Gamification for Low-Literates: Findings on Motivation, User Experience, and Study Design

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of the gamification elements of scaffolding, score and hints on the user enjoyment and motivation of people of low literacy. In a four-condition within-subjects experiment, participants performed mental spatial ability tests with the aforementioned elements. Quantitative results were inconclusive, but post-test interviews provided insights on the limited effectiveness of the gamification elements. Complex questionnaire wording, high task difficulty, and an improperly situated task environment all contributed to ceiling effects in the influence of scaffolding. Score was found to be ineffective without proper contextualization connecting the numerical score to clearer performance measures. Finally, the underused hints functionality has indicated the need for adequate 'mixed initiative' support.

Points, stories, worlds, and diegesis: Comparing player experiences in two citizen science games

“…The concept of player experience is complex, covering multiple dimensions of interaction, including positive affect, negative affect, flow, sensory immersion, tension, challenge, and competence (Gajadhar, Kort, & IJsselsteijn, 2008;IJsselsteijn, de Kort, Poels, Jurgelionis, & Bellotti, 2007;Schouten, Pfab, Cremers, van Dijk, & Neerincx, 2014). Some of these dimensions are positive or neutral while others are negative.…”

Systematic Review and Validation of the Game Experience Questionnaire (GEQ) – Implications for Citation and Reporting Practice

“…We also looked into whether and how the GEQ was modified in the studies. Some included only a subset of the GEQ components or even a subset of items of a specific component, with the reported number of items ranging from 5 (e.g., only the Flow component with 5 items [32]) to 25 items (i.e., 5 subcomponents each with 5 items [63]). However, justification for the selection was seldom provided.…”

“…Other oddities include: (i) mis-citing another questionnaire with the same acronym "Game Engagement Questionnaire" [4,5]; (ii) citing the KidsGEQ [44], a poster containing only seven example items, for a study with university students; (iii) citing the Future Play [41] and Fun & Games [10] which do not include any GEQ items; (iv) citing the Social Presence in Gaming Questionnaire (SPGQ) of which items are different from the core GEQ [43,60]; (v) citing the URL of the homepage of the research lab of which the GEQ originators were members, but without specifying the location of the document [63]; (vi) providing the authors and title of the GEQ without publication year or status [21]. These add up to 8 instances (or more than 10%) of the reviewed papers.…”

A Review of Research on Gamification Approach in Education

“…It is seen that voluntary participants (n = 21), customers (n = 5), writers and players (n = 4), patients (n = 4) and civil cervants (n = 4) constitute the research samples of the studies as well. Schouten et al examined the users' experiences and motivations toward gamification among individuals with low levels of literacy [62]. This study showed that individuals with low educational level are also included in the studies on gamification approach as participants.…”