USE OF DIGITAL GAMES IN WRITING EDUCATION: AN ACTION RESEARCH ON GAMIFICATION
The aim of the study is to
determine the contribution of gamification to writing skills of middle school
students. For this study, a lesson plan has been developed to relate Writing
and Authorship Skills lesson to the gamification for middle school students. From this lesson plan, it was tried to determine the
effectiveness of the teaching process. Therefore, the study was designed as
action research. The research group is composed of seventh grade students.
Criteria sampling technique was used to determine the participants. As a data
collection tool, student
diary, semi-structured interview
form, semi-structured observation form, digital content of the
students were used. Data obtained from the semi-structured interview form were
analyzed by content analysis; other data were analyzed by descriptive analysis.
Writing skills and gamification were related in the study. Turkish Language
Teaching Program (2018) has been taken into consideration in the action
plan which relates to gamification and writing skill.
As a result of the study, it was seen that all participants were actively
involved in the implementation process. In addition, it was concluded that
gamification increased the interest of students towards the course, combined
school and non-school life, facilitated classroom management, supported
collaborative work, and developed creativity. As a result
of this study, it is suggested that digital games can be used
as a text type in Turkish language lessons with the method of gamification in
order to positively affect motivation of the middle school students toward
writing education.
Introduction
Technology, as in many areas of the society,
is felt in children's lives. One of the most noticeable
effects of technology in children's life is the games. Until recently, games
based on physical activity in more open spaces; has been replaced by the
possibilities of the digital world (Hazar, Tekkursun Demir & Dalkiran,
2017). These digital games became a worldwide
market of about
$100 billion in 2016. Until 2019, this sector
is expected to reach a size of 120 billion
dollars. This sector, which
has a large budget in economic terms, will reach a level of 128.5 billion
dollars by 2020 (Newzoo, 2017). In Turkey,
it was determined that 30.8 million people
in 2017 have played
digital games. These people spent $773.9 million for games in 2017 (Newzoo, 2017).
It is inevitable that digital games that appeal
to such a wide audience
are reflected in education.
Therefore, different studies have been conducted to use digital games in
education. These studies reported that digital games develop cognitive skills
(Homer, Raffaele, Ober, Plass & Ali,
2018), which itself facilitates
vocabulary teaching (Chen, Tseng, & Hsiao, 2018), and has an important
function as a pre-organizer (Denham, 2018). Digital games also develop skills
in solving problems (Rugoero & Green, 2017) and collaborative learning
(Sung & Hwang, 2018). In addition, it is seen that digital games are
generally used in the field of gamification and game- based learning
(Cózar-Gutiérrez & Sáez-López, 2016; Karagiorgas & Niemann, 2017; Khan,
Ahmad, & Malik, 2017; Nolan & McBride, 2013; Pesare et al., 2016).
Although these two types are different from each other, they are constantly
mixed up (Prensky, 2007).
Game-based learning is the acquisition of knowledge and skills for the teaching
process through games (Qian
& Clark, 2016 as cited in Bogott, 2017). Therefore, the tool through which
the teaching process is carried out is as important as the teaching method
(Piller, 2016). Gamification is associating the teaching process with game items
such as badges, levels, and scores (Kapp, 2012). From this point of view, game-based learning is different
from gamification in terms of
the realization of learning. In game-based learning, the game itself is a
learning platform (Kingsley & Grabner-Hagen, 2018).
In gamification, the game is an element
to increase motivation. In
the present study, the teaching process is related to gamification.
Another reason for the selection
of gamification is the lack of literature. Existing research explores distance
education (Sahin et al., 2017), biology education (Yapici & Karakoyun,
2017), science language lessons (Sahin & Namli, 2016), English language
lessons (Polat, 2014), computer education (Ayhan & Taner, 2016; Fis Erumit,
2016; Kalkan, 2016; Ozturk, 2015; Sari & Altun, 2016), education at the
undergraduate level (Yildirim & Demir, 2016), and measurement and
evaluation (Bolat, Simsek, & Ulker, 2017; Taskin & Cakmak, 2017).
Literature-based review studies have also been carried out (Karatas, 2015;
Kocadere, Caglar, & Simsek, 2015; Ozgur, Cuhadar, & Akgun, 2018; Sahin
& Samur, 2017; Sever & Bical, 2018; Sezgin et al., 2018; Yildirim &
Demir, 2014).
It is seen that these studies
have been published in the last two years. Most of the studies conducted are aimed
at reviewing or determining opinions. In addition, there is a deficiency in
implementation studies related to mother language education and gamification.
As revealed in the study of Cibik (2010) on Turkish language education, the
studies on remote activities are more abundant than those on digital media. Bal
(2018) conducted a study related to digital gamification to determine teachers’
opinions. Genc Ersoy (2017) conducted a study on fourth grade students to
understand the use of gamification in the mother tongue education. In her work,
she has taken gamification only from the point of vocabulary. Studies on the
relationship between language arts and gamification have been determined to be generally related to second language education (Cruaud, 2016;
Figueroa Flores, 2015; Gellar-Goad, 2015; Huner, 2018;
Karatekin, 2017; Rachels &
Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2018).
Guasch et al. (2013) and Cook,
Gremo, and Morgan (2017) found gamification to be associated with mother tongue
education. These studies are not related
to Turkish language education. There are no studies in which writing is
associated with gamification in Turkish language education. This is argued to
be an important deficiency because writing skills are the last in language arts and therefore
a complex processfor students (Demirel& Sahinel, 2006).Students develop a negative attitude towards writing activities becausethey perform a complex and difficult process related to all skills in writingeducation (Maltepe, 2006; Ungan, 2007). This difficulty can be overcomewith a content that can be done to the students with enthusiasm and willingness (Gocer, 2010). Among the seven reasons for writing, Tompkins(1982), who considers entertainment andencouragement, draws attention to the importance of motivation. In thisrespect, environments in which studentscan express themselves more than knowledge are
important for writing education
(Gocer, 2014). A writing process
centering on students'
feelings and experiences will also positively affect their motivation
towards writing (Gogus, 1978).
It is thought that the increase
in the motivation for writing education will contribute to the gamification by
digital games because digital gamification contributes to the development of
writing skill (El Tantawi, Sadaf, & AlHumaid, 2018). Associating digital
gamification with the writing process provides an active classroom environment
and improves creativity (Hibbard, 2015). It encourages students to be open to
innovation (Cahyani, 2016); develops problem- solving skills (Gee, 2013;
Kapp, 2012; Kayalı
& Yilmaz, 2017; Ozer, Kanbul,
& Ozdamli, 2018; Urh,
Vukovic, & Jereb, 2015); supports collaborative learning (Buchinger &
da SilvaHounsell, 2018; Halloluwa et al., 2018; Sánchez-Martín, Cañada-Cañadave
,& Dávila-Acedo, 2017). In addition, the students are motivated to write
(Gee, 2008; Kingsley & Grabner-Hagen, 2015; Lam, Hew, & Chiu, 2018;
Olson, 2010; Ozer, Kanbul, & Ozdamli, 2018).
The Turkish Language Curriculum
(2018) can also be used as a reason for the use of digital gamification in writing education. In the current
Turkish Language Curriculum (2018), which was renewed in 2017, unlike the previous
Turkish Language Curriculum (2006), crucial innovations have been introduced in
terms of text types. The renewed program includes texts that are part of the students’ daily life such as blog, e-mail, news, advertising, social
media messages, comics, cartoons. It is thought
that these texts will have a positive
effect on students'
attitudes towards Turkish course. In addition to these texts,
it is known that digital
games have an important place in
students' daily lives,
but it not included in the program.
From this point
of view, it can be said
that digital games may be useful in increasing motivation especially for
writing education.
