Methodology for Developing Gamification-Based ...

3 downloads 0 Views 318KB Size Report
to develop a learning-based or game-based learning framework. ... design and create video games for student use across a wide ..... walkthrough method.
Methodology for Developing Gamification-Based Learning Programming Language Framework Firas Layth Khaleel Faculty of Information Science and Technology Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Tikrit University - Iraq [email protected]

Abstract— Students sometimes find it hard to learn new programming languages. They often confront unfamiliar programming terms that require the visualization of the processes that occur in the computer memory. Some researchers suggest that an enjoyable approach could be adapted even when learning difficult subjects. Studies have shown that applying Gamification elements in websites engage user’s attention and thinking skills. Gamification refers to the use of game elements in a non-game context to increase engagement between humans and computers. There are various methodologies for educational game development, which combining instructional design with learning theories. The objective of this paper is to discuss a comprehensive methodology for developing and validating a Gamification-Based Programming Learning Framework. The framework are constructed by integrating learning theories, game elements and programming learning requirements. Both qualitative and quantitative research methods are employed. The methodology are divided into three phases namely, analysis, innovation and validation. Each phase consists of steps and evaluation which must be completed before moving to the next phase. This methodology could be adapted by other researchers to develop a learning-based or game-based learning framework. Keywords— Gamification, Game elements, Game Mechanic, Motivation, Programming Language.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Many students could not easily understand the content of programming language and thus failed in programming language subjects because of the difficulty of the course. Issues with learning a programming language were supported by two perspectives: interview and survey. The issues found in previous research highlight the student problems in learning a programming language, which are uninteresting courses and student demotivation which lead to ineffective learning. Several researchers [1, 2] have attempted to solve these issues through different methods, such as web-based Java programming language, 3D animation, mobile learning applications, game-based learning, and visualisation. [3, 4] elucidated that an approach which can easily be understood and implemented in an enjoyable manner (such as games) must be adopted in learning difficult subjects.

978-1-5386-0475-5/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE

Noraidah Sahari Ashaari, Tengku Siti Meriam Tengku Wook and Amirah Ismail Faculty of Information Science and Technology Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] Accordingly, this study explored game elements (gamification) to make the programming language course interesting for students and to increase their effectiveness and motivation in learning the course. Game elements could influence the general outcome of the course and make it an interesting subject matter for students. Previous research also identified that in some institutions, the programming language curriculum does not incorporate any game elements, or even if it does, there are not enough or they simply do not induce any sense of fun. Consequently, this research proposes the use of a gamification technique to solve the issues students face in learning programming languages. This technique requires the application of game elements (game design and game thinking) in a non-game context to improve user experience and user engagement in non-game services and applications [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. This technique, which consists of game elements, could increase the effectiveness of learning and motivation of students and turn programming languages into an interesting course. These are clearly areas that a successful methodology needs to address. Thus, the following section explores how learning theory can be interwoven into high-functioning gamification methodologies such as the effectiveness and motivation of learning, and increasing student interest. Therefore, the objective of this study is to design new methodology based on previous researches that combine gamification technique and instructional design (learning theory) of a programming language course. II. RELATED WORK In this section both of methodology for educational game development and learning theory are discussed. A. Methodology for educational game development Within the existing scholarly literature, there is limited research methodology in gamification development, that lead this study to search in educational game and game based learning methodologies used when creating games designed to teach. The instructional method called Quasi Game-Based Learning (Quasi-GBL) combines features of games and roleplaying to facilitate collaborative learning for Software Engineering undergraduates [12]. This instructional method

