Gamifying Learning to Enhance Student-Centered Approach

By

Lawence Obalim
Reg. No: 18/U/2490/MID

Department of Computer Science

Faculty of Science, Gulu University

E-mail: obalimlaw@gmail.com Phone: (+256) 775911188/705884471

A Proposal Submitted to the Institute of Research and Graduate Studies in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree of Master of Science in
Information Technologies for Development of Gulu University

Supervisor:
Dr. Benedict Oyo

………………………………………………………………………….
Co-supervisor:
Dr. Raphael Aregu & Dr. Godfrey Tabo

Page | 1
1. Introduction

The search for ideal teaching and learning approaches has challenged educators for centuries. Yet,
schools operate in virtually the same way since then; if we look at the subjects and curriculum,
perhaps our century-old system would be okay if it is delivered on the real promise of a school
learning. As stated by Scott (2015) that learning to know is not the only necessary skill for students.
This skill of learning to know has been the forecast for our education system, currently, this skill is
not the most important skill for 21st-century learners. Additionally, to prepare our children for the
unknown, unseen and unpredictable future. It important that learner should possess these skills also:
learning to do, which includes problem-skills, critical thinking, and collaboration; learning to be,
which includes social and cross-cultural skills, personal responsibility, and self-regulation; and
learning to live together, which includes teamwork, civic and digital citizenship, and global
competence.

Education systems around the world have been moving from defining subjects and required
curriculum knowledge as collections of facts, towards understanding disciplines as inter-related
systems. Recent evidence from learning science research shows that the patterns of learner
development vary widely, rather than following fixed, linear progressions or moving predictably
through formal hierarchies of curriculum-based knowledge. It is time to rethink school learning
approaches, that’s why student-centered learning (SCL) is an approach to teaching that should be
used more and more. Student-centered learning works by connecting students’ interests with the
things they learn in school and this will promote active learning (Bonwell & Eison, 1991).
Approaches that promote active learning often explicitly ask students to make connections between
new information and their current mental models, extending their understanding. In other cases,
teachers may design learning activities that allow students to confront misconceptions, helping
students reconstruct their mental models based on more accurate understanding. Unauthentic ways
of content delivery and assessment by educators it has caused the 21st-century learner to missed out
on proper instructions. Since learning is in the form of teacher-centered learning and makes the
educator a gatekeeper of knowledge, which is handling the underside levels of cognition:
remembering and at its best understanding (Lincoln et al., 2013). To figure with this evolution of
21st-century learners, the approaches of Gamification and Game-Based Learning appear to be the
trending strategies much needed to have interaction and motivate the learner, hence student-centered
learning will be achieved.

Gamification is not just about applying technology to old engagement models, like creating e-
learning site. Gamification creates entirely new engagement models, targeting new communities of
learners and motivating them to achieve goals they may not even know they have. However, there is

Page | 2
no broadly accepted definition of gamification that exist, most definitions of the term share common
characteristics. Gartner defines gamification as: the use of game mechanics and experience design to
digitally engage and motivate people to achieve their goals. These game mechanics include points,
badges and leaderboards (and more), which are used to make unengaging systems more interactive.
These experience design describes the journey players take with elements such as game play, play
space, and story line. Picturing its definition for better understanding, it is clear that gamification is
a method to digitally engage rather than personally engage, meaning that players interact with
computers, smartphones, wearable monitors, or other digital devices. There are two styles of
gamification, structural with no subject material changes, and the altered content method that adds
subject material (Surendeleg et al., 2014). When a classroom incorporates the utilization of kind of
those elements, that environment is considered "gamified". there's not any distinction on what
percentage elements must be included to officially constitute gamification, but a suggestion is that
gamification takes into consideration the complex system of reasons someone chooses to act, and
not only one single factor (Kevin & Dan, 2012). Research suggests that gamification may
additionally make assignments less intimidating for college kids liable to stress. As you utilize
activities to point out a subject matter, students learn to associate learning with curiosity and joy
instead of fear. Without the added stress, these students are better prepared to participate and succeed
in school. In this proposed model we are trying to examine how student-centered learning can be
implemented through gamification.

1.1. Background

Nowadays, most of the education system is not preparing learners to acquire the 21st-century skills,
especially Uganda education system which requires a student to cram hard enough in order to excel
to the next level, teaching in most schools are result base teaching which has made many students to
adopt the method what we called Cram Pass and Forget (CPF). After 16 years of study in the primary
and secondary level, and toiling for success, one cannot acquire himself a decent job. Not because
they aren’t good enough but because they are considered so theoretical, but that what they are trained
to look good on paper with the Result Base Learning as its being called by Whitehead, (1929) as
inert knowledge. The world needs a generation of practical people, and people that applied what they
have learned in books into real-world to solved problems. As a result, the traditional learning design
is no longer relevant, as it fails to accommodate and respond to the educational needs and demands
of learners. Historically, educators were the only ones that could be held accountable for imparting
the delivery of content; however, that is no longer the case. The Internet has had a revolutionary
impact as it introduced the use of specialized content delivery systems and peer-to-peer file-sharing
systems that replace the educators as the sole content disseminator. it’s not surprising that the normal

Page | 3
learning system in schools doesn't resonate, nor does it prepare learners to thrive during this
unpredictable world. Whitehead, (1929) asserts: teaching contents that are abstract and out of context
will merely result in imparting inert knowledge, or knowledge that students could use to answer
items on a school tests but won't be able to apply to unravel problems. Inert knowledge is breed out
of traditional instructional learning designs. Inert knowledge is insensitive, erroneous and risky
(Whitehead, 1929); it doesn't assist learners in navigating through the unknown. For this reason,
“concepts can not be taught separately from the context within which they're used” otherwise, they’re
inconsequential as contended by Brown, Collins & Duguid, (1989). When a learner or a group of
learners participate in an activity, in the context appropriate to the content, learning and cognition
emerge through, “what is learned and how it’s learned which cannot be separated” (Brown et al.,
1989). When the learning context and the activities within that context are meaningful, it can provide
learners with the opportunities necessary to solve problems practically so they can transfer those
competencies to real-world experiences. To support this view, situated cognition can be an effective
instructional design approach when coupled with appropriate situating technologies like
gamification, as it can create learning environments that procure and expand a learner’s cognition.

