Title Page
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A GAMIFIED PROGRAM IN SCIENCE: IMPLICATION TO ELEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Institute of Education In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the degree of Masters of Education major in Curriculum & Instruction
by MICHAEL R. ORBEGOSO 2016
CERTIFICATION This thesis entitled “DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A GAMIFIED PROGRAM IN SCIENCE: IMPLICATION TO ELEARNING ENVIRONMENTS” prepared and submitted by Orbegoso, Michael R., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Education major in Curriculum and Instruction has been examined and is recommended for acceptance. Luisito C. Hagos, Ed. D. Adviser
APPROVAL SHEET Approved by the panel for Oral examination for the Degree of Master of Arts in Education major in Curriculum and Instruction with the rating of ______ (Passed) Ma. Elisa P. Cruz, Ed. D. Chairman
Accepted as Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Education major in Curriculum and Instruction.
Myrna P. Quinto, Ph. D. Dean Institute of Education
iii
ABSTRACT Lack of motivation and inaccessibility of education are main issues in education that thrust educational technologists and instructional designers to find working solutions. This research explored how students, teachers, and learning designers accept a gamified eLearning environment which was developed using free software and learning materials that are available to the public through the use of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). The results suggested that users perceive the gamified science program as easy to use and useful for their careers. The data gathered also suggested that users intend to use it and they behave well towards using it. The data also suggested that the students, teachers, and learning designers showed no significant differences in their perceptions to ease of use and usefulness, their intention to use, and their behavior towards using it. The data suggested that the development of an acceptable gamified eLearning program is feasible through readily available software and learning materials.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENT The researcher gives glory to the Almighty for the opportunity and the blessing to take on a task that would require insurmountable grace to complete. The researcher gives many thanks to Dr. Luisito Hagos for the guidance in making this thesis complete. Most especially, the liberty he allowed the researcher to have in pursuing my interests in this thesis. The researcher also acknowledges Dr. Priscila L. Doctolero, who stood patiently catering to his requests amidst the very busy schedule of the Institute towards the deadlines. Heartfelt thanks to Dr. Ma. Elisa P. Cruz who have been available to provide urgent advice, even at odd times. She has been the researcher’s clairvoyant when the direction of this research was unclear. More heartfelt thanks to the researcher’s colleagues and superiors, Mr. Lorence Issa, Mr. Tyson Priddle, who allowed the researcher to complete this thesis, and understood and addressed his difficult situations not only in managing his time but also in giving him a chance to rest when studies and work overlap. And to Mr. Adam Hodgson and Mrs. Karen Hodgson who have been supportive of his education. To the researcher’s classmates, but he would like to especially mention Mr. Brian Lim, Ms. Sybil Aguilos, Ms. Georgia Torres and Ms. Karren Meñez who gave
v
extra effort to assist him. Without their assistance, this thesis would have never come to fruition. To the researcher’s significant other, Maria whom he is very thankful for in retrospect for encouraging him to take up a master’s degree. Also for never hesitating to offer what she can to assist him. Finally, to the researcher’s loving parents, especially his moms Bianca and Myria whose understanding and love cannot be repaid by any amount. They deserve and have his fullest gratitude.
MRO
vi
DEDICATION To Dad, Ramie, who reminds me to always do my best.
MRO
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page................................................................................................... i Certification.............................................................................................. ii Approval Sheet ........................................................................................ ii Abstract ................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgment .................................................................................... iv Dedication ............................................................................................... vi Table of Contents .................................................................................. vii List of Tables .......................................................................................... xi List of Figures ........................................................................................ xii Chapter 1: THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND A Introduction ................................................................................. 1 B Background of the Study ............................................................. 2 C Theoretical Framework................................................................ 3
viii
D Conceptual Framework ............................................................... 6 E Statement of the Problem .......................................................... 11 F
Hypothesis ................................................................................ 12
G Scope and Delimitations of the Study........................................ 13 H Significance of the Study ........................................................... 14 I
Definition of Terms .................................................................... 14
Chapter 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES A Gamification .............................................................................. 17 B eLearning Environments ........................................................... 23 C Instructional Design ................................................................... 27 D Technology Acceptance ............................................................ 30 E Synthesis................................................................................... 31
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A Research Design ....................................................................... 33 B Research Locale ....................................................................... 34 C Respondents of the Study ......................................................... 34 D Sampling Technique.................................................................. 35 E Research Instruments ............................................................... 35
ix
F
Data Gathering Procedure ........................................................ 39
G Statistical Treatment of Data ..................................................... 41
Chapter 4 PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION, AND ANALYSIS OF DATA A Demographic Profile of the Respondents .................................. 43 B Problem 1 - Respondents’ Assessments of the Gamified Program ..... 44 C Problem 2 - Significant Difference in the Respondents’ Assessments . 45 D Problem 3 - Modifications Suggested by the Respondents ....... 47 E Problem 4 - Presentation of Improvements ............................... 65 F
Problem 5 - Implications to eLearning Environments ................ 69
Chapter 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS A Summary ................................................................................... 71 B Conclusions............................................................................... 72 C Recommendations .................................................................... 73
REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 75 APPENDICES ......................................................................................... 87 APPENDIX A: PERMIT TO CONDUCT STUDY – FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY ........... 88 APPENDIX B: PERMIT TO CONDUCT STUDY – PHIGIT ..................... 89
x
APPENDIX C: SURVEY ON TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE ............... 90 APPENDIX D: FOCUS GROUP AND INTERVIEW GUIDE .................... 92 APPENDIX E: CERTIFICATE OF VALIDATION .................................... 93
xi
List of Tables Table 1. Reliability testing of the instrument through Chronbach's Alpha ........... 38 Table 2. Demographic information of the respondents according to their role. .. 43 Table 3. Descriptive statistics based on the answers of the respondents in the survey. .......................................................................................................... 44 Table 4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) based on the assessments of the respondents, grouped according to their role.......................................................... 45
xii
List of Figures Figure 1. The Taxonomy of Human Motivation by Deci and Ryan (2000). ...................... 5 Figure 2. ADDIE Model as the Content Development Framework as Proposed by Chevalier. ....................................................................................................... 9 Figure 3. Rapid Prototyping of a Gamified Science Program ........................................ 10 Figure 4. Taxonomy of Player Types by Bartle ............................................................. 19 Figure 5. A Screenshot of the Selection Screen in the “Game Activity Module” ............ 66 Figure 6. A Screenshot of the “Game” Improvement in its Prototype ............................ 66 Figure 7. A Mockup of the eLearning Environment Being Accessible Through a Smartphone ................................................................................................. 68 Figure 8. A Screenshot of the Points System Block at Work in an eLearning Environment. (Massart, n.d.) ........................................................................ 69
Chapter 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND Introduction One of the major problems in the field of education in this country is accessibility of education (Durban & Catalan, 2012, p. 64), along with lack of motivation of learners to come to school (Albert, Quimba, & Ramos, 2011). There have been hundreds, if not thousands of studies that attempted to identify the root causes of the issues, and proposed solutions to such problems. Lately, some research attempted to identify mentorship as a factor (E. B. Tan, 2007), group work (Torio, 2015), anxiety against confidence (Adao, Bueno, Persia, & Landicho, 2015), cultural and socio economic variations (Darbyshire & Haarms, 2015). In the ongoing attempts to motivation, new and current technologies have been also explored if they provide an increase in motivation. The use of mobile (El-hussein & Cronje, 2010; Hagos, 2008; Marcial, 2015), and taking advantage of the World Wide Web and the internet (Dingcong & Quisumbing-Baybay, 2014; Rotem & Oster-Levinz, 2007). In line with this, this research is an attempt to develop a responsive and accessible environment for learners through the World Wide Web, using their mobile phones or desktop computers. Rapid prototyping approach (Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990) was followed for the creation of the program and environment. This also identified comments and feedback from students, teachers, and learning designers to further
2
improve the output. In addition to that, technology acceptance (Davis, 1993) was also measured to identify resistance or hesitations in the program. After one round of a feedback loop, demonstrating a working instructional design model, an improved gamified program is proposed, along with implications to current virtual learning environments (VLEs) or eLearning environments. Background of the Study Gamification is the use of game design elements in non-game contexts. (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011) There have been many attempts to include gamification in education, which is a non-game. It has been dissected further as a technique for motivating learners. (Glover, 2013) Further research has shown that gamification can motivate students to engage in the classroom. It can show the ways that education can be a joyful experience and blur boundaries between formal and informal learning. (J. J. Lee & Hammer, 2011) Gamified learning management systems (LMS) are more common today in terms of eLearning. A research project conducted for higher education around those who were going to take the engineering national board examination, demonstrated that an LMS is usable as a possible supplement for review. (Angeles, Deocaris, Co, & Arenas, 2014) This leads to a further hypothesis of the researcher – are gamified LMS’s more powerful catalysts of learning than the non-gamified ones? As virtual learning environments have met many innovations from their conception, the researcher tried to focus on one of the later innovations in the 21st
3
century, an attempt to connect the scientific truths and research in human-computer interaction – the gamification of VLEs. Theoretical Framework The core of this research was anchored with the following theoretical claims: This research was testing the Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which was developed by Deci and Ryan (2000) based on their studies about human motivation, personality, and functioning. They proposed the theory to further distinguish the behaviors that are volitional and ones that are accompanied by experience of pressure and control. The study has supported that schools or learning environments require classroom conditions that allow satisfaction of the basic needs, which are – to feel connected, effective, and agentic. Under SDT is a sub-component called Organismic Integration Theory, which was the basis of the gamification components that was applied in the research. It has been theorized that instrumentality, a subtype of extrinsic motivation are seen as falling along a continuum of internalization. They claimed that human motivation is a continuum that begins with “amotivation” where a user lacks intention (Legault, GreenDemers, & Pelletier, 2006), feels incompetent (Vallerand, 2004), or does not believe the action can cause a meaningful outcome (Ford & Roby, 2013). It then continues to another category labeled as “external regulation” where a person behaves accordingly in order to satisfy an external demand or reward (Hon-keung, Man-shan, & Lai-Fong, 2012). Further in the continuum is “introjected regulation” where the motivation is a controlling factor that causes behaviors due to feelings of pressure (Gillison, Osborn, Standage, & Skevington, 2009). Another form is regulation through “identification”
4
where the person has identified the importance of a behavior. The most autonomous form is integrated regulation where the user brings the others’ needs and values thorough internalization before taking an action (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Weman-Josefsson, Lindwall, & Ivarsson, 2015). Creating meaningful gamification will also be a thrust in this research as it was claimed that if users have a positive and meaningful game-based experience that is well connected to the underlying non-game setting, then the organization would benefit in the long term. (Nicholson, 2012) This implies that the research will not simply rely on external rewards as the means of motivation but also attempt to set real-life goals for the users.
5
Amotivation
Extrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic Motivation
Non-regulation
External Regulation
Intrinsic Regulation
• • • •
• Compliance • External rewards & punishments
• Interest • Enjoyment • Inherent satisfaction
Non-intentional Non-valuing Incompetence Lack of Control
Introjected Regulation • Self-control • Ego-involvement • Internal rewards & punishments
Identified Regulation • Personal importance • Conscious valuing
Integrated Regulation • Congruence • Awareness • Synthesis with self
Figure 1. The Taxonomy of Human Motivation by Deci and Ryan (2000). The graphical representation above shows that motivation is an intricate continuum and this research attempts to bring users to the end of it by providing opportunities through gamification.
