Or even D's in Regent Square.

Looks like it might be a small gathering. How about some place in Oakland? That way there are plenty of options.

I'm glad that the original post presented both sides of the argument because the truth is that no one really knows whether gamification of anything is a good idea....yet.

My own research is in education where scientists have been looking at how games can teach and motivate since at least 1987 (I'm talking about research and not educational games which go further back). Classically the debate has always been two fold:
1. Can anyone prove that knowledge transfers from a game to another setting?
2. Can games increase intrinsic motivation to learn or are they just another extrinsic motivator?

The first question is still undetermined for a lot of reasons (i.e. how does one even determine whether someone knows something).

The second question is important because education research has proven pretty conclusively that extrinsic motivators don't work - people driven by extrinsic motivators drop their motivation as soon as motivator is removed. But new research in motivation has illuminated what drives individuals to learn; that framing motivation as extrinsic vs intrinsic is possibly a misrepresentation of what drives us to learn something. In addition, integrating a badge or achievement system is different than what we are used to thinking about when making something game like. The badges aren't necessarily replacing goals, just supplementing them. And if that is true (TBD) then that could also increase a type of motivation necessary for learning (or accomplishing other goals).

Does gamification work? Sit tight and I hope to have an answer in the next 6 months. ;)

There are plenty of NEW and possibly better methods awaiting funding.

Excellent. Neither would I. How do you feel about scientific research? Do you think it's a good idea or do you hate that it holds things up? I mean, would you like to take a potential drug cure before its trial?

I'll stay away from your Flame-bait (you really think I demonized them?) and show how you made my point for me.

Where is anyone talking about see how this 'pays off'? How do you tell if it 'pays off'? Anecdotal evidence is just that and not the substitute for a scientific evaluation. How about we spend some of the money to explore that?

Don't you think that something that has the potential to reach a much wider audience should be carefully tested before released into the wild?

No and that's the point. There is nothing to say that this is a good way to introduce anyone to the subject. It might be but we have no way of knowing short of conducting research on the problem.

This isn't the same as Wikipedia, which is a resource designed to serve as a reference. These videos are meant to teach and must bear the burden of being able to do so.

No matter who the learner is, there will be some better and some worse ways to learn something. How do you know that this is a good way to learn something for anyone? There is a real problem with people miss-learning concepts and requiring extensive, if even possible, re-education to get the concept right. Take for example the average explanation of why we have seasons - completely wrong and requires significant explanantion.

And I can lament the fact that the very little money given to educational projects is being spent on unproven concepts. Applaud all you want but know that you might be applauding for nothing more than entertainment.

Maybe. Current research would point out that unless you gave the students something specific to do with their knowlesdge that they might not actually learn something.

But your larger point is exactly what I was trying to convey! No one knows how best to use these videos and that is what we should spend money discovering before sending them out to the world.

As a former educator (middle and high school Social Studies) and a current researcher of new technology and learning science I get frustrated about the amount of praise given to the Khan Academy.

I applaud Khan's effort and I'm sure the videos do help some people but I draw the line at it deserving a two million dollar grant for growth. What are these videos other than direct instruction (i.e. the traditional lecture)? We have a lot of evidence that direct instruction is a very inefficient way to learn something. Furthermore, access to videos only helps those who have the required internet connection and are intrinsically motivated to seek out the knowledge (the typical Slashdot user might fit that model but I assure the rest of the world does not).

Shouldn't there be some some scientific testing of the effectiveness of the Khan Academy before giving it $2million to expand. The summary even calls the videos courses! Courses have an implied pedagogical trajectory that helps learner gain some level of mastery on the subject being taught. These videos barely qualify.

Where is that from? Is that yours? If so it is excellent.

I think one major problem is with transfer. None of the skills (according to research) that a player develops in a game like Zelda (even a Link to the Past) are transferable to anything in real life, that can be measured. Of course, the problem could lie with how we measure.