comprises of seven fundamental features: amusement, security, fictional setting, trial, rivalry, laws, and aim. These features are manifested in the assumption of roles to confront issues, which may be resolved through either working alone or as part of a team. Persons who undertake the challenge are then rewarded with points and prizes, or confronted with more conundrums. Similarly, Quasi-GBL is also subdivided into seven phases for the user to go through. These are team-allocation, selection, project manager naming, selection of responsibilities, evaluation of needs, design, and implementation and roll out of strategy. A negative aspect to this methodology is that the applied usage of Quasi-GBL can be complex and puzzling for users as the composite parts of each section described above have not fully been explored or evaluated in the literature. Opromolla [13] evaluated the gamification development methodology called ‘Gamified’, a social dynamic methodology that allows designers to work in tandem and for any issues to be clearly identified and addressed. There are five parts to this methodology; firstly, to note the exact issue; secondly, to evaluate possible methods of resolution; thirdly, to be clear on what each of these resolutions would involve; then, to clarify the resolution by carefully detailing it; and finally to apply the resolution method and evaluate its effectiveness. Contrastingly, [14] studied Games for Activating Thematic Engagement (GATE), which is a design concept that aims to provide information to instructional designers about the best way to design and create video games for student use across a wide range of situations and disciplines. GATE software focuses not only on expanding the virtual arena within which solvable issues can arise, but also on how best those using it can be educated through interacting with the program. For example, GATE can relay information to the user about their performance so that they can build on this information for the future. Watson [20] used a qualitative method for GATE involving six steps: (1) select a design theory; (2) design an instance of the theory; (3) collect and analyse formative data on the instance; (4) revise the instance; (5) repeat the data collection and revision cycle; and (6) offer tentative revisions for the theory. He mentioned that instructional design theory is not predictive in nature, meaning that it focuses on means for reaching learning goals and that these means are probabilistic rather than deterministic. Moreover, he also mentioned that the verification of the results required the use of quantitative methods, in order to make GATE stronger in all steps. Strategies for creating various sources of information, including instruction manuals, details of actions, and conclusions can be brought into being via instructional design, which essentially translates theories of education into the foundations of these items Smith & Ragan [35]. People who work in this profession must prioritise positive impacts over negative consequences and constantly evolve their practices for the better based on previous experience. Rothschild [33] describes the best strategies for creating workable methods in the related area of education and game design. In this study, the JUMP Into Reading for Meaning (JUMP) game combines game design outcomes with operation directions. As described by the scenario of [33], the workload was divided between the game and instructional design specialists who created the

overriding design of the game according to accepted features of the field, such as fictional settings, for example, sci-fi, and pursuits and trials for the user, and enigmatic environments, and the content specialists subsequently created the content by systematising the instructional information. [15] present a Simulation-Games Instructional Systems Design Model (SG-ISD), which focuses on combining the development processes of instructional systems and games more widely. Unlike the model described above, SG-ISD is broken down into three stages only. The first is evaluation, the second is concept, and the third is design. This model is combined within a prototype authoring system, which underpins the foremost evaluation and design procedures, yet also allows for a variety of game engines to function as development and delivery platforms. This research is based on prior consideration of the ADDIE model and Waterfall development model. By implementing spiral design, this instructional design focuses on users. Additionally, [16] looked at the Values at Play (VAP) methodology framework that aims to create a toolkit, which combines values within the act of designing. The subsequent invention of RAPUNSEL, a piece of software aimed at educating female students in programming, led to the continued evolution of VAP. VAP is also made up of three distinct stages: discovery, translation, and verification. A negative feature of this methodology is that it does not consider the instructional aspect of methodologies for designing games. [17, 18] also used a three-phase method: the analysis phase, which focuses on aims and user analysis; the development phase, which focuses on the role played by the user and their situation, along with considering different versions of potential issues; and the creative phase, which focuses on analysing issues, making choices and conclusions. However, a negative aspect of this method is that Hays [23] did not iteratively test for any initial error. Digital Game-Based Learning, intended for use by history students [25] employed an instructional design model and game design. This development added two more phases; namely, quality assurance and evaluation. The detailed methods proposed by [23, 24, 25] consist of game design methods and instructional design selected as a guide to construct the development model for the gamification of programming language applications. This model would consider iterative evaluation in the design process in order to trace problems and prevent failure at the end of the final stage. These are clearly areas that a successful methodology needs to address. The model proposed by [19] is comprehensive, not least its inclusion of detail and equal focus on design method and instructional design. Thus it was considered suitable for being adapted for this research. Additionally, other research had failed to address several issues, including opaqueness in relation to certain methodological stages, failure to address what would happen if something went wrong at one stage of the process and a lack of clarity over the underlying learning theory present in the methodology. These are clearly areas that a successful methodology needs to address. Thus, the following section explores how learning theory can be interwoven into high-functioning gamification methodologies such as the effectiveness and motivation of learning, and increasing

