Introduction
Theoretical background
Knowledge communities
Newcomer integration in knowledge communities
-
Recruitment strategies comprise advertising and offering general information about the community, including the ways to get in contact with it, in order to attract newcomers.
-
Offering opportunities for participation opens the entrance of a community and supports the newcomers to participate according to their wishes and aptitudes.
-
Accessibility of community knowledge enables individual participation at all levels, from the peripheral to the central participation, and may complement recruitment strategies.
-
Positive welcoming strategies accompany a newcomers’ first contact with the community. They are meant to foster newcomers’ gratitude towards the community and their interest to acquire specific community knowledge.
-
Negative welcoming strategies are initiations confronting newcomers with their own shortcomings, which aim to show them the need to attain a higher level of knowledge and skills to become full community members.
-
Sponsoring newcomers consists of an existing member bringing new members into the community, serving as a contact person, taking care of him/her, and taking the responsibility for his/her behavior in the community.
-
Encapsulating newcomers means encouraging them to spend time dedicated to the community and in separation from potentially distracting influences.
-
Modeling may be performed by senior community members who want to offer role models, i.e., to show newcomers how to behave according to community norms.
-
Consistent training may keep the learning process of newcomers constant, in line with a shared idea about the prerequisites and right behavior of newcomers.
-
Monitoring newcomer behavior supposes constant observation against the background of established community rules and standards.
-
Knowledge assessment complements monitoring by judging newcomers’ knowledge about the community and its practice.
Towards MMORPG communities as smart learning environments
Research questions and methodology
Setting
Participants
Data collection instruments
-
the Recruitment strategies scale (e.g., “To enter our guild, new players must be selected”)
-
the Knowledge Assessment scale (e.g., “New members are put to trial with respect to their game skills”)
-
the Negative Welcoming strategies scale (e.g., “New members must successfully complete a difficult ritual in order to enter our guild”)
-
the Modeling scale (e.g., “I often act as an example to new players”);
-
the Consistent Training scale (e.g., “Periodical training and performance exercises are indispensable for guild success”)
Scale | Items | Cronbach’s α |
---|---|---|
Recruitment | My guild actively searches for new members. | 0.71 |
We involve new members only after a ritual that is well known and practiced in our guild. | ||
To enter our guild, new players must be selected. | ||
I require new players to perform successfully before they get integrated into the guild. | ||
Knowledge assessment | I expect a performance boost from new players. | 0.86 |
I expect other players to keep up with the necessary background knowledge. | ||
New members are put to trial with respect to their game skills. | ||
I observe new players’ knowledge and skill acquisition. | ||
Negative welcoming | New members must successfully complete a difficult ritual in order to enter our guild. | 0.77 |
Experienced guild members are skeptical about new members. | ||
Players who do not fit the guild are rejected on the spot. | ||
New players often receive harsh treatment and stinging rebukes. | ||
In conflict situations, new players have fewer rights than older ones. | ||
Modeling | I often act as an example to new players. | 0.70 |
In the presence of new players, I strictly observe the guild rules. | ||
My behavior is meant to show new players how to properly interact with each other. | ||
In our guild, appropriate behavior is being explained and demonstrated to new players. | ||
Consistent Training | Increasing performance in the guild is most important to me. | 0.72 |
Proper attendance of other guild members to guild events is important to me. | ||
Periodical training and performance exercises are indispensable for guild success. | ||
Agreements within the guild are absolutely necessary. |
-
the Monitoring scale (e.g., “I always look very carefully at new players before I play together with them”)
-
the Integration Strategy Evaluation scale (e.g., “I am satisfied with the way my players’ community recruits new members”)
-
and the Self-Evaluation of Player Competence scale (e.g., “I am one of the best players in our community”)
-
Centrality
-
Recruitment Evaluation
-
Monitoring
-
Evaluation of Newcomer Integration
Centrality | Recruitment evaluation | Monitoring | Evaluation of newcomer integration | Cronbach’s α | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
I actively take on certain tasks during the game, because I am the most qualified person to do it. |
0.879
| 0.068 | 0.177 | −0.068 | 0.87 |
I can and I like to help others, because I am a good player. |
0.848
| −0.124 | −0.022 | 0.210 | – |
I participate a lot in our players’ community life. |
0.816
| 0.179 | 0.115 | 0.176 | – |
I like to collaborate with new players and to guide them. |
0.774
| 0.108 | 0.141 | 0.335 | – |
I am satisfied with the way my players’ community recruits new members. | 0.077 |
0.911
| 0.046 | 0.090 | 0.76 |
I believe that my community could be more creative when recruiting new members. | 0.060 |
0.869
| −0.081 | −0.225 | – |
To enter our players’ community, new members must be selected. | 0.087 | −0.111 |
0.901
| 0.153 | 0.77 |
