skip to main content
10.1145/3428757.3429145acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiiwasConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Gamification as an enabler of quality distant education: The need for guiding ethical principles towards an education for a global society leaving no one behind

Authors Info & Claims
Published:27 January 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Quality distant education has received growing scientific attention in the recent decades, which is accelerated in present times as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic; traditional in-class teaching methods needed a rapid transformation to be effective in a distant educational context as well, to reduce the existing and deepening digital divide. Convinced by the "FAIR-principles" and the "CARE" Standard, the present paper searches for gamified applicational examples in forecasting and business studies. Through the discussion of the presently existing literature reviews in this domain, the article sheds light upon the development and current scientific standing of this research area. During the search for ethical implications, the present paper aims to formulate future considerations, believing in the idea that gamification, holding the possibility of successful individual outcomes for learners in knowledge acquisition and also in the form of psychological benefits, could serve as a tool for humanity to reach a global society where no one is left behind.

References

  1. Gabriel Barata, Sandra Gama, Joaquim Jorge, and Daniel Gonçalves. 2017. Studying student differentiation in gamified education: A long-term study. Comput. Human Behav. 71, (June 2017), 550--585. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.049 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Ilaria Caponetto, Jeffrey Earp, and Michela Ott. 2014. Gamification and education: A literature review. Proc. Eur. Conf. Games-based Learn. 1, October (2014), 50--57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Sebastian Deterding, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart Nacke. 2011. From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining "gamification." Proc. 15th Int. Acad. MindTrek Conf. Envisioning Futur. Media Environ. MindTrek 2011 (2011), 9--15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Christo Dichev and Darina Dicheva. 2017. Gamifying education: what is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a critical review. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 14, 9 (December 2017), 1--36. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Darina Dicheva, Christo Dichev, Gennady Agre, and Galia Angelova. 2015. Gamification in Education: A Systematic Mapping Study. Educ. Technol. Soc. 18, 3 (2015), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Paul DiMaggio and Filiz Garip. 2012. Network Effects and Social Inequality. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 38, 1 (August 2012), 93--118. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102545Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Thomas A. DiPrete, Andrew Gelman, Tyler McCormick, Julien Teitler, and Tian Zheng. 2011. Segregation in Social Networks Based on Acquaintanceship and Trust. Am. J. Sociol. 116, 4 (January 2011), 1234--83. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1086/659100Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. European Commission. 2016. G20 Leaders' Communique Hangzhou Summit. 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Eric Fong, Barry Wellman, Melissa Kwe, and Rima Wilkes. 2001. Correlates of the Digital Divide: Individual, Hosehold and Spatial Variation. Toronto.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Eszter Hargittai and Steven Shafer. 2006. Differences in actual and perceived online skills: The role of gender. Soc. Sci. Q. 87, 2 (2006), 432--448. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00389.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Barbara Kitchenham, O. Pearl Brereton, David Budgen, Mark Turner, John Bailey, and Stephen Linkman. 2009. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51, 1 (January 2009), 7--15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Ana Carolina Tomé Klock, Isabela Gasparini, Marcelo Soares Pimenta, and Juho Hamari. 2020. Tailored gamification: A review of literature. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 144, (December 2020), 102495. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102495Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jenni Majuri, Jonna Koivisto, and Juho Hamari. 2018. Gamification of education and learning: A review of empirical literature. In Proceedings of the 2nd International GamiFIN Conference (GamiFIN 2018), 11--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. J. Martí-Parreño, E. Méndez-Ibáñez, and A. Alonso-Arroyo. 2016. The use of gamification in education: a bibliometric and text mining analysis. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 32, 6 (December 2016), 663--676. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12161 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Tejaswi Materla, Elizabeth A. Cudney, and Jiju Antony. 2019. The application of Kano model in the healthcare industry: a systematic literature review. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 30, 5-6 (April 2019), 660--681. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1328980Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Gustavo Mesch, Rita Mano, and Judith Tsamir. 2012. Minority status and health information search: A test of the social diversification hypothesis. Soc. Sci. Med. 75, 5 (September 2012), 854--858. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.024Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Gustavo S. Mesch and Ilan Talmud. 2011. Ethnic differences in internet access: The role of occupation and exposure. Inf. Commun. Soc. 14, 4 (2011), 445--471. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.562218Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Fiona Fui-Hoon Nah, Qing Zeng, Venkata Rajasekhar Telaprolu, Abhishek Padmanabhuni Ayyappa, and Brenda Eschenbrenner. 