=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2294/DCECTEL2018_paper_11
|storemode=property
|title=Personalization of Gamification in (Programming) E-Learning Environments
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2294/DCECTEL2018_paper_11.pdf
|volume=Vol-2294
|authors=Nadja Zaric
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ectel/Zaric18
}}
==Personalization of Gamification in (Programming) E-Learning Environments==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2294/DCECTEL2018_paper_11.pdf
Personalization of gamification in (programming) e-
learning environments
Nadja Zaric [1]
1 RWTH Aachen University, Ahornstr. 55, 52074, Aachen, Germany
zaric@informatik.rwth-aachen.de
Abstract. We all advance and learn throughout our lives. First, we learn about
ourselves and the world around us through playing games. As we grow up, learn-
ing leaves the form of entertainment, and it gradually takes on the outlines of
formal education. Formal education, with its strict, pre-defined rules and goals,
leaves no room for individual creativity and play. In such a standardized environ-
ment, we often find ourselves demotivated and limited, which can lead us to poor
learning outcomes or even to giving up on learning. This issue is more often seen
in e-learning systems, which, by its nature, require additional educational
measures to compensate physical distance, as well as the diversity of individuals
who participate in the process of e-learning.
This thesis proposes a model for personalized e-learning environment in which
game design principles and game elements are used for the purpose of increasing
the participation and engagement of students and, therefore, improving learning
outcomes. In order for gamification to be successful different students’ learning
characteristic are taken into account.
Keywords: Personalized E-Learning, Gamification, Learning characteristics,
Engagement, Participation, Instructional Design.
1 Program context
I’m currently positioned as a research assistant at Learning Technologies Research
Group, Faculty of Informatics at RWTH Aachen University under the supervision of
prof. Dr. Ulrik Schroeder. My three-year studies started in October 2017 and are orga-
nized as so-called “individual program” in which researches receive their doctorate by
working in research projects and teaching rather than following lectures and doing ex-
ams. This research is supported and funded by the world’s largest funding organization
for the international exchange of students and researchers - German Academic Ex-
change Service (DAAD) [1].
2 Context and motivation
Issues addressed in this research are presented on the case of RWTH Aachen Univer-
sity, Germany. Namely, the Faculty of Mathematics, Computer Science and Natural
Sciences at the mentioned University observed a significant difference between the
2
number of students who enroll in the programs and that of students which actually get
a degree. [2] Dropping out is a general problem at all Science, Technology, Engineering
and Mathematics (STEM) university programs, not only in Germany. “Programming
courses are compulsory for most engineering degrees, but students’ performance on
these courses is often not good as expected…new teaching techniques are required if
student are to be motivated and engaged in learning on programming courses”[3]. Many
of current studies in field of learning on programming languages [4, 5] showed that
there is a evident drop of motivation and engagement among students, especially if the
learning is happening in e-learning environments.
In recent years, one of the popular methods of tackling the abovementioned problem
is the gamification of the course. Gamification refers to “incorporating game elements
in non-game context” [6]. In context of education, it is used as a tool for boosting
motivation and engagement among students. Evidence reveals that gamification can be
a powerful weapon in instructors’ hand while dealing with poor students’ performance,
but its implementation is mainly presented on individual cases and its success differs
from study to study [7]. Depending on the environment, participants, learning materials
or learning goals gamification “rules” may change as well as its’ effect. In this study,
we support the fact that ‘students learn, behave and act in different ways’ [8] and be-
lieve that the reason for these “different effect” lies exactly in students' diversity. If
learners approach learning in different ways, it has sense to believe that they will ap-
proach gamification differently, as well.
The successfulness of gamification will depend on students’ diversities, in other
words, game elements should be implemented based on students’ learning characteris-
tics. In this manner, this thesis aims to recognize different STEM students’ learning
profiles and incorporate gamification based on them.
3 Background and related work
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in applying game-related principles
in TEL. Current researches have already confirmed gamification to be powerful appli-
cations for improving both formal and informal learning experience [6]. In addition,
some of the widely known educational platforms such as MOOCs1, Moodle2, and Duo
Lingo3 are already providing gamified courses with various game elements such as
badges, leaderboards, experience point, avatars etc. [4]. On the other hand, researchers
also found many contradictions and un-answered questions when it comes to how and
to which extend gamification can influence learning process [9]. Recently, researchers
suggest personalized e-learning as “the safest” environment for successful incorpora-
tion of game elements in education as it aims to gamify content in relation to the be-
havioral, motivational and cognitive characteristic of the user. It is a so-called Gamifi-
cation 3.0, which “combines the power of big data, behavioral insights, plus elements
1 A massive open online course (MOOC, http://mooc.org/
2Moodle is a free and open-source learning management, http://moodle.org/
3 Duo lingo is a freemium language-learning platform that includes a language-learning web-
site and app https://www.duolingo.com/
3
of psychology and neuroscience to understand a user’s activities, behavior and frame
of mind” [10].
