Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TTK44
TTK44
TTK44
ABSTRACT
In higher education, the teaching and learning process has evolved, and numerous
strategies have been created to support student-centered learning. Gamification, often
known as game-based learning, is one of the most widely used strategies to improve
students' classroom experiences. However, there is a dearth of understanding among
educators, and there is a lot of concern about whether gamification improves the learning
process and student’s engagement. Therefore, in order to clearly understand that the
application of gamification in education can help instill students’ engagement, the
authors have conducted a study on the topic “The factors affecting UEH students’
engagement in learning when applying gamification in education”. From there,
understand those causes and suggest remedial measures to the university to bring
maximum quality for the course in the next semester.
The topic is based on the theoretical bases given by the authors with key
influencing factors such as Perceived Usefulness and Attitude, Perceived Ease of Use,
Skill Engagement and Interaction Engagement. With the data obtained from a sample
of 180 students from courses 44, 45, 46 and of UEH University, the research results
showed that Perceived Usefulness and Attitude, Skill Engagement, and Interaction
Engagement are strongly correlated with students' engagement. The remaining factors
are not considered to have a significant impact on students' engagement. Based on that
result, our research team has proposed some measures to improve the quality of the
course applied gamification to enhance the engagement of students from all over the
country.
II
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Reason (Problem Statement)
Higher education in Vietnam is undergoing a tremendous shift, with content,
teaching techniques, and learning methods all changing. Information technology has
significantly impacted all aspects of life in the industrial age 4.0. Education has
progressed due to advances in current computer and network technologies (L. Li, 2014).
Using information technology in the classroom to improve the quality and effectiveness
of teaching and learning is inevitable. In which the application of Gamification in
education is increasingly popular as game culture spreads among a large percentage of
the world's population.
With the growing attention surrounding the use of video game elements in non-
game contexts, Gamification has been defined as the use of game-based mechanics,
aesthetics, and introspection of games to engage people, drive action, promote learning,
and solve problems” (Kapp, 2013, p. 125). Pedagogical application of Gamification to
promote learning with digital game mechanics, including but not limited to avatars,
badges, points, levels, leaderboards, and virtual rewards.
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................I
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. II
1.1. Reason (Problem Statement)................................................................................ II
1.2. Aim of research ...................................................................................................III
1.3. Research question: ..............................................................................................III
1.4. Research sample and scope:............................................................................... IV
1.4.1. Research sample: ......................................................................................... IV
1.4.2. Research scope: ........................................................................................... IV
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... V
List of Figures ........................................................................................................... VIII
List of Acronyms .......................................................................................................... IX
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. X
CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL BASIS ........................................................................ 1
2.1. Related research ....................................................................................................1
2.2. Literature ...............................................................................................................3
2.2.1. Gamification ...................................................................................................3
2.2.2. Gamification and learning ..............................................................................5
2.2.3. Students’ engagement .....................................................................................6
2.3. Hypothesis.............................................................................................................7
2.4. Proposed research model ....................................................................................11
CHAPTER III: THE METHODOLOGY ..................................................................... 12
3.1. Research methods of the topic ............................................................................12
3.1.1. Methods of analysis and synthesis ...............................................................12
3.1.2. The method of data collection ......................................................................12
3.2. Research process .................................................................................................12
3.3. Quantitative research ..........................................................................................13
3.3.1. Research subject ...........................................................................................13
3.3.2. Sample size ...................................................................................................13
3.3.3. Choose a research sample .............................................................................14
