Impacting the Submission Timing of Student Work Using Gamification
Authors: 
Theresia Devi Indriasari, 
Paul Denny, 
Andrew Luxton-Reilly, 
Danielle LottridgeAuthors Info & Claims
Theresia Devi Indriasari, Paul Denny, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Danielle LottridgeAuthors Info & ClaimsPages 7 - 12
Abstract
Peer code review is not a standard activity within university programming courses. Educators are interested in implementing peer code review because it benefits students by developing their programming skills. One important challenge to address is how to motivate students to engage with the activity. In this study, we explore gamification as an approach for motivating students to manage their review submission time through the use of game elements and mechanics. We conducted a randomised controlled study and explored the review submission time from the log data and survey data. We found that the combination of game elements (i.e., battery, points, leaderboard) influenced students in the gamification group to better manage their review submission time by spreading the review submissions over the review period. These findings can assist academics and educators in understanding how selected game mechanics can assist in motivating students to distribute their review work more evenly over the course time period.
References
[1]
Bariş Ardiç, İrem Yurdakul, and Eray Tüzün. 2020. Creation of a Serious Game for Teaching Code Review: An Experience Report. In 2020 IEEE 32nd Conf. on SE Ed. and Training (CSEE&T). 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSEET49119.2020.9206173
[2]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2006), 77–101. Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
[3]
Sebastian Deterding, Miguel Sicart, Lennart Nacke, Kenton O’Hara, and Dan Dixon. 2011. Gamification. Using Game-design Elements in Non-gaming Contexts. In CHI ’11 Ex. Abs. on Human Factors in Comp. Sys. (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI EA ’11). ACM, NY, USA, 2425–2428. https://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979575
[4]
Lu Ding, Erkan Er, and Michael Orey. 2018. An exploratory study of student engagement in gamified online discussions. Computers & Education 120 (2018), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.007
[5]
William G. Emeny, Marissa K. Hartwig, and Doug Rohrer. 2021. Spaced mathematics practice improves test scores and reduces overconfidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology 35, 4 (2021), 1082–1089. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3814
[6]
Nickolas J.G. Falkner and Katrina E. Falkner. 2012. A Fast Measure for Identifying At-Risk Students in Computer Science. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (Auckland, New Zealand) (ICER ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2361276.2361288
[7]
Lasse Hakulinen, Tapio Auvinen, and Ari Korhonen. 2015. The Effect of Achievement Badges on Students’ Behavior: An Empirical Study in a University-Level Computer Science Course. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Online) 10, 1 (2015), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v10i1.4221
[8]
John Hamer, Helen Purchase, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Paul Denny. 2015. A comparison of peer and tutor feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 40, 1 (2015), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.893418
[9]
Marissa K. Hartwig and Eric D. Malain. 2022. Do students space their course study? Those who do earn higher grades.Learning and Instruction 77 (2022), 101538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101538
[10]
Biyun Huang and Khe Foon Hew. 2018. Implementing a theory-driven gamification model in higher education flipped courses: Effects on out-of-class activity completion and quality of artifacts. Computers & Education 125 (2018), 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.018
[11]
Christopher Hundhausen, Anukrati Agrawal, Dana Fairbrother, and Michael Trevisan. 2010. Does Studio-based Instruction Work in CS 1?: An Empirical Comparison with a Traditional Approach. In Proc. of the 41st Tech. Symp.(SIGCSE ’10). ACM, NY, USA, 500–504. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734432
[12]
Theresia Devi Indriasari, Paul Denny, Danielle Lottridge, and Andrew Luxton-Reilly. 2022. Gamification improves the quality of student peer code review. Computer Science Education 0, 0 (2022), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2022.2124094
[13]
Theresia Devi Indriasari, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Paul Denny. 2020. Gamification of student peer review in education: A systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies 25, 6 (01 Nov 2020), 5205–5234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10228-x
[14]
Theresia Devi Indriasari, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Paul Denny. 2020. A Review of Peer Code Review in Higher Education. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 3, Article 22 (sep 2020), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3403935
[15]
Theresia Devi Indriasari, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Paul Denny. 2021. Improving Student Peer Code Review Using Gamification. In Australasian Computing Education Conference (Virtual, SA, Australia) (ACE ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1145/3441636.3442308
[16]
Michael S. Irwin and Stephen H. Edwards. 2019. Can Mobile Gaming Psychology Be Used to Improve Time Management on Programming Assignments?. In Proc. of the ACM Conf. on Global Comp. Ed. (Chengdu,Sichuan, China) (CompEd ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1145/3300115.3309517
[17]
Joey J Lee and Jessica Hammer. 2011. Gamification in education: What, how, why bother?Academic exchange quarterly 15, 2 (2011), 146.
