research-article

Exploring Personalization of Gamification in an Introductory Programming Course

Authors:

Mitchell Rogers,

Andrew Luxton-Reilly,

Danielle Lottridge,

Paul DennyAuthors Info & Claims

SIGCSE '21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Pages 1121 - 1127

https://doi.org/10.1145/3408877.3432402

Published: 05 March 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Gamification has been used in introductory programming courses, for example, to increase engagement with study materials, reduce procrastination, and increase attendance to practice sessions. Indeed, with the rapidly growing adoption of digital tools in such courses, the use of various game elements and mechanics to drive participation is increasing. Previous studies on gamification in computing have examined the effects over the whole student population. Prior work in other disciplines has found that the benefits associated with gamification may only be realized for some students, while others may even experience reduced motivation. The Hexad user types survey attempts to tackle this problem by grouping users into six different types for whom gamification should have different effects. The goal is to personalize the game elements for different user types, thus creating gamified experiences more suitable for individual learners. In this work, we study whether the Hexad survey could be used to guide the personalization of gamification in an introductory programming course. Specifically, we examine the quality of students' answers to the Hexad survey and explore whether they can be used to predict students' preferences for enabling gamification in the platform where they complete assignments. In our specific computing education context, we find that classifying students using the Hexad survey does not appear to be an effective approach for the automatic personalization of gamification.

References

[1]

Richard Bartle. 1996. Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. Journal of MUD research, Vol. 1, 1 (1996), 19.

[2]

Martin Böckle, Jasminko Novak, and Markus Bick. 2017. Towards Adaptive Gamification: A Synthesis of Current Developments. In Proc of the Twenty-Fifth European Conf on Information Systems (Guimaraes, Portugal) (ECIS '17). 158--174.

[3]

Yang Chen. 2018. Understanding How Educational Gamification Impacts Users? Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Information and Education Technology (Osaka, Japan) (ICIET '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 154--159. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178158.3178188

Digital Library

[4]

Rafael G. de Pontes, Dalton D. S. Guerrero, and Jorge C. A. de Figueiredo. 2019. Analyzing Gamification Impact on a Mastery Learning Introductory Programming Course. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Minneapolis, MN, USA) (SIGCSE '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 400--406. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287367

[5]

Paul Denny. 2013. The Effect of Virtual Achievements on Student Engagement. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paris, France) (CHI '13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 763--772. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470763

Digital Library

[6]

Paul Denny. 2015. Generating Practice Questions as a Preparation Strategy for Introductory Programming Exams. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Kansas City, Missouri, USA) (SIGCSE '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 278--283. https://doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677253

Digital Library

[7]

Paul Denny, John Hamer, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Helen Purchase. 2008. PeerWise: Students Sharing Their Multiple Choice Questions. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (Sydney, Australia) (ICER '08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 51--58. https://doi.org/10.1145/1404520.1404526

Digital Library

[8]

Paul Denny, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Michelle Craig, and Andrew Petersen. 2018a. Improving Complex Task Performance Using a Sequence of Simple Practice Tasks. In Proc of the 23rd Annual ACM Conf on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Larnaca, Cyprus) (ITiCSE 2018). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4--9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3197091.3197141

Digital Library

[9]

Paul Denny, Fiona McDonald, Ruth Empson, Philip Kelly, and Andrew Petersen. 2018b. Empirical Support for a Causal Relationship Between Gamification and Learning Outcomes. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173885

Digital Library

[10]

Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart Nacke. 2011. From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining "Gamification". In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (Tampere, Finland) (MindTrek '11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 9--15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040

Digital Library

[11]

Christo Dichev, Darina Dicheva, Galia Angelova, and Gennady Agre. 2015. From Gamification to Gameful Design and Gameful Experience in Learning. Cybern. Inf. Technol., Vol. 14, 4 (Jan. 2015), 80--100. https://doi.org/10.1515/cait-2014-0007

[12]

Darina Dicheva, Keith Irwin, and Christo Dichev. 2019. OneUp: Engaging Students in a Gamified Data Structures Course. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Minneapolis, MN, USA) (SIGCSE '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 386--392. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287480

Digital Library

[13]

Mary Dyson and Mark Haselgrove. 2001. The influence of reading speed and line length on the effectiveness of reading from screen. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 54 (2001), 585--612.

