An Exploratory Study to Assess Analytical and Logical Thinking Skills of the Software Practitioners using a Gamification Perspective

Year 2017, Volume: 21 Issue: 1, 178 - 189, 15.04.2017

Murat Yılmaz Şahin Kayalı

https://doi.org/10.19113/sdufbed.39411

Cited By: 3

Abstract

The link between analytical and logical thinking skills and success of software practitioners attracted an increasing attention in the last decade. Several studies report that the ability to think logically is a requirement for improving software development skills, which exhibits a strong reasoning. Additionally, analytical thinking is a vital part of software development for example while dividing a task into elemental parts with respect to basic rules and principles.  Using the basic essence of gamification, this study proposes a mobile testing platform for assessing analytical and logical thinking skills of software practitioners as well as computer engineering students. The assessment questions were taken from the literature and transformed into a gamified tool based on the software requirements. A focus group study was conducted to capture the requirements. Using the Delphi method, these requirements were discussed by a group of experts to reach a multidisciplinary understanding where a level of moderate agreement has been achieved. In light of these, an assessment tool was developed, which was tested on both software practitioners from the industry and senior computer engineering students. Our results suggest that individuals who exhibit skills in analytical and logical thinking are also more inclined to be successful in software development.

Keywords

Gamification, Software engineering; Software design issues; Delphi study; Analytical thinking ability; Logical thinking ability

References

• [1] Kreber, C. 1998. The relationships between self-directed learning, critical thinking, and psychological type, and some implications for teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 23(1998), 71-86.
• [2] Jacobsen, D.A., Eggen, P., Kauchak, D. 2002. Methods for Teaching, Promoting Student Learning. Sixth Edition, Meririll Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA, 416p.
• [3] Özçelik, D. A. ed. 2012. İnsan nitelikleri ve okulda öğrenme. Pegem Akademi. Ankara, 320p.
• [4] Lipman, M. 2003. Thinking in education. Cambridge University Press. 318p.
• [5] Karamustafaoğlu, S., Yaman, S. 2006. Öğretmen adaylarının mantıksal düşünme becerileri ve kimya dersine yönelik tutumlarının incelenmesi. Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(2006), 91-106.
• [6] Gabel, D. L. 1993. Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning Project. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, USA, 598p.
• [7] Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B., Grigorenko, E. 1998. Teaching for successful intelligence raises school achievement. The Phi Delta Kappan, 79.9(1998), 667-669.
• [8] Ruskin. 2011. Anglia Ruskin Üniversitesi tarafından üniversite öğrencileri için hazırlanmış rapor. http://www.kritik-analitik.com/ (Retrieved Date: 15.02.2015).
• [9] Chuah, H. C. 2009. Building the past, engineering the present, educating the future. Journal-The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia, 2.71(2009), 1-4.
• [10] Fatin, A.P., Mohamad, B.A., Bakar, M.N., Noor, F.A.R., Lilia, E.M., Normah, M.G. 2011. Engineering elements profile among first-and final-year engineering students in Malaysia. IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) April 4-6, 2011, Amman, Jordan, 70-73.
• [11] Robbins, Joanne K. 2011. Problem solving, reasoning, and analytical thinking in a classroom environment. The Behavior Analyst Today 12.1 (2011), 40-47.
• [12] Zicherman, G. Linder, J. 2010. Game-Based Marketing: Inspire Customer Loyalty Through Rewards, Challenges, and Contests. John Wiley & Sons, USA, 220p.
• [13] McGonigal, J. 2011. Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World, Penguin Books, USA, 416p.
• [14] Prensky, M. 2002. What kids learn that's positive from playing video games? http://www.marcprensky.com/ (Retrieved Date: 15.04.2015).
• [15] Kaya Z. 2006. Öğretim teknolojileri ve materyal geliştirme. Pegem Yayıncılık. Ankara, 473p.
• [16] 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(2013), 380-392.
• [17] Zicherman, G., Cunningham, C. 2011. Gamification by Design: Implementing Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps. 1st ed. Sebastopol, O'Reilly Media, California, USA, 208p.
• [18] Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O'Hara, K., Dixon, D. 2011. Gamification. Using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. In CHI'11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2425-2428.
• [19] Bunchball, I. 2010. Gamification 101: An Introduction to the Use of Game Dynamics to Influence Behavior, White paper, 14p.
• [20] Hou, J. 2011. Uses and gratifications of social games: Blending social networking and game play. http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3517/3020 (Retrieved Date: 20.04.2015).
• [21] Bogost, I. 2007. Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. London. MIT Press, USA, 432p.
• [22] Mohd Suki, N., Mohd Suki, N. 2007. Mobile phone usage for m-learning: comparing heavy and light mobile phone users. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 24.5 (2007), 355-365.
• [23] Aysun, U., Arıol, Ş., 2011. Baskın Olarak Bütüncül Stilde Düşünenlerle Baskın Olarak Analitik Stilde Düşünenlerin Problem Çözme Davranışlarının Karşılaştırılması, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30.2 (2011), 27-37.
• [24] Tobin, K. G., Capie, W. 1981. The development and validation of a group test of logical thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41.2 (1981), 413-423.
• [25] Herranz, E., Colomo-Palacios, R., de Amescua Seco, A., Yilmaz, M. (2014). Gamification as a disruptive factor in software process improvement initiatives. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 20.6 (2014), 885-906.
• [26] Baltaş, Zuhal, 2003. ‘Yaptık’ Demekle Olmuyor Yetkinlik Belirlemede Kullanılan Yöntemler. http: //www.pazarlamadunyasi.com (Retrieved Date: 24.04.2015).
• [27] Krueger, R.A. 1998. Analyzing and reporting focus group results. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 160p.
• [28] Dalkey, N., Helmer, O. 1963. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts, Management science, 9.3(1963), 458-467.
• [29] Jordan, E. A. 2010. The Semiconductor Industry And Emerging Technologies: A Study Using A Modified Delphi Method, University of Phoenix, Doctoral dissertation. 184p, Arizona.
• [30] Gray, C. J. 2014. Electronic Health Record System In A Centralized Computing Services Environment: Critical Success Factors For Implementation, Robert Morris University, Doctoral dissertation, 209p, Pennsylvania.
• [31] Tseng. Yen Hua-Hui. 2008. Motivation Of Participation In Inservice Training Based On Problem Solving: A Modified Delphi Study, University Of Phoneix, Doctoral dissertation, 409p, Arizona.
• [32] Castaneda. M. Anthony. 2011. Including People With Disabilities In Disaster Preparedness: A Delphi Study, Pepperdine University, Doctoral dissertation, 142p, California.
• [33] Saekman, H. 1975. Delphi Critique: Expert Opinion. Lexington Books, MA, USA, 77p.
• [34] Linstone, H. A., Turoff, M. (Eds.). 1975. The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, USA, 640p.
• [35] Oliva, J. M. 2003. The Structural Coherence of Students’ Conceptions in Mechanics and Conceptual Change. International Journal of Science Education, 25.5(2003), 539-561.
• [36] Tomal, D. R. 2010. Action research for educators. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. USA, 214p.