6
Conceptual Framework Gamification or the use of game design-elements in non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011) is becoming increasingly utilized in different institutions. Gamifying education has been a continuous effort of many researchers, especially those who found positive impacts in the use of game elements in the classroom management (Nicholson, 2013), especially in enhancing the learning experience (Eleftheria, 2013) As proven by literature, which was discussed further in this thesis, is a good gamified learning environment depends on the teacher or administrator of the program. Game dynamics can only be properly employed by those who are in context – dynamics of which are: (1) freedom to fail, (2) rapid feedback, (3) progression, and (4) storytelling. (Stott & Neustaedter, 2013) These dynamics offer a higher success rate to some degree. One of the most common reasons found because of a properly executed set of game dynamics is the sense of ownership in the user. There are also elements of games that are currently used in gamification that were applied in the virtual learning environment such as competition, rewards, tutorial, challenges, and narratives. (Eleftheria, 2013) Motivation is identified in the field of education into two classifications. These are intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Intrinsic motivation is defined as the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than for some separable consequence. When intrinsically motivated a person is moved to act for the fun or challenge entailed rather
7
than because of external prods, pressures, or rewards. (Ryan & Deci, 2000). On the other hand, extrinsic motivation is a construct that pertains whenever an activity is done in order to attain some separable outcome. Extrinsic motivation thus contrasts with intrinsic motivation, which refers to doing an activity simply for the enjoyment of the activity itself, rather than its instrumental value. (Ryan & Deci, 2000) Since the advent of modern technology, especially the emergence of the internet in the early 1990s, education has been continuously innovating and improving with alternatives such as home-schooling or distance education. Also included in this is the inclusion of using virtual environments as a supplementary tool in classroom teaching. There are many features of virtual learning environments that are deemed as useful tools for teachers. These include but are not limited to (1) communication between tutors and students, (2) self-assessment and summative assessment, (3) delivery of learning resources and materials, (4) shared work group areas, (5) support for students, (6) management and tracking of students, (7) student tools, (8) consistent and customizable look and feel, (9) and navigation structure. (Leary & Ramsden, 2002) The research attempted to develop a VLE that will contain the aforementioned features above. An effective, systematic model named ADDIE, which basically stands for analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation, was used in the full lifecycle of the program. (McGriff, 2000) “Analysis” is the phase where the process of defining what is there to be learned. “Design” is the phase where the methods and
8
objectives are developed, and to specify how the learning content is to be learned. The following phase is called “development” where the authoring and producing of materials take place. When the materials have been developed and it was directed to undergo “implementation” where the project is installed in the real world context. Lastly, they were “evaluated” where the adequacy of instruction is determined. This is a method that was found supportive of the need to provide effective instructional design and strategies. (Danks, 2011) Since the ADDIE model has been a traditional model, it has since been taken for granted. A critique was proposed that the model has been “diluted”, but still claimed that ADDIE can still be a starting point from training to performance improvement. (Chevalier, 2011)
9
Analysis •done to identify performance gaps
Design •Identifies target audience, prerequisite knowledge and skills as well as clearly stated behavioral objectives, conditions, and criteria to measure the results.
Development •Multiple solutions, including training, are developed and refined.
Implementation •Transference is enhanced by changing the work environment to support the training.
Evaluation •Success is measured by progress in closing the performance gap.
Figure 2. ADDIE Model as the Content Development Framework as Proposed by Chevalier.
10
Figure 2 is a graphical representation of the ADDIE model which stands for analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. This was the basis of the development of the program.
Initial ADDIE on a gamified science program
Initial Programs/Courseware in Science -
Intro to Biology Biomes Cell Reproduction
Feedback from: -
Learning Developers Science Teachers Students
Modifications Proposed improved gamified program and its implications to current virtual learning environments
Figure 3. Rapid Prototyping of a Gamified Science Program
11
Rapid prototyping (Daugherty, Teng, & Cornachione, 2007; Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990) has been employed in the creation of this module. Statement of the Problem The researcher has posed the following problems: 1. What is the assessment of the three groups of respondents on the gamified program in Science in terms of the following variables: 1.1. behaviour towards use. 1.2. intention to use; 1.3. perceived ease of use; 1.4. perceived usefulness. 2. Is there a significant difference among the respondents’ assessments in terms of the following variables: 2.1. behaviour towards use. 2.2. intention to use; 2.3. perceived ease of use; 2.4. perceived usefulness. 3. What modifications are suggested on the gamified program in Science based on the perspectives of the three groups of respondents? 4. What improvements can be presented on the gamified programs? 5. What implications can be drawn from the inclusion of gamification in eLearning environments?
12
Hypothesis The hypotheses that were tested in this research are stated below: H01 The first hypothesis predicts that there is no significant difference between the means of the assessments of the three groups of respondents in terms of behavior towards use. H02 The second hypothesis predicts that there is no significant difference between the means of the assessments of the three groups of respondents in terms of intention to use. H03 The third hypothesis predicts that there is no significant difference between the means of the assessments of the three groups of respondents in terms of perceived ease of use. H04 The fourth hypothesis predicts that there is no significant difference between the means of the assessments of the three groups of respondents in terms of perceived usefulness. The p-value used in the hypothesis testing was 0.05, using ANOVA to determine whether the difference between the mean scores of the three groups is significantly different among the hypothesized differences between the means.
13
Scope and Delimitations of the Study The program shall only enclose the following components: the virtual learning environment, content, surveys and questionnaires, a focus group guide and an interview guide. The virtual learning environment will only be developed using free open-source software to align with the vision of this project which is to create a web-based virtual learning environment which can eventually be used by teachers, if proven effective. The gamification elements to be used in this research was limited to (1) rewards (Theodotou, 2014), (2) surprise bonuses (Nguyen, 2015), (3) flairs (van Drumpt, 2013), (4) self-paced key exercises (Leary & Ramsden, 2002), (5) regular notifications (Robertsson, 2014), (6) possibility of retries (Ollikainen, 2013), (7) graphics, sounds, animations, color (Cingi, 2013) and (8) badges (Hamari, 2013). The contents of the environment were limited to topics on: (1) intro to biology, (2) biomes, (3) cell reproduction, and. Only materials which are available for use by the public, as licensed through Creative Commons were used. The participants were selected through convenience sampling using the purposive sampling methods, as advised by the panel of experts in the proposal of the study (50 students, 10 teachers, and 5 learning designers) . Participants were enrollees from Far Eastern University – Manila particularly BS Biology students and professors, and employees of Phigit, a consulting company that offers eLearning services.
14
Significance of the Study This proposal was initiated when the researcher was struck with the question: how to improve learning using the readily available technologies around? One that educational technologists have been studying in the past three years is gamification. Gamification as a tool has been claimed to raise engagement and achievement. (Stott & Neustaedter, 2013) The findings of Stott’s and Neustaedter’s study identified the benefits of using gamification in existing classrooms, especially virtual ones, in order to improve pedagogies and strategies among disciplines. The findings may be further amplified to create more meaningful opportunities for learning. This may eventually be useful in further studies on distance education where motivation is an interesting topic (Hartnett, St. George, & Dron, 2011; Robb & Sutton, 2014). The findings will also identify implications of the limitations of such technologies which may also be used as baseline data for future research. Definition of Terms Below are the commonly used terms used in this module along with their operative definitions. Badges and flairs refer to the publicly visible elements in the eLearning environment that indicate the current progress or status of the user in a particular competency or course. Blocks refer to the interactive objects that can be installed on the sidebars of the eLearning environment.
15
Bonus refers to the object given unexpectedly when a task is completed. Gamification refers to the use of game elements in this program which is a nongame context. Improvement refers to the changes that are beneficial. Learning Management System (LMS) refers to the infrastructure that manages the program in its entirety where tracking, reporting, registration, course administration, and analysis is done. Modifications refer to the changes to be made based on the respondents’ opinions. Notifications refer to a reminder message or an alert that indicates a pending task or a task that has been completed. Retry refers to another opportunity provided to a user who has flunked an assessment activity. Rewards refer to the object given after a particular task is completed. Serious games refer to games designed for a primary purpose other than entertainment. Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) is referred to the system in general for delivering learning materials to students via the web.
16
Chapter 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES This chapter presents the researchers’ analysis and ideas in the related literature and past researches regarding the concepts of gamification, eLearning environments, instructional design, and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Gamification “Gamification” was coined in 2002 by the programmer Nick Pelling to describe game-like elements outside of game. It was only recently that gamification has started to gain attention and be incorporated into real world contexts. Therefore, it had to be defined if it will become an industry standard. Through literature review, gamification was defined as the use of game elements on non-game contexts. (Deterding et al., 2011). It was an idea to evolve companies’ products into entertainment platforms. By introducing game mechanics into activities to make them more game-like (read fun, rewarding and desirable), people would possibly want to take part in these tasks proactively and continuously. (Hagglund, 2012). Further studies tried to review the meaning of gamification. Instead of focusing on the effects of gamification, this study simply uses it as a component which basically includes mechanics or elements from games. Gamification refers to: a process of enhancing a service with affordances for gameful experiences in order to support user's overall value creation. (Huotari, 2012) It was inevitable to end up with a definition that puts the effects to mind instead of the methods. There is literature that has attempted to create a taxonomy of gamification
18
elements and by chance, there are game elements that, unintentionally, already exist in non-game contexts. In other words, gamification is already existing in some contexts and it might not be reasonable to identify the elements’ purposes are to gamify. A basic form of gamification is the use of badges. Badges are a tool for social comparison where users associate their accomplishments with graphics. This is not an entirely new innovation but what it represents plays a major factor in a social setting. Simply receiving recognition may have an effect on the attitude of the person to use a gamification service. (Hamari & Koivisto, 2013) In Lee & Hammer’s (2011) critique of gamification tackling about what it is and how it can be used, they explained that it is not good enough to gamify education because there are issues that requires work and gamification is just there to fix this over time. Application of gamification does not equal success but it is a tool that educators can use and identify if it is worth the investment. Furthermore, they acknowledged that the strength of gamification can be complementary to schools. However, there are still ways in which gamification and schools could make each other worse. A consideration would be – gamification might absorb teacher resources, or teach students to learn only when an external reward is provided. In essence, gamification is mostly a toolkit and those who intend to use it have been warned that in order to improve the value gamification yields to education, one must focus on areas where gamification has maximum value. This research intended to keep the gamification in-line with the success of finishing the learning content.
19
In gamification, game psychology is involved. This is the reason Bartle (1996) was led to create a typology of personalities in terms of gaming. These are: achievers, explorers, socializers, and killers. Achievers’ goals are to gather points and rise in levels. Explorers delight in having the internal machinations exposed to them. Socializers are interested in people and what they have to say. And killers enjoy getting a kick from imposing themselves on others.
Figure 4. Taxonomy of Player Types by Bartle In the figure shown, green indicates increasing numbers and red indicates decreasing numbers. A red line with a green arrowhead means that decreasing numbers of the box pointed from lead to increasing numbers of the box pointed to; a red line with a red arrowhead would mean that a decrease in one leads to a decrease in the other, and so on. The thickness of the line shows the strength of the effect: thin lines mean there's only a small effect; medium lines mean there's an effect involving roughly equal numbers of players from both boxes; thick lines means there's a great effect, magnifying the influence of the origin box. (Bartle, 1996)
20
The researcher expects that the characteristics of the player types will be covert, their characteristics manifest, a configuration recommended by Bartle himself is considered – which is to install moderators to control the population of each player types. With the player types in mind, moderators were in place in the virtual learning environment. Some subjects are arguably easily gamified such as math and science. But others like discussion- and essay-based subjects in the humanities would be difficult to parse out. This is an advantage-disadvantage situation Cohen (2011) presents. There are other ways to “quantify” data which may make such disadvantageous subject matters be easily turned into numeric data. A good example is the Quantified Self (QS) movement which is a growing effort to use mobile and wearable technologies to obtain personal data about everyday activities. (V. R. Lee, 2013) He claimed that many opportunities are waiting for educational technologists to identify the use of QS in the teaching profession. In this research, a similar system was set up for users to keep track of their perceptions, or even their substance intakes. While it was at a rough prototype in the duration of this research, we can get to see how much the users are involved in using this as a personal measure to track their awareness levels when placed in the real world context. An opportunity was taken by Morschheuser, RiveraPelayo, Mazarakis, and Zacharias (2014) in their research regarding the increase of motivation of students to use personal learning environments (PLEs) that enhance interaction and support reflection in lectures. They made an experimental application which they call Live-Interest-Meter (LIM), which is a QS application that captures
21
feedback during lectures. Their sample size was insufficient to conclude anything but it is proof that QS tools improve interaction and support individual reflective learning. Local studies have also sprung for gamification. One sample is the use of gamification in promoting the use of a power management system (Cayabyab, Santiago, Dumlao, & Reyes, 2015). The users have been successful in motivating participants to play the power-saving game when being presented with incentives to use their application. However, not all researches have been positive to the effects of gamification. A study conducted in the Technological Institute of the Philippines – Cubao has also been successful in establishing a gamified LMS to be used for a mathematics review supplement for the engineering national licensure board exam. (Angeles et al., 2014) The researchers have used a lottery game when users navigate through different topics. The results have shown that the gamification element, which is the lottery, has no significant impact on the motivation of the learners. The researchers claim that this may be caused by the fact that its users are already motivated due to the fact of the upcoming national licensure board examination. In another research conducted for De La Salle University, the effects of gamification have been attempted to be explored in enhancing disaster mitigation and preparedness. (Adamantopoulos, Fullero, Sembrano, Nuel, & Pineda, 2014) The researchers have claimed that gamification would be effective in motivating the community to participate in different disaster mitigation and preparedness activities
22
which in turn may help prevent casualties. Though the research was exploratory, this research suggests the positivity of users in accepting gamification as a technology. And there are already many researches that have shown a similarity in results regarding user acceptance of gamification as technologies. A common finding in the use of game dynamics in education is that it works to increase a feeling of agency and ownership in the user (Stott & Neustaedter, 2013) which leads us to virtual learning environments as scaffold for self-paced learning. The use of gamification in attempting to control or improve human behaviors or conditions is not new. One example is a research conducted to passengers that showed negative behavior in-flight. (James, 2014) James used gamification approaches to managing passengers and he has been successful. One approach he used was transforming crowdedness as a resource rather than a liability which reduced passenger anonymity, alienation, disentitlement, and resentment. The potentials of gamification among frail elderly persons have also been explored (Gerling & Masuch, 2011). Basically, the researchers anchors the enjoyment of the elderly to use application on design to feature game elements that are seniorfriendly. Another set of researchers reviewed the use of gamification and serious games for adolescents with substance use problems. (Boendermaker, Prins, & Wiers, 2015) Since gamification and serious games are still broadly defined, the results can only be
23
subjective. But still, they viewed serious games as a promising way to reach at risk youth through prevention as well as intervention. McCallum (2012) tried to review case studies on games for dementia sufferers and tried to present challenges and research opportunities for personalized health. He reviewed Games for Health which developed a taxonomy, especially on different areas of health activities such as (1) preventive, (2) therapeutic, (3) assessment, (4) educational, (5) informatics. This suggests a good range of health activities that can be gamified. Similarly, the program to be used in this research can be categorized as educational, and preventive eLearning Environments eLearning environments, also known as virtual learning environments are defined as the components in which learners and tutors participate in “online” interactions of various kinds, including online learning. (Leary & Ramsden, 2002) They further enumerated tools and features that typically comprise VLEs. (1) communication between tutors and students, (2) self-assessment and summative assessment, (3) delivery of learning resources and materials, (4) shared work group areas, (5) support for students, (6) management and tracking of students, (7) student tools, (8) consistent and customizable look and feel, (9) and navigation structure. (Leary & Ramsden, 2002). With these components, the researcher attempts to review further literature and studies. Though there are different types of VLEs, such as basic websites (Rotem & OsterLevinz, 2007), social networks (Enriquez, 2014; Kongchan, 2008; Thongmak, 2013), or LMS (Dolleton, 2011; Kumar, 2012; Montalbo & Chua, 2014). This research will focus on LMSs.
