=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2883/paper4
|storemode=property
|title=Teachers’ perception and adoption of a gamified blended learning implementation in upper secondary education.
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2883/paper4.pdf
|volume=Vol-2883
|authors=Izabella Jedel,Adam Palmquist
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/gamifin/JedelP21
}}
==Teachers’ perception and adoption of a gamified blended learning implementation in upper secondary education.==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2883/paper4.pdf
Izabella Jedela, Adam Palmquistb
a
Insert Coin, Vasagatan 33, 411 37, Gothenburg, Sweden
b
University of Gothenburg, Applied IT Forskningsgången 6, 417 56, Gothenburg, Sweden
The present explorative case study addresses teacher perception and adoption of a
gamification implementation in five classes consisting of 127 students at an upper secondary
school in Sweden. Multisession semi-structured interviews with three teachers involved in
the implementation were conducted, followed by thematic analysis based on Moore and
Benbasat s model for Adoption of information technologies. The main results indicate that
adoption factors should be considered when implementing gamification in the classroom.
This relates to connecting the gamification design to student progress, communicating with
as technology support, preparation, collaboration and clarification, and visualizing the
outcomes of gamification implementations to teachers.
Adoption factors, Blended learning, Education, Gamification, Teacher perception, Upper-
secondary education
OECD countries, Swedish teachers experience
equivalent or more ICT competence but have
less confidence in the effect of digitalization
Motivating and engaging learning
and less motivation to use information
environments play a crucial role in student
technologies [12]. This discrepancy calls for
learning and behavior [1, 2, 3, 4]. Two
clarification in when
approaches that have been suggested to
implementing novel technologies in the
increase motivation and engagement in
classroom. There has to the authors knowledge
education are gamification and Game Based
been limited applications of gamification in the
Learning (GBL) [5, 6, 7]. Gamification is a
classroom in a Scandinavian setting. Therefore,
motivational strategy in which game-elements
before presenting the present case study,
[9] and gameful-design principles [8] are
previous studies related to the adoption of
applied to a non-game context, and the
gamification and GBL implementations in a
interrelated concept of GBL, is the use of entire
Scandinavian setting are reviewed.
games for educational purposes [10].
Adoption of GBL
For teachers, challenges might arise when
individual traits and perception of games. In a
implementing new technologies in the
survey study conducted with over 1500 primary
classroom. In Sweden, the risk of newly
and secondary school teachers in Finland,
graduated teachers with inadequate information
teacher adoption of GBL depended
and computer technology (ICT) has been high,
openness to ICT as well as their self-efficacy
resulting in the underutilization of technology
and attitude [13]. In other qualitative studies
in the classroom [11]. Compared to other
5th International GamiFIN Conference 2021 (GamiFIN 2021),
April 7-10, 2021, Finland.
EMAIL: izabellajedel@hotmail.com (A. 1);
adam.palmquist@ait.gu.se (A. 2)
ORCID: 0000-0001-9212-3259 (A. 1); 0000-0003-0943-6022
(A. 2).
2021 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative
Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
conducted in Scandinavian settings, one why and at what rate innovation spreads. Moore
concern expressed by teachers was the and Benbasat [19] adapted the characteristics of
perception that games are distracting and risk IDT and refined the model as the following set
resulting in less learning for students [1, 14]. of eight core constructs that could be used to
Another disadvantage previously discussed study innovation in IT: 1) Relative Advantage,
with GBL is that teachers might be unfamiliar that is perceived as being better than its
with computer games which may lead to forerunner. 2) Ease of Use, that is degree to
anxiety or create aversion to use them for which an innovation is perceived as being
educational purposes [15]. It has also been difficult to use. 3) Image, that is perceived to
acknowledged that some teachers are afraid to
introduce games into their learning environment. 4) Visibility, that is degree to
environment, as they presume that games are at which the individual can see others using the
their essence competitive, which can increase system in the organization. 5) Compatibility,
student anxiety [16]. that is degree to which an innovation is
Environmental factors such as compatibility perceived as being consistent with one's
with teaching and supportive organizational existing values, needs, and past experiences. 6)
ICT culture has also been shown to effect Results Demonstrability, that is tangibility of
teacher adoption of GBL [13]. In his doctoral the outcome of using the innovation, including
dissertation, Berg-Marklund [17] criticized observability and communicability. 7)
GBL for performing differently in live school Triability, that is degree of experimentation
settings compared to experimental settings due before adoption. 8) Voluntariness of Use, that
to teachers varied knowledge or interest in is degree to which use of the innovation is
digital tools provided in the classroom. To perceived as being voluntary [19].