Based on these explanations, it
is thought that digital gamification is important for students to feel
comfortable in the teaching process and to be associated with writing
activities in-school and out-of-school. It is considered to be useful
in terms of the development of writing skills
in a fun way. In addition, it
is assumed that gamification will be beneficial for students to feel
belongingness to the lesson while developing their writing skills. In this
context, the study aims to determine the contribution of gamification to the
writing education of seventh grade students. Unlike the studies in the
literature, this study has prepared an action plan on how digital gamification
can be associated with writing skills. A content was presented in this action
plan about how to use digital games that are not recommended in Turkish Language
Curriculum (2018) but which are thought to have an important place in
their daily lives. In this way, it has been investigated whether the negative
motivation of the students that is emphasized in the literature have changed or
not. The following research questions were investigated in line with the
purpose of the study and the action plan:
1.
How
is the implementation process for the use of digital gamification in developing
writing skills?
2. What are student views on how
digital gamification affects motivation for
writing?
Method
Research
Model
A lesson
plan was developed for the 7th grade students to relate Authorship and Writing
Skills lesson to gamification in this study. Based on this lesson plan, which focuses on the contribution
of gamification, the effectiveness of the teaching
process has tried to be determined. Therefore, the study was designed with
action research. Although studies were conducted in different areas, action research was used to improve the effectiveness of the educational process (Baker, Davis & Dolgon, 2014; Cammarota, Romero,
& Stovall, 2014; Ferguson, McNiff, & Whitehead, 2000; Fettes,
2007) because action research is a design that teachers
do research and implement
it to make their teaching processes more efficient (Stringer, Christensen,
& Baldwin, 2010; Zireva, 2017). In this regard, action research is also
known as teacher research (Cohan & Honigsfeld, 2011; Vaughan &
Burnaford, 2016).
In this study, it is thought that
action research is the most appropriate design since it is aimed to determine the contribution of digital games to writing
skills of the seventh grade students. In this respect, it was designed with
action research to make the teaching process more effective. In accordance with
the quality of the action research, a problem that is thought to exist in
education has been presented, a solution proposal
has been presented
and the implementation of this solution proposal in class activities has
been tried to be determined. The underlying problem of this action research was
the low motivation of middle school students for writing education. It is known
that the games have an important place in the students' out-of-school life;
however, there is no content in the Türkish Language Curriculum (MEB, 2018)
that relates gamification and writing skills. In addition, there are
deficiencies in the studies related to gamification and writing education.
Therefore, the low motivation for the 7th grade students' writing skills are
presented as the solution can be improved with digital gamification. In this
context, it has been tried to make writing education process more interesting
for students. An action plan was prepared in line with this problem and
solution proposal.
This plan has been carried out in
the following stages, taking into consideration the relevant research (Johnson,
2005; Kemmis, McTaggart, & Nixon, 2014; McNiff & Whitehead, 2006;
Tomal, 2003): (1) The problem of digital gamification and writing skill was
explained, (2) the research was based on a six-stage model of Werbach and
Hunter (2012), (3) an action plan was prepared before the data collection process
was started, (4) data were collected and changes were made to the teaching process
where necessary during
the data collection process, (5) data were analyzed, (6) reporting, (7)
results, discussions and suggestions were written.
Research Group
The research group comprised of
seventh grade students. The criteria sampling technique was used on the basis
of the selection of participants. We set the criteria according to the
literature (Yildirim & Simsek, 2013). The most basic criterion was determined
by the Turkish language teacher, who will perform the practice, to have
problems with low motivation of the students while performing the writing
education. It is among the criteria that the school has sufficient
technological equipment for gamification and that the teacher is the field
expert (master's degree). The reason for searching the field expert criterion
is that the action plan is intended to be applied to the Turkish
language teacher. It was tried
to make students feel more comfortable
and thus the data collection process was carried out in a healthier way. In
addition, school administrators and parents must approve the research, and the
Turkish language teacher must follow the proposed lesson plan throughout the
application process.
Thirty qualifying schools from a city situated in the Mediterranean region of Turkey
were invited to participate in
the study. Among these schools, two met all the criteria. One of these schools
was eliminated because
one of the the teachers
had already worked
on multimodal texts. In this
school, the Turkish language
teacher is a domain expert handling the Authorship and Writing skills lesson
for the seventh grade. Therefore, the research was conducted with 12 students
(7 females and 5 males). In fact, there are a total of 15 students in the class
but these students were not included in the study because they did not want to
participate in the data collection process.
For the male students, the cover names
Mehmet, Demir, Seref,
Ercan, and Orhan were
used. For the female students, the cover names Emine, Gulhan, Ayse, Tulay,
Aysenur, Yuksel, and Aydan were adopted. Covernames were used for ethical purposes.
Data Collection
Techniques
Different data collection tools
were used to increase the validity and reliability of the study (Johnson,
2014). Information about the development process of the data collection tools
is presented as follows.
Student Diary
The 12 student participants served as the source of this data collection tool. In applying
this tool, the students were
asked to answer five open-ended questions. These questions were aimed at
determining what the students learned and how they felt about their lessons.
Daily forms were distributed at the end of each lesson. Through the diary entries,
student observations and reactions to the lessons (Yildirim & Simsek, 2013)
were obtained. Daily entries were made voluntarily. Exactly 87 diary entries
were collected during the research process.
Semi-Structured Observation Form
An observation form was prepared to support the research process
with different data sources.
During the preparation of the form, the following steps were followed. Seven
questions were prepared with consideration of the aims of the research. The
questions were submitted for approval by the domain experts
who examined the questions in terms of content and construct
validity. The questions were reworded according to the feedback of the field
experts. The number of effective questions was reduced. The final form
comprised four questions, which were submitted to the domain experts for review
and approval. Finally, the pilot study was implemented to evaluate the
observation form in terms of comprehensibility. The pilot study was conducted
with six students (three females and three males) from the original pool of
participants. After the conduct of the pilot study, the points that made the
form unclear were addressed, and the final form was prepared.
The questions focused
on how the teaching process is carried out, the emotional reactions of the students
to the course, and the applicability of the
action plan. The researcher served as the source of this data collection tool.
Eight observation forms were collected during the research process.
Semi-Structured Interview Form about Views on Turkish Language Lesson
This data collection tool was
developed to identify the participants' views toward their writing experiences
associated with digital gamification. When the form was developed, the
following steps were taken sequentially. Five questions were prepared in
consideration of the research purpose. The questions were submitted for
approval to three domain experts who evaluated
them in terms of content and
construct validity. The number of questions was increased to six based on the
feedback of the domain experts. A pilot study was conducted to determine the suitability of the questions for the
target group. For the pilot study, six students (three females and three males) were selected out of the research population. The group selected
for the pilot study exhibited the same
characteristics as the participants of the main study. The points that made the interview form unclear were arranged according
to the feedback from the pilot study. In this way, the form was
finalized. The semi-structured interview comprised six questions, which focused
on topics to be learned in the research process, opinions about the research
process, opinions about the web 2.0 tool, and opinions
about digital gamification. This form was disseminated to the students.
Therefore, 12 interviews were conducted.
Digital Texts Produced by Students
The participants served as the
source of this kind of data. The participants created digital texts through the
web 2.0 tool called Storium. Storium (https://storium.com/) is a writing tool.
With its unique features,
this tool encourages collaborative writing. Offering
the opportunity to write
on different topics without limiting one’s imagination, this tool also offers
entertaining experiences with digital
gamification elements. Detailed
information about Storium
is presented in the discussion
about the first research question. As the application is programmed for
collaborative writing, three groups of users were created. Four groups were
available in total. Each group produced its own text, and thus, four sets of
text were obtained.