24
One of the primary functions of VLE is to facilitate communication between tutors and students. (Leary & Ramsden, 2002) But the researcher agrees that it does not only facilitate between tutors and students but also among them. Tutors can communicate with tutors; students can communicate with other students. Basically, a VLE is a network where everyone can interact with each other. One example of a VLE is Edmodo – which is particularly used all over the country at this point in time. A research conducted by Kongchan (2008), established baseline data on the perceptions of students when a digital non-native tutor or teacher spearheads the VLE. The results showed that the teacher had an easy time establishing what she needed, and the students expressed a positive agreement that they could use all the named 7 functions of Edmodo quickly and easily. In essence, the teacher has successfully interacted with her students and received positive feedback regardless of her technical skills. This steers the researcher that a teacher’s expertise in using a VLE is not necessarily a factor in moderating or spearheading a VLE. Another research, a pilot, conducted in a medical education institution has unlocked baseline potentials in the use of a VLE. In their research, they found out that VLEs offer tremendous opportunity to provide a space for constructivist learning at its best and enhance learning outcomes beyond that provided by traditionally designed continuing medical education courses. (Wiecha, Heyden, Sternthal, & Merialdi, 2010). A web-based tutoring framework called the Adaptive Courseware Environment (ACE) was developed, which combines methods of knowledge representation,
25
instructional planning, and adaptive media generation to deliver individualized courseware over the web. (Kravcik, Klemke, Pesin, Hüttenhain, & Specht, 2002) This study is also a source of inspiration for the researcher as the idea of adaptability is a major concern in this study. In addition to this, an adaptive and responsive courseware is used to deliver the contents to maximize resources using an “authoring once, delivering many” philosophy. (Stewart, Cristea, Brailsford, & Ashman, 2005) A further research on Web-based VLEs have been conducted by Chou & Liu (2005). The setting of their research was a junior high school. They found out that students in VLEs achieve better learning performance that the counterparts in a traditional environment. Traditional connotes a physical classroom. They also discovered that VLE users reported higher levels of computer self-efficacy, satisfaction, and learning climate. A 3D VLE named ARC: The Impending Gate developed by Game Environment Applying Real Skills (GEARS) has been reviewed in a research conducted to a K-12 audience (Barkand & Kush, 2009). The VLE served as a reinforcement to lessons taught in the physical classroom. GEARS was positively accepted by faculty and students. One of the factors could be the inclusion of voice chat as it was the most suggested feature. This research, though voice chat will not be included, a mechanism to emulate the social aspect which made GEARS successful was included. A local study undertaken in Southville International School and Colleges in Las Piñas City, which tested the effects of MOODLE on the students’ dimensions. It has
26
shown that MOODLE magnified areas of strengths on the dimensions namely: competence, character, commitment, collaboration, and creativity. (Dolleton, 2011) A local study on using an LMS named “E-Math 2.0” as a reviewer tool has also been successful. The automatic tracking functionality of the tool shows which areas to improve helped achieve a positive satisfaction rate from their respondents. (Angeles, Fajardo, & Tanguilig, 2015) A local study on the effects of a Web-based LMS have been conducted by Ebardo & Valderama (2009) at Jose Rizal University. Their respondents were Information Technology students at their institution. They tested the level of knowledge acquisition within the LMS. They concluded that the features they have embedded in their LMS such as online interaction, resource materials availability, and immediate assessment feedback contributed to the improvement of the assessment scores. This showed that even without a physical classroom, learners, through their own time, can still pursue knowledge and still yield positive results. In relation to gamification, a study was conducted in Spain to use MOODLE as a platform for structural gamification. (Pastor-Pina, Satorre-Cuerda, Molina-Carmona, Gallego-Durán, & Llorens-Largo, 2015) The researchers stated that MOODLE has the tools to implement gamification however a strong sense of instructional design is needed to implement it properly. The researcher agrees with the said premise considering that MOODLE courses are not gamified by default.
27
Instructional Design Aside from establishing a thesis framework, the researcher’s learning content was developed using an established framework to minimize the effects of intervening variables. The content was designed and developed using the ADDIE model. The ADDIE Model is a five-step instructional design and project management tool borrowed from the field of human performance technology (HPT) and is commonly used to develop, implement, and evaluate performance improvement services (Danks, 2011). It has also been stated that the basic ADDIE process remains tantamount in providing a foundation for the next generation of instructional designers. (Dousay & Logan, 2010) With this in mind, the framework for the learning content was as follows: before the program, the needs were analyzed. The curriculum, and virtual learning, the data needed were analyzed and were used to determine the needs of the target audience. After which, the design parameters were set. There are two components to design – the logical flow of the content, and the functionality of the VLE. Computer-assisted learning have been theorized to be more superior than traditional teaching despite many biases in technology-focused papers. (Schittek, Mattheos, Lyon, & Attström, 2001) Though, in a research done to investigate the practical implications and outcomes of gamifying learning experiences, the researchers have recommended that improvements on the usability of the gamification tool used should be undertaken. (Domínguez et al., 2013) This means that the actual functionalities should not be taken for granted. In line with this is the strategic locations of the learning elements. A study that analyzed the navigational patterns of learners has been conducted in UP Open University by
28
Bagarinao (2015). His results indicated that learners visit pages that contain information more frequently such as resources pages and forum pages. This suggests the nature of learners in seeking information in their learning transactions. However, he stated that other factors may have contributed in the performances of the learners as the results also showed that there is no significant relationship between the patterns and performances. With this in mind, the researcher will design and develop the information pages in strategic locations where they can be easily accessed and navigated. In terms of the logical flow of the content, the design phase has undergone with the supervision of a curriculum expert. This will fall in line on Chevalier’s debate against the original meaning of the development phase which is just “Training is developed and refined.” Chevalier has proposed a new desired state of instructional design on development which is “Multiple solutions, including training, are developed and refined.” (Chevalier, 2011) The supervision of a curriculum expert will ensure that issues were minimized, if not at all addressed. The program was implemented using MOODLE which is an open-source LMS. This is commonly used in educational institutions in the world, including the Philippines. It has gamification elements already on its own and the researcher plans to utilize the software’s elements and maximize the use of the available features. Some researches or studies have been discussed in the preceding sections - gamification and virtual learning environments.
29
Evaluation also occurs simultaneously with production. This is to keep the activities and behaviors of learners aligned to the objectives. Evaluation of learning measures the achievement of intended learning objective. Learning can be assessed through direct observation, assignments, and tests. (Ghirardini, 2011, p. 115) The learners were evaluated through formative and summative assessments. The program was evaluated through field notes, observation, and feedback. Rapid prototyping is a fairly new authoring approach. Though its framework was already conceived in the early 90s (Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990), its application in the education arena was not as prominent. This approach is a software engineering methodology. Since the approach is very similar with instructional design, Tripp & Bichelmeyer (1990) argued that this can also be useful for instructional design, especially for computer-based instruction. A few years after, literature on rapid prototyping was revisited and empirical evidence was gathered (Daugherty et al., 2007). The study suggested that rapid prototyping can yield high quality and usable products. The approach was also reviewed, using current literature around the methodology where benefits and pitfalls were identified. (Boulet, 2007) Not only instructional materials were developed using this approach but also learning management systems (Selimi & Veliu, 2010). Their development allowed them to distinguish a clear pattern to serve as a guideline for future modular learning
30
management system developments. This is useful in this research since the eLearning environment is using MOODLE which is a learning management system. Technology Acceptance There are two hypothesized distinct variables as determinants of computer usage – perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use. (Davis, 1993) In his paper, he discussed about the lack of user acceptance being one of the biggest hurdles in the development of information systems. Thus, in a way to prove the viability of technologies to the tastes of the consumers, a research instrument was developed to measure the perceptions of the public in terms of their perceived usefulness and ease of use of said technologies. In this decade, there has been a lot of researches conducted that proved the readiness of users in new technology. An example would be a study in Central Visayas that showed a significant degree of acceptance by teachers to a proposed technology integration in a school setting. (Marcial, 2015) Another research was conducted which restated Davis’s claim that teachers usually evaluate the ease of use in working with a VLE before being able to develop a positive attitude towards it, which in return, develops a positive intention to use the VLE. (Fathema, Shannon, & Ross, 2015) Another example is a study conducted in Sweden to determine university students’ acceptance of e-Learning (Jung, Lorioa, Mostaghel, & Saha, 2014). Another research tried to develop an instrument to check attitudes toward technology – the factors are career aspirations, interest in technology, tediousness of technology, positive perceptions of effects of technology, perception of difficulty and perception of technology as a subject for boys or for boys and girls. (Ardies, Maeyer, & Gijbels, 2013)
31
This research uses a similar factor to Ardies et al’s factor – perception of difficulty against this research’s perceived ease of use. Perceived ease of use and usefulness was also evaluated in a study by Laitenberger & Dreyer (1998) which was an application of TAM to evaluate a Webbased inspection data collection tool. The study is a good model of the applicability and versatility of TAM to measure different kinds of web-based technologies. Behavior toward use and intention to use are also interesting to explore. Some studies showed that intention to use does not correlate to behavior toward the use of a particular technology (Psycharis, Chalatzoglidis, Kalogiannakis, & Teacher, 2007). However, there are also studies that show otherwise (Al-Alak & Alnawas, 2011; Masrom, 2007; P. J. B. Tan, 2013; Tao, 2009) Technology acceptance as an evaluation tool of a program has also been used in past researches. A study in Nigerian universities examined the attitude of students towards eLearning which showed that students have positive attitude towards eLearning because they find it easy to use. (Adewole-Odeshi, 2014) Synthesis The four components– gamification, environment, instructional design, and TAM being studied altogether are not uncommon in research. An example is an evaluation of a VLE in higher education institutions being evaluated using TAM. (Ahmed, Zakaria, &
32
Elmi, 2012) For another example, a study used TAM to test behavioral intentions of learners to use an eLearning environment. (Alharbi & Drew, 2014) In essence, with the wide range of completed and ongoing researches on the applications of gamification, especially the gamification of eLearning, this research attempted to determine the possibility of the development of an eLearning program that is accepted by the targeted general public which are the learning youth, instructors, and learning designers alike.
Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the research design, research locale, respondents of the study, sampling technique, research instruments, validation of the research instruments, data gathering procedures, and the statistical treatment of data. Research Design This research applied a mixed method research approach – using both qualitative and quantitative strategies to collect and analyze data. (Creswell, 2003) This study also followed the grounded theory research model (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) where qualitative data from past researches are gathered together to become guidelines in the design and development of the gamified program. The researcher was following the ADDIE model in developing the learning content which is a systematic methodology for instructional design that includes: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. Adherence to the ADDIE model is a starting point for moving from training to improving performance. (Chevalier, 2011) This model has also been claimed to be an effective, systematic model that can be adapted by instructional coaches to design, implement, and evaluate the effectiveness of critical work functions. (Danks, 2011) The design of the instructional program was based upon the results of the analysis. The design parameters were founded in the principles of instructional design as it is built upon the sand of relativism, rather than the rock of science. (Merrill, Drake,
34
Lacy, & Pratt, 1996). The program was designed with accessibility and navigability in mind. (Reyna, 2009) Research Locale Majority of the study was conducted in Far Eastern University – Manila campus, located in Nicanor Reyes St., Sampaloc, Manila. The respondents were enrollees in the BS Biology program given by the Institute of Arts and Sciences whose classes are being conducted in the Science Building of the same campus. The teachers were current employees who teach BS Biology. Learning designers who participated in this study were employees of Phigit Manila, a branch of an Australian consulting company under the same name. Their office is located in Pacific Century Tower, Quezon Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City. Respondents of the Study There were three sets of respondents to this study – (1) the learning designers, (2) students, (3) teachers. Five (5) learning designers agreed to participate and be interviewed for this research, 78 students took part in the survey and focus group discussions, and 7 teachers were interviewed as well, notable is the 70% participation rate in the teachers invited. The students were enrolled in the BS Biology program in Far Eastern University, Sampaloc, Manila campus. The teachers were employed in Far Eastern University – Sampaloc, Manila, teaching science units; and the learning designers are current employees of Phigit – a consulting firm that offers services in
35
eLearning. The learning designers who have developed learning materials were chosen for this study. Sampling Technique The research employed a convenience sampling technique – the number used were advised by a panel of experts, drawing samples from both easily accessible and willing to participate in the study. The sample is considered as captive sample. (Teddlie & Yu, 2007) Though the technique employed is convenience sampling, a purposive sampling technique called criterion sampling (Palys, 2008) was still employed. The respondents were filtered through the critera: (1) must be involved in scholastic and/or academic work in Far Eastern University or Phigit; and (2) must be provided an opportunity to view a sample or a preview of the initial prototype. In addition, for students and teachers, they must be currently majoring in BS Biology, and are members of the Institute of Arts and Sciences. Research Instruments Two problems were stated and required the application of the grounded theory. The respondents were given a chance to voice out their opinions to eLearning in general as the researcher collects information (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). As the environment and program requires the design and development of a prototype, an instructional design called the ADDIE model was used as a guideline to describe the process. (Willis, 2008). The prototype was developed using an open-source learning management system called “modular object-oriented dynamic learning environment”
36
(MOODLE) 2.6.3 (Build: 20140512). The initial prototype included all the default settings and blocks in the courseware to be developed. Contents were construct validated by an expert and a certificate was signed to verify this (see Appendix C). Actual creation of the eLearning environment and the science program followed the ADDIE model, literature and studies were reviewed to act as guidelines and set limitations as well as milestones. The literature and studies, along with the type of data considered by the researcher as useful, the gamification element that is considered to be added, as well as a short summary of the study are outlined in Table 1. For the analysis phase, literature and studies were reviewed and compiled to develop a set of guidelines in the creation of the initial program. Increasing motivation is a major component in the development of a gamified program so the literatures that back the theoretical aspect of gamification were reviewed and kept in mind – such as the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation (Benabou & Tirole, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2000), and the concept of meaningful gamification (Nicholson, 2012). Suggestions and recommendations based on empirical evidence to the effects of gamification applied to actual environments were also considered such as real-life examples of gamification at work (Glover, 2013) and gamification techniques for classroom management (Nicholson, 2013), For the design phase, components of gamification were made sure to be present. The literature on the theoretical effects of gamification components were reviewed such as the role of engagement (Muntean, 2011). Empirical evidences on the effects of
37
actual components were considered: to (1) rewards (Theodotou, 2014), (2) surprise bonuses (Nguyen, 2015), (3) flairs (van Drumpt, 2013), (4) self-paced key exercises (Leary & Ramsden, 2002), (5) regular notifications (Hagos, 2008; Robertsson, 2014), (6) possibility of retries (Ollikainen, 2013), (7) graphics, sounds, animations, color (Cingi, 2013) and (8) badges (Hamari, 2013). On the development phase, the following theoretical literature was reviewed such as the idea of a “Personal Learning Environment (PLE)” (Attwell, 2007). The development guidelines that were applied was based on ADDIE guidelines (Chevalier, 2011). The empirical evidence on the methods of the use of MOODLE as an environment were reviewed (Dolleton, 2011; Gulch, Al-Ghorani, Quedenfeldt, & Braun, 2012; Kumar, 2012; Montalbo & Chua, 2014). The theoretical implementation phase guideline that was followed was: “Multiple interventions are addressed that focus on the environment as well as the individual. Transference is enhanced by changing the work environment to support the training.” (Chevalier, 2011). A study on how eLearning tools and methods were implemented was also reviewed. (Gulch et al., 2012) For the evaluation phase, the technology acceptance model is applied. Theoretically, it has been said that lack of technology acceptance is a major impediment so this model was conceived.(Davis, 1993) Empirical evidence of identifying technology acceptance plays a major role were also reviewed (Adewole-Odeshi, 2014; Ahmed et
38
al., 2012; Alharbi & Drew, 2014; Ardies et al., 2013; Fathema et al., 2015; Jung et al., 2014; Laitenberger & Dreyer, 1998; Masrom, 2007; Punnoose, 2012; Sedigh, 2013). The survey was an adopted version of a technology acceptance model questionnaire from the Educational Technology & Society journal with permission through as long as copies of this research are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and all copies of said survey bears the full citation in the front page (Park, 2009). Slight modifications and additional items were added by the researcher to slightly increase validity. The survey consists of 24 questions, which are randomly sorted. The questions were categorized into four variables: (1) perceived usefulness; (2) perceived ease of use; (3) intention to use; and (4) behavior towards use (see Appendix A). The measurement validity in terms of the reliability was also evaluated. This reliability analysis was conducted to ensure the consistency of the items used for each variables. A score of .70 and higher is considered reliable for this study (Wells & Wollack, 2003). Table 1. Reliability testing of the instrument through Chronbach's Alpha
Scale
Chronbach’s Alpha
Interpretation
Behavior towards use
.822
Reliable
Intention to use
.803
Reliable
Perceived ease of use
.760
Reliable
39
Perceived usefulness
.778
REliable
In addition, a focus group and interview guide was also adopted from the same principles given in the Technology Acceptance model. (Davis, 1993) (see Appendix B). Responses from the last question – “What improvements or changes can you suggest to keep you or motivate you in using the eLearning environment?” have been used. The initial questions were asked intentionally to guide the respondents as to which modifications or improvements they can suggest to the eLearning environment. Data Gathering Procedure For this research, the ADDIE process have been supplemented with literature review following guidelines for traditional review. (Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008) Relevant studies and knowledge that applied to the topic being discussed were gathered and shown in a tabulated manner. Conclusions were drawn after the literature has been reviewed. This was done to evaluate and check if current practices are being followed. The literature was identified into two – theoretical and empirical. Theoretical literature was based on the assumed effects, and empirical literature was based on actual numbers gathered from previous researches. After gathering literature, an initial prototype was created. The respondents have been presented an opportunity to view the initial prototype based on the findings drawn. The respondents then were asked to provide feedback and assessments, which are enumerated on the survey, on the eLearning shown to
40
them. Using the TAM survey, the respondents provided their perceptions in terms of acceptance of the new environment. Students were interviewed, as guided by a focus group guide, in small groups of 7-15 to provide their opinions on the eLearning environment. Teachers and learning designers were given the same opportunity, however, they had their own personal interview. The researcher has invited proctors from the university to assist the researcher in gathering data. The researcher had invited proctors from the university student government to assist the researcher in gathering data. The proctors then handed over interview field notes based on the responses of the respondents to the researcher after the data gathering session. The interview and questionnaires were given within the span of one week, respondents were anchored to answer questions regarding objects of interest in the eLearning environment (VLE), most especially their suggestions. Questions are stated as simple but concise as possible. Afterwards, data was presented in narrative format, the responses were analyzed to come up with a list of suggestions for improvements. In the same list, the items were analyzed if they are within the capabilities of MOODLE. If they are viable for installation to the VLE, they were applied to the proposed gamified program, otherwise, it remains as a pending suggestion to be recommended for future version updates of MOODLE.
41
Statistical Treatment of Data Problem 1. The assessment of the three groups of respondents on the gamified program in Science in terms of the following variables: (1) behaviour towards use. (2) intention to use; (3) perceived ease of use; (4) perceived usefulness. The assessment of the three groups of respondents on the gamified program in science will be analysed using the means of the answers in each of the variables. Problem 2. Is there a significant difference among the respondents’ assessments in terms of the following variables: : (1) behaviour towards use. (2) intention to use; (3) perceived ease of use; (4) perceived usefulness. The data gathered in this research were calculated and analyzed using SPSS. The answers within the groups on the TAM survey were tallied and be tabulated in groups of students, teachers, and learning designers. After tallying their results, weighted mean was drawn from the data of the Likert scale questions. The formula used was: 𝑤𝑥̅ =
∑𝑤𝑥 𝑤𝑥
Where ∑ is “the sum of”, w as the weights, and x as the values. (Kurtz & Mayo, 2012) Afterwards, the respondents were grouped according to their role as students, teachers, and learning designers, and the means of their responses will be compared
42
against each other using one-way ANOVA. The grand mean was calculated and the formula used was:
𝑥̅𝐺𝑀 =
∑𝑛𝑥̅ ∑𝑛
Where ∑ is “the sum of”, GM is the grand mean, n is the population and x is the value. Total variation was computed to compare the ratio of between group variance to within group variance using the formula: 𝑆𝑆(𝑇) = ∑(𝑥 − 𝑋̅𝐺𝑀 )2 If the variance caused by the interaction between the samples is much larger when compared to the variance that appears within each group, the means are not the same. (Kurtz & Mayo, 2012)
Chapter 4 PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION, AND ANALYSIS OF DATA This chapter presents the data gathered, interpretation of the data, and analyses of the results of the data after the statistical treatment. Demographic Profile of the Respondents As presented in Table 2, there were a total of 90 respondents (N=90) who agreed to participate in this study. In particular, there were 78 BS Biology students, 7 BS Biology professors, and 5 learning designers in eLearning. The descriptive statistics collected from the survey showed that 70 were male (77.8%) and 20 were female (22.2%). Table 2. Demographic information of the respondents according to their role.
Frequency Valid
Percent
Student
78
86.7
Teacher
7
7.8
Learning Designer
5
5.6
90
100.0
Total
The means of the variables, where the questions were grouped accordingly, are shown on the Table 3. The following scale was used to interpret the data: 3.51-4.00 is
44
strongly agree, 2.51-3.50 is agree, 1.51-2.50 is disagree, and 1.00-1.51 is strongly disagree. Problem 1 - Respondents’ Assessments of the Gamified Program Table 3. Descriptive statistics based on the answers of the respondents in the survey.
Behavior Toward
Student
N 78
Use
Teacher
7
3.5143
.53984
Strongly Agree
LD
5
3.6000
.50990
Strongly Agree
Total
90
3.2800
.43219
Agree
Student
78
3.1442
.40259
Agree
Teacher
7
3.2571
.62944
Agree
LD
5
3.4800
.68702
Agree
Total
90
3.1717
.44127
Agree
Perceived Ease of
Student
78
3.2269
.37854
Agree
Use
Teacher
7
3.4571
.53807
Agree
LD
5
3.4000
.81240
Agree
Total
90
3.2544
.42218
Agree
Perceived
Student
78
3.2889
.37799
Agree
Usefulness
Teacher
7
3.4571
.51270
Agree
LD
5
3.4800
.68702
Agree
Total
90
3.3126
.40775
Agree
Intention to Use
Mean 3.2385
Std. Deviation .40779
Interpretation Agree
45
Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics on the answers of the respondents, grouped according to their roles - (1) students, (2) teachers, (3) learning designers. Problem 2 - Significant Difference in the Respondents’ Assessments Table 4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) based on the assessments of the respondents, grouped according to their role. Sum of Squares Behavior
Between Groups
Towards Use
Within Groups
Mean Square
1.031
2
.515
15.593
87
.179
16.624
89
.585
2
.293
16.745
87
.192
17.330
89
.453
2
.226
Within Groups
15.411
87
.177
Total
15.863
89
.330
2
.165
14.467
87
.166
14.797
89
Total Intention to Use Between Groups Within Groups Total Perceived Ease Between Groups of Use
df
Perceived
Between Groups
Usefulness
Within Groups
Total Note: Confidence level is 95%
F
Sig.
