教育游戏化中的个性化:具有不同特质竞争力的学习者从排行榜的排名中获益不同

IF 8.9 1区 教育学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Computers & Education Pub Date : 2024-11-12 DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105196
Jing Wang , Shaoying Gong , Yang Cao , Xiaorong Guo , Peiyan Peng
{"title":"教育游戏化中的个性化:具有不同特质竞争力的学习者从排行榜的排名中获益不同","authors":"Jing Wang ,&nbsp;Shaoying Gong ,&nbsp;Yang Cao ,&nbsp;Xiaorong Guo ,&nbsp;Peiyan Peng","doi":"10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Leaderboards are among the most prevalent game elements and are widely used in educational gamification. However, most research has primarily compared learning scenarios using leaderboards with those not using leaderboards, ignoring the role of specific components of leaderboards such as rankings. Given that learners’ perceptions of leaderboards depend on their rankings, this study investigated how rankings (high vs. low) and learners’ trait competitiveness (high vs. low) influence learning in educational gamification. Sixty-one high-trait-competitiveness and sixty-two low-trait-competitiveness learners were randomly assigned to either high-ranking or low-ranking conditions. The results revealed the moderating role of trait competitiveness in the relationship between leaderboard rankings and learning. Interestingly, higher rankings were more beneficial in enhancing learning motivation of learners with low trait competitiveness, while lower rankings had more positive effects on performance of those with high trait competitiveness. Additionally, negative emotions mediated the relationship between rankings and learning performance, while the mediating effect of learning motivation was only significant for learners with low trait competitiveness. The implications of these findings for the design of effective gamified learning environments based on learners’ characteristics were discussed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10568,"journal":{"name":"Computers & Education","volume":"225 ","pages":"Article 105196"},"PeriodicalIF":8.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Personalization in educational gamification: Learners with different trait competitiveness benefit differently from rankings on leaderboards\",\"authors\":\"Jing Wang ,&nbsp;Shaoying Gong ,&nbsp;Yang Cao ,&nbsp;Xiaorong Guo ,&nbsp;Peiyan Peng\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105196\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Leaderboards are among the most prevalent game elements and are widely used in educational gamification. However, most research has primarily compared learning scenarios using leaderboards with those not using leaderboards, ignoring the role of specific components of leaderboards such as rankings. Given that learners’ perceptions of leaderboards depend on their rankings, this study investigated how rankings (high vs. low) and learners’ trait competitiveness (high vs. low) influence learning in educational gamification. Sixty-one high-trait-competitiveness and sixty-two low-trait-competitiveness learners were randomly assigned to either high-ranking or low-ranking conditions. The results revealed the moderating role of trait competitiveness in the relationship between leaderboard rankings and learning. Interestingly, higher rankings were more beneficial in enhancing learning motivation of learners with low trait competitiveness, while lower rankings had more positive effects on performance of those with high trait competitiveness. Additionally, negative emotions mediated the relationship between rankings and learning performance, while the mediating effect of learning motivation was only significant for learners with low trait competitiveness. The implications of these findings for the design of effective gamified learning environments based on learners’ characteristics were discussed.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computers & Education\",\"volume\":\"225 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105196\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computers & Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131524002100\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers & Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131524002100","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

排行榜是最常见的游戏元素之一,被广泛应用于教育游戏化中。然而,大多数研究主要是比较使用排行榜和不使用排行榜的学习情景,而忽略了排行榜的特定组成部分(如排名)的作用。鉴于学习者对排行榜的看法取决于其排名,本研究调查了排名(高与低)和学习者的特质竞争力(高与低)如何影响教育游戏化中的学习。61名特质竞争力高的学习者和62名特质竞争力低的学习者被随机分配到高排名或低排名条件下。结果显示,特质竞争力在排行榜排名与学习之间起到了调节作用。有趣的是,高排名更有利于提高低特质竞争力学习者的学习积极性,而低排名则对高特质竞争力学习者的学习成绩有更积极的影响。此外,负面情绪对排名和学习成绩之间的关系起到了中介作用,而学习动机的中介作用只对特质竞争力低的学习者显著。这些研究结果对根据学习者的特点设计有效的游戏化学习环境的意义进行了讨论。
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
Personalization in educational gamification: Learners with different trait competitiveness benefit differently from rankings on leaderboards
Leaderboards are among the most prevalent game elements and are widely used in educational gamification. However, most research has primarily compared learning scenarios using leaderboards with those not using leaderboards, ignoring the role of specific components of leaderboards such as rankings. Given that learners’ perceptions of leaderboards depend on their rankings, this study investigated how rankings (high vs. low) and learners’ trait competitiveness (high vs. low) influence learning in educational gamification. Sixty-one high-trait-competitiveness and sixty-two low-trait-competitiveness learners were randomly assigned to either high-ranking or low-ranking conditions. The results revealed the moderating role of trait competitiveness in the relationship between leaderboard rankings and learning. Interestingly, higher rankings were more beneficial in enhancing learning motivation of learners with low trait competitiveness, while lower rankings had more positive effects on performance of those with high trait competitiveness. Additionally, negative emotions mediated the relationship between rankings and learning performance, while the mediating effect of learning motivation was only significant for learners with low trait competitiveness. The implications of these findings for the design of effective gamified learning environments based on learners’ characteristics were discussed.
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
Computers & Education
Computers & Education 工程技术-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
27.10
自引率
5.80%
发文量
204
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: Computers & Education seeks to advance understanding of how digital technology can improve education by publishing high-quality research that expands both theory and practice. The journal welcomes research papers exploring the pedagogical applications of digital technology, with a focus broad enough to appeal to the wider education community.
期刊最新文献
Unpacking help-seeking process through multimodal learning analytics: A comparative study of ChatGPT vs Human expert A meta-analysis on the effect of technology on the achievement of less advantaged students Personalization in educational gamification: Learners with different trait competitiveness benefit differently from rankings on leaderboards Plugging in at school: Do schools nurture digital skills and narrow digital skills inequality? Reducing interpretative ambiguity in an educational environment with ChatGPT
×
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