Digital Library

[14]

Stephen H. Edwards, Jason Snyder, Manuel A. Pérez-Qui nones, Anthony Allevato, Dongkwan Kim, and Betsy Tretola. 2009. Comparing Effective and Ineffective Behaviors of Student Programmers. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computing Education Research Workshop (Berkeley, CA, USA) (ICER '09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3--14. https://doi.org/10.1145/1584322.1584325

Digital Library

[15]

Lasse Hakulinen, Tapio Auvinen, and Ari Korhonen. 2013. Empirical Study on the Effect of Achievement Badges in TRAKLA2 Online Learning Environment. In Proc of the 2013 Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LATICE '13). IEEE Computer Society, USA, 47--54. https://doi.org/10.1109/LaTiCE.2013.34

Digital Library

[16]

Juho Hamari, Jonna Koivisto, and Harri Sarsa. 2014. Does Gamification Work? -- A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification. In Proceedings of the 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS '14). IEEE Computer Society, USA, 3025--3034. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377

Digital Library

[17]

Brian Harrington and Ayaan Chaudhry. 2017. TrAcademic: Improving Participation and Engagement in CS1/CS2 with Gamified Practicals. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Bologna, Italy) (ITiCSE '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 347--352. https://doi.org/10.1145/3059009.3059052

Digital Library

[18]

Theresia Devi Indriasari, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, and Paul Denny. 2020. Gamification of student peer review in education: A systematic literature review. Ed. and Info. Tech., Vol. 25 (2020), 5205--5234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020--10228-x

Digital Library

[19]

Michael S. Irwin and Stephen H. Edwards. 2019. Can Mobile Gaming Psychology Be Used to Improve Time Management on Programming Assignments?. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Global Computing Education (Chengdu, Sichuan, China) (CompEd '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 208--214. https://doi.org/10.1145/3300115.3309517

Digital Library

[20]

Ana Klock, Marcelo Pimenta, and Isabela Gasparini. 2018. A Systematic Mapping of the Customization of Game Elements in Gamified Systems. In Proceedings of SBGames 2018 (Foz do Iguacu, Brazil) (SBGames '18). 11--18.

[21]

Ana Carolina Tomé Klock, Isabela Gasparini, Marcelo Soares Pimenta, and Juho Hamari. 2020. Tailored gamification: A review of literature. Int. J. of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 144 (2020), 102495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102495

[22]

Juho Leinonen, Leo Lepp"anen, Petri Ihantola, and Arto Hellas. 2017. Comparison of Time Metrics in Programming. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (Tacoma, Washington, USA) (ICER '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 200--208. https://doi.org/10.1145/3105726.3106181

Digital Library

[23]

Leo Lepp"anen, Juho Leinonen, and Arto Hellas. 2016. Pauses and Spacing in Learning to Program. 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, 41--50. https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999549

[24]

Pascal Lessel, Maximilian Altmeyer, Marc Müller, Christian Wolff, and Antonio Krüger. 2017. Measuring the Effect of "Bottom-up" Gamification in a Microtask Setting. In Proceedings of the 21st International Academic Mindtrek Conference (Tampere, Finland) (AcademicMindtrek '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 63--72. https://doi.org/10.1145/3131085.3131086

Digital Library

[25]

Andrzej Marczewski. 2015. User Types. In Even Ninja Monkeys Like to Play: Gamification, Game Thinking and Motivational Design 1st ed.). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 165-- 177.