2.876
.062
1.520
.224
1.278
.284
.993
.375
Table 4 presents the analysis of variance (ANOVA) treatment of the three groups of respondents’ assessments of the gamified program in terms of technology acceptance variables – behaviour towards use, intention to use, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness.
46
As shown in Table 4, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to test for the differences in the variables between the three groups of respondents. A confidence level of 95% (α value = 0.05) was used. Behavior towards use. The first hypothesis H01 was accepted and concludes that there is no significant difference among the three groups of respondents’ assessment in their behaviour towards the use of the gamified science program since the significance value (p-value) of .062 is greater than the critical value (α) of 0.05. This finding reveals that the teachers, students, and learning designers do not have differences in their assessment of how they behave towards the use of the gamified science program. Intention to use. The second hypothesis H02 was accepted and concludes that there is no significant difference among the three groups of respondents’ assessment in their intention to use the gamified science program since the significance value (pvalue) of .224 is greater than the critical value (α) of 0.05. This finding reveals that the teachers, students, and learning designers do not have differences in their assessment of how they intend to use the gamified science program. Perceived ease of use. The third hypothesis H03 was accepted and concludes that there is no significant difference among the three groups of respondents’ assessment in their perceived ease of use of the gamified science program since the significance value (p-value) of .284 is greater than the critical value (α) of 0.05. This finding reveals that the teachers, students, and learning designers do not have
47
differences in their assessment of how they easy they perceived to use the gamified science program. Perceived ease of use. The fourth hypothesis H04 was accepted and concludes that there is no significant difference among the three groups of respondents’ assessment in their perceived usefulness of the gamified science program since the significance value (p-value) of .375 is greater than the critical value (α) of 0.05. This finding reveals that the teachers, students, and learning designers do not have differences in their assessment of how useful they perceive the gamified science program to their work or study. The findings of this study suggested that there is no significant difference between the technology acceptance of students, teachers, and learning designers in the gamified science program. For comparisons, previous studies that indicated a relationship between perceived usefulness and behavior towards use (Masrom, 2007) can be said to also be suggested through the findings in this study. Problem 3 - Modifications Suggested by the Respondents The researcher gathered the responses to the final interview question “What improvements or changes can you suggest to keep you or motivate you in using the eLearning environment?”. The following were data gathered from the focus group discussion with the students. Focus Group 1’s responses
48
The following section is for Focus Group 1. Eight (8) respondents who have been presented with a model of the gamified science program gathered together to participate in a short focus group discussion – all of which were students. When asked about their feelings in navigating around the eLearning environment, they all responded positively. One student stated “It is very easy to learn.” Another one stated “Yes, because may mga “help”. (There are help buttons).” When asked about what their opinions in using it regularly as a supplement to their regular classes, mixed reactions were noted. Notable response that leans on the positive response is: “Yes, because it gives me more time to learn.”, negative response is: “Magastos. (Costly)”. Mixed reactions are: “It makes me better, but it is timeconsuming.”, “Yes and no. Yes because you can remember the lessons. No because it is time-consuming.” When asked about how long they would take to get familiar with using the eLearning environment, they answered less than a day – specifically ranging from 30 minutes to 1 day. When asked if they think the eLearning environment is easy to use, they have mixed opinions. A student responded “Hindi, dahil first time ko lang gamitin to. (No, because this is my first time to use it.). Another student responded “No, dahil yung WiFi mabagal. (No, because the WiFi is slow.). However, the answers are mostly positive with a general consensus of it is already familiar to them.
49
Finally, when asked what changes they want to suggest in order to keep them to use the eLearning environment, a general consensus on the following are suggested: add music, add educational games, add a clue to questions, and add characters that they can customize. Focus Group 2’s responses The following section is for Focus Group 2. Nine (9) respondents who have been presented with a model of the gamified science program gathered together to participate in a short focus group discussion all of which were students. When asked about their feelings in navigating around the eLearning environment, the responses are all positive. Some commented that it is very easy to use. A student commented that the theme (background, colors, fonts) looks great. When asked about what their opinions in using it regularly as a supplement to their regular classes, mixed reactions were noted. Positive reactions were “Yes, because it encourages us more to attend in class and it will be exciting.”. Another reaction was “Okay dahil ang kabataan ngayon mas sanay na sa computer. (Okay because the youth today easily adapt in computers.)”. Negative reaction includes “No, because maybe I will be pressured because I have many assignments.”. Another student commented “I feel bad for people that have no computer or internet in their house so they will keep paying a rent in the computer shop. (sic)”. Also “No, because it
50
is expensive if you use the internet.” There was also a vague response from a student – “Nasa sa’yo din yun. (It depends on you.)”. When asked about how long they would take to get familiar with using the eLearning environment, the respondents’ answers ranged from 1 hour to 2 days. When asked if they think the eLearning environment is easy to use, mixed reactions were noted. Those who responded positively said “Yes, because you can know the answers.”, “Yes, because it is exciting to use.”, “Yes, dahil kaunti lang ang pipindutin at madali pang matutunan. (Yes, because you only need to press a few buttons and it is easy to learn.), “Yes, because you will just need the instruction and you can easily follow the instruction. (sic).” Finally, when asked what changes they want to suggest in order to keep them to use the eLearning environment, a general consensus on the following suggestions were made by the respondents: add YouTube lessons, integrate with Facebook, add more games, add music and add a point system. Focus Group 3’s responses The following section is for Focus Group 3. Ten (10) respondents who have been presented with a model of the gamified science program gathered together to participate in a short focus group discussion all of which were students. When asked about their feelings in navigating around the eLearning environment, the learners all responded positively that it is easy to navigate around and
51
look for their lessons. However, there are a notable response that despite answering that it is easy to use, also commented on the performance of the program on the device – the respondent complained that the program doesn’t work sometimes. When asked about what their opinions in using it regularly as a supplement to their regular classes, similarly, all but one responded positively that they want to use it regularly as a supplement. The one who reacted negatively commented that if the learners use it every day, they might get bored. Notable positive comments include: “Mas lalo ka pang matututo dahil minsan dun ka na rin kukuha ng sagot. (You will learn even more because you can get the answers from the environment itself.); “Okay ang mga lesson pwede pang ma-review (The lessons are okay, and you can review them.). When asked about how long they would take to get familiar with using the eLearning environment, the respondents’ answers ranged from 3 minutes to 1 month. When asked if they think the eLearning environment is easy to use, they all responded positively with yesses. Notable comments include: “Yes, because you just have to read and click.”; “The controls are smooth”; “Oo. Dahil ang isasagot ay letra o may pagpipilian. (Yes, because the answers are letters or choices.); “Hindi mo alam magkakaroon pa ng isa pang pagkakataon. (You don’t know there’s another chance) pertaining to the retries. Finally, when asked what changes they want to suggest in order to keep them to use the eLearning environment, a general consensus on the following suggestions were
52
made by the respondents: Add games, add prizes, and add “followers” so they can collaborate on tasks which is similar to social media sites. Focus Group 4’s responses The following section is for Focus Group 4. Eight (8) respondents who have been presented with a model of the gamified science program gathered together to participate in a short focus group discussion – all of which were students. When asked about their feelings in navigating around the eLearning environment, six (6) responded positively, who confirmed with simple yesses and two (2) responded negatively noting their difficult experience in searching for contents. When asked about what their opinions in using it regularly as a supplement to their regular classes, the respondents’ consensus was that they are happy to use it. However, a notable comment that somehow disagreed with the others was “I think it will consume a lot of electricity and money.”. A positive comment noted “Natutuwa ako kasi sagot lang ako ng sagot. (I am glad because I just keep on answering).” Another comment was “Happy, because we will learn in advance.”. When asked about how long they would take to get familiar with using the eLearning environment, the respondents’ answers ranged from 1 hour to 3 days. When asked if they think the eLearning environment is easy to use, all but one agreed that it is easy to use. The respondent who disagreed said “Because in the start, you will not learn it “agad-agad” (right away)” - pertaining to the learning curve to use it.
53
A respondents who agreed commended the similarity of the eLearning environment layout to social media sites they currently use. Finally, when asked what changes they want to suggest in order to keep them to use the eLearning environment, a general consensus on the following suggestions were made by the respondents: add hints in quizzes especially for difficult questions, add games, add points, and add music. Focus Group 5’s responses The following section is for Focus Group 5. Eight (8) respondents who have been presented with a model of the gamified science program gathered together to participate in a short focus group discussion – all of which are students. When asked about their feelings in navigating around the eLearning environment, seven (7) agreed that they feel comfortable in navigating around. One commented that there are missing contents though the respondent did not disclose what specific content the program is lacking. When asked about what their opinions in using it regularly as a supplement to their regular classes, six (6) respondents responded positively, especially one respondent noting the possibility of taking home lessons. One respondent who disagreed said that the reason is the lack of interaction with others. Another one who disagreed said it is costly to use.
54
When asked about how long they would take to get familiar with using the eLearning environment, the respondents’ answers ranged from 1 day to 2 weeks. When asked if they think the eLearning environment is easy to use, all the respondents answered yes. One respondent noted that he likes that he can easily bring home lessons. Several respondents noted that they like having access to parts of the lesson just by clicking on the items. There was one respondent who commented that there are still parts he doesn’t know how to use. Finally, when asked what changes they want to suggest in order to keep them to use the eLearning environment, a general consensus on the following suggestions were made by the respondents: add chat functionality, add more themes, add music, add games, let users gain access to videos, and make the website accessible through smartphones. Focus Group 6’s responses The following section is for Focus Group 6. Nine (9) respondents who have been presented with a model of the gamified science program gathered together to participate in a short focus group discussion – all of which were students. When asked about their feelings in navigating around the eLearning environment, all the respondents responded positively that it is easy to use. There are some who responded with “impressive” and “pretty cool”. One respondent commented that it doesn’t “eat up” his time.
55
When asked about what their opinions in using it regularly as a supplement to their regular classes, the responded had mixed responses. Those who answered positively said “it is easy to use”. One responded attempted to weigh the pros and cons – “Maaring okay, at maaaring hindi, dahil sa nakae-enganyo ito, at masayang gamitin. Mas maganda pa rin ang aktwal na pagtuturo. (Could be okay, could be not because it is engaging and fun to use. Actual teaching is still better.). One also noted “Kinda bad, all subjects need its own uniqueness. Not all can fit with eLearning, and also the school expenses. (sic) – pertaining to the flexibility of the environment to be used in different subjects, and costly expense. When asked about how long they would take to get familiar with using the eLearning environment, the respondents’ answers ranged from 1 hour to 2 weeks. When asked if they think the eLearning environment is easy to use, they all agreed in consensus that it is easy to use. One respondent commented “Studentfriendly ito, dahil may elemento ng aliw ang mga programs (This is student-friendly because the programs have elements of fun.)”. One respondent also commented “It’s more convenient to use. Just bring a transportable device that allows you to search.”. Another respondent commended the program’s navigability – “Madali lang ito matutunan at karamihan yung mga controls niya ay basic lang. (It is easy to learn and most of the controls are basic.)”. Finally, when asked what changes they want to suggest in order to keep them to use the eLearning environment, a general consensus on the following suggestions were
56
made by the respondents: add a points system, add characters, develop the theme to add better graphics and backgrounds. Focus Group 7’s responses The following section is for Focus Group 7. Six (6) respondents who have been presented with a model of the gamified science program gathered together to participate in a short focus group discussion – all of which were students. It is notable that one of the respondents did not actively participate on the discussion of the eLearning program but answered a survey so in essence, though six (6) respondents participated, only five actively responded to the interviewer’s questions. When asked about their feelings in navigating around the eLearning environment, mixed reactions were received. Three (3) of the respondents were not satisfied commenting that it is difficult to search for something. Two (2) of the respondents said it is easy to use. When asked about what their opinions in using it regularly as a supplement to their regular classes, four (4) of them said that they are happy to use it as a supplement. One of the respondents disagreed and said that they still “prefer the old habits” in teaching. When asked about how long they would take to get familiar with using the eLearning environment, the respondents’ answers ranged from 2 days to 1 year.
