Gamification gained popularity in the 2010s, with educational professionals quickly adopting it as a way to transfer the motivational effects of games to a learning situation. However, the rapid implementation of gamification without proper planning led to a misunderstanding of the concept, namely that the use of points and rewards is enough. Proper gamification in education requires careful planning and a game-thinking approach to the design of the learning environment. The simple addition of points and badges is therefore a misuse of the gamification concept, which has been referred to as pointsification. This misuse leads to confusion and mixed results as studies using pointsification are often still labeled as gamification. This paper clarifies the differences and uses of gamification and pointsification by analyzing the effects of pointsification in a higher education course and discussing these effects in relation to gamification. The research employs a mixed-methods approach, examining project grades, individual grades, and students' opinions. The objective is to show how pointsification can be implemented in education to lead to better learning in a way that both prevents previously identified problems associated with pointsification and also addresses them effectively. Although the use of points and badges has received criticism, studies have also demonstrated that pointsification can improve student engagement and motivation. As such, pointsification should be considered a distinct concept that focuses solely on the use of points and rewards to motivate students, while gamification should encompass a broader game-thinking approach.

In this research to practice full paper we describe our implementation of CoI (Community of Inquiry). CoI is a framework for designing an effective online learning environment. It originates from Charles Sanders Pierce’s ideas that knowledge can only be created in a community through inquiry. We applied the framework in a highly interactive course that was forced to be held online because of the pandemic. The theoretical core of the course is cognitive psychology, a topic considered difficult to learn in a short time. Besides describing our implementation, we evaluate the results of the students’ inquiries and compare it with results from the previous year when we did not use CoI for this part of the course. Our findings show that the most important instructional strategy is to facilitate for students to work individually according to a scientific inquiry and then, in a community, use the knowledge gained in critical discourse to build an overall understanding. When the students worked according to this, the results exceeded our expectations, both regarding the depth of understanding and ability to apply the knowledge in ongoing course projects. Because more teaching will likely take place at a distance in the future, as a side effect of the pandemic, we believe that this could be a way to meet an increasing demand for online instruction, especially when designing educational settings for complex theoretical content.

In spring 2020, a highly interactive course had to be given without face-to-face interaction because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual teams were thus used. The students were divided into teams and assigned a project. Each team was given access to an online group room in which they worked on the project during the course. Evaluation of the course was carried out through the usual course evaluation and through an additional survey. Generally, the students were positive regarding the implemented facilitation methods for interaction. The teachers of the course, however, felt that one thing was missing: the possibility to see and evaluate ongoing activities in the virtual teams before entering a room. A lesson learned is therefore that there must be a way to measure, in real time, the status of the ongoing work and to do so without interrupting students' conversations. © 2022 selection and editorial matter, Stefan Hrastinski. All rights reserved.

Electronic government has a history of repeating projects that previously proved difficult to implement. One possible reason for this is that we do not learn enough from past experiences. Lessons are not widely shared and we do not always get the "full story". Only a narrow group have the ability to understand and access research findings. The use of a storytelling approach could make electronic government research more comprehensible, and accessible. It could also be used as an analytical tool to bridge theory and practice. However, storytelling approaches are currently not used within this research field. In this paper, I present an analysis of the value of using storytelling to show how including multiple voices, examining myths, and writing stories could play an important role in dealing with electronic government challenges.

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to describe a local government effort to realise an open government agenda. This is done using a storytelling approach. Design/methodology/approach – The empirical data are based on a case study. The authors participated in, as well as followed, the process of realising an open government agenda on a local level, where citizens were invited to use open public data as the basis for developing apps and external Web solutions. Based on an interpretative tradition, they chose storytelling as a way to scrutinise the competition process. In this paper, they present a story about the competition process using the story elements put forward by Kendall and Kendall (2012). Findings – The research builds on existing research by proposing the myth that the “public” wants to make use of open data. The authors provide empirical insights into the challenge of gaining benefits from open public data. In particular, they illustrate the difficulties in getting citizens interested in using open public data. Their case shows that people seem to like the idea of open public data, but do not necessarily participate actively in the data reuse process. Research limitations/implications – The results are based on one empirical study. Further research is, therefore, needed. The authors would especially welcome more studies that focus on citizens’ interest and willingness to reuse open public data. Practical implications – This study illustrates the difficulties of promoting the reuse of open public data. Public organisations that want to pursue an open government agenda can use these findings as empirical insights. Originality/value – This paper answers the call for more empirical studies on public open data. Furthermore, it problematises the “myth” of public interest in the reuse of open public data.

The aim of this paper was to analyze an implementation of the public data agenda to address the lack of empirical research on the subject. The focus of the paper is on the interplay between policy, process and people. The approach was qualitative, interpretive research and data was gathered through interaction, interviews and observations over a period of 20 months. Findings showed that the policies are a bit opportunistic and that it is not clear what data that should be made available to attract citizens to take part in the agenda, raw data or processed data? Furthermore, the incentives for citizens to engage in the public data agenda were not obvious. I therefore wonder, do we believe too much in information? Are we being information determinists?

Interoperability is a top priority today as governments try to integrate services across departments so as to improve effectiveness as well as efficiency. Integration in government is complicated, as evidenced by a discouraging project failure rate. An often quoted reason is that the complex relationships among government, society, and technology which come into play when integrating multiple organizations are not fully understood. This paper addresses this gap by scrutinizing a large national integration project asking, what is the nature and causes of the conflicts that surface during implementation? Data was collected by means of participant observations and narrative interviews. Seven major conflicts were found, all general because they involve basic values which were in conflict with each other. The values were specified by legislation and strictly operationalized in various government institutions which, consequently, were in disagreement about what was legal and desirable. The findings show that in order to achieve interoperability a “re-operationalization” of these values is necessary. These changes cannot be clearly defined upfront but must be “negotiated” by means of practical achievements that are considered important enough to motivate gradual changes in the way we implement our values in legislation and practices. This means that ambitious integration projects must serve as spearheads in such value change, which is a root cause for delays and even failure.

Integration in health care is a normative goal, but the legal regulation of government operations across sectors is complex. Many values must be safeguarded and they are therefore legally protected. Interoperability can, however, create value conflicts and there is little empirical research into the constructive attempts to resolve such deep-rooted conflicts. This paper addresses this gap by an in-depth study of how values are institutionalized in laws and government organizations. Data was collected by means of participant observation and narrative interviews. The study showed that value conflicts constitute barriers to integration that were difficult to resolve. One major problem was that the necessary discussion about how the conflicts should be handled could not be held because there was no such arena. Different authorities were governed by different values that were deeply institutionalized; while services were to be integrated, the legal regulating bodies were not.