Oyunlaştırmanın Aktif ve Yansıtıcı Öğrencilerin Meşguliyeti ve Bilişsel Yükü Üzerindeki Etkileri

Year 2023, , 41 - 71, 31.01.2023

Fatma Burcu Topu

https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.1130771

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, oyunlaştırmanın aktif ve yansıtıcı öğrenenlerin meşguliyeti ve bilişsel yükü üzerindeki etkilerini araştırmaktır. Ayrıca her iki grubun 10 haftalık oyunlaştırma sürecindeki deneyimleri karşılaştırmalı olarak sunulmuştur. Katılımcılar 70 lisans öğrencisinden (45 aktif, 25 yansıtıcı öğrenen) oluşmaktadır. Sonuçlara göre, hem aktif hem de yansıtıcı öğrenenler oyunlaştırmada yüksek oranda davranışsal, duygusal ve bilişsel meşguliyet ve düşük bilişsel yüke sahiptiler. Grupların meşguliyeti ve bilişsel yükü arasında anlamlı bir fark yoktur. Oyunlaştırma sürecinin olumlu ve olumsuz yönlerine ilişkin olarak Meydan Okuma ve Rekabet, Grup Görevlerine ve Sınıf İçi Etkinliklere Katılım, Liderlik Tablosu ve Ödül Sistemi'nin ortak temalar olduğu belirlenmiştir. Oyunlaştırma sürecinin artıları açısından toplamda “Meydan Okuma ve Rekabet” teması en yüksek frekansa sahipken, eksiler açısından “Grup Görevlerine Katılım ve Sınıf İçi Etkinlikler” teması en yüksek sıklığa sahip olmuştur. Oyunlaştırmanın artıları ve eksileri ile ilgili ortak temalar mevcut olmasına rağmen, aktif ve yansıtıcı öğrenenlerin temalardaki çeşitli kodlara ilişkin görüşlerinde benzerlikler ve farklılıklar tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, karakteristik özellikler oyunlaştırma unsurlarına ve sürecine yönelik tepkiyi etkilemiştir.

Keywords

oyunlaştırma, aktif ve yansıtıcı öğrenenler, meşguliyet, bilişsel yük.

Supporting Institution

yok

Project Number

yok

Effects of Gamification on Active and Reflective Learners' Engagement and Cognitive Load

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate effects of gamification on active and reflective learners' engagement and cognitive load. It was also presented both of groups’ experiences in 10-week gamification process in comparison. Participants consisted of 70 undergraduate students (45 active, 25 reflective learners). According to results, both active and reflective learners were high rate behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagements in gamification, and had low cognitive load. There was no any significant difference between groups' engagement and cognitive load. It was determined that the Challenge and Competition, Engagement in Group Tasks and In-Class Activities, Leaderboard, and Reward System were common themes regarding the pros and cons of gamification process. “Challenge and Competition” theme had the highest frequency totally in terms of pros of gamification process whereas “Engagement in Group Tasks and In-Class Activities” theme had the highest ones in terms of cons. Although it was available common themes related to pros and cons of gamification, it was determined similarities and differences in active and reflective learners' opinions on various codes in themes. Consequently, characteristic features affected reaction toward gamification elements and process.

Keywords

gamification, active and reflective learners, engagement, cognitive load.

