ADAPTION OF THE GAMIFICATION HEXAD PLAYER TYPES AND COGNITIVE AWARENESS IN AN ENGINEERING STUDENT

Main Article Content

Zakiahbinti Zakaria
D’oriaIslamiah Binti Rosli

Keywords

Gamified Learning, Hexad User Type, Cognitive Awareness, Hexad characteristic, Gamified learning interface design

Abstract

Purpose: Cognitive awareness involves problem-solving skills to perform appropriate actions. Information observes from the environment will help users to interpret information and select the best solution to perform actions. On the other hand, in learning, the gamified learning approach is one of the alternatives to enhance learners’ cognitive awareness, where it requires learners to analyze information that they perceive from the gamified learning environment, analyze information into a meaningful decision and reflects of user’s actions. The ultimate goal of this study is to identify criteria for cognitive awareness using hexad characteristics, which will be further in designing gamified learning interface design.


Methodology: In this study, sets of questionnaires were adapted from user hexad player type that consists of seventy questions will be distributed to 400 respondents. In this phase quantitative data is obtained through the questionnaire form provided. Targeted respondents were among engineering students in the Universiti of Tun Hussien Onn Malaysia. In this study, the researcher may choose respondents using purposive sampling from engineering students by giving through a class representative. The researcher also distributes this questionnaire to faculty and library. This study used 5-point Likert scales, with the range from one, "very disagree" and the scale of five represents a "very agreeable" statement. 


Main findings: Findings showed a positive effect over players' characteristics in gamified learning used in cognitive awareness in hexad characteristic user comprises consumer, exploiter, self-seeker, socializer, philanthropist, free spirit, achiever and networker.


Applications: From this study, it will have a positive effect on student cognitive awareness as well as improving student achievement in using new methods. In conclusion, gamified learning approach help to enhance the students’ understanding of learning and eventually will help the students to make a better decision in their learning process. Furthermore, knowing the characteristics of users in gamified learning will help the interface designer to design and interface or requirements that meet the needs of learners.  


Novelty/Originality of this study: It is hoped that this study will contribute learners and their learning process through a gamified learning approach and at the same time to enhance their cognitive awareness while dealing with problems or issues that may arise around them.  

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...
Abstract 72 | PDF Downloads 35 XML Downloads 2 ePUB Downloads 6