3.3.4. Data collection method .................................................................................14
3.4. Data analysis method ..........................................................................................14
VI
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 45
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. 49
Appendix 1: The content of the survey ......................................................................49
Appendix 2: Result of Cronbach Alpha .....................................................................55
Appendix 3: Result of EFA........................................................................................57
Appendix 4: Result of Pearson Correlation and Regression Analysis .......................60
VIII
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Proposed research model 11
Figure 3.1: Research process 13
Figure 4.1. Batch of students 17
Figure 4.2. UEH students’ major 18
Figure 4.3. The application of gamification in class 19
Figure 4.4. Percentage of class applying gamification 20
Figure 4.5. Games used in class 21
Figure 4.6. Normalized Residual Frequency chart Histogram 38
Figure 4.7. Normalized Residual Frequency chart Normal P-P Plot 39
Figure 4.8. Normalized Residual Frequency chart Scatterplot 40
IX
List of Acronyms
SE Students' Engagement
PUA Perceived Usefulness and Attitude
PEU Perceived Ease of Use
S Skill Engagement
IE Interaction Engagement
X
List of Tables
2.2. Literature
2.2.1. Gamification
The term “Gamification'' has attracted considerable attention in recent years
(McGonigal 2011). The term is first thought to have been used by computer scientist
Nick Pelling in 2002 appearing on his company’s website in late 2002 or early 2003
(Pelling 2011). Since it has been increasingly deployed in literature but became
4
widespread only in the latter half of 2010 (Deterding et al. 2011). It primarily refers to
an approach to enhancing people’s experience of a service or system through
incorporating game-like experiences into the service or practice. Though Deterding et
al. (2011) note there has not been much attention paid to a coherent definition of
Gamification, a number of attempts have been made. Marczewski (2012, 4) contends
that it consists of ‘The application of gaming metaphors to real-life tasks to influence
behavior, improve motivation and enhance engagement’. Huotari and Hamari (2011, 3)
go further and proffer that Gamification may be defined as ‘a form of service packaging
where a core service is enhanced by a rules-based service system that provides feedback
and interaction mechanisms to the user with an aim to facilitate and support the user’s
overall value creation. Deterding et al. (2011, 1) note that Gamification is ‘the use of
game design elements in non-game contexts. Kapp (2012, 10) defines it as ‘using game-
based mechanics, aesthetics and game thinking to engage people, motivate action,
promote learning and solve problems. Central to these definitions is the understanding
that Gamification is a process applied to an existing service or experience which will
result in a different (and hopefully enhanced) experience for users. Moreover, the
transformations will involve the use of various aspects of games. Typically, these
aspects are understood to involve either game design – the redesign of the entire process
so that it becomes a game or the incorporation of game elements or mechanics so that it
becomes a game in appearance if not the essence. Kapp (2012, 10) contends that true
Gamification only refers to the former category, activities that have been redesigned to
be games while game mechanics deployed to an existing activity are not truly gamified
activities.
Gamification entails adding a new layer to an existing process that integrates a
new level of symbolic or ludic significance above and beyond the task's purely
instrumental activity. The added layer of meaning enhances the user's experience and
motivates them to participate in the altered activity.
Hamari, Koivisto, and Sarsa (2014) note that gamified activities can be
understood to have three main parts: the motivational ‘affordances’ (the opportunities
the actual activities give the subject or the mechanics of the game), the psychological
outcome (the resultant change in feeling about activity during and after the activity) and
the behavioral outcome (the change in behavior following the gamified activity).
5
This focus matches the first category noted by Hamari, Koivisto, and Sarsa
(2014) of motivational affordances; games are used to engage and encourage
participation in an educational activity (Kapp 2012). However, the two other categories:
psychological outcomes and behavioral outcomes tend to be less well served by the
literature on Gamification in education.
These are issues that relate directly to the psychological and behavioral outcome
of a gamified activity. In essence, surface learning relates to students gaining only a
superficial understanding of a topic, specific facts, and figures which will serve them in
assessment. Deep learning relates to a more profound, critically aware form of learning
in which students become aware of the structures, main ideas, principles, and forms of
successful application of their knowledge (Biggs and Tang 2007). While these
descriptions of learning were initially understood to relate to the context of student work
– the structured activity in which a student engages (Marton and Säljö 1976) they later
became associated with a particular perspective or even personal learning style the
student would adopt (Schmeck 1988). Biggs and Tang (2007) note that the best approach
lies between these two positions in a combination of both; students may have
6
predilections for a style but the situation needs to facilitate this. Gamified education may
be understood as providing these facilitations and so in turn the second-stage
psychological outcomes noted by Hamari, Koivisto, and Sarsa (2014) and possibly even
the third-stage behavioral outcomes – future patterns of learning – may be afforded.