57
When asked if they think the eLearning environment is easy to use, they all agreed that it is easy to use. One commented that “you can’t cheat in eLearning.”. One also commented that “All students use computers”. Finally, when asked what changes they want to suggest in order to keep them to use the eLearning environment, a general consensus on the following suggestions were made by the respondents: add rewards and freebies, and improve the connection. Focus Group 8’s responses The following section is for Focus Group 8. Seven (7) respondents who have been presented with a model of the gamified science program gathered together to participate in a short focus group discussion – all of which were students. It is notable that one of the respondents did not actively participate on the discussion of the eLearning program but answered a survey so in essence, though seven (7) respondents participated, only six (6) actively responded to the interviewer’s questions. It is noted that the respondents are showing hesitations to answer by joking around and having hints of sarcasm in their tone of voice. When asked about their feelings in navigating around the eLearning environment, six of them had difficulty noting the confusion on the website. However, one of the respondents said it is easy to use. When asked about what their opinions in using it regularly as a supplement to their regular classes, five (5) of them responded positively with being okay with it. One
58
of them commented that he is “glad that the university is now using updated electronics.” One disagreed that he is not really interested. One commented that “It’ll make the students more dependent on eLearning and will be lazy reading books.” When asked about how long they would take to get familiar with using the eLearning environment, the respondents’ answers ranged from 1 week to 1 year. When asked if they think the eLearning environment is easy to use, three (3) of them agreed it is difficult and confusing to use. The other three (3) said it is easy to use. One commended that the eLearning environment is convenient and easier to understand than books. One also commended that he likes that it is accessible through any devices – smartphones and desktops. Finally, when asked what changes they want to suggest in order to keep them to use the eLearning environment, a general consensus on the following suggestions were made by the respondents: make it accessible even without internet connection and create better content. Focus Group 9’s responses The following section is for Focus Group 9. Seven (7) respondents who have been presented with a model of the gamified science program gathered together to participate in a short focus group discussion – all of which were students. It is notable that two of the respondents did not actively participate on the discussion of the eLearning program but answered a survey so in essence, though seven (7)
59
respondents participated, only five (5) actively responded to the interviewer’s questions. It is noted that the respondents are rushing the interviewer to finish the interview sooner. When asked about their feelings in navigating around the eLearning environment, all of them agreed that it is easy to use. They had no further comments other than saying it is easy to use. When asked about what their opinions in using it regularly as a supplement to their regular classes, three of them reacted positively. One respondent commented that there’s a need to familiarize students in a technology-based environment. One respondent who disagreed commented that it is time-consuming. One respondent who disagreed said that it is hard to adjust. When asked about how long they would take to get familiar with using the eLearning environment, the respondents’ answers ranged from 2 days to 6 months. When asked if they think the eLearning environment is easy to use, one commented “as long as if it will provide easy instructions.” Two of them said it is easy to use. One disagreed and said that that it is very time-consuming. Finally, when asked what changes they want to suggest in order to keep them to use the eLearning environment, a general consensus on the following suggestions were made by the respondents: accessibility for offline use, and the design of the website must be improved.
60
Focus Group 10’s responses The following section is for Focus Group 10. Seven (7) respondents who have been presented with a model of the gamified science program gathered together to participate in a short focus group discussion – all of which were students. It is notable that two of the respondents did not actively participate on the discussion of the eLearning program but answered a survey so in essence, though seven (7) respondents participated, only five (5) actively responded to the interviewer’s questions. It is noted that the respondents were rushing the interviewer to finish the interview sooner as suggested by their very short answers and refusal to comment further in questions. When asked about their feelings in navigating around the eLearning environment, five (5) respondents said they are “fine” with using it. One respondent had mixed feelings and said “so-so” When asked about what their opinions in using it regularly as a supplement to their regular classes, three of them responded positively. One commented “It makes my study time more productive.” However, two respondents said otherwise – one respondent refused to comment and wants to try it as an actual supplement first before giving his opinion. The other respondent said that it is “not that helpful, time consuming if there is no or slow internet.”
61
When asked about how long they would take to get familiar with using the eLearning environment, the respondents’ answers ranged from 1 to 2 months. Two (2) respondents commented that it depends on how often they are required to use it. When asked if they think the eLearning environment is easy to use, they jokingly responded “so-so” in reference to one of the respondents’ answers in the previous question. One respondent said it is easy to access. Finally, when asked what changes they want to suggest in order to keep them to use the eLearning environment, a general consensus on the following suggestions were made by the respondents: allow offline use, and improve the navigation – make it easy to use. Teachers’ personal interview responses The following section is for the responses of the teachers. When asked about their feelings in navigating around the eLearning environment, three (3) of them answered that they are “okay” with using it. A teacher commented that it is “exciting”. Two (2) responded that it is “easy”. One said it is “confusing”. When asked about what their opinions in using it regularly as a supplement to their regular classroom teaching, one teacher commended it saying “Communication becomes faster. The teaching and learning process becomes more effective.” One teacher responded, “I am okay with it as long as they learned first the topics from me.”
62
One teacher said, “I view eLearning as an interactive and immersive experience similar to video games. They can be used to provide personalized learning experiences, which is better since in the classroom, a teacher cannot provide personalized education. Providing eLearning to your students is a good way to ensure that they don’t get left behind in lessons because, let's admit it, it is hard to engage everyone in the classroom. From my experience in teaching physics, I only get the boys in class to be immersed in discussion. Alienating my female students. Designing an eLearning experience which caters to my students will be a bit hard but they will be the most to benefit from it and therefore I should provide eLearning as a supplement to what we do in the classroom.” When asked about how long they would take to get familiar with using the eLearning environment, the respondents’ answers ranged from 1 hour to 1 week. One teacher added, “It depends on the enthusiasm and willingness of the user to learn.” When asked if they think the eLearning environment is easy to use, all of them said that it is easy to use. One added, “There are tabs on the website.” – pertaining to the guided instructions on how to use certain functionalities. One teacher commented, “It should be easy to use. It is the shortcoming of the designer or creator of the content if it fails to be approachable to students. If something is already too complicated from off the bat they will drop interest in it. But if you provide proper scaffolding like starting off with a tutorial of the basics of the mechanics of a certain lesson then challenge them with harder and harder questions then they will achieve mastery by the end of the lesson. They learned while having fun.”
63
Finally, when asked what changes they want to suggest in order to keep them to use the eLearning environment, only two (2) respondents had suggestions and they had the same response to improve the quizzes. One teacher further commented, “I understand that people who make this content take hundreds of hours to design an experience which will be fun and engaging and easy enough for students to learn and should be paid for their work. To motivate people to use these resources schools should pay for them. The other option is to keep the barrier low. Most people nowadays are using phones as their primary way of connecting to the internet therefore the content should be mobile-friendly. Schools and the government should also promote the use of eLearning by setting in place policies that will make them mandatory or at least recommended. The government should also require schools to develop their educational technology subjects, which will familiarize new education undergraduates with the use of these eLearning materials. The government should also provide training for teachers on how to use the resources available to them. Students should also be taught how to use the internet properly so they can do independent studying so they can realize that learning not only takes place in the classroom but they can also learn on their own time. They should also be taught the value of what they are learning because most of the time they feel as if they’re just required to learn something but never told why they need it. I think it will definitely help if they are told that if they want to become an architect someday that they need to be good at math.”
64
Learning designers’ focus group responses The following section is for the responses of the learning designers. When asked about their feelings in navigating around the eLearning environment, one respondent said, “It doesn't take too long to be familiar with its structure. It’s fun to explore around this environment.”, other two mentioned that it’s “easy”. When asked about what their opinions in using it regularly as a supplement to a teacher’s regular classroom teaching, one learning designer said, “It feels great to have an eLearning supplement. It will reduce a lot of stress for students who happen to miss what the teacher says or say if the teacher misses out on giving a homework or a reminder this tool would come in handy.” Another learning designer commented, “There is no social interaction to your fellow student or teacher so it might be a little boring.” When asked if they think the eLearning environment is easy to use, all of them said that it is easy to use, one learning designer commented that if people know how to use Facebook then they could use the program. One also added, “It gives you almost everything while sitting in front of a computer or tablet.” Another one added. “Its navigation and buttons are clear and compatible to any web browsers and operating system.” Finally, when asked what changes do they want to suggest in order to keep them to use the eLearning environment, a learning designer said, “Add more fun and
65
engaging interaction by using games in eLearning.”. Another added “Interactive learning, not just reading or listening, or watching videos. Make it more fun by adding games (test/quiz/exam), student chat groups, online forums, or anything else that promotes interaction with the teacher's/lecturers or even students-students interaction.” One added “More engaging activities. Interesting infographics and videos are really helpful as well.” Problem 4 - Presentation of Improvements Based on the data gathered from the focus group discussions and interviews, the following improvements are presented to be included in future gamified programs: Game activity module. As one of the most requested improvement is the addition of games, the inclusion of games or changing the basic assessments into games is presented. Figure 5 and Figure 6 show a free open-source activity module compatible with the current eLearning environment (MOODLE). This turns quiz questions or glossary items into interactive games.
66
Figure 5. A Screenshot of the Selection Screen in the “Game Activity Module”
Figure 6. A Screenshot of the “Game” Improvement in its Prototype
67
Accessibility. Another most requested feature by the respondents is accessibility in mobile or tablets. A free open-source theme that caters to mobile and tablet users is presented. Figure 7 shows the appearance of the learning environment when displayed through a smartphone.
68
Figure 7. A Mockup of the eLearning Environment Being Accessible Through a Smartphone
Customization. Another most requested feature by the respondents is customization of the eLearning environment. A setting to allow users to select themes is enabled in the eLearning environment.
69
Points. Another most requested feature by the respondents is a points system. A free open-source block named “Level Up!” under the “Experience Points (XP)” package that is compatible with an upgraded version of the eLearning environment (MOODLE) is presented. This displays a ranking system and a points system in the environment.
Figure 8. A Screenshot of the Points System Block at Work in an eLearning Environment. (Massart, n.d.)
Problem 5 - Implications to eLearning Environments With the improvements suggested in the data regarding modifications, the current eLearning resources to apply the said improvements are feasible to improve the eLearning experience. However, there are some matters to consider like internet speed or equipment which eLearning is very dependent on. A teacher respondent commented
70
“Access to the equipment and resources needed. Technology has dropped in price but internet access in the Philippines is slow. My vision is that the lesson should be accessible to the students even if they are on the go therefore should be accessible on mobile.” A student also commented that some students lack the gadget to use eLearning. Also, the risk for lack of social contact is also apparent – as indicated by suggestions to integrate chat or Facebook to the site. A learning designer commented that “There's no social interaction to your fellow student or teacher so it might be a little boring”. Nevertheless, there are also prominent benefits in the use of a gamified eLearning environment in the classroom. A teacher commented “I view eLearning as an interactive and immersive experience similar to video games. They can be used to provide personalized learning experiences which is better since in the classroom, a teacher cannot provide personalized education. Providing eLearning to your students is a good way to ensure that they don’t get left behind in lessons because, let's admit it, it is hard to engage everyone in the classroom. From my experience in teaching, I only get the boys in class to be immersed in discussion, alienating my female students. Designing an eLearning experience which caters to my students will be a bit hard but they will be the most to benefit from it and therefore I should provide eLearning as a supplement to what we do in the classroom.” A student applauded the availability of eLearning environments anywhere they go even through pocket devices such as smartphones and tablets. A learning designer also commented that eLearning allows the availability of information anywhere.
Chapter 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter presents the researcher’s summary of the study, conclusions drawn from the data, and recommendations to parties that may be affected by the results of this research. Summary The objective of this study was to design and develop a gamified science program that is technologically-acceptable for students, teachers, and learning designers alike. The basic problem in this thesis is the design and development of the gamified science program – along with its components such as the eLearning environment and the resources. The big question is: “what could gamifying imply to current eLearning environments?” The specific problems stated were (1) what the learners’, teachers’, and learning designers’ assessments were regarding their technology acceptance of the program, (2) the significant difference in their assessments, (3) what the modifications the respondents suggested were, (4) what improvements can be presented, and lastly, (5) what the implications of gamifying a science program to an eLearning environment were. A survey was conducted to 90 respondents - 5 of which were learning designers, 7 were teachers, and 78 were students. Analysis of variance was applied to their responses. Findings suggested that there were no significant differences in the respondents’ assessment on the technology acceptance of the gamified program, specifically in terms of their behavior toward use,
72
intent to use, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness. Also, through questionnaire, factors were outlined such as resources and working knowledge to use gadgets were seen as factor to hinder the use of eLearning in general – hence, also the use of a gamified program. Nevertheless, a number of respondents also mentioned that accessibility of learning materials anytime and anywhere is a reason they intend to use eLearning in their work or study. Conclusions The researcher drawn the following conclusions: Based on the findings in this study, statistics suggested that there was no significant difference between students, teachers, and learning designers in terms of their technology acceptance of the developed gamified program in an eLearning environment. Though only a small number of users were surveyed in this study, an insufficient amount to conclude anything, this can still serve as empirical evidence that a gamified program in an eLearning environment has the potential to be used in daily classroom activities as a supplement – which reinforces the possibility of using MOODLE as a platform for structural gamification (Pastor-Pina et al., 2015). Also, since the materials such as the eLearning environment, the lessons and the resources used in this research are free of charge through fair use, this is also empirical evidence that it does not need a high budget or even just requires a basic level of technical expertise to make learning fun and engaging to learners.