Data Collection Process
The research process took a total
of 12 weeks. The study was conducted on the Authorship and Writing Practice lesson for two hours a week. The research
process started on November 8, 2017. The teaching process was carried out
according to the six-stage gamification model of Werbach and Hunter (2012).
The phases of the model according to the implementation process were as follows:
(1) Identifying
the targets: This
step represents the main objective. The main purpose of this study is to
determine the contribution of gamification in terms of motivation to the
writing process. (2) Identifying target behaviors: This
phase refers to the determination of the behaviors necessary to achieve the main
goal. The target behaviors of this research are the writing achievements under
the Turkish Language Curriculum (2018). The participants were expected to act
accordingly. (3) Determining the type of
player: This stage refers to the separation of the duties and
responsibilities of the participants in the digital gamification process. The
players in this study were of two types. The first type comprised the
narrators, and the second type comprised the players. The duties of the
narrators and players are discussed in details in the Results section. (4) Designing the activity cycle: This phase
involves the implementation of the digital gamification process. The key users
of the digital gamification process in this study were the narrators. Their
story served as the basis of the main game. The players contributed to the
narrators’ fictional story by using their own imagination. In general, the
narrators opened the game during the digital gamification process, and the players made their moves
accordingly. (5) Adding fun items: This phase refers to
the fact that the digital gamification process includes fun elements for the
players. The entertainment element of this work is that players make their moves
by using their own strengths against difficulties and that the writing process
takes place in a digital
environment. In addition, it consists of a three-stage process in which
students move
forward and their ranking
according to the scores of students for each stage constitutes the elements of entertainment. (6) Identifying
appropriate tools: This
stage refers to the digital
tools through which the digital gamification process can be carried out
appropriately. A single application was used in this study. The reason for selecting this application was based on writing
and digital gamification. Ease of use among members of the working group was
also a main consideration. Web 2.0 tool’s name is “Storium”.
Information about
Storium and how this tool is used in the implementation process
is presented below: (a) Introduction to the application: Storium
is an online application that integrates the digital authoring process with digital gamification. The application only has the English language option. The participants were
all part of the first lesson. Membership to the application is free of charge.
(b) Setting up a game: Each user
first enters the game from the "Game" tab on the main page. At this
stage, the users create a theme and choose an avatar. The game is played with at least two users. One user sets up and directs the game as the "narrator." The other user serves as the "player" and plays the game set up and directed by the narrator. The narrator sets up a game by entering and setting
all the details in a section called the “green room.” In this section, the narrator can make the game open to everyone.
At this point, users from many parts of the world who use this
application can join the game. In addition, the narrator can make the game open only to selected players.
The game can either send an e-mail
to selected users or add them using their usernames. For this
study, the narrator sets up the game and targets selected users. The narrator
identifies the hurdles and convenience cards to be used for the game. The
narrator then adds the players to the game. (3) Character creation: The narrator sets up the game in the section
called the “green room.” The first step in building a game is the creation of
the narrator’s own character. At this stage,
the application asks the user to define
the character by features
such as profession, weaknesses, and strengths. This setting completes
the character creation
process. The players also create their own characters in the same way. The
particular characteristics of the players influence the future stages of the
game. Through the weak and powerful features of the players,
they are able to deal with obstacles that need to be overcome when making moves. (4) Starting
the game: At this stage,
the narrator and the players
are ready to play. This
process consists of three parts: introduction, development, and results. The
whole process is guided
by the narrator. The narrator
opens the game with a story of his own choosing.
The narrator writes the introduction of the story. The length of the paragraph
is determined by the narrator; no specific limitation was set for the study.
After the entry of the story is established, the players take action. The move
that each player must make is to complete the story, but this task is not simply about
writing. At this stage, digital
gamification elements come into play. After the narrator plays
the game, the player puts a few obstacles that must be taken into account when
making a move. This barrier is divided into two. One barrier includes the
operational difficulties, such as the condition of performing a difficult
operation. This process has to be completed by the player while moving. The
other barrier involves the character who makes the process of making a move
difficult. The difficulty or desire of this character must be determined when
making a move. Players enter the difficulties section before making moves and
then make moves by choosing the difficulty level appropriate to their
characteristics. Each player has to choose a different difficulty level. In
this process, the narrator can make the players’ job easier by offering a
so-called "asset card." If the "target card" is inserted
into the nominated element, the player can know what to do. The player
then moves at the set difficulty
level with help from the narrator. Then, the process
is repeated. The narrator brings
more of the story according to the players’ moves.
In this way, the same process is repeated. (5) Ending the game: At the end of each episode,
the narrator can be informed
about the level
of understanding of the players. If the players
overcame all the difficulties using
their powerful features, they were deemed to have successfully completed the relevant
part of the story in accordance with its
purpose. If they used their weak
features, they were forced to do so with difficulty. In this case, the narrator
may extend the story to serve the story’s purpose. If the weak and powerful
features were equal, predicting whether the players served the story’s purpose
is difficult because it means that the players reached
this level by using their
presence and target cards. In this case, the narrator may proceed to
the relevant section.
The narrator can keep each part of the game consisting of three parts
as long as necessary. After the players make their moves, the narrator can finish the part and move on to the next part. The only requirement for this process is
the completion of all the challenges presented by the application for each part. If the difficulties are not complete,
the narrator must write the end of the story to establish a conclusion.
The other part can be switched in this case.
The research process,
which was carried out according to the aforementioned steps, generally
consisted of three parts, as described below.
As can be seen from Figure
1, the students were informed
about the contents
of the application in the first week. A total of four groups (3 members
in each) were formed. The writing process associated with the game was
implemented between December 7, 2017 and January 18, 2018. The semi-structured
observation form, student diaries, and digital texts were collected during the
implementation process. Between January 18, 2018 and January 25, 2018, the
students’ opinions were collected through the semi-structured interview form.
Data
Analysis
The data on the first research
question (semi-structured observations, student diaries, digital texts) were
analyzed descriptively. The descriptive analysis technique was selected to
present
the implementation process in
stages. In the analysis of the data on the second research question
(semi-structured interview form), the content analysis technique was used to
present the data in details.
As the analysis of data in the
qualitative research process was performed simultaneously (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2013; Patton, 2014),
it was carried out in two stages.
In the first stage, all the data gathered
during the implementation process were analyzed
through macroanalysis. The
macroanalysis results were regularly presented to the validity committee every
week. The validity committee consisted
of three domain
experts. They contributed to the fulfillment of the action
research cycle and to the analysis process. In the second stage, all data were
analyzed through the microanalysis technique at the end of the application
period. All data were then transcribed. A qualitative data analysis program was
used when the data were transcribed. The result was presented to a domain
expert to confirm that the data were transcribed correctly. The domain expert
confirmed the coherence of the raw version of the data and the transcribed
version. Analyses were then carried out. The final results of the analyses were
compared with those of the microanalysis and the previous macroanalysis. The
same data were also coded by another domain expert. Coding reliability by two
participants was determined to be 90% and this was considered sufficient (Miles
& Huberman, 1994, 64).
Validity and
Reliability of the Study
All data obtained in the research
process were analyzed without any changes. The validity and reliability of the
study was confirmed by the validity committee at every stage since the
beginning of the research process. In order to increase the validity of the
study, we employed the following headings according to the work of Lincoln
& Guba (1985).
Credibility:
A long-term
application period (12 weeks) was designed to ensure the credibility of the
research. With this time period, the students were granted enough time to
complete their task. In addition, the practice was carried out by the teachers
to catch the students' natural reactions.
Transferability:
For
transferability, we detailed how the implementation process should be conducted. In this regard,
another researcher tried to provide
the opportunity to do the same
study.