Before I invite somebody to my players’ community, s/he must prove him/herself. | 0.169 | 0.077 |
0.881
| −0.078 | – |
New players can become community members in a short time. | 0.132 | −0.041 | −0.001 |
0.931
| 0.85 |
The way new members are integrated into the community is appropriate. | 0.265 | −0.088 | 0.071 |
0.863
| – |
Data collection
Findings
-
Study 1—RQ1 Perceptions of Newcomer Integration Strategies.The results comprised values that covered the entire scale range without floor or ceiling effects. These were high values of sense of community, moderate values of consistent training, modeling and monitoring strategies; and low values of negative welcoming strategies, as displayed in Table 3.Table 3Descriptive values of the measured scales (Study 1)Newcomer integration strategiesMin.Max.MSDRecruitment evaluation1.007.003.161.69Knowledge assessment1.007.003.411.62Negative welcoming1.007.002.141.09Modeling1.007.004.731.10Consistent training3.007.005.730.98Sense of community (social)3.207.006.020.87
-
Male players perceived some integration strategies more strongly than female players (Table 4), which was true for Monitoring (male: M = 3.55, SD = 1.64; female: M = 2.64, SD = 1.16; F(1, 119) = 4.534, p < .05); Negative Welcoming strategies (male: M = 2.23, SD = 1.14; female M = 1.64, SD = .55; F(1, 120) = 4.083, p = .05, marginally significant); Recruitment strategies (male: M = 3.28, SD = 1.74; female: M = 2.40, SD = 1.06; F(1, 120) = 3.904, p = .05, marginally significant); Consistent Training (male: M = 5.80, SD = .95; female: M = 5.31, SD = 1.07; F(1, 120) = 3.574, p = .06, marginally significant). There were no significant gender differences in Modeling or in the both components of the Sense of Community scale. Participants’ age was weakly and negatively correlated with Monitoring (r = −.28, p < .01), Recruitment (r = −.23, p < .05) and Consistent Training (r = -.19, p < .05).Table 4Gender differences in the measured scales (Study 1)ANOVAMSDdfFpRecruitment evaluationMale3.281.7413.9040.050Female2.401.06120Knowledge assessmentMale3.551.6414.5340.046Female2.641.16119Negative welcomingMale2.231.1414.0830.046Female1.640.55120ModelingMale4.731.101n.s.Female4.771.14120Consistent trainingMale5.800.9513.5740.061Female5.311.07120Sense of community (social)Male5.980.881n.s.Female6.270.72119
-
Study 1—RQ2 Correlates of Newcomer Integration Strategies.No significant correlations between perceived integration strategies and any component of Sense of Community could be detected. Community exposure was weakly and negatively correlated with Consistent Training (r =−0.21, p < .05) and Sense of Community (learning component; r =−0.19, p < .05).
-
Study 2—RQ1 Perceptions of Newcomer Integration Strategies.The measured variables were moderate to high, again covering the entire scale range without floor or ceiling effects. The highest values were measured on the Sense of Community (social component) and Evaluation of Integration Strategies scales; the lowest on the Monitoring and Recruiting Strategy scales. The minimal, maximal, average values and standard deviations of the measured scales are provided in Table 5.Table 5Descriptive values of the measured scales (Study 2)Newcomer integration strategiesMin.Max.MSDCentrality1.507.005.251.22Recruitment evaluation1.507.005.031.29Monitoring strategies1.007.004.091.66Evaluation of integration strategies2.007.005.561.05Sense of community (social)2.407.005.780.78
-
Similar to Study 1, males perceived two newcomer integration strategies stronger than females: Monitoring Strategies (z values male: M = 0.14, SD = 0.99; female: M =−0.56, SD = 0.84; F(1, 151) = 12.777, p = 0.000), and Recruitment Evaluation strategies (z values male: M = 0.08, SD = 1.02; female: M =−0.27, SD = 0.80; F(1, 151) = 4.228, p = 0.041). No significant gender differences were found in terms of Centrality, Evaluation of Integration Strategies, and Sense of Community (Table 6).Table 6Gender differences in the measured scales (Study 2; all z values)ANOVAMSDdfFpCentralityMale0.071.04n.s.Female−0.270.80Recruitment evaluationMale0.081.0214.2280.041Female−0.330.86151Monitoring strategiesMale0.140.99112.7770.000Female−0.560.84151Evaluation of integration strategiesMale−0.021.03n.s.Female0.090.89Sense of community (social)Male0.021.08n.s.Female−0.080.58
-
Participants’ age was weakly and negatively correlated with their Sense of Community (social component; r =−0.27, p = 0.001), Centrality (r =−0.27, p = 0.001), and Monitoring strategies (r =−0.16, p = 0.046).
-
Study 2—RQ2 Correlates of Newcomer Integration Strategies.Several weak to moderate, positive correlations were found between the measured variables (Table 7). Participants’ Centrality correlated with the perception of newcomer integration strategies, in particular with the Evaluation of Integration Strategies (r = 0.39, p < 0.000) and with Monitoring strategies (r = 0.26, p < 0.01). Sense of Community (social component) correlated with the Evaluation of Integration Strategies (r = 0.46, p < 0.000), Centrality (r = 0.45, p < 0.000) and Monitoring strategies (r = 0.28, p < 0.000). Community Exposure Time was positively correlated with Monitoring strategies (r = 0.38, p < 0.01), Centrality (r = 0.35, p < 0.01) and Evaluation of Integration Strategies (r = 0.31, p < 0.01).Table 7Correlations between the measured variables (Study 2; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.000)1234561. Centrality2. Recruitment evaluation0.113. Monitoring0.26**−0.034. Evaluation of integration strategies0.39***−0.130.115. Sense of community (social)0.45***0.120.28***0.46***6. Age−0.27**−0.07−0.16*−0.11−0.27**7. Community exposure time0.35**−0.10.38**0.31**0.39**−0.09