From as early as I can remember, I loved learning. The world felt like a giant, intricate puzzle, and each new piece of knowledge helped me feel one step closer to winning some intangible reward.
This week I've been focusing on exploring the impact competition has on learning as I delve into strategies to make learning more engaging and effective. Some studies have identified that not all students benefit from competitive elements (DiMenichi & Tricomi, 2015; Riemer & Schrader, 2022). For some, competition is a strong motivator. It can improve engagement, enjoyment, and performance. Yet, for others, it can have a negative effect.
Multiple factors can impact the successfulness of competition as a learning strategy. The number and gender of players, the type of learning content, whether players participate in groups or individually, and the presence of extrinsic rewards can influence the experience (see Bouchrika et al., 2019; DiMenichi & Tricomi, 2015). Intrinsic motivation also plays a part.
An interesting dynamic has been observed between the competitiveness of the student and the impact competition has on performance. If you're like me, you might think that a highly competitive student would perform well in a course that uses competitive elements as learning strategies because they would be more motivated to do well. But unfortunately, you'd be wrong like me.
The reason for this counterintuitive occurrence? Highly competitive students focus on the game mechanics rather than the learning content so they can game the system (Riemer & Schrader, 2022). It is more important to them that they get the best score, rather than that they master the content. For example, if guessing wrong has no or a statistically low cost compared to correct guesses, they might use rapid responses to quickly answer before even reviewing the content, counting on their speed to locate the right answer before their cognitive skills could. In such a situation, the data might look like the student has diligently practiced to mastery, when, in effect, they have only performed a repetitive task frequently enough to illicit the score or reward they were after.
Students with a high degree of competitiveness are focused on doing whatever they must to achieve an immediate goal at the expense of other goals.
As I was studying on this, a question came to mind. Could we do anything to shift that focus to the goal of true learning? In other words, is there a way to present competitive elements in such a way that the effect would be to make players believe the quickest and simplest way to success is to truly learn the content?
Intrinsic motivation is what drives us on the inside. My love of learning drove me to study the things I was assigned, as well as many other things. But is that a trait I was just born with, or was it nurtured and developed? Are only naturally curious people destined to become lifelong learners, or can we inspire that kind of curiosity in students?
Extrinsic motivation seems like an obvious way to encourage learning. Yet, studies have shown that extrinsic rewards can have a demotivating effect on student engagement, performance, or both (Hu et al., 2022; Ly, 2021). The literature makes it seem like competitive elements and rewards are a dangerous tool to use. While they can have a positive effect in some situations, they can be destructive in others.
So, what's the answer? If a class is comprised of 25% of highly competitive students, 25% of moderately competitive students, 25% of minimally competitive students, and 25% of competition-averse students, is it worth the risk to introduce competitive elements or extrinsic rewards? Is it fair not to introduce them?
Designing the game of learning is just another intricate puzzle to solve.
Kommentarer