2014. Gamification of Education: A Review of Literature. In Springer, Fiona Fui-Hoon Nah (ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 401--409. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07293-7_39Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Alanna O'Connell, Peter J Tomaselli, and Megan Stobart-Gallagher. 2020. Effective Use of Virtual Gamification During COVID-19 to Deliver the OB-GYN Core Curriculum in an Emergency Medicine Resident Conference. Cureus 12, 6 (2020), 1--7. DOI:https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.8397Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. OECD. 2018. Bridging the Digital Gender Divide: Include, Upskill, Innovate. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/digital/bridging-the-digital-gender-divide.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Margarita Ortiz, Katherine Chiluiza, and Martin Valcke. 2016. Gamification in Higher Education and Stem: a Systematic Review of Literature. In Proceedings of EDULEARN16, 6548--6558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2016.0422Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Melinda M. Dela Pena-Bandalaria. 2009. E-Learning in the Philippines: Trends, Directions, and Challenges. Int. J. E-Learning 8, 4 (2009), 495--510.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Kai Petersen, Robert Feldt, Shahid Mujtaba, and Michael Mattsson. 2008. Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering. In International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 33--55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/EASE2008.8 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Research Data Alliance International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group. 2019. CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d3799de845604000199cd24/t/5da9f4479ecab221ce848fb2/1571419335217/CARE+Principles_One+Pagers+FINAL_Oct_17_2019.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Mark Rickinson and Helen May. 2009. A comparative study of methodological approaches to reviewing literature. High. Educ. Acad. January 2009 (2009), 1--72. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/comparativestudy_0.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Laura Robinson. 2007. The cyberself: the self-ing project goes online, symbolic interaction in the digital age. New Media Soc. 9, 1 (February 2007), 93--110. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807072216Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Laura Robinson, Shelia R. Cotten, Hiroshi Ono, Anabel Quan-Haase, Gustavo Mesch, Wenhong Chen, Jeremy Schulz, Timothy M. Hale, and Michael J. Stern. 2015. Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Commun. Soc. 18, 5 (May 2015), 569--582. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Neil Selwyn. 2010. Degrees of Digital Division: Reconsidering Digital Inequalities and Contemporary Higher Education. RUSC. Univ. Knowl. Soc. J. 7, 1 (January 2010), 33--42. DOI:https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v7i1.660Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Leslie Regan Shade. 2014. Missing in Action: Gender in Canada's Digital Economy Agenda. Signs J. Women Cult. Soc. 39, 4 (June 2014), 887--896. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1086/675542Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Simone de Sousa Borges, Vinicius H S Durelli, Helena Macedo Reis, and Seiji Isotani. 2014. A systematic mapping on gamification applied to education. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing - SAC '14, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 216--222. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2554850.2554956 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Sujit Subhash and Elizabeth A Cudney. 2018. Gamified learning in higher education: A systematic review of the literature. Comput. Human Behav. 87, June 2018 (October 2018), 192--206. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.028Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Randy Joy Ventayen. 2018. Teachers' Readiness in Online Teaching Environment: A Case of Department of Education Teachers. J. Educ. Manag. Soc. Sci. 2, 1 (2018). Retrieved from www.psurj.org/jemssGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Jane Webster and Richard T Watson. 2002. Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Q. 26, 2 (2002), xiii-xxiii. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1.1.104.6570 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Mark D. Wilkinson, Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, Jan-Willem Boiten, Luiz Bonino da Silva Santos, Philip E. Bourne, Jildau Bouwman, Anthony J. Brookes, Tim Clark, Mercè Crosas, Ingrid Dillo, Olivier Dumon, Scott Edmunds, Chris T. Evelo, Richard Finkers, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran, Alasdair J.G. Gray, Paul Groth, Carole Goble, Jeffrey S. Grethe, Jaap Heringa, Peter A.C 't Hoen, Rob Hooft, Tobias Kuhn, Ruben Kok, Joost Kok, Scott J. Lusher, Maryann E. Martone, Albert Mons, Abel L. Packer, Bengt Persson, Philippe Rocca-Serra, Marco Roos, Rene van Schaik, Susanna-Assunta Sansone, Erik Schultes, Thierry Sengstag, Ted Slater, George Strawn, Morris A. Swertz, Mark Thompson, Johan van der Lei, Erik van Mulligen, Jan Velterop, Andra Waagmeester, Peter Wittenburg, Katherine Wolstencroft, Jun Zhao, and Barend Mons. 2016. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 1 (December 2016), 160018. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Gamification as an enabler of quality distant education: The need for guiding ethical principles towards an education for a global society leaving no one behind

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        iiWAS '20: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services
        November 2020
        492 pages

        Copyright © 2020 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 27 January 2021

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader