We investigate the extent to which the use of gamification in blended learning influences student engagement. For the gamified course, Personal and Professional Development, in

addition to weekly classroom teaching, students participated in a two-tiered system with online learning activities. Gamification elements were developed online and the intervention continued for two years. Data were collected from two cohorts of 334 students. Results suggested that students engaged more in the gamified course and that the second year intervention led to an increased, deeper engagement. Also, in both years, there was evidence of “novelty effect,” as students’ weekly engagement declined across time. Nevertheless, the pattern of decline did not follow what the literature would suggest. Possible reasons may be the usefulness of learning tasks, clearer expectations, and regular communications. We conclude that gamification is a useful tool for onboarding and engaging students. However, to

sustain long-term engagement, course designers need to consider other factors

Kofinas, Alexander

Tsay, Han-Huei (Crystal)

Greenwich Academic Literature Archive

Serial number 0134  Title Student Engagement and the Novelty Effect in a Technology-mediated Gamified Course  Submitter Dr. Crystal Han-Huei Tsay, Dr. Alexander KofinasStudent Engagement and the Novelty Effect in a Technology-mediated Gamified CourseCrystal Han-Huei Tsaya,*, Alexander KofinasbaUniversity of Greenwich, 30 Park Row, London, SE10 9LS, United KingdombUniversity of Bedfordshire, University Square, Luton LU1 3JU, United Kingdom*Corresponding author and presenter: Crystal Han-Huei Tsay, Department of Human Resources and Organisational Behaviour, University of Greenwich, 30 Park Row, London, SE10 9LS, United Kingdom. Email: th23@gre.ac.uk; crystal.h.tsay@gmail.com.AbstractWe investigate the extent to which the use of gamification in blended learning influences student engagement. For the gamified course, Personal and Professional Development, in addition to weekly classroom teaching, students participated in a two-tiered system with online learning activities. Gamification elements were developed online and the intervention continued for two years. Data were collected from two cohorts of 334 students. Results suggested that students engaged more in the gamified course and that the second year intervention led to an increased, deeper engagement. Also, in both years, there was evidence of “novelty effect,” as students’ weekly engagement declined across time. Nevertheless, the pattern of decline did not follow what the literature would suggest. Possible reasons may be the usefulness of learning tasks, clearer expectations, and regular communications. We conclude that gamification is a useful tool for onboarding and engaging students. However, tosustain long-term engagement, course designers need to consider other factors.Keywords: Gamification, higher education, student engagement, autonomy and flexibility in learning 1Using technology to engage students is a popular practice (Alavi & Leidner, 2001) butuninspiring use of technology may lead to student boredom, and lack of motivation causing students to engage less in learning (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones, 2009); Revere & Kovach (2011) noted that many online learning environments replicate traditional classroom processes by focusing on knowledge acquisition through a single knowledge authority and are not supportive of student engagement. We argue that in a technology-mediated learning environment, oftentimes, content itself is not sufficient for learner engagement. Drawing on successful practices of companies using gamification in marketing and customer engagement (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011), we believe that a technology-mediated gamified learning system where multiple game mechanics are used may generate positive, intrinsically motivating experiences (Huotari & Hamari, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Educational gamification, i.e., the application of game mechanics and elements in an educational context, often with the support of a virtual learningenvironment (VLE), can be the means of offering a user-cantered, autonomous, and flexible learning environment, which can encourage users to pursue their own goals (Landers & Callan, 2011) and engage in deeper-level activities persistently (Anderson, Huttenlocher, Kleinberg, & Leskovec, 2014). However, gamification is not without limitations: a notable phenomenon in most gamified systems is the “novelty effect,” conceptually proposed by Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa (2014) and empirically evident in other studies (de-Marcos, Garcia-Lopez, & Garcia-Cabot, 2016; Hamari & Koivisto, 2015; Hanus & Fox, 2015). The novelty phenomenon of gamification purports that gamification can change user behaviour because users are curious about gamification. However, when the novelty wears off, the observed engagement behaviour may drop. 2With two research purposes, examining the effectiveness of using gamification in student engagement and evaluating the novelty effect once gamification rolls out, we designed and implemented a technology-mediated, gamified course at a post-1992 university in UK for a module titled Personal and Professional Development 2 (PPD2). Topics covered included values and transferable skills, critical thinking, and research skills. The gamified online learning system was introduced in 2015-16, as part of blended learning, aimed to address low student engagement and limited contact hours in previous years. It was continuedin 2016-17 with improvements on clearer expectations and regular communication. In both years, students participated online learning in a two-tiered system with Essential Learning (EL) (14 ELs in 2015-16 and 16 ELs in 2016-17) and Super Learning (SL) activities (37 SLs in 2015-16 and 56 SLs in 2016-17) on the institution’s VLE (i.e., Moodle) for twenty four weeks in two terms.EL and SL activities, aligned with the course’s learning objectives, were presented as challenges within a competitive framework. EL was designed to achieve a flipped classroom and part of the formative assessment regime. SL (with three levels of difficulty) was optional as it was designed to challenge high ability learners and allow flexibility and autonomy in learning. A range of game dynamics (e.g., feedback, freedom of choice, recognition of achievement) and mechanics (e.g., badge, leaderboard, experiential points) were used. Quantitative data about student engagement (operationalised as number of activity completion) and qualitative data about student reactions to online learning were collected anonymously. Additional engagement data were obtained from the 2015-16 cohort to see howgamification influences student engagement. We used another proxy of student online behavioural engagement, i.e. student views of a learning activity. Data were obtained from three courses on Moodle, including the gamified PPD2 course in 2015-16, the non-gamified 3PPD2 course in 2014-15, and another non-gamified course (pseudo name “CMC”) in 2015-16.Table 1 showed that students engaged more in the gamified course with more views per activity. Figure 1 and 2 showed that overall engagement with the course improved in the second year. Also, there was support for the novelty effect, as engagement started high at the beginning of each term (week 2 and 14) and then decreased gradually. However, we questioned the strength of the novelty effect, as student engagement went up again at the beginning of Term 2 and then there was more engagement towards the end of each term (week 11 and 24) in both years. Table 1. Comparison between total view count and view count per person in the gamified course and the non-gamified coursesCourse title Totalnumber oflearningactivity (a)Numberofstudents(b)Total view(c)Average viewper activity(c/a)Viewperperson(c/a*b)CoursegradeaverageGamified PPD2 (15-16) 87 166 25295 290.75 1.75 59.32%Non-gamified PPD2 (14-15)37 181 5303 143.32 0.77 55.71%Non-gamified CMC (15-16)36 172 7377 204.92 1.19 50.02%Figure 1. 15-16 vs. 16-17 EL completion by week (X-axis: week; Y-axis: EL completed)4Figure 2. 15-16 vs. 16-17 SL completion by week (X-axis: week; Y-axis: SL completed)To better understand why the second-year gamification led to higher engagement and why novelty effect did not hold as suggested by the literature, apart from the course leader’s reflections, we collected qualitative feedback from forty-four students in the second year around the end of the second term. Two questions were asked: “Why do you keep doing ELs?” and “Why do you keep doing SLs?” Data analyses suggested possible explanations and key results were summarised in Figure 3 and 4.  First, students saw ELs and SLs as resources that help them improve on assessments and their learning as they gained a sense of control through self-paced learning. Also, clear expectations were made on the course guide, students therefore saw the importance of EL to classroom engagement and their grades. Second, online communication between the course leader and students increased from a total of six in the first year to one message per week in the second year, leading to a reinforcement of the activity. Finally, some students were motivated by the fun and competition elements.In conclusion, the playful narrative with game mechanics and dynamics indeed took students on board and engaged them, nevertheless, factors such as the usefulness of learning tasks, clearer expectations, and regular communication played additional important roles in sustaining student attentions and efforts. 5Q u a l i t a v e f e e d b a c k : E LW h yE L ?A s s e s sm e n tL e a r n i n gi m p r o v em e n tC l a s se n g a g em e n tA s e n s eo fc o n t r o l• They are essen al for my finalassignment.• Helps to complete my work• To get be er grades.• For Engagement points.• To familiarise myself with thetopics before class• To expand my knowledge andmake my work easier later on• To keep on top of my work.• It keeps me on track with thetopic.• Recapping what you havelearnt• To improve my knowledgeBe er understanding of thecourse• Keep improving my learningpa ern off-classrooms• Because it helps me tounderstand what we discussedduring tutorials• To engage with the session• They facilitate the learning inseminar. Figure 3. Reasons of EL engagement Figure 4. Reasons of SL engagement6ReferencesAlavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS quarterly, 107-136.Anderson, A., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Leskovec, J. (2014). Engaging with massiveonline courses. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web.de-Marcos, L., Garcia-Lopez, E., & Garcia-Cabot, A. (2016). On the effectiveness of game-like and social approaches in learning: Comparing educational gaming, gamification & social networking. Computers & Education, 95, 99-113.Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2015). Why do people use gamification services? International Journal of Information Management, 35(4), 419-431.Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work?--a literature review of empirical studies on gamification. Paper presented at the 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.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.Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification: a service marketing perspective. Paper presented at the Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference.Landers, R. N., & Callan, R. C. (2011). Casual social games as serious games: The psychology of gamification in undergraduate education and employee training. In Serious games and edutainment applications (pp. 399-423): Springer.7Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. US Department of Education.Revere, L., & Kovach, J. V. (2011). Online technologies for engaged learning: A meaningful synthesis for educators. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12(2), 113.Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps: " O'Reilly Media, Inc."8

Student engagement and the novelty effect in a technology-mediated gamified course

http://gala.gre.ac.uk/19946/7/19946%20TSAY_Student_Engagement_and_the_Novelty_Effect_2017.pdf

Student engagement and the novelty effect in a technology-mediated gamified course

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Greenwich Academic Literature Archive