Trustworthiness: The research
process was carried
out with four different data collection
tools. Detailed information on the validity and reliability of these tools is
provided in the Data Collection Tools section.
Confirmability:
The research
process was not based on the data obtained from a single data source. Research
observations were also included in the process. Different data sources were
presented in the report of the researcher. Direct references were also utilized
to embody the results.
Results
This
section was based on information about the implementation process of the action
plan. Since action research was based on an intervention program, this part
describes in details what
was done during the implementation process.
The part was grouped under one heading
but the research questions
were based on two stages. In the first phase of the report, how the writing
process associated with gamification was performed is explained. In the second
stage, there were findings related to student views on the implementation
process. While the two research questions were given,
no separate titles
were opened. Both were given under the same heading so as not to interfere with the
fluency of the implementation process.
Results
Related to the Research Process
This section provided information on the implementation process carried out for 12 weeks. The application process for the
Authorship and Writing Skills course was carried out two hours a week.
Information about each week’s implementation process was summarized before the end of the seven-week implementation
period. This information included the contents of the implementation, the
contents of the diaries collected at the end of each lesson, and the writing tool (Storium). After explaining the steps of the implementation tool named Storium
which was described in detail
in the data collection process, the researcher gave information about the
responsibilities expected from them in this course. The responsibilities of
teachers, narrators and players throughout the implementation process is as
shown in Figure 2:
As shown in Figure
2, the responsibilities of the narrator and players were determined according to the writing learning outcomes
of the Turkish Language Curriculum (2018). Each of the above responsibilities
represents a writing learning outcome.The learning outcome codes that the
narrator fulfills were T.7.4.6., T.7.4.11., T.7.4.12., T.7.4.16., T.7.4.17., and T.7.3.19. The learning
outcome
codes of the players were T.7.3.16., T.7.3.17., T.7.3.18., T.7.3.21.,
T.7.3.22., T.7.3.24.,
T. 7.3.28., T.7.3.38., T.7.4.4.,
T.7.4.6., T.7.4.9., T.7.4.15., T.7.4.16., and T.7.4 .17.
After the information within the
first three weeks was obtained, the process in which the students signed up as
players and the teacher signed up as a narrator was implemented. This process
is depicted in Figure 3.
At this stage, the teacher
started the research process. As shown in Figure 3, each group participated in
the game by opening a common account. The groups evaluated together the
obstacles and opportunities that the narrator presented
to them before
they made their
moves. The story of the narrator was decided and played by the
participants together. The relationship between the writing process
and the Turkish language lesson
was reflected in the diary of some of the students.
"I think that such a lesson
is necessary because the things learned are more mindful and allow us to work together because
we are doing group work. It's more fun than any other work." (Demir, diary form)
"I think such a lesson is
necessary because it increases both socialization and creativity" (Emine,
diary form)
"I think we made a lot of
fun activities in class. I think we made the necessary course games because we
learned to have fun and to write a story." (Aysenur, diary form)
As it was understood from the opinions,
the application developed creativity, made the teaching
process fun, and emphasized socialization. The most important point made by the
students in the first week was that
the application provided a suitable environment for group work. These opinions
were further reflected in the following diary
entries.
"In the lesson, I learned how to use Storium and collaborate while writing a story." (Emine, diary form).
"I've never used
Storium before. I used it for the first time and loved it very much. We worked
together, and we consulted each other." (Aydan, diary form).
"Yes, I learned new things
about the game. For example, there is a topic to think about and learn by
working in groups. Most importantly, we did group work by listening to our
friends' speech." (Seref, diary form).
According to the comments,
the students had never used Storium before.
Nevertheless, the first lesson helped the students
understand the main features of the program through the collaborative writing
process. These positive
comments for the first week reflected in the diaries of the students are supported by
the observation data.
"Today's children are
attracted to this activity because they are open to technology and have
increased interest and desire for the lesson. It also raised their motivation
toward the lesson. They expressed that they had more fun and became curious.
They were quite willing to participate in the activity. They constantly asked
questions about the application
in a curious way." (Investigator, semi-structured observation form)
After this first week of the
application, the teacher served as a narrator again for two more weeks. In this
three-week period, the teacher, as the narrator, made the students understand
the digital gamification process. Each group was divided into four subgroups.
Each subgroup made the decision to coordinate the narrator's story before
making any moves. At the end of this three-week period, the students' belonging
to the implementation process shared their reflections in the observation form.
"The students felt like themselves
in the classroom. They commented about the game from the WhatsApp group we
created and asked questions." (Investigator, semi- structured observation form)
The interest of the students in
the implementation process was also determined in the observation form.
With this process,
the students gained
knowledge about the implementation
process. Along with this transition process, the students became accustomed to
the activity. Those with experience in the implementation process switched to
the main implementation. The group members and their responsibilities in this
part of the implementation are shown in Figure 4. Each group was re-tasked to
have one narrator and two player, the identities of which were determined by the participants. Who would be the
narrator and the player is left to the opinion of the participants.
Figure 4. Task Distribution for
the Main Application
The narrators (Mehmet, Ayse,
Ercan, and Aydan) shown in Figure 4 created their cards during the first two
weeks. The players created their cards for the strengths and weaknesses that
they thought would make their job easy when making a move. As sharing the
information from all groups was bound to be complex, it was selected a single
group as an example for the implementation process. Figure 5 shows the
strengths and weaknesses of the group members.
Figure 5. Example of Strengths
and Weaknesses of Group Members
As seen in the example in Figure
5, the members of the group formed their own cards about their strengths and
weaknesses. While they created these cards, the application imposed no
restrictions. The participants were asked to reflect on how they see or
describe themselves in real life. While the players prepared their cards, the
narrators prepared their own cards. Each narrator developed difficulty cards and asset cards, taking
into account the content of the game. Figure 6 presents the difficulty
cards prepared by a narrator.
Figure 6. Example of Difficulty
Card
As shown in Figure 6, the
narrators identified two different difficulty cards. One referred to the place
of difficulty, whereas the other referred to the difficulty to be handled.
According to the flow of the text, the players made their moves by selecting
these difficulties, but in the beginning, the narrator prepared the cards. The
cards were prepared according to the content of the text. When the players
chose one of these cards during the game and made a move, they could not choose another player.
Another important feature of these cards is that they served as a criterion for
ending the game. The game could not be completed without completing the difficulty cards. The narrators formed asset cards following their
development of the play cards. Figure 7 shows an example of an
asset card.
The asset cards in Figure 7 are
generated by the narrator. If the player was forced to make a move, the
narrator could provide the player with an asset card. The narrators in this
study provided their reflections via the two-week process observation form.
"When they learned the
functions of the narrator and player cards, each student created an example of
their own tablet. They were interested and entertained." (Investigator,
semi-structured observation form)
The card-making process seemed to
generate interest in the teaching process. The players and narrators who
completed the necessary preparations for the digital gamification process
advanced to the writing process. This process lasted five weeks. At the
beginning of this five- week period, the narrators started the process of
digital gamification with the subject they identified. Examples of the subject
of the narrator are shown in Figure 8.
As shown in the example, the
narrators set a story for the digital gamification process. The title of the
story was “Mysterious Night,” and the setting was a seaside town. The narrator
told the following story: "Three friends who have been unable to do
anything for a long time have decided to go for a walk. The place they're
in was a seaside town." Then, the narrator
asked the players to complete
the story without disturbing the flow. When narrating the story back, the
players made moves by solving the pre-determined difficulties (see Figure 9).
The two screenshots in Figure 9 are the same. The first screenshot was visible in the interface of the application. The "locals, structured" words on
the top right corner of the screenshot were the pre-established obstacles. The
players chose one of these obstacles predefined by the narrator according to
their own characteristics and then proceeded to make a move for the game. In the second screenshot, this obstacle was explained, along with the requirement of the
narrator. The players clicked on these words during the move to see the
requirement. Some of the students' views on these obstacles during the game
were reflected in their diaries.
