Response#3 "Designing Gamification in the Right Way."

Response to "Designing Gamification in the Right Way"

In the article “Designing Gamification in the Right Way,” Bohyun Kim uses a very different way to carry out the research, comparing to Neuhaus’s article. Kim first points out the topic of the research – gamification, which is relatively new and has many unknown questions. Then he generally sums up the questions and classifies them into five parts. In each part, he explores the connections between the subtopic and gamification design by analyzing the ideas brought up by other experts and adding his own expertise. But in Neuhaus’s article, she explains bunches of details from observing The Simpsons and other expertise to support every small arguments she makes in every paragraph. The two articles both have high density, and the words they use are academic and serious, which makes me always lost. I think “Designing Gamification in the Right Way” is more readable because Kim classifies his research variables clearly but Neuhaus’s article does not. In addition, another similar thing between Kim’s and Neuhaus’s article is that they both think critically of their topics. Neuhaus thinks Marge is a satire of the housewives in 1950s sitcoms, but she still reinforces the traditional values as a “nuclear family.” Kim thinks that gimification can be very helpful if it is designed by clarifying the right goal, target group and its use type, gender, age, culture, academic performance and learning content, but it still has critiques and negative effects. I think thinking and doing research critically is very necessary, because it can make the results of the research more comprehensively, so the society can have fewer stereotypes.