Oyunlaştırma için Kullanıcı Tipleri Ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması

Yıl 2018, , 389 - 402, 19.09.2018

Özcan Erkan Akgün , Murat Topal

https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.379139

Cited By: 10

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı,
oyunlaştırma çalışmalarında kullanıcı tiplerini belirlemek için Tondello,
Wehbe, Diamond, Busch, Marczewski ve Nacke (2016) tarafından geliştirilen
“Oyunlaştırma İçin Kullanıcı Tipleri Ölçeği”nin Türkçe’ye uyarlanmasıdır.
Ölçeğin orijinali her bir alt boyut dört maddeden oluşan; özgür ruhlu tip,
sosyal olmayı seven tip, başarı odaklı tip, yardımsever tip, oyuncu tip,
sınırları ve kuralları zorlamayı seven tip şeklinde adlandırılan altı faktörden
oluşmaktadır. Ölçme aracının uyarlanması çeviri, dilsel eşdeğerlik, geçerlik ve
güvenirlik çalışmaları sonucunda gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ölçeğin çevirisi
araştırmacılar tarafından yapıldıktan sonra iki İngilizce, bir ölçme
değerlendirme, bir Türkçe, bir eğitim psikolojisi, iki eğitim teknolojisi
uzmanı olmak üzere iyi İngilizce bilen toplam yedi uzmandan görüş alınarak
tamamlanmış ve ön uygulama formu oluşturulmuştur. Oluşturulan form dilsel
eşdeğerlik için İngilizce öğretmenliği programında öğrenim gören 30 öğrenciye
bir hafta ara ile uygulanmıştır. Ölçeğin dilsel eşdeğerliğini ölçmek için
yapılan korelasyon analizi ölçeğin Türkçe ve İngilizce formları arasında yüksek
düzeyde korelasyon olduğunu göstermiştir. Dil eşdeğerliğinin doğrulanmasının
ardından ölçek formu Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi’nde öğrenim gören
452 üniversite öğrencisine uygulanmıştır. Ölçeğin doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve
güvenirliğine yönelik elde edilen bulguları, Türkçe ölçeğin geçerli ve
güvenilir olduğunu göstermektedir. Ölçeğin, kullanıcı tiplerine özgü etkilerin
incelenmesi açısından oyunlaştırma çalışmalarında kullanılması önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Oyunlaştırma, Kullanıcı Tipi, Ölçek, Oyun

The Turkish Adaptation Study of the Gamification User Types Hexad Scale

Öz

The aim of this study is
to adapt the Gamification User Types Hexad Scale (GUTHS)
developed by Tondello et al. (2016) into the Turkish context. The original
scale consists of six dimensions, each of which has four items. The dimensions
— and the user types that they refer to — are “Free spirit,” “Socializer,”
“Achiever,” “Philanthropist,” “Player,” and “Disruptor.” It is the motive of
this study that identifying and studying these user types may prove useful for
understanding the effects of gamification dynamics and mechanics and assist in
designing specific gamification techniques corresponding to each user type. The
adaptation of the instrument began with translation, continued with an
examination of the linguistic equivalence, and finalized with analyses of
validity and reliability. The scale items were initially translated by the
researchers. The translation was examined by seven experts with good English
proficiency to finalize the Turkish version. To verify the linguistic
equivalence, both the Turkish and English versions were then administered to 30
English Language Education (ELE) students. The correlation findings showed a
high degree of correlation between the Turkish and English versions. Next, the
Turkish version was administered to 452 university students studying at the
Faculty of Education, Sakarya University, to check its validity and
reliability. The results obtained from a confirmatory factor analysis and the
reliability analysis indicate that the Turkish version of the scale is valid
and reliable. It is recommended to use the translated scale in research
especially on determining the effects of factors related to user types and on
designing more affective gamification strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gamification, User Types, Scale, Game

Kaynakça

• Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
• Byrne, B. M., & Campbell, T. L. (1999). Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: A look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(5), 555-574.
• Bunchball (2010). Gamification 101: An Introduction to the Use of Game Dynamics to Influence Behavior [White paper]. 04.03.2016 tarihinde http://www.bunchball.com/sites/default/files/downloads/gamification101.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Chou, Y. (2015). Octalysis: Complete Gamification Framework-Yu-kai Chou. Octalysis media, Fremont.
• Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: designing for motivation. Interactions, 19(4), 14-17.
• Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L. E., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Toward a definition. CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop Proceedings, 12-15.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 39-50.
• Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and games. K. Salen (Ed.) The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning (John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• Johnson, L., Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). Horizon report: 2014 higher education. 20.02.2016 tarihinde http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2014-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN-SC.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Lee, J. J., & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in education: What, how, why bother?. Academic exchange quarterly, 15(2), 146.
• MacMillan, D. (2011). Gamification': A growing business to invigorate stale websites. 15.02.2016 tarihinde http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-01-19/gamification-a-growing-business-to-invigorate-stale-websites adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Marczewski, A. (2013). Gamification: a simple introduction.
• Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., & Peschar, J. L. (2006). OECD's brief self-report measure of educational psychology's most useful affective constructs: Cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311-360.
• Paulhus, D. L. (1994). Balanced inventory of desirable responding: Reference manual for BIDR version 6. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
• Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of research in Personality, 41(1), 203-212.
• Reigeluth, C. M. (2013). Öğretim-Tasarımı Teorisi Nedir ve Nasıl Değişir?. K. Çağıltay ve İ. Göktaş (Ed.), Öğretim Teknolojilerinin Temelleri: Teoriler, Araştırmalar, Eğilimler (1-22). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of psychological research online, 8(2), 23-74.
• 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.
• 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 the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (229-243). ACM, October.
• Tuckman, B. W. (2007). The effect of motivational scaffolding on procrastinators’ distance learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 49(2), 414-422.
• Yılmaz, E. A. (2015). Oyunlaştırma. Abaküs yayınları, İstanbul.
• Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Wharton Digital Press.
• Winkler, N., Kroh, M., & Spiess, M. (2006). Entwicklung einer deutschen Kurzskala zur zweidimensionalen Messung von sozialer Erwünschtheit (No. 579). DIW Discussion Papers.
• Wu, M. (2012). The gamification backlash + Two long term business stategies. 03.03.2016 tarihinde http://community.lithium.com/t5/Science-of-Social-blog/The-Gamification-Backlash-Two-Long-Term-Business-Strategies/ba-p/30891 adresinden erişilmiştir.
• Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. O'Reilly Media, Inc.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Veri analizi el kitabı (17. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Cho, E & Kim, S. (2015). Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: Well known but poorly understood. Organizational Research Methods, 18(2), 207-230.
• Foucault, M., Blanc, X., Storey, M. A., Falleri, J. R., & Teyton, C. (2018). Gamification: a Game Changer for Managing Technical Debt? A Design Study. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.02693. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.02693
• Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014, January). Does gamification work?--a literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 3025-3034). IEEE.
• Johnson, D., & Gardner, J. (2010, November). Personality, motivation and video games. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction (pp. 276-279). ACM
• Marczewski, A. C. (2015). User Types. In Even Ninja Monkeys Like to Play: Gamification, Game Thinking and Motivational Design (1st ed., pp. 65-80). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform
• Mora, A., Tondello, G. F., Nacke, L. E., & Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2018). Effect of personalized gameful design on student engagement. In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference - EDUCON 2018. Tenerife, Spain. IEEE.
• Nacke, L. E., & Deterding, S. (2017). The maturing of gamification research. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 450-454.
• Orji, R., Nacke, L. E., & Di Marco, C. (2017, May). Towards personality-driven persuasive health games and gamified systems. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1015-1027). ACM.
• Orji, R., Tondello, G. F., & Nacke, L. E. (2018). Personalizing Persuasive Strategies in Gameful Systems to Gamification User Types. In Proceeding of the 2018 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 2018. Montreal, QC, Canada. ACM.
• Tondello, G. F., Orji, R., & Nacke, L. E. (2017, July). Recommender systems for personalized gamification. In Adjunct Publication of the 25th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (pp. 425-430). ACM.
• Yee, N., Ducheneaut, N., Nelson, L., & Likarish, P. (2011, May). Introverted elves & conscientious gnomes: the expression of personality in world of warcraft. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 753-762). ACM.