Gamification for Engaging Computer Science Students in Learning Activities - A Case Study

Gamification is the use of game design elements in non-game settings to engage participants and encourage desired behaviors. It has been identified as a promising technique to improve students’ engagement which could have a positive impact on learning. This study evaluated the learning effectiveness and engagement appeal of a gamified learning activity targeted at the learning of C-programming language. Furthermore, the study inquired into which gamified learning activities were more appealing to students. The study was conducted using the mixed-method sequential explanatory protocol. The data collected and analysed included logs, questionnaires, and preand post-tests. The results of the evaluation show positive effects on the engagement of students toward the gamified learning activities and a moderate improvement in learning outcomes. Students reported different motivations for continuing and stopping activities once they completed the mandatory assignment. The preferences for different gamified activities were also conditioned by academic milestones.

1. To explore the impact of gamification on students’ engagement.
2. To gain understanding about students’ engagement through students’ reports and interactions with the gamified platform.
3. To measure the impact of gamification on student academic performance. (@ibanez2014a, 1)

1. In the game design arena, Lazzaro identifies four keys to unlocking players’ emotions: 1) providing opportunities for challenge, strategy, and problem solving (hard fun); 2) introducing elements that foster mystery, intrigue, and curiosity (easy fun); 3) leading players to excitement or relief moods (altered states); and 4) promoting competition and teamwork (people fun) [17]. On the other hand, LeBlanc organises the types of player pleasure into eight categories: sensation, fantasy, narrative, challenge, fellowship, discovery, expression, and submission [18] (@ibanez2014a, 2)
   • Theoretical framework?
2. From the perspective of a video game designer who is now devoted to making engaging e-learning software, Raymer [33] states that the setting of goals and objectives, feedback, and rewards are the key components for developing gamified learning environments. Goals and objectives need to be split into achievable steps that learners could accomplish by using their skills; designers should keep students within their flow channel [16]. Feedback is included to avoid students getting lost or confused about what to do and how to do it within the learning environment; it is also important to inform students about the progress they have made. Finally, Raymer [33] recommends the use of rewards to acknowledge students for their work and effort, and highlights the relevance of broadcasting this information throughout the learning community to foster peer motivation. Similarly, the taxonomy of satisfaction metrics for gamified e-learning [34] includes the need to provide manageable tasks (context) for learners, trying to keep them working within the flow channel through mechanics. The taxonomy also states the need to provide feedback and information about progress as well as the social and competitive elements necessary to promote learners’ engagement. (@ibanez2014a, 2)
   • Check out Raymer [33] and also maybe this is also a conceptual framework.
3. Nicholson [35] presents a user-centred theoretical framework which recommends: 1) designing considering the benefits for the user; 2) focusing on introducing fun elements instead of elements of scoring; 3) offering the possibility of choosing different ways to achieve users’ goals; and 4) integrating game mechanics into the non-game setting. We will base the design of our gamified environment on Nicholson’s framework. (@ibanez2014a, 2)
   • Conceptual framework.
4. To this end, and based on the overview of the research literature, the Q-Learning-G platform was designed. The platform includes basic elements of game mechanics where students increase their levels of expertise by introducing and assessing questions related to C-programming language. The experiment was conducted to address the following hypotheses: H1. Students will work beyond the learning requirements of the course. H2. Students will change their learning strategy once they achieve the learning requirements of the course. H3. Students will gain knowledge of C-programming language by using the Q-Learning-G platform. The secondary purposes of the study were: 1) to understand students’ reasons for continuing or stopping work once the learning requirements were achieved, and 2) to identify students’ preferences for gamified learning activities. (@ibanez2014a, 3)
   • Platform (Q-Learning-G) and hypotheses.
5. The mixed research method is considered a legitimate, stand-alone research design in engineering education that combines the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research [45], [47], [48]. (@ibanez2014a, 5)
   • Mixed methods.

1. It can be concluded that students improved their comprehension of C-programming language as a result of the use of the gamified platform. (@ibanez2014a, 9)
   • Positive results.
2. Among the most common reasons for continuing work after achieving 100 points were to collect all the badges and to keep learning. Collecting badges was the most effective driver of participation and lack of badges discouraged students from continuing work. (@ibanez2014a, 10)
   • Badges r goated.
3. These findings reinforce the idea that a learning activity combining game elements in a gamified learning environment can engage students in achieving their main goal: to learn [35]. (@ibanez2014a, 10)

1. Most of the gamified frameworks, for example Khan Academy, use points and badges to reward progress and levels of expertise acquired by learners whereas the most extensive game dynamic used is competitiveness through leaderboards [22], [26], [27], [28]. However, there has been controversy in reference to the use of rewards in learning environments. Whereas some authors argue that extrinsic rewards have negative effects on students’ self-motivation to learn [29], others claim that the risks are minimised once users understand the relevance of the activity for themselves [30], [31]. (@ibanez2014a, 2)
   • Extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivations.
2. Further studies are necessary to explore the impact of these reward elements in gamified learning activities. (@ibanez2014a, 2)
   • Maybe extrinsic vs. intrinsic is the thing I study?
3. V. Petrovic and D. Ivetic, “Gamifying education: A proposed taxonomy of satisfaction metrics,” in Proc. 8th Int. Sci. Conf. eLearn. Softw. Edu., 2012, pp. 345–350.