student interest. Finally, Table 2.7 summarises methodologies used in previous educational application development, and

learning theory is then discussed extensively.

TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF EDUCATIONAL GAME METHODOLOGY No. 1.

Authors [18]

2.

[15]

3.

Application Methodological version to design games

[17]

(SG-ISD) Simulation-game Instructional Systems Design Role-Playing Game (RPG).

Design methodology Based on comprehending the context such as objectives and strategies, improving and progressing in the game ADDIE and Waterfall model and instructional design authoring tool Problem-Based Learning

4.

[16]

Values at Play (VAP)

Participatory Design

5.

[14]

Qualitative method

6.

[20]

7.

[12]

8.

[19]

9.

[13]

Games for Activating Thematic Engagement (GATE) JUMP Into Reading for Meaning Quasi Game Based Learning (Quasi-GBL) Digital Game Based Learning Instructional Design model Gamified

research-based vocabulary methodologies holistic approach to learner assessment ADDIE model, spiral design approach, user-centred instructional design and Waterfall development model Social Dynamics in the Interactive Systems

B. Learning theory Learning theories describe how information is absorbed, processed, and retained during learning. Locatis [21] mentioned that all theories emphasise a particular aspect of the learning process. This is because each relevant theory offers empirical support as appropriate guidelines and provides different outcomes. Learning theory is used to guide educators and educational software developers in understanding the directed learning approach that can be adopted and adapted into a multimedia software development according to the needs of learning and students [22]. Education researchers have shown a wide range of theories, comprising of behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism, and in addition, Bíró [23] proposed gamification as a new learning theory. This section discusses several theories of learning used as the theoretical basis for the gamification technique. 1. Behaviourist Learning Theory Behaviourism is based on Skinners’ stimulus-response theory, which stated that learning is a change in the behavioural disposition of the learners that can be shaped by selective reinforcement without referring to mental processes. In terms of instruction, behaviourism assumes that the goal of learning is to efficiently transmit knowledge from the instructor to the learners. Learning is seen largely as a passive process. In a behaviourist setting, instructors are clearly central to learning activities [24]. However, operant conditioning behaviourism theory explains the notion of learning related to the consequences of a behaviour which can change the next commission. Behavioural change is a pedagogical approach for student behaviour changed through positive reinforcement as a

Learning theory Behaviourism

Measure Effectiveness of instructional games

Constructivism

Effectiveness

Constructivism and Situated Learning theory Constructivism and Behaviourism Constructivism and Situated Learning theory Behaviourism and cognitivism Collaborative

Learning motivation

Constructivism Gamification

Effectiveness Effectiveness and engagement Engagement Collaborative learning Effectiveness and usability Effectiveness

reward, or negative reinforcement as a punishment. According to Woollard [25], words have little influence on behaviour, but giving rewards alone would be enough for learning. In addition, a positive reinforcement process also makes for easier instruction [26]. Behaviourism assumes that learning goals are to ensure the transfer of knowledge from teacher to student if applied effectively. Therefore, behaviourist theory needs to be applied to new students who need knowledge transferred directly from the instructor [24]. The behaviourist theory recommends a structured approach deduced from software design to enable the concept of basic knowledge, skills, and information to be absorbed by new students quickly. 2. Cognitive Learning Theory Cognitivism learning theory is based on the achievement of the human via steps, is totaly inconsistent with behaviourism theory. The cognitivism was designed from empirical work to carried out on memory and attention[27]. Cognitive theory emphasises that learning is an active, constructive, and goaloriented process that depends on the mental activity of students. According to [20, 28], aspects of cognition are used to observe the way people obtain information. Cognition activities include the planning and goal-setting process, and the selection of stimuli and experimentation that require students to manage what they have learned. How individuals organise and store new information in their memory and cognitive structures linking them with knowledge of the past, gives it significant influence over individual learning. Individual cognitive development does not take into account the age factor, although some researchers have argued