[18]
Jenni Majuri, Jonna Koivisto, and Juho Hamari. 2018. Gamification of education and learning: A review of empirical literature. In Proceedings of the 2nd international GamiFIN conference, GamiFIN 2018. CEUR-WS.
[19]
Nicolas Michinov, Sophie Brunot, Olivier Le Bohec, Jacques Juhel, and Marine Delaval. 2011. Procrastination, participation, and performance in online learning environments. Computers & Education 56, 1 (2011), 243–252. Serious Games.
[20]
Gabriela Morales-Martinez, Paul Latreille, and Paul Denny. 2020. Nationality and Gender Biases in Multicultural Online Learning Environments: The Effects of Anonymity. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376283
[21]
G. Rong, J. Li, M. Xie, and T. Zheng. 2012. The Effect of Checklist in Code Review for Inexperienced Students: An Empirical Study. In 2012 IEEE 25th Conf. on Soft. Eng. Ed. and Training. 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSEET.2012.22
[22]
Arlene A Russell. 2004. Calibrated peer review-a writing and critical-thinking instructional tool. Teaching Tips: Innovations in UG Science Instruction 54 (2004).
[23]
Jirarat Sitthiworachart and Mike Joy. 2004. Effective Peer Assessment for Learning Computer Programming. In Proc. of the 9th Annual SIGCSE Conf. on Innovation and Technology in CS Education (Leeds, United Kingdom) (ITiCSE ’04). ACM, NY, USA, 122–126. https://doi.org/10.1145/1007996.1008030
[24]
Martijn Stegeman, Erik Barendsen, and Sjaak Smetsers. 2014. Towards an Empirically Validated Model for Assessment of Code Quality. In Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli, Finland) (Koli Calling ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1145/2674683.2674702
[25]
Martijn Stegeman, Erik Barendsen, and Sjaak Smetsers. 2016. Designing a Rubric for Feedback on Code Quality in Programming Courses. In Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli, Finland) (Koli Calling ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 160–164. https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999555
[26]
Thyago Tenório, Ig Ibert Bittencourt, Seiji Isotani, Alan Pedro, and Patrícia Ospina. 2016. A gamified peer assessment model for on-line learning environments in a competitive context. Computers in Human Behavior 64 (2016), 247 – 263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.049
[27]
Iman YeckehZaare, Chloe Aronoff, and Gail Grot. 2022. Retrieval-Based Teaching Incentivizes Spacing and Improves Grades in Computer Science Education. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 1 (Providence, RI, USA) (SIGCSE 2022). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 892–898. https://doi.org/10.1145/3478431.3499408
[28]
Iman YeckehZaare, Elijah Fox, Gail Grot, Sean Chen, Claire Walkosak, Kevin Kwon, Annelise Hofmann, Jessica Steir, Olivia McGeough, and Nealie Silverstein. 2021. Incentivized Spacing and Gender in Computer Science Education. In Proc. of the 17th ACM Conf. on Int. Comp. Ed. Res. (Virtual Event, USA) (ICER 2021). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3446871.3469760
Index Terms
- Impacting the Submission Timing of Student Work Using Gamification
Recommendations
Improving Student Peer Code Review Using Gamification
ACE '21: Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian Computing Education ConferencePeer code review has been shown to have several benefits for students, including the development of both technical skills and soft skills. However, a lack of motivation has been identified as one of the barriers to successful peer code review in ...
A Review of Peer Code Review in Higher Education
Peer review is the standard process within academia for maintaining publication quality, but it is also widely employed in other settings, such as education and industry, for improving work quality and for generating actionable feedback to content ...
Investigating Accuracy and Perceived Value of Feedback in Peer Code Review Using Gamification
ITiCSE '21: Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1The practice of peer code review has been shown to deliver a variety of benefits to programming students. These include learning from producing and receiving feedback, and from being exposed to a range of problem-solving approaches and solutions. ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
December 2023
120 pages
Copyright © 2023 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 19 December 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
COMPUTE '23
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 114 of 622 submissions, 18%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 56Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)56
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)12
Reflects downloads up to 14 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format