References

1. Barata, Gabriel & Gama, Sandra & Jorge, Joaquim & Gonçalves, Daniel. (2014). Identifying Student Types in a Gamified Learning Experience. International Journal of Game-Based Learning. 4. 19-36. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2014100102
2. Best, John W. and James V. Kahn (1998 Re-edition) “Research in Education” Allyn and Bacon Press, London, PP-343
3. Borja Gil, Iván Cantador, and Andrzej Marczewski. 2015. Validating Gamification Mechanics and Player Types in an E-learning Environment. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (ECTEL’15), pp. 568-572. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9307, Springer, ISBN 978-3-319-24257-6.
4. Buckley P., Doyle E. (2014), Gamification and student motivation, Interactive Learning Environments, 1-14.
5. Chou, Yu-Kai (2014): Octalysis: Complete Gamification Framework. Retrieved March 5, 2015.
6. Cohen, B. H. (2001). Explaining Psychological Statistics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
7. De Vries M, Prins PJ, Schmand B, Geurts H. (2015). Working memory and cognitive flexibility-training for children with an autism spectrum disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Jurnoul Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2015;56 (5):566–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12324
8. Doman, N. (2017). The implications of Google Apps are being taught and the UTHM-based student learning lessons. University Tun Hussein Onn of Malaysia. Thesis Master Degree.
9. Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. human factors, 37(1), 32-64. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543
10. Gilbert, S. (2016). Please turn on your phone in the museum: Cultural heritage institutions learn to love selfies and social media. The Atlantic, 318(3), 32-33.
11. Hamari, J., Tuunanen, J. (2014). Player types: A meta-synthesis. Trans. Digit. Games Res. 1. https://doi.org/10.26503/todigra.v1i2.13
12. Holmes, D, Charles, D, Morrow, P, McClean, S, and McDonough, S, (2015), Rehabilitation Game Model for Personalised Exercise, IEEE Intl. Conf. on Interactive Technologies and Games, Nottingham, pp.41-48. https://doi.org/10.1109/iTAG.2015.11
13. Jafari, S. M. B. Abdollahzade, Z. (2018). Investigating the Relationship between Player Types and Learning Styles in Gamification Design. Iranian Journal of Management Studies (IJMS). Vol. 11, No. 3, Summer 2018. pp. 573-600
14. Jim, L. Edwards, E. Lawrence, N. S. David, C. Marcus, R. M. (2016). Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy. JMIR Serious Games. 2016 Jul-Dec; 4(2): e11. https://doi.org/10.2196/games.5888
15. Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
16. Kelders, Saskia & Sommers-Spijkerman, Marion & Goldberg, Jochem. (2018). The impact of design on engagement: an exploratory experiment investigating the direct impact of a gamified versus non-gamified well-being intervention (Preprint). Journal of Medical Internet Research. 20. 10.2196/jmir.9923. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9923
17. Khalid, F. (2015). Gamification: Implication and concepts in education. Pembelajaran Abad ke-21: Trend IntegrasiTeknologi. Pp 144-154
18. Khan, M. Y. (2018). Data Literacy And Serious Games: Can The Gamification Of Open Data Provide A Solution To Its Disuse?. Master’s Thesis; Lappeenranta University Of Technology.
19. Kim, B. (2015). Gamification in education and libraries. Library Technology Reports (Vol. 51,2). Chicago.
20. Kirschner, P.A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Journal of Learning and Instruction. Vol. (12) (1), pp 1-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00014-7
21. Klock, A. C. T., Pimenta, M. S. & Gasparini, I (2018). A Systematic Mapping of the Customization of Game Elements in Gamified Systems. Proceedings of SB Games 2018. Pp 11-18
22. Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
23. Kyewski, E., and Kramer, N.C. (2018). To gamify or not to gamify? An experimental field study of the influence of badges on motivation, activity and performance in an online learning course. Computers & Education 118: 25-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.006
24. Layth Khaleel, Firas & Ashaari, Noraidah & Tengku Wook, Tengku Siti Meriam Tengku Wook & Ismail, Amirah. (2016). Gamification Elements for Learning Applications. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology. 6, no. 6, 2016.. 10.18517/ijaseit.6.6.1379.
25. Lessel, P. Altmeyer, M. Kruger, A. (2018). Users As Game Designers: Analyzing Gamification Concepts in a “Bottom-Up” Setting. Academic Mindtrek 2018 October 10–11, 2018, Tampere, Finland. ACM, New York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1145/3275116.3275118
26. Lewandowski (2015). The Effects Of Minimum Wage On A Labour Market With High Temporary Employment. IBS Working Paper. 07/2015. EDEN Annual Conference. Expanding Learning Scenarios, Barcelona, Spain.
27. Lieder, F. & L Griffiths, T. (2016). Helping people make better decisions using optimal gamification.
28. Marczewski, A (2015). User Types. In Even Ninja Monkeys Like to Play: Gamification, Game Thinking & Motivational Design. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 69–84.
29. Marczewski, A. (2015) Gamification Mechanics and Elements. In: Even Ninja Monkeys Like to Play: Gamification, Game Thinking & Motivational Design. pp. 165–177. Create Space Independent Publishing Platform
30. Margaryan, Anoush & Littlejohn, Allison. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality?: Students ’ use of technologies for learning. Computers & Education 56. 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004
31. Mora, Alberto & Zaharias, Panagiotis & González González, Carina & Arnedo-Moreno, Joan. (2015). FRAGGLE: a Framework for Agile Gamification
32. Nacke, L.E., Bateman, C., Mandryk, R.L. (2014). Brain Hex: A Neurobiological Gamer Typology Survey. Entertain. Comput. 5, 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2013.06.002
33. Orji, R. Tondello, G. F. Nacke, L. (2018). Personalizing Persuasive Strategies in Gameful Systems to Gamification User Types. CHI 2018. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174009
34. Padzil, A. S. N. A., Hamzah, R., & Udin, A. (2011). PTV Education in the development of first-class manpower. Journal of Edupres, 1(September), 279–286.
35. Pramana, D. (2015). “Perancangan Aplikasi Knowledge Sharing dengan Konsep Gamification.Jurnal Sistemdan Informatika. STMIK STIKOM Bali.
36. Prambayun, A. dan Farozi, M. (2015). “Pola Perancangan Gamifikasi untuk Membangun Engagement Siswadalam.” STMIK AMIKOM.
37. Prasetyo Adi Isnanto, Destya Senie, Rizky (2016). "Penerapan Konsep Gamifikasi Pada Perancangan Aplikasi Pembelajaran Al-Qur’an". Magister Teknik Informatika STMIK AMIKOM Yogyakarta.
38. Sciessere, L. (2015). Gamification and user types: Reasons why people use gamified services. The University of Kassel. Germany.
39. Tobias, S., Fletcher, J. D., & Wind, A. P. (2014). Game-Based Learning. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 485-503). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_38
40. Tondello, G.F., Wehbe, R.R., Diamond, L., Busch, M., Marczewski, A., Nacke, L.E. (2016). The Gamification User Types Hexad Scale. In Proceedings of 2016. Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play - CHI PLAY ’16. pp. 229–243. ACM, Austin, TX, USA (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2967934.2968082
41. Tondello, G.F., Mora, A., Nacke, L.E. (2017). Elements of Gameful Design Emerging from User Preferences. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play - CHI PLAY ’17. pp. 129–142. ACM, Amsterdam, Netherlands (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3116595.3116627
42. Tondello, G.F., Orji, R., Nacke, L.E. (2017). Recommender Systems for Personalized Gamification. In: Proceedings of UMAP’17 Adjunct. ACM, Bratislava, Slovakia. https://doi.org/10.1145/3099023.3099114
43. Tuunanen, J., & Hamari, J. (2012). Meta-synthesis of player typologies. In Proceedings of 2012 DiGRA Nordic. R.
44. Yamin, M. (2008). Desain Pembelajaran Berbasis Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. Jakarta : Gaung Persada Press.
45. Yee, N., Ducheneaut, N., Nelson, L. (2012). Online Gaming Motivations Scale: Development and Validation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 2803–2806. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208681