Situated learning is an instructional approach which may be able to bridge the gap between formal
theoretical learning imparted by educators and informal learning reliant on the independent, self-
directed learner to transfer their knowledge to real-world applications (Resnick, 1987). The term
‘situated’ refers to ‘being placed in an exceedingly particular position, situation or location’ whereas
‘learning’ involves the ‘experience, exposure, and acquaintance with’ knowledge or skill. Collin,
Brown and Duguid (1996) is accredited for the idea of ‘Situated Cognition,’ and that they postulate
that “knowledge and meaning are inseparable from situations and actions”. This theory emphasizes
how conceptual knowledge and significant application of competencies will be achieved through
activities, culture, and contexts that allow learners to use and expand on their prior knowledge
independently, and unitedly with a community of learners. This can be supported the notion that
knowledge doesn't occur within the mind of the individual but a co-production of the mind and so
the planet (Hung et al., 2018). Therefore, it's imperative that educators acknowledge that content
doesn't derive in isolation, but by the “doing” involved in engaging tasks that support the content in
context, a learning process remarked as experiential learning (Kolb, 1984). Situated learning
provides learners with the circumstances that enable them to actively explore and participate so as to
amass new knowledge and form or revise mental models of cognition. Jonassen (1994), stated that
“situated learning occurs when students work on authentic and realistic tasks that reflect the
important to the world thus providing meaningful learning in facilitating the transfer of information
to real-life situations.” additionally to the current, situated cognition takes into consideration the
culture of the community as, “culture may be a powerful mediator of learning and practices, both for

Page | 4
college students and teachers” (Wilson & Myers, 2000). This meaning-making framework is both
constraining and enabling to one’s perception and reasoning (Norenzayan & Nisbett, 2000). When a
learner experiences a cognitive conflict, “this is the stimulus for learning, because it determines the
organization and nature of what's being learned” (Dewey, 1916). It requires negotiation within the
style of a discussion by the community of learners, attentive paying attention to feature from assorted
viewpoints expressed by others, and a comparison of meanings to justify one position over another
to develop cognition. Unlike traditional teaching, situated learning embeds content into a practical
situational context with culture and action, as without it, learning cannot ensue. For this reason,
gamification is that the only tool for implementing situated learning, when used properly, can further
strengthen the training process to expand cognition, hence, it will improve student-centered learning.

Gamification is a necessary situating tool for the twenty-first-century learning environment and for
cognition. Gamified learning environments are said to develop life skills like organization, critical
thinking, problem-solving, inquiry, collaboration skills, and creativity. Since gamification creates
interactive environments, it's now easier to make environments through gamification during which
students can learn by doing, receive feedback, and continually refine their understanding and build
new knowledge (Fouts, 2000). This research has the aim to draw inspiration from the gamification,
to contribute to support learning and base it design on bloom taxonomy, however, based on several
Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) researchers have highlighted its limits, inquiring on how to
reconfigure the current most common gamification strategies (Jacobs, 2013; Hamari et al., 2014;
Laschke & Hassenzahl, 2011; Rao, 2013). This model seeks to address the challenge of interest and
discourses the problem that comes with poor memories. Research on memory has indicated that
spending extra time maintaining or holding items in memory does not by itself promote learning
(Craik, 1973) and students may spend large amounts of additional time studying despite no gain in
later memory for the items, a phenomenon called ‘‘labor-in-vain’’ during learning (Nelson &
Leonesio, 1988). Yet students that practice repetitive recall while the reading have better chance
retaining all that he/she have read in the long-term memories and it will not only enhance long term
memory but also long-term meaningful learning, this learning strategy is more effective than many
currently popular active learning strategies (Karpicke & Blunt, 2011). This model will motivate by
gaming and improve the retrieval by testing and giving solutions to the test by encouraging reading
which later improves student-centered learning.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

The new twist and trend in education regards marks and grades learners obtain in the national exams
more than the quality of contents they have grasped to cause a positive behavior change. Educational
institutions and schools are as well measured by the quantity of excellent grade learners produce

Page | 5
regardless of what transpired during teaching and learning processes or during the examination itself
which puts a tutor be within the center of the educational process. Many youths are therefore
unhappy, uneducated, unemployed since educators have become clerks; they are immersed in
paperwork rather than shaping young minds to take on life’s challenges. Educators are constrained
to bureaucratic burdens, which involve students, parents, community, and organizations in the school
management other than training young minds to be self-evolving learners to meet future challenges
(Grant, 2014). However, upon this digital learning age, gamification is a trending perspective which
make its necessary to design and develop gamified learning application which can embody the
advantage of traditional learning habits, as well as the superiority of multimedia and network
technology.

1.3. Main objective

The aim of this study is to develop a learning platform for content development to enhance student-
centered learning.

1.3.1. Specific objectives

i.Determine how gaming can enhance student-centered learning.

ii.To design a gaming platform for managing content to support student-centered learning.
iii.To build the platform based on the design of learning.
iv.To evaluate the platform over its ability to support student-centered learning.
1.4. Research questions

1. How can gamification enhance student-centered learning?

2. What kind of gamification and strategies work better when engaging and motivating students
to enhance student-centered learning?
3. To what extent can active testing enhance knowledge retrieval and improve memory
retention?
1.5. Research Scope
This proposed study will create a gamified learning environment, which will allow the learner to
applied concept and context learned into real world situation, and test the learner on their
understanding of the concept and context learned basing on its application. The study shall be
conducted in the Acholi sub-region of Uganda, in the districts of Gulu and Kitgum. An area of interest
is to gamify learning.

1.6. Significance of the study

Page | 6
 1. Gamify learning to enhance student centered learning will engage learner and motivate them
during learning process.

2. This model will enhance memory retrieval basing on what learned through constants testing.

3. This model will improve understanding of science subjects, since it will help the learner to
visualize the concept and context of the given topic.

4. Since the model will motivate students in learning, which will make learning to be fun and
less intimidating, and the practice of Cram Pass and Forget will be reduced since learner applied
what is learned into real-life situation.

5. This model will Provide a constructive alternative to the active co-curricular activities in
schools as learners who may not be gifted in active sports and games can find themselves
engaged in this computer games especially with the new curriculum which designate the entire
after lunch hours for co-curricular activities.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter is structured along with several themes. First of all, a review of what is student-centered
learning and how it is implemented among people and students in the world today. The importance
of what is gamification, how gamification improves teaching and learning. Finally, a review of the
different related work on gamification.

