Prospective preschool and primary school teachers’ knowledge and opinion about gamification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Gamification is a rather new method in education and unfortunately is not a widely known method among Hungarian primary school teachers in Romania. This paper presents the knowledge and opinion of pre-service preschool and primary school teachers about gamification and its use in education. In this study 81 Primary and Preschool Pedagogy students from BabeșBolyai University were participated, 80 of them were female and 1 male. 40 students are in first year and 41 in second year of their studies. The research was carried out during February-March 2020 at Babeș-Bolyai University, Romania. To get to know their point of view and knowledge about gamification, an online questionnaire was developed by the authors. The obtained data was quantitatively (closed questions) and qualitatively (open questions) analyzed. According to the results, half of the students think that there is no difference between gamification and game-based learning and for three quarter it is difficult to see the differences. This is surprising as students were taught about gamification before filling in the questionnaire. Students perceive a high level of utility of gamification in education. The most frequently mentioned benefits by the participants are that gamification motivates and actively involves students. Even if participants gave many advantages of integrating gamification in education, the biggest disadvantage is related with the time necessary for preparation of a gamified lesson and for the time-allocation during the lesson. As obstacles of using gamification, they mentioned the negative attitude or/and lack of methodological knowledge of some teachers and the constrains of the curriculum. Most of the preservice teachers prefer both paper-pencil based and technology-aid gamification. They consider solving exercises the most suitable for gamification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".