VIDEO
In this session Gamification and game-based learning are not the same thing One of the first things Jasbirizla clarified was a distinction that many people — including experienced learning professionals — still mix up.
Gamification and game-based learning are related, but they solve different problems.
Game-based learning means the learning happens inside the game itself. Minecraft was one of the examples used during the session: people learn while actively playing.
Gamification works differently.
The task already exists — often something repetitive, administrative, or difficult to sustain attention around — and game elements are added to make the experience more engaging.
That distinction matters because many workplace learning programs still approach gamification superficially: adding badges or points without thinking much about why people would care about them in the first place.
The session spent most of its time exploring that deeper layer.
Engagement usually comes from motivation, not mechanics A large part of the presentation focused on Octalysis, a behavioral design framework created by Yu-kai Chou.
The framework identifies eight “core drives” that influence why people continue engaging with systems, platforms, games, and experiences.
Some are familiar: achievement, curiosity, social interaction, ownership.
Others are more subtle: fear of losing progress, unpredictability, or feeling connected to a larger purpose.
What made the discussion particularly useful was that Jasbirizla kept connecting these ideas back to systems people already use every day.
Netflix became one of the clearest examples.
Netflix is quietly built around behavioral design One of the most practical moments in the session came when Jasbirizla analyzed Netflix through the lens of gamification psychology.
Not because Netflix is a learning platform — but because it’s extremely effective at sustaining engagement.
Features like:
“Continue watching” personalized recommendations “Top 10” autoplay previews “Only on Netflix” watch lists all connect to different motivational drivers.
Some create curiosity.
Even small language choices matter.
Jasbirizla pointed out how phrases like “My List” subtly increase the sense of personal ownership over the experience.
The broader takeaway wasn’t that workplace learning should imitate entertainment platforms exactly.
It was that engagement is usually designed intentionally.
Very little of it happens accidentally.
Most workplace learning still focuses too heavily on content delivery One idea that surfaced repeatedly throughout the session was that many learning systems are still designed primarily around information transfer.
Chapter one.
Functionally correct, but not especially motivating.
Jasbirizla argued that engagement improves when learning experiences feel more exploratory, narrative-driven, or interactive.
Even something as simple as changing a menu label from “Catalog” to “Explore” can subtly shift how people interact with a platform.
When you use the word ‘explore,’ you are actually catering to unpredictability and curiosity.
That attention to language was one of the more interesting parts of the session because it showed how engagement is often shaped through small design decisions rather than large technical features.
Storytelling may matter more than badges One of the strongest sections of the presentation focused on narrative design.
Jasbirizla compared two versions of the same learning module: one built as a straightforward content sequence, and another framed through storytelling and curiosity-driven progression.
The difference wasn’t the information itself.
It was how learners emotionally moved through the experience.
Without Octalysis you would just prepare a module online and put chapter one, chapter two, chapter three. But with Octalysis you start to tell stories.
That observation feels especially relevant now because many organizations already have enough content.
The harder challenge is sustaining attention long enough for people to actually engage with it meaningfully.
And storytelling changes the pacing of learning in ways traditional slide-based training often doesn’t.
Gamification also applies outside learning platforms Interestingly, the session moved well beyond LMS design.
Jasbirizla also discussed how the same motivational principles influence workplace culture itself.
Google became one example.
The company’s mission statement, peer recognition systems, side-project culture, and collaborative environment were all analyzed as forms of behavioral design:
One example that stood out was Google’s well-known “20% time” concept, where employees are encouraged to spend part of their work time exploring projects they care about personally.
The point wasn’t that every company should copy Google.
It was that motivation can be designed operationally — not only inside learning modules.
Not all motivation works the same way Another useful part of the discussion was the acknowledgment that different people respond to different motivational drivers.
Some learners are motivated by achievement.
That matters because workplace learning programs often assume engagement is universal: if one feature works for some learners, it should work for everyone.
In practice, motivation is much more varied.
Jasbirizla explained that organizations don’t need to implement all eight motivational drivers at once.
What matters more is understanding which behaviors and experiences the system is trying to encourage in the first place.
Gamification is really about designing for human behavior Toward the end of the session, someone asked whether gamification works differently across generations.
Jasbirizla’s answer was interesting because she framed the entire discussion less around age and more around human psychology.
The motivational drivers behind engagement — curiosity, ownership, social connection, accomplishment, loss avoidance — are not especially tied to one generation.
They are much more fundamental behavioral patterns.
That perspective helped ground the conversation.
Because despite the modern terminology, the session wasn’t really about “games.”
It was about:
attention, motivation, emotional engagement, and how people move through systems. Final thoughts One reason this session worked well is that it treated gamification less as a trend and more as a design discipline.
The presentation avoided the common assumption that engagement comes mainly from rewards, points, or visual mechanics.
Instead, it focused on something more useful:
Why people choose to continue interacting with certain experiences in the first place — for workplace learning teams, that may be the more important question now.
Watch the full session Gamification 101: The Secret Behind Employee Engagement Jasbirizla Zainal at iSpring Days APAC 2025
Or better yet… Join us for iSpring Days ANZ & APAC 2026 on 9-10 June
6 min
6 min
7 min