2.1. Student-Centered Learning

Page | 7
It is now over century when the concept of student-centered learning has been introduced. However,
there is a large body of theoretical and anecdotal literature that tried to defined student-centered
learning, but there is no agreed-upon definition for the overall concept of student-centered learning.
Some theorists provide a broad definition like “students have a choice in their learning,” (Neill &
Mcmahon, 2005) while others provide specific principles as their definition (Weimer, 2002)
Relatedly, there are several education organizations around the world that have identified their own
principles or definitions of student-centered learning they contend are necessary so all students can
be successful in college, career, and life.

There are also a number of programs that educators have implemented or refer to personalized
learning, project-based learning, differentiated instruction, centre-based classroom, Montessori,
flipped classrooms, inquiry-based learning as a way to get to student-centered learning (Singhal,
2017). However, these programs are all different in design, scope, purpose, and their results vary
across the classroom. Even though there is no agreed-upon definition or singular program for
realizing student-centered learning, the unifying theme is that in student-centered learning the model
shifts from being adult-centered and standardized to student-centric and individualized (Wright,
2011). Specifically, the learning is personalized to the students’ unique needs, interests, and
aspirations, and designed with their ideas and voices at the table.

The major tenets of the approach to learning that emerge from this knowledge base (student-centered
learning) and are critical to enabling all students to master what they need to know and be able to do
to succeed in college, careers, and civic life (deeper learning).

Figure 1:Framework for Student-Centered Education (Kaput, 2018)

Student-Centered Approaches to Learning highlight four key tenets of student-centered approaches,
drawn from the mind/brain sciences, learning theory, and youth development science, that are
essential to students’ full engagement in achieving deeper learning outcomes.

The first one is that students have to personalize their learning, which is making students utilize
individual learning paced. Students will only pick the targeted task from the current position, while
they can formally access their skills and knowledge they need. Furthermore, their needs and interest

Page | 8
can be addressed from multiple sources. Secondly, students can move ahead to demonstrate mastery
of the content in order to check their competency, they will not wait for some period of assessment,
they check themselves at anytime and anywhere. Thirdly, Learning is not limited to the classroom
wall, even school year, time and places are flexible which allows an educator to engaged their learner
and also, they are given equal opportunities. And finally, the fourth tenet is that students were
engaged for their own success and incorporate their interests and skill into the learning process. This
will make them gain a clear understanding of what they have to mastered and set goals for what the
need to know in the learning process. Students are responsible for their own learning and also support
one another progress and celebrate success.

2.2. Gamification
Gamification, as an idea, is defined because the techniques utilized in non-game settings (Deterding
& Dixon, 2011). Recently, various gamification techniques are used to gamify learning experiences
like points, prizes, badges, leaderboards, scoreboards, challenges, levels, and feedback (Barata et al.,
2013; Kim et al., 2016). Applying gamification techniques in a very curriculum can help provide a
more inclusive activity through its effect on students’ sense of competition, interaction, and
motivation (Aşıksoy, 2017; Davis, Sridharan, Koepke, Singh, & Boiko, 2018). Gamification
techniques are commonly utilized in pedagogy to increase learners’ motivation and engagement in a
very learning task. Students’ engagement an awfully very gamified learning activity may end in a
very better learning outcome Poondej, Chanut & Lerdpornkulrat, Thanita. (2016). Many previous
studies on gamification have argued that by motivating students through a reward-based learning
method, their learning skills are visiting be enhanced and eventually increase their learning outcomes
(Buck-ley & Doyle, 2016; Domínguez et al., 2013; Kim, Song, Lockee, & Burton, 2018). Despite
these studies, there are some mixed findings reported within the literature about the potential of
gamification in facilitating students’ learning in several settings. as an example, Landers and
Armstrong (2017) reported that gamification may not effect changes in instructional outcomes when
learner attitudes towards game-based learning are low. Thornton & Francia (2014), on the other hand,
stated that the appliance of gamification may not be applicable to any or all curriculum, which might
end in unfavourable consequences.
Prensky, (2001), discussed one among the more radical consequences of this technology-rich
environment could be a hypothesized change within the brain structure which means teens think, use
and process information (Maton et al., 2008) in numerous ways compared to older generations, the
digital immigrants. He explains, "digital natives are accustomed receiving information really fast.
They prefer to parallel process and multi-task. they like their graphics before their text instead of the
alternative. they like random access. They function best when networked. They thrive on instant
gamification and frequent rewards. staring at these digital natives how they process information,

Page | 9
access resources and communicate with one another. It makes the conclusion of Francia (2014) and
Landers & Armstrong (2017) irrelevant.
Games in e-learning
Gamification is that the usage of game mechanics, dynamics, aesthetics, and game thinking in non-
game systems (Deterding & Dixon, 2011). Its main objective is to extend the user’s motivation,
experience, and engagement. For the identical reason, it's began to penetrate in e-learning systems.
However, when using gamified design elements in e-learning, we must consider various styles of
learners. within the phases of research and style of such elements, the cooperation of education,
technology, pedagogy, design, and finance experts is required. Several gamified design elements are
found fitted to e-learning (including points, badges, trophies, customization, leaderboards, levels,
progress tracking, challenges, feedback, social engagement loops and therefore the freedom to fail)
(González, Toledo, Muñoz, et al., 2016). This study is using few of those game elements like
leaderboard which is able to ranks learners supported their achievement and enables them to the
performance of every other, it involves a real-time communication that offers students the chance to
interact and invite other users to participate within the lesson and other like badges, level, time and
challenge also are employed in this model. However, what's being geared toward is fun while
learning, although originally deriving from the ludic system, remains a facet of play, which isn't
easily encapsulated within and replicated by rigid structures. Additionally, various genres of
gamified practices may implement different strategies resulting in emergent playfulness.
Zimmerman, (2009) understanding of what any game should comprise of, this ephemeral quality
becomes translatable to practical design hints, which take into consideration the complexity of ludic
entertainment. so as to create more engaging gamified experiences, it's crucial to know the
phenomenon of game-related fun not only as a top-quality deriving from their systemic nature, which
most e-learning system has only the aspect of learning with no fun but equally importantly from the
playful engagement thereupon very system. If fun is that the future as (Zichermann, 2010) assures
us, it should become apparent that successful and fun-driven gamification cannot be the results of an
easy replication of the quality point-based structure in accordance with the one-size-fits-all rule.
Whether it's described as a voluntary activity or an autonomous experience (Deterding 2012)
stemming from games of emergence, play with or within the system (Zimmerman 2009), or emergent
playfulness, fun may be a quality which should inform the post-bullshit era of gamification and pave
the way towards more meaningful and enjoyable design of e-learning system.

