Gamification and Technology Acceptance: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Rita Xu and Version 1 by Mona Denden.

Technology acceptance is essential for technology success. However, individual users are known to differ in their tendency to adopt and interact with new technologies. Among the individual differences, personality has been shown to be a predictor of users’ beliefs about technology acceptance. Gamification, on the other hand, has been shown to be a good solution to improve students’ motivation and engagement while learning. Despite the growing interest in gamification, less research attention has been paid to the effect of personality, specifically based on the Five Factor model (FFM), on gamification acceptance in learning environments.

Technology acceptance is essential for technology success. Individual users are known to differ in their tendency to adopt and interact with new technologies. Among the individual differences, personality has been shown to be a predictor of users’ beliefs about technology acceptance. Gamification, on the other hand, has been shown to be a good solution to improve students’ motivation and engagement while learning. Despite the growing interest in gamification, less research attention has been paid to the effect of personality, specifically based on the Five Factor model (FFM), on gamification acceptance in learning environments.

  • educational technology
  • technology acceptance
  • gamification

1. Introduction

Gamification is the use of game design elements, such as points, badges, and leaderboards, in a non-gaming context to improve user engagement and motivation [1]. The idea behind the use of gamification in educational environments is to improve students’ motivation and learning experience in a learning environment by employing gamification elements [2]. Students’ motivation is considered to be one of the most important factors leading to their academic success [3] and, therefore, several studies have focused on enhancing students’ motivation while learning through the application of gamification [4,5][4][5]. In particular, several studies showed the effectiveness of gamification in enhancing students’ intrinsic motivation and engagement in higher education [6], as well as its feasibility in higher education teaching and learning processes, as many options and platforms are available to be utilized [7].
Despite the revealed positive impact of gamification on education, some studies reported negative effects regarding its implementation [8,9,10][8][9][10]. For instance, the use of competitive game elements, such as badges and leaderboards, can have a negative impact on low performing students [8]. Additionally, Mert and Samur [11] found that if the gamification system is not well implemented and correctly used, it can negatively affect student behaviors and participation. The aforementioned studies confirm Kapp [12] and Werbach and Hunter [13], who stressed that gamification might not work in every system or create the same effect, as learning experiences are affected by a wide range of factors.
Initial acceptance and use of a gamified learning environment are essential for its success in motivating and engaging students in higher education [14]. Therefore, several previous studies in the related literature focused on the acceptance of gamified learning environments [7,14,15][7][14][15]. For instance, Rahman et al. [14] proposed a gamification acceptance model based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to test students’ acceptance of gamification and its effects on their engagement rate during the lessons. Results showed that students’ acceptance of gamification affects their engagement while learning. Specifically, to test students’ acceptance of gamified learning environments, various studies used TAM and extensions of TAM, such as TAM 2 [16] and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) [17]. TAM, proposed by Davis [18], is a theoretical framework that explains user acceptance of technology in a wide range of fields. According to earlier meta-studies, TAM is also used in a large number of empirical studies to explore users’ participation intention [19,20][19][20].
On the other hand, students have different personalities and because of that they may behave differently, which means that they may have different technology acceptance behavior [21,22][21][22]. In this context, Svendsen et al. [22] highlighted the relationship between personality and technology acceptance. Therefore, it is not surprising that several recent studies investigated the effect of personality traits on technology adoption, such as smart-phones [21], social networking sites [23], business intelligence tools [24], e-Learning [25], and digital library systems [26]. However, according to the recent literature review of Panagiotarou et al. [15], and to the best of ourthe knowledge, no study has investigated the effect of personality on students’ adoption of gamified learning environments.

