TY - GEN
T1 - Peer-based gamification of challenging concepts in engineering education
T2 - 67th Annual Conference and Expo of the Institute of Industrial Engineers 2017
AU - Li, Jingwen
AU - Rothrock, Ling
AU - Pang, Guodong
N1 - Funding Information:
Limitations included: Coding skills also held back student team’s design, even for those teams that has CS teammate. More easy-to-learn tool should have been introduced. Gamification investigators should have got involved in the process more, providing more gamification background and rules to assist the game design. Future work can focus on: Pick up one game and refined, test it before we finally run an experiment to test the effectiveness. Address the research questions (1) Will the fancy outfit really help enhance learning apart from providing the external motivation? Or it would end up the same performance if we take them off from the game prod-ucts and force the learner do the Q&A? (Assuming the knowledge type is declarative or procedural) (2) Besides of the knowledge type, is there any other factors in the game that would affect the results of the previous question? Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Leonhard Center for Enhancement of Engineering Education, Penn State University. We thank Thomas Litzinger and Stephanie Cutler from Leonhard Center who provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research. References 1. Bodnar, C.A., Anastasio, D., Enszer, J.A., & Burkey, D.D. 2016, “Engineers at Play: Games as Teaching Tools for Undergraduate Engineering Students,” Journal of Engineering Education”, 105(1), 147–200. 2. Kapp, K.M., 2012, “The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education,” John Wiley & Sons,166-185 3. Seaborn, K., & Fels, D.I., 2015; “Gamification in theory and action: A survey,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14-31. 4. Del Carmen Chin Vera, J., Lopez-Malo, A., & Palou, E., 2012, “An initial analysis of student engagement while learning food analysis by means of a video game,” ASEE 2012 Annual Conference, June, San Anto-nio, Texas. 5. Hatzilygeroudis, I., Grivokostopoulou, F., & Perikos, I., 2012, “Using game-based learning in teaching CS algorithms,” 1st IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering, August 20–23, Hong Kong. 6. Hauge, J.B., & Riedel, J.K.C.H., 2012, “Evaluation of simulation games for teaching engineering and man-ufacturing,” Procedia Computer Science. 15, 210–220. 7. Kuk, K., Jovanovic, D., Jokanovic, D., Spalevic, P., Caric, M., & Panic, S., 2012, “Using a game-based learning model as a new teaching strategy for computer engineering,” Turkish Journal of Electrical Engi-neering and Computer Science. 20(2), 1312–1331.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Empirical data shows gamification use in education has a generally positive impact on learning, but lacks evidence to explain why the effect exists. Also, only instructors' perspective was considered in traditional gamification products development process. The aim of this study is to examine a peer-based gamification process in engineering education, and to provide some insights into the underlying causes of learning through gamification. The process contains: (1) Solicit concepts that instructors deemed as challenging to learn with a survey; (2) Assign concepts to student teams from two senior-level IE classes (Capstone and Human-interaction Design) to develop gamification products. Survey showed instructors expected gamification products to have more effective visualization and in-time feedback during the practice. A total of 12 gamification products were developed at end. Except for two manufactory-domain games, all other products contained Question and Answer sections, making these products more like "advanced homework": homework with interactive elements added. Lesson learned: Instructors tend to see gamification products as tools to assist teaching; while student focused more on the practice given that student teams were assigned instructions to improve future students' learning. This crucial perspective difference between instructors and students must be resolved before gamification products can be effectively used.
AB - Empirical data shows gamification use in education has a generally positive impact on learning, but lacks evidence to explain why the effect exists. Also, only instructors' perspective was considered in traditional gamification products development process. The aim of this study is to examine a peer-based gamification process in engineering education, and to provide some insights into the underlying causes of learning through gamification. The process contains: (1) Solicit concepts that instructors deemed as challenging to learn with a survey; (2) Assign concepts to student teams from two senior-level IE classes (Capstone and Human-interaction Design) to develop gamification products. Survey showed instructors expected gamification products to have more effective visualization and in-time feedback during the practice. A total of 12 gamification products were developed at end. Except for two manufactory-domain games, all other products contained Question and Answer sections, making these products more like "advanced homework": homework with interactive elements added. Lesson learned: Instructors tend to see gamification products as tools to assist teaching; while student focused more on the practice given that student teams were assigned instructions to improve future students' learning. This crucial perspective difference between instructors and students must be resolved before gamification products can be effectively used.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85031032320&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85031032320&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85031032320
T3 - 67th Annual Conference and Expo of the Institute of Industrial Engineers 2017
SP - 920
EP - 925
BT - 67th Annual Conference and Expo of the Institute of Industrial Engineers 2017
A2 - Nembhard, Harriet B.
A2 - Coperich, Katie
A2 - Cudney, Elizabeth
PB - Institute of Industrial Engineers
Y2 - 20 May 2017 through 23 May 2017
ER -