Advertisement

Using Ontology and Gamification to Improve Students’ Participation and Motivation in CSCL

  • Geiser Chalco ChallcoEmail author
  • Riichiro Mizoguchi
  • Seiji Isotani
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 832)

Abstract

During Collaborative Learning (CL), scripted collaboration may cause a motivation problem which makes the students to dislike and drop out the group activities over time. In order to cope with such a problem, we proposed the use of gamification as a technology to increase the students’ motivation and engagement in CL scenarios. As consequence of increasing the motivation of students, we assume a reduction in the desistance of CL activities when the scripted collaboration is gamified. However, gamification is a complex task that requires knowledge about game elements (such as leaderboards and point systems), game design (e.g. how to combine game elements) and their impact on motivation and learning. To address these issues, we have developed an ontology that aims to give structured guidance on how to gamify CL scenarios. In the study presented here, we focused on describing the ontology and how it is used to gamify CL scenarios. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach to deal with the motivation problem through an empirical study in which the students enrolled in the introduction to computer Science course at the university of São Paulo participated in either non-gamified CL sessions or ontology-based gamified CL sessions. Significant differences were found in the students’ intrinsic motivation and the percentage of students by groups who had incomplete participation in the CL session. The students who participated in ontology-based gamified sessions reported to be more intrinsic motivated than the students who participated in non-gamified CL sessions, and the percentage of students by groups who had incomplete participation was significantly less in ontology-based gamified sessions than in non-gamified CL sessions. These results indicate that our approach can be used to deal with the motivational problem caused by the scripted collaboration. They also validate the assumption that the gamification of CL scenarios can be used to reduce the desistance of students in CL activities when CSCL scripts are used as a method to orchestrate and structure collaboration.

Keywords

Gamification Ontology Motivation Collaboration scripts CSCL 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partially funded by CNPq, CAPES and FAPESP.

References

  1. 1.
    Andrade, F., et al.: QPJ-BR: Questionário para Identificação de Perfis de Jogadores para o Português-Brasileiro. In: XXVII Brazilian Symposium on Computers in Education, Maceio, Brazil, pp. 637–646 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bleumers, L., et al.: State of play of digital games for empowerment and inclusion: a review of the literature and empirical cases. Eur. Com. 10, 36295 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Briand, L., et al.: On the application of measurement theory in software engineering. Empir. Softw. Eng. 1(1), 61–88 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Challco, G.C., Moreira, D.A., Mizoguchi, R., Isotani, S.: An ontology engineering approach to gamify collaborative learning scenarios. In: Baloian, N., Burstein, F., Ogata, H., Santoro, F., Zurita, G. (eds.) CRIWG 2014. LNCS, vol. 8658, pp. 185–198. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10166-8_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Collins, A.: Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In: Educational Values and Cognitive Instruction: Implications for Reform, pp. 121–138 (1991)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deterding, S., et al.: From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, pp. 9–15. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dillenbourg, P.: Over-scripting CSCL: the risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In: Kirschner, P.A. (ed.) Three Worlds of CSCL. Can We Support CSCL? pp. 61–91. Open Universiteit Nederland, Nederland (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feidakis, M., et al.: Providing emotion awareness and affective feedback to virtualised collaborative learning scenarios. Int. J. Contin. Eng. Educ. Life Long Learn. 24(2), 141–167 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gagné, M., Deci, E.L.: Self-determination theory and work motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 26(4), 331–362 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guadagnoli, E., Velicer, W.F.: Relation to sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychol. Bull. 103(2), 265–275 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Inaba, A., et al.: An interaction analysis support system for CSCL: an ontological approach to support instructional design process. In: 2002 Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education, vol. 1, pp. 358–362 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Inaba, A., et al.: What learning patterns are effective for a learner’s growth. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Sydney, pp. 219–226 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Isotani, S., Mizoguchi, R., Isotani, S., Capeli, O.M., Isotani, N., de Albuquerque, A.R.P.L.: An authoring tool to support the design and use of theory-based collaborative learning activities. In: Aleven, V., Kay, J., Mostow, J. (eds.) ITS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6095, pp. 92–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13437-1_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Isotani, S., et al.: An ontology engineering approach to the realization of theory-driven group formation. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 4(4), 445–478 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Järvelä, S., et al.: Research on motivation in collaborative learning: moving beyond the cognitive-situative divide and combining individual and social processes. Educ. Psychol. 45(1), 15–27 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Järvelä, S., et al.: Self-regulation and motivation in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. In: Learning Across Sites: New Tools, Infrastructures and Practices, pp. 330–345 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kapp, K.M.: The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education. Pfeiffer, San Francisco (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    King, A.: Scripting collaborative learning processes: a cognitive perspective. In: Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., Haake, J.M. (eds.) Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. CULS, vol. 6, pp. 13–37. Springer, Boston (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-36949-5_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Knutas, A., et al.: Increasing collaborative communications in a programming course with gamification: a case study. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies, pp. 370–377. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kong, J.S.-L., et al.: The effects of peer intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on MMOG game-based collaborative learning. Inf. Manag. 49(1), 1–9 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McAuley, E., et al.: Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 60(1), 48–58 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McKnight, P.E., Najab, J.: Mann-Whitney U test. In: Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. Wiley (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mizoguchi, R., et al.: The model of roles within an ontology development tool: Hozo. Appl. Ontol. Roles Interdisc. Perspect. 2(2), 159–179 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Orji, R., et al.: Modeling the efficacy of persuasive strategies for different gamer types in serious games for health. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 24(5), 453–498 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pink, D.H.: Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. Riverhead Books, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prieto, L.P., et al.: Exploring teachers’ perceptions on different CSCL script editing tools. Comput. Educ. 78(Supplement C), 383–396 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rienties, B., et al.: The role of academic motivation in computer-supported collaborative learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 25(6), 1195–1206 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Seaborn, K., Fels, D.I.: Gamification in theory and action: a survey. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 74, 14–31 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    de Sousa Borges, S., et al.: A systematic mapping on gamification applied to education. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 216–222. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Torning, K.: A review of four persuasive design models. Int. J. Concept. Struct. Smart Appl. 1(2), 17–27 (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Webb, E.N.: Gamification: when it works, when it doesn’t. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2013. LNCS, vol. 8013, pp. 608–614. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39241-2_67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yee, N.: Motivations for play in online games. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 9(6), 772–775 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zichermann, G.: Fun is the future: mastering gamification (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ICMCUniversity of São PauloSão CarlosBrazil
  2. 2.Japan Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyNomiJapan

Personalised recommendations