73
This gamified science program is another addition to the current wave of researches on addressing the issues of accessibility of education (Durban & Catalan, 2012, p. 64) and the lack of motivation of Filipino children to go to school (Albert et al., 2011), hence an implication that eLearning environments must be further improved and evaluated. Recommendations For future researchers, this study was conducted only to a small number of respondents who agreed to participate. It is recommended to allot more time and to gamify the data gathering itself to catch their attention and motivate them to participate. The researcher noted that focus groups 8, 9, and 10 were rushing to finish the focus group discussion. A simple idea is to give the respondent a reward for their participation so they may be a bit more participative and motivated during the course of the interview / focus group discussion. In addition, the last few groups had trouble accessing the website due to internet speed or device troubles hence their comments to make the learning content downloadable. Factor in the different components that may become intervening variables to the data such as internet speed, device speed, battery life of the device, memory capacity, etc. For teachers, this research suggested that a basic working knowledge of computers can allow you to gamify a program. The ADDIE method is a very useful methodology to identify the issues in the classroom and work within the constraints of allotted time and budget. Allow yourselves to become more open to explore more ways
74
to make learning fun and engaging. In addition, the findings in this research suggested that a basic eLearning environment that can still be enjoyed and accepted by students, teachers, and learning designers alike is within the constraints of a minimum budget. Consider exploring the benefits of eLearning and gamify it to try boosting motivation and productivity in your classroom. For students, this research indicated that one of the benefits of eLearning is accessibility. Should an eLearning environment be present in your institution, make sure to take advantage of it. If there are improvements, you wish to suggest, tell the managers or teachers about the improvements you wish to have in it because it may only cost very little. For learning designers, suggestions to further improve a gamified program in an eLearning environment was presented in this study. The improvements presented might also work for your current projects. Consider adding them to your environments and/or programs.
REFERENCES Adamantopoulos, G. M., Fullero, M., Sembrano, F. M., Nuel, A., & Pineda, M. V. (2014). Exploring gamification and related models in enhancing disaster mitigation and preparedness. In DLSU Research Congress (pp. 1–6).
Adao, R. M., Bueno, M. B., Persia, J. M., & Landicho, L. C. (2015). Academic motivation among college students with math anxiety : basis for an enhancement program. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences, 2(3), 58–62.
Adewole-Odeshi, E. (2014). Attitude of students towards e-learning in south west nigerian universities: an application of technology acceptance model. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-Journal).
Ahmed, A. A., Zakaria, N. H., & Elmi, A. H. (2012). An evaluation of virtual learning environment readiness in higher education institutions ( HEIs ). Journal of Information Systems Research and Innovation, 2, 86–94.
Al-Alak, B. a, & Alnawas, I. a M. (2011). Measuring the acceptance and adoption of elearning by academic staff. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 3(2).
Albert, J. R. G., Quimba, F., & Ramos, A. P. (2011). Why are some filipino children not in school? Policy Notes, 16(2011), 1–8.
Alharbi, S., & Drew, S. (2014). Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics’ behavioural intention to use learning management systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 5(1), 143–155. Angeles, M. R., Deocaris, C. C., Co, C. B., & Arenas, S. U. (2014). “Make-It-ECE”, a mathematics learning management system (LMS) for engineering students in the Philippines. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(9), 109–118.
Angeles, M. R., Fajardo, A. C., & Tanguilig, B. I. T. (2015). E-Math version 2.0 , a
76
learning management system as a math reviewer tool for engineering students in the Philippines. International Journal of Engineering and Technical Research, 3(2), 18–21.
Ardies, J., Maeyer, S. De, & Gijbels, D. (2013). Reconstructing the pupils attitude towards technology-survey. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 18(1), 8–19. Attwell, G. (2007). Personal learning environments - the future of eLearning ? Lifelong Learning, 2(January), 1–8. Bagarinao, R. T. (2015). Students ’ navigational pattern and performance in an elearning environment : a case from UP Open University , Philippines. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 101–111.
Barkand, J., & Kush, J. (2009). GEARS a 3D virtual learning environment and virtual social and educational world used in online secondary schools. Environment, 7(3), 215 – 224.
Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: players who suit MUDs. Journal of MUD Research, 1(1), 19. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-004-0875-6
Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2003). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Review of Economic Studies, 70(3), 489–520. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-937X.00253
Boendermaker, W. J., Prins, P. J. M., & Wiers, R. W. (2015). Cognitive bias modification for adolescents with substance use problems – can serious games help? Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1–8. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.03.008 Boulet, G. (2007). Rapid prototyping : an efficient way to collaboratively design and develop e-learning content, 1–5.
Cayabyab, M. J., Santiago, M. R. T., Dumlao, S. M. G., & Reyes, R. S. J. (2015).
77
development of an android based game interfaced with qr codes for a gamified power management system. WSEAS Transactions on Advances in Engineering Education, 12(4), 31–41.
Chevalier, R. D. (2011). when did addie become addie? Performance Improvement, 50(6), 9–16. http://doi.org/10.1002/pfi
Chou, S.-W., & Liu, C.-H. (2005). Learning effectiveness in web-based technologymediated virtual learning environment. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 65–76. http://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2005.385
Cingi, C. C. (2013). Computer aided education. In Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 220–229). Elsevier B.V. http://doi.org/10.1300/J066v03n04_03
Cohen, A. M. (2011). The gamification of education. Futurist.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative quantitative and mixed methods approaches. SAGE Publications (2nd ed.). http://doi.org/10.3109/08941939.2012.723954
Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: a step-bystep approach. The British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), 38–43. http://doi.org/10.1177/107808747000500401
Danks, S. (2011). The ADDIE Model: designing, evaluating instructional coach effectiveness. ASQ Primary and Secondary Education Brief, 4(5), 1–6.
Darbyshire, D., & Haarms, R. (2015). Student motivation in Asian countries and its impact on academic success for second language university students. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 3(3), 17–27.
Daugherty, J., Teng, Y., & Cornachione, E. (2007). Rapid prototyping instructional design: revisiting the ISD model.
78
Davis, F. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of ManMachine Studies, 38(3), 475–487. http://doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1022
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference on Envisioning Future Media Environments - MindTrek ’11, 9–11. http://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
Dingcong, S., & Quisumbing-Baybay, M. L. (2014). Active learning in a virtual environment : Miriam College’s experience in teaching online facilitation. International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management, 22(3), 43–49. Dolleton, A. M. (2011). MOODLE : an innovative teaching-learning strategy among sisc college students in science , psychology , and nursing subjects. SISC KAIZEN.
Domínguez, A., Saenz-De-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-Herráiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: practical implications and outcomes. Computers and Education, 63, 380–392. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020
Dousay, T., & Logan, R. (2010). Analyzing and evaluating the phases of ADDIE, 32–43.
Durban, J. M., & Catalan, R. D. (2012). Issues and concerns of philippine education through the years. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 1(2), 61–69.
Ebardo, R. a, & Valderama, A. M. C. (2009). The effect of web-based learning management system on knowledge acquisition of information technology students at Jose Rizal University, (December), 17–18.
Eleftheria, A. (2013). Design and development of educational platform in augmented reality environment using gamification to enhance traditional , electronic and lifelong learning experience categories and subject descriptors. BCI ’13: 6th Balkan Conference in Informatics, i, 92–95.
79
El-hussein, M. O. M., & Cronje, J. C. (2010). Defining mobile learning in the higher education landscape research method. Educational Technology & Society, 13, 12– 21. http://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6343-5 Enriquez, M. A. S. (2014). Students ’ perceptions on the effectiveness of the use of edmodo as a supplementary tool for learning. In DLSU Research Congress (pp. 6– 11).
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 Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 210–232.
Ford, V. B., & Roby, D. E. (2013). Why do high school students lack motivation in the classroom? Global Education Journal, (2), 101–114.
Gerling, K., & Masuch, M. (2011). Exploring the potential of gamification among frail elderly persons. CHI 2011 Workshop on Gamification: Using Game Design Elements in Non-Game Contexts, 1–4.
Ghirardini, B. (2011). E-learning methodologies: A guide for designing and developing e-learning courses. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Gillison, F., Osborn, M., Standage, M., & Skevington, S. (2009). Exploring the experience of introjected regulation for exercise across gender in adolescence. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(3), 309–319. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.10.004
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company. Glover, I. (2013). Play as you learn : gamification as a technique for motivating learners Play As You Learn : Gamification as a Technique for Motivating Learners. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telemcommunications 2013, 1998–2008.
80
Gulch, E., Al-Ghorani, N., Quedenfeldt, B., & Braun, J. (2012). Evaluation and development of e-learning tools and methods in digital photogrammetry and remote sensing for non experts from academia and industry. International Archives of the Phogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Informaiton Sciences, XXXIXB6(September), 1–6. http://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XXXIX-B6-1-2012
Hagglund, P. (2012). Taking gamification to the next level. Umea University.
Hagos, L. C. (2008). Enhancing teaching and learning through SMS-mediated lectures in mathematics, (August), 33–42.
Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(4), 236–245. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2013.01.004
Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2013). Social motivations to use gamification: an empirical study of gamifying exercise. Proceedings of the 21st European Conference on Information Systems SOCIAL, 1–12.
Hartnett, M., St. George, A., & Dron, J. (2011). Examining motivation in online distance learning environments: complex, multifaceted, and situation-dependent. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(6), 20–38.
Hon-keung, Y., Man-shan, K., & Lai-Fong, C. A. (2012). The impact of curiosity and external regulation on intrinsic motivation: an empirical study in Hong Kong education. Psychology Research, 2(5), 295–307.
Huotari, K. (2012). Defining Gamification - A service marketing perspective. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, 17–22. http://doi.org/10.1145/2393132.2393137
James, L. (2014). Air rage: gamification techniques for managing passenger behavior. American International Journal of Contemporar Y …, 4(10), 24–30.
81
Jung, M.-L., Lorioa, K., Mostaghel, R., & Saha, P. (2014). E-Learning: Investing University Student’s Acceptance of Technology. Igarss 2014, (1), 1–5. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Kongchan, C. (2008). How a non-digital native teacher makes use of Edmodo. 5th Intenational Conference ICT for ….
Kravcik, M., Klemke, R., Pesin, L., Hüttenhain, R., & Specht, M. (2002). Adaptive learning environment in WINDS. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2002 (pp. 1846–1851). Denver, Colorado, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Kumar, G. (2012). Deployment of realtime dynamic knowledge , learning and research environment using MOODLE. International Journal of Reviews, Surveys and Research, 1(1).
Kurtz, A. K., & Mayo, S. T. (2012). Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology. Springer New York.
Laitenberger, O., & Dreyer, H. M. (1998). Evaluating the usefulness and the ease of use of a Web-based\ninspection data collection tool. Proceedings Fifth International Software Metrics Symposium. Metrics (Cat. No.98TB100262), 1–13. http://doi.org/10.1109/METRIC.1998.731237
Leary, R. O., & Ramsden, A. (2002). Virtual learning environments. The Handbook for Economics Lecturers.
Lee, J. J., & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in education: what , how , why bother? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15, 1–5.
Lee, V. R. (2013). The Quantified Self (QS) movement and some emerging opportunities for the educational technology field. Educational Technology, 53(6), 39–42.
82
Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., & Pelletier, L. (2006). Why do high school students lack motivation in the classroom? Toward an understanding of academic amotivation and the role of social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 567–582. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.567
Marcial, D. E. (2015). Teacher education perceptions of a proposed mobile classroom manager. The IAFOR Journal of Education, 13–29.
Masrom, M. (2007). Technology acceptance model and E-learning. 12th International Conference on Education, (May), 21–24.
Massart, F. (n.d.). Screenshot of LevelUp! plugin.
McCallum, S. (2012). Gamification and serious games for personalized health. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 177, 85–96. http://doi.org/10.3233/978-161499-069-7-85
McGriff, S. J. (2000). Instructional System Design (ISD): Using the ADDIE Model. Instructional Systems, College of Education, Penn State University.
Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., & Pratt, J. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5–7. Montalbo, J., & Chua, C. (2014). Assessing student’s satisfaction on the use of virtual learning environment (VLE): an input to a campus-wide e-learning design and implementation. IISTE Information and Knowledge Management, 4(2), 108–115.
