Impact Of Gamification On User’s Knowledge-Sharing .

2y ago
93 Views
2 Downloads
1.83 MB
10 Pages
Last View : 19d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Cade Thielen
Transcription

Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2017Impact of Gamification on User’s Knowledge-Sharing Practices:Relationships between Work Motivation, Performance Expectancy and WorkEngagementMario SilicUniversity of St Gallen, Switzerlandmario.silics@unisg.chAndrea BackUniversity of St Gallen, Switzerlandandrea.back@unisg.chAbstractwith a high level of enjoyment and fulfillment [11].Gamification aims to reach the Flow in which anindividual’s mental state is focused motivation. Thiscorresponds to an employee’s commitment,concentration, focus, satisfaction, etc.– elements thataffect an employee’s motivation. As flow is one ofthe key reasons why people play games [47], it isexpected that gamification will have a positiveinfluence on employee behaviors, leading to highermotivation and engagement.However, although scholars have made someinitial steps in understanding the effects ofgamification on the workplace [e.g. 3, 21, 27, 46],little theory or empirical observation accounts for therole of gamification on knowledge-sharing practicesrelated to job engagement and motivation. Inparticular, researchers have not examined how and towhat extent the inclusion of game design elementsinfluences an employee’s behavior towards jobmotivation, leading to a higher degree of jobengagement and performance that impact knowledgesharing practices. This knowledge gap can beunderstandable, given that the gamification concepthas only recently found its application inorganizations and the fact that gamification is not aone-time snapshot of an employee’s mental state but,instead, has to be studied over longer periods. This iswhere the majority of past studies failed incombination with relatively small sample sizes [33].Clearly, there is a lack of empirical research todemonstrate that gamification leads to better results[9]. More precisely, it is unclear if gamification caninfluence personal (i.e., employee) engagement whenemployees need to be motivated to share theirknowledge inside of the organizational boundaries.Kahn [40] suggests that personal engagement is astate in which employees “bring in” their personalselves during the work role performances as theyinvest time and energy by experiencing a state ofemotional connection with their job. This implies thatwork engagement is essentially a motivationalHow to engage and motivate employees to sharetheir knowledge has become one of the mainorganizational strategic goals. This study, supportedby the Flow theory and Kahn’s theory of engagement,investigated how the impact of gamification on user’sknowledge-sharing practices. We ran an onlinesurvey of 147 participants from a large vational systems to leverage internal knowledgesharing practices. Our study revealed importantdrivers of job motivation (enjoyment, reciprocalbenefit and recognition), which led to higher degreeof job engagement and performance expectancy.From this study we derive important insights forpractice and theory.1. IntroductionEngaged employees represent the company’snumber one competitive advantage [6] impactingproductivity, absenteeism, profitability, quality,customer satisfaction and, ultimately, the company’ssales performance [24]. The study of U.S. workplaceengagement conducted by Gallup [25], since 2000, isconsistent in its findings that less than one-third ofAmericans are employed in organizations in which amajority of employees are indifferent regarding theiror the organization’s performance. How to engageand motivate employees to share their knowledge hasbecome one of the main organizational strategic goalsin which clear vision, management support andmanager engagement are the key employeeengagement driving factors [25]. Gamification, theuse of game elements in non-game contexts [18, 39],is a recent phenomenon that has receivedconsiderable attention both from scholars and massmedia. Rooted in the Flow theory, which posits that aperson performing an activity (e.g., playing a game)will reach a feeling of complete and energized focusURI: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/41309ISBN: 978-0-9981331-0-2CC-BY-NC-ND1308

