Download - Finding the Fun: Gameful Design of Classroom Goal Structures for Motivating Student Performance
Finding the Fun:Gameful Design of Classroom Goal Structures for Motivating Student Performance
Robert W. SongerMiyata Lab
School of Knowledge ScienceJapan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
Master’s Defense given on August 19, 2015Full text paper with references available at https://dspace.jaist.ac.jp/dspace/handle/10119/12938
http://www.mrtoledano.com/gamers 2
Gamers
BackgroundGame-Based Learning• The use of full games in educational contexts
Gamification• The use of game design elements in non-game contexts (Deterding, Dixon, Haled, & Nacke, 2011)
Gameful Design• The application of game design principles for game-like experiences
3
Background – Game-Based Learning
(Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002) 4
Background
Gamification• Reward-oriented• Organization-centered• Pattern-bound
Gameful Design• Skill-oriented• User-centered• Meaning-bound
http://maidrunner.blogspot.jp5
http://www.superbetter.com
Background – ProblemsFull games create separate social and psychological contexts• Knowledge transfer decreases with greater differences in contexts
(Klahr & Chen, 2011)
Extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation• Game rewards distract from personal goals
(Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999)
Efficacy of gamification relies on the context and the individual• Must balance a playful mindset with goals
(Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014)
6
AimIdentify key elements of game design that support the motivation and performance of learners and can be applied to classroom activities.
Method:1. Review literature in philosophy, psychology, & anthropology2. Study 1 – Identify elements of a playful context vs. enjoyment3. Study 2 – Find relationships between individual traits and outcomes
7
The Playful Affordances ModelFor evaluating the connection of playful action with experience
Four dimensions:1. Agon “Contest”2. Alea “Chance”3. Mimicry “Imagination”4. Ilinx “Vertigo”
(Caillios, 1961)
8
(Songer & Miyata, 2014)
Study 1: Playful AffordancesSingaporean students (n = 12) and Japanese students (n = 24) played a business negotiations game in English and answered a survey about their actions and experiences.
Survey items included:• Anticipated enjoyment• Actual enjoyment• Engagement in contest, exploration, imagination, sensation• Experiences of challenge, discovery, creativity, arousal
9
THE商社The Shosha
http://www.projectdesign.co.jp/the-shosha
Project Card
Resource Card
Funds
Cash
Assets
Study 1: Results for Enjoyment
SGr(10)
JPr(22)
C1r(7)
C2r(15)
C3r(8)
Pr(34)
Challenge 0.64 0.47* 0.30 0.10 0.17 0.39*Discovery 0.66* 0.62* 0.72* 0.54* 0.86* 0.64*Creativity 0.02 0.59* 0.10 0.59* 0.27 0.50*Arousal 0.69* 0.72* 0.85* 0.24 0.88* 0.70*Achievement 0.66* 0.59* 0.21 0.06 0.81* 0.60*Curiosity 0.32 0.57* 0.67* 0.50* 0.67* 0.53*Fantasy 0.52 0.40 0.64 0.31 0.53 0.44*Thrill 0.82* 0.66* 0.78* 0.58* 0.79* 0.72*
10*p < .05
Correlation of actual enjoyment to playful experiences. SG (Singaporean students), JP (Japanese students), C1 (Cohort 1), C2 (Cohort 2), C3 (Cohort 3), P (Population whole)
Study 1: Results for the Model
SGr(10)
JPr(22)
C1r(7)
C2r(15)
C3r(8)
Pr(34)
Challenge/Achievement
-0.58* 0.71* 0.81* 0.47 0.60 0.54*
Challenge/Contest 0.00 0.76* -0.12 0.51* 0.64* 0.44*Discovery/Curiosity 0.45 0.57* 0.27 0.61* 0.81* 0.56*Discovery/Exploration -0.15 0.10 -0.08 0.42 -0.27 0.12 Creativity/Fantasy 0.40 0.60* 0.15 0.66* 0.45 0.49*Creativity/Imagination
-0.01 0.22 -0.10 0.11 0.85* 0.27
Arousal/Thrill 0.89* 0.81* 0.73* 0.66* 0.97* 0.81*Arousal/Sensation 0.67* 0.86* 0.84* 0.75* 0.78* 0.78*11
Correlation of items within the same dimension of the Playful Affordances Model. SG (Singaporean students), JP (Japanese students), C1 (Cohort 1), C2 (Cohort 2), C3 (Cohort 3), P (Population whole)
*p < .05
