FUNIFICATION 2.0. Knowledge mobilization model for corporate and educational game-based learning
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-11-2016-0060 |
| Date | 06 April 2017 |
| Pages | 84-110 |
| Published date | 06 April 2017 |
| Author | Carlos Francisco Bitencourt Jorge,Michael J.D. Sutton |
| Subject Matter | Public policy & environmental management,Environmental technology & innovation |
FUNIFICATION 2.0
Knowledge mobilization model for corporate
and educational game-based learning
Carlos Francisco Bitencourt Jorge
Department of Management and Business,
Catholic Paulista College, Marília, Brazil, and
Michael J.D. Sutton
FUNIFICATION LLC, Boise, Idaho, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to review the concept s of “fun and play”and propose a
preliminary model tha t suggests potential be nefits for quantitativ ely/qualitatively rating serious games
and simulations associated with corporate and university game-based learning (GBL).
Design/methodology/approach –A relevant literature review was executed to locate significant
references to fun and play, assessment of GBL, and the pattern for integrating those elements with knowledge
mobilization (KMb). A repertory grid method (RGM) was used to propose a preliminary model.
Findings –The proposed FUNIFICATION Model will be useful as a foundation for further evaluation of
GBL environments.
Research limitations/implications –Additional rationaliza tion of the proposed model and appl ying it to
actual games with focus g roups as the observers would provide addition al validity to the new model.
Practical implications –A threshold for fun involved in serious games and simulations would provide a
quantitative/qualitative measure for playability of serious games and simulations. The FUNIFICATION
Factor would feed into a KMb model for acquiring, codifying, disseminating, and making knowledge
actionable, either within academic, corporate, or public sector environments.
Originality/value –The range of assessment models for GBL is evident from the literature review, and
value could be derived in building an evaluation model based upon the RGM to identify a FUNIFICATION
Factor for serious games and simulations.
Keywords Simulations, Gamification, Knowledge management, Game-based learning, Serious games,
Knowledge mobilization
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
The goal of this descriptive theoretical paper is to review the literature associated with “fun and
play”and construct a model that reflects game-based learning (GBL) in the enterprise,
governmental bodies, as well as within the higher education (HE) context. New research
discoveries are emerging monthly about the advantages and disadvantages in the application of
GBL within organizations and classrooms. A gap intheliteratureexistswherethepossibility
of a new, emerging model to describe the value proposition for a serious game or simulation
could prove very beneficial for instructional designers and instructors. This paper describes
how the application of GBL processes is advantageous to organizational success within the
context of education, learning, training, and development. Moreover, evidencehas emerged that
GBL has a significant impact upon learning outcomes within HE environments. Evidently,
FUNIFICATION could be applied as a holistic knowledge mobilization (KMb) strategy to
engage individuals in changing behavior in relationship to organizational strategies and goals,
as well as increase motivation, engagement, and retention within a learning environment.
Fun, funology, funativity, FUNIFICATION
Definitions of fun
The concept of fun, and how that might become, or has become, a critical element of the
workplace and educational institution needs to be explored. Based on at least ten years of
World Journal of Science,
Technology and Sustainable
Development
Vol. 14 No. 2/3, 2017
pp. 84-110
© Emerald PublishingLimited
2042-5945
DOI 10.1108/WJSTSD-11-2016-0060
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2042-5945.htm
84
WJSTSD
14,2/3
work experience, many from the current seniors’generations were never brought up to see
fun and work within the same environment. Often, the members of the GI and Baby Boomer
generations worked, and then later, after leaving work, chose to try and have fun.
This approach exemplifies the prevalent Protestant work ethic during the formative years
of those two generations.
Nonetheless, philosophers, theologians, and educators have been discussing fun for
thousands of years. Fun, enjoyment, and pleasure are the three muses for humankind’s
distractions from or engagement with reality. Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato all referenced
pleasure in different ways, i.e., relief from pain, the action of stimulating the senses, or the
absence of pain. An historical sequence of thought leaders all grappled with the concept of
enjoyment and pleasure, from St Augustine, Descartes, and Wittgenstein, to Freud.
Thus, pleasure and enjoyment are concepts with a very long history. Fun and play, on the
other hand, do not seem to exhibit a similar history, at least not in Western civilizations.
Monk et al. (2002) began their workshop at the 2002 Conference for Human Interfaces
with the following narrative:
Pleasure, enjoyment and fun are fundamental to life. As the [G]reek philosopher Epicurus wrote in
his Letter to Menoeceus:“We recognise pleasure as the first good innate in us, and from pleasure we
begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure we return again, using the feeling as the
standard by which we judge every good.”(p. 924)
This quote pinpoints that “[…] we begin every act of choice and avoidance, and to pleasure
we return again […].”Humans cannot help but seek pleasure (Epicureanism), unless one is
brought up as a Greek Spartan (Stoicism), which is rare in the modern workplace.
Thus, when the idea that the workplace should encompass fun is proposed, a new business
case for the definition of work will be required. Fun, enjoyment, pleasure, and play are all
about choices…involving the will to experience a state of being different from our current
cognitive, emotional or behavioural state.
Several very authoritative, academic sources have provided the most formal of
definitions of fun. Webster defines fun as:
FUN (noun)
1: what provides amusement or enjoyment; specifically: playful often boisterous action or speech
ofull of funW
2: a mood for finding or making amusement oall in fun W
3: a: amusement, enjoyment osickness takes all the fun out of lifeW
b: derisive jest: sport, ridicule oa figure of fun W
4: violent or excited activity or argument
A review of the definitions above, along with synonyms, suggest that fun, like the word
love, incorporates a cornucopia of meanings. An apparent relationship exists between fun,
enjoyment, pleasure, and play, depending upon which dictionary one searches.
According to some sources, fun has yet to emerge as a significant characteristic of game
design. Malone (1984) proposed an early attempt to identify “enjoyment”in usability
interface engineering. Carroll and Thomas (1988) suggested that fun needed much deeper
study. Neither imperative has resulted in serious research around fun, especially in its
application to GBL.
Theory of fun
A light-hearted entry into this topical arena was Koster’s (2005) A Theory of Fun for Game
Design, providing cause to celebrate the application of fun to GBL. Although Koster’s text
85
FUNIFICATION
2.0
To continue reading
Request your trial