User:Eseemuraye/sandbox

Legal Restrictions
Multiple legal restrictions may apply to the gamification of learning because of the difference in laws in different countries and states. However, there are common laws prevalent in most jurisdictions.

Administrators and instructors must ensure the privacy rights of learners are protected. The use of Personally Identifiable Information(PII) of learners and other user-generated data should be clearly stated in a privacy policy made available to all learners.

Gamified e-learning systems can make use of existing game elements such as avatars and badges. Educators should be aware of the copyright protection guiding the use of such elements and ensure they are not in violation. Permission should be obtained from the creators of existing game items under copyright protection. In some cases, educators can create their game elements for use in such gamified e-learning systems.

Criticism
Gamification of learning has been criticized for its use of extrinsic motivators, which some teachers believe must be avoided since they have the potential to decrease intrinsic motivation for learning (see overjustification). This idea is based on research which emerged first in the early 1970s and has been recently made popular by Daniel Pink. Teachers may not acknowledge that extrinsic motivators are already at work in a typical classroom, or they may wish to minimize extrinsic motivation.

Some teachers may criticize gamification for taking a less than serious approach to education. This may be a result of the historical distinction between work and play which perpetuates the notion that the classroom cannot be a place for games, or a place for fun. Game play has also suffered under misconceptions of being easy, irrelevant to learning, and applicable only to very young children. These negative impressions of play may translate into suspicions regarding the value of game elements which promote fun and a sense of playfulness within a learning context.

Teachers who criticize the gamification of learning might feel that it is not worth their time to implement gaming initiatives, either because they themselves are stretched thin with the number of responsibilities that they already have, or because they fear that the curriculum might not be covered if any time is spent dedicated to anything other than engagement with that curriculum. Gamification of learning has been also criticized as ineffective for certain learners and for certain situations. Proponents of gamification have never claimed that gamification is such a panacea, recognizing that it is not an appropriate strategy to motivate every learner in every circumstance. Videogame theorist Ian Bogost has criticized gamification for its tendency to take a simplistic, manipulative approach which does not reflect the real quality of complex, motivational games. Educational scenarios which purport to be gamification, but only make use of progress mechanics such as points, badges and leaderboards are particularly susceptible to such criticism.

There are growing concerns about ethical constraints surrounding implementation of gamification using ICT tools and e-learning systems. Gaming elements, like points and badges, can encourage collaboration and social competition but can also encourage aggression amongst learners. More so, the policies guiding the privacy and security of data produced in gamified e-learning systems needs to be transparent to all stakeholders including students and educators. Teachers and students need to be aware and accept to participate in any gamified form of learning introduced in the curriculum. Any possible risks that may arise should be made available to all participants prior to their participation. Also, Educators should have a understanding of the target audience of the learners to maintain fairness. Educators need to ensure gaming elements and rules integrated in gamification design do not impair learners' participation because of their social, cultural or physical conditions.