Revista_Completa_ing-1

Revista FGV Online
Year 5 – Number 1
ISSN 2179-8729

Summary
7 Distance education from theory to policy: technology,
emancipatory learning and equity in a transformed environment
19 Strategies to bridge the gap between theory and practice in
the school environment
23 Gamification within the context of corporate blended and
multi-mode education
43 Educommunication and distance education tutoring:
managing communication oriented at education, dialogue and
critical thinking in distance education
69 From MOOC to personal learning
79 Potentialities and challenges of blended learning in
secondary education
91 Teaching crowds and crowds that can teach: learning as a
social process

5
A word from the editor
From theory to practice, Distance Education has trailed a long way. The articles presented in this 9th edition of FGV Online
Newsletter discuss online classroom teaching practices– both virtual and face-to-face – as they refer to professional
qualification through formal and corporate education.
The opening article, entitled Distance Education – from Theory to Policy: technology, emancipatory learning and equity in
a transformed environment, is authored by Alan Bruce, CEO and Director of Universal Learning Systems, a Dublin-based
consulting company, and Vice-president of the European Distance and E-learning Network (EDEN). The article discusses the
impact of adapted teaching and innovative education as applied to the European context - the challenges and contradictions
faced when attempting to implement technological sophistication in a fragmented, resilient and tradition-bound social
context. The author explores best practices, digital repositories, open education initiatives and the role of social agents that
lead pioneering movements.
The mission of education today was the driving theme of the interview conducted by Professor Rosinda Ramos, PhD in
Applied Linguistics and Language Studies, with Maristela Rivera Tavares, Academic Production Manager of the Educational
Solutions Department of Getulio Vargas Foundation. The interview discusses how educational games have changed the role of
education – from a merely informative role into a more integrative mission aimed at the development of cognitive processes.
In her article Gamification within the Context of Corporate Blended and Multi-Mode Education, Eliane Schlemmer, PhD in
Educational Information Technology and MA in Psychology from Unisinos UFRGS, discusses the use of games in professional
qualification and development learning environments.
The following article - Educommunication and Distance Education Tutorship - is co-authored by Luci Ferraz de Mello (MSc)
and Dr. Ismar de Oliveira Soares, with the Communication and Education Center of the School of Communication and Arts,
São Paulo University. The authors discuss education-oriented and technology-mediated communication management with
reference to Distance Education.
A potent voice in on-line and network learning and one of the pioneers in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), Stephen
Downes, senior researcher with Canada's National Research Council, authors the article From MOOCs to Personal Learning
which explores the concept of network connectivity as related to MOOCs and their effectiveness in individual learning.
Professors Adriana Barroso de Azevedo, coordinator of the Distance Learning School of São Paulo Methodist University,
and Lucivânia Antônia da Silva, with São Paulo State Education Network, shed light to the discussion on Potentialities and
Challenges of Blended Learning in Secondary Education with reference to both face-to-face and distance learning.
In her Review of Teaching Crowds – Learning and Social Media, journalist Cristina Massari highlights the authors’ concern
about knowledge transmission through social networks, the risks inherent to this practice and the changes in educational
systems that may result from this practice.

6 http://www5.fgv.br/fgvonline/revista
Enjoy your reading!
FGV Online Newsletter welcomes your contribution as an author, as well as your suggestions. FGV Online Newsletter is
a theme-oriented publication issued twice a year. Our next edition will be about Blended Learning. Check how to submit
your article!

7http://www5.fgv.br/fgvonline/revista
Distance education from theory to policy:
technology, emancipatory learning and equity in a
transformed environment
Dr. Alan Bruce
Dr. Alan Bruce is CEO and Director: Universal Learning Systems, Dublin, Ireland; Vice-President: EDEN (European Distance
and E-learning Network) National University of Ireland (Galway) and Senior Research Fellow: University of Edinburgh.
Abstract
This paper reviews the impact of adaptive learning and concepts of innovative education from the point of view of the
European experience and the challenges and contradictions in trying to implement the technological transformation in
fragmented and resistant traditional teaching milieus. It looks at best practice, innovation, digital repositories, open learning
initiatives and the role of new and non-traditional social actors in pioneering change in our understanding and application
of accessible learning tailored to individual needs. It examines concepts of access and equity in developing and fostering
inclusion. Reference will be made to key case studies and innovative EU programs and initiatives.
Keywords
access; emancipatory learning; inclusion; digital support; adaptive systems; globalization; international collaboration;
equity; human rights; European initiatives.
1. OVERVIEW
At this stage of development of educational theory and practice, we are now able to look back at a solid history of distance
learning and to see the context in which it was shaped. Distance learning began in a formal sense almost 200 years ago.
Its conditions and circumstances are powerful indicators of the impulses, values, technologies and vision that shaped its
origins as well as its delivery systems. From the outset, the distance learning programs developed by the University of
London in 1840 were grounded in a number of clear policy frameworks.
These were:
1- Innovative pedagogical methodologies
2- Use of currently available delivery technologies
3- Enhanced methods of assessment an accreditation
4- Development of as widely available access as possible to formerly disenfranchised or marginal groups of learners.

The critical issue here is that, from the outset, access was linked to equity and inclusion. This is all the more relevant
as the technologies that made access and development of distance learning possible occurred at a time of exceptional
interest in extending this access to hitherto unimaginable groups of learners, particularly those with experience of disability.
The extraordinary advances in education for learners with disabilities, for example, were pioneered in a fever of creative
endeavor and experiment, particularly for those with experience of deafness or visual impairment.
Distance learning was also central to vocational training, extension programs for occupational and vocational clusters,
outreach programs for geographically dispersed and rural learners, lifelong learning initiatives, increased participation of
women and an ever-growing range of measures, methods and technologies that maximized increased access for all on
almost unimaginable scales.
Embedded in distance education from the outset, therefore, we can discern three key trends. One trend is the creation
of learning opportunities on an imaginative and inclusive level for ever greater numbers of those historically excluded
from established educational and schooling systems. It is critical to bear in mind that in earlier centuries knowledge
and access to learning were highly restrictive. The demands of early capitalist societies and rapidly expanding industrial
production systems placed a new requirement for levels of education and expertise that earlier systems simply could not
provide. Interest in education expanded exponentially the nineteenth century, from provision to pedagogy, from access
to certification. By the end of the century an entirely new system had been created of mass schooling and opening up of
learning to unprecedented numbers of learners.
The second trend was the congruence between expanded learning opportunities and the wider socio-economic system,
including the needs of a profoundly restructured and expanded labor market. Education was no longer the provision of
standardized curriculums to children or young adults (a stratified system that remained restrictive and elitist in essence).
The transformed world of capitalist production and consumption, allied to global imperial trade systems, meant a vast new
canvas of human interaction had unfolded. More and more, education needed to be tailored to actually existing economic
and social systems, shaped by a transformed labor market and mass production system. On-job learning, vocational training,
technical colleges and many more structures shaped - and were shaped by - this dynamic inter-relationship between work
and learning.
The third trend was the creative use of rapidly evolving technologies and communications systems and networks. Learning
and educational systems have always been shaped and formed by available technologies. The development of printing in
Europe with Gutenberg’s Bible in 1454 transformed availability of texts while also vastly expanding the hungry market for
information and knowledge. Distance learning is embedded in technology and in its adaptation to meet communicative
and learning needs. Every form of mass media has been used in distance learning from the postal system to cinema, from
telephone to radio, from television to the Internet – learning systems have adopted or adapted to new available technologies
as they emerged. This trend in fact has continued to escalate and deepen.

Throughout all this extraordinary evolution, the theme of access and equity has been present. Often, when starting to
analyze society, one of the first concepts is that of globalization of economic and financial systems. However, a more
historical and socio-cultural approach (such as those found in education and training) suggests contemporary society is
experiencing spectacular changes in the social organization of knowledge production, use and distribution.
Formal education systems transmitted and propagated accepted scientific doctrine. This was knowledge produced by means
of curricula that selected the ideas and skills that learners required for subsequent application to their trades or professions.
Education placed emphasis on teaching and instruction. The professor or teacher played a major part in this framework,
given that these were the people who taught those that did not know. This was a banking conception of education. In such
a matrix, the student was conceptualized as an empty container that had to be filled with content, as opposed to a candle
to be lit (Freire, 1970). On the whole, traditional learning systems in the Western World were modeled around the idea
of differential access to learning and knowledge, thus reflecting existing differences in existing stratified class systems.
Classrooms were structured in strictly didactic ways in terms of pedagogy. In addition, classrooms were located in fixed
places - the architecture itself reflecting notions of hierarchy, order and control (Bruce, 2009).
Parallel to school divisions and stratification were similar systems in the world of work. Schooling structures were linked
more and more explicitly to industrial needs and labor market requirements during the age of industrialization (Braverman,
1974). Hierarchies of knowledge transfer are seen clearly in the division of work. This hierarchy can be conceptualized
as a type of pyramid. At the peak of the pyramid is the owner-stakeholder (or entrepreneur, engineer or designer) who
originates an idea or technique that can then be implemented by taking advantage of economies of scale. The concept of
the independent ‘genius’ who creates new ideas or techniques and the technocrat who ensures they are implemented by
‘front-line’ workers maintains, legitimates and reproduces an inherently unequal distribution of the capability to produce,
know, learn and derive shared benefit from the ideas/techniques.
The education and training of workers, given their subsidiary function, therefore only develops to the most basic level
required to satisfy production needs. Veblen powerfully conceptualized the impact of fragmented knowledge and skill
acquisition for craft workmanship resulting from industrialization as long ago as 1914 (Veblen, 2006). Veblen’s pioneering
work looked at learning as it related to the needs of advanced society and the interconnectedness of that learning with
other socio-economic objectives.
Such a process raises new issues around structures of learning, working and production and how they might promote
innovation or creativity, not least for those who are the learners. It is necessary to consider and compare different types
of organizational structures that contribute to creativity, learning and innovation. It should be possible to identify different
forms of organizational structures from evaluations of practice and to investigate how different methods for developing
innovation and creativity work in different systems or organizations. This also raises questions regarding the nature of
learning in knowledge-based societies. It is important to consider what learning looks like in societies where hierarchies
are modified or shaped in more fluid ways.