that this theory is relevant to the cognitive development of children rather than adults. According to Smith and Ragan [29], no specific theory of cognitive development has been determined for adults. However, the main development is focused on the social and cognitive development of the adult learner. Therefore, instructional design for adult learning should emphasise the motivation factor. Cognitive activities, such as remembering information that has no meaning or a piece of information that has nothing to do with past knowledge, will make the task difficult for adults. In order to reduce cognitive load (the amount of mental energy required to process given information) when using learning software, guidance should be provided. Cognitive theory focuses on aspects of instructional design that emphasise the development of structure, process, and mediators between the method of instruction and learning performance. 3. Constructivist Learning Theory Constructivist learning theory emphasises the active participation of cognitive processes in learning, in which students should be seen as cognitive subjects involved in an active process of knowledge construction [30]. Learning is constructed by the complex interaction among the existing knowledge of students, the social context, and the problem to be solved [31]. The learning process requires students to develop an understanding of their current personal social interaction in the learning environment. This theory states that knowledge is built actively by students by linking previous experience with new knowledge [32]. The constructivist theory is based on the concept of student understanding based on existing knowledge, in that students can interpret new information, and then develop the idea based on their own understanding. The emphasis in the theory of constructivism is the process of understanding and not memorisation, followed by the reproduction of the information depending on social interaction and cooperation [33]. According to Mihalca [34], the directive should not be learning to focus on the delivery of instruction to students only, but instead focusing on students to develop their learning skills. Therefore, the theory of constructivism emphasises the individual learning process and places the responsibility for learning on the students themselves [35]. 4. Gamification as New Learning Theory The most learning theory elements represented in gamification technique were superiority of positive reinforcements, small tasks step-by-step, immediate feedback, progressive challenges [23, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42], after that the reasons that make gamification is an extended version of [43] system as following, (1) Gamification theory uses the system of self-evaluation through applying game elements in the system, for example points or stars; (2) another feature of gamification is its ability to handle learning in a number of paths. If assuming that it is a main goal is a trophy. This main objective can be accessed from several paths. For example, the main goal is to access the trophy when we answering a set of questions and each group of these questions represented one

path of learning to reach the main goal; and (3) the most important features of gamification is the possibility of tracking the result in learning, that is called visualisation or visual dimension. The article of Bíró [19] was based on previous third learning theory such as the behaviourist, cognitive and constructivist approaches. Lastly, [19] mentioned the needed of using gamification theory into learning sciences, and he considering a gamification as a new learning theory to be extended version of behaviourist approach. III. THE METHODOLOGY OF GAMIFICATION-BASED LEARNING PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE FRAMEWORK Figure 1 illustrates the three phases of methodology in the construction of a gamification framework, which are the analysis phase, innovation phase, and validation phase. Each phase consists of several steps that must be completed before moving on to the next phase; for example, the analysis phase consists of an analysis step, the innovation phase consists of design and development steps, and the last phase, validation, consists of the implementation and evaluation steps. The subsequent section explains all these phases in more detail. Throughout the research, several evaluations such as interviews, surveys, Cognitive Walkthrough, Heuristic evaluation, Quasi-experiment and ARCS motivation evaluation are used which are indicated by red color. The processes are indicated in green color. The outcomes of each phase on process are indicated in blue color, (see Figure 1). A. Analysis Phase The first stage of this research is literature-based and involves a thorough review and critical analysis of existing studies in the area of gamification and learning programming languages. In performing the review, the guidelines of [44] and [45] were strictly adhered to; for example, the literature review summarised the relevant journal articles, books, and other research publications in order to elucidate prior findings. An analysis was then conducted on previous related research. The review was based on articles concerning gamification and learning a programming language. From the research questions, this study derived the keywords. The keywords used during the search were “learning programming language”, “learning Java language”, “learning C/C++ language”, “and the issue of learning programming language” “and/or” “Technique selection”. The articles were searched in online databases. The search covered published papers, journals, conference papers, or books from the content of electronic databases such as the ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Springer Verlag, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and Wiley Inter Science.

