By Karyn Gleeson
Online events have a reputation problem. Part of the problem is that, often, people design an online session around a “sit and get” model. Attendees register, log in, watch a session, maybe post a comment in chat, and then move on.
We want to change that. The Learning Guild’s online events team is always asking how we can make virtual learning experiences more active, more useful, and more connected. We want attendees to feel like active participants in a valuable learning experience.
Our online events share high-quality professional content from our community members—and we are always looking for ways to improve.
Testing Engagement Design Elements
The Game-Based Learning Online Conference (GBL_OLC) gave us the right opportunity to test engagement design elements. The event theme focused on game-based learning and gamification, so the audience already had context for what we were experimenting with. And the event structure gave us multiple behaviors we could observe and measure.
The focus on games, motivation, engagement, and learning design made it a natural environment to ask: Could a gamified layer encourage attendees to participate more deeply in the event itself?
We weren’t testing whether an external motivator like a prize would increase engagement. We were testing behavior and intrinsic motivation. We did not announce or offer prizes. Any points attendees earned were tied to actions already available inside the platform:
- Joining Think Spaces
- Posting in the event feed
- Visiting the booth
- Fleshing out a profile
- Participating in the event environment
We wanted to know whether adding points and a leaderboard would increase the actions attendees were already taking, while also encouraging them to engage in areas they might not usually explore.
In other words, this was not about giving people a reward for clicking. It was about seeing whether we could make meaningful participation more visible, more inviting, and more fun.
Designing for Behavior Change
When creating the leaderboard, our primary goals were to encourage networking, make the event feel more active, and test gamification in an appropriate context. We hoped to give people a reason to explore, participate, and notice parts of the event they might otherwise skip.
The leaderboard was designed to feel fun and engaging and to build a sense of community. We did not want it to feel overly competitive or disconnected from the learning experience.
The question for us was simple: If we use points to draw attention to valuable behaviors, do more people engage?
Communicating the Changes to Attendees
We sent communications about the leaderboard before and during the event. It was described in two pre-event emails to registered attendees, at least one general marketing email, and the platform introduction video. We also included reminders at the beginning and end of each session. We aimed to make the leaderboard a key part of the attendee journey and keep people focused on the event.
The Results Are In
What the Results Showed
The results were encouraging, especially in the behaviors we most wanted to influence. Compared with earlier, non-gamified, events, we saw stronger engagement in several areas, and the median number of live sessions attended was highest for 2026 OLCs so far:
- Think Spaces (post-session discussions) participation increased.
- Booth visits increased.
- Attendees clicked more often on booth resources.
- Questions asked increased.
- Attendees joined more sessions on average.
These results suggest that the leaderboard helped move attendees toward more active behaviors. The Game-Based Learning online conference was not just about watching sessions; attendees explored more of the platform, participated in more of the experience, and engaged with elements that can be harder to activate in an online event.
The increase in Think Spaces participation and booth visits felt especially important. Those are areas where online events often need more intentional design. People will usually attend sessions if they come for the content. But getting them to join discussions, explore resources and information booths, or take part in a broader event environment requires more than simply making those options available. It requires giving people a reason to act. The leaderboard appeared to provide that reason for at least some attendees.
What the Results Did Not Show
The results were positive, but they were not universal. And that is where the learning gets interesting.
One of the biggest surprises was that chat participation was actually higher in one of the non-gamified events. That was an important finding because it reminded us that points alone do not drive engagement.
Chat is a good example. People may engage more in chat if there is a benefit, but the benefit does not have to be a point value. Sometimes the stronger motivator is the content itself. If the topic is focused, practical, timely, and directly applicable, attendees will participate because the conversation is valuable.
We saw that in the first session of GBL_OLC. The chat was extremely active. There was a palpable online buzz. Attendees made positive comments and described the experience as fun. But I do not think we can attribute that entirely to the leaderboard.