concept that combines active allocation of personalresources toward the tasks with the work role [50].Gamification targets the personal engagementthrough the state of Flow by gamifying the tasks oractivities that the employee has to accomplish.Accordingly, the purpose of this work is to drawfrom Theory of Flow [11] and Kahn’s theory ofengagement [40] to develop a theory that placesgamification antecedents as key drivers of anemployee’s engagement and explains relationshipsbetween work motivation, performance expectancyand work engagement in the context of knowledgesharing inside of the organization.2. Theoretical Background2.1. Theory of Flow and GamificationFlow theory suggested by Davis andCsikszentmihalyi [16] explains the experiences ofintrinsically motivated people who are engaged in anactivity chosen for its own sake. Csikszentmihalyidescribes Flow as "being completely involved in anactivity for its own sake. The ego falls away. Timeflies. Every action, movement and thought followsinevitably from the previous one, like playing jazz.Your whole being is involved, and you're using yourskills to the utmost" [63]. The Flow experience can beseen in various daily activities, such as dancing,sports, performing surgery or playing music. Forexample, in leisure activities such as mountainclimbing, the person does not climb to reach thepeak; instead, he/she attempts the peak in order toclimb, meaning that the person is doing the activityfor its own sake.Games and Flow are clearly dependent [11, 44,49] as games provide the necessary feedback withclear goals to players as pre-conditions to experienceFlow [20]. In addition, games have the adaptabilityfeatures as they can add or modify levels, offeringchallenges to players to bring the necessary balancebetween skills and challenges [7]. According to [10],the key to the Flow experience is to maintain theright balance between the increase of one’s skills thatrelate to training and the increase of the task’schallenges that relate to novelty. Gamification, rootedin the Flow theory, is a relatively new phenomenonthat has received high attention, both from scholarsand mass media.However, today, gamification has a much broaderarea of application. This is also supported by theFlow theory, which posits that Flow can be reachedin any area, meaning it can be applied in any productor service.In this work, we define gamification as theapplication of game design elements (e.g., challenge,levels, points, leaderboards) to organizational contextwith the ultimate goal to influence an employee’swork engagement through job satisfaction andmotivation. Ultimately, users’ behaviors should beimpacted by the gamified tasks, in which reaching theFlow experience is the objective. This objective canbe reached either through intrinsic or extrinsicmotivation [52]. The intrinsic motivation can befound in the task itself, whereas extrinsic motivationcomes from different external factors (e.g., financialrewards). While having extrinsic motives canproduce negative outcomes [43] long term, whichmay impact the state of Flow, it can still be possibleto activate Flow by including extrinsic incentives[52].This is where gamification comes into play byproviding incentives such as badges, that have theintrinsic component (e.g. collecting badges), but alsothe extrinsic dimension (e.g., gaining socialrecognition). In their literature review, Bui, Veit andWebster [8] divided gamification into six maincategories: mechanics, technologies, individualcharacteristics, dynamics, outcomes and aesthetics,which have several sub-categories (e.g., Feedback,Representation, Game advancement, Rewards,Sensory, etc.). The study highlighted two interestingfacts: 1) the majority of reviewed articles did notexplain the technological elements of their gamifiedsystems, and 2) only a few studies examinedindividual characteristics (e.g., gender, age,experience). They concluded that there is a “largegap in research of potential relevance toorganizations more research is needed onemployees interacting with group systems resulting incollaboration dynamics and longer-term behavioraloutcomes” [8]. This supports our argument thatgamification needs to be applied over a certain timeperiod in order to produce some meaningful andconsistent impact on users’ behavior.2.2. Kahn’s Theory of EngagementEngagement is “the simultaneous employment andexpression of a person’s ‘preferred self’ in taskbehaviors that promote connections to work and toothers, personal presence (physical, cognitive andemotional) and active, full performances” [40].Accordingly, an engaged employee would be labelledas psychologically present, fully there, attentive,feeling, connected, integrated and focused in theirrole performances [50]. Kahn noted that employeesin such situations are not only open to themselves andothers, but are also connected to work and others, as1309