C. Validation Phase The validation phase which was conducted consisted of two parts; the first being implementation, in which the gamification prototype was launched in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, in the School of Information Science and Technology laboratory. The factors of effectiveness and motivation of the prototype were evaluated by the target users, the students who are taking a programming language course. The students that used the application were new students (they had never learned any programming language prior to this) and are currently in Semester 1 2015/2016 (September intake). The evaluation part of this study used pre- and post-tests (quasi-experimental method) to evaluate the effectiveness of the gamification application for students. The ARCS motivation model instrument was used to measure the motivation of students learning a programming language. IV.

FIGURE 1 RESEARCH DESIGN OF THE GAMIFICATION BASED LEARNING FRAMEWORK PHASES

B. Innovation Phase After the initial gamification framework has been suggested, the innovation phase consists of two parts: design and development. The first part is the design. In this study, the design part uses the User Centred Design (UCD) approach. The main goal of this step is to identify the game elements in the gamification technique and the programming learning requirements based on the interview and survey as well as instructional design (learning theory). Then, the requirements of users are represented by participatory design after which the application requirements are drawn using Unified Modeling Language (UML). UML acts as a bridge between the requirements of the application, user, and the design part. The UML details of the application are represented using a software tool called Microsoft Office Visio 2007 in order to make the design clearer for the developer. In the end, to refine the task and usability of the design, an inspection method called cognitive walkthrough was used. The second part is the development phase, which is based on the result of the design part; the low-fidelity prototype is translated into a high-fidelity prototype by writing the code using the software tool as the main platform, for example WordPress, and a database software tool called SQL server. To verify the interface design, an inspection method called heuristic evaluation was employed. The result of the development step is a high-fidelity prototype of the gamification application which is then validated via heuristic inspection methods.

CONCLUSION

This study mainly focused on the methodology employed in this study. This research employed both qualitative and quantitative methods via three phases. The first phase was to determine the issues of learning a programming language, related gaps, and gamification technique. The second was the innovation phase, which has two parts: design, which is used to determine the game elements, programming learning requirements, and the user requirements; all of which finally lead to the construction of a framework and validation of the task of the gamification framework using the cognitive walkthrough method. This is followed by the development prototype of the gamification interface and validation of the application using the heuristic evaluation method. The third is the validation phase which consists of two measurements to validate the gamification framework: (1) effectiveness, via the quasi-experimental method; and (2) motivation, via the ARCS model. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work is supported from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia / Faculty of Information Science and Technology Research Center for Software Technology and Management Multimedia Software and Usability Research Group. Grant No. is FRGS/ 2/ 2014/ ICT05/ UKM/ 02/ 1. JPT-KPM ID: 6891078756. [1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

References N. Funabikiy, Y. Korenaga, T. Nakanishi, and K. Watanabe, "An extension of fill-in-the-blank problem function in Java programming learning assistant system," in Humanitarian Technology Conference (R10-HTC), 2013 IEEE Region 10, 2013, pp. 85-90. S. Montero, P. Díaz, D. Díez, and I. Aedo, "Dual Instructional Support Materials for introductory object-oriented programming: classes vs. objects," in Education Engineering (EDUCON), 2010 IEEE, 2010, pp. 1929-1934. P.-H. Tan, C.-Y. Ting, and S.-W. Ling, "Learning difficulties in programming courses: undergraduates' perspective and perception," in Computer Technology and Development, 2009. ICCTD'09. International Conference on, 2009, pp. 42-46. H. Tsukamoto, N. Nitta, Y. Takemura, and H. Nagumo, "Work in progress: Analysis of the relationship between teaching contents and