That is, the second and third aspects of a successfully gamified activity according
to Hamari, Koivisto, and Sarsa (2014) can be understood to relate explicitly to key
determinants of successful higher education teaching. With a few exceptions only
limited research has been conducted to explore the impact on the psychological and
behavioral outcomes. For the most part, this literature reports positive impacts (Barata
et al. 2013; Denny 2013) though some (Domínguez et al. 2013) raise notes of caution
about the impact on other non-gamified areas of student practice.
2.2.3. Students’ engagement
There are many definitions that arose from numerous studies regarding the term
of students’ engagement. Most literature defined students’ engagement as activities
performed either physically or mentally by the students in their pursuit to gain
knowledge. In a different perspective, a study by Hu et al. defines them as engagement
that occurred when the students used the online learning platform in their lessons, as in
this context; the learning materials can only be accessed by the students themselves.
There are studies that identify the factors contributing to the students’
engagement. According to Mohd et al. and Hu et al., students’ engagement comprises
three dimensions; cognitive, behavioral, and emotional engagement. However, other
studies by Handelsman et al., Dixson , and Marx et al. categorized the students’
engagement into four factors which are skill engagement (represented by students'
skills), emotional engagement (represented by the students' feelings), participation
(represented by students' activities during lessons) and performance engagement
(represented by the result of assessments conducted on the students).In addition, Marx
et al. also listed another engagement which is the total engagement to assess students'
overall participation in one of the college courses.
Several notable influences were recognized based on the literature. The
relationship between the students and educators plays an important factor in students’
engagement. Furthermore, Marx et al. claimed that educators' expectations for student
7
+ SE4. Makes me feel more involved in the lesson: the gaming platform
is a very familiar format, students will easily get lost in the lesson and
enjoy the learning process because they are so engaged.
+ S1. Gamification helps me take better notes during the lesson: Games
are designed to compress a huge amount of lecture information into small
parts. That encourages students to take notes cleverly for the sake of
information acquisition.
+ S2. Gamification applied in class helps me focus more on listening to
lectures: The duration of a lecture usually takes quite a lot of time. The
gamification’s application plays the role of a little final test. It encourages
them to pay more attention to the lecture.
+ S3. Gamification applied in class helps me regularly review lessons to
master the knowledge: One of the biggest applications of gamification
in teaching is to design a small review quiz at the end or the beginning of
the lecture. In order to fulfill the quiz, they have to review the lessons
regularly.
- H4: The contribution of applying gamification in education to students’
Interaction Engagement has a positive (+) impact on the engagement of UEH
students
+ IE1. Gamification makes me happy in class: Game elements in class
will help students feel happier than just sitting and learning passively.
+ IE2. I actively discuss group questions when there is a game in class:
Questions asked in games will encourage students to discuss with each
other to solve the problems.
+ IE3. Gamification applied in class increases my interaction with
classmates: Games applied in class, especially games that need students
to work together will definitely increase students’ interaction with their
group.
+ IE4. Gamification applied in class increases my interaction with
lecturers: Lecturers are the hosts of most gamification activities in class,
therefore they will create interaction with their students by setting
achievements or giving out rewards after the activities.
11
This is the method most people apply and implement in scientific research papers
and the authors have used this method of data collection by referencing and synthesizing
data from relevant research articles that have content related to the influence of
gamification on student's engagement in learning. In addition to collecting from
previous research articles, the authors created a questionnaire and collected directly
from the opinions and evaluation levels of UEH students.
3.2. Research process
13
All UEH students from batch 44 to batch 46 who join sessions applied gamification in
education.
To ensure the sample size of N = 180 students, the authors used Internet survey
tools, shared on social networking sites, and survey groups with a large number of UEH
students, group class, and friends.
Since we have the result from the Google Form, we recheck the data and upload
it to the SPSS.26 for further processing and data analysis. Specifically, as follow:
Cronbach’s Alpha: The coefficient used to check the reliability of the scale and
remove the observed variables that do not ensure reliability based on the following
criteria:
After testing reliability and removing unqualified variables, the authors continue
to do the EFA to check the variability of measurement scales. EFA will reduce the
number of observed variables and group observed variables into factors based on the
following criteria:
When completing the EFA test, the authors create representative factors of each
group of observed variables and use data of representative factors to continue doing
Pearson Correlation analysis to consider the correlation between independent variables
and dependent variable, and identify some cases where dynamic collinearity may occur
based on the following criteria:
16
- The Sig value is less than 0.05 and the absolute value of the Pearson correlation
coefficient is greater than 0, the authors will conclude that there is a correlation
between the independent variable and the dependent variable and vice versa.
- In addition, question the phenomenon of multicollinearity between independent
variables if the Sig value is less than 0.05 and high Pearson correlation
coefficient.
After concluding the correlation between the independent variables and the group
dependent variable, the authors continue to do a multivariable regression analysis to
clarify this correlation. Testing the hypothesis of the model proposed by the authors, and
making a conclusion about the multicollinearity question includes the following steps:
- Testing the appropriation of the model through the adjusted R-squared coefficient
(taking 0.5 as a landmark to distinguish between the good model and the bad
model). At the same time, the sig value in the ANOVA table is less than 0.05
(with statistical significance).
- Residual normal distribution test based on Histogram, Normal P-P Plot.
- The conclusion of the multicollinearity question is based on the VIF coefficient
(less than 10).
- Provide the regression equations (standardized and unstandardized) based on the
obtained results to evaluate the influence of the factors on the dependent variable.
17
Figure 4.1 details information about the batch of UEH students who have
answered our survey. K46 accounted for the highest proportion with 56.67% of the total
180 answers. The percentage of K44 is only 0.56%, equivalent to 1 student. K45 and
K47 accounted for 14.44% (26 subjects) and 28.33% (51 subjects), respectively.
18
Figure 4.3 shows if the respondent's class applies the gamification element or
not. The answer “Yes” accounts for an extremely high percentage of 92.78% of 180
answers samples (167 subjects). Only 13 students don’t seem to have their lecturers
apply gamification elements in their classes.
20
This figure demonstrates the percentage of UEH student classes that apply
gamification. In general, the percentage of answers are not so different. Only 23.89%
(43 subjects) of 180 answers is below 20%. 20% to 40% Percentage of class applying
gamification accounts for 33.33% of the total answers. The highest proportion is “60%
to 80%” of 42.78%.
21
Figure 3.10 provides information about what games are used in UEH students’
class. Overall, the proportion of Kahoot accounts for more than half of 180 answers
which is 54.22%. Quizizz and Quizlet percentage are 30.19% and 15.6% respectively.
Table 4.1. Table of results to evaluate the reliability of the scale “Perceived
Usefulness and Attitude”2
The result of Cronbach's Alpha of the scale is 0.823 > 0.6; The corrected item-
total correlation coefficients of the observable variables in the scale are all greater than
0.3. Therefore, all observable variables are accepted and will be used in the next factor
analysis.
Table 4.2. Table of results to evaluate the reliability of the scale “Perceived Ease
of use”3
Cronbach's Alpha results of the scale are 0.763 > 0.6; The corrected item-total
correlation coefficients of the total variables of the observable variables in the scale are
all greater than 0.3. There is no case of eliminating any observable variables that can
make Cronbach's Alpha coefficient greater than 0.763. Therefore, all observable
variables are accepted and will be used in further factor analysis.