Morschheuser, B. S., Rivera-Pelayo, V., Mazarakis, a., & Zacharias, V. (2014). Interaction and reflection with quantified self and gamification: an experimental study. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 15(2), 136–156.
Muntean, C. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. The 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL 2011, (1), 323–329.
83
Nguyen, V. C. K. (2015). Gamification Framework for Marketing Courses. Lahti University of Applied Sciences.
Nicholson, S. (2012). A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification a brief introduction to gamification organismic integration theory situational relevance and situated motivational affordance. In Games+Learning+Society 8.0 (pp. 223–230). http://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979575
Nicholson, S. (2013). Exploring gamification techniques for classroom management. In Games+Learning+Society 9.0.
Ollikainen, M. (2013). On Gamification. University of Tampere.
Palys, T. (2008). Purposive sampling. In L. M. Given (Ed.). In The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (Vol. 2, pp. 697–8). Sage: Los Angeles.
Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150–162. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00340-009-3513-0
Pastor-Pina, H., Satorre-Cuerda, R., Molina-Carmona, R., Gallego-Durán, F. J., & Llorens-Largo, F. (2015). Can Moodle be used for structural gamification? INTED2015 Conference, (March), 1014–1021. Psycharis, S., Chalatzoglidis, G., Kalogiannakis, M., & Teacher, S. E. (2007). Students ’ acceptance of a learning management system for teaching sciences.
Punnoose, A. C. (2012). Determinants of intention to use elearning based on the technology acceptance model. Journal of Information Technology Education, 11. Reyna, J. (2009). Developing quality e-learning sites : A designer approach. In ascilite Aukland (pp. 837–838).
84
Robb, C. a, & Sutton, J. (2014). The importance of social presence and motivation in distance learning authors : the importance of social presence and motivation in distance learning. Journal of Technology, Management, and Applied Engineering, 31(2). Robertsson, L. (2014). Quantified Self : An Overview & the Development of a Universal Tracking Application.
Rotem, A., & Oster-Levinz, A. (2007). The school website as a virtual learning environment. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 6(3), 145– 156.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. http://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Schittek, M., Mattheos, N., Lyon, H. C., & Attström, R. (2001). Computer assisted learning. A review. European Journal of Dental Education, 5(3), 93–100. http://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0579.2001.050301.x
Sedigh, Y. D. (2013). Development and validation of technology acceptance modelling for evaluating user acceptance of an e-learning framework, (June).
Selimi, V., & Veliu, I. (2010). Design & Development of Modular Learning Management Systems. Stewart, C., Cristea, A. I., Brailsford, T., & Ashman, H. (2005). “Authoring once, delivering many”: creating reusable adaptive courseware.
Stott, A., & Neustaedter, C. (2013). Analysis of gamification in education. Carmster.Com, 1–8.
Tan, E. B. (2007). Research experiences of undergraduate students at a comprehensive university. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher
85
Education, 19(3), 205–215.
Tan, P. J. B. (2013). Applying the utaut to understand factors affecting the use of English e-learning websites in Taiwan. SAGE Open, 3(4). http://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013503837
Tao, D. (2009). Intention to use and actual use of electronic information resources: further exploring Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). AMIA ... Annual Symposium Proceedings / AMIA Symposium. AMIA Symposium, 2009, 629–633.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: a typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100. http://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292430
Theodotou, E. (2014). Early years education: are young students intrinsically or extrinsically motivated towards school activities? A discussion about the effects of rewards on young children’s learning. Research in Teacher Education, 4(1), 17–21.
Thongmak, M. (2013). Social network system in classroom: antecedents of edmodo © adoption. Journal of E-Learning and Higher Education, 2013, 1–15. http://doi.org/10.5171/2013.657749 Torio, V. A. G. (2015). Physics motivation and research : understanding the 21 st century learners of today. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(2), 125–134.
Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid protoyping: an alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 38(1), 31=44. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298246
Vallerand, R. J. (2004). Intrinic and Extrinsic Motivation in Sport. Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-657410-3/008357
86
van Drumpt, T. (2013). The effects of gamification on environmental knowledge and behaviors. Wells, C. S., & Wollack, J. A. (2003). An instructor’s guide to understanding test reliability. Testing and Evaluation Services, 2–5. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Weman-Josefsson, K., Lindwall, M., & Ivarsson, A. (2015). Need satisfaction, motivational regulations and exercise: moderation and mediation effects. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(1), 67. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-015-0226-0
Wiecha, J., Heyden, R., Sternthal, E., & Merialdi, M. (2010). Learning in a virtual world: experience with using Second Life for medical education. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 12(1), 1–34. http://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1337
Willis, J. (2008). Qualitative Research Methods in Education and Educational Technology. Information Age Publishing.
APPENDICES
88
APPENDIX A: PERMIT TO CONDUCT STUDY – FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY
Far Eastern University Institute of Education - Graduate Studies Nicanor Reyes St., Sampaloc, Manila February 9, 2016
To the VPAD Dean,
I will be working on a thesis entitled “DESIGN AND EVALUTION OF A GAMIFIED SCIENCE PROGRAM: IMPLICATIONS TO ELEARNING ENVIRONMENTS” as a requirement for the completion of my degree Master of Arts in Education major in Curriculum and Evaluation here at Far Eastern University. In view of this, I am respectfully asking your good office for approval to conduct a research among science professors / instructors and students. Rest assured that the data gathered will be treated with utmost respect and confidentiality, and that the results will be used for research and educational purposes only.
Very truly yours,
Michael R. Orbegoso MAED – Curriculum and Instruction
Noted by:
Dr. Priscila L. Doctolero, Program Head IEGs
89
APPENDIX B: PERMIT TO CONDUCT STUDY – PHIGIT
Far Eastern University Institute of Education - Graduate Studies Nicanor Reyes St., Sampaloc, Manila February 9, 2016
To the Phigit Management,
I will be working on a thesis entitled “DESIGN AND EVALUTION OF A GAMIFIED SCIENCE PROGRAM: IMPLICATIONS TO ELEARNING ENVIRONMENTS” as a requirement for the completion of my degree Master of Arts in Education major in Curriculum and Evaluation here at Far Eastern University. In view of this, I am respectfully asking your good office for approval to conduct a research among employees of Phigit. Rest assured that the data gathered will be treated with utmost respect and confidentiality, and that the results will be used for research and educational purposes only.
Very truly yours,
Michael R. Orbegoso MAED – Curriculum and Instruction
Noted by:
Dr. Priscila L. Doctolero, Program Head IEGs
90
APPENDIX C: SURVEY ON TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE Far Eastern University ; Institute of Education – Graduate Studies General Directions: Please accomplish the questionnaire very carefully and honestly and after a few minutes, it will be picked up by a representative/researcher. Please rest assured that any information that you supply will be treated with greatest confidentiality and anonymity. Please supply the information being asked for. Name (optional): University Role: ☐ Student ☐ Lecturer / Professor ☐ Learning Designer Directions: Please put a check mark opposite the specified item under the appropriate headings to show your self-assessment of the eLearning environment. Use the following guide: Item
Strongly Agree (4)
Agree
Disagree
(3)
(2)
Strongly Disagree (1)
1. I find it easy to become skillful in using the software. 2. I plan to use an eLearning environment in the future. 3. I find interaction through the lesson clear and understandable. 4. The eLearning environment is important in developing my skills and knowledge. 5. I believe it is a good idea to use an eLearning environment in classroom learning. 6. Using an eLearning environment to enhance classroom learning is a good idea. 7. It is easy to locate the parts of the lesson I need to review in the eLearning environment. 8. Learning in the eLearning environment enhances my effectiveness on the study. 9. I like the idea of using an eLearning environment in classroom learning. 10. Overall, learning the lessons through the software would be easy for me. 11. Using the eLearning environment improves my study. Reference: Park, S. Y. (2009). An Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding University Students' Behavioral Intention to Use e-Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (3), 150–162.
91
12. I intend to use the eLearning environment in future courses. 13. Learning in the eLearning environment enables me to learn concepts more quickly. 14. Learning in the eLearning environment boosts my productivity. 15. The eLearning environment website is useful in learning the subject matter. 16. It is easy to navigate through the links in the eLearning environment. 17. I intend to provide more time in using the eLearning environment. 18. I intend to share the benefits of using the eLearning environment to others. 19. I intend to do my tasks in the eLearning environment as much as possible. 20. I intend to become more skillful in the use of the eLearning environment. 21. I prefer to use an eLearning environment when available. 22. It is easy to understand the lesson in the eLearning environment. 23. Assuming I have access to an eLearning environment, I intend to use it. 24. I intend to use the eLearning environment as often as possible.
COMMENTS:
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this study. Your feedback is valued and very much appreciated!
Reference: Park, S. Y. (2009). An Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding University Students' Behavioral Intention to Use e-Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (3), 150–162.
APPENDIX D: FOCUS GROUP AND INTERVIEW GUIDE Opening Remarks: I would like to make it clear that information declared in this interview will be kept confidential. Your privacy is my utmost priority. Details: 1. What is your role in the university? 2. Have you encountered eLearning or used an eLearning environment before? If yes, how many years have you been using / used it? 3. How do you describe your technical expertise when it comes to eLearning? Effort and Ease of Use 1. How do you feel about navigation in the eLearning environment? 2. How do you feel about using it regularly as a supplement to your classroom teaching? 3. How long do you think it would take to get familiar with the eLearning environment? 4. Do you think it is easy to use? Why or why not? Improvements 1. What improvements or changes can you suggest to keep you or motivate you in using the eLearning environment?
APPENDIX E: CERTIFICATE OF VALIDATION
Far Eastern University Institute of Education - Graduate Studies Nicanor Reyes St., Sampaloc, Manila
CERTIFICATION OF VALIDATION
To whom it may concern:
This is to certify that the undersigned evaluated the research materials, namely the (1) interview/focus group guide, (2) survey, and (3) three science lessons of Michael R. Orbegoso, a MAED Curriculum & Instruction student. He is currently working on his thesis entitled “DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF A GAMIFIED PROGRAM IN SCIENCE: IMPLICATION TO ELEARNING ENVIRONMENTS”
___________________________________ Joseph R. Jintalan, MAEd Faculty Manila Business College
CURRICULUM VITAE MICHAEL R. ORBEGOSO eLearning Developer Phigit U/314 Pacific Century Tower, Quezon Avenue Diliman, Quezon City 09209187019
[email protected] [email protected] PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Cubic Consulting (under Phigit) (December 2012 – present) Instructional Developer / Tech Support (Mar 2013 – present) Designed courses using Articulate Storyline, Lectora Inspire, and/or Adobe Captivate to deliver learning content through audio-visual and interactive modules. Maintained courseware (MOODLE, Totara, and other commercially available LMS), to preserve the standards of learning experiences of higher education students enrolled in different institutions in Sydney, Australia. Evaluated learning content against Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and Quality Matters Program (QM) standards to ensure quality education and web accessibility. Improved learning modules that needed enhancements upon requests of unit coordinators and professors, as well as when deemed needs improvement in order to adhere to standards set by WCAG and QM. Encoded, synced and improved audio and video files using Adobe Premiere Pro, Adobe Audition, and Sony Vegas to enrich the learners’ experience when viewing the courseware. Evaluated assessment activities such as quizzes and examinations laid out on courseware - developing the activities that need improvement. Coordinated with peers, between the Philippines and Australia, to meet the projects’ deadlines using project management tools (Celoxis, Jira, Confluence, Request Tracker). Project Coordinator (for USA, Australia, and Canada) (Dec 2012 – Dec 2013) Maintained sales and contact information through customer relationship management systems. Complied with client requests with sourcing and managing translators, ensuring the workflow standards are met. Monitored and documented deliveries.
95
Marketed projects through different avenues especially writing and submitting articles for different websites. Managed content through Joomla. Transcribed audio files into text for clients in need. Selected and assigned translators, as well as set costs and deadlines for the projects as well as coordination of production to ensure safe and prompt delivery of outputs.
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Master of Arts in Education major in Curriculum and Instruction o Far Eastern University – Manila (2014-2016) Bachelor of Secondary Education major in General Science o Far Eastern University – Manila (2008-2012) LICENSES Licensure Examination for Teachers (Rating: 84%) o September 2012 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Science and Mathematics Educators Society o Member (2009-2012)
![75 Tips to Reduce eLearning Costs - The eLearning Guild [PDF]](https://m.moam.info/img/260x300/75-tips-to-reduce-elearning-costs-the-elearning-gu_64b6f0dd098a9e88378b459f.jpg)
![75 Tips to Reduce eLearning Costs - The eLearning Guild [PDF]](https://m.moam.info/img/260x300/75-tips-to-reduce-elearning-costs-the-elearning-gu_64a04bc0098a9e31498b45e4.jpg)
