Gamification and player profiles among faculty in Mexico

Álvaro Antón-Sancho, Diego Vergara, Lorena Rodríguez-Calzada
{"title":"Gamification and player profiles among faculty in Mexico","authors":"Álvaro Antón-Sancho, Diego Vergara, Lorena Rodríguez-Calzada","doi":"10.18870/hlrc.v13i2.1428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Analysis of the player profiles of professors is a fruitful line of research because player profiles may influence the design of gamified situations. We studied a sample of 243 university professors in Mexico to analyze the player profiles with which they identify and those they consider most effective didactically in gamified situations. Method: Descriptive quantitative research was used to analyze the distributions of the responses to a questionnaire given to a group of 243 professors from different Mexican universities. These responses have been statistically analyzed by computing the proportions of player profile choices and applying Pearson’s chi-square test of independence to identify significant differences in these choices. Results: 42.4% of the participants identify as Explorers, the most frequent player profile among the participants. However, about 15.6% of them consider that their player profile is not the most suitable for learning. Player profiles chosen by the Mexican professors diverge from the player profiles of the students described in previous studies. Significant differences by gender, area of knowledge, and previous training in gamification are also identified. Conclusion: There is a strong gap between the player profiles of the participating professors and the profile that, in their opinion, is most suitable for learning. In addition, it has been identified that gender, area of knowledge, and previous experience in the use of gamification are influential factors in the player profiles of the professors. Implication for Practice: The training of professors in gamification should be adapted to the specificities of each area of knowledge. This will allow professors to develop pedagogical skills in gamification that will help them adapt gamified didactic situations to the needs of students.","PeriodicalId":37033,"journal":{"name":"Higher Learning Research Communications","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Higher Learning Research Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v13i2.1428","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Analysis of the player profiles of professors is a fruitful line of research because player profiles may influence the design of gamified situations. We studied a sample of 243 university professors in Mexico to analyze the player profiles with which they identify and those they consider most effective didactically in gamified situations. Method: Descriptive quantitative research was used to analyze the distributions of the responses to a questionnaire given to a group of 243 professors from different Mexican universities. These responses have been statistically analyzed by computing the proportions of player profile choices and applying Pearson’s chi-square test of independence to identify significant differences in these choices. Results: 42.4% of the participants identify as Explorers, the most frequent player profile among the participants. However, about 15.6% of them consider that their player profile is not the most suitable for learning. Player profiles chosen by the Mexican professors diverge from the player profiles of the students described in previous studies. Significant differences by gender, area of knowledge, and previous training in gamification are also identified. Conclusion: There is a strong gap between the player profiles of the participating professors and the profile that, in their opinion, is most suitable for learning. In addition, it has been identified that gender, area of knowledge, and previous experience in the use of gamification are influential factors in the player profiles of the professors. Implication for Practice: The training of professors in gamification should be adapted to the specificities of each area of knowledge. This will allow professors to develop pedagogical skills in gamification that will help them adapt gamified didactic situations to the needs of students.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
墨西哥教师的游戏化和玩家简介
目标:分析教授的玩家简介是一项富有成效的研究,因为玩家简介可能会影响游戏化情境的设计。我们研究了墨西哥243名大学教授的样本,分析了他们所认同的玩家特征,以及他们认为在游戏化情境中最有效的教学特征。方法:采用描述性定量研究方法,对来自墨西哥不同大学的243名教授进行问卷调查。我们通过计算玩家个人资料选择的比例,并使用Pearson卡方独立性检验来识别这些选择的显著差异,从而对这些回应进行统计分析。结果显示:42.4%的参与者认为自己是探索者,这是参与者中最常见的玩家类型。然而,约有15.6%的人认为他们的玩家特征不适合学习。墨西哥教授选择的球员档案与之前研究中描述的学生的球员档案不同。性别、知识领域和之前的游戏化培训也存在显著差异。结论:在参与的教授的玩家概况和他们认为最适合学习的概况之间存在很大的差距。此外,研究还发现,性别、知识领域和以往使用游戏化的经验是影响教授玩家概况的因素。对实践的启示:游戏化教授的培训应该适应每个知识领域的特殊性。这将使教授们能够在游戏化中发展教学技能,帮助他们适应游戏化的教学环境,以满足学生的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Higher Learning Research Communications
Higher Learning Research Communications Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Relationships between Pedagogical Practices and Affective States for Effective Teaching during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights from University Professors Examining Technology Use and Competence of Higher Education Academics During the COVID-19 Pandemic Challenges to Inclusive Education for Students With Disabilities in Japanese Higher Education Institutions Gamification and player profiles among faculty in Mexico Emerging From Content and Language Integrated Learning and English-Medium Instruction, is CLIL-ised EMI the Next Trend of Education?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1