1 Introduction
2 Related works
2.1 Gamification in software engineering
2.2 Gamification in software modeling
3 Our gamification approach for PapyGame
3.1 Gamification dimensions in modeling
3.2 Learner–modeling environment interaction scheme
3.3 Selected gamification elements
Category | Performance | Fictional | Personal | Social |
---|---|---|---|---|
Acknowledgement | Narrative | Objective | Competition | |
Elements | Level | Reputation | ||
Point | ||||
Progression |
4 Conceptual architecture
4.1 Framework stakeholders and related concerns
4.2 Data structures
4.3 Architecture components
4.3.1 Software modeling environment
4.3.2 Game dashboard and login
4.3.3 Gamification design framework and gamification engine
4.3.4 Game master
4.3.5 Model quality assessor
4.4 Simple scenario
5 PapyGame
5.1 Server side: the gamification engine
5.1.1 Player profile manager
5.1.2 Series definition and series manager
5.1.3 Model quality assessor
[tv] age
automatically triggers the check for exact matching of the type and visibility of the attribute age between the source diagram from the Gamification Expert and the submission of the player. This matching is made locally in the embedded code of the modeling tool.
5.2 Client side: bringing games into Papyrus
5.2.1 The PapyGame plugin
5.2.2 The game object
5.2.3 The game master
5.3 Available games
6 Evaluation
6.1 PapyGame preliminary evaluation
6.1.1 Rationale
Dimension | Item |
---|---|
Attractiveness | I find this software enjoyable |
I find this software annoying | |
Efficacy | I think this software has slowed down my learning |
I find this software efficient | |
Usability | I find this software complicated |
I think this software is easy to learn | |
Motivation | I enjoy learning modeling |
I find this program stimulating | |
Engagement | I put enough effort into learning modeling |
I didn’t try very hard to do well in the tasks | |
Learning perception | I am able to use the skills learned in this course outside of class |
I feel more self-reliant as the result of the content learned in this course |
6.1.2 Participants and procedure
6.1.3 Questionnaire results
Item | Mean | SD |
---|---|---|
I find this software enjoyable | 3.429 | 1.284 |
I am able to use the skills learned in this course outside of class | 4.143 | 0.663 |
I enjoy learning modeling | 3.143 | 1.292 |
I find this software stimulating | 3.357 | 1.008 |
I think this software is easy to learn | 3.071 | 1.072 |
I feel more self-reliant as the result of the content learned in this course | 3.429 | 0.646 |
I find this software efficient | 3.929 | 0.997 |
I put enough effort into learning modeling | 3.571 | 1.158 |
I find this software complicated | 3.214 | 0.975 |
I find this software annoying | 2.643 | 1.336 |
I didn’t try very hard to do well in the tasks | 2.929 | 1.072 |
I think this software has slowed down my learning | 2.071 | 0.997 |
6.2 PapyGame overall evaluation
6.2.1 Rationale
6.2.2 Participants and procedure
6.2.3 MEEGA360 overall quality score
6.3 Analyses discussion
7 Discussions
-
definition of the learning paths;
-
specification of the single learning exercises;
-
definition of the checks/evaluation procedures and possible feedback;
-
specification of the motivational elements and the respective game rules, e.g., how to assign points, bonuses, awards, and progress with levels.
-
Adaptive and personalized feedback Feedback plays a crucial role in students learning. The lack of feedback is one of the determining factors of student’s dropout [58]. The report of students’ work is considered a key element for quality in teaching [59]. In traditional educational settings, teachers provide feedback to students regarding their strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately, this feedback process is more complicated than expected. According to [59], students have different perspectives on feedback processes, making it difficult to provide accurate feedback on performance in traditional classrooms. According to [58], in e-learning and gamification, it is possible to design tailored feedback that fits individual preferences. Therefore, future research activities should target personalized and adaptive feedback to provide adequate reports on students’ work, enhancing students’ performance and engagement levels.
-
Uncertain evaluation of modeling game tasks In other gamification environments, validating that the user has accomplished a task is rather straightforward (e.g., imagine exercises to learn basic math operations). This is not the case for PapyGame where the task will involve the creation of modeling artefact. A pure syntactic comparison between that model and a sample solution is too restrictive as it would qualify as mistakes many models that would be semantically equivalent to the sample solution. A more precise evaluation could rely on a number of complementary techniques:
-
The characterization of the desired solution as a set of OCL constraints that any valid model should satisfy. There is a clear trade-off between the number of precision of the constraints and the degree of freedom of the models that satisfy them.
-
The use of clustering algorithms that aim to efficiently classify models in buckets based on a certain notion of structural similarity [60].
-
The combination of all of the above produces an uncertain correctness measure that should then be manually confirmed by the instructor (but that would at least automatically filter out those under a certain threshold).
-
-
Repository of modeling games the design quality of the games is a critical element of the success of any gamification strategy. As such, we plan to start a public repository where educators and other professionals can upload and share the games they have used and the lessons learned from applying them in a teaching context. A specialized infrastructure for managing game models, e.g., inspired by [61], may be proposed, especially if game designs come with accompanying artifacts like sample models.
-
Personalized and cooperative learning Gamification principles have proven to be very effective in motivating target users in keeping their engagement within everyday challenges, including dedication to education, use of public transportation, adoption of healthy habits, and so forth. School closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic and thus the sudden change in the management of the students’ educational pathways have uncovered the need for methods and digital systems able to support teachers in defining educational content and objectives for their classrooms and to keep students engaged in their training paths.Future investigations should be devoted to approaches, techniques, and tools to design and release cooperative learning paths. According to [62], the perception to be in a community plays a key role in the educational setting. The use of cooperative learning can be useful to bring out this sense of community, making gamification more effective despite individual differences, and including marginalized students. Our intention is to insert exercises carried out in groups and later competitions between classes.These approaches are expected to leverage AI techniques for adaptive gamification to support teachers in the process of defining and monitoring dedicated learning paths for their students. By generating dedicated learning paths and personalized feedback, these solutions are expected to facilitate learning, to encourage motivation and engagement, to improve students’ participation and cooperation, and to stimulate students to expand their knowledge.
-
Intelligent game adaptation PapyGame allows the definition of games as sequences of mini-games. Our intention is to extend it with a more flexible scenario where this predefined sequence can be altered at runtime based on the monitoring of the personalized student learning process.This is especially useful in a multi-player scenario where we will have available monitoring data to make smarter decisions and reconduct (or at least suggest changes) the gamification based on the players’ behavior and results.
-
Desktop vs web-based client using a “ heavy client” is not ideal in the case of academic learning. The installation of the software, of our PapyGame plugin, of the hardware and software compatibility (JVM) complicates the implementation of the gamification experience within the university courses (change of rooms, change of the place of the users of machines). We think that a web-based version of PapyGame could be more effective and solve many of the problems we encountered during the setup of our experiments with students.