Research Note—Gamification of Technology-Mediated Training: Not All Competitions Are the Same

Abstract

Gamification, an application of game design elements to non-gaming contexts, is proposed as a way to add engagement in technology-mediated training programs. But there is hardly any information on how to adapt game design elements to improve learning outcomes and promote learner engagement. To address the issue, we focus on a popular game design element, competition, and specifically examine the effects of different competitive structureswhether a person faces a higher-skilled, lower-skilled, or equally-skilled competitoron learning and engagement. We study a gamified training design for databases, where trainees play a trivia-based mini-game with a competitor after each e-training module. Trainees who faced a lower-skilled competitor reported higher self-efficacy beliefs and better learning outcomes, supporting the effect of peer appraisal, a less examined aspect of social cognitive theory. But trainees who faced equallyskilled competitors reported higher levels of engagement, supporting the balance principle of flow theory. Our study findings indicate that no one competitive structure can address learning and engagement outcomes simultaneously. The choice of competitive structures depends on the priority of the outcomes in training. Our findings provide one explanation for the mixed findings on the effect of competitive gamification designs in technology mediated training.

A Design Framework for Adaptive Gamification Applications

“…[21]). This includes the Competition element, although mixed findings on the effects of different Competitive structures in the gamification design exist [28].…”

Individual Appropriation of Learning Management Systems—Antecedents and Consequences

“…When considering interactivity's effects on faithfulness, one could derive corresponding design implications from the context of interactions with learners, lecturers, and learning materials (e.g., a more faithful appropriation via interactivity using gamification elements) (Domínguez et al, 2013;Santhanam, Liu, & Shen, 2016). Reward elements mapping the right learning process path in the form of feedback are one option concerning a faithful appropriation, which offers another possibility to provide an automated interaction with the lecturer and reward faithful appropriations.…”

“…Concerning the model evaluation, a further limitation concerns our using a university student sample ) that researchers often (see Santhanam et al, 2013) use to evaluate TML models or training interventions (e.g., Gupta & Bostrom, 2013;Santhanam et al, 2008;Santhanam et al, 2016;Yi & Davis, 2003), which limits our findings' generalizability and external validity (Bordens & Abbott, 2011;Compeau et al, 2012). Although we used university students as study participants, one can consider our findings from evaluating our model to be fairly realistic and, therefore, generalizable given that most of the students used the LMS for the first time-akin to employees in corporate settings who participate in new blended learning scenarios.…”

O estado da arte das práticas de gamificação no processo de ensino e aprendizagem no ensino superior

“…Quanto ao uso dos elementos motivacionais dos jogos como pontos, recompensas, tabelas classificatórias, e conquistas, os implementadores precisam se assegurar que esses elementos ressoam com os valores intrínsecos do usuário, de outra forma ele poderá achar a gamificação sem sentido. A gamificação deve ser vista como uma catapulta de forma a ajudar os estudantes a terem comportamentos específicos que eles intrinsecamente já achem recompensadores (BERKLING;THOMAS, 2013;BARATA et al, 2015;LANDERS;ARMSTRONG, 2015;SANTHANAM et al, 2016).…”