Advertisement

A Study on Gamification for Higher Education Students’ Engagement Towards Education 4.0

  • Rafidah Ab Rahman
  • Sabrina AhmadEmail author
  • Ummi Rabaah Hashim
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 67)

Abstract

An evolution of teaching and learning experience in higher education witnesses many techniques being introduced towards student-centered learning. One of the most popular techniques is game-based learning or known as gamification to enrich students experience in classroom. However, the awareness among educators is lacking and the anxiety whether gamification benefits the learning process is prominent. This paper is written to provide an insight into gamification and its ability to instill students’ engagement. The questionnaire set and model to evaluate the students’ engagement following gamification during teaching and learning process are also studied and presented. Literature review method is used to investigate the relevant subjects related to the gamification for higher education and ways to evaluate its effectiveness. This study showed that there exist several studies on students’ engagement and gamification which are deemed useful to promote students’ engagement. Besides, the study discovered that improved Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is a good measure to investigate its effectiveness.

Keywords

Gamification Students’ engagement Higher education 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The publication of this paper is sponsored by Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka through a research grant numbered PJP/2017/FTMK-CACT/S01573.

References

  1. 1.
    Eltegani N, Butgereit L (2016) Attributes of students engagement in fundamental programming learning. In: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (ed) 2015 international conference on computing, control, networking, electronics and embedded systems engineering (ICCNEEE 2015). Red Hook, NY, Curran Associates, Inc., Khartoum, Sudan, 7–9 September 2015, pp 101–106Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Handelsman MM, Briggs WL, Sullivan N, Towler A (2005) A measure of college student course engagement. J Educ Res 98:184–192.  https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mohd IH, Aluwi AH, Hussein N, Omar MK (2016) Enhancing students engagement through blended learning satisfaction and lecturer support. In: Engineers Institute of Electrical and Electronics (IEEE) (ed) 2016 IEEE 8th international conference on engineering education (ICEED2016): “Enhancing engineering education through academia-industry collaboration.” Red Hook, NY, Curran Associates, Inc., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 7–8 December 2016, pp 175–180Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hanus MD, Fox J (2015) Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: a longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Comput Educ 80:152–161.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sanmugam M, Zaid NM, Abdullah Z, et al (2016) The impacts of infusing game elements and gamification in learning. In: 2016 IEEE 8th international conference on engineering education (ICEED), pp 131–136Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dixson MD (2015) Measuring Student Engagement in the online course : the online student engagement scale (OSE). Online Learn J 19Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marx AA, Simonsen JC, Kitchel T (2016) Undergraduate student course engagement and the influence of student, contextual, and teacher variables. J Agric Educ 57:212–228.  https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2016.01212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hu M, Li H, Deng W, Guan H (2016) Student engagement: one of the necessary conditions for online learning. In: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (ed) 2016 international conference on educational innovation through technology (EITT). Red Hook, NY, Curran Associates, Inc., Tainan, Taiwan, 22–24 September 2016, pp 122–126Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuo MS, Chuang TY (2016) How gamification motivates visits and engagement for online academic dissemination—an empirical study. Comput Human Behav 55:16–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamari J (2015) Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on the effects of gamification. Comput Human Behav 71:469–478.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barata G, Gama S, Gonçalves D, Jorge J (2013) Improving participation and learning with gamification. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on gameful design, research, and applications—gamification 2013. New York, ACM, Stratford, Ontario, Canada, 2–4 October 2013, pp 10–17Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang AI (2015) The wear out effect of a game-based student response system. Comput Educ 82:217–227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sawang S, O’Connor P, Ali M (2017) IEngage: using technology to enhance students’ engagement in a large classroom. J Learn Des 10:11–19.  https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v9i3.292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang AI, Lieberoth A (2016) The effect of points and audio on concentration, engagement, enjoyment, learning, motivation, and classroom dynamics using Kahoot! In: Connolly T, Boyle L (eds) Proceedings From the 10th European conference of game based learning. Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited, Paisley, UK, 6–7 October 2016, pp 737–748Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chaiyo Y, Nokham R (2017) The effect of Kahoot, Quizizz and Google Forms on the student’s perception in the classrooms response system pp 178–182Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pilakowski M (2015) Comparing student-response systems. http://technologypursuit.edublogs.org/2015/11/25/comparing-student-response-systems/. Accessed 28 May 2017
  17. 17.
    Davis F, Bagozzi R, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci 35:982–1003.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Legris P, Ingham J, Collerette P (2003) Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inf Manag 40:191–204.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13:319–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fathema N, Shannon D, Ross M (2015) Expanding the technology acceptance model (TAM) to examine faculty use of learning management systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. MERLOT J Online Learn Teach 11:210–232Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hussain A, Mkpojiogu EOC, Yusof MM (2016) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived enjoyment as drivers for the user acceptance of interactive mobile maps. In: Abdul Nifa FA, Mohd Nawi MN, Hussain A (eds) Proceedings of the international conference on applied science and technology 2016 (ICAST’16). AIP Publishing, Kedah, Malaysia, 11–13 April 2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafidah Ab Rahman
    • 1
  • Sabrina Ahmad
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ummi Rabaah Hashim
    • 2
  1. 1.Politeknik Muadzam ShahMuadzam ShahMalaysia
  2. 2.Faculty of Information and Communication TechnologyUniversiti Teknikal Malaysia MelakaDurian TunggalMalaysia

Personalised recommendations