Content uploaded by Peter Appiahene
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter Appiahene on Nov 10, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Raising Students Programming Skills Using Appiahene Gamification
Model
Peter Appiahene1, George Asante2, Bryce Kesse-Yaw3 and James Acquah-Hayfron4
1University of Energy and Natural Resources, Ghana
2University of Education Winneba, Ghana
3Berekum College of Education, Ghana
4Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana
peter.appiahene@uenr.edu.gh
geosante@yahoo.com
kesseyaw@gmail.com
jhha@yahoo.com
Abstract: Information and Communication Technology (ICT) offers an opportunity for the development of modern Teaching
and Learning Materials (TLM). The use of game features in a non-gaming context ‘gamification’ – suggest the promise to
make teaching and learning of programming more motivating and more enjoyable to students. Notwithstanding widespread
commentary on its advantages and lacks, little empirical study has sought to validate the existing gamification models as a
meaningful concept and provide evidence of its efficiency as a tool for motivating and engaging users in non-entertainment
contexts. The aim of this paper is to propose a new model named “Appiahene Gamification Model (AGM)” for programming
learning to prove that gamification has quality that when applied well would be beneficial. Qualitative method of research
was used by reviewing several models and frameworks applied in gamification, to demonstrate that there is academic merit
to these models. Discussions with four programming lecturers were also used; one has implemented a gamification, two are
yet to experience it whilst the last have not heard about the concept. Using such qualitative methods in this paper illustrates
that there is academic support for a common model design that can be used by institutions. The proposed model reflects
how instructors and learners relate to their learning objectives and experience. There is a notion that gamification cannot
be stagnant and linear once applied, but must be cyclical and updated to reflect changes in the learning objective,
gamification elements and the experience of the users who use the application. As the success of gamification depends on
the definition of objectives and experience, the clarity of such definitions will correlate to the success rate of gamification in
the specific area. With proper integration of the proposed model in the field of programming, a positive impact such as
motivation and greater engagement of students on the learning process can be achieved. This proposed model would have
implications for a wide range of teaching and learning and identifies areas for further research. The model can also be used
to formulate recommendations towards the design of gameful instruction in other fields like business.
Keywords: Appiahene gamification model, computer programming skills, TLM, information and communication
technology, game based learning
1. Introduction
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) offers an opportunity for the development of modern
teaching and learning materials (TLM) and for improvements in curriculum design in subjects like programming.
These ICT tools have changed the programming learning and practical acquisition environment as well as the
dynamics of the programing learning settings. Even though technology is increasingly prevalent in everyday
activities such as in education, business and other sectors, Africa is perceived as either lagging behind in
recognizing these opportunities or struggling with the challenges of implementing(S. Kumar & Tammelin,
2008).ICT can promote interactive and student-centered learning (Kovacic, Bubas and Zlatovic, 2007). Within a
decade, changing conceptions of learning and swift technological advances have been followed via adjustment
in teaching and learning of programming. Programming lecture halls and laboratories are increasingly turning
into blended learning environments that emphasis on active practice (Kumar and Tammelin, 2008). It is
commonly known that active learning advances the learning process and thus raises the quality of the
programming learning experience(Kumar and Tammelin, 2008). The use of game features in a non-gaming
context Connolly et al., (2012); De Schutter and Vanden Abeele (2014) ‘gamification’ Domínguez, Saenz-de-
navarrete, & Pagés (2014) – suggest the promise to make teaching and learning of programming more
motivating and more enjoyable to students. The purpose of gamification in education is to upsurge student
engagement and motivation McDaniel & Fanfarelli (2016) through the introduction of game elements such as
leaderboards, badges and levels(Paisley, 2013). Notwithstanding extensive commentary on its advantages and
lacks, little empirical study has sought to validate the existing gamification models as a meaningful concept and
provide evidence of its efficiency as a tool for motivating and engaging users in non-entertainment contexts. The
14
Peter Appiahene et al.
main aim of this paper is to propose a new model named after the lead author “Appiahene Gamification Model
(AGM)” for teaching programming. To also prove that gamification has quality that when applied well would be
beneficial. With a simple amendment, the model can also be implemented in other courses and also in business.