Table 4.3. Table of results to evaluate the reliability of the scale “Skill
Engagement”4
Cronbach's Alpha results of the scale are 0.701 > 0.6; The corrected item-total
correlation coefficients of the total variables of the observable variables in the scale are
all greater than 0.3. There is no case of eliminating any observable variables that can
make Cronbach's Alpha coefficient greater than 0.701. Therefore, all observable
variables are accepted and will be used in further factor analysis.
Table 4.4. Table of results to evaluate the reliability of the scale “Interaction
Engagement”5
my
interaction
with
lectures
Cronbach's Alpha results of the scale are 0.792 > 0.6; The corrected item-total
correlation coefficients of the total variables of the observable variables in the scale are
all greater than 0.3. There is no case of eliminating any observable variables that can
make Cronbach's Alpha coefficient greater than 0.792. Therefore, all observable
variables are accepted and will be used in further factor analysis.
Table 4.5. Table of results to evaluate the reliability of the scale “Students’
Engagement”6
Cronbach's Alpha results of the scale are 0.793 > 0.6; the corrected item-total
correlation coefficients of the total variables of the observable variables in the scale are
all greater than 0.3. There is no case of eliminating any observable variables that can
make Cronbach's Alpha coefficient greater than 0.793. Therefore, all observable
variables are accepted and will be used in further factor analysis.
After analyzing the Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient, the scales were next
evaluated by the method of exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The results of Cronbach's
Alpha show that there are 18 observable variables of 4 components measuring the level
of students' interest in learning, meeting the requirements of reliability. Therefore, 18
observable variables of this scale continue to be evaluated by EFA.
Using the method of factor extraction Principal Component Analysis with Varimax
rotation when analyzing factors for 18 observed variables.
The standard of the factor analysis method is that the KMO index must be greater than
0.5 (Garson, 2003) and Bartlett's test has sig. < 0.05 to show that the data used for factor
analysis is appropriate and are correlated with each other. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
28
Table 4.6. Results of KMO and Bartlett tests of independent variables (1)7
Sig. 0.000
1 2 3 4
class
Table 4.8. Results of KMO and Bartlett tests of independent variables (2)9
Sig. 0.000
1 2 3 4
The results of the second EFA exploratory factor analysis after removing the
observed variable IE1. We have the KMO = 0.853 > 0.5; which proves that the data used
for factor analysis is completely appropriate. Bartlett's test result is 1033.729 with Sig.
= 0.000 < 0.05. Thus, the variables are correlated with each other and satisfy the
conditions of factor analysis.
The 17 observable variables are grouped into 4 groups. Value of total variance
explained = 59.123% > 50%: satisfactory; then it can be said that these four factors
explain 59.123% of the variation in the data. The Eigenvalues of the factors are all high
(>1), the fourth factor has the lowest Eigenvalues of 1.296 > 1. The factor loading
coefficients of the observable variables are all greater than 0.3.
33
Finally, the 17 observable variables obtained after analysis all met the
requirements for convergence and discriminant. They were used in running correlation
and regression analysis.
Sig. 0.000
The results of EFA analysis show that with the method of factor extraction
Principal Component Analysis and Varimax rotation, when analyzing factors there are
4 observable variables and the cumulative variance is 62.208% > 50%, the Eigenvalue
coefficient is 2.488 > 1 and the factor loading coefficients of the observable variables
are all greater than 0.3. Therefore, the scale is satisfactory and the measurement
variables "Students' interest in learning" are used for the next analysis.
Correlations
4.3.1. The correlation between Perceived Usefulness and Attitude and Students’
Engagement
4.3.3. The correlation between Perceived Ease of Use and Students’ Engagement
After considering the linear correlation between the 4 independent variables and
the dependent variable Students’ engagement, the authors continues to perform a
regression analysis to draw conclusions about the influence of 5 independent variables
on the dependent variable Students’ Engagement.