"We
made individual groups. When we created the characters, we entered a complete
knot." (Orhan, diary form)
"I
learned to write a story and to be careful when writing a story." (Gulhan,
diary form)
"Yeah. I learned to choose obstacles
in Storium and to bring the story to the end according to that obstacle. I also learned
to publish and comment on it." (Ayse, diary form)
Evident in the diaries, the story
in the writing process expanded against the obstacles. The students also experienced problems
in the story writing process.
Moreover, the problem-solving abilities of the students
developed at this level. A sample text of the authoring process,
in which each player faced
other players with the same difficulty, is shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Story Writing Process
and Moves
As shown in Figure 10, the
students completed the writing process. The students competed against one
another according to the movements they made while writing the story. The
program listed them according to their strengths or weaknesses and according to
the obstacles they faced. During the process, the students were able to gain an
overview of their situation according to the graph shown in Figure 11.
F
Figure 11 shows the number of
moves the players made and which properties their moves exceeded. At the end of
each chapter, the players held information about their own situation. Thanks to this information, the players could learn about their success
in the game. They noticed the features that put them ahead
of other players. From this point of view, the application was especially
important in the process of digital gamification. At the end of the
implementation period, the participants’ discontentment was reflected in their diaries.
"I
felt bad leaving the lesson because the lesson never ended."(Aysenur,
diary form)
"Actually,
it's a little early today because I was having so much fun; so, I was
sad." (Demir, diary form)
"I
feel a little sad leaving the lesson because it is very short and happened only
once a week; this makes me sad." (Seref, diary form)
The students clearly felt a sense
of belonging to the lesson.
The information about the last lesson
of the application process, which was thought to be addressed to their world,
was reflected in the observation form.
"We had a lot of will and
fun during the whole semester. We closed the semester with positive exchanges
of interest. They are quite interested. They are sorry that this is the last
lesson. They even offered to play together after the lesson."
(Investigator, semi- structured observation form)
When they came to the end of the
implementation period, the students expressed their unhappiness toward having
to end the lesson. Those with such views were interviewed. The purpose of this interview was to determine
the opinions that the implemenation process served the writing
education and how gamification affects
students’ motivation. Content
analysis of the students’ opinions is presented in
Table 1.
Table 1. Student Views on the
Implementation Process
|
Category
|
Code
|
f
|
|
Contribution of digital
gamification to writing process
|
Improving writing skills
|
6
|
|
Making fun
|
4
|
|
|
|
Fun and educational
|
3
|
|
|
Spelling and punctuation
|
2
|
|
|
Improving
your imagination
|
2
|
|
|
Develop
creativity
|
2
|
|
|
Supporting
the use of technology
|
1
|
|
|
Interesting enhancement to the
lesson
|
1
|
|
|
Productivity
|
1
|
|
|
Overcoming boundaries
|
1
|
|
|
Practicality gain
|
1
|
|
Digital
gamification perception
|
Funny
|
11
|
|
|
Interesting
|
2
|
|
|
Fun
and educational
|
1
|
|
Perception
of digital gamification tool
|
Fun and educational
|
4
|
|
|
Motivational
|
1
|
|
|
Regular
|
1
|
|
|
Suitable
for the level
|
1
|
|
|
Improving
writing skills
|
1
|
|
|
Taking
time to enter the game
|
1
|
|
|
Complex
|
1
|
|
|
Accelerate
writing process
|
1
|
|
|
Cooperation
|
1
|
|
|
Easy
to use
|
1
|
|
|
Attractiveness of the actors
|
1
|
As shown in Table 1, three
different categories were established. The frequencies for each category were
as follows: “Contribution of digital gamification to writing process,” (f =
24); “Digital gamification perception,” (f = 14); “Perception of digital
gamification tool,” (f = 14). The most frequent code pertained to
entertainment. The students who found the activity in the Turkish language
teaching process entertaining made the following comments:
“I
think it's better than lecturing. The boring lesson turned into entertainment.”
(Demir, semi-structured interview form).
“I
enjoy this lesson so much. I feel very happy with myself in this lesson.”
(Seref, semi- structured interview form).
“…because
it is so nice that our teacher finds a good application for us and prints us
amusing materials.” (Ayse, semi-structured interview form)
“Everything is very beautiful. I like this lesson because
it is a lesson that will entertain
me.” (Tulay, semi-structured interview form).
The students clearly found the
lesson to be fun and compared it with their previous lectures, which they
viewed negatively. With this application, the students were given a fun role to
play. Other opinions about the instructive lessons are as follows.
“I
think it is necessary for us to do such a lesson because I am both learning and
playing.”(Ercan, semi-structured interview form).
“Yes because we have fun and
learn better and more quickly.” (Gulhan, semi-structured interview form).
“I
think it is because I think learning will be more beneficial when it is
amusing.” (Aysenur, semi-structured interview form).
Notably, the application process
did not incorporate the teaching function
back into the course.
Regarding the teaching side, the frequency values made the application fall
under the highest category. The code related to the development of writing skills with the highest frequency
value under the category of "Contribution to the teaching process
in Turkish" was a teaching aspect of the application process.
Table
1 shows that some students formed negative opinions about the implementation
process. These views are described as follows.
“The beginning
of this game is very long and complicated, but the part of the story is very
nice after it is ready.” (Demir, semi-structured interview form).
“The Storium
application is a nice but complicated application and does not have a feature
like rearrangement.” (Aydan, semi-structured interview form).
Demir complained about the
waiting time for logging into the application. Aydan described the application
as complicated. Both reflections were thought to have resulted from the fact
that the application tool was an English interface.
Discussion and Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to determine the contribution of gamification to the development of writing skills of seventh
grade students. Unlike the studies in the literature, this study was prepared
an action plan on how digital gamification could be associated with writing
skills. A content was presented in this action plan about how to use digital games which were not
recommended in the Turkish Language Curriculum (2018) but which were thought to
have an important place in students’ daily lives. In this way, it was tried to
determine the thoughts of how the gamification made by digital game serve the
students' writing education and how they affected their motivation. An action
plan was presented on how to improve the negative motivations of the students
about writing education in the literature.
The aim of gamification was to
make the teaching process more interesting for students (Kapp, 2012). Toward
this aim, a lengthy application process in which qualitative data were
collected intensively was realized. From the literature on Turkey, only the
work of Genc Ersoy (2017) was included as it associated the Turkish language
teaching process with the digital
teaching process. Genc Ersoy (2017) concluded
that digital gamification in their work increased the interest of the
students and made the teaching process increasingly effective. This direction
supported the results of the current
study. Nevertheless, different working groups were formed in the present study. The working groups
comprised seventh grade students, whereas those in the work of Genc Ersoy
(2017) were composed of fourth grade students. The current work focused on
writing skills, whereas Ersoy (2017) considered vocabulary only. This study
differs from other studies in the literature in terms of its relation
with gamification and writing education, which
were complex for students
(Demirel & Sahinel, 2006) and thus developed negative attitudes (Maltepe,
2006; Ungan, 2007).
A number of studies (Cruaud,
2016; Figueroa Flores, 2015; Huner, 2018; Gellar-Goad, 2015; Karatekin, 2017;
Rachels & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2018) related to the relationship between
language arts and digital gamification generally centered on second language
education. Other studies on the digital gamification of language arts in Turkey
include those by Guasch, Espasa, Alvarez, and Kirschner
(2013) and by Cook, Gremo, and Morgan
(2017). The study conducted by Cook, Gremo, and Morgan (2017) with
eighth grade students had common features related to the interest of the
current study. They also integrated the writing process in their own work in a
multidimensional way. However, in this study, gamification was dealt with in a
different perspective from other studies in the literature. This difference was
that it related the writing skills to the gamification in terms of the Turkish
language education as a mother tongue.
