Brazilian Teachers’ concerns towards the use of Gamification in Education: perceived barriers to its adoption
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5753/rbie.2024.3228Keywords:
Gamification, Survey, Ethical Challenges, Perceived Bias, Qualitative StudyAbstract
Gamification applied to learning environments is widely accepted as positively impacting students' psychological and cognitive aspects, such as motivation and learning performance. According to the literature on the subject, gamification tends to promote more positive effects on students than negative ones. Meanwhile, the literature lacks a deeper understanding of how education professionals perceive gamification in learning environments and their concerns about implicit issues and ethical issues. Prior research has not examined the relationship between gamification in education, its ethical concerns, and barriers. As a result, we expanded a previous study to identify and delve deep into potential barriers and ethical concerns pertaining to gamification from the perspective of Brazilian teachers. A survey was designed and answered by 61 Brazilian teachers. According to our findings, teachers are not inclined to use gamification for various reasons, such as social factors (e.g., acceptance by teachers and students) and planning and evaluation issues (e.g., lack of knowledge). Our study also found that their ethical concerns pertain to psychological effects, social issues, privacy issues, humanization, and behavioral effects. As part of the contribution of this paper, we list potential barriers and ethical concerns that designers and researchers should keep in mind when designing and implementing gamification and gamification-based personalization in learning environments.
Downloads
References
Bai, S., Hew, K. F., and Huang, B. (2020). Does gamification improve student learning outcome? evidence from a meta-analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in educational contexts. Educational Research Review, 30. [GS Search].
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. sage. [GS Search].
Chaudhury, N., Hammer, J., Kremer, M., Muralidharan, K., and Rogers, F. H. (2006). Missing in action: Teacher and health worker absence in developing countries.[GS Search].
Cochran-Smith, M., Grudnoff, L., Orland-Barak, L., and Smith, K. (2020). Educating teacher educators: International perspectives. The New Educator, 16:5–24. [GS Search].
de Sousa Borges, S., Durelli, V. H. S., Reis, H. M., and Isotani, S. (2014). A systematic mapping on gamification applied to education. pages 216–222. [GS Search].
Deterding, S., Khaled, R., Nacke, L., and Dixon, D. (2011a). Gamification: Toward a definition. CHI 2011 Workshop Gamification Research Network, pages 12–15. [GS Search].
Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O’Hara, K., and Dixon, D. (2011b). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining "gamification". Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI EA ’11, page 2425. [GS Search].
Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. The annals of mathematical statistics, pages 148–170. [GS Search].
Holmes, W., Porayska-Pomsta, K., Holstein, K., Sutherland, E., Baker, T., Shum, S. B., Santos, O. C., Rodrigo, M. T., Cukurova, M., Bittencourt, I. I., et al. (2021). Ethics of ai in education: towards a community-wide framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, pages 1–23. [GS Search].
Hyrynsalmi, S., Kimppa, K., Koskinen, J., Smed, J., and Hyrynsalmi, S. (2017). The shades of grey: Datenherrschaft in data-driven gamification. DDGD@ MindTrek, pages 4–11. [GS Search].
Kim, T. W. and Werbach, K. (2016). More than just a game: ethical issues in gamification. Ethics and Information Technology, 18:157–173. [GS Search].
Klock, A. C. T., Gasparini, I., Pimenta, M. S., and Hamari, J. (2020). Tailored gamification: A review of literature. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, page 102495. [GS Search].
Lazar, J., Feng, J. H., and Hochheiser, H. (2017). Research methods in human-computer interaction. Morgan Kaufmann, 2nd edition. [GS Search].
Martí-Parreño, J., Seguí-Mas, D., and Seguí-Mas, E. (2016). Teachers’ attitude towards and actual use of gamification. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228:682–688. [GS Search].
Mora, A., Riera, D., González, C., and Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2017). Gamification: a systematic review of design frameworks. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. [GS Search].
Palomino, P. T. (2022). Gamification of virtual learning environments: A narrative and user experience approach. [GS Search].
Palomino, P. T., Toda, A. M., Rodrigues, L., Oliveira, W., and Isotani, S. (2020). From the lack of engagement to motivation: Gamification strategies to enhance users learning experiences. SBC – Proceedings of SBGames 2020, pages 1127–1130. [GS Search].
Paula, F. R. D. and da Pena Fávero, R. (2016). A gamificação da educação na compreensão dos profissionais da educação. SBC - Proceedings of SBGames 2016, pages 1459–1465. [GS Search].
Rodrigues, L., Palomino, P. T., Toda, A. M., Klock, A. C. T., Oliveira, W., Avila-Santos, A. P., Gasparini, I., and Isotani, S. (2021). Personalization improves gamification: Evidence from a mixed-methods study. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 5. [GS Search].
Rodrigues, L., Toda, A. M., dos Santos, W. O., Palomino, P. T., Vassileva, J., and Isotani, S. (2022). Automating gamification personalization to the user and beyond. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, pages 1–1. [GS Search].
Rodrigues, L., Toda, A. M., Palomino, P. T., Oliveira, W., and Isotani, S. (2020). Personalized gamification: A literature review of outcomes, experiments, and approaches. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pages 699–706. [GS Search].
Rother, E. T. (2007). Revisão sistemática x revisão narrativa. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem, 20(2):v–vi. [GS Search].
Sánchez-Mena, A. and Martí-Parreño, J. (2016). Gamification in higher education: teachers’ drivers and barriers. Proceedings of the International Conference of The Future of Education. [GS Search].
Toda, A., Palomino, P. T., Rodrigues, L., Klock, A. C. T., Pereira, F., Borges, S., Gasparini, I., Teixeira, E. H., Isotani, S., and Cristea, A. I. (2022). Gamification through the looking glass - perceived biases and ethical concerns of brazilian teachers. In Rodrigo, M. M., Matsuda, N., Cristea, A. I., and Dimitrova, V., editors, Artificial Intelligence in Education. Posters and Late Breaking Results, Workshops and Tutorials, Industry and Innovation Tracks, Practitioners’ and Doctoral Consortium, pages 259–262, Cham. Springer International Publishing. [GS Search].
Toda, A., Pereira, F. D., Klock, A. C. T., Rodrigues, L., Palomino, P., Oliveira, W., Oliveira, E. H. T., Gasparini, I., Cristea, A. I., and Isotani, S. (2020). For whom should we gamify? insights on the users intentions and context towards gamification in education. pages 471–480. [GS Search].
Toda, A. M., do Carmo, R. M., da Silva, A. P., Bittencourt, I. I., and Isotani, S. (2018a). An approach for planning and deploying gamification concepts with social networks within educational contexts. International Journal of Information Management. [GS Search].
Toda, A. M., Valle, P. H. D., and Isotani, S. (2018b). The dark side of gamification: An overview of negative effects of gamification in education. volume 832, pages 143–156. Springer, Cham. [GS Search].
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Armando Toda, Paula Toledo Palomino, Luiz Rodrigues, Ana Carolina Tomé Klock, Filipe Dwan Pereira, Simone de Sousa Borges, Isabela Gasparini, Elaine Harada Teixeira de Oliveira, Seiji Isotani, Alexandra Ioana Cristea
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
