期刊目錄列表 - 69卷(2024) - 【教育科學研究期刊】69(3)九月刊(學習歷程檔案評量:挑戰與創新)
Directory
探討融入遊戲化設計之學習歷程如何影響不同學習動機學生的學習參與度
作者:國立高雄師範大學軟體工程與管理學系何淑君、國立高雄師範大學軟體工程與管理學系李佩蓉
卷期:69卷第3期
日期:2024年09月
頁碼:137-170
DOI:https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202409_69(3).0005
摘要:
學習動機是影響學習成效的重要因素,然而,高等教育所面臨的最大困境是學生缺乏學習動機。由於學生具備不同能力、興趣和動機,使得高等教育的教學場域面臨重大挑戰。本研究的動機在建立一個整合雙因子理論與遊戲化設計元素的課程設計架構,探討其如何影響不同學習動機學生在學習歷程中的參與度。研究目的在探討課程設計融入遊戲化設計元素與雙因子理論如何影響不同學習動機學生的學習參與度。本研究採混合式研究方法,透過動機問卷前測、觀察法、個案訪談及遊戲化設計後測問卷,對修課學生進行學習歷程分析。研究發現有四:一、遊戲化設計的激勵因子正向激勵內在動機高的學生。二、外在動機驅動的學習者受遊戲化設計驅動的影響較為全面,若在課程中加入遊戲化設計,會提升外在動機學生的參與度。三、保健因子中的損失趨避是遊戲化設計元素中影響無動機學習者的重要因素。四、激勵因子中的社會影響與關聯對內在動機驅動與外在動機驅動學習者皆發揮效果。據此,本研究之貢獻為提出一整合雙因子理論與遊戲化設計架構,為不同動機學習者提供課程設計的參考。
關鍵詞:高等教育、遊戲化設計、學習動機、學習歷程、雙因子理論
《詳全文》
參考文獻:
» 展開更多
- 王淑美、岳修平、黃昱凱、康維真(2020)。科系認同對管理學院大學生創業意圖的調節作用。教育科學研究期刊,65(4),1-29。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202012_65(4).0001
【Wang, S.-M., Yueh, H.-P., Huang, Y.-K., & Kang, W.-C. (2020). Entrepreneurial intentions of management students: Moderating effects of department identification. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 65(4), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202012_65(4).0001】
- 高栩嫻、黃博聖(2023)。素養導向教學對國中生之地理科的學習成效、動機與多元文化素養之影響。教育科學研究期刊,68(4),157-189。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES. 202312_68(4).0006
【Kao, H.-H., & Huang, P.-S. (2023). Influence of competence-oriented instruction on the learning outcomes, motivation, and multicultural literacy of middle school students learning geography. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 68(4), 157-189. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202312_68(4).0006】
- 傅祖壇(2011)。臺灣高等教育院校之學校品質、經營效率與最適規模分析。教育科學研究期刊,56(3),181-213。
【Fu, T.-T. (2011). School quality, operational efficiency, and optimal size: An analysis of higher education institutions in Taiwan. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 56(3), 181-213.】
- Alemu, S. K. (2018). Meaning, idea and history of university/higher education: Brief literature review. FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education, 4(3), 210-227. https://doi.org/ 10.32865/fire20184312
- Alhammad, M. M., & Moreno, A. M. (2018). Gamification in software engineering education: A systematic mapping. Journal of Systems and Software, 141, 131-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jss.2018.03.065
- Almeida, F., Buzady, Z., & Ferro, A. (2021). Exploring the role of a serious game in developing competencies in higher tourism education. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 29, 100347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100347
- Alsawaier, R. S. (2018). The effect of gamification on motivation and engagement. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 35(1), 56-79. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJILT-02-2017-0009
- Alt, D., Kapshuk, Y., & Dekel, H. (2023). Promoting perceived creativity and innovative behavior: Benefits of future problem-solving programs for higher education students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 47, 101201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101201
- Anderman, E. M. (2020). Achievement motivation theory: Balancing precision and utility. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych. 2020.101864
- Botnaru, D., Orvis, J., Langdon, J., Niemiec, C. P., & Landge, S. M. (2021). Predicting final grades in STEM courses: A path analysis of academic motivation and course-related behavior using self-determination theory. Learning and Motivation, 74, 101723. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.lmot.2021.101723
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
- Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2014). Gamification and student motivation. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1162-1175. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.964263
- 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
- Bunce, L., & Bennett, M. (2021). A degree of studying? Approaches to learning and academic performance among student “consumers”. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(3). https:// doi.org/10.1177/1469787419860204
- Büyükduman, İ., & Şirin, S. (2010). Learning portfolio (LP) to enhance constructivism and student autonomy. Procedia– Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 55-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.sbspro.2010.07.012
- Calma, A., & Contronei-Baird, V. (2021). Assessing critical thinking in business education: Key issues and practical solutions. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(3), 100531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100531
- Chiu, T. K. (2021). Digital support for student engagement in blended learning based on self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 124, 106909. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106909
- Cho, H. J., Levesque-Bristol, C., & Yough, M. (2021). International students’ self-determined motivation, beliefs about classroom assessment, learning strategies, and academic adjustment in higher education. Higher Education, 81(6), 1215-1235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020- 00608-0
- Chou, Y. K. (2015). Actionable gamification: Beyond points, badges, and leaderboards. Octalysis Media.
