Attitudes and expectations toward course gamification differed between avid gamers and non-gamers¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? An avid-gamer student criticized the gamification for lacking a clearly defined goal and reward, while some non-gamers found it difficult to understand. → Bajko et al. 2016 q2 i? Despite these differences, 77% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the course did not hold their attention, which the authors read as reflecting a balanced approach. → Bajko et al. 2016 (2)

Evidence¶

Bajko et al. 2016¶

Robert Bajko, Jaigris Hodson, Katie Seaborn, Pamela Livingstone, Deborah Fels. (2016). Edugamifying Media Studies: Student Engagement, Enjoyment, and Interest in Two Multimedia and Social Media Undergraduate Classrooms. Information Systems Education Journal 14(6). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1135365

q2 · i? · design · r2

Open-ended survey and interview commentary contrasting an avid gamer, who said there "wasn't any sort of clearly defined goal", with non-gamers who found the gamification difficult to understand. Qualitative, small-number comments; no measure of the difference is printed.

"In contrast, the opposite seemed to be true for some students who identified as non -gamers, such as in the case of one student who commented, "I find it sometimes difficult to understand. Great for people who love gaming, not as great for those who don't.""

Bajko et al. 2016 (2)¶

Robert Bajko, Jaigris Hodson, Katie Seaborn, Pamela Livingstone, Deborah Fels. (2016). Edugamifying Media Studies: Student Engagement, Enjoyment, and Interest in Two Multimedia and Social Media Undergraduate Classrooms. Information Systems Education Journal 14(6). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1135365

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Survey item on attention cited in the gamer/non-gamer challenge section: "77% reported that they disagreed or strongly disagreed" that the course did not hold their attention. The authors present this as evidence their accessible-to-casual-gamers design kept engagement consistent.

"However, for the most part, we strove for a balanced approach, and this was reflected in a consistent level of engagement throughout the course: 77% reported that they disagreed or strongly disagreed with the question "this course didn't hold my attention at all.""

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Cooperative learning, computer-supported collaborative learning, and digital games probably improve learning. — related