It was briefly mentioned in class that the badge system was not as effective as it was predicted to be in games to encourage youth to learn. However, one striking counter example that came to mind was the Girl Scouts of the USA. On their website, Girl Scouts claims to 'help' girls in the following ways:
Develop a strong sense of self.
Seek challenges and learn from setbacks.
Display positive values.
Form and maintain healthy relationships.
Identify and solve problems in the community.
They do so primarily via having activities their members can complete to earn a badge. There are also various other awards a member can achieve by completing other lessons on topics such as engineering. The highest awards are given based on high levels of community engagement. If you join at a young age, you start your journey of collecting badges as Brownie or Daisy (cute names assigned to younger members based on their age range. The younger you start, the more badges you can collect as most are restricted to a certain age range. The badges are placed on a sash or vest and are then able to be worn/displayed. The badges themselves come in different shapes depending on the level of membership. Being a member can be a lifetime commitment as there are different badges available to all members of the organization. Girl Scouts of America can work off of completionistic urges of it's members in order to continue to be a part of the organization and earn badges.
Girl Scouts of the USA was founded in 1912. Why has the badge system worked for them? (Is it the cookies?) Are the Girl Scouts an early example of gamification? It is possible that the badge system they have been using is not the reason for the organization's success. There has been a steady decline in membership. This summer Girl Scouts of the USA released a video in hopes of combating the decline. Perhaps, the badge system was a mechanic of its time and the reason why groups like the Girl Scouts can succeed now is because of they are living off of the hundred year legacy they have built. New badge earning systems have no weight for the real world where as listing Girl Scout on an application or resume means something more. In addition, being a Girl Scout comes with things like scholarship opportunities and networking connections. They were able to get people's attention because gamification wasn't as present in society as it is today. The over-gamification of our world now is making the older systems used less attractive. I think it would be beneficial to be able to examine the evolution of games when thinking about gamification in a historical context. As games and play develop, it is possible that the procedure of gamification needs to evolve in order to retain its audience.
Badges work work if there is some sort of external reward attached to them. In the case of girl scouts it's a psychosocial reward. In a game like Call of Duty, "badges" for small in game achievements (such as killing several enemy players quickly) reinforce the gameplay loop because they offer EXP bonuses. More EXP means quicker leveling, which means a wider variety of in game tools or quicker progression through the prestige system (a psychosocial reward). For badges to work to change real life behavior, they have to be tied to something real. Perhaps every badge earned offers a certain number of drawings towards desirable prizes. They might also earn you "points" depending on their difficulty, and at certain…
Girl Scouts is a really good example of one of these systems working well, as badges do translate to something with real world value. I agree that a lot of this value comes from Girl Scouts' established history and reputation, which does make me wonder how well this system could be replicated. Are there shortcuts to creating an effective gameified system like that of Girl Scouts without having to spend a hundred years establishing a legacy? Or are there certain kinds of cachet for ranking systems like this that can only be earned with time and fame, like the Girl Scouts have acquired?