make educational games viable, Berg- In the present case, gamification was
Marklund [17] claimed that both educators and implemented at a practically oriented upper
developers need to alter their working secondary school in Sweden during seven
processes, their perceptions of games and weeks of a mathematics course. The aim and
teaching, as well as the way they collaborate expectation of the gamification implementation
and communicate with each other and other was to increase the number of students passing
actors within the educational system. the course, since the school had a previous
In another study, Cruaud [18] interviewed problem of not enough students passing the
two teachers who used a gamified application course. In this study, an exploratory approach
during one school year in their foreign language is taken to answer the following research
classes in upper secondary education. The first questions: RQ1: What is the expressed teacher
teacher had a positive experience and was perception of a gamification implementation in
active in the use of the application, whereas the upper secondary education? RQ2: Which
second teacher viewed the implementation as adoption factors are expressed by upper
unfavorable and interpreted it as a loss of secondary education teachers when
control in the learning environment. Cruaud implementing gamification in a blended
[18] learning course?
experiences can derive from the first teacher
taking an active role and ownership of
application while the second teacher took a
passive role, had had an absent involvement in
Three teachers were involved in the
the design process and showed lack of
confidence toward the application. gamification project. Respondent 1 was a 48-
To deepen the understanding of teacher year-old female with 30 years of teaching
experience. Respondent 2 was a 33-year-old
perception and adoption of gamification in the
classroom the present study investigates male with a five-year teaching experience, and
Respondent 3 was a 50-year-old male who had
teachers experience of a gamification
implementation. This is done through the lens been working as a teacher for 15 years. There
of Moore and Benbasat [19] model for were five classes with 127 students in total.
Respondent 1 and 2 oversaw two classes each,
Adoption of IT. Moore and Benbasat [19]
model is an adaption of Rogers [20] Innovation and Respondent 3 oversaw one class. The
Diffusion Theory (IDT), which describes how, courses had previously had low levels of digital
aspects included in the education. Respondent
1 had limited experience using Google
Classroom, while Respondent 2 and 3 had used
To ensure the extraction of core information
it before the gamification implementation.
from the teachers while providing flexibility to
Respondent 1 and 3 had never heard of
inquire more deeply into the narratives that the
gamification previously while Respondent 2
teachers shared, a multisession semi-structured
was familiar with the term.
interview approach was taken [22]. The
teachers participated in two semi-connected
interview sessions, one in the beginning of the
implementation and one after two months. The
Prior to the implementation, the teachers interviews were conducted online and lasted
created a Classroom (course) in the schools between 20 to 30 minutes per session and were
Google Classroom learning management all recorded after getting consent from the
system (LMS) consisting of digital course respondents. The interviews included questions
material, quizzes, videos and links to other
learning resources. A gamified API was added implementation, their experience of
to the LMS as a Chrome extension, adding a gamification in the classroom and its effect on
widget to the interface, which contained the students and on their own working
game elements level, shop and achievements. environment.
The API was developed by a gamification As recommended by Belotto [23] as a means
studio. The implementation was done in a math to gain inter-rater reliability, both authors
course using a blended learning approach. The initially discussed the case and agreed on the
students worked with computers, provided by research method. Interview questions were
the school, and the LMS as an educational tool, prepared before the first interview; first
as well as with analogue learning material separately by author 1 and 2 and later discussed,
during the lessons and at home. revised, and merged. The questions for the
The completion of achievements afforded second interview session were decided by the
experience points to the level element and authors after the initial interviews to enable
included online activity i.e., doing math quizzes insights from the first session. Prior to the
or logging into the LMS, as well as campus implementation Author 2 took part in the
activity i.e., contributing to a classroom gamification workshop and participated in
discussion or helping a friend. After the several meetings with the headmaster and the
students had progressed in level, they were able teachers. Author 1 therefore conducted the
to buy point for the upcoming exam through interviews to encourage the participants to talk
virtual coins earned in the shop. The game freely of their experience.