2. Gamification and Technology Acceptance

Gamification can be defined as a set of activities and processes used to solve problems by utilizing or applying game design elements [30][27]. Several studies have highlighted the potential of gamification in increasing students’ motivation and engagement as well as boosting their performance [6,31][6][28]. For instance, Kaufmann [32][29] showed that gamification can help students overcome complex academic challenges, such as those involved in the dissertation process and other elements of higher learning. Ahmad et al. [33][30] showed, in an experimental study for computer science majors, that gamification is an effective tool to teach tough courses in higher education. Çakıroğluet al. [34][31] showed that points, leaderboard, quests, and reputation increased students’ engagement and participation in an undergraduate course. However, despite the great benefits of gamification [35][32], it can also have negative outcomes. For instance, gamification can cause loss of performance, where it harms or hinders students’ learning process [9]. It can also cause undesired behavior due to the use of some game design elements [9]. The mixed (positive and negative) findings on gamification are linked to the perception of technology that can vary based on the target groups’ backgrounds and earlier experiences. For instance, Collan [36][33] stated that the acceptance of a new technology by students goes through stages like identifying needs or minimally selecting a solution to fulfill a need from a set of possible alternatives. Thus, students seek new technologies that they can use for different purposes. Behl et al. [37][34] referred the acceptance of the gamification concept to the acceptance of the whole environment (e-learning environment), since there is a link between the concept of gamification and technology, as it plays a vital role in facilitating gamification features. In particular, the use of gamified learning environments is still a sensitive subject for many educational systems [38,39][35][36]. In the Hungarian education system, for example, when analyzing students’ behaviors while interacting with a gamified learning environment using TAM, it was found that students have different intentions toward using this environment [38][35]. Additionally, it was found that students’ positive attitudes toward using gamified learning environments contributed to the improvement of their performance. Feriande [39][36] also found that students’ acceptance of the gamified environment affects their interactions with course materials. Several recent studies have further highlighted the influence of external factors, such as students’ characteristics, on technology acceptance [15,40][15][37]. Therefore, different studies in the literature have focused on the factors affecting students’ acceptance of gamified learning environments. For instance, Panagiotarou et al. [15] found that digital skill levels can affect students’ acceptance of gamified learning environments. Oluwajana et al. [41][38] found that curiosity can affect students’ acceptance of gamified learning environments. Moreover, Vanduhe et al. [42][39] found that social influence and social recognition can affect students’ perception of ease of use and usefulness in a gamified learning environment. The next subsequent section discusses personality, which is considered to be an important student characteristic that can affect technology acceptance [40][37].

3. Personality

Saucier and Srivastava [43][40] defined personality as “all of the attributes, qualities and characteristics that distinguish the behavior, thoughts, and feelings of individuals”. Several personality models exist in the literature; however, FFM is the predominant dimensional model of general personality structure [27][41]. It is based on five dimensions that describe people’s diversity [44][42], namely (1): Extraversion reflects an individual’s degree of assertiveness, sociability, and positive emotions; (2) Agreeableness reflects an individual’s degree of kindness, maintenance of social harmony, cooperation, and trust; (3) Conscientiousness reflects an individual’s degree of organization, self-discipline, and tendency to be responsible; (4) Neuroticism reflects an individual’s degree of stress, dissatisfaction, and sadness; and (5) Openness reflects an individual’s degree of imagination, creativity, and appreciation of esthetic experiences. The related studies suggest that personality is the reason people accept or reject a given technology [26], as well as educational tools like educational games [45][43]. Tlili et al. [46][44] further highlighted the effect of personality on students’ perception of intrinsic motivation in a gamified learning environment. In addition, recent studies showed that students’ personalities can affect their perception of using different game design elements in a gamified learning environment [47,48][45][46]. Bayne [49][47] stated that students’ personalities can differently affect their involvement in the learning progress regardless of their personal interests or the degree of cognitive development. With respect to TAM, several studies in the literature have highlighted the relationship between personality and TAM [21,22,23,40][21][22][23][37]. Specifically, they consider that any difference in perceived ease of use and usefulness may be caused by personality differences.

