Design Thinking Instructions and Cognitive Processes

Gamification of design thinking: a way to enhance effectiveness of learning

“…However, in India, the importance of these skills has been emphasized only very recently [e.g., in the draft National Education Policy, India, 2019(National Education Policy, 2019], at a time, when the current Indian education system is under serious criticism because of outdated curricula and teaching methodology. In South Asian context, a large part of the school education system puts greater emphasis on the retention of knowledge, leaving less scope for the development of skills such as creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving (Bhatt et al, 2021a). In addition, the assessment of learning in schools often focus on memory-based learning and testing a students' ability to reproduce content knowledge (National Education Policy India, 2016).…”

“…In addition, the assessment of learning in schools often focus on memory-based learning and testing a students' ability to reproduce content knowledge (National Education Policy India, 2016). Moreover, in classrooms, learning is receptive (where the teacher demonstrates, describes, or writes the teaching content and information is passed one way), and the assignments are typically solved individually (Bhatt et al, 2021a). This inhibits the development of collaboration and communication skills in students.…”

“…Gamification can overcome significant problems like lack of learner's motivation, lack of interactivity, or isolation, leading to a high dropout rate in a course (Khalil and Ebner, 2014). The purpose of gamification can be served only when both the following are satisfied: (a) the Learning Objectives and outcomes are well defined; and (b) efforts are spent to assess the effect of gamification on those learning outcomes (Morschheuser et al , 2018; Bhatt et al , 2021 b ). Various empirical studies show that gamification has a positive effect on student interest, early engagement (Betts et al , 2013), and learning outcomes (e.g., retention rate) (Vaibhav and Gupta, 2014; Krause et al , 2015).…”

“…To identify various perspectives to be considered in the game development, Cortes Sobrino et al (2017) proposed a taxonomy for games, with three categories (i.e., targeted user/public, the purpose of the game, and types of skill to be imbibed through the game), and classified 17 educational games of the Design Society Database. Later, Bhatt et al (2021 b ) augmented the existing taxonomy by considering additional categories and proposed extended taxonomy for aiding the development and evaluation of educational games. The authors found that the games developed and evaluated were either serious games or simulation games.…”

“…Kirkpatrick's model consists of four levels of evaluation: reaction, learning, behavior, and result. With the help of this model, Bhatt et al (2021 b ) analyzed 20 games and classified them based on the levels of evaluation, and found that some existing games were not evaluated for their effectiveness on both learning and engagement. For example, the PDP game (Becker and Wits, 2014) and Innopoly (Berglund et al , 2011) only measure the effect of the game on learning but do not measure its ability to engage participants.…”