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13] [14] [15]

[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

motivation in programming education," in Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2012, pp. 1-2. S. Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, and L. Nacke, "From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification," in Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, 2011a, pp. 9-15. S. Deterding, M. Sicart, L. Nacke, K. O'Hara, and D. Dixon, "Gamification. using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts," in CHI'11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2011b, pp. 2425-2428. F. L. Khaleel, N. S. Ashaari, T. S. Meriam, T. Wook, and A. Ismail, "Programming Learning Requirements Based on Multi Perspectives," International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 7, pp. 1-8., 2017. F. L. Khaleel, T. S. M. T. Wook, N. S. Ashaari, and A. Ismail, "Gamification Elements for Learning Applications," International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, in press, vol. 6, pp. 868-874, 2016b. F. L. Khaleel, N. S. Ashaari, T. S. Meriam, T. Wook, and A. Ismail, "The Architecture of Dynamic Gamification Elements Based Learning Content," Journal of Convergence Information Technology, vol. 11, pp. 164-177, 2016a. F. L. Khaleel, N. S. Ashaari, T. S. Meriam, T. Wook, and A. Ismail, "User-Enjoyable Learning Environment Based on Gamification Elements," in International Conference on Computer, Communication, and Control Technology (I4CT 2015),, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, 2015b, p. 221. F. L. Khaleel, N. S. Ashaari, T. S. Meriam, T. Wook, and A. Ismail, "The study of gamification application architecture for programming language course," in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication, 2015a, p. 17. Z. Han and Z. Zhang, "Integration of Game Elements with Role Play in Collaborative Learning—A Case Study of Quasi-GBL in Chinese Higher Education," in Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment, ed: Springer, 2008, pp. 427-435. A. Opromolla, "“Gamified” Social Dynamics in the Interactive Systems as a Possible Solution for Increasing Co-Design of Emerging Services in Smart Territories," In DC@ CHItaly Journal, vol. 17, pp. 46-57, 2015. Watson, "Formative research on an instructional design theory for educational video games," Thesis Doctor of Philosophy, Doctor of Philosophy in Indiana University, 2007. S. E. Kirkle, S. Tomblin, and J. Kirkley, "Instructional design authoring support for the development of serious games and mixed reality training," in The Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference (I/ITSEC), 2005. M. Flanagan and H. Nissenbaum, "A game design methodology to incorporate social activist themes," in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 2007, pp. 181-190. P.-C. Ho, S.-M. Chung, and M.-H. Tsai, "A case study of game design for e-learning," in Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment, ed: Springer, 2006, pp. 453-462. R. T. Hays, "The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion," DTIC Document2005. N. A. Matzin, W. S. Yue, and A. Jaafar, "Digital game-based learning (DGBL) model and development methodology for teaching history," WSEAS transactions on computers, vol. 8, pp. 322-333, 2009. M. K. Rothschild, "The instructional design of an educational game: form and function in JUMP," Specialist, Instructional Design Journal, vol. 1, pp. 61-69, 2008. C. Locatis, "Instructional Design Theory and the Development of Multimedia Programs," Silver Spring, Maryland, vol. 1, pp. 355-373, 2003. R. Abdullah, "Pembangunan dan keberkesanan pakej multimedia kemahiran berfikir bagi mata pelajaran kimia," UKM, 2005. G. I. Bíró, "Didactics 2.0: A Pedagogical Analysis of Gamification Theory from a Comparative Perspective with a Special View to the Components of Learning," Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 141, pp. 148-151, 2014.

[24] S. Hadjerrouit, "Creating Web-based learning systems: an evolutionary development methodology," in En Proceedings of the 2006 Informing Science and IT Education Joint Conference, Saldford, UK, 2006, pp. 119-144. [25] J. Woollard, Psychology in the Classroom: Behaviourism: Routledge, 2010. [26] D. Bahn, "Social learning theory: its application in the context of nurse education," Nurse Education Today, vol. 21, pp. 110-117, 2001. [27] O. Carlile and A. Jordan, "It works in practice but will it work in theory? The theoretical underpinnings of pedagogy," Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. Dublin: AISHE, pp. 1126, 2005. [28] L. R. Lattuca, L. J. Voigt, and K. Q. Fath, "Does interdisciplinarity promote learning? Theoretical support and researchable questions," The Review of Higher Education, vol. 28, pp. 23-48, 2004. [29] Smith and Ragan, Instructional design: Wiley New York, NY, 1999. [30] T.-S. Song, Y.-C. Choy, and S.-B. Lim, "A multimedia contents development and implementation model based on computer graphics courseware," in Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment, ed: Springer, 2006, pp. 301-310. [31] T. P. Mackey and J. Ho, "Exploring the relationships between Web usability and students’ perceived learning in Web-based multimedia (WBMM) tutorials," Computers & Education, vol. 50, pp. 386-409, 2008. [32] A. Koohang, "A learner-centred model for blended learning design," International Journal of innovation and learning, vol. 6, pp. 76-91, 2009. [33] A. Koohang, L. Riley, T. Smith, and J. Schreurs, "E-learning and constructivism: From theory to application," Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, vol. 5, pp. 91-109, 2009. [34] L. Mihalca, "Designing educational software for learning mathematics in primary education," Recent Research Developments in Learning Technologies, 2005. [35] M. F. Costabile, M. De Marsico, R. Lanzilotti, V. L. Plantamura, and T. Roselli, "On the usability evaluation of e-learning applications," in System Sciences, 2005. HICSS'05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, 2005, pp. 6b-6b. [36] C. Dichev and D. Dicheva, "Gamifying education: what is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a critical review," International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 14, p. 9, 2017. [37] P. Škuta and K. Kostolányová, "APRELIMINARY RESEARCH OF LEARNING LANGUAGES THROUGH THE GAMIFIED APPLICATION," presented at the Information and Communication Technologies in Education ICTE 2016, 2016. [38] P. G. F. Matsubara and C. L. C. da Silva, "Game elements in a software engineering study group: a case study," Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul (UFMS) Campo Grande-MS, vol. 4, pp. 1-10, 2017. [39] P. Škuta and K. Kostolányová, "The Inclusion of Gamification Elements in the Educational Process," in Conference on Distance Learning in Applied Informatics, 2016, pp. 421-429. [40] P. Mozelius, J. Collin, and M. Olsson, "Visualisation and gamification of e-Learning-Attitudes among course participants," in 10th International Conference on e-Learning ICEL2015, College of the Bahamas, Nassau, The Bahamas 25 26 juni, 2015, 2015, pp. 227-234. [41] M. Olsson, P. Mozelius, and J. Collin, "Visualisation and Gamification of e-Learning and Programming Education," Electronic Journal of eLearning, vol. 13, pp. 441-454, 2015. [42] M. Urh, G. Vukovic, and E. Jereb, "The model for introduction of gamification into e-learning in higher education," Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 197, pp. 388-397, 2015. [43] B. F. Skinner. (1990, 5 Jun 2014 from https://behavioranalysishistory.pbworks.com/w/page/2039033/Skinner% 2C%20Burrhus%20Frederic). History of Behavior Analysis. Available: https://behavioranalysishistory.pbworks.com/w/page/2039033/Skinner% 2C%20Burrhus%20Frederic [44] J. W. Creswell, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches: Sage publications, 2009. [45] F. L. Khaleel, "Recruitment and Job Search Application," Universiti Utara Malaysia, 2011.