References

  1. Deterding, S.; Sicart, M.; Nacke, L.; O’Hara, K.; Dixon, D. Gamification: Using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. In Proceedings of the CHI 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011.
  2. Kopcha, T.J.; Ding, L.; Neumann, K.L.; Choi, I. Teaching Technology Integration to K-12 Educators: A ‘Gamified’ Approach. TechTrends 2016, 60, 62–69.
  3. Buckley, P.; Doyle, E. Individualising gamification: An investigation of the impact of learning styles and personality traits on the efficacy of gamification using a prediction market. Comput. Educ. 2017, 106, 43–55.
  4. Hallifax, S.; Lavoué, E.; Serna, A. To Tailor or Not to Tailor Gamification? An Analysis of the Impact of Tailored Game Ele-ments on Learners’ Behaviours and Motivation. In Artificial Intelligence in Education, 2nd ed.; Bittencourt, I., Cukurova, M., Muldner, K., Luckin, R., Millán, E., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 12163, pp. 216–227.
  5. Mekler, E.D.; Brühlmann, F.; Tuch, A.N.; Opwis, K. Towards understanding the effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and performance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 71, 525–534.
  6. Almiawi, M.W.E.; Adaletey, E.J.; Phung, S.P. Impact of Gamification on Higher Education; A Case Study on Lim-kokwing University of Creative Technology Campus in Cyberjaya, Malaysia. TEST Eng. Manag. 2020, 83, 16337–16346.
  7. Ab Rahman, R.; Ahmad, S.; Hashim, U.R. Ab Rahman, R.; Ahmad, S.; Hashim, U.R. A Study on Gamification for Higher Education Students’ Engagement Towards Education 4.0. In Intelligent and Interactive Computing, 2nd ed.; Piuri, V., Balas, V., Borah, S., Syed Ahmad, S., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; Volume 67, pp. 491–502.
  8. Andrade, F.R.H.; Mizoguchi, R.; Isotani, S. The bright and dark sides of gamification. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 2nd ed.; Micarelli, A., Stamper, J., Panourgia, K., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 9684, pp. 176–186.
  9. Toda, A.M.; Valle, P.H.; Isotani, S. The dark side of gamification: An overview of negative effects of gamification in education. In Higher Education for All. From Challenges to Novel Technology-Enhanced Solutions, 2nd ed.; Cristea, A., Bit-tencourt, I., Lima, F., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 832, pp. 143–156.
  10. Mekler, E.D.; Brühlmann, F.; Opwis, K.; Tuch, A.N. Do points, levels and leaderboards harm intrinsic motivation? An empirical analysis of common gamification elements. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2–4 October 2013.
  11. Mert, Y.; Samur, Y. Students’ Opinions Toward Game Elements Used in Gamification Application. Turk. Online J. Qual. Inq. 2018, 9, 70–101.
  12. Kapp, K.M. The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012.
  13. Werbach, K.; Hunter, D. For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your Business; Wharton Digital Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2012.
  14. Rahman, R.A.; Ahmad, S.; Hashim, U.R. The effectiveness of gamification technique for higher education students engagement in polytechnic Muadzam Shah Pahang, Malaysia. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2018, 15, 41.
  15. Panagiotarou, A.; Stamatiou, Y.C.; Pierrakeas, C.J.; Kameas, A. Gamification Acceptance for Learners with Different E-Skills. Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res. 2020, 19, 263–278.
  16. Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Manag. Sci. 2000, 46, 186–204.
  17. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478.
  18. Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340.
  19. Nayanajith, G.; Damunupola, K.A.; Ventayen, R.J. Impact of innovation and perceived ease of use on e-learning adoption. Asian J. Bus. Technol. Stud. 2019, 2, 19–27.
  20. Wang, S.; Tlili, A.; Zhu, L.; Yang, J. Do Playfulness and University Support Facilitate the Adoption of Online Education in a Crisis? COVID-19 as a Case Study Based on the Technology Acceptance Model. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9104.
  21. Sindermann, C.; Riedl, R.; Montag, C. Investigating the Relationship between Personality and Technology Acceptance with a Focus on the Smartphone from a Gender Perspective: Results of an Exploratory Survey Study. Future Internet 2020, 12, 110.
  22. Svendsen, G.B.; Johnsen, J.-A.K.; Almås-Sørensen, L.; Vittersø, J. Personality and technology acceptance: The influence of personality factors on the core constructs of the Technology Acceptance Model. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2013, 32, 323–334.
  23. Mouakket, S.; Sun, Y. Investigating the Impact of Personality Traits of Social Network Sites Users on Information Disclosure in China: The Moderating Role of Gender. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019, 22, 1305–1321.