Study 2: Skill GrowthJapanese students used a gamified feedback online tool in an English presentation course and an English conversation course.Presentation:• Control (n = 17)• Skill Bars (n = 15)Conversation:• Control – Intermediate ability (n = 12)• Skill Bars – High (n = 19) and low (n = 10)
12
Study 2: Skill Bars Add-On
13
Update Page (Teacher) Profile Page (Student)
Study 2: Survey Items
Pretest SurveyInterest in EnglishEffort & PersistenceSelf-Efficacy for EnglishInstrumental MotivationSelf-ConceptPositive & Negative Affect
Posttest SurveyInterest in EnglishEffort & PersistenceSelf-Efficacy for EnglishDispositional Flow
14
Study 2: Data AnalysisDifferences between groups• Standardized mean difference
(Cohen’s d)
Pre-post matched scores• Raw mean difference D• Cohen’s d
15
𝑑=𝑀 1 −𝑀 2
𝑆𝐷𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑆𝐷 h𝑤𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑛=
𝑆𝐷𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓
√2 (1−𝑟 )
16
CG (Clear Goals), UF (Unambiguous Feedback), CB (Challenge-Skill Balance), AM (Action-Awareness Merging), TC (Total Concentration), SL (Sense of Control), LS (Loss of Self-Consciousness), TT (Transformation of Time), AE (Autotelic Experience)
* significant difference between control and skill bars as per Student’s t-Test (p < .05)
17
Cohort 1 – Large negative difference (D < -0.69) Cohort 2 – Small negative difference (D = -0.69 to 0.11)Cohort 3 – Small positive difference (D = 0.11 to 0.92) Cohort 4 – Large positive difference (D > 0.92)
Study 2: Results for Presentation ClassControl Group• Higher instrumental motivation:
d = 0.67
• Greater flow experiences:d = 0.77
• Larger gains in self-efficacy and effort & persistence
Skill Bars Group• Lower positive affect:
d = -0.30
• Higher negative affect:d = 0.50
• Larger gains in interest correlated with flow:r(13) = 0.53, p = .04
18
19
CG (Clear Goals), UF (Unambiguous Feedback), CB (Challenge-Skill Balance), AM (Action-Awareness Merging), TC (Total Concentration), SL (Sense of Control), LS (Loss of Self-Consciousness), TT (Transformation of Time), AE (Autotelic Experience)
* significant difference between control and skill bars as per Student’s t-Test (p < .05)† significant difference between low and high ability groups as per Student’s t-Test (p < .05)
20
Cohort 1 – Large negative difference (D < -0.84) Cohort 2 – Small negative difference (D = -0.84 to 0.11)Cohort 3 – Small positive difference (D = 0.11 to 1.05) Cohort 4 – Large positive difference (D > 1.05)
Study 2: Results for Conversation ClassControl Group• Least frequent flow experiences:
d = -0.42
• Only drop in self-efficacy:d = -0.65
• Large gain in interest, unrelated to measured variables
Skill Bars Groups• Higher scores for clear goals and
unambiguous feedback
• Greatest flow experiences in the high ability group: d = 0.30
• Large gain in self-efficacy for high ability group: d = 0.49
21
Conclusions
Study 1• Enjoyment of a game activity
designed with limited resources, timed phases, and competition/ cooperation was related to experiences of thrill, arousal, and discovery
Study 2• Gamified elements may support
flow for students with varying relationships to affect and ability• Experiences of flow may be
linked to changes in self-efficacy
22
Gameful design elements can satisfy psychological needs through the promotion of a playful mindset and experiences of flow
Literature Review
Related Publications
24
Songer, R. W., & Miyata, K. (in press). A Playful Affordances Approach to the Design of Gameful Learning. International Journal of Engineering Education: Special Issue on Gamification in Engineering Education.
Songer, R. W., & Miyata, K. (2014). A Playful Affordances Model for Gameful Learning. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality. Salamanca, Spain: ACM.
Songer, R. W., & Miyata, K. (2014, March). Empowering Students with Gamified Learning Experiences. Poster session presented at The 6th International Symposium on Digital Technologies in Foreign Language Learning, Kyoto.