeking to use gamification about those game elements they would EnetCollect WG3 & WG5 Meeting, 24-25 October 2018, Leiden, Netherlands 41 need to employ as motivational affordances. We made world motivation in order to create better, more complex comparisons of game elements and established a and collaborative games for crowdsourcing solutions to framework, known as GaMDeF - “Gamification– problems. With gamification providing extrinsic Motivation Design Framework” (Buckley et al, 2018). motivation in our context, we must recognise that games Here, we will show the various inter-relationships that exist can become inherently addictive for some people. The in game elements and those which carry most relevance to question then becomes one of changing from reward to our Working Group 3 area whilst attempting to quantify disruption in one’s personal and professional life. Therein gamification for our purposes. lie the contradiction and controversy between ethics, Table 1 reveals the sources upon which was built the initial motivation and gamification. framework. Table 2 describes the consolidated, evaluated GaMDeF 4. Conclusions & Questions (ibid.) but it has also been updated and extended to include The GaMDeF model is intended to inform us primarily another factor known as DownLoadable Content (DLC). about game elements which may be important when This recent development in gaming generates high profits gamifying types of crowdsourcing tasks. The framework is for game developers; it may also affect motivation, for not meant to be prescriptive and should be ‘localised’ by good or bad (McDaniel, 2016). Quantifying the level of any Working Group wishing to explore gamifying gamification in a learning or crowdsourcing task is crowdsourcing tasks. We would end by asking the faux- ultimately a fungible activity. Each ‘gamified’ activity may naïf question of whether it is possible to gamify everything be interchangeable with another activity. In the end, there within our crowdsourcing tasks. In truth, we do not know may be only two factors which count: effort and reward. the answer to this. Our tentative proposal would be to Figure 1 attempts an overview of efforts and rewards in engage effectively with the end-user during the first initial showing the inter-relationships between game elements. minutes of exposure with heavily gamified elements. One may expect this Figure to be updated with more Following this short period, further lightly gamified developments in gaming design, but for the moment it activities may be added throughout the process. We cannot reveals the most salient features in the quantification ignore the influence and attraction of gamification, yet we argument for gamifying ‘effort’ and ‘rewards’. cannot simply accept its design and implementation uncritically and untested. 5. Bibliographical References Bogost, I. (2011). Persuasive games: Exploitationware. Gamasutra. Retrieved from http://www.gamasutra.com/ view/feature/6366/persuasive_games_exploitationware. php Bogost, I. (2014). Why Gamification is Bullshit. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications (pp. 65- 80): Mit Press. Buckley, J., DeWille, T., Exton, C., Exton, G., & Murray, L. (2018). A Gamification–Motivation Design Framework for Educational Software Developers. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 0047239518783153. Deterding, S. (2011). Situated motivational affordances of game elements: A conceptual model. Paper presented at Figure 1: Inter-relationships of game elements the Gamification: Using game design elements in non- gaming contexts, a workshop at CHI. 3. Gamification Issues and Ethical Deterding, S. (2011b). Gamification by design: Response Concerns to Zichermann. http://gamification-research.org. Retrieved from http://gamification-research.org/2011/ As already mentioned, motivation is described as being 09/gamification-by-design-response-to-zichermann “moved to do something” (Ryan & Deci, 2000), but it also Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivation Strategies in the Language involves the innate willingness of “choice” to perform an Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. action and the amount of “effort” expended on it (Dörnyei, Fenouillet F., Kaplan J., Yennek N. (2009) Serious games 2001) and required by it. For the effort to be genuine, the et motivation. Le Mans. In: S. George, E. Sanchez. (eds.) task itself must first be authentic, genuine whilst engaging 4ème Conférence francophone sur les Environnements the learner or practitioner in the ethical acquisition of Informatiques pour l'Apprentissage Humain (EIAH'09), knowledge. When gamifying, one is intending to change vol. Actes de l'Atelier "Jeux Sérieux: conception et behaviours and changing behaviours may equate to usages", p. 41–52. persuading someone to engage whilst offering the player a Ferrara, J. (2013). Games for persuasion: Argumentation, return or reward on the time invested in playing procedurality, and the lie of gamification. Games and (Lafourcade & Le Brun, 2014). Dörnyei (ibid), amongst Culture, 8(4), 289-304. others, has written about extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, Fitz-Walter, Z. J. (2015). Achievement unlocked: and the question of how much extrinsic motivation is Investigating the design of effective gamification sufficient. Tuite (2014) has also asked the question of how experiences for mobile applications and devices. to bring together successfully in-game motivation and real- Queensland University of Technology. EnetCollect WG3 & WG5 Meeting, 24-25 October 2018, Leiden, Netherlands 42 Fort, K., Guillaume, B., & Lefebvre, N. (2017, April). Who mobile learning-tool. Procedia- Social and Behavioral wants to play Zombie? A survey of the players on Sciences, 174, 2308-2315. ZOMBILINGO. In Games4NLP 2017- Using Games Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. and Gamification for Natural Language Processing (p. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 21-21. 2). Ramirez, D., & Squire, K. (2014). Gamification and Gee, J. P. (2016). Gaming lives in the twenty-first century: learning. In S. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The gameful Literate connections. NYC: Springer. world: Approaches, issues, applications (pp. 629-651). Iacovides, I., Jennett, C., Cornish-Trestrail, C., & Cox, A. Cambridge:: MIT Press. L. (2013). Do games attract or sustain engagement in Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic citizen science?: A study of volunteer motivations. Paper motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. presented at the CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on Human Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. Factors in Computing Systems. Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory Jung, J., Schneider, C., & Valacich, J. (2010). Enhancing and action: A survey. International Journal of human- the motivational affordance of information systems: The computer studies, 74, 14-31. effects of real-time performance feedback and goal Tuite, K. (2014, April). GWAPs: Games with a problem. setting in group collaboration environments. In FDG. Management science, 56(4), 724-742. Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game Lafourcade, M., & Le Brun, N. (2014). Ethique et thinking can revolutionize your business: Wharton construction collaborative de données lexicales par des Digital Press. GWAPs (quelques leçons tirées de l’expérience Zhang, P. (2008). Technical opinion Motivational JeuxDeMots). Actes journée d’étude" Éthique et TAL" de affordances: reasons for ICT design and use. l’ATALA. Paris. Communications of the ACM, 51(11), 145-147. McDaniel, R. (2016). What We Can Learn About Digital Zichermann, G. (2011). A teachable moment. Badges from Video Games. In Foundation of Digital Gamification.co. Retrieved from http://www.gami Badges and Micro-Credentials (pp. 325- 342): Springer. fication.co/2011/09/20/a-teachable-moment/ Perry, B. (2015). Gamifying French Language Learning: a case study examining a quest-based, augmented reality EnetCollect WG3 & WG5 Meeting, 24-25 October 2018, Leiden, Netherlands 43