The participants set out the
subject, characters, barriers, and helping conditions on the basis of their
preliminary knowledge and past experiences. In this way, the activities
performed in the writing process revealed the participants' prior knowledge,
and the content of the game presented information about the narrators. The same
applied to the players. The responses during the movements and in the face of
difficulties provided information about the players. The response of the
students to the learning activities also served as a direct indication of their
motivation (Glover, 2013). This information was based on interviews related to
the daily life experiences of the participants. Games put emotions into action
(Buckley & Doyle, 2016). Therefore, the characteristics and experiences of
each learner must be considered while the playout process is being applied
(Kiryakova, Angelova, & Yordanova, 2014). From this point of view, the
actuation process clearly combined in-school and out-of-school life. It
overlaped with the results of the work of Lee and Hammer (2011), which
supported the result of the current study. Lee and Hammer (2011) described
digital gamification as different. They stated that it could contribute to the
daily life experiences of the students through the linking of the process of
gamification with the teaching process. In this study, gamification was based
on associating the daily life experiences of the students with the writing
process in the classroom and thus motivating them. The data obtained from the
study reveals this.
Digital gamification in the
writing process was thought to facilitate classroom management. With the role
of actors and narrators, the entire class was included in the digital authoring
process. This feature ensured equal participation. Hence, the teaching process
was considered highly efficient. Hibbard (2015), who proposed an active
classroom environment to link play to the writing process, supported this end
result. According to him, the writing process improved creativity. Students
felt comfortable with digital gamification and are willing to try new things
(Cahyani, 2016). In the process
of creative writing,
narrators present a problem in the text. Then,
players made moves according to these problems to improve their problem-solving
skills. This result was also supported by different studies (Kapp, 2012; Kayali
& Yilmaz, 2017; Ozer, Kanbul, & Ozdamli, 2018;
Urh, Vukovic, & Jereb, 2015).
Gee (2013) related
such condition to the problem solving involved in game design.
As a result of this study, it was concluded that the students' interest towards
the lesson increased and fun for students thanks
to the problem solving process offered by gamification.
It was seen that this fun content
contributed to the development of writing skills. The research of El Tantawi,
Sadaf, and AlHumaid (2018), which involved in the writing process of a
different study group with the writing process, was to support the results of
this research in order to improve its writing skills. Hibbard (2015), in his
study, concluded that most of the students'
writing skills developed to a
certain extent. As a result of this research, the aspects contributed were to
be careful about writing and punctuation and developing collaborative writing
skills. Different studies in the literature (Buchinger & SilvaHounsell,
2018; Halloluwa et al., 2018; Sánchez-Martín, Cañada-Cañada, &
Dávila-Acedo, 2017) showed that gamification supported collaborative work.
Unlike many studies, Robson et al. (2015) stated that gamification was led to
individual competition. However, it was thought that the writing process
performed by gamification provided a content that was appropriate to the level.
Similar studies (Gee, 2008; Kingsley & Grabner-Hagen, 2015; Olson, 2010;
Ozer, Kanbul, & Ozdamli, 2018) showed that students were motivated,
encouraged and provided an efficient teaching process. A study conducted by
Lam, Hew, and Chiu (2018) concluded that gamification increased motivation to
the writing process and students improved their writing skills. Mast (2017), on
the other hand, stated that students could not maintain their motivation for a
long period of time in relation to the gamification process.
Recommendations
The current study was conducted
on the Authorship and Writing course. The teachers in the study were more
liberal in terms of selecting this lesson over a traditional Turkish language
lesson. To make this elective
course useful and interesting for the students,
teachers can prepare lesson plans that integrate the
course process with digital gamification. If these plans are submitted to the
schools by the Ministry of National Education, the teaching process can be
realized effectively.
The learning outcomes of the
application process constitute the learning outcomes of the Writing Turkish
Language Curriculum (2018). The resulting product is a game developed in the
form of a digital story. The application tool serves this purpose as well. As
the research findings reveal, this text-creation process attracts students’ attention. In this respect, it can be used as a
narrative text type in Turkish language lesson.
During the writing process in
this research, we obtained information about the students' prior knowledge and past experiences. The use of this application in the Turkish
teaching process may facilitate the movement of the teaching
period out of school. At this point,
permanent behavior change can
be realized and controlled with minimal effort.
We considered the individual
differences of the students. Hence, the students discovered their strengths and
weaknesses. According to their own characteristics, the most appropriate
behavior could be understood. All students were actively involved in the
teaching process. The application process can be made objective-oriented under
the guidance of teachers. All students' high-level thinking skills can be
developed in line with these goals.
References
Ayhan, S. & Taner, A. (2016).
Examination of students’ perceptions about computer lessons carried out with
gamification. Turkish Journal Of Computer
And Mathematics Education, 7(3),553-577. doi:10.16949/turkbilmat.277871
Baker, C., Davis, D., & Dolgon,
C. (2014). Toward a participatory
imagination: Lessons on engagement from popular education and participatory
action research. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
Bal, M. (2018). Cok katmanli
okuryazarlik baglaminda oyunlastirmanin Turkce ogretim surecine katkisi. Ana Dili Egitimi Dergisi, 6(1), 183-201.
Bogott, T. (2017). An exploration of technology integration
using digital game-based learning with in early childhood settings. Retrieved
on 26 February 2019 from https://search.
proquest.com/docview/1961180994?accountid=15340
Bolat, Y. İ.,
Simsek, O., Ulker, U. (2017). Oyunlastirilmil çevrimiçi sinif yanitlama
sisteminin akademik basariya etkisi ve sisteme yönelik gorusler. Abant Izzet Baysal Universitesi Egitim
Fakultesi Dergisi, 17(4), 1741-1761.
Buchinger, D. & da Silva Hounsell,
M. (2018). Guidelines for designing and using collaborative- competitive
serious games. Computers & Education,
118, 133-149. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2017.11.007
Buckley, P. & Doyle, E.
(2016). Gamification and student motivation. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6),
1162-1175.doi=10.1080/10494820.2014.964263
Cahyani, A. D. (2016).
Gamification approach to enhance students engagement in studying language
course. Matec Web of Conferences, 58(1),
1-6. doi:10.1051/matec5conf/ 2016803006
Cammarota, J., Romero, A., &
Stovall, D. (2014). Raza studies: The
public option for educational revolution. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona
Press.
Chen, M. H.,
Tseng, W. T., & Hsiao, T. Y. (2018). The effectiveness of digital game‐based vocabulary learning: A framework‐based view of meta‐analysis.
British Journal of Educational
Technology, 49(1), 69-77.
Cohan, A. & Honigsfeld, A.
(2011). Breaking the mold of preservice
and inservice teacher education: Innovative and successful practices for the
twenty-first century. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Cook, M. P.,Gremo, M. &
Morgan, R. (2017). We’re just playing. Simulation
& Gaming, 48(2), 199-218. doi:10.1177/1046878116684570
Cózar-Gutiérrez, R. &
Sáez-López, J. (2016). Game-based learning and gamification in initial teacher
training in the social sciences: an experiment with MinecraftEdu. International Journal Of Educational
Technology In Higher Education, 13(1), 1-11. doi:10.1186/s41239- 016-0003-4
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Nitel arastirma yontemleri (Cev. M.
Butun ve S. B. Demir). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi.
Cruaud,
C. (2016). The play fulframe: Gamification in a French as a foreign language
class.
Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching, 12(4),
330-343. doi:10.1080/17501229. 2016. 1213268
Cibik, S. (2010). Oyunlastirma yoluyla islenen siirlerde
parcalarustu birimlerin karsilastiriması (Yayimlanmamis yüksek lisans
tezi). Mugla Sitki Kocman Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu.
Demirel,
O. & Sahinel, M. (2006). Turkce
ogretimi. Ankara: Pegem.
Denham, A. (2018). Using a
digital game as an advance organizer. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 66(1), 1-24.
doi:10.1007/s11423-017-9537-y
El Tantawi, M., Sadaf, S., &
Al Humaid, J. (2018). Using gamification to develop academic writing skills in
dental undergraduate students. European
Journal of Dental Education, 22(1), 15-22. doi.org/10.1111/eje.12238
Ferguson, P. B., McNiff, J.,
& Whitehead, J. (2000). Collaboration for co-liberation. In J. McNiff
(Ed.), Action research in organisations (pp.
115-124). Milton ParK. Routledge.
Fettes, T. (2007). A case for action? Skills for active
citizenship research. London: Quality Improvement Agency.
FigueroaFlores, J. F. (2015).
Using gamification to enhance second language learning. Digital Education Review, 27, 32-54.
Fis Erumit, S. (2016). Oyunlastirma yaklasimlarinin eğitimde
kullanimi: Tasarim tabanli bir arastirma (Yayimlanmamis doktora tezi). Ataturk
Universitesi Egitim Bilimleri Enstitusu, Erzurum.
Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and
games. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of
games: Connecting youth, games, and learning (pp. 21-40). Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Gee,
J. P. (2013). Games for learning. Educational
Horizons, 91(4), 16-20.
Gellar-Goad, T. (2015). World of
Wordcraft: Foreign language grammar and composition taught as a term-long
role-playing game. Arts and Humanities in
Higher Education, 14(4), 368-382. doi:10.1177/1474022214556030
Genc Ersoy, B. (2017). Turkce dersinde oyunlastirmanin ilkokul
ogrencilerinin soz varligina ve motivasyonlarina etkisi (Yayimlanmamis
doktora tezi). Anadolu Universitesi Egitim Bilimleri Enstitusu, Eskişehir.
Glover, I.
(2013). Play as you learn: Gamification as a technique for motivating learners.
In A. Couros & V. Irvine (Eds.) Proceedings
of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and
Telecommunications (pp. 1999–2008). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Gocer, A. (2014).
Yazma tutum olcegi’nin (YTO) Turkceye Uyarlanmasi: Gecerlik ve guvenirlik
calismasi. Kastamonu Egitim Dergisi, 22(2),
515-524.
Gocer, A. (2010).
Turkce öğretiminde yazma egitimi. Uluslararası
Sosyal Araştirmalar Dergisi, 3(12), 178-194.
Gogus, B. (1978). Orta dereceli okullarimizda Turkce ve yazin
egitimi. Ankara: Kadıoglu Matbaacilik.
Guasch, T., Espasa, A., Alvarez,
I.M., & Kirschner, P. A.(2013). Effects of feedback on collaborative
writing in an online learning environment. Distance
Education, 34(3), 324- 338. doi:10.1080/01587919.2013.835772.
Halloluwa,
T.,Vyas, D., Usoof, H., & Hewagamage, K. P. (2018). Gamification for
development: A case of collaborative learning in Sri Lankan primary schools. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 22(2),
391-407.doı 10.1007/s00779-017-1073-6
Hazar, Z.,Tekkursun Demir, G.,
& Dalkiran, H. (2017). Ortaokul ogrencilerinin geleneksel oyun ve dijital
oyun algilarinin incelenmesi: Karsilastirmali metafor calismasi. Ankara Universitesi Beden Egitimi ve Spor Yuksekokulu
Spormetre Beden Egitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 15(4), 179-190.
Hibbard, L. (2015). Battling with
monsters: Integrated gamification in the first year composition classroom.
Retrieved on 26 February 2019 from https://search.proquest.com/docview/
1678945478?accountid=15340
Homer, B. D., Raffaele, C., Ober,
T. M., Plass, J. L., & Ali, A. (2018). Improving high school students'
executive functions through digital gameplay. Computers & Education, 117, 50-58. doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.09.011
Huner, O. (2018). Oyunlastirmanin ikinci dil egitiminde
akademik başari ve motivasyon uzerine olan etkileri. (Yayimlanmamis yuksek
lisans Tezi). Bahcesehir Universitesi, Egitim Bilimleri Enstitusu, Istanbul.
Johnson, A. P. (2014). Eylem araştırması el kitabı (Cev. Y.
Uzuner ve M. Ö. Anay). Ankara: Ani. Johnson, A.P. (2005). A short guide to action research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Kalkan, A.
(2016). 3B sanal dunyalarda
oyunlastirmanin ortaokul 5. sinif ogrencilerinin başari, akis ve tutumlarina
etkisinin arastirilmasi. (Yayimlanmamis yuksek lisans tezi). Ataturk
Universitesi Egitim Bilimleri Enstitusu, Erzurum.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and
instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education.
San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Karagiorgas, D. N. & Niemann,
S. (2017). Gamification and game-based learning. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 45(4), 499-519.
Karatas, E. (2015). Gamification
in education: Research trends. Kirsehir Egitim
Fakultesi Dergisi, 15(2), 315-333.
Karatekin,
İ. (2017). Yeni başlayanlar icin yabanci
dilde kelime bilgisi ogretiminde
oyunlaştirmanin
kullanimi. (Yayimlanmamis
yuksek lisans tezi). Cag Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu. Mersin.
Kayali, S. & Yilmaz, M.
(2017). An exploratory study to assess analytical and logical thinking skills
of the software practitioners using a gamification perspective. Suleyman Demirel Universitesi Fen Bilimleri
Enstitusu Dergisi, 21(1), 178-189.. doi:10.19113/sdufbed.39411
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., &
Nixon, R. (2014). The action research
planner: Doing critical participatory action research. London: Springer
International.
Khan, A., Ahmad, F. H., &
Malik, M. M. (2017). Use of digital game based learning and gamification in
secondary school science: The effect on student engagement, learning and gender
difference. Education and Information
Technologies, 22(6), 2767-2804.
Kingsley, T. L. & Grabner‐Hagen, M. M. (2015). Gamification. Journal of Adolescent &Adult Literacy,
59(1), 51-61.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.426
Kingsley, T. L. & Grabner‐Hagen, M. M. (2018). Vocabulary by gamification. Reading Teacher, 71(5), 545-555.
doi:10.1002/trtr.1645
Kiryakova, G., Angelova, N.,
& Yordanova, N. (2014). Gamification in education. In Proceedings of 9th International Balkan Education and Science
Conference. Edirne: Trakya University.
Kocadere,
S. A., Caglar, S. & Simsek, N. (2015). Cevrimici ogrenme ortamlarinda
oyunlastirma.
Journal of
Educational Sciences & Practices, 14(27), 83-102.
Lam, Y. W., Hew, K. F., &
Chiu, K. F. (2018). Improving argumentative writing: effects of a blended
learning approach and gamification. Language
Learning & Technology, 22(1), 97-118.
Lee, J. J. & Hammer, J.
(2011). Gamification in education: what, how, why bother? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15(2), 1-5.
Lincoln,
Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). NaturalisticInquiry.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Maltepe, S. (2006). Turkce
ogretiminde yazili anlatim uygulamalari icin bir secenek: Yaratici yazma
yaklasimi. Ankara Universitesi Dil
Dergisi, 132, 56-66.
Mast, E. (2017). The gamification
of an online english composition course: An action research exploration of
student motivation and engagement. Retrieved on 26 February 2019 from
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1946680557?accountid=15340
McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J.
(2006). All you need know about action
research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Merriam,
S. B. (2013). Nitel arastirma desen ve
uygulama icin bir rehber (Cev. S. Turan).
Ankara:
Nobel.
Miles M. & Huberman,
M. (1994). An expanded source book
qualitative data analysis (2nd. ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Milli Egitim Bakanligi [MEB].
(2018). Turkce dersi ogretim programi
(1-8. siniflar). Ankara: MEB Talim Terbiye Kurulu Baskanligi.
Milli Egitim Bakanligi [MEB].
(2006). Ilkogretim 6-8. sinif Turkce
ogretim programi. Ankara: MEB Talim Terbiye Kurulu Baskanligi.
Newzoo. (2017). The global games market will reach $108.9
billion in 2017 with mobile taking 42%”. Retrieved on 26 February 2019 from
https://newzoo.com/
Newzoo. (2017). The Turkish gamer, 2017. Retrieved on 26 February 2019 from
https://newzoo.com/
Nolan, J. & McBride, M.
(2013). Beyond gamification: re-conceptualizing game-based learning in early
childhood environments. Information
Communication and Society, 17(5), 594- 608.
doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.808365
Olson, C. K. (2010). Children’s
motivations for video game play in the context of normal development. Review of General Psychology, 14(2),
180-187. doi: 10.1037/a0018984
Ozer, H. H., Kanbul, S., &
Ozdamli, F. (2018). Effects of the gamification supported flipped classroom
model on the attitudes and opinions regarding game-coding education. International Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Learning (iJET), 13(1), 109- 123.https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i01.7634
Ozgur, H., Cuhadar, C., &
Akgun, F. (2018). Current trends in gamification research in education. Kastamonu Egitim Dergisi, 99, 1-9. doı:
10.24106/kefdergi.380982
Ozturk, S. (2015). Using gamification in effective team planning
and team activity. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Bahcesehir University
Graduate School of Science. Istanbul.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel arastirma ve degerlendirme yontemleri (Cev.
M. Butun & S. B. Demir). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Pesare, E., Roselli, T.,
Corriero, N., & Rossano, V. (2016). Game-based learning and gamification to
promote engagement and motivation in medical learning contexts. Smart Learning Environments, 3(1),
doi:10.1186/s40561-016-0028-0
Piller, Y. (2016). Factors
influencing parental attitudes toward digital game-based learning Retrieved on
26 February 2019 from https://search.proquest.com/docview/
1871265364?accountid=15340
Polat, Y. (2014). Bir vaka incelemesi: Oyunlastirma yontemi ve
Ingilizce ogrencilerinin motivasyonu uzerine etkisi. (Yayinlanmamis yuksek
lisans tezi). Cag Universitesi, Mersin.
Prensky,
M. (2007). Digital game-based learning.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rachels, J. R. &
Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J. (2018). The effects of a mobile gamification app on elementary
students' spanish achievement and self-efficacy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(1), 72-89.
Robson, K.,
Plangger, K., Kietzmann, J. H., McCarthy, I., &Pitt, L. (2015). Is it all a
game? Understanding the principles of gamification. Business Horizons, 58(4), 411-420. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2015.03.006
Rugoero, D. & Green, L.
(2017). Problem solving through digital game design: A quantitative content
analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 73,
28-37. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.024
Sánchez-Martín, J.,Cañada-Cañada,
F., & Dávila-Acedo, M. A. (2017). Just a game? Gamifying a general science
class at university: Collaborative and competitive work implications.
Thinking Skills & Creativity,
26, 51-59.
doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2017.05.003
Sari, A. &
Altun, T. (2016). Oyunlaştırma yontemi ile islenen bilgisayar derslerinin
etkililigine yonelik ogrenci goruslerinin incelenmesi. Turkish Journal of Computer & Mathematics Education, 7(3),
553-577. doi: 10.16949/turkbilmat.277871
Sever, S. & Bical, A. (2018).
Use of game elements in gamification: a case study on adidas micoach, khan
academy, superbetter and swarm applıcatıons. Erciyes Iletisim Dergisi, 5(3), 216-236.
Sezgin, S.,
Bozkurt, A., Yılmaz, E. A., & Linden, N.V.D. (2018). Oyunlastirma, egitim
ve kuramsal yaklasimlar: Ogrenme sureslerinde motivasyon, adanmsilik ve
surdurulebilirlik. Mehmet Akif Ersoy
Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, (45), 169-189.
Storium. (2018).
Storium. Retrieved on 29 November 2018 from https://storium.com/ Stringer, E.
T., Christensen, L. M., & Baldwin, S. C. (2010). Integrating teaching, learning, and
action research: Enhancing
instruction in the K-12 classroom.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Sung, H. & Hwang, G. (2018).
Facilitating effective digital game-based learning behaviors and learning
performances of students based on a collaborative knowledge construction
strategy. Interactive Learning
Environments, 26(1), 118-134. Retrieved on 26 February 2019 from
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1283334
Sahin, M. C. & Namli, N. A.
(2016). Gamification and effects on students’ science lesson achievement. International Journal on New Trends in
Education & Their Implications (IJONTE), 7(1), 41-47.
Sahin, M. & Samur, Y. (2017).
Dijital cagda bir ogretim yontemi: Oyunlaştırma. Ege Egitim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 1(1), 1-27.
Sahin, Y. L., Karadag, N.,
Bozkurt, A., Dogan, E., Kilinc, H., Ugur, S., Gumus, S., Ozturk, A. &
Guler, C. (2017). The use of gamification in distance education: A web-based
gamified quiz application. Turkish Online
Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 8(4), 372-395. doi:10.17569/tojqi.329742
Taskin, N. &
Cakmak, E. K. (2017). Ogrenci merkezli ogrenme ortamlarinda oyunlaştirmanin
alternatif degerlendirme amacli kullanimi. Bartin
Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 6(3), 1227-1248.
doi:10.14686/buefad.333286
Tomal, D. R. (2003). Action research for educators. Lanham,
MD: Scarecrow Press.
Tompkins, G. E. (1982). Seven
reasons why children should write stories. Language
Arts, 59(7), 718-21.
Ungan, S. (2007).Yazma
becerisinin gelistirilmesi ve onemi. Dumlupinar
Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, 23(2), 461-472
Urh, M., Vukovic,
G., & Jereb, E. (2015). The model for introduction of gamification into e-
learning in higher education. Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 388-397. doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.154
Vaughan, M. &
Burnaford, G. (2016). Action research in graduate teacher education: A review
of the literature 2000–2015. Educational
Action Research, 24(2), 280-299. doi:10.1080/ 09650792.2015.1062408
Werbach, K. & DanHunter.
(2012). For the win: How game thinking
can revolutionizeyour business. Philedelphia, PA: Wharton Dijital Editions.
Yapici, I. U. & Karakoyun, F.
(2017). Gamification in biology teaching: A sample of kahoot application. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative
Inquiry, 8(4), 396-414. doi:10.17569/tojqi.335956
Yildirim, A. & Simsek, H.
(2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastirma
yontemleri (9. baski.). Ankara: Seckin.
Yildirim,
I. & Demir, S. (2016). Students’ views about gamification based curriculum
for the
lesson of “Teaching Principles
and Methods”. Uluslararası Egitim
Programlari ve Ogretim Calismalari Dergisi, 6(11), 85-101.
Yildirim, I. & Demir, S.
(2014). Oyunlastirma ve Egitim. International
Journal of Human Sciences, 11(1), 655-670.
doi:10.14687/ijhs.v11i1.2765
Zireva, D. (2017). Cul-De-Sac
from diehard traditions: The demise of action research in teacher education. Educational Research And Reviews, 12(15),
725-731.
No comments