Redesign of a gamified Software Engineering course

This paper builds on work previously published as best paper at CSEDU 2013 [1], which describes the motivation gap between the teacher's view of student motivation and their actual motivation. As a result of this mismatch, the gamified Software Engineering course under observation [2], did not appeal to the students in the expected way. Our findings give rise to a number of design criteria for e-Learning and blended course that address the motivation gap in order to increase the number students that are able to self-regulate their studies and stay or become motivated by the course as defined by Dan Pink's motivational factors: autonomy, mastery and purpose [3].

[1]  Errol Thompson,et al.  Bloom's taxonomy for CS assessment , 2008, ACE '08.

[2]  Anthony F. Grasha,et al.  A Matter of Style: The Teacher as Expert, Formal Authority, Personal Model, Facilitator, and Delegator , 1994 .

[3]  J. Kruger,et al.  Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[4]  Anthony F. Grasha,et al.  A practical handbook for college teachers , 1983 .

[5]  Tom Verhoeff,et al.  Self-consistent Peer Ranking for Assessing Student Work - Dealing with Large Populations , 2013, CSEDU.

[6]  Doug Clow,et al.  MOOCs and the funnel of participation , 2013, LAK '13.

[7]  Cesar C. Navarrete,et al.  Online social networks as formal learning environments: Learner experiences and activities , 2012 .

[8]  B. Schmidt,et al.  Learning Strategy and Students' Perception of Different Learning Options in a Blended Learning Environment - A Case Study of a First Year Engineering Course , 2013, CSEDU.

[9]  Harvey Singh,et al.  Building Effective Blended Learning Programs , 2021, Challenges and Opportunities for the Global Implementation of E-Learning Frameworks.

[10]  D. Kolb.  Experiential Learning Theory and The Learning Style Inventory: A Reply to Freedman and Stumpf , 1981 .

[11]  Maxim J. Schlossberg.  A Practical Handbook for College Teachers. , 1984 .

[12]  J. Wertsch,et al.  CONSTRUCTIVISM IN EDUCATION , 2019 .

[13]  Kay Berkling,et al.  Gamification of a Software Engineering course and a detailed analysis of the factors that lead to it's failure , 2013, 2013 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL).

[14]  J. Tagg.  The learning paradigm college , 2003 .

[15]  Ming Ming Chiu,et al.  Group Problem-Solving Processes: Social Interactions and Individual Actions , 2000 .

[16]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches , 1999 .

[17]  D. Krathwohl.  A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview , 2002 .

[18]  T. Murphey.  Book Review DRIVE: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us , 2009 .

[19]  Kay M. Berkling,et al.  Understanding the Challenges of Introducing Self-driven Blended Learning in a Restrictive Ecosystem - Step 1 for Change Management: Understanding Student Motivation , 2013, CSEDU.

[20]  Natasha Boskic,et al.  Eportfolios: From Description to Analysis. , 2008 .

[21]  L. Steffe,et al.  Constructivism in education. , 1995 .

[22]  Susan A. Santo.  Relationships between Learning Styles and Online Learning , 2008 .