elements triggered automatically when the After the interviews the recordings were
students performed different activities in the transcribed word for word. In the analysis of the
LMS. At the end of each lesson, the students did data the thematic coding process presented by
Gioia et al. [24] was used, with the sense-
material. The implementation took place in the making of the teachers being a focal study
middle of the semester, from the beginning of point. To reduce the error and bias generated
November to mid-December. An open when individuals processed sets of text-based
communication channel was set up between data generated by qualitative investigation the
Respondent 2 and the gamification designers to authors used procedures of intercoder reliability
assist the teachers with any technical issues. checks[25]. The authors conducted three
The gamification design and implementation rounds of checks in the beginning, middle and
has been presented further in the short paper at the end of the study. After author 1 had
conducted the interviews, the transcripts were
[21]. The API can be viewed here: read though once and later coded into first order
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zSepC
eKgD7RVvDw12gQ6wy5IcFsXcmzJ-
XcCOjQye3w/edit?usp=sharing.
Figure 2. Themes and dimensions related to gamification perception and adoption factors
concepts. themes and dimensions were found constructs presented by Moore and Benbasat
related to the RQ1. Several codes could also be [19] were not discussed extensively by the
identified related to adoption factors. teachers and are not included. Each aggregated
Therefore, the researchers created RQ2 from dimension with belonging themes and codes is
the data related to the factors that can affect the presented separately below. For the sake of
adoption of gamification. First order concepts readability as well as some faulty grammar, the
related to RQ1 and RQ2 were thereafter studied excerpts have been modified with the aim to
and grouped related to RQ1 and RQ2 by make the respondent's statements easier to
moving related concepts closer to each other comprehend with precaution to maintain the
and by moving non-related concepts further meaning and content of each excerpt.
apart. Concepts that were mentioned by one of
the teachers and unrelated to the other concepts
or irrelevant from the view of the research
questions were discarded. From the clusters
created by the first order concepts, second order The teachers mentioned several Perceptions
themes were taken out as a summary of the of gamification. The first theme was that the
main theme in the concepts. The same process teachers comprehended the Clear link between
was repeated when moving from second order gamification and education. In the first
themes into aggregated dimensions, with the interview, Respondent 2 conveyed that the
second order themes first being clustered from psychology behind gamification already exists
relatedness and later summarized into in upper secondary school and Respondent 1
said that she understood the connection
aggregated dimensions.
between education and gamification but that the
connection was not always clear for the
students. Respondent 3 mentioned that the
concept of games could be applied to a school
Four aggregated dimensions emerged based context. When asked about gamifications
on the research questions (Figure 2.). The first purpose in school, Respondent The part
aggregated dimension is the perception of with progressing, that it becomes clearer for
gamification, whereas the remaining them in a way. I believe that if they see the
dimensions are related to the adoption factors: avatar do things and grow all the time, they
Relative advantage, Compatibility with needs want the avatar to grow all the time instead of
and Results demonstrability. The five other themselves. And they do not always understand
that the avatar is the symbol for themselves, so
it drives them to progress
The second theme that emerged in the first
Aspect related to the Relative advantage of
interview session was the perception of
the gamified blended learning implementation
gamification as having an Initial positive effect
compared to the previous analogue education
on the students. Respondent 2 and 3 mentioned
was discussed in the first and the second teacher
that all the students did not interact with the
interview, producing two themes. In the first
gamification API but that it seemed to have
interview the teachers experienced that the
positive effect for those who did. Respondent 3
students were provided with Alternative ways
expressed that positive comments had been
for students to learn. Respondent 1 mentioned
given by the students and Respondent 2 said
that the students had been offered more learning
that the students started discussing gamification
opportunities with the implementation.
They do not have
Respondent 3 brought forth that the more
anything against it (gamification) so to say. You
material that was available for the students, the
realize that they compare with each other which
better it was and that the computer could be
is kind of what you want to get out of it. You
used as an alternative tool for the students to use
want to hear that they start to buzz about it,
during the lessons when the book became
hear them compare their progress with each
boring. Furthermore, Respondent 3 mentioned
other. As soon as that starts, it feels like the
that students who did not usually work on the
process began and will continue. I try to
computer at least did something on the
encourage those (the students) who do not do it
computer and that it was a higher probability for
to start, the ones who do not speak about it.
the students to use the computer than the book
In the second interview the third theme
at home. Respondent 2 highlighted that the
emerged as the respondents mentioned the Lack
LMS had provided more material for the
of progress for the students. Respondent 2
students with the potential to learn and that the
mentioned that it is important to include a path
effect of the implementation was not seen as
to the overall goal of the game and that the
negative since it was used as a complement to
gamification should show a clearer indication
We have
of progress for the students. Similarly,
added more material and created better
Respondent 3 commented on the students not
conditions for the students to study at home,
noticing gamification progress; expressed as
with a system that is more fun. Therefore, I have
the students not caring about if the avatar
a hard time imagining that it would be negative
progressed and that it had not been visually
for anyone, even if someone chooses not to do
clear for the students. Furthermore,
it, they do not miss anything
Respondent 1 said that there had been a lack of
In the second teacher interview
clear connection between progress and effort
Accessibility and variation was also discussed
for the students. This related to the visual
as a positive consequence of the
separation between the exercises and the
implementation. Respondent 1 mentioned that
gamification API, expressed by Respondent 1
the student had gotten the opportunity to study
in the The technology has
and repeat the course material at home to a
worked, the only thing I have thought about, I
greater extent and that the content had become
do not know if I mentioned it last time, but that
more accessible for the students. Respondent 2
the widget lives its own life. You could have had
mentioned that the students had realized that
the exercises at the same place and then it
digital tools can aid them in their studies.
would be easier for the students to see, to click
Finally, Respondent 3 discussed that the
here and do the exercises and see the results.
implementation had resulted in studying
Now they (the students) got to do the exercises
becoming more accessible as the students could
and then click on the figure on their own to see
study from anywhere, and that the students had
if anything happened. It was like a jump in
gotten access to more material and
between, so there was no....how can I say this,
opportunities to learn with the digital add-ons
here and now experience that I am moving
It is good for those (the students)
forward.
who do not get the chance during the lesson.
Then you have everything there (on Google
Classroom). Then the students have access to Respondent 2, Respondent 3 said that it is
more learning material than just a book valuable to have a driven person in the team,
We are three people
who divided the workload. You probably need
to divide it otherwise it is a lot to do in the
beginning. Respondent 1 did the majority of
In the first interview session, the first theme what could be done, he is the one who built the
identified and related to Compatibility with most (of the course). If you have a driven
needs was Need for technological support. person, or a driven team, it becomes easier, if
Respondent 3 mentioned that the technical you have a technology savvy person who wants
support was low during the lessons and that not to put in more of an effort
fully understanding how the technology works The final theme related to the Compatibility
had led to higher work stress. Respondent 2 with needs emerged in the second interview and
mentioned that there had been some initial
was related to Clarification needs. Respondent
technical difficulties and that if there would 1 mentioned several times that the value of
have been more technical issues the entire
gamification should have been expressed to the
implementation risked failing. Respondent 1 students along with information on how
expressed that some classes are more difficult gamification functioned. Similarly, Respondent
to work with than others and that it can be more 2 mentioned that the teachers should have
challenging to implement technological add- gotten a walkthrough of the different
ons in disorderly classes: I think it is easier for gamification parts with clear examples in in the
some groups, depending on the group.
beginning of the implementation. Respondent 3
Sometimes we have a disorderly group which mentioned the need to be presented with a clear
does not start accordingly, or something example of gamification before the
happens that makes you lose the thread.
implementation: I did not understand anything
Instead, if you have an easier group it becomes
since I got into it (gamification) a little late, so
much easier to continue
it would be (an improvement) if I knew more
The second theme that emerged in the first what it was about. It is also difficult before you
interview session was the Need for preparation. have done it and seen a clear example of how it
Respondent 3 expressed a need for higher
looks, because then you could have mentioned
preparation and understanding for the
it differently for the students in the beginning. It
technology. Similarly, We became confusing for them as well when I tried
had very short time to plan this, it was almost to explain something that I did not really
panicky with what we were supposed to do. We understand
would need more time to plan the achievements
gamification was expected to be more of a
and the grading part. More time overall to plan
mathematics game and that gamification was
everything I did not know, I had
The third theme concerned the Need for no idea, so I thought it would be more of this
collaboration. Respondent 2 mentioned that the old, math king or pyramid game or something
teachers worked more coherently and
similar. There was something called the
collaborative and Respondent 1 mentioned that mystical pyramid or something a long time ago.
the teachers participating in the project had That it would be more of a computer game in
become more integrated in their day-to-day
that case, that you pretended to walk into the
work. The respondents also mentioned the need
room and got to solve exercises or something.
for higher technological competence in the
So maybe I thought it would be like that. More
team. Respondent 2 mentioned that more of a game
teachers with digital competence would have
made the implementation easier, and that a
stronger support with the increased workload
and with the planning was needed.
Furthermore, Respondent 2 also mentioned the Aspects related to Results demonstrability
need for a more intuitive gamification system, was mentioned in the second interview session.
more technical support and more guidance on Two themes emerged; the Doubt about
how to design courses based on the existing effectiveness of gamification and the Difficulty
research in gamification for learning. Similar to to measure the outcomes. In the first theme,
Respondent 2 and Respondent 3 expressed that teachers expressed that they understood the
they were skeptical toward if the gamification connection between gamification and education
implementation had been successful. and perceived initial positive effects. The
Respondent 2 conveyed that the digital aspects effectiveness of gamification was seen as being
had been positive but that the students had not related to visualizing student progress, which
reacted to gamification as much as expected. In indicates that gamification could be
answering if any effects had been noticed due communicated and implemented as an
to gamification, Respondent 3 responded: Not indication of progress for students to increase
as much as I had thought. Or not as much as it teacher adoption. Correspondingly, other
could have been. I mean, it could have been studies have suggested visualizing progress as
a way to enhance competence driven
motivation through gamification [35, 36, 37].
it adds more than it takes at least. It only adds Future studies should therefore explore how
so to say. But I did not notice what I expected, communicating and implementing competence
that someone wanted to build a stronger avatar. driven gamification related to the indication of
It probably has been too unclear, that the student progress could influence teacher
students did not realize it enough. perception.
Finally, in the second theme Respondent 3 Compared to teachers reflections on GBL
and 2 mentioned aspects related to the fact that and previous concerns in the literature related
the results were difficult to measure. to games being distracting [14, 38], the teachers
Respondent 3 mentioned that it was in the present study did not mention similar
problematic to define the valid cause behind concerns. Compared to GBL, which relates
improvements. Respondent 2 said that it was more to full-fledged games, gamification
difficult to comprehend if improvements had concerns parts of, instead of entire, games [9]
occurred due to the intervention since student and might, therefore be more comfortable to be
groups differ every year making comparisons adopted by teachers as a learning tool. Similar
unreasonable We have two classes and one of findings were shown regarding teachers'
them, despite being in the same program, sit perceptions of gamification in a survey study by
quiet for maybe fifty minutes and count, Alabbasi [35] who identified that few teachers
whereas the other cannot sit quiet for five viewed gamification as negative compared to
minutes. If I had only had the second class, I those who viewed gamification as positive. The
would have thought it (gamification) was findings presented here, in relation to previous
amazing, but now it is hard to say. But I know research, indicates that gamification might be
that a lot (students) asked why they did not get easier to adopt by teachers compared to GBL.
points for this etc., and updated the page to get To support these claims, comparative studies
points, so I am not sure, but I believe that it is between teachers' perception of gamification
positive. But it is hard to say and GBL in education should be conducted.
Several themes related to three of the adoption
factors presented by Moore and Benbasat [19]
emerged from the interviews (Table1.). These
factors should be considered when
Previous studies have shown low ICT skills implementing gamification in the classroom.
[11] and lack of professional development and
The Relative advantage of a blended learning
motivation toward using IT among Swedish
environment compared to the previous
teachers [12]. However, in the present study all
analogue education was expressed by the
the teachers involved in the implementation teachers as providing alternative ways for
perceived a gamified blended learning students to learn, higher accessibility and
implementation as initially positive, whereas
variation, and a more inclusive learning
two teachers later expressed doubt of the environment. The importance of Relative
effects. Teachers positive experiences of
advantage has previously been suggested as a
gamification have been mentioned previous critical factor in online education [36], in which
studies related to students motivation, time saved and individualized feedback to
communication, social skills [30, 31, 32], self-
students has been discussed as a relative
regulation [31, 32], collaboration [30, 33] and advantage with blended learning [37]. From the
competition [33, 34]. In the present study the teachers comments these aspects are however
Table 1 Here, teachers should be shown clear examples
of the technology to be implemented as to not
create confusion and work stress. This aligns
with previous studies that show that
unfamiliarity with digital games as a
disadvantage in GBL [15] and teachers can
experience a loss of control and need for
guidance when working with gamification [18].
Finally, Results demonstrability should be
considered when implementing ICT in the
classroom. Doubt about the effectiveness of
gamification and the lack of measurable results
was expressed by the teachers. Since digital
technology enables a more data driven and
visible approach [38], it is recommended that
teachers are provided with tools that indicate
the effects of the technology implemented.
Here, more studies should be conducted on how
more related to the digitalization then to such tools should be used to create a fair and
gamification in itself. Communicating relative motivating learning environment for students
advantage aspects could be included to and teachers.
overcome adoption barriers for teachers when
implementing ICT. Further studies should take
the above aspects into consideration to broaden
the understanding of the relative advantage A main limitation with the study is the small
connected to working with ICT for teachers. sample size of the teachers being interviewed
Compatibility with needs was discussed in (n=3) making the results less generalizable.
the teacher interviews, with four main needs Moreover, the implementing gamification with
being highlighted: technological support, an API could possibly cause delays and inhibit
preparation, collaboration and clarification. instant feedback to the student which could
Technological support was expressed as being have affected the results. Another limitation is
able to get support during lessons and the need not being able to separate the adoption of
for things to work in disorderly classes, as well gamification and adoption of the digital
as support in understanding the technology environment since they were adopted
initially. Berg-Marklund [17] reached similar simultaneously. Further research should
position in explore the validity and generalizability of the
GBL, arguing that technological barriers themes identified related to each factor and
infrastructure jeopardizing GBL adoption of gamification. Survey studies
implementations and usage. Preparation was investigating the relationship between relative
also highlighted, referring to the teachers need advantage and alternative ways to learn, need
to have more time initially in the project. support with technology support, preparation,
Collaboration was seen as an essential collaboration and clarification, and results
component for the success of the demonstrability with doubt about effectiveness
implementation. Here the value for teachers to and measurability. Furthermore, more studies
work in teams and assist each other, as well as are needed comparing the adoption of gamified
having a technological competent person in the digital environments compared to the adoption
team is highlighted. This could provide of non-gamified digital environments.
assistance as well as accountability for the
teachers to do their parts. Understanding the
implementation ahead of time was also an
important consideration for the teachers who
wanted to have clearer presentations of This exploratory case study presents several
gamification in the initial implementations. recommendations for implementing
gamification in upper secondary education.
Adoption factors should be considered, Int. J.
especially related to the Relative advantage of Inf. Manage., vol. 45, no. June 2017, 2019,
the implementation, Compatibility with needs doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.013.
and Results demonstrability. It is recommended [7] C. Dichev and D. Dicheva, Gamifying
that a gamification design highlights student education: what is known, what is believed
progress and feedback, that communication and what remains uncertain: a critical
with teachers highlights the relative advantage review, vol. 14, no. 1. International Journal
of the implementation, that the teachers needs, of Educational Technology in Higher
such as technology support, preparation, Education, 2017.
collaboration and clarification, are considered, [8]
and finally that the gamification progress for gamification - A service marketing
the students can be visualized and explained to Proceedings of the 16th
the teachers. International Academic MindTrek
2012,doi:10.1145/2
393132.2393137.
[9] S. Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, and L.
The study was supported by the Swedish
innovation agency, Vinnova grant number
2018-02953. Proc. 15th Int. Acad. MindTrek Conf.
Envisioning Futur. Media Environ.
MindTrek,2011,doi:10.1145/2181037.218
1040.
[1] [10] ame-Based
frustrated than bored: The incidence, [11]
datalogiskt tänkande i skolan: vart vi är och
cognitive-affective states during Datorn i Utbildningen,
interactions with three different computer- 2015.
Int. J. Hum. [12] en
Comput. Stud., 2010, doi: [Online].
10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.12.003. [13]
[2] teachers use game-based learning
Journal of technologies? The role of individual and
Engineering Education. 2004, doi:
10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii
[3] J. Wery and M. M. Thomson, International Conference on System
Sciences, 2015, doi:
effective learning in teaching struggling 10.1109/HICSS.2015.88.
Support Learn., 2013, doi: [14]
10.1111/1467-9604.12027. Games in the Classroom: Pre-and in-
[4] D. Liu, R. Santhanam, and J. Webster,
engagement: A the K- Instr. Technol.
framework for design and research of Distance Learn., 2010.
MIS Q. [15]
Manag. Inf. Syst., vol. 41, no. 4, 2017, doi: game-based foreign language learning: Its
10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.4.01.
[5] F. Bellotti, B. Kapralos, K. Lee, P. Communications in Computer and
Moreno- Information Science, 2018, doi:
and of ser 10.1007/978-981-13-0008-0_3.
Advances in Human-Computer [16]
Interaction. 2013, doi: using Kahoot! for learning A literature
10.1155/2013/136864. Comput. Educ., 2020, doi:
[6] 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103818.
motivational information systems: A [17] B. Berg Marklund, Unpacking Digital
Game- [29] M. Baldauf, A. Brandner, and C. Wimmer,
of developing and using educational
games. 2015. language teaching - Studying requirements
[18] and acceptance by students, parents and
gamification in a French-as-a-foreign- ACM Int. Conf.
Innov. Lang. Learn. ProceedingSer.2017,doi:10.1145/3152832
Teach., 2018, doi: .3152842.
10.1080/17501229.2016.1213268. [30] D. O. Sánchez and I. M. Gómez Trigueros,
[19] G. C. Moore and I. Benbasat,
gender in the teaching of social sciences:
Measure the Perceotions of Adopting an Representations and discourse of trainee
PLoS One, vol. 14, no. 6,
Information Systems Research, vol. 2. ,2019,doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0218869.
1991. [31] A. B. Eisingerich, A. Marchand, M. P.
[20] E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations,
Fourth Edition. 1995. to enhance customer engagement through
[21] I. Jedel, D. Gillberg, and A. Palmquist, Int. J. Res. Mark., 2019,
D doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2019.02.003.
google classroom in 5th Gamification & [32]
Serious game symposium, 2020. Motivational Styles in Educational
[22] J. Maxwell, Qualitative Research Design: Proceedings of the 50th
An Interactive Approach. 2012. Hawaii International Conference on
[23] System Sciences, 2017, doi:
qualitative research: Managing the 10.24251/hicss.2017.157.
challenges of coding, interrater reliability, [33] M. Schmidt-Kraepelin, S. Thiebes, M. C.
Qual. Rep., vol. 23, Tran, and
no. 11, 2018. Game? Developing a Taxonomy of
[24] D. A. Gioia, K. G. Corley, and A. L.
in Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii
Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia International Conference on System
Organ. Res. Methods, vol. Sciences,2018,doi:10.24251/hicss.2018.15
16,no.1,2013,doi:10.1177/109442811245 0.
2151. [34] of
[25] D. J. Hruschka, D. Schwartz, D. C. St.john, commercial games for educational
E. Picone-Decaro, R. A. Jenkins, and J. W.
-Ended Proceedings of
Data: Lessons Learned from HIV CGAMES 2005 - 7th International
Field methods, Conference on Computer Games: Artificial
2004, doi: 10.1177/1525822X04266540. Intelligence, Animation, Mobile,
[26] A. Sánchez-Mena and J. Martí-Parreño, Educational and Serious Games, 2005.
[35]
Perspectives towards Using Gamification
Electron. J. e-Learning, vol. 15, no. 5,
2017. [36]
[27] Int. J. Educ.
for primary education: student and teacher Manag., 2000, doi:
perceptions, J. Comput. Educ., no. 10.1108/09513540010344731.
0123456789, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s40692- [37]
020-00153-w. Diffusion of Innovations theory to the
[28] J. Martí-Parreño, A. Galbis-Córdova, and investigation of blended language
R. Currás- Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach.,
gamification and competencies 2014,doi:10.1080/17501229.2013.789031
development: A concept mapping [38] N. Selwyn, Education & Technology. Key
Innov. Educ. Teach. Int., 2019, Issues & Debates. 2011.
doi: 10.1080/14703297.2019.1683464.