2.3. Student-centered learning through gamification

Gamification techniques, such as rewards, progress bars, challenges, feedback, and avatar, have been
used either alone or along with other gamification techniques. Ding, Er, & Orey, (2018) reported that
using a rewards-based system can result in a positive effect on learners’ motivation and engagement.

Page | 10
In addition, other previous studies (for instance., Ding et al., 2018; Roosta, Taghiyareh, & Mosharraf,
2016) have indicated that using progress bar for gamifying a learning activity can improve the
motivation and engagement of learners by allowing students to track their progress and identify the
contribution of each member throughout the learning session. Feedback, as a gamification technique,
has also been used by few scholars as an attempt to improve students’ motivation, engagement, and
performance in different learning settings (Kim et al., 2016; Roosta et al., 2016). This includes
reminding students to contribute to the development of their own learning, as well as communicating
the progress of their learning with other members. In addition, other scholars (e.g., Rincon-Flores,
Gallardo, & Fuente, 2018; van Roy & Zaman, 2018) have reported that gamifying the learning
activity by increasing the level of challenge can stimulate students’ motivation and performance in a
learning task. Avatar based system has been used rarely in previous studies (Rincon-Flores et al.,
2018) in which its use was limited to the development of students’ learning performance. Thus, the
utilization of certain gamification techniques can help promote different learning behaviours and
outcomes

2.4. Related system

This section provides a description of some of the existing education systems proposed and/or
implemented in both developed and developing countries. They have tried to enhance student-
centered learning through gaming and gamification. They include Gimkit, Kahoot, Class dojo and
Bookwidget.

Gimkit

This game app lets teachers build quizzes students should solve. They call themselves a program for
the classroom that needs knowledge, collaboration, and strategy to win. Students answer questions
on their device at their own pace. Throughout a Kit, students will get exposure to the questions
multiple times to substantiate mastery. Here’s the “gamification-factor” about Gimkit: students earn
in-game cash by answering questions correctly. But use caution, an incorrect answer will cost them!
Students can reinvest their earned digital money by purchasing upgrades and powerups that suit their
strengths. Gimkit is extremely a live classroom game, but you'll use it for homework assignments
which are graded automatically. Gimkit eventually generates a report detailing what your students
need assistance on. Despite all benefits offers by Gimkit, it only test learners’ abilities of memory
retrieval, it doesn't help learners in concept and contexts visualization.

Kahoot
Kahoot has the ability to create students extremely hooked in to learning. like a gameshow, Kahoot!
uses music, images, and a vibrant interface to induce students excited about the task at hand.

Page | 11
Particularly useful for quizzing vocabulary, multiplication, and straightforward geography, this app
asks students to pick out the right answer within a point in time. Kahoot! even allows teachers to
incorporate YouTube videos to feature an additional layer of data to every question. Combining this
interactive game with multimedia helps make the experience more immersive for college students.
Moreover, the app has many sound effects that raise the joy of the gameplay. Students receive points
for each correct answer and also get extra points for answering faster than others. Whether they’re
playing individually or in teams, students will feel very rewarded once they see their score growing.
Racking up more and more points often means students get invested within the game and wish to
continue playing. In fact, your students may become dependent on Kahoot!

Class Dojo
Class Dojo works best with younger students usually within the grammar school stage. The setting
could be a digital dojo where students can keep track of their mastery and skills. This app
automatically assigns each student an avatar which could be a little monster. Each little monster
collects points for any price from participation to helping others within the class. Teachers can use
this app from a computer or mobile device making it a versatile platform. one in all the best things
about Class Dojo is that it helps connect teachers, students, and oldsters. Although the app gives
instant feedback about students’ performance, it may send a monthly report back to parents.
Therefore, it helps close the gap between home and therefore the classroom. This app even aids
teachers in reinforcing good behaviour. Its graphics and sound effects react to when students lose
points, thereby motivating them to try and do better. Class Dojo also helps save teachers’ time.
Spending less time on maintaining this gamification aspect of the classroom makes more sustainable.

BookWidgets

BookWidgets works well for anyone using Google Classroom or merely a digital whiteboard or the
opposite device. This app offers 40 different templates for teachers to craft interactive lessons.
depending on the subject or aim of the lesson, teachers can use anything from quizzes to arithmetic
to bingo cards. the variability of templates allows teachers to make lessons of all sorts more
interactive. Furthermore, the assorted templates can help gamify things like reviews, tests, and more.
All teachers must do is launch the app and choose the “Create Widget” choice to begin devising their
next interactive lesson. Lesson planning time will decrease as student participation skyrockets with
BookWidgets.

The review of the literature indicates that gamifying learning will enhance students learning. The
strength of gamification and faculty may be complementary but bringing education and game
elements together will make it more interesting, two great tastes working together, resulting in results

Page | 12
that are especially important for developing 21st-century skills. Gamification can motivate students
to have interaction in learning. Literature has shown that gamification in learning has made education
be a joyful experience, and blurring boundaries between informal and formal learning can inspire
students to be told in life-wide, lifelong, and life deep ways. However, the maximum amount as
literature points out the challenge of implementing gamification, it would absorb teacher resources,
or teach students that they only if given external reward. On the opposite hand, playfulness requires
freedom which will give the learner the liberty to fails and check out again and again. This study,
therefore, will fill the above-mentioned gaps within the literature by making the event of the new
identity playful, and by rewarding it appropriately, which might help students think differently about
their potential within the school and what school might mean for them.

3. METHODOLOGY
The methodology is a strategy, plan of action, process or design lying behind the choice and use of
particular methods and linking the choice and use of methods to the desired outcomes (Crotty, 1998).
In this chapter, we present the approaches, techniques, and tools that were used to achieve the
objectives stated. It includes the research approach in section, Research methodology that may be
used for development, adopted methodology and finally the research strategy that will be used to
achieve the objectives.

Page | 13
3.1. Research approach

These are plans and procedures for research that span the steps from broad assumptions to detailed
methods of data collection, analysis, and interpretation (Creswell, 2014). The selection of a research
approach is based on the nature of the research problem or issue being addressed (Creswell, 2014).
There are a number of research approaches e.g. inductive, deductive, etc. (Bryman& Bell, 2015).