The key point is that structured learning cannot be divorced from socio-political structures and constructs of organized
power in social terms. Knowledge is rightly described in the old aphorism as being ‘power’. Rather than being a truism, this
points to the importance most socio-economic structures attach to the need to define knowledge and to define the terms
and conditions under which it is transmitted and to whom. This integrated linkage enables us to understand the background
issues and concerns around access and equity.
2. FRAMING INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY
Today, concepts around innovation and creativity are locked in a context where use of advanced technologies and the Internet
and have re-shaped the market economy (globalization) and have led to an unprecedented change in observed rhythms and
intensity of growth. Knowledge has become the cornerstone on which to rest the development, survival and profitability of
corporations. Creativity and innovation have turned into new tools to lead processes effectively towards new aims.
Jan Fagerbert (2003) summarized the dominant discourse regarding innovation and learning and the future of European
globalized economies.
• Innovation introduces novelty (variety) into the economic sphere - if innovation stops, the economy does not increase
• Innovation tends to cluster in certain industries/sectors, which consequently grow more rapidly leading to structural
changes in production and demand and, eventually, organizational and institutional change
• Innovation is a powerful explanatory factor behind differences in performance between firms, regions and
countries. Those that succeed in innovation prosper at the expense of less able competitors.
Literature on the subject indicates four main trends reflecting the effect of globalization on innovation processes:
• Acceleration. Technological change has significantly speeded up during recent decades. This is illustrated by the
fact that the time required to launch a new high-tech product has been significantly reduced. The process from
knowledge production to commercialization is much shorter. The rapid development and wide dissemination of ICT
has played a key role in bringing about this change.
• Inter-firm collaboration and industrial networks. New products are increasingly integrating different technologies -
technologies increasingly based on different scientific disciplines. To master such a variety of domains is impossible,
even for big organizations. This is also reflected in the costs of developing new products and systems, which have
grown. Most firms do not have the capability or the resources to undertake such initiatives - this is the main reason
for the expansion of collaborative schemes for research and the growing importance of industrial networks.
• Functional integration and networking inside firms. Speedy adaptation and innovation gives the functionally
integrated firm an advantage. Flexibility, interdisciplinary linkage and cross-fertilization of ideas at managerial and
laboratory levels within companies are now important keys for success.
• Collaborationwithknowledgeproductioncenters. Increasing reliance on advances in scientific knowledge for major
new technological opportunities has been an important stimulus for firms to collaborate with scientific centers like
public and private laboratories, universities and other applied research centers.

These trends, more visible in some countries than in others, reveal a new and more collaborative interconnected and
relational conception in organizational culture. They evoke a socio-economic model where the key to success is using
much greater degrees of diversity, interdependency and complexity to manage risk and achieve goals. This way of
doing things is diametrically opposed to techniques of hierarchy, simplification, uniformity and control used during the
industrial era.
In terms of dialogic, expansive and third-order notions of learning, working as a community or in collaboration is a crucial
part of obtaining a more complete and more complex understanding of learning. Thus, collaborative learning and the
creation of new learning environments based on trust emerge as real driving forces in both education and work contexts
(Markkula, 2009; Hargreaves, 2003). The goal would seem to lie in the consolidation of large communities, networks
involving universities and education, companies and governments who promote generation and fostering of innovating
processes and policy. This is a very different dynamic for understanding the learning process in advanced societies. It relates
forms of education and knowledge transmission to a dynamic and fluid space where old hierarchic structures are no longer
useful or helpful. This transformed landscape of learning has powerfully shaped European policy and strategic planning
for the purposes of improved and enhanced learning for the 21st century. Whether the full impact of the transformation
wrought and change required is fully appreciated is more difficult to say.
The evolution in the understanding of learning in today’s world and its evolving role in work and education points to an
important cultural change around cooperation, collaboration and collective creation in widely different cultural aspects. In
this new culture, community and its relational meaning take on transcendental value. Along with the idea of community is
the goal of union between sets of different communities shaping communicative networking processes. This issue lies at
the heart of inclusive education approaches, particularly in contexts where human diversity has increased or accelerated.
The emerging communities are not the rigid ones of a static and hierarchic linear production system as in the 19th century.
Rather these communities are diffuse, complex and mutating, and they form and re-form in complex ways.
This raises many issues in relation to the extent to which good practice examples develop a community of learners and
overcome traditional barriers to learning. It also raises issues concerning power relations in the learning process and the
extent to which learning opportunities are collaborative or characterized by continuing hierarchical boundaries. It finally
creates the question of who builds the learning process and the extent to which processes that promote creativity and
innovation also promote equity.
The increased importance of innovation reflects the fact that it represents a major response to intensifying competition
by enhancing the learning abilities of organizations and individuals alike. Organizations can no longer establish sustainable
growth without innovation and learning. The scope of the challenges posed by the globalizing learning economy requires
that all innovation policies rest on inclusion of a learning component. This frames the conceptualization of creativity in a
dynamic learning and production nexus.

Figueredo (2009) importantly distinguishes between the concepts of incremental innovation and disruptive innovation.
Incremental innovation builds on existing thinking, products, processes organizations or social systems. They can be routine
improvements or they can be dramatic breakthroughs but they address the very core of what already exits. Disruptive
innovation is addressed to people who do not have any solutions. It takes place in simple, undemanding applications that
are not breakthrough. People are happy to use them in spite of their limitations because no other solutions exist. This has a
direct bearing on how educational systems and learning structures will be shaped to meet the demands of a changed and
globalized Europe where issues around rights, access and inclusion are now pressing in multiple ways.
In the recent past the European Union, national governments, regional and local authorities have developed new policy
instruments - and reused old ones - to tackle these emerging new challenges (social, demographic, economic and cultural).
However, in most cases this amounts to incremental adaptation of old policy instruments rather than the introduction of
radically new mechanisms (Miller, et al. 2008). The response to the new trends is often partial or fragmented. It is useful,
therefore, to provide a more comprehensive picture of what is going on in the field of innovation in European contexts. This
is a challenge, given the theoretical framework in which the notion ‘learning economy’ is embedded, especially as this itself
is rapidly evolving in the contexts of economic re-structuring, pervasive ICT usage and equality of access.
3. ENVISAGING SOCIAL INCLUSION
Social inclusion is not about halting the irreversible. It is about ensuring that alternative aspects of the human experience
are fostered and vindicated. This in itself calls for communities of the marginalized to better define their needs and their
potential contribution to the wider societies and communities of which they are part. Rather they should be seen as integral
components of a global effort to ensure that the world passed on to subsequent generations is not a uniform, suburbanized
market place but a living and diverse collection of richly different communities.
Social inclusion can be therefore seen as an integral element of a reassertion of the primacy of human values in teaching,
research and best practice. Overcoming exclusion and marginalization means equipping students and educational
stakeholders alike not simply with the mechanisms to understand social challenges - but also, and more fundamentally,
to be able to do something about them. Social exclusion implies both a structure and a process in the ordering of
human relations. As a structure, social exclusion relates to unequal levels of ownership of resources, unequal levels of
opportunity and unequal levels of privilege and status in accessing goods, services or information. As a process, social
exclusion is concerned with categories that historically may vary but are, in whatever form, denied full participation and
equality. As a process, it is also further concerned with the forces and groups that, for whatever reason, implement and
maintain exclusion.
Social exclusion concerns itself therefore with:
• Groups that can be defined as excluded
• The nature of the exclusion experienced

