Gamification, a strategy whereby video game logics are applied to real world tasks, is rapidly gaining traction in education discourses, policies, and practices. Gamification advocates are frequently and prominently declaring the practice “the future of education” or education for the 21st century (Deardorff 2015; Frith 2017; Oxford Analytica 2016). Others are more skeptical of the power and effectiveness of the approach (Bogost 2011; Robertson 2010). Yet for all the celebration, critique, and debate around gamification, the question of the political logics underpinning gamification as pedagogy is rarely discussed. This article will explore those politics. We will challenge the assumption that gamification is a politically neutral practice and argue that it must be understood as a product, and embodiment, of a very specific set of cultural and political circumstances and values surrounding the knowledge economy. In staging this argument, we hope to demonstrate how and why the debate around gamification needs to be expanded from a discussion of its efficacy and terminology, to incorporate a political reading of its ideological effects. Gamification can be understood as the extension of the principles and mechanics of game-play: rules, points, rewards, leaderboards, and so on into “real-world tasks.” At its most basic, gamification has been described as “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts” (Deterding et al. 2011, 10). It has been heavily adopted as an organizational and managerial tactic, ostensibly as a motivating strategy. Used to encourage employee activity, and/or customer engagement and loyalty, it has been widely mobilized in fields as varied as human resources, advertising, fitness, and health, and of course education. Gamification is increasingly popular with large corporations and government bodies. Google, for example, famously uses “Goobles,” a kind of intraworkplace currency designed for betting on predictive markets (Schawbel 2013). The National Security Agency deployed gamification to incentivize analysts by awarding them “skilz” points that allowed them to “unlock achievements” and complete work tasks (Chen 2013). The Swedish National Society for Road Safety implemented a “speed camera lottery” in Stockholm, where drivers who drive under the speed limit are entered into a lottery with the chance to

中文翻译：

---

游戏化政治：教育、新自由主义和知识经济

游戏化是一种将视频游戏逻辑应用于现实世界任务的策略，正在教育话语、政策和实践中迅速受到关注。游戏化倡导者经常并突出地宣称这种做法是“教育的未来”或 21 世纪的教育（Deardorff 2015；Frith 2017；Oxford Analytica 2016）。其他人则更怀疑这种方法的力量和有效性（Bogost 2011；Robertson 2010）。然而，尽管围绕游戏化进行了所有庆祝、批评和辩论，但很少讨论支持游戏化作为教学法的政治逻辑问题。本文将探讨这些政治。我们将挑战游戏化是一种政治中立的做法的假设，并认为它必须被理解为一种产品和体现，围绕知识经济的一组非常具体的文化和政治环境和价值观。在提出这个论点时，我们希望展示围绕游戏化的辩论如何以及为什么需要从对其效力和术语的讨论扩展到对其意识形态影响的政治解读。游戏化可以理解为将游戏的原则和机制：规则、积分、奖励、排行榜等扩展到“现实世界的任务”中。最基本的，游戏化被描述为“在非游戏环境中使用游戏设计元素”（Deterding et al. 2011, 10）。它已被大量采用作为一种组织和管理策略，表面上是一种激励策略。用于鼓励员工活动和/或客户参与度和忠诚度，它已广泛应用于人力资源、广告、健身和健康，当然还有教育等各个领域。游戏化越来越受到大型公司和政府机构的欢迎。例如，谷歌以使用“Goobles”而闻名，这是一种专为预测市场下注而设计的工作场所内货币（Schawbel 2013）。美国国家安全局部署了游戏化来激励分析师，授予他们“技能”点数，使他们能够“解锁成就”并完成工作任务（Chen 2013）。瑞典国家道路安全协会在斯德哥尔摩实施了“超速摄像头抽奖”，超速驾驶的司机有机会参加抽奖活动。游戏化越来越受到大型公司和政府机构的欢迎。例如，谷歌以使用“Goobles”而闻名，这是一种专为预测市场下注而设计的工作场所内货币（Schawbel 2013）。美国国家安全局部署了游戏化来激励分析师，授予他们“技能”点数，使他们能够“解锁成就”并完成工作任务（Chen 2013）。瑞典国家道路安全协会在斯德哥尔摩实施了“超速摄像头抽奖”，超速驾驶的司机有机会参加抽奖活动。游戏化越来越受到大型公司和政府机构的欢迎。例如，谷歌以使用“Goobles”而闻名，这是一种专为预测市场下注而设计的工作场所内货币（Schawbel 2013）。美国国家安全局部署了游戏化来激励分析师，授予他们“技能”点数，使他们能够“解锁成就”并完成工作任务（Chen 2013）。瑞典国家道路安全协会在斯德哥尔摩实施了“超速摄像头抽奖”，超速驾驶的司机有机会参加抽奖活动。美国国家安全局部署了游戏化来激励分析师，授予他们“技能”点数，使他们能够“解锁成就”并完成工作任务（Chen 2013）。瑞典国家道路安全协会在斯德哥尔摩实施了“超速摄像头抽奖”，超速驾驶的司机有机会参加抽奖活动。美国国家安全局部署了游戏化来激励分析师，授予他们“技能”点数，使他们能够“解锁成就”并完成工作任务（Chen 2013）。瑞典国家道路安全协会在斯德哥尔摩实施了“超速摄像头抽奖”，超速驾驶的司机有机会参加抽奖。