3.1.1. Inductive approach

The inductive research approach can be defined as the logical process of establishing the general
proposition on the basis of observation of particular facts (Soiferman, 2010). In inductive reasoning,
the researcher starts with collecting data in an attempt to develop a theory. It works the other way,
moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories, thus informally,
sometimes calling it a "bottom-up" approach (Burney, 2008).
3.1.2. Deductive approach
The deductive approach is the logical process of deriving a conclusion from a known premise or
something to be true (Soiferman, 2010). It begins with the general and ends with the specific (Burney,
2008). Creswel, (2014), says that the deductive researcher “works from the ‘top-down’, from theory
to hypotheses, to data to add to or contradict the theory”.
This Section explains some of the research approaches that could be used. From the review, the
research took a deductive approach since there was a lot of literature about the topic and the study
was based on an already defined model of technology acceptance (TAM) of Davis 1989 (Saunders,
Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). The deductive approach was also suitable for this study because of the
limited time available to carry out this research
3.2. Methods in Gamification
It is was essential that we explore common methods used in gamification application development.
They included DevOps, Agile, Lean and design science.
3.2.1. DevOps methodology
Brunnert et al. (2015) described DevOps as a set comprising of principles and practices that
effortlessly close the gap between development and operations in a quest to continuously deploy
stable releases of an application system. The DevOps methodology combines the development and
operations functions in the development and delivery of services. The principles and practices of
DevOps are extensions of the Agile methodology where cross-functional teams collaborate to
develop and deliver a service (Hutten, 2015). As Fortino, Guerrieri, Russo, & Savaglio, (2014) noted,
the process used in the DevOps framework follows the Lean software delivery procedures to improve
the cycle time of developing and delivering services, and communication, responsibility alignment,
and trust are a key element to its culture.

Page | 14
3.2.2. Agile methodology

Moniruzzaman & Hossain, (2013) described Agile as a software development methodology that is
based on iterative and incremental development which allows features and requirements to evolve
and the functions performed by a cross-functional, collaborative and self-organized team smooth.
Dingsøyr & Lassenius, (2016) stated that delivering services early to satisfy the customer is the main
aim of the Agile methodology. Agile is characterized by iterative development where functions are
performed in an organized manner through the collaboration of cross-functional teams. Developing
and delivering a service to customers at regular short intervals by creative and productive self-
organized teams while enabling the integration of a change in the requirements during the
development stage and keeping the customer involved in the development lifecycle form part of the
Agile principles and practices (Pringle-Wood, 2014).

3.2.3. Lean methodology

Verrier, Rose, Caillaud, and Remita (2014) explained that Lean methodology is used to continuously
enhance processes by identifying and eliminating waste in the development of the services and
focuses on the customer. Lean adopted its principles from Lean manufacturing and Lean IT
principles. Lean thinking is guided by the Lean principles which are to eliminate waste, build quality
in, create knowledge, defer commitment, deliver fast, respect people and optimize the whole (Wang,
Conboy & Cawley, 2012). Suomela (2015) stated that Lean originated from the manufacturing
environment and it was introduced by Toyota in a concept called the Toyota Production System.

3.2.4. Design science

Design science research (DSR) is a relatively new approach to research (Reubens, 2016) with a goal
to construct a new reality (i.e. solve problems) instead of explaining an existing reality, or helping to
make sense of it (Iivari & Venable, 2009). While Van Aken, (2004) states that DSR looks to develop
valid and reliable knowledge for designing solutions he leaves out the actual utilisation and problem-
solving capabilities. Both Horváth, (2007) and Baskerville et al. (2015) bring out the dual mandate of
the DSR: (1) to utilise the gained knowledge to solve problems, create change or improve existing
solutions; and (2) to generate new knowledge, insights and theoretical explanations. Furthermore,
Horváth, (2007) described a subtype of DSR that includes a study of actual creative design actions
between explorative and confirmative research actions — the design inclusive research (DIR). In
short, DIR divides the DSR into three phases (Horváth, 2007): (1) exploration, induction and
deduction of the problem, the context and the activities and setting hypothesis; (2) design and testing
of the solutions; (3) verifying hypothesis, validation of the research and generalising towards other
applications.

Page | 15
Figure 2: Design science research cycle. Source(Hevner, 2007).
The figure above shows the IS research framework and overlays a focus on three inherent research
cycles. Hevner, (2007), elucidates that the “Relevance Cycle bridges the contextual environment of
the research project with the design science activities; the Rigor Cycle connects the design science
activities with the knowledge base of scientific foundations, experience, and expertise that informs
the research project; and the central Design Cycle iterates between the core activities of building and
evaluating the design artifacts and processes of the research.” He further puts it that these three cycles
must be present and identifiable in a design science research project.

Adopted Methodology
The design science method will be used in this study because it is well-suited in answering the
research questions and objectives appropriately and adequately. DSR is the dominant approach to
developing research instruments in information systems (IS) research. It is well suited to developing
field-tested and theoretically grounded research instruments that are understandable with its
emphasis on evaluating the utility of prototype artifacts. This makes it useful to both researchers and
practitioners (McLaren & Buijs, 2013). The strength of the design science method is because it allows
for the examination of the phenomenon in depth using various kinds of evidence obtained from
interviews with those involved, direct observation of events and analysis of documents and artifacts
(Yin, 2003). Also, Design science is an explicitly organized, rational and wholly systematic approach
to design; not just the utilization of scientific knowledge of artifacts, but design being in some sense
a scientific activity itself (Offermann et al., 2009). Therefore, design science creates and evaluates
IT artifacts intended to solve identified organizational problems (Gacenga & Cater-Steel, 2011). The
main requirements for design science are relevance and rigor and that is why the process strives to
fulfill the requirements.