• The attitudes of those who maintain exclusionary practices
• The knowledge, skills and attitudes of officials in developing policies in these areas
• The body of knowledge and practice regarding equality legislation and practice.
Two issues emerge strongly from this. One is the question of equality of opportunity. Embedded firmly in the thinking
and values of the French Revolution, equality as a concept has been a highly contentious issue in Europe ever since.
From Napoleon to Thatcher, equality has been often derided and demeaned as a concept. From securing the franchise to
ensuring a documented Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland, equality has been at the coalface of resistance and opposition
from vested social interests. In the United States there is a richer tradition of the acceptance and assertion of rights but a
corresponding marginalization of the need to accept any underlying a priori equal status between human beings, except in
the context of the obligations of citizenship. Equality should not be seen therefore as axiomatic and widely accepted in all
western societies.
Second is the question of the norm against which exclusion is judged. In charting the poor levels of access for those
experiencing social exclusion the literature of the European Union refers constantly to ‘average’ persons. In a context where
the average is never defined or the normal spelled out, it is difficult to see social exclusion as anything other than that which
is variably defined at any one time by individuals and structures which envisage themselves as average or normal. Clearly
this value-ridden concept is less than useful. The norm clearly does not refer to a statistical average. Nor does it refer to
a historical constant. Its very use excludes. Its very use contains the bias against which equality approaches must engage.
What is important is that conceptual clarity be employed from the outset in approaching issues around social exclusion.
What is important is that a rigorous analysis of the existing conditions and characteristics of the presenting society be
employed to make sense of the discrimination in practice and attitude that undoubtedly exists. This has been a key challenge
for the European Union.
4. OPEN LEARNING, ACCESS AND INCLUSION
Grave problems persist throughout the European Union, despite financial harmonization and freer movement of goods
and labor. Unemployment remains disturbingly high. Social and economic inequality has increased with wide variations
in access to income. Racism and discrimination have increased. Most importantly, the grim instability of violence has
re-appeared with shocking intensity in the Balkan wars and genocide. Above all, the shock of the crisis since the banking
collapse of 2008 has now seen a ruthless focus on neo-liberal responses based on austerity and deconstruction of social
welfare systems established over the last 60 years.
Central to European growth and development strategy has been the whole concept of employment. The ability to find
and retain work is viewed as fundamental to human development. In a situation where the fundamental characteristics of
work and employment have been transformed by the pace of change it still remains true that work, however constituted,

is central to the participation and development of human beings in society. It is for this reason that European employment
strategies and interventions have been the foundation of wider social and community approaches. Employment therefore
is seen as the key bridge in the movement to enhanced social inclusion.
The glue holding this all together is the concept of lifelong learning. This is of fundamental importance in understanding
the significant shift away from skill specific training towards training and education that is focused on process, problem
solving, adaptability and innovation.
Nothing reflects the pace and rate of change in contemporary European societies than this concept. The move away from
school-based (or location based) education and training to more complex and flexible forms of learning design and delivery
is changing the nature of our understanding of learning. The change of understanding in moving from time-limited curricula
to self-study, open-learning and on-line learning (often in work contexts) alters profoundly the traditional understanding
of traditional training and educational approaches and methodologies. The stated reference of education and training to
actually existing social and economic characteristics of the labor market drives learning in the direction of applicability and
relevance rather than mere accumulation of formal knowledge.
Of all the priorities advanced by the EU in the context of unprecedented levels of social change and economic transformation,
the concept of lifelong learning holds out most promise as the way to view best practice in education, training and
development particularly in relation to the process of social inclusion. Its ethos and methodology will influence most
strongly the characteristics of training provision and occupational guidance in the years ahead. It is well therefore that
professionals and administrators working with social exclusion have as thorough an understanding as possible of the
principles involved.
Although there has been a considerable increase in participation rates and schooling during the last ten years or so, many
young people still leave school without the requisite qualifications, knowledge or skills for open, competitive employment.
In addition they often do not have that love of learning and motivation to learn that is essential for further learning and
growth in the rest of their lives.
Throughout all Member States of the EU there is growing concern about the capacity of traditional schools and education
systems to change, adapt and provide an appropriate foundation for lifelong learning. It has become urgent for governments
to review the ways in which schools are organized, the content of curricula, modes of delivery, design and location of places
of learning and the integration of advanced information technologies into the overall educational structure. In such an
environment it is important to evaluate and re-assess the role and function of schools in our society and the relationship
between education and families, employment, business, enterprise, culture and community.
The OECD thinking on lifelong learning has produced a wide-ranging debate on the type of society we are presently
constructing and wish to leave after us. Education and training are not just some abstract themes to be tacked on to the

real business of making money. They are at the heart of what it means to grow and develop - both as individuals and as
communities. That sense of community which is most threatened by the growth of social dysfunction, racism, violence and
despair is best preserved in a context where people are allowed to learn and develop at their own pace with the satisfaction
of knowing that their development feeds into processes of creativity and innovation for all.
Lifelong learning requires more than vision. It requires investment. It is for that reason that it has been closely associated
with the idea of equality from the outset. The emphasis on equality underlines the key role that learning plays in sustaining
economic, social, cultural and political well-being. The emphasis on learning for all recognizes that education and training
are prerequisites for not simply employment (or, even more rudimentary, a ‘job’) but for equitable participation in society.
This is why the principles and methods of lifelong learning have had such a resonance in the disability community -
especially in the United States among the independent living movement. Concepts of empowerment, autonomy, ease
of access, flexibility and innovation are central to lifelong learning and fit well with the structures and objectives of the
disability consumer movement.
These issues are pointers to strategies and policies that will be central in the forthcoming approach to education and
training for social inclusion.
This can be seen in the range of creative EU funded projects, which have been developed to address issues around exclusion
and socio-economic marginalization. These have been creatively funded under many EU programs, most notably the
Lifelong Learning Program. Projects such as FIESTA (www.fiesta-project.eu) have sought to create powerful networks of
those working around social inclusion and transition support in education. Other projects have addressed universal design
as applied to learning and inclusion such as UDLnet (www.udlnet-project.eu). Others have looked at language learning for
the blind, such as ADOLL (http://adoll.eu/en/). Finally there is the biggest project of all, Open Discovery Space (ODS) which
aims to serve as an accelerator of the sharing, adoption, usage, and re-purposing of the already rich existing educational
content base. It met the educational needs of these communities, supported by a European Web portal: a community-
oriented social platform where teachers, pupils and parents discover, acquire and adapt eLearning resources.
This new open and competitive environment means that the emphasis on quality and transparency becomes more important
than ever. It is incumbent on professionals and agencies to understand the structures, objectives and terminology around
meaningful inclusion. It is also critical to have a strategic sense of the impact of social exclusion. Individual sectors
experiencing exclusion will more and more have to engage with other sectors and groups marginalized by the attitudes and
prejudices of “mainstream” society to develop networks and generic models of best practice.

5. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY CONTEXTS
Issues of diversity and equality are pressing ones for a number of connected reasons. This reflects the demographic, social
and cultural changes of the wider socio-economic environment. It also reflects the powerful challenges and struggles in the
organization, structure and control of work and labor conditions that have emerged in the new globalized environment. The
current context of equality and diversity is concerned with the composition of the workforce in terms of multiple elements
of identity: race, religion, gender, language or nationality for example. This links to issues like:
• Forced migration
• Regional impoverishment
• Increased participation rates for women
• The changing nature of work itself (due to technological advances and improvement)
• Legacies of colonialism and racism
• Implications of legislation and human rights practice.
These touch on diversity in regard to rights, ethical practice, conflict resolution and promotion of equal opportunities.
The labor market manifests changes in work practice that have been conditioned, on the one hand, by the process of
globalization and, on the other, by the enactment of equality-based legislation in various jurisdictions. In European terms,
management of diversity has been centrally linked to the enforcement of principles of equality among citizens and the
prohibition of discrimination on a wide range of specified grounds. While legislation varies significantly between all Member
States, in most there remains a gap between the legal prohibition of discrimination and the actual outcomes for traditionally
disadvantaged groups. In all countries, legal proof of discrimination tends to be very difficult.
The dramatic changes in employment and economic performance in recent years relate to the identified fact that European
rights are in fact increasingly restricted. They are sometimes seen to be available only to European citizens and not to
the millions of external workers, refugees and asylum seekers who have arrived in Europe in ever-greater numbers. The
extension of equality of rights of participation, citizenship and access to all citizens (and indeed non-citizens) is now a
fundamental question of European social policy.
Managing diversity and equality approaches can be seen, at a minimum, as tools to enable educators to adapt to
challenges posed by differentiated populations. In a wider context, they may be seen as powerful resources to engage
with external change processes and tap into levels of creativity and potential produced by radical departures from past
certainties. This was the origin of distance learning as enhanced access. It may also be its future – as a rich source of
outreach to those excluded.
The critical need for engagement and learning needs to be emphasized. Rights and inclusion are international issues – a fact
not as widely represented in professional teaching formation as it should be. The removal of barriers to participation will be
about asserting the primacy of a global vision that challenges traditional complacencies and inherited structures. This also
emphasizes the role ICT can play in achieving best practice and innovative quality. Barriers to equality stem from prejudice

and ignorance. The removal of barriers can be addressed by legislation and monitoring practice. Deeper transformation can
be achieved most rapidly by educators seizing the opportunities offered by social difference and incorporating them in
innovative learning paradigms.
Equality and diversity are common concerns. Such a focus provides a valuable network of specialists who have:
• Deeper understanding of equality and diversity issues and their relevance and application in the workplace
• Comprehensive knowledge of policies, procedures and legislation
• Understanding of difference, stereotyping and prejudice
• Understanding of diversity at work
• Skills to design and develop toolkits for work based equality interventions.
The removal of barriers to participation and the enhancement of embedded equality and inclusion approaches will, at
the end of the day, be about asserting strategic policy as well as the techniques necessary to embed best practice in
education. A sense of vision about what society means, and about what it is for, can inform the creative process of
learning and skill development. It can give a sense of value and direction to the design and development of employment
structures. A lack of informed understanding in contemporary society means that we could be forever condemned to
repeat past mistakes.
The changes produced in both the human and technical aspects of the globalization process shape how global education
may now include various learning communities previously excluded by reason of prejudice, discrimination or remoteness.
We need to support learners across the globe to transcend barriers and address conflict and persistent discrimination by
means of skillful application of potent technological tools in the metamorphosis of traditional educational systems to meet
unprecedented levels of socio-economic transformation.
6. REFERENCES
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Continuum.
Bruce, A. (2009). Beyond Barriers: Intercultural Learning and Inclusion in Globalized Paradigms. EDEN: Lisbon.
Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Veblen, T. (2006). The Instinct of Workmanship and the State of the Industrial Arts. New York: Cosimo.
Fagerberg, Jan (2003), Innovation: A Guide to the Literature, Oslo: Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University
of Oslo.