  24. Harb, Y.; Alhayajneh, S. Intention to use BI tools: Integrating technology acceptance model (TAM) and personality trait model. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Amman, Jordan, 9–11 April 2019.
  25. Punnoose, A.C. Determinants of Intention to Use eLearning Based on the Technology Acceptance Model. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res. 2012, 11, 301–337.
  26. Nov, O.; Ye, C. Personality and Technology Acceptance: Personal Innovativeness in IT, Openness and Resistance to Change. In Proceedings of the HICSS, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 7–10 January 2008.
  27. Spanellis, A.; Dörfler, V.; MacBryde, J. Investigating the potential for using gamification to empower knowledge workers. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 160, 113694.
  28. Denden, M.; Tlili, A.; Essalmi, F.; Jemni, M. Students’ learning performance in a gamified and self-determined learning environment. In Proceedings of the OCTA, Tunis, Tunisia, 6–8 February 2020.
  29. Kaufmann, D. Reflection: Benefits of gamification in online higher education. J. Instr. Res. 2018, 7, 125–132.
  30. Ahmad, A.; Zeshan, F.; Khan, M.S.; Marriam, R.; Ali, A.; Samreen, A. The Impact of Gamification on Learning Outcomes of Computer Science Majors. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 2020, 20, 1–25.
  31. Çakıroğlu, Ü.; Başıbüyük, B.; Güler, M.; Atabay, M.; Memiş, B.Y. Gamifying an ICT course: Influences on engagement and academic performance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 69, 98–107.
  32. Hamari, J. Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on the effects of gamification. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 71, 469–478.
  33. Collan, M. Lazy User Behavior; MPRA Paper: Munich, Germany, 2007.
  34. Behl, A.; Jayawardena, N.; Ishizaka, A.; Gupta, M.; Shankar, A. Gamification and gigification: A multidimensional theoretical approach. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 139, 1378–1393.
  35. Varannai, I.; Sasvári, P.L.; Urbanovics, A. The use of gamification in higher education: An empirical study. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2017, 8, 1–6.
  36. Ferianda, M.R.; Herdiani, A.; Sardi, I.L. Increasing Students Interaction in Distance Education Using Gamification. In Proceedings of the ICoICT, Bandung, Indonesia, 3–5 May 2018.
  37. Maican, C.I.; Cazan, A.-M.; Lixandroiu, R.C.; Dovleac, L. A study on academic staff personality and technology acceptance: The case of communication and collaboration applications. Comput. Educ. 2018, 128, 113–131.
  38. Oluwajana, D.; Vanduhe, V.; Idowu, A.; Cemal Nat, M.; Fadiya, S. The Adoption of Students’ Hedonic Motivation System Model to Gamified Learning Environment. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2019, 17, 291–307.
  39. Vanduhe, V.Z.; Nat, M.; Hasan, H.F. Continuance intentions to use gamification for training in higher education: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM), social motivation, and task technology fit (TTF). IEEE Access 2020, 8, 21473–21484.
  40. Saucier, G.; Srivastava, S. What makes a good structural model of personality? Evaluating the big five and alternatives. In Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; pp. 283–305.
  41. Ackerman, C.E. Big Five Personality Traits: The OCEAN Model Explained. Available online: https://positivepsychologyprogram.com/big-five-personality-theory/ (accessed on 7 November 2020).
  42. John, O.P.; Srivastava, S. The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2nd ed.; Pervin, L.A., John, O.P., Eds.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999; Volume 2, pp. 102–138.
  43. Tlili, A.; Essalmi, F.; Jemni, M. Metric-Based Approach for Selecting the Game Genre to Model Personality. In State-of-the-Art and Future Directions of Smart Learning; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 275–279.
  44. Tlili, A.; Denden, M.; Essalmi, F.; Jemni, M.; Huang, R.; Chang, T.-W. Personality Effects on Students’ Intrinsic Motivation in a Gamified Learning Environment. In Proceedings of the ICALT, Maceio, Brazil, 15–18 July 2019.
  45. Denden, M.; Tlili, A.; Essalmi, F.; Jemni, M.; Chen, N.S.; Burgos, D. Effects of gender and personality differences on students’ perception of game design elements in educational gamification. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2021, 154, 102674.
  46. Codish, D.; Ravid, G. Personality based gamification: How different personalities perceive gamification. In ECIS; The Open University of Israel: Ra’anana, Israel, 2014.
  47. Bayne, R. Psychological Types at Work: An MBTI Perspective: Series; International Thomson Business: London, UK, 2004.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback