Are They Learning or Playing? Moderator Conditions of Gamification’s Success in Programming Classrooms

Luiz Rodrigues, F. Pereira, A. Toda, P. Palomino, Wilk Oliveira, Marcela Pessoa, Leandro S. G. Carvalho, David B. F. Oliveira, Elaine H. T. Oliveira, A. Cristea, Seiji Isotani
{"title":"Are They Learning or Playing? Moderator Conditions of Gamification’s Success in Programming Classrooms","authors":"Luiz Rodrigues, F. Pereira, A. Toda, P. Palomino, Wilk Oliveira, Marcela Pessoa, Leandro S. G. Carvalho, David B. F. Oliveira, Elaine H. T. Oliveira, A. Cristea, Seiji Isotani","doi":"10.1145/3485732","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Students face several difficulties in introductory programming courses (CS1), often leading to high dropout rates, student demotivation, and lack of interest. The literature has indicated that the adequate use of gamification might improve learning in several domains, including CS1. However, the understanding of which (and how) factors influence gamification’s success, especially for CS1 education, is lacking. Thus, there is a clear need to shed light on pre-determinants of gamification’s impact. To tackle this gap, we investigate how user and contextual factors influence gamification’s effect on CS1 students through a quasi-experimental retrospective study ( \\( N = 399 \\) ), based on a between-subject design (conditions: gamified or non-gamified) in terms of final grade (academic achievement) and the number of programming assignments completed in an educational system (i.e., how much they practiced). Then, we evaluate whether and how user and contextual characteristics (e.g., age, gender, major, programming experience, working situation, internet access, and computer access/sharing) moderate that effect. Our findings indicate that gamification amplified to some extent the impact of practicing. Overall, students practicing in the gamified version presented higher academic achievement than those practicing the same amount in the non-gamified version. Intriguingly, those in the gamified version that practiced much more extensively than the average showed lower academic achievements than those who practiced comparable amounts in the non-gamified version. Furthermore, our results reveal gender as the only statistically significant moderator of gamification’s effect: in our data, it was positive for females but non-significant for males. These findings suggest which (and how) personal and contextual factors moderate gamification’s effects, indicate the need to further understand and examine context’s role, and show that gamification must be cautiously designed to prevent students from playing instead of learning.","PeriodicalId":352564,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)","volume":"363 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3485732","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Students face several difficulties in introductory programming courses (CS1), often leading to high dropout rates, student demotivation, and lack of interest. The literature has indicated that the adequate use of gamification might improve learning in several domains, including CS1. However, the understanding of which (and how) factors influence gamification’s success, especially for CS1 education, is lacking. Thus, there is a clear need to shed light on pre-determinants of gamification’s impact. To tackle this gap, we investigate how user and contextual factors influence gamification’s effect on CS1 students through a quasi-experimental retrospective study ( \( N = 399 \) ), based on a between-subject design (conditions: gamified or non-gamified) in terms of final grade (academic achievement) and the number of programming assignments completed in an educational system (i.e., how much they practiced). Then, we evaluate whether and how user and contextual characteristics (e.g., age, gender, major, programming experience, working situation, internet access, and computer access/sharing) moderate that effect. Our findings indicate that gamification amplified to some extent the impact of practicing. Overall, students practicing in the gamified version presented higher academic achievement than those practicing the same amount in the non-gamified version. Intriguingly, those in the gamified version that practiced much more extensively than the average showed lower academic achievements than those who practiced comparable amounts in the non-gamified version. Furthermore, our results reveal gender as the only statistically significant moderator of gamification’s effect: in our data, it was positive for females but non-significant for males. These findings suggest which (and how) personal and contextual factors moderate gamification’s effects, indicate the need to further understand and examine context’s role, and show that gamification must be cautiously designed to prevent students from playing instead of learning.
他们是在学习还是在玩?编程课堂游戏化成功的调节条件
学生在编程入门课程(CS1)中面临一些困难,经常导致高辍学率,学生失去动力和缺乏兴趣。文献表明,充分利用游戏化可以改善几个领域的学习,包括CS1。然而,对于哪些因素(以及如何)影响游戏化的成功,尤其是CS1教育的成功,我们仍然缺乏理解。因此,我们显然需要阐明游戏化影响的前决定因素。为了解决这一差距,我们通过一项准实验回顾性研究(\( N = 399 \))调查了用户和情境因素如何影响游戏化对CS1学生的影响,该研究基于学科间设计(条件:游戏化或非游戏化),涉及最终成绩(学术成就)和在教育系统中完成的编程作业数量(即他们练习的次数)。然后,我们评估用户和上下文特征(例如,年龄、性别、专业、编程经验、工作环境、互联网接入和计算机接入/共享)是否以及如何调节这种影响。我们的研究结果表明,游戏化在一定程度上放大了练习的影响。总体而言,在游戏化版本中练习的学生比在非游戏化版本中练习相同时间的学生表现出更高的学业成绩。有趣的是,那些在游戏化版本中比平均水平练习更广泛的人,其学术成就低于那些在非游戏化版本中练习同等数量的人。此外,我们的研究结果显示,性别是游戏化效应的唯一统计学显著调节因素:在我们的数据中,性别对女性是积极的,而对男性则不显著。这些发现表明,哪些(以及如何)个人因素和环境因素缓和了游戏化的影响,表明需要进一步理解和检查环境的作用,并表明游戏化必须谨慎设计,以防止学生玩而不是学习。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信