Markkula, M & Sinko, Matti (2009), Knowledge Economies and Innovation Society Evolve around Learning. Elearningpapers.
http://pt.slideshare.net/elearningpapers/knowledge-economies
Hargreaves, A. (2003), Teaching in the Knowledge Society, New York: Teachers College Press.
Figueredo, A. (2009). Innovating in Education: Educating for Innovation, EDEN Research Workshop, Porto.
Miller, R.; Shapiro, H. and Hilding-Haman, K. (2008) School´s Over: Learning Spaces in Europe in 2020: an Imagining
Exercise on the Future of Learning. Joint Research Centre. Scientific and Technical Report. European Commission.
http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC47412.pdf
Supiot, A. (2001), Beyond Employment (Oxford: University Press).
Bruce, A. et al. (2010), Discovering Vision (San Sebastian: EHU/UPV Creanova).

Interview – Rosinda Ramos
Strategies to bridge the gap between theory and
practice in the school environment
Since the theme of the connection between theory and practice in learning processes has gained momentum in the academic
world, it was chosen as the driving theme of the interview conducted by Rosinda Ramos, PhD in Applied Linguistics and
Language Studies, with Maristela Rivera Tavares, Academic Production Manager of the Educational Solutions Department
of Getulio Vargas Foundation.
Professor Ramos points out that although Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are changing the role
of education – from into a merely informative role into a more integrative mission, the new generation of students is
very receptive to and values the use of practical problems in everyday instruction that promote the bridge between their
learning and reality.
Nevertheless, when dealing with the way in which content is presented to learners, Professor Ramos remarks the critical
importance of considering the context in which this approach unfolds in Brazil today, as the context is subject to an array
of variables.
A lot has been said about the connection between theory and practice and formal learning contexts. Do you believe
this theme has evolved within the school walls in the past years?
This might seem an uncomplicated question that could be answered with a simple “Yes” or “no”. However, as you’ve
put it yourself, the connection between theory and practice has been widely discussed – but that does not necessarily
mean the connection has been dealt with. This is a new education paradigm, introduced in the early 1990s with the
National Education Guidelines and Framework Law - the LDB - and the later passing of the National Curriculum Parameters.
Although this paradigm now shapes the whole Brazilian education context and establishes an intrinsic connection between
theory and practice, it deserves careful reflection. It first takes turning our focus to the school and when we consider what
kind of “school” we are talking about, a number of variables emerge. One of such variables is “Are we talking about state
or private schools”? Another variable is “Are we talking about primary – also called elementary school, secondary –also
called middle school, or about higher education? Additionally, what context are we taking into account, and how has the
paradigm evolved? A school in Rio de Janeiro? In Lages (Santa Catarina state), in Passos (Minas Gerais state) or in the
North of Brazil? All these variables lead us to realize that this is not really an uncomplicated question, as it means that
every school will probably have its own curricula and syllabuses which are probably aimed at the specific needs of its target
audience, or which may result from the beliefs of those involved in curriculum and syllabus design. So it begins to get more
complicated to answer this question straight-forwardly. We might say that if we take a more traditional school, one that
embraces theoretical and general knowledge as the norm, probably the connection between theory and practice and formal

learning contexts has not evolved much. However, in more innovative and transformative schools, advances can be seen in
the classroom regarding curriculum guidelines and the school syllabus. So, we should say that this is a rather relative issue
within the broad Brazilian education context.
What are the possible negative impacts on students when the school dissociates theory from practice?
If we take a school that focuses on both theory and practice but which dissociates theory from practical application, the
negative outcomes will be the students’ lack of resourcefulness or inability to use theoretical knowledge – which is abstract,
conceptual– to solve daily life needs, either at professional, personal or social level. Daily life requires turning specific
scientific knowledge into practical knowledge. Many people have a large knowledge inventory that is generally not well
used. We often hear complaints from the professional world about the lack of qualified labor to meet daily labor challenges.
So lack of preparation for work life is one of the negative impacts. Maybe the greatest problem is that our education does
not have specific purposes and so it is not able to bridge theory to practice.
What is your view on a competency-based curriculum framework?
Today I believe this is education’s greatest call of duty. We must focus on developing competencies to keep up with society’s
changes. Man has changed, the 21st century man is different from the 20th century man. Today’s man is faced with the
labor relations brought about by digital technology. We have new personal, interpersonal and professional relations. We live
within networks. Education now is challenged with what may be called a ‘complex paradigm’ – that of making learners able
to deal with uncertainty and the unexpected. To cope with that, we must be able to bridge theory and practice. We can no
longer consider someone who is not able to solve daily life problems or to deal with professional, personal or social issues
an educated person. We can’t dissociate professional life from personal or social life. These three spheres are interwoven
and education should aim at interwoven relations. The development of competencies should be an integral component of
school curricula and parameters so as to cater for the needs of this complex 21st century man who is challenged to be
prepared to deal with uncertain and unexpected issues. Competency-based education should educate individuals for work.
This is the ideal of education. Schools have broadly aimed at transforming old abilities into competencies, old objectives –
the so called general and specific objectives, into competencies. However, I believe school and its curricula and syllabuses
still lack thoughtful consideration of how to lead the change into this new mind frame and to understand that skills and
objectives are not necessarily synonymous to competence.
How important do young students assess having to solve practical problems? Do they value practical problems
more highly than students of the past?
I certainly believe they do, the young generation assigns more importance to practical knowledge. This does not mean that
theory ranks lower, but the idea is to put into practical application the so-called abstract or scientific, formal knowledge.
The new generation is much readier than older generations to deal with ‘quick-solution’ problems, problems that can be
promptly solved. So I believe the younger generation is more tuned to the world of practical application.

In what ways can Distance Education or Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) contribute to narrow
the gap between theory and practice in formal learning environments?
We know that distance education can be implemented at more traditional modes of instruction. However, digital technologies
have brought about great transformations for life in society and for education. With faster communication and more readily
available information, people can autonomously search for the specific information they need. So the former informative
role played by school is no longer needed. The role of education today is to develop individuals. As schools no longer have
to disseminate information, technology can aid school to look for new information and fulfill its new mission - to select
and guide learners in dealing with new information, as not all the information that is available is quality information.
Technology will facilitate the practical application of information as well as the exchange of information - not with another
single individual, but with several other individuals. People will work on networks, collaboratively, and will, at the same
time, learn to cope with other forms of communication and interaction. All these relationships will help to streamline the
exchange and the practical use of knowledge that is acquired through our interpersonal relationships, and eventually, help
us to develop new knowledge.
In what ways propositions like work-based learning or gamification can contribute to the teaching and learning process?
Gamification and work-based-learning are exactly about the theory-practice connection. Curriculum and syllabus design
should innovate the way this connection is implemented in teaching practices. Gamification and work-based learning are
teaching practices that will motivate individuals to engage in learning situations and tasks that will develop their cognition,
their reasoning and critical analysis. Games are not meant only for leisure, but are rather facilitators of cognitive processes
that generate new types of knowledge They can be turned into innovative teaching practices and learning activities that
will foster the developed of the aimed competencies as both games and work-based learning bring real-life situations to
the classroom. Particularly work-based learning, which will bring work life situations to class through case studies or real
workplace problems. If we consider students of foreign languages, which is my area of work, they will have to buy a ticket,
answer the phone, and do many other real-life tasks that will make school and real life work in consonance. Situated
learning will allow students to go through, in class, what they will experience outside school in their daily lives and so,
to construct new knowledge. Although neither gamification nor work-based learning was an originally education-aimed
strategy, we can’t brush off the motivation and engagement they foster. They can go beyond what the “new generation
needs” – “I’ll only learn what I like, what I’m interested in”. As students actually do that, these strategies will set targets to be
achieved. As I’ve said, although they were not primarily education-aimed strategies, they will add to the teaching practice
and allow the school to walk hand-in-hand with what happens in society, in the real world. One of the most commonly
heard complaints is that education has always been dissociated and miles apart from society and that knowledge that is
‘transmitted’ is never oriented to social life or the workplace. This way, these new paradigms and new teaching practices will
narrow the gap between education and society. We should reflect on the saying “knowledge and education at the service
of society”, and maybe, allow students to talk and interact more at school than we have until today.

Gamification within the context of corporate blended
and multi-mode education
Eliane Schlemmer holds a PhD in Educational Information Technology, an MA in Psychology and a BA in Information
Technology, from Unisinos. She is Research Productivity scholarship researcher with CNPq, a full professor and researcher
with the Post-Graduate Program in Education (PPGE) and the leader of the Digital Education Research Group with GPe-du/
Unisinos/CNPq. She is also a software and digital educational environments developer for blended and multi-mode Digital,
Online and Corporate Education.
Abstract
This article initially discusses the tensions and challenges faced by competency-based Corporate Education in the light of
advances in digital technologies, workplace changes and blended and multi-mode instruction delivered to individuals that
were born into a highly technological society. The following section explores the world of games, mainly gamification and
the dynamics and mechanics that interweave gamified processes from the perspective of points, badges, and leaderboard
(PBL). Gamification is discussed as a persuasion strategy that promotes collaborative construction of knowledge. Finally,
this article discusses blended and multi-mode learning, ubiquity and the interaction promoted by gamification in the
referred learning context.
Keywords
gamification; blended learning; multi-mode instruction; ubiquity; Corporate Education.
1. SETTING THE CONTEXT
The year is 2025, and a significant portion of corporations no longer operate based on geographical distribution, but rather
within an ubiquitous context composed of blended spaces. Work concepts and practices have changed radically. Workers
no longer need to go to work to perform their tasks - they can do them asynchronously, anywhere and anytime. Going
to work, when necessary, is done through an avatar or a hologram, and all relations are mediated by some type of digital
technology. Can you imagine these workplaces? And the environments where staff are trained? Which competencies are
staff required to have? How can they be developed? You might reply “Oh, no, this will never come true, having a physical
workplace and formal working hours will always be necessary!” Will it really?
Iwouldlikeyounowtogoback,tothe1990s,whencomputerswerewidelyusedandinternetwasintroduced.Individualsborn
in the 1990s grew up in a highly technological world, in which computers (386), internet (dial-up access) and videogames
(Super Nintendo, Mega Drive) were some of the technologies they used to interact and construct the world around them.

Quick access to a large body of data and expedite communication accelerated the pace of life. The existing paradigm in
corporations, at the then called Human Resources Department, which later became People Management, was staff training
based on an instructional approach and delivered through predominantly lecturing modes. Training technologies were a
white board, markers, PowerPoint slides and a projector. Let us now move on to 2005, when those born in the 1990s have
become teenagers... Computers have evolved significantly; they are smaller and allow greater mobility. Broadband internet
is available through Wi-Fi and 3G access. Smartphones, smart tags – radio frequency identification (RFID), more modern
videogame consoles (Xbox, Playstation 3, Nintendo Wii – launched in 2006). The paradigm that still prevails in corporations
regarding People Management is that of staff training, although now quite often translated into terms like “development
of competencies”. Do you remember the methodologies and technologies used then? And finally, to end our journey, we
go back to 2015, when a whole assortment of mobile devices is available – voice-controlled smartphones, tablets, smart
bracelets, watches and goggles (wearable) – that allow us to be continuously connected through wireless networks at a
considerable speed. 4G, Xbox One, Playstation 4, 3D virtual worlds, mixed reality, augmented reality are all available. But
how about the paradigm embraced by corporations for people management, what has changed? What methodologies and
technologies are used?
We should bear in mind that individuals born in the 1990s became teenagers in 2005 and today, 2015, are joining the
work force. Let us now discuss the challenges faced by Corporate Education considering this workforce, advances in digital
technologies and workplace changes towards blended and multi-mode staff development. What tensions and challenges
are posed by this context to Corporate Education?
2. CORPORATE EDUCATION: TENSIONS AND CHALLENGES
Some tensions have emerged between, on one hand, the qualification and capacity-building required by a network
society and on the other hand, the needs and expectations of the objects of such qualification and capacity-building, the
programs provided by educational institutions and the return on investment for corporations that sponsor said programs.
These tensions emerge generally because traditional approaches have proven to be inefficient and ineffective concerning
curriculum and syllabus design, methodologies and teaching practices, and last but not least, the instructional resources.
The failure of some programs may be related to the following factors: (i) standard, massive and shelf content-based
instruction, in which students are spectators, and not agents, of the process; (ii) programs in which theory rules over and
is dissociated from practice, despite their argument that application of theory is sure to happen in the future; (iii) program
planning that ignores corporate context, needs, expert knowledge and target audience features, as well as learners’ profile,
learning styles, mastery or lack of specific competencies and knowledge. These factors, therefore, add to the problems
already faced by Corporate Education.
A clear mismatch can be noticed between the programs offered and current learning theories and findings of inter- and cross-
disciplinary research. this mismatch may result from lack of knowledge or disregard of recent theory and research findings.

In addition, there is a clear lack of clarity about distinct phenomena like qualification, capacity-building and training.
Maturana and Rezepka (2000) state that human qualification is a broader process, closely linked to human development,
and so enables individuals to collaboratively build a desired social environment. Capacity-building means the acquisition of
specific skills and abilities necessary to act in society and mastery of the operating resources available for free-will action.
That means building environments of action where one can practice and elaborate on the aimed skills, and reflect upon
action. Rosemberg (2002) views training as a traditional methodology that facilitates and enhances one’s performance,
driven by effective instruction. Training/instruction is used whenever learning must be shaped for specific purposes – to
support students’ acquisition of new skills, specific use of new knowledge, high level of proficiency – possibly within a set
time frame. Particularly at corporate level, for quite some time, traditional training was believed to yield learning. Current
research provides evidence that learning is much more complex process and is closely linked to students’ action, interaction
and construction of meaning.
We should now explore how a qualification and capacity-building proposal for Corporate Education may be designed
within the context of Digital or Cyber Culture. According to Lemos (2002), Digital Culture presupposes a new relationship
between technologies and sociability shaping contemporary culture. He discusses three laws or principles as the baseline
of contemporary cultural processes: “(1) unchaining the knowledge transmission agent, (2) connecting in networks, and
(3) reshaping social and cultural features as a result of new production and re-matching methods” (Lemos, 2002:39)
[free translation].
The first principle applies to a ‘post-massive culture’, in which individuals are able to produce and release information in
real time “in various formats and shapes”, to share and collaborate with others in networks so as to shape the (‘massive’)
culture industry (Lemos, 2002:38) [free translation]. The second principle applies to releasing information through a
network and connecting with other people so as to “produce synergies, exchange, release and disseminate information”
(Lemos, 2002:40) [free translation]. The third principle results from the first two, as knowledge transmission and network
connection “reshape practices and institutions of the massive culture industry and the social networks of industrial
society” (Lemos, 2002:41) [free translation]. Lemos believes that understanding these principles (information transmission,
network connection and reshaping culture) will lead to understanding what he calls “combining information territories”
[free translation] and the sociocultural transformations that occur within the context of current mobile communication
and information technologies. The principles of transmission, production and connection determine a growing process
of reshaping social relations mediated by digital technologies, thus affecting human action at all levels and continuously
reshaping practices and institutions.
In order to design people qualification and capacity-building actions within the digital culture context implies, then,
unchaining the transmission agent, connecting in networks and reshaping practices that emerge from the relationship
between the unchained transmission agent and the network connection. The challenge lies in how to reshape current
practices, institutions and social networks of massive industrial culture and society into practices, institutions and social
networks that feature a post-massive culture within a network society.

When we consider the context that has been referred to and reflect upon the individuals that now make up the workforce
of corporations, the technologies they use and the tensions and challenges discussed above, we enter a new realm of
discussion: games and gamification. We shall explore next what can be learnt from them.
3. GAMES AND GAMIFICATION
Games have been part of human beings’ lives since primitive times and according to Schlemmer (2014a), they have been
investigated a constituent of human development (Piaget, 1964) and of culture (Vygotsky, 1994). According to Huizinga
(1993:10, 16), games are “a function of life [...] a free activity individuals consciously engage in knowing it is ‘not-serious’
and extraneous to everyday life, but just as appealing and demanding full engagement from players”.
Veen and Vrakking (2009) believe that success achieved by players fosters a deep feeling of confidence and self-esteem, thus
boosting individuals’ confidence when they have to deal with complex problems. Once the problem is solved, individuals
experience a positive feeling which further motivates them to face the next challenge.
When playing online, players learn to play collaboratively as they set strategies and share tips about best moves. Games
become meaningful to players, particularly because they are experiential (they turn information into experience). As the
game starts, individuals are challenged to explore, carry out missions and lead the process. By acting and interacting
(with the game context, with NPCs1
(non-player characters) or other players in continuous activity, individuals cope with
problems, find ways and solutions, set strategies and make decisions – that is, they experience several situations while
having fun and being fully engaged and immersed. Games must take into account the level of immersion (state of flow), of
attention and of entertainment of the agent.
What appeals most to players is being challenged to solve a problem and move on to the next level, thus leveraging their
EXP - level of experience. We should wonder, then what Corporate Education can learn from that? How can we develop
teaching-learning strategies that will enable individuals to have such type of experiences?
In 2007 IBM published a study entitled Virtual Worlds, Real Leaders: Online games put the future of business leadership on
display2
, which discusses what business can learn from games, particularly regarding the development of leadership. As the
business world is going global, corporations are operating everywhere and working at a frantically and fiercely competitive
marketplace where work is increasingly performed in digital ways with various digital technologies. Within this context, IBM
investigates the new abilities and competencies that staff, namely leaders, should develop to succeed in an increasingly
1 Non-player character (NPC) is a videogame character that cannot be played/manipulated, that is, that cannot be controlled by a player but which,
somehow, engages in the plot of a game with the specific role of enhancing the player’s interactivity.
2 To learn more about this study go to <www.ibm.com/gio>.

more global, spread out and virtual market place. What kinds of qualification should companies sponsor so that the new
generation of workers, particularly leaders, can develop in such uncertain environment? Are there individuals who hold such
expertise, or places where these abilities are being developed and reshaped?
The study was motivated by the awareness that new staff understood, interacted with and exercised their leadership
differently. A more detailed investigation showed that new staff used a significant portion of their free time playing
massive multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG3
). The study sample comprised 200 IBM employees who were
game players. Half of them believed that playing MMORPG enhanced their leadership in the ‘real world’, and 4 out of 10
claimed to have used MMORPG leadership approaches and techniques to improve their leadership effectiveness at work.
When assessing the personal attributes of online game leaders, IBM found that understanding the role played by the
environment is critical to develop leaderships. In MMORPGs, players organize themselves, develop skills and take on various
roles. These games are now found to nurture leaders that are able to recruit, organize, motivate and lead big teams
towards a common goal. Decisions are made quickly and many times supported by little information. Online game leaders
rank collaboration as extraordinarily important, because they feel more supported to take risks and accept failure. As a
consequence, iterative improvement is noticeable, as many of these leaders are able to make sense even of disparate and
constantly changing data and to translate them into a coherent view. In short, the study points out that:
Online gaming environments facilitate leadership through: 1. Project-oriented organization; 2.
Multiple real-time sources of information upon which to make decisions; 3. Transparent skills and
competencies among co-players; 4. Transparent incentive systems; 5. Multiple and purpose-specific.
(IBM, 2007:17)
Games like MMORPGs allow us to understand how leaders develop and operate in highly competitive, virtual, global and
spread-out environments.
Although these games appeal to players of all ages, the first generation to be born into these environments is now joining
the workforce. So in order to be successful, organizations must understand who these workers are and how they develop,
in addition to clearly understanding the role these games are already playing in forming a new generation of professionals
and how to use this knowledge in their business activities.
Game-based learning (GBL), within the context of Corporate Education, can be understood from at least three approaches:
• corporate games – developed as business simulations in order to deal with specific content pertinent to
business situations;
3 MMORPGs are online games that may gather millions of different actors who taken on digital profiles known as characters. Players interact and enter
alliances in order to carry out complex missions that call for collaboration. World of Warcraft is one of the most popular MMORPGs.

• commercial games – developed not oriented towards learning, but may be used in various contexts, as it happens
with MMORPG;4
• types of software that allow individuals to develop their own games.
Linked to the GLB concept, but not limited to it, gamification emerged in 2008.
According to Schlemmer (2014a), gamification in education means using game thinking modes, styles and strategies
together with game design elements, like mechanics and dynamics (M&D), in non-game contexts as a way to engage
individuals in problem solving (Ziechermann; Linder, 2010; Zichermann; Cunningham, 2011; Deterding; 2011; Kapp, 2012) in
various areas and levels of education (Domínguez et al., 2013).
Gamification means taking those game design elements that make games fun and adapt them to applications not usually
viewed as games and thus, generate a game-based application, process or product. Although this concept was introduced
in 2002 by the British Nick Pelling, it became more popular after 2010 with its wide use in various contexts like marketing,
education, military strategy and business.
The emerging gamification phenomenon stems from the popularity of games and their intrinsic features of fostering
action, solving problems and enhancing learning in a number of fields of knowledge. Additionally, games are accepted as
second nature by the young generation who grew up interacting with this type of entertainment. Gamification, therefore,
is justified from a sociocultural perspective as it presupposes using traditional game elements like the narrative, feedback,
rewards, conflicts, cooperation, competition, clearly set targets and rules, levels, trial and error, fun, interaction and
interactivity, among others. These elements are interwoven into game activities that promote the same level of involvement
and motivation that players enjoy when interacting with well-designed games (Fardo, 2013).
Gamification does not mean designing a game to approach a problem and reproduce it in the digital world, but rather using
problem-solving strategies, methods and concepts of virtual worlds in real life (face-to-face) situations (Fardo, 2013).

This approach has also been embraced by Corporate Education and has enabled designing teaching and learning situations
that appeal to and engage individuals in setting and solving typical corporate problems – a new perspective to Corporate
Education. An example of gamification in Corporate Education is using game design elements to assign new meanings and
perspectives to staff qualification, capacity-building and instructional processes and practices.
Given their inherent experience-facilitating potential (transforming information into experience), games allow individuals
to experience information-based situations that empower them to construct new meanings and strategies that may be
4 According to the study Virtual Worlds, Real Leaders: Online games put the future of business leadership on display, released by IBM (2007).

applied to Corporate Education context. In the corporate world, experiences yield situated or applied learning and gamified
situations can significantly contribute to meaningful learning.
Zichermann & Cunningham (2011) advise always bearing in mind game mechanics (responsible for the workability of
game components that grant gamers total control over game levels, thus guiding their actions), as well as game dynamics
(gamers’ interaction with game mechanics, which determine what each gamer does as a response to the mechanics that
shape individual activities or when interacting with other gamers). In the gamification process, benefits are fundamental –
game components that make it challenging, fun, rewarding or any other feature that triggers other emotions, as expected
by game designers.
Thiebes et al.’s (2014) study presents a systematic literature review of game elements used in gamification, a summary of
game mechanics and dynamics divided into five categories: system design, challenges, rewards, social influences and user’s
particulars. Table 1 below presents these categories and their subcategories.
Table 1 – Game elements
GAME ELEMENTS
System Design: a gamified application should be designed and developed so as to motivate the user. A typical
example comprises feedback mechanisms.
Feedback
Immediate feedback aims to keep players aware of their progress or failure, in real time
(Passos et al., 2011).
Audible Feedback Soundtrack and/or background music (Li et al., 2012).
Reminder Reminder of user’s past behavior, for instance, history of actions (Liu et al., 2011).
Meaningfulness
“[...] for meaningful gamification, it is important to take into consideration the
background that the user brings to the activity and the organizational context into which
the specific activity is placed.. [...] …meaningful elements that are embedded within the
underlying non-game activity” (Nicholson, 2012: 2-5).
Interaction
Concepts
“This includes an attractive user interface with stimulating visuals and exciting interaction
concepts, as well as a high degree of usability” (Gnauk et al., 2012:105).
Visually similar to
existing games
Creating a visual design, which is very similar to existing games. (Korn, 2012: 315).
Fantasy
“Fantasy evokes images of objects or situations that are not actually in the game. These
may turn the experience more exciting and appealing to users” (Li et al., 2012:105).

Challenges: aim to engage users by setting clear targets.
Targets
The targets of the underlying activity must be adapted as challenges to the user (Passos
et al., 2011).
Time pressure Activities are timed, for instance, by a counter or an hourglass (Li et al., 2012).
Gradual disclosure
of progress
“A game helps players to continuously increase their skills by progressive disclosure of
both knowledge and challenge […]. This will help ensure that the challenges in the game
match the player’s skill levels [...]” (Li et al., 2012:105).
Rewards: aim to motive users by providing rewards (for example, scoring systems or achieving badges) to
successfully completed tasks.
Ownership
“The ownership dynamic represents a positive, sustained connection to an entity that
leads to a feeling of shared ownership” (Burke & Hiltbrand, 2011:14).
Achievement
(successfully
achieving the game
target)
Rewards for successfully achieving a clearly stated and aimed target (Liu et al., 2011).
Scoring system
Users score points as they complete tasks. Points add up to the user’s total score (Burke
&; Hiltbrand, 2011).
Badges
“Badges consist of optional rewards and goals whose fulfillment is stored outside the
scope of the core activities of a service” (Hamari, 2013:2).
Bonuses
Bonuses are rewards granted to users who have successfully met a series of challenges or
critical functions (Burke & Hiltbrand, 2011).
Loss Aversion
Loss aversion is one of game mechanics that affects users’ behavior not by means of a reward,
but because it does not stand as punishment when the target is not achieved (Liu et al., 2011).
Social Influences: aim to motivate individual users/a group of users by means of social dynamics and influences,
such as selflessness, competition, user’s status achieved performance scored.
Status
“Most humans have a need for status, recognition, fame, prestige, attention and,
ultimately, the esteem and respect of others” (Bunchball, Inc, 2010:10). “[...]Status can be
earned by the user in isolation, by performing certain actions” (Vassileva, 2012:183).
Cooperation
“The community collaboration game dynamic rallies an entire community to work together
to solve a riddle, resolve a problem, or overcome a challenge” (Burke & Hiltbrand, 2011:13).

Reputation
“Reputation is based on the opinion of other users about the user or her contribution”
(Vassileva, 2012:183).
Competition Competing leads users to challenge other users (Bunchball, Inc, 2010).
Envy This dynamics is based on the user’s desire to own what others own (Burke & Hiltbrand, 2011).
Observation
Observation describes the method employed by users to improve their past records (Korn
et al., 2012).
Social Facilitation
It describes an effect through which individual users achieve higher scores in simple tasks
when interacting with others or working in groups (Zajonc, 1965).
Behavior
Compliance
“Conforming behavior is the desire not to act against group consensus, colloquially known
as peer pressure” (Nakajima & Lehdonvirta, 2013:117).
Leaderboards
“[...] Leaderboards are used to track and display desired actions, using competition to
drive valuable behaviour” (Bunchball, Inc, 2010:10).
Selflessness
Within this context, selflessness refers to a virtual gift granted with the objective of
reinforcing user relationships (Nakajima & Lehdonvirta, 2013).
Virtual goods Non-physical, intangible objects that may be bought or negotiated (Bunchball, Inc, 2010).
User Specificities: is related to motivating users by acting directly upon their individual personality, for instance,
by promoting different forms of self-expression.
User Levels
“Levels indicate the proficiency of the player in the overall gaming experience over time
[...]” (Gnauk et al., 2012: pp. 104-105).
Ideological
Motivations
“[...] Ideological incentives is the notion of influencing user behavior through influencing
their attitudes and values, in other words, educating the user on a deeper level. The
ideological incentive makes it possible to motivate the user by himself” (Nakajima &
Lehdonvirta, 2013:11).
Virtual Character A virtual character (that is, an avatar) representing the user (Passos et al., 2011).
Self-expression
Self-expression means wishing to express one’s autonomy, identify or originality, or still, it
serves the purpose of highlighting a very original personality (Bunchball, Inc, 2010).
Source: Adapted from Thiebes et al. (2014) by Castro, Monticelli, Machado and Schlemmer (2015) – in print.

4. GAMIFICATION: BEYOND PBL
It is important to highlight that gamification is not limited to points, badges, and leaderboards (PBL) – this is the simplest
part of games, which is easily implemented, scalable and low cost, thus explaining games quick spread. Although PBL are
part of the design of many games because they motivate and guide individuals into specific actions, PBL are not able to
turn something boring into something more exciting, as they are not able to engage individuals. Many authors like Chou5
(2015) claim that points, just like badges and leaderboards, play an important role as bonuses, depending on the context.
According to Chou, there is a difference between extrinsic motivation (one engages because of a target or reward to be
achieved) and intrinsic motivation (the activity itself is fun and exciting, irrespective of granting a reward or not).
The PBL perspective is defined by Yu-kai Chou (2015) as “the shell of a game experience”, a reductionist approach to
gamification which many times is a disservice to it. People with little knowledge about the methodology and philosophy of
gamification end up believing that gamifying means simply designing a scoring and ranking system and granting badges,
and so reduce gamification to a passing fad with little innovation power.
When asked why they like playing so much, players do not say anything about PBL, but do refer to challenges, missions
and strategies, as assessed by Veen and Vrakking (1999). These elements may contribute significantly to an individual’s
level of immersion, agency and entertainment, as players must immerse themselves in a game so as to understand and
experience it. Chou (2015) clarifies this issue by explaining that rather than viewing gamification from the game mechanics
perspective, we should consider: (i) the aim of stirring feelings in players (inspired, proud, afraid, anxious...); (ii) the aims
held by the individual (or by the institution) regarding the experience. Only after carefully going through these issues should
we consider what types of elements and mechanics can aid individuals to feel one way or another and achieve the aimed
targets; (iii) game elements are just a means to an end, and not an end themselves.
Only by centering on the individual, on how one may feel as a consequence of the gamified process, can our understanding
of gamification entail understanding individuals, their expectations towards the environment, their own context and,
therefore, their extrinsic (extraneous) and intrinsic (self-motivated) expectations. Therefore, Chou (2015) views as the major
contribution of gamification to oppose the traditional Function-Focused Design and to move towards Human-Focused
Design, that is, shifting from a model oriented towards completing tasks within the shortest time possible towards a
model centered on individuals’ knowledge, feelings, uncertainties and opinions. This is a design process centered on human
motivation rather than on pure efficiency.
5 Yu-kai Chou is a pioneer in gamification, an International Keynote Speaker/Lecturer for entities such as Stanford University, TEDx, Accenture, etc. He is
rated a Top 3 Gamification Guru and is the President of Octalysis Group. Chou proposes the Octalysis framework to aid gamification considerations.

Such an understanding of gamification can yield significant changes in Corporate Education culture.
According to Schlemmer (2014a:77), gamification may be viewed from at least two perspectives:
as persuasion - encouraging competition through a score, reward and award system. This system, as
faraseducationisconcerned,reinforcesanempiricistepistemologicalapproach;andas collaborative
construction – encouraged by challenges, missions, discoveries and group empowerment. This
construction, as far as education is concerned, leads to the interactionist-constructivist-systemic
epistemological approach (inspired, for example, in elements found in Massive Multiplayer Online
Role Play Games – MMORPGs).
Therefore, the starting point of a gamification process presupposes understanding the problem and the context, the
individuals’ culture, environment, personal and business aims. Only after understanding these features can we consider
a set of M&Ds to be used in gamification and whether they will be used in a single gamification process or combining
more perspectives.
Linked to GBL and to gamification is the perspective embraced, for instance, by movements like Games for Change, whose
aim is to use electronic games for social development. According to McGonigal (2011) apud Schlemmer (2014a), people
prefer collaboration games. A closer look at what happens in games tells us that most people do not want to compete - they
want to work together with their friends to achieve a common objective. Within this context, it is worth considering three
essential criteria for a gamification project: (i) encouraging cooperation between individuals; (ii) encouraging information
sharing and exchange between individuals; (iii) promoting learn by doing.
According to McGonigal (2011), if players are willing to meet challenges that pose often times unnecessary obstacles,
games can be engaging and may be used as tools for social transformation. This author designed social projects such as
Evoke (2010), with innovative crowd-sourcing solutions for developing nations; Superstruct (2008), which simulates global
crises that result from hunger and disease; and World Without Oil (2007), to raise the awareness about alternative fuels.
Likewise, other games were designed regarding alternative energy sources, debt management and world nutrition.
It is evident, then, that games and gamification have become increasingly more important as research evidences their
contribution to:
1) higher effective individual involvement in teaching and learning processes, thus enhancing the
development of autonomy, authorship and collaboration as well as encouraging problem finding
and solving and critical thinking; 2) expanding possible construction of meanings – conceptual
meanings, in an enjoyable way; 3) enhancing cognitive and socio-cognitive development as
individuals experience various situations. (Schlemmer, 2014a:78) [free translation]

Both GBL and gamification aim to empower individuals and may be capitalized on when associated to mobile and wireless
devices, social media, ubiquitous web, geolocalization systems, Mixed Reality (MR)6
and Augmented Reality (AR)7
. This leads
us to the concept of blended, multi-mode and ubiquitous instruction and learning.
5. BLENDED LEARNING, MULTI-MODE INSTRUCTION AND UBIQUITY
Our living experiences are increasingly taking place in blended, multi-mode and ubiquitous environments where various
technologies, modes and cultures coexist. In order to construct their world of meanings in these environment, human
beings, in what could be termed as ‘nomadic moves’, weave their action, interaction and relationships with other agents –
human and non-human – at different times.
The term ‘blended’ is explained by Latour (1994) as made up of multiple matrices that wed nature and culture, human and
non-human elements. In this article, that translates into actions and interactions endeavored by human and non-human
agents in analogical and digital spaces, with an overlapping of different cultures (digital and pre-digital), thus building into
inseparably associated phenomena – networks that interconnect natures, techniques and cultures.
For Latour (1994), blended practices emerge as bridges between heterogeneous elements that may be both objective and
subjective, individual and collective, which “connect, at the same time, the nature of things and the social context without,
however, being limited to one or the other” (Latour, 1994:11) [free translation]. This mediation is possible, according to the
author, because these elements are not self-contained.
Therefore, blended practices are here understood in the light of the nature of spaces (analogical and digital), presence of
agents (face-to-face and digital), the technologies used (analogical and digital) and the culture (pre-digital and digital).
Regarding multi-mode practices, this article refers to overlapping and complementary modes, that is, face-to-face and online,
which allow wedding electronic learning (e-learning), mobile learning (m-learning), pervasive learning (p-learning), ubiquitous
learning (u-learning), immersive learning (i-learning), gamification learning (g-learning) and game based learning (GBL).
Saccol et al. (2011) define ubiquitous learning as learning that uses mobile devices connected to wireless communication
networks, sensors and geolocalization mechanisms that are able to collaboratively integrate learners and learning contexts
around them and build face-to-face and digital networks connecting people, objects, situations or events. Ubiquitous
6 According to Azuma (1997), MR presupposes the coexistence of three critical features: combining face-to-face and virtual digital elements/real time
interaction; and accurate line-up and synchronization of tridimensional virtual objects with the face-to-face physical environment.
7 AR consists of combining a face-to-face scene, as seen by an individual, and a virtual digital scene, thus adding information to the face-to-face scene,
that is, augmenting the scene (Caudell & Mizell, 1992).