Current researches reveal that personalized gamification is growing in importance,
but still, most of the available work is only theoretically oriented. For example, in [11]
authors developed an algorithm that, based on students’ behavior and their profile types,
provides different game elements and gamification tasks to users in real-time. They’ve
created a software for personalized gamification, still, empirical evidences or studies
on their model were not given. Similar to, in [12] authors proposed a theoretical frame-
work of personalization in gamification. They presented and established relationships
between game genres, learning techniques and learning styles and give suggestions on
which game genres could answer which learning style needs.
In relation to the prior theoretical funding’s, in 2017, we have proposed a model for
gamification in personalized learning environment based on students learning style –
LSGM [13]. In this model, we aimed in finding a relationship between different stu-
dents’ profiles (characterized by the Felder-Silverman learning style model (FSLSM))
on the one side, and game elements on the other side. Since we aim to provide gamified
environment for STEM students, we used the FSLSM for clustering different user
types, as the most commonly used model for engineering students [14]. Results of our
experimental model were promising since we found statistically significant intercon-
nections between learning styles, game elements and they mutual influence [15]. How-
ever, being aware of numerous critics on learning styles, their debatable effect and ap-
plicability in learning process, and the fact that they should not be seen as a standalone
indicator for user profiling [16] the reconsiderations of the LSGM model needs to be
further investigate.
Hence, this doctoral dissertation aims to expand the model by introducing deeper
students’ characterization, which will include their pre-knowledge test and ILS4 results
as well as their behavior and action taken during the course. Further, the reconsideration
of game elements that a personalized e-learning programming course should contain
will be taken into account.
4 Thesis statement
This thesis addresses the lack of engagement and participation in e-learning program-
ming language courses in higher education at STEM universities. The main goal of this
thesis is to use gamification for boosting engagement and participation in course based
on predefined students’ profiles. The main problem we are seeking to solve requires
systematic research procedure, in which we aim to find answers to the following:
P1: What kind of different students’ learning profiles can be recognized in e-learning
course?
─ P1.1 are there any differences between students’ learning profiles in gamified and
non-gamified environment?
4 Index of Learning style questionnaire, used to determinate learning styles based on FSLSM
4
P2: How can we incorporate gamification in e-learning course, in order to satisfy the
needs of a certain student learning profile?
─ P2.1 what are the needs of ones learning profile?
─ P2.2 which game elements should be used?
P3: What effect a game element can generate in learning experience on a certain
learning profile?
─ P3.1 what effect a game element can produce in general?
─ P3.2 which factors influence students’ engagement, participation and interest, in
general?
P4: What are the general principles and rules that should be followed when gamify-
ing personalized e-learning environments?
5 Research goals and methods
This research aims to provide a suitable e-learning environment in which game ele-
ments are implemented based on students’ learning profiles, in order to keep students
engaged, encourage continuous learning and make learning more enjoyable. In further
text, we present our main goals (G), corresponding research method (RM) as well as
measures and contributions.
G1: Provide gamified e-learning activities and tasks in correlation with different stu-
dents’ learning profiles.
RM1: Based on the results obtained from the first-year experiments we will personalize
an e-learning course so it can respond to different students’ needs and requirements.
Game elements that will be applied are those that are, in the state-of-the-art, singled out
as the most effective and commonly used ones. The result of this phase is the prototype
of gamified, personalized e-learning course.
G2: Improve learning outcomes, increase productivity, successfulness, satisfaction
and engagement among STEM students.
RM2: In order to be able to measure how and to which extend game elements made
impact on students we will divide students in two groups: experimental and control.
Experimental group is the one who will attend gamified personalized learning course,
while the control group will attend the personalized course without game elements.
Comparative results (between and inside the groups) will be measured using different
data and instruments such as pre-knowledge and self-assessment tests, ILS and opinion
questionnaire etc.
G3: Set a platform independent guideline for introducing game elements in person-
alized e-learning environments.
RM3: In creation of game elements and personalized learning content, we will use pop-
ular techniques and languages such as PHP, JS, HTML, and CSS so that they can be
easily integrated and used in any Learning Management System. This phase will results
5
in specific technical and theoretical guidelines on how to incorporate game elements
based on students’ learning profiles, as well as which effects and results can be ex-
pected.
6 Dissertation status and planned activities
Our planned future work is set around period of two years. Unlike the first year, in
which we mostly focused on literature review and conceptual model, for the remaining
period we plan to focus on evaluation and experiments. In this regard, we will conduct
a two-step experiment with students at RWTH Aachen University. The idea is to first,
personalize the course based on the findings from first year literature reviews and then
implement game elements. After two iterations, evaluation and analyzes of the success-
fulness we aim to create gamified personalized platform. This e-learning platform
should provide learners with gamified materials and activities that fit their learning ref-
erences and needs. After the implementation, we will validate and verify the usefulness
and usability of such platform, and, if necessary, make improvements. At the very end,
last few months of planned period will be dedicated to final thesis writing. The meth-
odology of the doctoral thesis will be conducted through various working packages
shown in Figure 1.
Fig. 1. Working packages time snaps for planned activities
7 Expected contributions
The work in this thesis contributes to the empirical knowledge concerning the applica-
tion of gamification in personalized e-learning environments. Its focus is set around
investigation of different students’ learning profiles, and finding the way to use game
elements in order to fulfill students’ needs and support their learning characteristics. By
creating a personalized gamified e-learning course, we expect to help students stay en-
gaged and motivated through enhancing their competitive spirit and strengthen the de-
sire for mastering the curricula. On the other hand, we expect professors to welcome
this platform, primarily, as a tool for creating interesting materials and interactive ways
of assessment. Further, the proposed approach can serve as a strong base for building
an adaptive gamified e-learning platform, where potentially large communities of
6
teachers, lecturers, academics are empowered to create gamified educational content in
a truly collaborative way.
This kind of approach to education, where the emphasis is on finding innovative ways
to overcome the learning obstacles, can get us closer to an educational system that con-
tinuously produces quality staff, without the need for lowering the criteria in order to
maintain the quantity of enrolled and graduated students.
References
1. DAAD, https://www.daad.de/en/ last accessed on 24.04.2018
2. Schäfer, A., Holz, J., Leonhardt, T., Schroeder, U., Brauner, M and Ziefle, M. From boring
to scoring – a collaborative serious game for learning and practicing mathematical logic for
computer science education, Computer Science Education, 23:2, 87-111, 2013
3. An Empirical Investigation on the Benefits of Gamification in Programming Courses, ACM
Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Vol. 19, No.1, pp. 21–26, 2018
4. Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G. and Angelova, G. Gamification in education: A systematic
mapping study. Educ. Technol. Soc. Vol 18, No. 3 pp. 1–14.2015
5. Sousa, S., Durelli, V., Macedo Reis, H. and Isotani, S. A systematic mapping on gamifica-
tion applied to education. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied
Computing (SAC’14). pp.216–222.2014
6. Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L. E., & Dixon, D. Gamification: Toward a definition.
Proceedings of CHI, Gamification Workshop (pp. 1–4). Vancouver, BC, Canada. 2011
7. O’Donovan, S., Gain, J. and Marais, P. A case study in the gamification of a university-level
games development course. In Proceedings of the South African Institute for Computer Sci-
entists and Information Technologists Conference (SAICSIT’13). pp. 242–251.2013
8. Felder, R.M., Silverman, L.K. Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering Education, In
Engineering Education, Vol. 78, No. 7, pp. 674–681, 1988.
9. Ortiz, M., Chiluiza, K. and Valcke M. Gamification in higher education and stem: a system-
atic review of literature. EDULEARN16, Proceedings: 6548–6558, 2016
10. Cognizant: Gamification 3.0: The power of personalization, 2015
11. Antonaci, A., Klemke, R., Stracke, C. M. and Specht, M. Identifying Game Elements Suit-
able for MOOCs, in Data Driven Approaches in Digital Education, pp. 355–360, 2017
12. Knuttas. A, Roy., R., Hynninen, T., Granato, M., Kasurinen, J. and Ikonen, J. Profile-Based
Algorithm for Personalized Gamification in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
Environments, Games-Human Interaction, 2017
13. Zaric N., Scepanović S., Vujicic T., Ljucovic J., Davcev D. (2017) The Model for Gamifi-
cation of E-learning in Higher Education Based on Learning Styles. In: Trajanov D., Bakeva
V. (eds) ICT Innovations 2017. ICT Innovations 2017. Communications in Computer and
Information Science, vol 778. Springer, Cham
14. Wang, J., Mendori, T. The Reliability and Validity of Felder- Silverman Index of Learning
Styles in Mandarin Version. Information Engineering Express, 1(3), pp. 1-8.2015.
15. Zaric N., Scepanović S., Vujicic T., Ljucovic J., Davcev D. (2017) The Model for Gamifi-
cation of E-learning in Higher Education Based on Learning Styles. In: Trajanov D., Bakeva
V. (eds) ICT Innovations 2017. ICT Innovations 2017. Communications in Computer and
Information Science, vol 778. Springer, Cham
16. Riener, C., Willingham, D. The Myth of Learning Styles. Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning, 42(5), pp. 32-35. 2010