Page | 16
The study will be based on design science philosophy applied in information systems to research
systematically as adopted from (Peffers et al., 2007). According to the authors, a design science
approach is underpinned on ontological, epistemological and axiological theories.
The ontology describes the nature of reality where science is the comparison of different ideas and
reality. Epistemology explores the nature of knowledge and how it is derived. Axiology defines the
values of an individual or group. In contrast with the interpretive approach, design science
ontologically will provide the opportunity to revise the problem statement progressively.
Epistemologically in contrast with the positivist or interpretive approach, design science research
demonstrates the reality of information through the construction of an artifacts and interrelationships
between the constructs. In the axiological perspective, DSR is manipulative and values control of the
environment more than positivists.
Design science will also emphasize the invention, design, and development of new technologies,
techniques, and methods compared to positivist and interpretive approaches (Venable, 2011). As
stated by Sein et al (2011), a design science approach involves several advantages. These include
active participation; providing the basis for evaluating research impact; creating dynamic
environments and recognizing other complementary variables other than artifacts usefulness. This
approach in information technology creates an environment for the active participation of the
researcher in the design system. Successful implementation of design science research may either
lead to an increase or decrease in the production of new artifacts based on the design nature
investigated. It provides an alternative basis for evaluating research impact and this can be measured
through the estimated quality of publication outlet and citations by other researchers.
DSR allows for the evolution of an artifact and hence creating a bigger impact especially the one
which makes sense to the world (Nunamaker & Briggs, 2011). It creates a dynamic environment by
supporting a diversity of designs as a result of the evolutionary fitness of design developed through
the preparative or investigative procedure.
The methodology of this study will cover some sequential steps. These included the gathering of
requirements about the gaming model and designing prototype-based on the requirements gathering.
Analysis of the present learning situation and recognizing the problems faced in the system was done.
The study also will be carried out a literature review of some examples of a gaming model.
3.2.5. Process Iteration

According to Gacenga et al., (2012), design science has six processes; identify the problem, define
objectives of a solution, design and development, demonstration, evaluation, and communication and
are explained by Peffers, Tuunanen, Rothenberger, & Chatterjee, (2007).
Step one. Problem identification and motivation

Page | 17
Define the specific research problem and justify the value of a solution. Since the problem definition
will be used to develop an effective artifactual solution, it may be useful to atomize the problem
conceptually so that the solution can capture the problem’s complexity. Justifying the value of a
solution accomplishes two things: it motivates the researcher and the audience of the research to
pursue the solution and to accept the results and it helps to understand the reasoning associated with
the researcher’s understanding of the problem. Resources required for this activity include
knowledge of the state of the problem and the importance of its solution. Uganda is one of the
developing countries which has developed poor learning culture. Therefore, there is a need for a
researcher to intervene through gamifying learning to boost student’s motivation and visualization
of context and concept during the learning process.
Step two. Objectives of a solution
Infer the objectives of a solution from the problem definition. The objectives can be quantitative,
e.g., terms in which a desirable solution would be better than current ones, or qualitative, e.g., where
anew artifact is expected to support solutions to problems not previously addressed. The objectives
should be inferred rationally from the problem specification. Resources required for this include
knowledge of the state of problems and current solutions and their efficacy if any. Based on the
problem definition in step 1, the study focused on determining the requirements for the gaming model
and kind of gamification and strategies work better when engaging and motivating students to
enhance student-centered learning.

Step three. Design and development

Design and development will involve a set of activities performed from the literature survey and
review of the previous gaming model. The literature survey and review stage will ensure research
rigor by using the related work from the knowledge base. Checking whether gamifying learning can
improve student's engagement and boost their level of knowledge retrieval, and the requirements will
be identified using a literature survey and review. The factors will be tested in the field study using
a focused group and interviews, analysed to formulate constructs or components of the proposed
models.
Step four. Demonstration
This stage will involve the documentation and demonstration of the proposed models to prove the
idea that will be generated for the research works. This will be achieved by implementing the
designed models in the study area compared with the knowledge from the literature survey and
review.
Step five. Evaluation
Observe and measure how well the artifact supports a solution to the problem. This activity will
involve comparing the objectives of a solution to observed results from the use of the artifact in the

Page | 18
demonstration. It requires knowledge of relevant metrics and analysis techniques. Depending on the
nature of the problem venue and the artifact, evaluation could include such items as a comparison of
the artifact's functionality with the solution objectives from activity step two above, objective
quantitative performance measures, such as budgets or items produced satisfaction surveys, client
feedback, or simulations. At the end of this activity, the researchers can decide whether to iterate
back to step 3 to try to improve the effectiveness of the artifact or to continue to communicate and
leave further improvement to subsequent projects. The nature of the research venue may dictate
whether such iteration is feasible or not.
Step six. Communication.
Communicate the problem and its importance, the artifact, its utility and uniqueness, the rigor of its
design, and its effectiveness to researchers and other relevant audiences, such as practicing
professionals, when appropriate.
Saltuk and Kosan, (2014) say that the design science methodology also can provide something
tangible to show, appeals to people who enjoy technical and creative development work, expected
mode of research in some computing areas, plenty of scope for proposing and developing new IT
artifacts, therefore contributing knowledge. However, they further stress that the same method may
produce perishable research, risky if you do not have the technical or artistic skills, difficult to
generalize, and its success may depend on the researchers being present.
3.3. Research design

The research strategy for this model will be established by adopting a way in which the research
objectives can be answered. There are two main types of research strategies: quantitative and
qualitative. When deciding upon which research strategy to adopt one would have to identify the
purpose of the study and the type and availability of the information that is required (Naoum, 1998).
Both research methods are interconnected and have been considered by scholars to complement each
other.

Quantitative research is generally “objective” in nature although some may argue that it can be
“subjective” as well. Creswell, (1994) defines quantitative research as an inquiry into the social or
human problem based on testing a hypothesis or a theory composed of variables, measured with
numbers, and analysed with statistical procedures in order to determine whether the hypothesis or
the theory holds true. Quantitative data, therefore, involves measurements of tangible, countable,
sensate features of the world (Bouman & Atkinson, 1995). A limitation of this research approach is
that it depends on available or readily statistical data that can be analysed; therefore, it is not suitable
for testing new subjects/concepts with limited available data.

Page | 19
Qualitative research, on the other hand, is “subjective” in nature and mainly concentrates on opinions
and perceptions rather than hard measurable data. Types of qualitative research methods include, but
are not limited to, literature review, questionnaires, etc. From a review of both quantitative and
qualitative research approaches, it is determined that the quantitative research strategy will be used
in conjunction with qualitative research, but not to a larger extent than at first envisaged because of
limited access to numerical and statistical data from industrial property agents as they deemed the
information confidential. Table 3.1 presents an overview of the strategy that will be undertaken to
accomplish this study goal.