Project Number

yok

References

• Adams, S. P., & Du Preez, R. (2022). Supporting student engagement through the gamification of learning activities: A design-based research approach. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(1), 119-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09500-x
• Aldemir, T., Celik, B., & Kaplan, G. (2018). A qualitative investigation of student perceptions of game elements in a gamified course. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 235-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.001
• Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303
• Bai, S., Hew, K. F., Sailer, M., & Jia, C. (2021). From top to bottom: How positions on different types of leaderboard may affect fully online student learning performance, intrinsic motivation, and course engagement. Computers & Education, 173, 104297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104297
• Baiden, P., Essel, H. B., Vlachopoulos, D., Tachie-Menson, A., & Essuman, M. A. (2022). The effect of gamification on home economics students' motivation and engagement in drawing activities. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(1), 161-182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09566-7
• Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Comparative case studies: An innovative approach. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 1(1), 5-17. http://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.1929
• Becker, K. (2005, July). Games and learning styles. Presented at IASTED international conference on education and technology-ICET. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/1880/46706/Games_Learning_2005.pdf?sequence=1
• Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2017). Individualising gamification: An investigation of the impact of learning styles and personality traits on the efficacy of gamification using a prediction market. Computers & Education, 106, 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.009
• Çakıroğlu, Ü., Başıbüyük, B., Güler, M., Atabay, M., & Memiş, B. Y. (2017). Gamifying an ICT course: Influences on engagement and academic performance. Computers in human behavior, 69, 98-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.018
• Coates, H. (2007). A model of online and general campus‐based student engagement. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 121-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600801878
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• da Rocha Seixas, L., Gomes, A. S., & de Melo Filho, I. J. (2016). Effectiveness of gamification in the engagement of students. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 48-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.021
• Debue, N., & Van De Leemput, C. (2014). What does germane load mean? An empirical contribution to the cognitive load theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01099
• Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, September). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining "gamification". In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic Mindtrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (pp. 9-15). Tampere, Finland. ACM. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2181037.2181040
• Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 75-88. https://www.j-ets.net/collection/published-issues/18_3
• Ding, L., Kim, C., & Orey, M. (2017). Studies of student engagement in gamified online discussions. Computers & Education, 115, 126-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.016
• Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-Herráiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020
• Eikelboom, J. J. (2016). Engagement, gamification, and workplace satisfaction: A convergent study of user indicators (Master’s Thesis). Unıversity Of Southern Maine. https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/etd/276/
• Ekici, M. (2021). A systematic review of the use of gamification in flipped learning. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 3327-3346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10394-y
• Erümit, S. F., & Yılmaz, T. K. (2022). The happy association of game and gamification: the use and evaluation of game elements with game-based activities. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 31(1), 103-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2021.2006077
• Fan, K. K., Xiao, P. W., & Su, C. (2015). The effects of learning styles and meaningful learning on the learning achievement of gamification health education curriculum. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(5), 1211-1229. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1413a
• Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681. https://www.engr.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/drive/1QP6kBI1iQmpQbTXL-08HSl0PwJ5BYnZW/1988-LS-plus-note.pdf
• Felder, R.M. ve Soloman, B.A. (1994). Index of learning styles questionnaire. https://www.webtools.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/
• Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd Ed.) London: Sage.
• Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Rresearch, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
• Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P., Friedel, J., & Paris, A. H. (2005). School engagement. In K. A. Moore, & L. H. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 305-321). New York: Springer.
• Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Mordica, J., Montrosse, B., & Mooney, K. (2011). Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of 21 instruments. Issues & Answers Report, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast, 98(098). http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
• Hamari, J. (2017). Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on the effects of gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 469-478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.036
• Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019
• Hew, K. F., Huang, B., Chu, K. W. S., & Chiu, D. K. (2016). Engaging Asian students through game mechanics: Findings from two experiment studies. Computers & Education, 92, 221-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.010
• Huang, B., & Hew, K. F. (2021). Using gamification to design courses: Lessons learned in a three-year design-based study. Educational Technology & Society, 24(1), 44-63. https://www.j-ets.net/collection/published-issues/24_1
• Huang, B., Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2019). Investigating the effects of gamification-enhanced flipped learning on undergraduate students’ behavioral and cognitive engagement. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1106-1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1495653
• Ibáñez, M. B., Di-Serio, A., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Gamification for engaging computer science students in learning activities: A case study. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(3), 291-301. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2014.2329293
• Jayalath, J., & Esichaikul, V. (2020). Gamification to enhance motivation and engagement in blended eLearning for technical and vocational education and training. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09466-2
• Kapp, K. M. (2014). The gamification of learning and instruction fieldbook: Ideas into practice. John Wiley & Sons. Kim, T. W., & Werbach, K. (2016). More than just a game: Ethical issues in gamification. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(2), 157-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9401-5
• Krath, J., Schürmann, L., & Von Korflesch, H. F. (2021). Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 125, 106963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963
• Kuo, M. S., & Chuang, T. Y. (2016). How gamification motivates visits and engagement for online academic dissemination–An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 16-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.025
• Luo, Z., Brown, C., & O’Steen, B. (2021). Factors contributing to teachers’ acceptance intention of gamified learning tools in secondary schools: An exploratory study. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 6337-6363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10622-z
• Mavilidi, M. F., & Zhong, L. (2019). Exploring the development and research focus of cognitive load theory, as described by its founders: Interviewing John Sweller, Fred Paas, and Jeroen van Merriënboer. Educational Psychology Review, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09463-7
• Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
• Moreno, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory: More food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 135-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9122-9
• Mullins, J. K., & Sabherwal, R. (2020). Gamification: A cognitive-emotional view. Journal of Business Research, 106, 304-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.09.023
• Ninaus, M., Pereira, G., Stefitz, R., Prada, R., Paiva, A., Neuper, C., & Wood, G. (2015). Game elements improve performance in a working memory training task. International Journal of Serious Games, 2(1), 3-16. https://journal.seriousgamessociety.org/index.php/IJSG/article/view/60/pdf_13
• Paas, F. G., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.122
• Pakinee, A., & Puritat, K. (2021). Designing a gamified e-learning environment for teaching undergraduate ERP course based on big five personality traits. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4049-4067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10456-9
• Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Open University Press.
• Saleem, A. N., Noori, N. M., & Ozdamli, F. (2022). Gamification applications in E-learning: A literature review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09487-x
• Simões, J., Redondo, R. D., & Vilas, A. F. (2013). A social gamification framework for a K-6 learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 345-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.007
• Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5
• Tan, M., & Hew, K. F. (2016). Incorporating meaningful gamification in a blended learning research methods class: Examining student learning, engagement, and affective outcomes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2232
• Tsay, C. H. H., Kofinas, A., & Luo, J. (2018). Enhancing student learning experience with technology-mediated gamification: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 121, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.009
• Turan, Z., Avinc, Z., Kara, K., & Goktas, Y. (2016). Gamification and education: Achievements, cognitive loads, and views of students. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 11(7). http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v11i07.5455
• Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press.
• Yildiz, İ., Topçu, E., & Kaymakci, S. (2021). The effect of gamification on motivation in the education of pre-service social studies teachers. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 100907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100907
• Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Zainuddin, Z., Shujahat, M., Haruna, H., & Chu, S. K. W. (2020). The role of gamified e-quizzes on student learning and engagement: An interactive gamification solution for a formative assessment system. Computers & Education, 145, 103729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103729
• Zhang, Q., & Yu, Z. (2021). A literature review on the influence of Kahoot! On learning outcomes, interaction, and collaboration. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4507-4535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10459-6
• Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. O'Reilly Media.