2. The concept of gamification and game-based learning
Zichermann and Cunningham (2011) defined gamification as the process of using game features and game
procedure to solve problems and engage users. Many authors Buckley & Doyle, (2016); Deterding et al. (2011);
Dicheva et al. (2016); Jacobs, (2013); Nadolny & Halabi, (2016) conceptualized the term as the adoption of game
technology and game design methods outside of the games industry but Kapp (2012) defines gamification as
simply the use of game mechanics to make teaching and learning more exciting. Even though gamification is an
evolving area and concept with inadequate literature, there’s sufficient literature on the use of video games in
learning. Using game techniques in non-gaming circumstances has been revealed to inspire people to attain
their individual goals, clear up common glitches, and direct systemic activity. In the area of education,
gamification offers the capacity for greater student engagement De Byl and Hooper (2013); Buckley and Doyle
(2016) and motivation in lecture room and online settings. Gamification gives teachers room to situate learners
in genuine environments where they can rehearse their talents and gain instant remarks on development and
accomplishments, earn credit for doing well, and overcoming a problem.
The next section talks about programming as a course of study, challenges face by students in studying the
course and some application of gamification in teaching and learning of programming done by other authors.
3. Gamification and programming subject
Computer Programming normally is the art of designing and implementing copious sets of instructions (codes)
to aid computer to accomplish a given task. These codes are considered computer programs and help the
computer to operate easily(Bebbington, 2014). The language used to program these computers is called
machine language Bledsoe and Browning (1959); Lane and Ashby (1987) and are normally binary numerals; 0 or
1 Scott and Strachey (1971)not easily understood by humans. Computer Science departments have started
facing incessant reduction in the number of under graduates with one of the reasons been difficulty in mastering
the programming skills. As core subjects, programming plays an important role in successful tertiary computer
science education. In the computer science curriculum, students cannot avoid programming(Azmi, Iahad and
Ahmad, 2015).
According to significant studies by Azmi, Iahad and Ahmad, (2015); Khaleel et al., 2015; Olsson, Mozelius and
Collin (2015); Fotaris et al. (2016); Mladenović et al. (2016), one of the greatest challenges faced by most
Computer Science students is coping with programming. Azmi et al (2015) cited difficulty in coping with
programming, lack of satisfactory skills in developing correct codes and unfamiliarity with the programming
structures as some of the challenges faced by students in programming. The work suggested frustration leads
to low participation. According to Kumar and Khurana (2012) ,lack of motivation and engagement of students in
learning programming concepts are the main reasons of disinterest in programming and proposed the
introduction of gamification in teaching practices. The results indicated a strong preference for the use of
gamification in instructing the programming knowledge as cited by(Combefis, Beresnevicius and Dagiene, 2016).
Mladenović et al. (2016) introduced game making course for novice programmers and examined the effect of
making games on attitude and motivation. Students sometimes finds it challenging to learn new programming
languages and Khaleel et al. (2015) tried to solve the problem by applying gamification elements in programming
with a new architecture of gamification to increase the effectiveness of learning and enhance understanding.
Knutas et al. (2014) used a case study approach by applying gamification in an online collaboration with a
programming course. Fotaris et al. (2016) also presented quasi-experimental study of applying gamification
techniques to a programming class by combining instructor feedback, real time sequence of scored quizzes, and
live coding to deliver a fully interactive learning experience. The result suggested key metrics such as attendance
and downloading of course material, was encouraging and proved that the gamified approach was motivating
and enriching for both students and instructors.
4. Methodology
The authors reviewed existing frameworks, models and architectures from selected journal papers and
conference proceedings published between 2011 and 2016. The journal and conference papers were reviewed
according to the study objectives: To identify suitable models, that can be used to apply gamification application
15
Peter Appiahene et al.
in the teaching and learning of programming. This was done to demonstrate that there is academic merit to
these existing frameworks and models.
The deficiencies of the existing models and frameworks was taking into consideration .The authors therefore
designed and proposed the new Appiahene Gamification Model(AGM) to take care of most of the deficiencies
of the already existing models and frameworks. Four(4) programming lecturers; one has implemented
gamification; two are yet to experience it whiles the last have not heard about the concept and ten(10)
programming students were purposefully selected. These participants were taken through how the proposed
model works and allowed the participants to analyze and make contributions about the proposed model. The
views of the participants were incorporated in the final model in figure 1 below.