[26]

Gabriela Morales-Martinez, Paul Latreille, and Paul Denny. 2020. Nationality and Gender Biases in Multicultural Online Learning Environments: The Effects of Anonymity. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376283

Digital Library

[27]

Lennart Nacke, Chris Bateman, and Regan Mandryk. 2011. BrainHex: Preliminary Results from a Neurobiological Gamer Typology Survey, Vol. 6972. 288--293. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--642--24500--8_31

[28]

Lennart E. Nacke, Chris Bateman, and Regan L. Mandryk. 2014. BrainHex: A neurobiological gamer typology survey. Entertainment Computing, Vol. 5, 1 (2014), 55 -- 62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2013.06.002

[29]

Rita Orji, Julita Vassileva, and Regan L. Mandryk. 2014. Modeling the Efficacy of Persuasive Strategies for Different Gamer Types in Serious Games for Health. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, Vol. 24, 5 (Dec. 2014), 453--498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-014--9149--8

Digital Library

[30]

Siobhan O'Donovan, James Gain, and Patrick Marais. 2013. A Case Study in the Gamification of a University-Level Games Development Course. In Proceedings of the South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists Conference (East London, South Africa) (SAICSIT '13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 242--251. https://doi.org/10.1145/2513456.2513469

Digital Library

[31]

Richard Ryan and Edward Deci. 2000. Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. The American psychologist, Vol. 55 (2000), 68--78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

[32]

Gina Sprint and Erik Fox. 2020. Improving Student Study Choices in CS1 with Gamification and Flipped Classrooms. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Portland, OR, USA) (SIGCSE '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 773--779. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366888

Digital Library

[33]

Sarah-Kristin Thiel. 2016. Reward-Based vs. Social Gamification: Exploring Effectiveness of Gamefulness in Public Participation. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Gothenburg, Sweden) (NordiCHI '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 104, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2971485.2996739

Digital Library

[34]

Gustavo F. Tondello, Alberto Mora, Andrzej Marczewski, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2019. Empirical validation of the Gamification User Types Hexad scale in English and Spanish. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 127 (2019), 95 -- 111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.10.002

Digital Library

[35]

Gustavo F. Tondello and Lennart E. Nacke. 2020. Validation of User Preferences and Effects of Personalized Gamification on Task Performance. Frontiers in Computer Science, Vol. 2 (2020), 1--23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2020.00029

[36]

Gustavo F. Tondello, Rina R. Wehbe, Lisa Diamond, Marc Busch, Andrzej Marczewski, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2016. The Gamification User Types Hexad Scale. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (Austin, Texas, USA) (CHI PLAY '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 229--243. https://doi.org/10.1145/2967934.2968082

Digital Library

[37]

Janne Tuunanen and Juho Hamari. 2012. Meta-synthesis of player typologies. In DiGRA Nordic '12: Proceedings of 2012 International DiGRA Nordic Conference. http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/12168.40312.pdf

Cited By

de Carvalho Barros Bezerra GOliveira WGuimarães Santos AHamari J(2024)Exploring the Use of Unplugged Gamification on Programming Learners’ ExperienceACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/368616524:3(1-25)Online publication date: 27-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686165
Schubhan MAltmeyer MRogers KDegraen DLessel PKrüger A(2024)Auditory, Visual, or Both? Comparing Visual and Auditory Representations of Game Elements in a Gamified Image-Tagging TaskProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36770598:CHI PLAY(1-28)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3677059
Pessoa MLima MPires FHaydar GMelo RRodrigues LOliveira DOliveira EGalvão LGadelha BIsotani SGasparini IConte T(2024)A Journey to Identify Users' Classification Strategies to Customize Game-Based and Gamified Learning EnvironmentsIEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies10.1109/TLT.2023.331739617(527-541)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TLT.2023.3317396
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Exploring Personalization of Gamification in an Introductory Programming Course
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education

Recommendations

The Gamification User Types Hexad Scale
CHI PLAY '16: Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play

Several studies have indicated the need for personalizing gamified systems to users' personalities. However, mapping user personality onto design elements is difficult. Hexad is a gamification user types model that attempts this mapping but lacks a ...
Player Types and Game Element Preferences: Investigating the Relationship with the Gamification User Types HEXAD Scale
HCI in Games: Experience Design and Game Mechanics
Abstract
Gamification has gained scientific attention as a motivational tool for behavior change in various contexts. When designing gamification, several scholars emphasize the importance of tailoring content to the needs of different users, e.g. by using ...
Personalizing Persuasive Strategies in Gameful Systems to Gamification User Types
CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Persuasive gameful systems are effective tools for motivating behaviour change. Research has shown that tailoring these systems to individuals can increase their efficacy; however, there is little knowledge on how to personalize them. We conducted a ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