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 416-436). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446248251.n21
- Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, May). Gamification: Using game design elements in non-gaming contexts [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the International Cunference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/1979742.1979575
- Dolan, G., Fairbairn, G., & Harris, S. (2004). Is our student portfolio valued? Nurse Education Today, 24(1), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.08.002
- Dollinger, M., & Lodge, J. (2019). Student-staff co-creation in higher education: An evidence-informed model to support future design and implementation. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42(5), 532-546. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X. 2019.1663681
- Feltovich, N., Iwasaki, A., & Oda, S. H. (2007). Payoff levels, loss avoidance, and equilibrium selection in the stag hunt: An experimental study. In Negotiation and market engineering– Dagstuhl seminar proceedings, 6461. https://doi.org/10.4230/DagSemProc.06461.19
- Fernandez-Antolin, M. M., del Rio, J. M., & Gonzalez-Lezcano, R. A. (2021). The use of gamification in higher technical education: Perception of university students on innovative teaching materials. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(1), 1019-1038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09583-0
- Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483325361
- Froiland, J. M., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Intrinsic motivation, learning goals, engagement, and achievement in a diverse high school. Psychology in the Schools, 53(3), 321-336. https:// psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/pits.21901
- Garcia-Jurado, A., Torres-Jimenez, M., Leal-Rodriguez, A. L., & Castro-Gonzalez, P. (2021). Does gamification engage users in online shopping? Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 48, 101076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2021.101076
- Gerdenitsch, C., Sellitsch, D., Besser, M., Burger, S., Stegmann, C., Tscheligi, M., & Kriglstein, S. (2020). Work gamification: Effects on enjoyment, productivity and the role of T leadership. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 43, 100994. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.elerap.2020.100994
- Hall, B. W., & Hewitt-Gervais, C. M. (2000). The application of student portfolios in primary– intermediate and self-contained– multiage team classroom environments: Implications for instruction, learning, and assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(2), 209-228. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1302_5
- Harris, S., Dolan, G., & Fairbairn, G. (2001). Reflecting on the use of student portfolios. Nurse Education Today, 21(4), 278-286. https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.2000.0545
- Herzberg, F. (1974). Motivation-hygiene profiles: Pinpointing what ails the organization. Organizational Dynamics, 3(2), 18-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(74)90007-2
- Ho, S.-C., & Chen, J.-L. (2023). Developing the e-commerce competency for entrepreneurship education from a gamified competition. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(1), 100737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100737
- Hussein, A. (2009). The use of triangulation in social sciences research: Can qualitative and quantitative methods be combined? Journal of Comparative Social Work, 4(1), 106-117. https://doi.org/10.31265/jcsw.v4i1.48
- Jaemu, L., Kim, Y., & Lee, Y. (2008). A web-based program to motivate underachievers learning number sense. International Journal of Instructional Media, 35(2), 185-195.
- Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602-611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392366
- Kashdan, T. B., Gallagher, M. W., Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Breen, W. E., Terhar, D., & Steger, M. F. (2009). The curiosity and exploration inventory-II: Development, factor structure, and psychometrics. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 987-998. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jrp.2009.04.011
- Katt, J. A., & Condly, S. J. (2009). A preliminary study of classroom motivators and de-motivators from a motivation-hygiene perspective. Communication Education, 58(2), 213-234. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03634520802511472
- King, N., & Bunce, L. (2020). Academics’ perceptions of students’ motivation for learning and their own motivation for teaching in a marketized higher education context. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 790-808. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12332
- Kinzie, M. B., & Joseph, D. R. D. (2008). Gender differences in game activity preferences of middle school children: Implications for educational game design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5-6), 643-663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9076-z
- Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2019). The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. International Journal of Information Management, 45, 191-210. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013
- Law, K. M. Y., & Breznik, K. (2017). Impacts of innovativeness and attitude on entrepreneurial intention: Among engineering and non-engineering students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27, 683-700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9373-0
- Law, K. M. Y., & Geng, S. (2019). How innovativeness and handedness affect learning performance of engineering students? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(4), 897-914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9462-3
- Lee, J., & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in education: What, how, why bother? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15(2), 146.
- Lee, J., Sanders, T., Antczak, D., Parker, R., Noetel, M., Parker, P., & Lonsdale, C. (2021). Influences on user engagement in online professional learning: A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 91(4), 518-576. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0034654321997918
- Lim, C. P., & Chai, C. S. (2004). An activity-theoretical approach to research of ICT integration in Singapore schools: Orienting activities and learner autonomy. Computers & Education, 43(3), 215-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.10.005
- Lin, D. T. A., Ganapathy, M., & Kaur, M. (2018). Kahoot! It: Gamification in higher education. Social Sciences & Humanities, 26(1), 565-582.
- Lin, H.-H., Yen, W.-C., & Wang, Y.-S. (2018). Investigating the effect of learning method and motivation on learning performance in a business simulation system context: An experimental study. Computers & Education, 127, 30-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.008
- Mačiulienė, M., & Skaržauskienė, A. (2016). Evaluation of co-creation perspective in networked collaboration platforms. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4826-4830. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.038
- Moreira, F., Ferreira, M. J., Escudero, D. F., Pereira, C. S., & Durão, N. (2020, June 24-27). Teaching and learning modelling and specification based on gamification [Paper presentation]. 2020 15th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), Spain. https://doi.org/10.23919/CISTI49556.2020.9140829
- Mwita, K. (2022). Factors influencing data saturation in qualitative studies. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 11(4), 414-420. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v11i4. 1776
- Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
- Prasad, K., & Mangipudi, M. R. (2022). Gamification mechanics framework with reference to business perspective. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(2), 151-159. https://doi.org/ 10.26668/businessreview/2022.v7i5.702
- Rincon-Flores, E. G., & Santos-Guevara, B. N. (2021). Gamification during Covid-19: Promoting active learning and motivation in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 43-60. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7157
- Roy, R. V., & Zaman, B. (2018). Need-supporting gamification in education: An assessment of motivational effects over time. Computers & Education, 127(2), 283-297. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.018
- 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. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
- Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/ 28806
- Samkin, G., & Francis, G. (2008). Introducing a learning portfolio in an undergraduate financial accounting course. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 17(3), 233-271. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09639280701577460
- Sanchez, D. R., Langer, M., & Kaur, R. (2020). Gamification in the classroom: Examining the impact of gamified quizzes on student learning. Computers & Education, 144, 103666. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103666
- Shomotova, A., Karabchuk, T., & Ibrahim, A. (2024). Leadership potential and self-perceived employability of undergraduate students in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 7, 100335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2024.100335
- Sun, J. C.-Y., & Hsieh, P.-H. (2018). Application of a gamified interactive response system to enhance the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, student engagement, and attention of English learners. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 104-116.
- Torrance, E. P. (1969). What is honored: Comparative studies of creative achievement and motivation. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 3(3), 149-154. https://doi.org/10.1002/ j.2162-6057.1969.tb00122.x
- Treiblmaier, H., & Putz, L.-M. (2020). Gamification as a moderator for the impact of intrinsic motivation: Findings from a multigroup field experiment. Learning and Motivation, 71, 101655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2020.101655
- Tsai, H.-T., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2014). Contribution behavior in virtual communities: Cognitive, emotional, and social influences. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 38(1), 143-163.
- Vulcano, B. A. (2007). Extending the generality of the qualities and behaviors constituting effective teaching. Teaching of Psychology, 34(2), 114-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280701293198
- Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 616-622. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.616
- Woolfolk, A. (2013). Educational psychology (13th ed.). Pearson Education.
- Xie, K., Heddy, B. C., & Vongkulluksn, V. W. (2019). Examining engagement in context using experience-sampling method with mobile technology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101788
- Yıldız, V. A., & Kılıç, D. (2021). Investigation of the relationship between class teachers’ motivation and job satisfaction. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 8(1), 119-131.
- Zainuddin, Z. (2018). Students’ learning performance and perceived motivation in gamified flipped-class instruction. Computers & Education, 126, 75-88. http://doi.org/10.106/j.compedu. 2018.07.003
Journal directory listing - Volume 69 (2024) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【69(3)】September(Special Issue:Porfolio Assessment: Challenge and Innovations )
Directory
Exploring the Impact of Gamified Learning Portfolio on Student Engagement With Different Learning Motivations
Author: Shu-Chun Ho (Department of software Enginnering and Mangement, National Kaohsiung Normal University), Pei-Jung Lee (Department of software Enginnering and Mangement, National Kaohsiung Normal University)
Vol.&No.:Vol. 69, No. 3
Date:September 2024
Pages:137-170
DOI:https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202409_69(3).0005
Abstract:
Research Motivation and Objectives
Learning motivation plays a critical role in enhancing learning effects and learning engagement. Lack of learning motivation among students is a widespread problem in higher education worldwide. The capabilities, interests, and motivations of higher education students vary, which makes it challenging to boost their learning motivation. The responsibility of higher education is not only to provide necessary knowledge and experience but also to foster students’ self-directed learning and engagement. To achieve effective engagement, a voluntary mindset must first be cultivated, which is intimately linked to motivation. Motivation is a prerequisite for successful learning. However, motivation is a psychological state, which precludes its direct assessment through observations of internal or external stimuli. Therefore, this study investigates the effect of an integrated approach involving gamification design and two-factor theory on students’ learning engagement in learning processes with different learning motivations.
Theoretical Framework
We propose a theoretical framework for curriculum design that integrates two-factor theory with gamification design. The proposed gamification design is based on the Octalysis framework, which involves the following eight drives of motivation (Chou, 2015; Moreira et al., 2020): epic meaning and calling, development and accomplishment, empowerment of creativity and feedback, ownership and possession, social influence and relatedness, scarcity and impatience, unpredictability and curiosity, and loss and avoidance. On the basis of two-factor theory, these eight drives were further divided into five motivators and three hygiene factors. This theoretical framework formed the foundation for the present study’s analysis.
Research Method
The study employed a mixed-methods research approach. Students’ learning processes were analyzed using a pretest motivation questionnaire, observations, case interviews, and a posttest gamification questionnaire. In total, 46 individuals attending a class on data analysis in a university were recruited. The study was conducted weekly throughout an 18-weeks semester. The data analysis curriculum was designed on the basis of the gamification design, with the intention of encouraging the students’ learning engagement throughout the semester. Collecting student feedback is a crucial means of analyzing learning processes. Triangulation was employed to validate the accuracy of our findings. Quantitative and qualitative data on the same phenomenon from different perspectives were collected and analyzed.
Findings
After triangulating data from different research methods, the following findings were obtained. First, the motivational factors of gamification design positively influenced students with high intrinsic motivation. Second, students driven by extrinsic motivation were more comprehensively influenced by gamification design. Incorporating gamification into the curriculum enhanced engagement among students with extrinsic motivation. Third, among the hygiene factors of gamification design, loss and avoidance crucially influenced learners with no motivation. Fourth, among the motivational factors of gamification design, social influence and relatedness was effective for both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated learners.
Contributions
This study makes some salient contributions to the literature. The study proposes a theoretical framework that incorporates the two-factor theory to classify the eight gamification drives in the Octalysis framework into five motivators and three hygiene factors. This framework was used to investigate how gamification drives affect learning engagement in the relationship between gamification design and learning motivation. Second, the findings illustrate how gamification-driven course design affects the learning engagement of students with different types of learning motivations throughout their learning processes. These results inform the design of a curriculum that fosters the engagement of students with different learning motivations. Third, this study provides insights for curriculum design in higher education by proposing different gamification-driven approaches and strategies.
Research Limitations and Future Research Directions
This study was conducted in the context of a data analysis course administered in a university, and the results may not be fully generalizable to courses in different disciplines. However, the triangulation of pretest questionnaires, interviews, observations, and posttest questionnaires provides insights into how gamification design elements affect students with different learning motivations. Future research could explore and compare these effects across different disciplines in higher education.
Keywords:higher education, gamification, learning motivation, learning portfolio, two-factor theory