learning goes beyond mobility, as digital technologies enhance situated learning and integrate a wide array of ‘individual-
sensitive’ information – sensitive to an individual’s profile, needs, environment and other elements comprised by the learning
context anywhere at any time. Localization technologies may also be linked to this type of learning (GPS, navigation
systems, people localization systems, mobile games), as well as identification technologies (RFID and QR Code) and sensors,
among others.
Also related to mobility and ubiquity are Mixed Reality (MR) and Augmented Reality (AR), which integrate a face-to-
face scene, as seen by an individual, to a virtual digital scene. However, in augmented learning, the digital component
adds information to the face-to-face component and ‘augments’ the scene, thus enhancing knowledge acquired about
objects, places or events. MR and AR are based on different concepts and types of set-up, however both basically rely on
acknowledging an object, termed as a ‘marker’, which is projected onto a face-to-face environment by a camera, and a
specific software that receives the information sent by the camera, interprets it and projects the virtual digital information
about the object onto a face-to-face physical environment.
It should be noted that blended learning and multi-mode learning are based on different forms of student attendance and
allow synchronous attendance in diverse environments. For instance, an individual may attend face-to-face instruction (at the
library, classroom, auditorium, etc.) and interact with various human and non-human agents that are also in the same space,
and simultaneously, through an avatar, attend a 3D virtual digital event, or even play an online game through a character, also
acting and interacting with other human and non-human agents in the virtual digital space. We should not forget the possibility
of attending a virtual event in social networks through a profile, or ‘tele-attending’ a videoconference or web conference.
Mobility, pervasiveness and ubiquity are, in some way, similar to blended and multi-mode learning, as the features of the
former lend a ‘blending’ character to learning spaces (analogical / digital), forms of attendance (face-to-face / digital), and
technologies (analogical / digital). Regarding gamification and game-based learning, they may or not evolve into blended
and multi-mode contexts, depending on how they are used.
We shall now discuss a gamification-related experience within the context of blended and multi-mode learning.
6. GAMIFICATION: THE METHODOLOGY IN PRACTICE
The experience described below pertains to the research Gamification em espaços de convivência blendeds e multimodais
[equivalent to’ Gamification in blended and multi-mode experience environments’], sponsored by Conselho Nacional de
Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq – National Council for Scientific and Technological Development), with the
Digital Education Research Group (GPe-du/Unisinos/CNPq).

Cognition in digital games - academic activity8
The aim of the academic activity was to enable individuals to take ownership of major cognition theory concepts and
to identify them along the gaming process so as to support the development of games that were designed within the
activity process.
The instructional proposal was inspired in the cartographic research method (Passos et al., 2009) as an interventionist
teaching practice, and in gamification. Both were associated to the learning project methodology and adapted to Higher
Education.9
The concepts of flipped classroom and BYOD10
were then added aiming to construct blended and multi-mode
experience spaces. The methodology also expert-delivered seminars on the theory being addressed, challenges and learning
projects. Evaluation of learning privileged comprehension and qualification. Every individual production was monitored and
evaluated according to the criterion of increasing quality.
The motivation to gamify this activity stemmed from the awareness of the gap between the teaching practices being used
in Higher Education and the way individuals learn by interacting with specific tools. The idea was to encourage students
to feel challenged, teased, curious, eager to learn in an enjoyable way. Once the problem and the context were clear, the
researcher assessed the students’ needs and expectations11
. Then, the aims of the activity were explained and discussed
with students. Only after going through these two initial phases were the types of elements and mechanics assessed so
as to ensure that students felt as aimed by the activity and achieved their and the institution’s learning objectives. One of
the elements that were set was that gamification would be implemented in a blended and multi-mode learning context,12
with the mechanics of QR Code hints, AR hints,13
live hints (online and face-to-face) and achieving powers (pieces of
knowledge). Another element that was set was that the project could develop any game or gamified situation, whether
analogical, digital or blended. Continuous evaluation was agreed upon to assess each student’s learning along every phase
of the process, thus enabling him/her to achieve powers (pieces of knowledge constructed). Achieving powers depended
on students (i) increasing the observables when playing (as meaning was assigned to the theory under study); (ii) searching
for and sharing relevant references (texts, audios, videos, games, applications, etc.); (iii) providing evidence of autonomous
8 Cognition in Digital Games - Academic Activity is a 60-hour optional activity that belongs to the curriculum of the Higher Program of Technology in
Digital Games at Unisinos. The activity was implemented in the first term of 2014 with 28 students, all male, between 18 and 37 years of age. Details of
the whole process are available at <www.revistas.uneb.br/index.php/faeeba/article/view/1029/709>.
9 Schlemmer, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2005; Schlemmer & Trein, 2009.
10 Bring your own devices (BYOD) – a trend in the mobile world and in education which advocates openness so that students are able to bring their own
mobile devices to the educational environment.
11 A questionnaire was also released on Google Forms to learn more about the students.
12 Various analogical and digital technologies would be used beyond the face-to-face context – weekly face-to-face meetings to which everyone was invited
to bring their mobile devices (BYOD) for the online instructional mode through a community on Moodle and a group on Facebook.
13 Using Aurasma.

authorship during project interaction and development; (iv) establishing interaction within their team and with other
teams; (iv) suggest questions, share their reflections and develop critique; (v) share knowledge, cooperate and collaborate,
identify the interest and engagement of peers with the game of gamified situation. All this added up into another element:
achievements14 that would be granted as every student developed along the gamified activity. The following achievements
were considered: observer,15
explorer,16
actor,17
weaver,18
cartographer,19
problem raiser,20
collaborator21
and cooperator.22
The fundamental criteria for a gamification project were then defined: 1) to foster cooperation between individuals; 2)
to encourage information sharing and exchange; 3) to promote learn by doing, as discussed above. Gamification was
developed into nine phases as follows: Phase I – The Explorer – Theory Hunt; Phase II – The Observer – Searching for
game hints; Phase III – The Explorer – Solving education-related mysteries as related to games; Phase IV – The Weaver –
Interweaving observations; Phase V – The Actor – Building the concepts; Phase VI – The Cartographer – Mapping the way;
Phase VII – The Actor – Building the map and the game; Phase VIII – The Explorer – Solving theory-related mysteries; Phase
IX – The Weaver – Weaving the theory.
7. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Gamification must not be reduced to PBL, as the latter features the perspective of persuasion and function-oriented
design, that is, completing tasks within the shortest possible time. From the Corporate Education perspective, this only
reinforces the training concept. Gamification, however, goes much beyond - it must and should be viewed as collaborative
construction based on human-oriented design that is able to motivate individuals through challenges, missions, discoveries
and team empowerment. From a Corporate Education perspective, inducing to qualification and capacity-building.
14 In the language of games, achievements are targets that may be achieved throughout the game. They may be explicit or hidden, that is, they must be
unveiled during the game playing process.
15 Observe oneself, children, adolescents, young adults and adults, as well as one’s peers, during the game playing process, seeking to understand how actions
are taken, differences and similarities between actions. The aim was to learn what was observable and educational for students regarding game actions.
16 Solving the hints, games + theories + education – seeking references – autonomy.
17 Building the concept of the game and of the game evaluation model – creative authorship.
18 Finding connections – observer + explorer + actor, designing networks.
19 Mapping the way – process and self-evaluation – reflection.
20 Instigating, triggering questioning, reflection and criticism.
21 One that helps others by supplying some reference.
22 One who creates things together with others.

This instructional proposal – when linked to the cartographic research method as an interventionist teaching practice, to a
project-centered methodology, to the concepts of flipped classroom and BYOD and developed within a blended, multi-mode
and ubiquitous context – allows to follow-up on individuals’ progress, their peculiar qualification and capacity-building
process as facilitated by analogical and digital technologies, face-to-face and online instructional mode. This proposal
encourages them to develop their own missions and projects which, from a BYOD perspective, may extend beyond the
established time for their qualification and capacity-building precisely due to the emotional bond that individuals develop
with their mobile device. These individuals will then have sustained process engagement, irrespective of time and space
frames. It follows that the qualification and capacity building process may, at different points in time, become ‘situated’
and further connected (through hints) with the real workplace – something desirable when we consider immersion, agency
and engagement.
In the experiences discussed above, building a blended and multi-mode experience environment resulted from: (i)
integrating various analogical and digital technologies, thus fostering different forms of communication within a multi-
mode perspective (face-to-face blended with online mode, including mobile learning, ubiquitous learning and gamification
learning);(ii)communicationandinteractionpatternssharedbyindividualswithinthisblendedandmulti-modeenvironment;
and (iii) interaction patterns and the various media, that is, the very blended and multi-mode environment. Gamification
stirred a certain type of interaction actively engaged by students and teacher, who exchanged information and shared
experiences in a learn-by-doing process. Such process is fundamental for individuals to construct meanings and learn as
they experience the real situations. Such experience makes them see and feel things “inside out”, from their own learning
process perspective.
Thus, when speaking “inside out” about what is being experienced, individuals become an integral part of blended learning/
spaces/processes, are able to assign meanings and to become agents that connect with other human and non-human
agents in building up various networks within a multi-mode perspective.
We may add that the most recent research developed by GPe-du/Unisinos/CNPq have enabled us to reflect upon and
construct theory about the following issues: Where are the borderlines between the analogical and the digital world,
between the various technologies and instructional modes, between the various forms of attendance and the various
identities through used by individuals in several analogical or digital spaces? Are there borderlines between the various
contexts - workplaces, academic environments, personal and social environments? It seems that today’s paradigm
privileges convergence, coexistence, complementarities, so that these borderlines become permeable and tend to fade
away. Everything tends to become increasingly blended – the worlds, the various technologies, identities, experiences, so
that individuals, in nomadic processes, interweave their networks and integrate their many pieces of knowledge.
Although the many new technologies and theories that have emerged would be expected to generate innovative
methodologies, teaching practices and learning processes, they seem to be acquired by those in charge of developing
Corporate Education in a rather distinct time frame and “rushed need” and so, fail to become meaningful and effectively

Revista_Completa_ing-1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Revista_Completa_ing-1

Similar to Revista_Completa_ing-1 (20)

More from Alan Bruce

More from Alan Bruce (20)

Revista_Completa_ing-1