从科学到实践:游戏化是否能增强内在动机?

IF 3.8 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Active Learning in Higher Education Pub Date : 2022-01-11 DOI:10.1177/14697874211066882
Matthew Jones, Jedediah E Blanton, Rachel E Williams
{"title":"从科学到实践:游戏化是否能增强内在动机?","authors":"Matthew Jones, Jedediah E Blanton, Rachel E Williams","doi":"10.1177/14697874211066882","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Self-determination theory (SDT) has empirical support in understanding and enhancing motivation in a variety of contexts, including education settings. Niemac and Ryan have highlighted that using SDT in course design can lead to stronger fulfilment of an internal locus of causality regarding course work. One course design method anchored in SDT is gameful learning—structuring tasks that support intrinsic motivation, primarily increasing autonomy over learning. A gamified classroom (GC) may offer more assignments and points than minimally necessary for students to earn a passing mark, allowing students choice in which projects to pursue. Further research is needed to examine the degree to which students’ motivations differ between a GC and a non-gamified classroom (NGC). The purpose of the current study was to determine if students in a GC were more intrinsically motivated than students in NGC. Students were enrolled in an undergraduate kinesiology course using a GC design (<i>n</i> = 24) or NGC design (<i>n</i> = 26) and completed an online survey – derived from the intrinsic motivation inventory and the test anxiety questionnaire—at the beginning and end of the semester. In the GC, students started with zero points, and were offered multiple assignments with scaffolded difficulty to reach their desired grade. The NGC used a traditional 100% grade range, with only required assignments and exams, and students lost points for inadequate or inaccurate responses. Following analyses, it was revealed that students in the GC had higher perceptions of autonomy and competence than students in the NGC. Where these differences exist over time, along with differences in other subscales, will be discussed further. Educators seeking to enhance student motivation and engagement may therefore look to gamification as an appropriate methodology.</p>","PeriodicalId":47411,"journal":{"name":"Active Learning in Higher Education","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Science to practice: Does gamification enhance intrinsic motivation?\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Jones, Jedediah E Blanton, Rachel E Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14697874211066882\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Self-determination theory (SDT) has empirical support in understanding and enhancing motivation in a variety of contexts, including education settings. Niemac and Ryan have highlighted that using SDT in course design can lead to stronger fulfilment of an internal locus of causality regarding course work. One course design method anchored in SDT is gameful learning—structuring tasks that support intrinsic motivation, primarily increasing autonomy over learning. A gamified classroom (GC) may offer more assignments and points than minimally necessary for students to earn a passing mark, allowing students choice in which projects to pursue. Further research is needed to examine the degree to which students’ motivations differ between a GC and a non-gamified classroom (NGC). The purpose of the current study was to determine if students in a GC were more intrinsically motivated than students in NGC. Students were enrolled in an undergraduate kinesiology course using a GC design (<i>n</i> = 24) or NGC design (<i>n</i> = 26) and completed an online survey – derived from the intrinsic motivation inventory and the test anxiety questionnaire—at the beginning and end of the semester. In the GC, students started with zero points, and were offered multiple assignments with scaffolded difficulty to reach their desired grade. The NGC used a traditional 100% grade range, with only required assignments and exams, and students lost points for inadequate or inaccurate responses. Following analyses, it was revealed that students in the GC had higher perceptions of autonomy and competence than students in the NGC. Where these differences exist over time, along with differences in other subscales, will be discussed further. Educators seeking to enhance student motivation and engagement may therefore look to gamification as an appropriate methodology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Active Learning in Higher Education\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Active Learning in Higher Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874211066882\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Active Learning in Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874211066882","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

自我决定理论(SDT)在理解和增强包括教育环境在内的各种情境下的动机方面具有实证支持。Niemac和Ryan强调,在课程设计中使用SDT可以更好地实现课程作业的内在因果关系。SDT中的一种课程设计方法是游戏式的学习结构任务,它支持内在动机,主要是增加学习的自主性。一个游戏化的教室(GC)可能会提供更多的作业和分数,而不是学生获得及格分数的最低要求,允许学生选择从事哪些项目。需要进一步的研究来检验GC和非游戏化课堂(NGC)中学生动机的差异程度。本研究的目的是确定GC中的学生是否比NGC中的学生更具有内在动机。学生们使用GC设计(n = 24)或NGC设计(n = 26)注册了一门运动机能学本科课程,并在学期开始和结束时完成了一份来自内在动机清单和考试焦虑问卷的在线调查。在GC中,学生们从零分开始,然后分配给他们多个具有固定难度的作业,以达到他们想要的成绩。国家地理委员会使用传统的100%评分范围,只有要求的作业和考试,学生的回答不充分或不准确会被扣分。通过分析,我们发现GC组的学生比NGC组的学生对自主性和能力有更高的认知。随着时间的推移,这些差异以及其他子量表的差异将进一步讨论。因此,寻求提高学生积极性和参与度的教育工作者可能会将游戏化视为一种合适的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Science to practice: Does gamification enhance intrinsic motivation?

Self-determination theory (SDT) has empirical support in understanding and enhancing motivation in a variety of contexts, including education settings. Niemac and Ryan have highlighted that using SDT in course design can lead to stronger fulfilment of an internal locus of causality regarding course work. One course design method anchored in SDT is gameful learning—structuring tasks that support intrinsic motivation, primarily increasing autonomy over learning. A gamified classroom (GC) may offer more assignments and points than minimally necessary for students to earn a passing mark, allowing students choice in which projects to pursue. Further research is needed to examine the degree to which students’ motivations differ between a GC and a non-gamified classroom (NGC). The purpose of the current study was to determine if students in a GC were more intrinsically motivated than students in NGC. Students were enrolled in an undergraduate kinesiology course using a GC design (n = 24) or NGC design (n = 26) and completed an online survey – derived from the intrinsic motivation inventory and the test anxiety questionnaire—at the beginning and end of the semester. In the GC, students started with zero points, and were offered multiple assignments with scaffolded difficulty to reach their desired grade. The NGC used a traditional 100% grade range, with only required assignments and exams, and students lost points for inadequate or inaccurate responses. Following analyses, it was revealed that students in the GC had higher perceptions of autonomy and competence than students in the NGC. Where these differences exist over time, along with differences in other subscales, will be discussed further. Educators seeking to enhance student motivation and engagement may therefore look to gamification as an appropriate methodology.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Active Learning in Higher Education
Active Learning in Higher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Active Learning in Higher Education is an international, refereed publication for all those who teach and support learning in higher education (HE) and those who undertake or use research into effective learning, teaching and assessment in universities and colleges. The journal is devoted to publishing accounts of research covering all aspects of learning and teaching concerning adults in higher education. Non-discipline specific and non-context/country specific in nature, it comprises accounts of research across all areas of the curriculum; accounts which are relevant to faculty and others involved in learning and teaching in all disciplines, in all countries.
期刊最新文献
Psychological safety in online interdisciplinary student teams: What teachers can do to promote an effective climate for knowledge sharing, collaboration and problem-solving Self-study in higher education: Its role in productive discussions and learning outcomes Higher education students’ conceptions of learning gain Beyond goal setting and planning: An examination of college students’ self-regulated learning forethought processes How does virtual peer presence relate to learning from video lectures and subsequent explanation generation? The moderated mediating roles of motivation and explanation characteristics
×
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