5. Gamification models and frameworks
Nada et al (2015) proposed a suitable design and smooth integration of game-based scenarios into learning
environments by reusing existing standards and an engineering model-driven approach. Specifically, the work
used the methodology proposed by the Object Management Group (OMG) Model Driven Architecture (MDA).
Despite the ability of the model by(Nada et al. (2015) there were certain inadequacies. For instance, the
proposed authoring tool was not ergonomic enough to easily guide the game developer or even the instructors
through the process design. The users will spend time acquainting with the tool. There is also the problem of
the emergence of new platforms containing new features and functions. In 2015, Karoui et al identify several
Mobile Learning Games (MLGs) used in educational context, in order to determine their common features and
impact on learners, and also to identify challenges in terms of design and student monitoring. The study
proposed a global MLGs model, capable of capitalizing the identified main characteristics and overcome the
recurring problems simultaneously. Methodology adopted did not take into consideration current MLGs articles
with many citations. The model for introduction of gamification into e-learning can consists of the eight elements
this according to (Urh et al., 2015). Similar work was also done by Swacha and Baszuro (2013) with emphasis on
programming. The study asserted that with proper integration of gamification in the field of e-learning a positive
impact on the learning process can be achieved. Using both qualitative and quantitative research methods,
Jacobs (2013) proposed a model that seeks to bridge the gap between the various frameworks of Gamification
that exist in business. The work supported the argument that Gamification cannot be stagnant once applied but ,
must be continually updated and changed to reflect both the changing business goals and the skills of the users
who use the system. Gené and Mart (2014) proposed a Cooperative MOOC model with gamification to motivate
Massive Online Open Courses (MOOC’s) students based on gamification. The model used the cooperative MOOC
model of Fidalgo et al. With reference to the cooperative MOOC model a new layer which includes gamification
elements influencing the three layers of the cooperative MOOC model was suggested.
Finally, Huang et al (2013) proposed a five-step model that can be used to apply gamification in education. The
model suggested that, once the objectives are clear, the context will help determine the salient points.
Notwithstanding the capabilities of this model by Huang and Soman (2013),it was also deficient in some way; It
was linear ,no evaluation and feedback was taking. The proposed model did not also considered the student
interest and no provision was made for content preparation. The users or learners do not have a say in the
development of the system. In order to overcome these drawbacks and challenges in the existing discussed
models and framework, proposes a modified model called “Appiahene Gamification Model(AGM)” shown in
figure 1 which was adapted from Huang and Soman, (2013) has been proposed.
The following part of the article presents the proposed model for teaching and learning of programming in higher
institutions .It describes the main elements of the model, how the model works and its impact on students
learning.
6. The Appiahene Gamification Model (AGM)
According to Shea, Pickett and Pelz (2003) and cited by Urh et al. (2015), effective online learning environment
should encourage: contact between students and faculty members, reciprocity and cooperation between
students, prompt feedback, time on task, active learning techniques, communication of high expectations and
respect diversity and ways of learning from each student. There are some recommendations for teachers and
organizations to organize contents in platform guidelines (Lee & Hammer, 2011; Simões et al., 2013): rapid and
positive feedback, adapting tasks to skill levels, experimentation and tasks repetition, main goal is divided into
16
Peter Appiahene et al.
smaller goals, different paths to the goal, use of different game mechanics, and encouraging activities despite
the current failure.
The main objective of gamification is high efficiency, effectiveness, engagement, satisfaction and motivation of
students. These objectives can be achieved through the use of the proposed Appiahene Gamification Model
(AGM) which was named after the lead author Appiahene. Programming instructors must create the
environment under which students are motivated, satisfied, effective and efficient. Evaluation and feedback
taking is an important part of the model. The model consists of the following main elements: understand the
target audience and context, stating the learning objectives, constructing the experience, preparing the content,
identifying the needed resources and materials, design and apply gamification elements and last but not the
least evaluate and take feedback. This proposed model shows that learning is a continues process Buckler (1996);
Neary (2000); Rav Sankar Venna (2013) and also in cyclic form. Continuous learning is process of life, highpoint
of the attitude and vision of the universe(Rav Sankar Venna, 2013).
Figure 1: The proposed model by authors
7. The main elements of the model
Understand the Target Audience and Context: A key factor that determines the success of programming
subject is a good under-standing of who the student is. This combined with the context, in which the
program is being delivered, will help in designing a program that empowers the student to achieve the
objective of the program. Proper analysis of the target audience will help one to determine factors like age
group, learning abilities and current skill-set.
State the Learning Objectives: Every instructor should have an objective that he/she wants to achieve at
the end of the learning process. This could include General Instructional Goals and Specific Learning Goals.
They are basically statements that define the anticipated goal of a syllabus, course, class or activity in terms
of obvious skills or knowledge that will be acquired by a student as a result of instruction. In some literature
others call it objectives, learning outcomes, learning goals.
Construct the Experience:Background or previous experience is the raw material that catalysis learning. It
acts as mental bases for the organization of new information and is the basic building block of content and
skill knowledge. In literature, the term experience and prior knowledge is often used
interchangeably(Campbell and Campbell, 2008).The instructor or game designer should engage the learners
or the users in revision of previous knowledge and experience to enable him/her prepare a proper content.
The preparation of the content is dependent on previous experience or knowledge of the learners or
users(Schauble, 1990; Pressley et al., 1992; Tobias, 1994; Campbell and Campbell, 2008).
Prepare the Content: The term content refers to the body of knowledge and information Iivari, Hirschheim
and Klein, (2004); Theoharidou and Gritazalis, (2007) that the instructor will teach and what students are
expected to learn in a given subject or course area. The main topics, subtopics, theories, activities, and facts,
are grouped within each subject or learning area under knowledge, skills, values and attitudes, that are
17
Peter Appiahene et al.
expected to be learned and form the basis of teaching and learning. This is to enable the learners achieve
competency or skills.
Identify the needed resources:Once content have been prepared, the instructor can easily suggest what
materials and resources and needed. This will also enable the developer or instructor know the kind of game
mechanics and elements such as points, badges, leaderboards, level, feedback , challenges, Lee et al. (2013);
Dicheva et al. (2016) and other technologies needed by the application. The ICT tools and the platform that
the application will run on are also important to consider.
Design and Apply Gamification Elements: The gamification process in education comes down to the
elements that are applied to the learning program. This is where the actual design of the game application
and elements is done. As mentioned earlier, gamification is the addition of game-like-elements, also called
game mechanics, in non-game settings. Game mechanics can either be self-elements or social-elements.
Evaluation and Feedback Taking: Evaluation involves the systematic collection of information about the
activities, characteristic and outcomes of an activity or action, in order to determine its worth or merit on
the individual Dart, Petheram and Straw, (1998). The aim is to determine the relevance and level of
achievement of the already stated objectives and also test the effectiveness, efficiency, impact and
sustainability Figge and Hahn (2004)of the application of gamification in learning programming. The
outcome of this evaluation is used as a feedback to assist in defining new learning objectives.
In all these the student or the user is put at the center of the whole process according to the proposed model.
This is the student centered learning approach(Gibbs, 1981; McCombs and Whisler, 1997; Arends, 2014).
Student-centered learning, also called learner-centered education, generally includes methods and techniques
of teaching that shift the focus of instruction from the instructor to the learner and in this case the user.
Originally, student-centered learning aims to design learner autonomy and independence Scharle and Szabó,
(2000); Benson and Voller, (2014) by putting responsibility of the learning pace and methodology in the hands
of the students. The student is therefore involved in every process of the learning. In this case, the instructor is
not perceived as the reservoir of academic knowledge feeding the student with ideas.
8. Conclusion and future work
Some of the challenges by faced by most Computer Science students are how to cope with programming. Azmi
et al (2015) cited difficulties coping with programming during first year at university, lacking satisfactory skills in
designing correct codes and unfamiliarity with the programming structures as some of the challenges faced by
students in programming. The existing models did not put the user at the center of the whole process and has
failed to address the challenges faced by students in studying programming. The proposed Appiahene
Gamification Model(AGM) model which is cyclic in nature with users at the center is envisage to solve these
challenges cited by Azmi, Iahad and Ahmad (2015) .The interaction between the users and each of the
components is bi-directional which makes it unique and would be preferred by game designers, instructors and
learners .The model includes important elements in game design which when applied well can upsurge student
engagement and motivation in the study of programming. In the future the model would be empirically tested
to prove its feasibility in the study of programming and other areas of life.
References
Arends, R. (2014) ‘Learning to teach.’
Azevedo, R., Behnagh, R. and Duffy, M. (2012) ‘Metacognition and self-regulated learning in student-centered leaning
environments’, -centered learning …. Available at:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3oOpAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA171&dq=students+centered+approa
ch+in+teaching+and+learning&ots=9mdxbeFFf5&sig=RiKU2SKjN0atfRJPQ2WcNT1dpWw (Accessed: 28 June 2017).
Azmi, S., Iahad, N. A. and Ahmad, N. (2015) ‘Gamification in online collaborative learning for programming courses: A
literature review’, ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(23), pp. 18087–18094. Available at:
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
84953384357&partnerID=40&md5=c266890a29d0f7e5c1ce2036c3db7e73.
Bebbington, S. (2014) What is programming. Available at: http://yearofcodes.tumblr.com/what-is-programming (Accessed:
1 July 2017).
Benson, P. and Voller, P. (2014) Autonomy and independence in language learning. Available at:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vGzJAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=learner+autonomy+and+inde
pendence+by+putting+responsibility+&ots=xeamsqeG1h&sig=29IciNDCdugiXTnKrzrBH5epDLo (Accessed: 1 July
2017).
18
Peter Appiahene et al.
Bledsoe, W. and Browning, I. (1959) ‘Pattern recognition and reading by machine’, , 1959, eastern joint IRE-AIEE-ACM
computer …. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1460326 (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
Bonifacio, A. L. (no date) ‘Developing Information Communication Technology ( ICT ) Curriculum Standards for K-12 Schools
in the Philippines.’
Buckler, B. (1996) ‘A learning process model to achieve continuous improvement and innovation’, The Learning
Organization. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdf/10.1108/09696479610119660 (Accessed: 1 July
2017).
Buckley, P. and Doyle, E. (2016) ‘Gamification and student motivation’, Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), pp. 1162–
1175. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2014.964263.
De Byl, P. and Hooper, J. (2013) ‘Key Attributes of Engagement in a Gamified Learning Environment’, 30th Ascilite
Conference 2013 Proceedings, pp. 221–230. Available at:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney13/program/papers/de
Byl.pdf\nhttp://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84913569057&partnerID=tZOtx3y1.
Campbell, L. and Campbell, B. (2008) ‘Mindful Learning: 101 Proven Strategies for Student and Teacher Success’, pp. 7–21.
Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TBMOUyIwUjsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Chaitin, G. (1975) ‘Randomness and mathematical proof’, Scientific American. Available at:
https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/sciamer.html (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
Combefis, S., Beresnevicius, G. and Dagiene, V. (2016) ‘Learning Programming through Games and Contests: Overview,
Characterisation and Discussion’, Olympiads in Informatics, 10(1), pp. 39–60. doi: 10.15388/ioi.2016.03.
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T. and Boyle, J. M. (2012) ‘A systematic literature review of empirical
evidence on computer games and serious games’, Computers and Education. Elsevier Ltd, 59(2), pp. 661–686. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004.
Dart, J., Petheram, R. and Straw, W. (1998) ‘Evaluation in agricultural extension’, Barton, ACT, Australia: Available at:
http://www.betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/98-136.pdf (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
David and walbert (no date) The learning cycle. Available at: http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/663 (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R. and Nacke, L. (2011) ‘From game design elements to gamefulness: defining
gamification’, Proceedings of the 15th. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2181040 (Accessed: 21 June
2017).
Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., Angelova, G., Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G. and Angelova, G. (2016) ‘International
Forum of Educational Technology & Society Gamification in Education : A Systematic Mapping Study Published by :
International Forum of Educational Technology & Society Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article :
Gamification ’, 18(3), pp. 75–88.
Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-navarrete, J. and Pagés, C. (2014) ‘Computers & Education An empirical study comparing gami fi
cation and social networking on e-learning’, Computers & Education, 75, pp. 82–91. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.012.