they bring their complete selves to perform [40].Kahn’s engagement concept is all about themotivation, as it involves bringing personal resourcesto the performance, and also how intensely andpersistently these resources are applied [41]. Kahnsuggests that engagement consists of lvement, flow, mindfulness and intrinsicmotivation. Overall, engagement in gamificationcorresponds to high levels of autonomous motivationthat is achieved through vigor, dedication andabsorption [55], in which an individual will reach astate of full absorption leading to the state of Flow,characterized by focused attention, clear mind, mindand body unison, effortless concentration, completecontrol, loss of self-consciousness, distortion of timeand intrinsic enjoyment [11].While engagement in the working contexts hasreceived considerable focus from researchers [e.g. 5,34, 40, 53, 55], it is still relatively unknown howgamification can impact work engagement andemployee motivation [30].2.3. Gamification of Knowledge SharingApplications such as Stack Overflow portal orYahoo Answers have already incorporated somegame design elements to motivate users to promoteknowledge sharing through a practice called SocialQuestion and Answer. However, little is known aboutthe organizational knowledge management-sharingpractices and how gamification can leverage suchactivities [54]. Interestingly, past literature onknowledge management agrees that the mainmotivators for knowledge sharing, among severalothers, are: 1) recognition of job performed [35] and2) reciprocity [4]. Added to these two is the fun, orenjoyment dimension, which is one of the importantcomponents of Flow theory [11].According to Schacht and Maedche [54], theissue of existing knowledge-management systems isthat they are “no fun do not create an enjoyableuser experience or high user satisfaction [because]engagement and motivation [are missing].and theyseem to be key success factors”. We believe thatgamification systems can alleviate these challengesby providing enjoyment, reciprocal benefit and–motivational drivers that can be provided through theuse of the game design elements. Indeed,motivational aspect seems to be an important one asit supports user’s willingness to search, apply andshare knowledge [1]. However, an efficient gamifiedsystem that supports knowledge sharing needs to becarefully designed by using appropriate gamificationelements.Overall, we argue that an individual will be moremotivated and engaged when some reciprocal benefitis experienced and when there is an element of fun orenjoyment present during the interaction process. Inaddition, being recognized should lead to being moremotivated and, consequently, more engaged.In the next section, we detail our hypotheses.2.4. HypothesesPerceived reciprocal benefit is a form of socialusefulness of the service, in which the user willcontribute but also receive some benefits from thecommunity [48]. According to Hamari and Koivisto[31], “The reciprocity, receiving and contributing ina manner considered beneficial by the community, islikely to be of fundamental importance inencouraging users to carry out activities encouragedby the gamification system.”. The encouragementeffect is clearly related to motivation, which suggeststhat users will continue using the system if they findthe reciprocal benefit link to be beneficial for them.Consequently, we argue that if the gamified systemprovides clear benefits to employees, then it can beexpected that employees will be more motivated toshare their knowledge. Hence, we hypothesize:H1: Perceived reciprocal benefit is correlatedpositively and significantly with work motivation inthe context of knowledge sharing.For Flynn [22], rewards and recognition programskeep employees’ spirits high, positively impactingtheir performance and motivation. Clearly, if anemployee receives recognition, his/her motivationwill increase. Ali and Ahmed [2] study confirmedthis by finding a statistically significant relationshipbetween recognition and motivation. Hence, wehypothesize:H2: Perceived recognition is correlated positivelyand significantly with work motivation in the contextof knowledge sharing.Past research has already demonstrated thatplaying games improves intrinsic motivation andpromotes a state of heightened enjoyment [19, 52].Perceived enjoyment is defined as the extent towhich the activity of using the technology is“perceived to be enjoyable in its own right, apartfrom any performance consequences that may beanticipated” [60]. When employees enjoy theactivity, they will find the interaction intrinsicallyinteresting, meaning that they are involved in theactivity for fun, pleasure and enjoyment [45]. Davis,Bagozzi and Warshaw [15] found perceivedenjoyment to be an intrinsic source of motivation. Weargue that when an employee experiences enjoyment,1310