That first session was a panel with three heavy hitters in learning and gamification. Moderator Mark Britz’s questions helped focus attendees and created a sense of expectation for the sessions that followed. The topic, the format, the speakers, the timing, and the gamification elements all worked together to drive engagement.
That is an important distinction for event designers. Engagement is rarely caused by one thing. It is the result of the whole experience.
What We Learned About Motivation
This experiment reinforced that gamification works best when it is connected to meaningful behavior. The points were important, but the context of the points was more telling. Some attendees are intrinsically motivated. Some are competitive. Some are curious. Some respond to visible progress. Some simply need a prompt that tells them, “This part of the experience is worth your time.”
The leaderboard likely enhanced engagement for the people who were already motivated by exploration, participation, or friendly competition. But it did not automatically make every attendee engage in every way. That is exactly why this type of experiment is useful.
It helps us move beyond assumptions. Instead of saying, “Gamification increases engagement,” we can ask better questions: Which behaviors changed? Which did not? Which behaviors were influenced by points? Which were influenced by content? Which needed better prompts, better timing, or a clearer value proposition?
What I Would Change Next Time
I see several additional areas where we could improve the experience:
- Make the leaderboard more visible throughout the event journey, using it to create an engagement path
- Add clearer instructions, more facilitator prompts, and session-specific challenges
- Consider adding live leaderboard callouts, guided Think Spaces activities, and more explicit connections between points and meaningful participation
- Improve the context around point totals to map the leaderboard more intentionally to behavior change
For example, depending on the behaviors we want to encourage:
- If we want attendees to build community, we could design points around posting, responding, and joining discussion spaces.
- If we want to increase sponsor value, we could connect points to booth visits, resource downloads, and meaningful sponsor interactions.
- If we want to support learning transfer, we might use points for reflection prompts, session challenges, or application activities.
The next time we add gamification to an online event, we should make the “why” clearer. Attendees should understand not just what earns points, but also how those actions help them get more value from the event.
I would also look closely at discussion activities. Even though Think Spaces participation increased, I was disappointed that more people did not take advantage of that opportunity. That tells me we need to make the value of discussion more obvious. It is not enough to say, “Join the conversation.” We need to show attendees why that conversation will be worth their time.
In short, when designing a leaderboard: Do not start with the game mechanic. Start with the experience you want people to have and define the actions that will help create it.
The Work Attendees Do Not See
One of the things I am most proud of is how seamless the event felt.
The Learning Guild online events team worked to make the experience feel natural for attendees. When online events are executed well, the team is almost invisible. Things happen when they are supposed to happen. Reminders appear. Sessions open. Speakers are supported. Attendees know where to go. The platform feels manageable. That kind of seamlessness takes planning and coordination.
The Learning Guild programming team helped shape the content experience, and the speakers brought the credibility, energy, and practical insight that made the event valuable. The leaderboard could only work because it was layered onto an event that already had strong programming and a clear audience fit.
That is another lesson from this experiment: Gamification cannot compensate for weak content or unclear design. It can amplify a good experience, but it cannot replace one.
Where We Go From Here
For me, GBL_OLC was not just a test of a leaderboard. It was part of a broader philosophy of online event design. Every element we add should improve the user experience and give us better data. That data should help us make the design stronger, the value proposition clearer, and the next event more effective.
The future of online events is not passive attendance; it is intentional participation. That means designing experiences where attendees are invited to explore, contribute, connect, reflect, and apply what they are learning. It means using data not just to report what happened, but to understand how to make the next experience better.
The leaderboard helped us do that. It enhanced some forms of engagement, revealed opportunities for improvement, and gave us a clearer view of how people respond when participation is made visible.
But the biggest takeaway is not that points work. The biggest takeaway is that engagement has to be designed. Points, badges, and leaderboards can support that design. But the challenge is understanding what we want people to do, why those actions matter, and how the experience can invite them into deeper participation.
Image credit: Kudryavtsev Pavel