Figge, F. and Hahn, T. (2004) ‘Sustainable value added—measuring corporate contributions to sustainability beyond eco-
efficiency’, Ecological economics. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800903002866 (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
Fotaris, P., Mastoras, T., Leinfellner, R. and Rosunally, Y. (2016) ‘Climbing Up the Leaderboard : An Empirical Study of
Applying Gamification Techniques to a Computer Programming Class University of the West of England , School of
Computing and Creative Technologies ’, 14(2), pp. 94–110.
Gené, O. B. and Mart, M. (2014) ‘Gamification in MOOC : Challenges ,Opportunities and Proposals for A dvancing MOOC
Model’, pp. 215–220.
Gibbs, G. (1981) ‘Teaching Students to Learn: A Student-Centered Approach.’ Available at:
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED208753 (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
Gottesman, D. (1996) ‘Class of quantum error-correcting codes saturating the quantum Hamming bound’, Physical Review
A. Available at: https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.54.1862 (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J. and Sarsa, H. (2014) ‘Does gamification work? - A literature review of empirical studies on
gamification’, Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 3025–3034. doi:
10.1109/HICSS.2014.377.
Huang, W. H. and Soman, D. (2013) Gamification Of Education, University of Toronto - Rotman School of Management. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01259.x.
Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H. (2004) ‘Towards a distinctive body of knowledge for Information Systems experts:
coding ISD process knowledge in two IS journals’, Information systems journal. Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00177.x/full (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
Jacobs, H. (2013) Gamification A workplace Framework Harry Jacobs 14JAN2013 FINAL. The University of Liverpool.
Kapp, K. (2012) The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and
education. Available at:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=M2Rb9ZtFxccC&oi=fnd&pg=PR12&dq=Kapp+(2012)+gamification+&
ots=JwQj_28AbI&sig=0DoZ3Cbu-XFrx8XmhiOGG9wsJPs (Accessed: 21 June 2017).
Khaleel, F. L., Ashaari, N. S., Meriam, T. S., Wook, T. and Ismail, A. (2015) ‘The study of gamification application architecture
for programming language course’, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information
Management and Communication - IMCOM ’15, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1145/2701126.2701222.
19
Peter Appiahene et al.
Knutas, A., Ikonen, J., Nikula, U. and Porras, J. (2014) ‘Increasing collaborative communications in a programming course
with gamification’, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies -
CompSysTech ’14, pp. 370–377. doi: 10.1145/2659532.2659620.
Kovacic, a., Bubas, G. and Zlatovic, M. (2007) ‘Evaluation of activities with a wiki system in teaching English as a second
language’, International Conference “ICT for Language, pp. 2–5. Available at:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Evaluation+of+activities+with+a+wiki+system+in+t
eaching+english+as+a+second+language#0.
Kumar, B. and Khurana, P. (2012) ‘Gamification in Education-Learn Computer Programming with Fun’, International Journal
of Computers and Distributed Systems, 2(1), pp. 46–53. Available at:
http://www.cirworld.com/index.php/IJCDS/article/view/IJCDS218.
Kumar, S. and Tammelin, M. (2008) ‘Integrating ICT into Language Learning: Guide for Institutions’, (August 2014).
Lane, D. and Ashby, B. (1987) ‘PsychLib: A library of machine language routines for controlling psychology experiments on
the Apple Macintosh computer’, Behavior Research Methods. Available at:
http://www.springerlink.com/index/C146313080714K2L.pdf (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
Lee, J. J., Marks, J., Kern, R. and Jordan-cooley, W. (2013) ‘Greenify : Fostering Sustainable Communities Via Gamification’,
pp. 1497–1501.
Marshall, M. (1996) ‘Sampling for qualitative research’, Family practice. Available at:
https://academic.oup.com/fampra/article-abstract/13/6/522/496701 (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
McCombs, B. and Whisler, J. (1997) The Learner-Centered Classroom and School: Strategies for Increasing Student
Motivation and Achievement. The Jossey-Bass Education Series. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED423496
(Accessed: 1 July 2017).
McDaniel, R. and Fanfarelli, J. (2016) ‘Building Better Digital Badges: Pairing Completion Logic With Psychological Factors’,
Simulation & Gaming, 47(1), pp. 73–102. doi: 10.1177/1046878115627138.
Mladenović, S., Krpan, D., Mladenovic, M. and Mladenović, M. (2016) ‘Using Games to Help Novices Embrace
Programming: From Elementary to Higher Education’, International journal of engineering education, 32(1), pp. 521–
531.
Morse, J. (1994) ‘Designing funded qualitative research.’ Available at: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1994-98625-012
(Accessed: 1 July 2017).
Nada, A., Philippe, P., Jean-Charles, M. and Thibault, C. (2015) ‘A Model Driven Architecture MDA Approach to Facilitate
the Serious Game Integration in an e-Learning Environment’, in Proceedings of the European Conference on Games-
based Learning, pp. 15–24. Available at: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-
84955162144&partnerID=tZOtx3y1.
Nadolny, L. and Halabi, A. (2016) ‘Student Participation and Achievement in a Large Lecture Course With Game-Based
Learning’, Simulation & Gaming, 47(1), pp. 51–72. doi: 10.1177/1046878115620388.
Neary, M. (2000) ‘Supporting students’ learning and professional development through the process of continuous
assessment and mentorship’, Nurse Education Today. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0260691700904581 (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
Olsson, M., Mozelius, P. and Collin, J. (2015) ‘Visualisation and gamification of e-Learning and programming education’,
Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13(6), pp. 441–454.
Paisley, V. (2013) ‘Gamification of Tertiary Courses : An Exploratory Study of Learning and Engagement’, Electric Dreams:
30th ascilite Conference, 1-4 December 2013, pp. 671–675. Available at:
http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/sydney13/program/papers/Paisley.pdf.
Palinkas, L., Horwitz, S. and Green, C. (2015) ‘Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed
method implementation research’, and policy in mental …. Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012002/ (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. and Martin, V. (1992) ‘Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to
construct explanatory answers facilitates learning’, Educational. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15326985ep2701_7 (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
Rav Sankar Venna (2013) Why learning is a continuous process of your life? | SAP Blogs. Available at:
https://blogs.sap.com/2013/09/26/why-learning-is-a-continuous-process-of-your-life/ (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
Scharle, A. and Szabó, A. (2000) ‘Learner autonomy: A guide to developing learner responsibility.’
Schauble, L. (1990) ‘Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence’, Journal
of experimental child psychology. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002209659090048D
(Accessed: 1 July 2017).
De Schutter, B. and Vanden Abeele, V. (2014) ‘Gradequest — Evaluating the impact of using game design techniques in an
undergraduate course’, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games -
FDG2014, (April 2014), pp. 1–9. Available at: http://fdg2014.org/papers/fdg2014_paper_07.pdf.
Scott, D. and Strachey, C. (1971) Toward a mathematical semantics for computer languages. Available at:
https://www.cs.colorado.edu/~bec/courses/csci5535-f13/reading/PRG06.pdf (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
Sonts, K. (2013) ‘Gamification in Higher Education’, (May), pp. 1–43. doi: 10.13140/2.1.3311.9046.
Suri, H. (2011) ‘Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis’, Qualitative Research Journal. Available at:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdf/10.3316/QRJ1102063 (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
20
Peter Appiahene et al.
Swacha, J. and Baszuro, P. (2013) ‘Gamification-based e-learning Platform for Computer Programming Education’, World
Conference on Computers in Education, (2012), pp. 122–130. Available at:
http://wcce2013.umk.pl/publications/v1/V1.14_125-Swacha-fullR-FPR.pdf.
Theoharidou, M. and Gritazalis, D. (2007) ‘Common body of knowledge for information security’, IEEE Security & Privacy.
Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4140992/ (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
Tobias, S. (1994) ‘Interest, prior knowledge, and learning’, Review of Educational Research. Available at:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/00346543064001037 (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
Urh, M., Vukovic, G., Jereb, E. and Pintar, R. (2015) ‘The model for introduction of gamification into e-learning in higher
education’, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier B.V., 197(February), pp. 388–397. doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.154.
Whittemore, R. and Chase, S. (2001) ‘Validity in qualitative research’, Qualitative health. Available at:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/104973201129119299 (Accessed: 1 July 2017).
Zichermann, G. and Cunningham, C. (2011) Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps.
Available at:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zZcpuMRpAB8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Zichermann+(2011)+gamificat
ion+&ots=UtTc0_udaj&sig=UcIgUUr3gvuIcVhoxXOty1hBK68 (Accessed: 21 June 2017).
21
