Structuring time can be considered as prioritising one’s time (Hassard, 1991). In education, creating and adhering to a structured routine can be paramount to academic success (Kornhauser, 1993). For students setting priorities can help put the focus on tasks that are the most beneficial or prove the greatest necessity (Locke, 1975). To aid students with setting priorities we are looking at the use of gamification, the “application of gaming metaphor to real life tasks to influence behavior, improve motivation and enhance engagement” (Marczewski, 2013).
Games are inherently engaging and the implementation of game elements and mechanics in non-game systems has been to shown to motivate users to complete more mundane tasks (Ibanez, Di-Serio and Delgado-Kloos, 2014). In our pilot study we are looking to answer the question “Does the inclusion of a companion and tournament style interface increase intrinsic motivation when completing a prioritisation task compared to a generic prioritisation task?”
The pilot study saw the creation of a prioritisation website containing a generic prioritisation task list based on the current standard and a gamified prioritisation task. Game mechanics for the gamified task included the use of positive reinforcement, on-boarding and an interactive interface that encourages play. These elements are incorporated into tournament style priority sorting and an interactive companion that reacts with different responses and animations.
A pilot study was undertaken with volunteers recruited through a mass email, (N=27). The study utilised a within-subject design with (N=13) of participants completing the generic list first and (N=14) completing the gamified task first. After completing each task participants filled out 7 point likert scale questions tailored from the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) (Ryan, 1982).
Using a one-tailed two-sample paired t-test, we measured the scales of Value/Usefulness, Effort/Importance and, Interest/Enjoyment from the IMI.
We found there was an increase in participants intrinsic motivation (p=0.03, p<.05), with the mean score for the gamified task (M=4.59, SD=0.76) higher than the generic task (M=4.11, SD=0.95). This was mainly due to a higher level of enjoyment (p=0.01, p<0.05), while completing the gamified task (M=4.56, SD=0.99) compared to the generic task (M=3.85, SD=1.28). However there was no significant statistical difference in the sub-scales of Value (p=0.07) and Effort (p=0.46).
From the results of this pilot study we can gather that the inclusion of a companion and tournament style interface increased participants enjoyment and overall intrinsic motivation while completing a prioritization task, without any significant change to value or effort. For future work we hope to conduct a larger study utilising more gamification elements over a longer duration.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hassard, J. (1991) ‘Aspects of Time in Organization’, Human Relations,44(2), pp. 105–125.
Ibanez, M.-B.,Di-Serio,A. and Delgado-Kloos,C. (2014) ‘Gamification for Engaging Computer Science Students in Learning Activities: A Case Study’, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies,7(3), pp. 291–301.
Kornhauser,A.W.(1993) How to Study: Suggestions for High-School and College Students. 3 edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Locke, E.A. (1975) A Guide to Effective Study. New York: Springer Pub Co.
Marczewski,A. (2013) Gamification:A Simple Introduction. Andrzej Marczewski.
Ryan, R.M. (1982) ‘Control and Information in the Intrapersonal Sphere: An Extension of Cognitive Evaluation Theory’, Journel of Personality and Social Pyschology,43(3), pp. 450-461.