SIGCSE '21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

March 2021

1454 pages

ISBN:9781450380621

DOI:10.1145/3408877

General Chairs:
Mark Sherriff
University of Virginia, USA
,
Laurence D. Merkle
Air Force Institute of Technology, USA
,
Program Chairs:
Pamela Cutter
Kalamazoo College, USA
,
Alvaro Monge
California State University, Long Beach, USA
,
Judithe Sheard
Monash University, Australia

Copyright © 2021 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].

Sponsors

SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 05 March 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

SIGCSE '21

Sponsor:

SIGCSE

SIGCSE '21: The 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

March 13 - 20, 2021

Virtual Event, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,595 of 4,542 submissions, 35%

Upcoming Conference

SIGCSE Virtual 2024

Sponsor:
sigcse

1st ACM Virtual Global Computing Education Conference

December 5 - 8, 2024

Virtual Event , NC , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

13
Total Citations
View Citations
493
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)87
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

Reflects downloads up to 06 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

de Carvalho Barros Bezerra GOliveira WGuimarães Santos AHamari J(2024)Exploring the Use of Unplugged Gamification on Programming Learners’ ExperienceACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/368616524:3(1-25)Online publication date: 27-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686165
Schubhan MAltmeyer MRogers KDegraen DLessel PKrüger A(2024)Auditory, Visual, or Both? Comparing Visual and Auditory Representations of Game Elements in a Gamified Image-Tagging TaskProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36770598:CHI PLAY(1-28)Online publication date: 15-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3677059
Pessoa MLima MPires FHaydar GMelo RRodrigues LOliveira DOliveira EGalvão LGadelha BIsotani SGasparini IConte T(2024)A Journey to Identify Users' Classification Strategies to Customize Game-Based and Gamified Learning EnvironmentsIEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies10.1109/TLT.2023.331739617(527-541)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TLT.2023.3317396
Xiao YHew K(2024)Personalised gamification enhances student participation but produces mixed effects on emotional and cognitive engagements: a systematic reviewInteractive Learning Environments10.1080/10494820.2023.2299977(1-27)Online publication date: 2-Jan-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2299977
Lepe-Salazar FCortés-Álvarez T(2024)Towards an effective methodology for the integral gamification of classesMultimedia Tools and Applications10.1007/s11042-024-19846-wOnline publication date: 18-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-024-19846-w
Karnalim OSimon Chivers W(2023)Gamification to Help Inform Students About Programming Plagiarism and CollusionIEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies10.1109/TLT.2023.324389316:5(708-721)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TLT.2023.3243893
Karnalim OSimon Chivers W(2023)Non-game Incentives in Gamified Programming Education: More Marks or PrizesLearning in the Age of Digital and Green Transition10.1007/978-3-031-26876-2_86(910-920)Online publication date: 22-Mar-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26876-2_86
Andrianova EDemidova LSovetov P(2022)Pedagogical design of a digital teaching assistant in massive professional training for the digital economyRussian Technological Journal10.32362/2500-316X-2022-10-3-7-2310:3(7-23)Online publication date: 8-Jun-2022
https://doi.org/10.32362/2500-316X-2022-10-3-7-23
George GLal A(2022)Hy-MOMCybernetics and Information Technologies10.2478/cait-2022-000922:1(134-150)Online publication date: 10-Apr-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.2478/cait-2022-0009
Maryono DBudiyono Sajidan Akhyar M(2022)Implementation of Gamification in Programming Learning: Literature ReviewInternational Journal of Information and Education Technology10.18178/ijiet.2022.12.12.177112:12(1448-1457)Online publication date: 2022
https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2022.12.12.1771
Show More Cited By

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.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents