Abstract
The personalization feature has been implemented in various ways in educational games but the effectiveness of personalization feature on students’ engagement was mixed in literature. Culture might be one possible reason but has been seldom explored in previous studies. This study filled in this gap by investigating the impact of the personalization feature on students’ engagement patterns through the lens of culture. Results showed that the personalization game feature could engage students by capturing and maintaining students’ attention and interest. Gender affected students’ engagement patterns via cultural differences in attitudes toward time. Additionally, when the game was personalized, students’ perceptions of student-teacher relation and group power would affect engagement patterns during gameplay and re-engagement in the future. Findings of this study demonstrated that the personalization game feature delivered via computers could be used to initiate and maintain students’ engagement. Gender needs to be considered when utilizing games to engage students. Motivational design is needed to engage less active students in the personalized gaming environment. Students’ cultural differences, such as perceptions of power distribution between students and instructors and power of group, need to be considered when designing personalized games. This study contributes to the field by explaining how gender influenced students’ engagement patterns and why nonengagement was observed in some previous studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Alamri, H., Lowell, V., Watson, W., & Watson, S. L. (2020). Using personalized learning as an instructional approach to motivate learners in online higher education: Learner self-determination and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(3), 322–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1728449
Byun, J., & Loh, C. S. (2015). Audial engagement: Effects of game sound on learner engagement in digital game-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.052
Cairns, P. (2016). Engagement in Digital Games. In H. O’Brien & P. Cairns (Eds.), Why engagement matters: Cross-disciplinary perspectives of user engagement in digital media (pp. 81–104). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27446-1_4
Daghestani, L. F., Ibrahim, L. F., Al-Towirgi, R. S., & Salman, H. A. (2020). Adapting gamified learning systems using educational data mining techniques. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(3), 568–589. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22227
Denisova, A., & Cairns, P. (2019). Player experience and deceptive expectations of difficulty adaptation in digital games. Entertainment Computing, 29, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2018.12.001
Gómez-Rey, P., Barbera, E., & Fernández-Navarro, F. (2016). The impact of cultural dimensions on online learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(4), 225–238.
Hajarian, M., Bastanfard, A., Mohammadzadeh, J., & Khalilian, M. (2019). A personalized gamification method for increasing user engagement in social networks. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 9(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-019-0589-3
Haruna, H., Zainuddin, Z., Okoye, K., Mellecker, R. R., Hu, X., Chu, S. K. W., & Hosseini, S. (2021). Improving instruction and sexual health literacy with serious games and gamification interventions: an outlook to students’ learning outcomes and gender differences. Interactive Learning Environments, 0(0), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1888754
Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Hsieh, Y. H., Lin, Y. C., & Hou, H. T. (2015). Exploring elementary-school students’ engagement patterns in a game-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 336–348.
Keller, J. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and model: an overview of their current status (pp. 383–434). Erlbaum.
Kim, J., & Shin, W. (2014). How to do random allocation (randomization). Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery, 6(1), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2014.6.1.103
Krouska, A., Troussas, C., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2020). A personalized brain-based quiz game for improving students’ cognitive functions. In C. Frasson, P. Bamidis, & P. Vlamos (Eds.), Brain Function Assessment in Learning (pp. 102–106). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60735-7_11
Ku, O., Hou, C. C., & Chen, S. Y. (2016). Incorporating customization and personalization into game-based learning: a cognitive style perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.040
Kuo, Y. T., Kuo, Y. C., & Whittinghill, D. M. (2022). Exploring the reliability of a cross-cultural model for digital games: a systematic review. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 17(13), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i13.29519
Lin, C. F., Yeh, Y., Hung, Y. H., & Chang, R. I. (2013). Data mining for providing a personalized learning path in creativity: an application of decision trees. Computers & Education, 68, 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.009
Lukosch, H., Kurapati, S., Groen, D., & Verbraeck, A. (2017). Gender and cultural differences in game-based learning experiences. The Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 15(4), 310–319.
Miller, J. A., Narayan, U., Hantsbarger, M., Cooper, S., & El-Nasr, M. S. (2019). Expertise and engagement: Re-designing citizen science games with players’ minds in mind. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3337722.3337735
Mora, A., Tondello, G. F., Nacke, L. E., & Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2018). Effect of personalized gameful design on student engagement. 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 1925–1933. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363471
O’Brien, H. L., Cairns, P., & Hall, M. (2018). A practical approach to measuring user engagement with the refined user engagement scale (UES) and new UES short form. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 112, 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.01.004
O’Brien, H. L., & Toms, E. G. (2008). What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 938–955. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20801
O’Brien, H. L., & Toms, E. G. (2010). The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21229
Paraschos, P. D., & Koulouriotis, D. E. (2022). Game difficulty adaptation and experience personalization: a literature review. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 0(0), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.2020008
Plass, J. L., Heidig, S., Hayward, E. O., Homer, B. D., & Um, E. (2014). Emotional design in multimedia learning: Effects of shape and color on affect and learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.006
Plass, J. L., Mayer, R. E., & Homer, B. D. (Eds.). (2020). Handbook of game-based learning. MIT Press.
Plass, J. L., & Pawar, S. (2020). Adaptivity and personalization in game-based learning. In J. L. Plass, R. E. Mayer, & B. D. Homer (Eds.), Handbook of game-based learning (pp. 263–281). MIT Press.
Ronimus, M., Kujala, J., Tolvanen, A., & Lyytinen, H. (2014). Children’s engagement during digital game-based learning of reading: the effects of time, rewards, and challenge. Computers & Education, 71, 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.008
Sillaots, M., Jesmin, T., Fiadotau, M., & Khulbe, M. (2020). Gamifying classroom presentations: Evaluating the effects on engagement across demographic factors. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Game Based Learning ECGBL 2020: International Conference on Game Based Learning ECGBL 2020, 537–546. https://doi.org/10.34190/GBL.20.105
Soflano, M., Connolly, T. M., & Hainey, T. (2015). An application of adaptive games-based learning based on learning style to teach SQL. Computers & Education, 86, 192–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.015
Tang, H. (2021). Person-centered analysis of self-regulated learner profiles in MOOCs: a cultural perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(2), 1247–1269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09939-w
Troussas, C., Krouska, A., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2020). Collaboration and fuzzy-modeled personalization for mobile game-based learning in higher education. Computers & Education, 144, 103698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103698
Tsai, T. W., Lo, H. Y., & Chen, K. S. (2012). An affective computing approach to develop the game-based adaptive learning material for the elementary students. Proceedings of the 2012 Joint International Conference on Human-Centered Computer Environments. 2012 Joint International Conference on Human-Centered Computer Environments. https://doi.org/10.1145/2160749.2160752
van Oostendorp, H., van der Spek, E. D., & Linssen, J. (2014). Adapting the complexity level of a serious game to the proficiency of players. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Game-Based Learning, 1(2), e5. https://doi.org/10.4108/sg.1.2.e5
Viberg, O., & Grönlund, Å. (2013). Cross-cultural analysis of users’ attitudes toward the use of mobile devices in second and foreign language learning in higher education: a case from Sweden and China. Computers & Education, 69, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.014
Wiebe, E. N., Lamb, A., Hardy, M., & Sharek, D. (2014). Measuring engagement in video game-based environments: investigation of the user Engagement Scale. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.001
Zhong, L. (2022a). Investigating students’ engagement patterns and supporting game features in a personalized computerized role-playing game environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221125946
Zhong, L. (2022b). A mixed methods study of student’s engagement in a game-based learning environment. 1003–1005. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/220841/. Accessed 13 Aug 2022
Zhong, L. (2022c). A systematic review of personalized learning in higher education: learning content structure, learning materials sequence, and learning readiness support. Interactive Learning Environments, 0(0), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2061006
Zhong, L., & Xu, X. (2019). Developing real life problem-solving skills through situational design: a pilot study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1529–1545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09691-2
Zualkernan, I., Pasquier, M., Jibreel, M. M., Zakaria, R. S., & Tayem, R. M. (2010). An adaptive learning RPG game-engine based on knowledge spaces. 2010 2nd International Conference on Education Technology and Computer, 2, V2-223-V2-227. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETC.2010.5529397
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
LZ contributed to the study conception, research design, data analysis, data interpretation and was the major contributor in writing the manuscript. YX contributed to literature review, data collection, and data analysis. LX contributed to study conception and data collection. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Southwest University of Science and Technology.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
1.1 Recurrent and non-recurrent skills identified in this study
Recurrent skills | Non-recurrent skills |
|---|---|
Definition of needs | Identifying potential persona |
Definition of needs analysis | Interviewing people at train stations |
Definition of persona construction | Identifying user behavior patterns based on interview data |
Definition of interaction scenario | Finalizing persona via redundancy and integrity checking |
Process of persona construction | Analyzing scenario needs |
Five steps of scenario creation | Identifying scenario expectations Writing scenario scripts |
Appendix 2
1.1 Sample guide of relationship activity
For R1 students, the instructor is suggested to provide direct explanations of the game tasks; provide game task information in digestible amounts; help the student step by step and avoid overwhelming; instruction focuses on task completion; reinforce small improvements; explain consequences of nonperformance, such as not completing the game; check emotional level regularly.
For R2 students, the instructor is suggested to explain consequences of nonperformance, such as not completing the game; encourage trying; support risk-taking; praise and build confidence; ask students question to clarify their understandings of the game tasks; discuss details of the game tasks; explore related non-recurrent skills; compliment students when they finish the game tasks.
For R3 students, the instructor is suggested to provide direct explanations of the game task; support risk-taking; praise and build confidence; discuss details of game tasks; ask students question to clarify their understandings of the game tasks; encourage students to ask questions; compliment students when they finish the game tasks;
For R4 students, the instructor is suggested to explain consequences of nonperformance, such as not completing the game; seek “buy-in” through persuading; discuss details of game tasks with students; praise and build confidence; compliment students when they finish the game tasks.
For R5 students, the instructor is suggested to provide game task information in digestible amounts; help the student step by step; ask students question to clarify their understandings of the game tasks; discuss details of the game tasks; encourage students to ask questions; explore related non-recurrent skills.
For R6 students, the instructor is suggested to ask students question to clarify their understandings of the game tasks; discuss details of the game tasks; explore related non-recurrent skills; reinforce small improvements.
For R7 students, the instructor is suggested to provide direct explanations of the game tasks; help the student step by step; instruction focuses on task completion; reinforce small improvements.
For R8 students, the instructor is suggested to monitor gameplay activities; provide relatively light supervision regarding game completion; give freedom for risk taking; encourage autonomy of gameplay, such as explore other maps in the game.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhong, L., Xie, Y. & Xu, L. The impact of personalization feature on students’ engagement patterns in a role-playing game: A cultural perspective. Educ Inf Technol 28, 8357–8375 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11529-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11529-z