This figure present a generic framework for gamifying actives in learning management systems (LMS) for learners or trainees. Gamification mechanism that provide game elem...
Abstract:
Despite the public enthusiasm for gamification training for employees, gamification is not yet been fully incorporated for instructor training in universities. Previous s...Show MoreMetadata
Abstract:
Despite the public enthusiasm for gamification training for employees, gamification is not yet been fully incorporated for instructor training in universities. Previous studies have examine factors that improves employee participation, motivation and engagement that leads to the employee intentions to use gamification for training. Therefore, in this study, task technology fit (TTF), social motivations (SM) and knowledge gain from using gamifiction were investigated. The TAM is enhanced with other factors; such as the task technology fit (TTF) and social motivation. The TTF is used to examine gamification utility, while social motivation is used to examine social influence (SI) and social recognition (SR). Data were collected in two phases, in the first phase 375 data were used for the TAM, secondly, 31 data were used for the pre and posttest. A structural equation model were presented to test the TAM while the t-test were used to study the knowledge gain from using the gamification system. However, the foundation for understanding instructors' behavior in this study's context are: (1) perceived usefulness and attitudes are crucial to the continuance intentions to use gamified Moodle for training; (2) perceived usefulness mediates the relationships among social recognition, TTF, perceived ease of use, and social influence on continuance intentions; (3) when predicting continuance intentions, TTF, social recognition, social influence, and perceived ease of use are vital; (4) TTF positively affects perceived ease of use; and, unexpectedly, (5) the TTF and social influence have no significant effects on perceived usefulness. Detailed results and educational implications are discussed.
This figure present a generic framework for gamifying actives in learning management systems (LMS) for learners or trainees. Gamification mechanism that provide game elem...
Published in: IEEE Access ( Volume: 8)
References is not available for this document.
Contents Select All
1.
I. H. Ajayi, N. A. Iahad, N. Ahmad and A. F. Yusof, "A proposed conceptual model for flipped learning", J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol., vol. 95, pp. 7049-7057, 2017.
2.
M. Alberto, D. Riera, C. Gonzalez and J. A. Moreno, "Gamification: A systematic review of design frameworks", J. Comput. Higher Edu., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 516-548, 2017.
3.
M. Aljukhadar, S. Senecal and J. Nantel, "Is more always better? Investigating the task-technology fit theory in an online user context", Inf. Manage., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 391-397, 2014.
4.
J. C. Anderson and D. W. Gerbing, "Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach", Psychol. Bull., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 411-423, 1988.
5.
D. R. Andrija-Bernik, "Research on efficiency of applying gamified design into University’s e-courses: 3D modeling and programming", J. Comput. Sci., vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 718-727, 2017.
6.
M. Aparicio, T. Oliveira, F. Bacao and M. Painho, "Gamification: A key determinant of massive open online course (MOOC) success", Inf. Manage., vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 39-54, 2019.
7.
A. Botra, M. Rerselman and M. Ford, "Gamification beyond badges", Proc. IST-Afr. Conf. Proc., pp. 1-10, May 2014, [online] Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6880651.
8.
S. Cangur and I. Ercan, "Comparison of model fit indices used in structural equation modeling under multivariate normality", J. Modern Appl. Stat. Methods, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 152-167, 2015.
9.
H. H. Chang, "Task-technology fit and user acceptance of online auction", Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud., vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 69-89, 2010.
10.
M. T. Dishaw and D. M. Strong, "Extending the technology acceptance model with task–technology fit constructs", Inf. Manage., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 9-21, 1999.
11.
N. Duţă and R. Foloştină, "Psycho-pedagogical training needs of university teaching staff—A comparative study", Procedia-Social Behav. Sci., vol. 141, pp. 453-458, Aug. 2014.
12.
D. M. Elisa, B. Florian, N. T. Alexandre and O. Klaus, "Towards understanding the effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and performance", Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 71, pp. 525-534, Jun. 2017.
13.
C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, "Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error", J. Marketing Res., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39-50, 1981.
14.
V. Fredericks and A. Bosanquet, "‘An essential right’: Reflections on evaluating a professional development program for tutors", Int. J. Academic Develop., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 84-89, 2017.
15.
D. Dicheva, C. Dichev, G. Agre and G. Angelova, "Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study", Educ. Technol. Soc., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 75-88, Jul. 2015.
16.
D. L. Goodhue, "Development and measurement validity of a task-technology fit instrument for user evaluations of information system", Decis. Sci., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 105-138, 1998.
17.
R. Howard, L. Restrepo and C. Y. Chang, "Addressing individual perceptions: An application of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology to building information modelling", Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 107-120, 2017.
18.
C.-L. Hsu and H.-P. Lu, "Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience", Inf. Manage., vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 853-868, 2004.
19.
G. Husband, "The impact of lecturers’ initial teacher training on continuing professional development needs for teaching and learning in post-compulsory education", Res. Post-Compulsory Edu., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 227-244, 2015.
20.
C. P. Kao, K. Y. Lin and H. M. Chien, "Predicting teachers’ behavioral intentions regarding Web-based professional development by the theory of planned behavior", EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1887-1897, 2018.
21.
I. U. Khan, Z. Hameed, Y. Yu, T. Islam, Z. Sheikh and S. U. Khan, "Predicting the acceptance of MOOCs in a developing country: Application of task-technology fit model social motivation and self-determination theory", Telematics Inform., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 964-978, 2018.
22.
P. S. Kissi, M. Nat and R. B. Armah, "The effects of learning–family conflict perceived control over time and task-fit technology factors on urban–rural high school students’ acceptance of video-based instruction in flipped learning approach", Educ. Technol. Res. Develop., vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 1547-1569, 2018.
23.
P. C. Lai, "The literature review of technology adoption models and theories for the novelty technology", J. Inf. Syst. Technol. Manage., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 21-38, 2017.
24.
D. Y. Lee and M. R. Lehto, "User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model", Comput. Edu., vol. 61, pp. 193-208, Feb. 2013.
25.
D. J. Lemay, M. M. Morin, P. Bazelais and T. Doleck, "Modeling students’ perceptions of simulation-based learning using the technology acceptance model", Clin. Simul. Nursing, vol. 20, pp. 28-37, Jul. 2018.
26.
"Determination of intestinal mass by 2 region growing method", May 2018.
27.
J. Looyestyn, J. Kernot, K. Boshoff, J. Ryan, S. Edney and C. Maher, "Does gamification increase engagement with online programs? A systematic review", PloS ONE, vol. 12, no. 3, 2017.
28.
H. P. Lu and Y. W. Yang, "Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use a social networking site: An extension of task-technology fit to social-technology fit", Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 34, pp. 323-332, May 2014.
29.
R. F. Malaquias, F. F. Malaquias and Y. Hwang, "Understanding technology acceptance features in learning through a serious game", Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 87, pp. 395-402, Oct. 2018.
30.
M. M. Mcgill, C. Johnson, J. Atlas, D. Bouchard, C. Messom, I. Pollock, et al., "If memory serves: Towards designing and evaluating a game for teaching pointers to undergraduate students", Proc. ITiCSE Conf. Work. Group Rep. (ITiCSE-WGR), pp. 25-46, 2018.