Model Summaryb
The data processing results are in the model summary table above. The table
shows that the R square is 0.485 and the adjusted R square is 0.473. The adjusted R-
squared value of 0.473 shows that the independent variables included in the regression
analysis affect 47.3% of the variation of the dependent variable, the remaining 52.7%
are due to out-of-model variables and random errors. The conclusion counts much more
on the adjusted R square as it reflects the fit of the model more accurately than the
coefficient R2.
On the other hand, the results of this table also give Durbin–Watson values to
evaluate the phenomenon of first-order series autocorrelation. The value DW = 1.924,
is in the range of 1.5 to 2.5. Therefore, the results do not violate the assumption of first-
order series autocorrelation (Yahua Qiao, 2011).
37
ANOVAa
From the ANOVA table, we get the result that the Sig value of the F-test is 0.00
< 0.05, so the regression model is built with statistical significance.
38
From the histogram, we can see that the Mean is -2.09E-15. The standard
deviation is 0.989 - which is close to 1. From a general perspective, the columns of
residuals have a bell-shaped distribution. We can say that the distribution is
approximately normal, assuming the normal distribution of the residuals is not
violated.
39
Most of the residual data points are concentrated quite close to the diagonal.
Thus, the residuals have an approximately normal distribution, assuming the normal
distribution of the residuals is not violated.
40
The scatter plot shows that: The distributed normalized residuals are centered
on the zero line. In addition, they tend to form parallel lines. Thus, the assumption of a
linear relationship is not violated.
Coefficientsa
The variable Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) has sig test sig value equal to 0.895 >
0.05, so this variable is not significant in the regression model. In other words, this
variable has no impact on the dependent variable Students’ Engagement (SE). The
remaining variables including Perceived Usefulness and Attitude (PUA), Skills (S), and
Interaction Engagement (IE) all have sig test t less than 0.05, so these variables are all
statistically significant and all affect the dependent variable Students’ Engagement (SE).
From the table above, we can conclude that Perceived Usefulness and Attitude
(PUA) is the independent variable that has the most impact on the dependent variable
Students’ Engagement (SE).
On the other hand, we also recognize the attendance of the VIF value. The
variance exaggeration factor (VIF) is an indicator of collinearity in a regression model.
The smaller the VIF, the less likely there is to be multicollinearity - which may skew the
regression estimates. Hair et al. (2009) suggested that a VIF threshold of 10 or more
would result in strong multicollinearity. The VIF value of the model is smaller than 10.
They are even smaller than 2. Therefore, we can conclude that there will no
scenario of multicollinearity in this case.
42
- The lecturers could periodically check their student's results and use them as an
indicator that assesses the effectiveness of the gamification application.
- Directly survey UEH students and survey in large numbers instead of conducting
through online channels so that the results obtained are more accurate. Besides, the
survey of a variety of courses is also essential to obtain more objective and in-depth
results instead of favoring a small group.
- Exploiting and researching more with a larger scale to discover the observed variables
that our research has not mentioned in the research paper. From that base, inherit and
develop to create new more complete models and cover all the factors affecting students'
engagement in learning when applying gamification in education.
- Expanding scale not only within UEH University but also universities, colleges,...
nationwide to explore more deeply about the application of gamification in education
and how it affects the engagement of students in learning today in our country. From
there, propose the best measures to improve the quality of teaching and learning.
45
REFERENCES
1. Barata, Gabriel, Sandra Gama, Joaquim Jorge, and Daniel Goncalves. 2013.
“Engaging Engineering Students with Gamification.” Paper presented at the
Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications 5th International
Conference, Bournemouth, and September 11–13.
2. Biggs, John, and Catherine Tang. 2007. Teaching for Quality Learning.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
9. Deterding, Sebastian, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart Nacke. 2011. “From
Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining ‘Gamification.’” Paper
presented at the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning
Future Media Environments, Tampere, September 28–30.
10. Deterding, Sebastian, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart Nacke. 2011. “From
Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining ‘Gamification.’” Paper
presented at the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning
Future Media Environments, Tampere, September 28–30.