Table 3.1: An overview of the research strategy to be used in this study

Research Objective Research Method to Be How the Research Method Will Be Used
Used
Determine how 1. Analysis of the Reviewing existing literature on current
Literature Review gaming models that are in student-centered
gaming can enhance
learning.
student-centered 2. Interview and focus Perform interview to find out how current
group education systems are doing to implement
learning.
student-centered learning
Find out how the best gamification will
improve student center learning

To design a gaming Following these six steps for the best design
Design Science research solutions. First, by carry out end-user
platform for managing
methodology research to gain insights and discover the
content to support active and latent needs and values of the users,
and understand the factors of behaviour (what
student-centered
do people think, why they do what they do or
learning. do not do what they are supposed to do, what
are their attitudes towards the problem, their
belief systems; and cultural, political,
legislative and social context. Then now that
designing, the gaming platform will be related
to the finding.
To build the platform Design Science
Research methodology
based on the design of Peffers et al., (2007) state that researches don’t
learning. have to always start from the first step (i.e.
identification) but mostly go through all of the
steps in a way or another, moving outward
from the point of entry of the research.
To evaluate the
Structured Walkthrough All in all, when evaluating the significance of
platform over its
and Experimentation the system we should take into account
ability to support behaviours changes as discussed above.
student-centered
learning.

Page | 20
According to Neville (2007), research may be tackled using two broad strategies, notably the
inductive and deductive research strategies as discussed above.
3.4. Study population

Table 3.2: An overview of the Research Approach

Category Description Sample Size

Students These are respondents that will be 50

identified to help in requirement
Headteachers/Duty identification 10

Teachers 40

Total 100

The study population will consist of Students, Headteachers and Duty Headteachers, Teachers. As
discussed in section 1.5 above, the study area will be the Acholi sub-region in the district of Gulu
and Kitgum. This study will involve respondents who are sixteen (16) years and above only.

3.5. Sampling selection

The method of purposive and convenience sampling will be used to develop the sample of the
research under discussion. According to this method, which belongs to the category of non-
probability sampling techniques, sample members are selected on the basis of their knowledge,
relationships, and expertise regarding a research subject (Freedman et al., 2007). In the current study,
the sample members who will be selected should have special relationship with the phenomenon
under investigation, sufficient and relevant work experience in the field of education, active
involvement in several learning initiatives and partnerships, as well as proven research background
and understanding of raw data concerning education system. In this case, the respondents will be
selected based on their availability and willingness to participate in the study thus Convenience
sampling.

3.6. Data collection method and tool

Page | 21
For the purposes of this research, in-depth interviews will be used. In-depth interviews are personal
and unstructured interviews, whose aim is to identify participant’s emotions, feelings, and opinions
regarding a particular research subject. The main advantage of personal interviews is that they
involve personal and direct contact between interviewers and interviewees, as well as eliminate non-
response rates, but interviewers need to have developed the necessary skills to successfully carry an
interview (Fisher, 2005, Wilson, 2003). What is more, unstructured interviews offer flexibility in
terms of the flow of the interview, thereby leaving room for the generation of conclusions that were
not initially meant to be derived regarding a research subject. However, there is the risk that the
interview may deviate from the prespecified research aims and objectives (Gill & Johnson, 2002).

As far as data collection tools are concerned, data will be collected considering that teachers,
Students, and headteachers will participate in this study and the conduction of the research will
involve the use of a semi-structured questionnaire, which is used as an interview guide for the
researcher. This data collection method is suitable when conducting quantitative research as it seeks
to acquire a response from a variety of respondents. The use of questionnaires will be easier for the
researcher to analyse the data statistically and objectively. Questionnaires will be distributed
physically and can be also accessible through a link that will be provided to the respondents. The
questionnaire will consist of two sections. Section A will cover the demographics of the respondents.
Section B will cover current learning systems and their loopholes.

3.7. Data analysis and presentation

Content analysis is used to analyse the data which is gathered from personal interviews. According
to Moore & McCabe (2005), this is the type of research whereby data gathered is categorized in
themes and sub-themes, so as to be able to be comparable. The main advantage of content analysis
is that it helps in data collected being reduced and simplified, while at the same time producing
results that may then measured using quantitative techniques. Moreover, the content analysis gives
the ability to researchers to structure the qualitative data collected in a way that satisfies the
accomplishment of research objectives. However, human error is highly involved in content analysis,
since there is a risk for researchers to misinterpret the data gathered, thereby generating false and
unreliable conclusions (Krippendorff & Bock, 2008).

In this study, statistical data coding and analysis will be performed using the SPSS software. This
software is suitable for analysing results from numerical data. This tool will be used to analyse the
construct and produce accurate results. Descriptive statistics, correlational and inferential statistical
analysis will be performed to access the extent of variations between respondents’ opinions.

3.8. Limitation

Page | 22
The selection of technology used plays an important role in the process of engagement for the
students. Students must be recognized for their achievements and can demonstrate their progress.
Unfortunately, this type of system can conflict with our traditional school rules because most of all
use to teacher centered learning. For this reason, I would like to do further research in the future
using more types of technology over a longer period. The participants will be selected from different
years and levels, rather than only coming from one level of class. Implementing this methodology
over longer periods will allow for more accurate, full results. Also, the students felt they are
practicing real reading much more than writing, which tells me I should try to keep the programs
balanced enough so that my students a fair share of each aspect of learning. Finally, the programs
which are selected to be used during class instruction should be carefully reviewed before final
implementation to ensure that they are the best options for the benefit of the students.

3.9.Ethical consideration

The current study was subject to certain ethical issues. As it was mentioned earlier, all participants
reported their written acceptance regarding their participation in the research, through a signed
Consent and Briefing Letter. At the same time, sample members were asked to sign a Debriefing and
Withdrawal Letter. The aim of both letters was to reassure participants that their participation in the
research is voluntary and that they were free to withdraw from it at any point and for any reason.
Next to this, participants were fully informed regarding the objectives of the study, while they were
reassured that their answers were treated as confidential and used only for academic purposes and
only for the purposes of the particular research. Except the above, participants were not harmed or
abused, both physically and psychologically, during the conduction of the research. In contrast, the
researcher attempted to create and maintain a climate of comfort. Permission will be sought to
perform the study on the identified audience as discussed in section 3.5 above and will be facilitated
by acquiring ethical approval to seamlessly conduct the research. All ethical standards and
regulations set by Gulu University will be adhered to.

REFERENCES

Boyd, D. (2014). It’ s complicated. https://doi.org/10.1039/b916505n

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning.
Educational Testing Service 1989-90 Fellowship Programs.