he or she will have higher job motivation. Hence, wehypothesize:H3: Perceived enjoyment is correlated positivelyand significantly with work motivation in the contextof knowledge sharing.Performance expectancy is defined as “the degreeto which an individual believes that using the systemwill help him/her to attain gains in job performance”[62]. In the gamification system, it can be expectedthat if an individual sees that system use bringshim/her clear advantages (e.g., productivity increase)in relation to job tasks, then the individual’s jobmotivation will be positively impacted. For example,if an employee receives a recognition, that will leadto a higher job motivation, which ultimately willaffect the employee’s performance expectancy, inwhich it can be expected that the employee’s jobperformance will improve. In other words, if, forexample, an employee is rewarded by his manager,this would impact the job motivation and,consequently, his/her performance expectancy.Hence, we hypothesize:H4: Job motivation is correlated positively andsignificantly with performance expectancy in thecontext of knowledge sharing.Prior empirical findings showed that employeeswith high intrinsic motivation are spending more timeon organizational tasks, have more positive moodsand experience less anxiety in the workplace [17].Therefore, if employees feel motivated, they will bemore engaged with their work. Similarly, if thegamification system brings performance-relatedbenefits to employees, then we can expect that anemployee will be more engaged with his/her work.For example, since knowledge-sharing practices willbe increased as a consequence of using thegamification system, we argue that work engagementwill be higher as result of increased performanceexpectancy. Hence, we hypothesize:H5: Job motivation is correlated positively andsignificantly with work engagement in the contextof knowledge sharing.H6: Performance expectancy is correlatedpositively and significantly with work engagementin the context of knowledge sharing.3. Research Methodology3.1. Research Setting and Participantsmotivation platform (bravo system) that enables eachemployee to recognize another employee for a certaintask related to knowledge sharing. The entire systemis fully gamified and uses different gamificationelements (leaderboards, points, scoring, levels,challenges to solve, incentives, employee picture,team rewards and badges). The system works asfollows. An employee can reward another employeeor a group of employees by giving a certain amountof points that are accumulated by each employee. Thenumber of points determine the employee’s level andassociated badges. Points can be spent either ontravel or to purchase different goods through anexternal website. Along with awarding points,employees can also just say “bravo” to anotheremployee. All bravo recognitions are related to somespecific knowledge- sharing practices that employeesdemonstrate.Two groups of participants were contacted: 1)employees who were already active users on theBravo system and 2) employees who never used thesystem (non-bravo users) who acted as our controlgroup. All contacted employees were involved in theknowledge-sharing processes. That is, they were allinvolved in a certain type of product or projectmanagement process in which sharing knowledge isone of the important processes.3.2. Procedures and MeasurementData was collected from both types of users(bravo users and the control group) using an onlinequestionnaire. In addition, since we did not want torely on one-time data collection, we decided to havea longitudinal approach. That is, we collected thedata over a six month-period collecting data atregular intervals. The purpose of doing this was toavoid the short gamification effect from which manypast studies suffered. Indeed, gamification is aprocess that takes time and needs to be run over alonger period to see any effects on users’ behaviors.Measurement items are presented in Appendix II.4. ResultsNow, we present our detailed findings. First, wedetail the participants’ demographics. Second, weexplore the measurement model results and finishwith assessing our initial hypotheses.4.1. DemographicsTo test our research model, we collected datafrom employees from a large international companythat implemented an internal social engagement andIn total, we had 175 participants that completedthe survey. We removed 28 for implausible answers1311

(time less than two minutes) or incomplete/missinginformation. The final sample accounted for 147participants (95 were men and 52 women).Demographics were represented as follows: U.S. 61,France 24, U.K. 15, Spain 11, India 10, Turkey 8,Poland 5, Croatia 5, UAE 5 and Russia 3.To assess our hypotheses, we examined theparameters provided by the PSL structural model.Our structural model results (Figure 1) indicate thatall of our hypotheses are supported.4.2. Model Testing, Validity and ReliabilityWe use partial least squares (PLS) to test ourtheoretical model using SmartPLS [51]. The PLSmethod has a wide acceptance and use in IS securitystudies [37, 56, 57]. We opted for a structuralequation modelling (SEM) technique rather thanregression as we aimed for testing measurement anda structural model. Also, PLS proved to be useful inthe exploratory theory-building process [57].The composite reliabilities of the differentmeasures range from 0.92 to 0.97, which exceeds therecommended threshold value of 0.70. Also, as perFornell and Larcker [23], the recommended averagevariance extracted (AVE) for each variable constructexceeds 0.50, ranging from 0.70 to 0.87.According to the Fornell-Larcker criterion [23],the AVE of each latent construct should be higherthan the construct’s highest squared correlation withany other latent construct. We conclude that thediscriminant validity (Table 1) test has beenestablished. Also, factor Loadings (boldface) andcross Loadings were calculated (Appendix I – Table1).Further, Stone-Geisser Q-squared coefficientswere calculated for each of the endogenous variablesin the study’s path model [26, 58]. Each of theendogenous variables in the study’s model exhibitedQ-squared coefficients greater than zero, therebypresenting acceptable predictive validity. Finally, afull collinearity check that was based on the varianceinflation factors (VIFs) for each of the latentvariables was conducted. The recommended VIFvalue should be lower than 5 [29], and, taking intoaccount that the highest VIF score is 4.45, weconcluded that no existence of multicollinearity canbe supported.We repeated the same procedure for the controlgroup model and obtained same conclusions. That is,we concluded that discriminant validity andreliability are acceptable. Finally, we controlled forthe common method bias and found that it is not aconcern for this research.4.3. Structural ModelFigure 1. Structural model 1PEREX0.59 0.730.93RECBE0.69 0.730.680.93RECO0.63 0.700.590.680.89WE0.37 0.440.480.480.170.83Table 1. Discriminant Validity (intercorrelations) ofVariable Constructs4.4. Control Group ResultsControl group results were obtained using thesame questionnaire that was used with thegamification group but with some modifications: 1)instead of asking about the bravo system, employeeswere asked about current knowledge- sharingpractice process, and 2) several item questions wereslightly adapted to match the new wording, butwithout any logic or sense change. Results showedthat H1 is supported (β 0.177, p 0.01), H2 (β 0.154, NS), H3 (β 0.101, NS), H4 (β 0.212, NS),H5 (β 0.222, NS) and H6 (β 0.094, NS). We havealso performed partial least squares multi-groupanalysis (PLS-MGA) following the method assuggested by [36]. After analyzing the bootstrapoutputs, we concluded that the gamification system ispositively impacting employees’ behaviors whencompared to the control group, in which this impactis not present.5. Discussion1312

This study sought to understand the impact ofgamification on user’s knowledge-sharing practicesthrough gamified social engagement and motivationalSystem.5.1. Theoretical ContributionsThere are several theoretical contributions offeredin this study. First, we identified key antecedents tojob motivation, theorizing that reciprocal benefit,recognition and enjoyment lead to higher jobmotivation. This confirms our initial hypothesis thatgamification would lead to higher job motivation.More precisely, in the context of knowledge-sharingpractices, it seems that employees are moremotivated to share their knowledge when it couldbenefit them. Also, being recognized for theirknowledge-sharing behaviors and, at the same time,having fun and enjoying, influences employees’motivation. Indeed, KM literature highlights theimportance of motivation [13] where providingincentives clearly impacts knowledge sharing.Second, we found a strong relationship betweenmotivation and performance expectancy and jobengagement. This is an important finding as itsuggests that the inclusion of game design elementsinfluences employees behaviors toward jobengagement and also its performance expectancy. Astudy done by Danish and Usman [12] revealed thatincentives, reward and recognition do have a greatimpact on employee motivation. In our context,knowledge-sharing practices seem to be positivelyimpacted by the motivational dimension in whichemployees tend to be more engaged with their job asa consequence of different motivation drivers.Interestingly, social Q&A sites are already usinggamification to increase the knowledge sharingpractices of their participants [61]. Third, we foundthat performance expectancy directly and positivelyinfluences job engagement in the context ofknowledge sharing. This suggests that a motivatedemployee, that is recognized, enjoys the activity, hasfun, derives a benefit from using the system and willperform better as result of increased knowledgesharing practices. This will ultimately affect workengagement. Also, when employees are incentivizedto collaborate with others, they tend to increase theirknowledge sharing practices [59].Overall, our study offers new insights aboutemployee work engagement and the impact ofgamification elements relying on Theory of Flow[11] and Kahn’s theory of engagement [40].5.2. Practitioner ContributionsWe also offer some practical contributions. Ourstudy suggests that implementing a gamificationsystem could leverage an employee’s knowledgesharing practices in the organizational context. Thatis, employees see a benefit in the gamification systemuse as they are recognized by their peers ormanagers. Another point that could be interesting inthe organizational context relates to motivationaldimension. Overall, employees’ motivation to sharetheir knowledge is one of the challenges fororganizations. Approaching this topic through gamedesign elements seems to influence employees’behavior in a positive way. Hence, organizationscould leverage the use of the gamification system tocustomize it more to their knowledge-sharingpractices needs. Ultimately, this would lead not onlyto an increase in performance expectancy but also toan increase in job engagement.5.3. Limitations and Future ResearchOur study is limited by the fact that we ran it in asingle organization. It would be interesting to involvemore organizations to see what other factors (e.g.,organizational culture) could impact the overallresults. Further, although we did have a control groupof employees who never used the gamificationsystem in place, some of these employees could haveheard about the gamification system, which couldconsequently have some influence on the results ofthe control group. Another limitation is the fact thatwe did not really measure any knowledge-sharingpractice. Finally, although our study is longitudinal indesign, six months period may not be an idealtimeframe for measuring gamification effects.We suggest further research that will explore howjob satisfaction is influenced by different motivationdrivers and, ultimately, investigate the relationshipbetween job satisfaction and work engagement.Another interesting direction for future studies is tounderstand the role of different game designelements: how and to what extent these elementsinfluence (in a positive or negative way) long-termwork engagement, motivation and job satisfaction.7. References[1] Alavi, M., and Leidner, D.E., "Review: KnowledgeManagement and Knowledge Management Systems:Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues", MISquarterly, 25(1), 2001, pp. 107.[2] Ali, R., and Ahmed, M.S., "The Impact of Reward andRecognition Programs on Employee’s Motivation and1313

Satisfaction: An Empirical Study", International review ofbusiness research papers, 5(4), 2009, pp. 270-279.[3] Anderson, A., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., andLeskovec, J., "Steering User Behavior with Badges", in(Editor, 'ed.' 'eds.'): Book Steering User Behavior withBadges, International World Wide Web ConferencesSteering Committee, 2013, pp. 95-106.[15] Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., and Warshaw, P.R.,"Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in theWorkplace1", Journal of applied social psychology, 22(14),1992, pp. 1111-1132.[16] Davis, M., and Csikszentmihalyi, M., BeyondBoredom and Anxiety: The Experience of Play in Workand Games, Amer Sociological Assoc, Washington, DC,1977.[4] Ardichvili, A., Page, V., and Wentling, T., "Motivationand Barriers to Participation in Virtual Knowledge-SharingCommunities of Practice", Journal of knowledgemanagement, 7(1), 2003, pp. 64-77.[17] Deci, E.L., and Ryan, R.M., Intrinsic Motivation,Wiley Online Library, 1975.[5] Bakker, A.B., and Demerouti, E., "Towards a Model ofWork Engagement", Career development international,13(3), 2008, pp. 209-223.[18] Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., and Nacke, L.,"From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: DefiningGamification", in (Editor, 'ed.' 'eds.'): Book From GameDesign Elements to Gamefulness: Defining Gamification,ACM, 2011, pp. 9-15.[6] Boyce, C. (2015). Engaged Employees: YourCompany's No. 1 Competitive Advantage RetrievedFebruary 2016, from mployees-your-co b 6344230.html[7] Bressler, D., and Bodzin, A., "A Mixed MethodsAssessment of Students' Flow Experiences During aMobile Augmented Reality Science Game", Journal ofComputer Assisted Learning, 29(6), 2013, pp. 505-517.[8] Bui, A., Veit, D., and Webster, J., "Gamification–aNovel Phenomenon or a New Wrapping for ExistingConcepts?", International Conference on InformationSystems, 2015[9] Cechanowicz, J., Gutwin, C., Brownell, B., andGoodfellow, L., "Effects of Gamification on Participationand Data Quality in a Real-World Market ResearchDomain", in (Editor, 'ed.' 'eds.'): Book Effects ofGamification on Participation and Data Quality in a RealWorld Market Research Domain, ACM, 2013, pp. 58-65.[10] Cowley, B., Charles, D., Black, M., and Hickey, R.,"Toward an Understanding of Flow in Video Games",Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 6(2), 2008, pp. 20.[11] Csikszentmihalyi, M., Beyond Boredom and Anxiety,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, US, 2000.[12] Danish, R.Q., and Usman, A., "Impact of Reward andRecognition on Job Satisfaction and Motivation: AnEmpirical Study from Pakistan", International journal ofbusiness and management, 5(2), 2010, pp. 159.[13] Davidson, E., and Lamb, R., "Examining SocioTechnical Networks in Scientific Academia/IndustryCollaborations", AMCIS 2000 Proceedings, 2000, pp. 202.[14] Davis, F.D., "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease ofUse, and User Acceptance of Information Technology",MIS quarterly, 13(3), 1989, pp. 319.[19] Epstein, J.A., and Harackiewicz, J.M., "Winning IsNot Enough: The Effects of Competition and AchievementOrientation on Intrinsic Interest", Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 18(2), 1992, pp. 128-138.[20] Fang, X., Zhang, J., and Chan, S.S., "Development ofan Instrument for Studying Flow in Computer Game Play",International journal of human-comp

the organizational knowledge management-sharing practices and how gamification can leverage such activities [54]. Interestingly, past literature on knowledge management agrees that the main motivators for knowledge sharing, among several others, are: 1)

Related Documents:

Thus, the scale aims to select appropriate gamification elements based on the characteristics of a target audience and individualize the design of gamification when designing gamification systems. GUTHS has focused on six user types — and six elements t

to digital natives and digital immigrants that are learning a L2 is Gamification. As a pedagogical strategy, Gamification is basically new, but it has been used successfully in the business world. Gamification

these calls, this case study chose two digital badge tools to gamify a college level writing class at a Midwestern university. Through surveys and interviews, the study will investigate the effectiveness of gamification, student perception of gamification, and the impact of gamification on student learning behavior in the writing class.

The benefits of gamification in online learning and teaching As Werbach (2013) identifies, effective gamification is not layering goals and rewards on top of content, rather, . (Wankel, Marvoich & Stanaityte, 2010). The use of game-based . Supporting materials and resources may be provided, and online mentors may be available to

hoot application was the preferred gamification method used. Participating stu-dents included 65 undergraduate students studying at the Department of Pre-school Teaching. The findings showed that inclusion of a gamification method increased the interest of students i

Some applications of gamification include enhancing employee engagement, creating healthy competition among teams, . gamification strategies helped patients recover from physical and mental wellness by enabling them to better adhere to their treatment regime (McCallum, 2012). . Marketing is another field where gamification concepts have .

[13]. Without a doubt, there is a need for metrics for measuring user engagement levels in gamified applications in education. This could lead to subsequent evaluation of gamification features with user engagement as criterion, followed by iteration on their design. 2.2 Gamification and engagement

leaderboards increased time‐on‐task behavior which increased LP [17], or badges increased self‐assessment that translated into higher scores [18]. The studies as mentioned above stress the indirect impact on LP. However, a recent review study [12] suggest also testing the direct impact of gamification on LP. 2.2 Leaderboards as a .