11. Dixson MD (2015) Measuring Student Engagement in the online course : the
online student engagement scale (OSE). Online Learn J 19
13. Hamari, Juho, Jonna Koivisto, and Harri Sarsa. 2014. “Does Gamification Work?
– A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification.” Paper presented
at the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii,
January 6–9.
14. Hamari, Juho, Jonna Koivisto, and Harri Sarsa. 2014. “Does Gamification Work?
– A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification.” Paper presented
at the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii,
January 6–9.
15. 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.98.3.184-192
through technology (EITT). Red Hook, NY, Curran Associates, Inc., Tainan,
Taiwan, 22–24 September 2016, pp 122–126
17. Huotari, Kai, and Juho Hamari. 2011. “‘Gamification’ from the Perspective of
Service Marketing.” Paper presented at the Computer Human Interactivity
Workshop, Vancouver, May 7–12.
18. Kapp, Karl M. 2012. The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-based
Methods and Strategies for Training and Education. New York: Wiley.
19. Kapp, Karl M. 2012. The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-based
Methods and Strategies for Training and Education. New York: Wiley.
20. Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and
empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 5–
20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.283
22. Marton, F., and R. Säljö. 1976. “On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I-
outcome and Process.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 46 (1): 4–11.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x.
24. McGonigal, Jane. 2011. Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How
They Can Change the World. London: Jonathan Cape.
25. 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
48
29. Schlechty, P. C. (2001). Shaking up the schoolhouse: How to support and sustain
educational innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.(p. 64)
30. Schmeck, Ronald R. 1988. Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. New York:
Plenum.
31. Sheth, Swapneel, Jonathan Bell, and Gail Kaiser. 2012. Increasing Student
Engagement in Software Engineering with Gamification. New York: New York
Department of Computer Science, Columbia University.
32. Simões, Jorge, Rebeca Díaz Redondo, and Ana Fernández Vilas. 2013. “A Social
Gamification Framework for a K-6 Learning Platform.” Computers in Human
Behavior 29 (2): 345– 353. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.007.
33. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal
effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571.
49
APPENDIX
Chúng mình là nhóm sinh viên đến từ lớp IBC01, khoá 46, thuộc Khoa Kinh doanh
Quốc tế - Marketing của Trường Đại học Kinh tế TP.HCM. Hiện nay nhóm chúng mình
đang thực hiện nghiên cứu khảo sát về đề tài "MỨC ĐỘ HIỆU QUẢ CỦA VIỆC ÁP
DỤNG GAME HÓA VÀO GIÁO DỤC ĐỐI VỚI SINH VIÊN UEH".
Một trong những vấn đề quan trọng nhất mà các nhà giáo dục phải đối mặt ngày nay là
làm thế nào để thu hút học sinh sinh viên tham gia vào quá trình dạy và học. Dựa trên
làn sóng sáng tạo đang tồn tại sẵn có, liệu "Game hóa" có phải là giải pháp cho vấn đề
này? Nhóm chúng mình muốn tìm hiểu xem liệu đây có phải là phương pháp hiệu quả
hay không và cách thức mà nó có thể ảnh hưởng đến sự tham gia của sinh viên UEH
vào các bài giảng và các môn học.
Để thực hiện được mục đích đó, rất mong các anh/chị và các bạn dành ít thời gian hỗ
trợ chúng mình hoàn thành phiếu khảo sát này.
Lưu ý: Mỗi hàng duy nhất, chỉ chọn duy nhất một mức độ đồng ý trong 5 mức độ
1. Mức độ hữu ích của game
3. Thái độ sinh viên đối với việc áp dụng game vào các buổi học
4. Khả năng bổ trợ kỹ năng (Việc ứng dụng game tạo động lực cho mình)
5. Mức độ tương tác (Việc chơi những game như thế này giúp mình)
đồng ý đồng ý
6. Mức độ hứng thú của sinh viên đối với việc học