Craik, F. I. M. (1973). The Role of Rehearsal in S h o r t - T e r m M e m o r y 1. 607, 599–607.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research methodology: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

Page | 23
 approaches. In Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4302-0766-5_3

Ding, L., Er, E., & Orey, M. (2018). An exploratory study of student engagement in gamified
online discussions. Computers and Education, 120, 213–226.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.007

Dingsøyr, T., & Lassenius, C. (2016). Emerging themes in agile software development:
Introduction to the special section on continuous value delivery. Information and Software
Technology, 77, 56–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2016.04.018

Fortino, G., Guerrieri, A., Russo, W., & Savaglio, C. (2014). Internet of Things Based on Smart
Objects. In Fortino & P. Trunfio, eds., Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
00491-4

Gacenga, F., & Cater-Steel, A. (2011). Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic
Library (AISeL) Performance Measurement Of IT Service Management: A Case Study Of An
Australian University (Research In Progress) PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT OF IT
SERVICE MANAGEMENT: A CASE STUDY OF AN AUSTR. Research In Progress).
http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2011/63

Dondi, M., Solveigh, H., Julia, K., Peter, P., Dirk, S., & Jörg, S. (2020). A-government-blueprint-
to-adapt-the-ecosystem-February (Issue January).

Grant, L. (2014). EdJourney_ A Roadmap to the Future of Education (2014, Jossey-Bass) - libgen.

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? - A literature review of
empirical studies on gamification. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, 3025–3034. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377

Laschke, M., & Hassenzahl, M. (2011). Mayor or patron ? The difference be- tween a badge and a
meaningful story. Gamificationresearchorg, 1–4.

McKinsey Global Institute. (2017). Technology and the Future of Work. In Technology and the
Future of Work (Issue February). https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780446615.001

Rao, V. (2013). Challenges of Implementing Gamification for Behavior Change : Lessons Learned
from the Design of Blues Buddies. CHI 2013 Workshop on Gamification - Designing
Gamification: Creating Gameful and Playful Experiences, 5–8.

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? - A literature review of
empirical studies on gamification. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, 3025–3034. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377

Page | 24
Hevner, A. R. (2007). A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research A Three Cycle View of
Design Science Research. 19(2), 87–92.

Horváth, I. (2007). International Conference on Engineering Design, Iced’07 Comparison of Three

Methodological Approaches of Design Research. August, 1–11.

Hutten, E. (2015). Organizational design and agile software development : 1–58.

Iivari, J., & Venable, J. (2009). Action research and design science research - Seemingly similar
but decisively dissimilar. 17th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2009.

Jacobs, M. (2013). Gamification: Moving from Addition to Creation. Chi’13 Designing

Gamification: Creating Gameful and Playful Experiences.

Kaput, K. (2018). Evidence for Student-Centered Learning. January, 28.

www.educationevolving.org.

Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative
studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772–775.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327

Kim, E., Rothrock, L., & Freivalds, A. (2016). The effects of Gamification on engineering lab
activities. Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, 2016-Novem, 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.7757442

Laschke, M., & Hassenzahl, M. (2011). Mayor or patron ? The difference be- tween a badge and a
meaningful story. Gamificationresearchorg, 1–4.

Lincoln, C. W., Hanna, T., Torsten, R., & Sue, G. (2013). Research and Development in Higher
Education : The Place of Learning and Teaching. 36, 514–523.

McLaren, T., & Buijs, P. (2013). A Design Science Approach for Developing Information Systems
Research Instruments. 6th International Conference on Design Science Research in
Information Systems and Technology, 1–10.
http://www.rug.nl/staff/p.buijs/design_science_approach_for_developing_isr_instruments.pdf

Moniruzzaman, A. B. M., & Hossain, D. S. A. (2013). Comparative Study on Agile software

development methodologies. 13(7). http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.3356

Neill, G. O., & Mcmahon, T. (2005). S Tudent – Centred L Earning : W Hat for Students and
Lecturers ? Does It Mean. August 2014. http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/

Nelson, T. O., & Leonesio, R. J. (1988). Allocation of Self-Paced Study Time and the " Labor-in-

Page | 25
 Vain Effect ". 14(1), 676–686.

Offermann, P., Levina, O., Schönherr, M., & Bub, U. (2009). Outline of a Design Science Research
ProceOffermann, P., Levina, O., Schönherr, M., and Bub, U. (2009). “Outline of a Design
Science Research Process.” 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in
Information Systems and Technology, 11.ss. 4th International Conference on Design Science
Research in Information Systems and Technology, 11.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1555619.1555629

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research
methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems,
24(3), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302

Pringle-Wood, W. A. (2014). Agile software development as a response to complexity. April.

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/86373

Rao, V. (2013). Challenges of Implementing Gamification for Behavior Change : Lessons Learned
from the Design of Blues Buddies. CHI 2013 Workshop on Gamification - Designing
Gamification: Creating Gameful and Playful Experiences, 5–8.

Reubens, R. (2016). To craft, by design, for sustainability Towards. In TU Delft University.

https://doi.org/10.4233/uuid:0c2c14c8-9550-449d-b1ff-7e0588ccd6c2

Rincon-Flores, E. G., Gallardo, K., & Fuente, J. M. de la. (2018). Strengthening an Educational
Innovation Strategy: Processes to Improve Gamification in Calculus Course through
Performance Assessment and Meta-evaluation. International Electronic Journal of
Mathematics Education, 13(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/2692

Roosta, F., Taghiyareh, F., & Mosharraf, M. (2016). Personalization of gamification-elements in an

e-learning environment based on learners’ motivation. 2016 8th International Symposium on
Telecommunications, IST 2016, 637–642. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISTEL.2016.7881899

Saltuk, O., & Kosan, I. (2014). Design and creation of a. Biochemistry, 86(September), 6903–6907.

Singhal, D. D. (2017). Understanding Student- Centered Learning and Philosophies of Teaching

Practices. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management, February.
https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v5i2.02

Surendeleg, G., Murwa, V., Yun, H.-K., & Kim, Y. S. (2014). The Role of Gamification in
Education – A Literature Review. 7(29), 1609–1616.

Van Aken, J. E. (2004). Management Research Based on the Paradigm of the Design Sciences: The

Page | 26
 Quest for Field-Tested and Grounded Technological Rules. Journal of Management Studies,
41(2), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00430.x

van Roy, R., & Zaman, B. (2018). Need-supporting gamification in education: An assessment of
motivational effects over time. Computers and Education, 127(August), 283–297.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.018

Weimer, M. (2002). Synopsis Learner Centered Teaching Five Key Changes to Practice (Vol. 1).
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. No.

Wright, G. B. (2011). Student-Centered Learning in Higher Education. International Journal of

Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 92–97.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079312331382498

Page | 27