MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Engaging Engineering Education: A Gamification-Based Learning Approach

2024· article· en· W4407950436 on OpenAlexaff
Navid Zare, Atousa Hajshirmohammadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEngineering educationHuman–computer interactionEngineering managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work-in-progress research-to-practice paper introduces the Gamified Learning Puzzle (GLP) platform to enhance student engagement and learning effectiveness in engineering education through gamification. The GLP platform design is tailored towards the sequential and prerequisite-based nature of engineering courses whilst being extendable to other disciplines as well. The platform is developed as a web-based application, removing the need for learners to be in a specific location or use a particular device. The back-end development utilizes the Django framework, chosen for its feature-rich environment, and MySQL for robust database management. Key gamification elements such as “Points”, “Levels/Iteration”, and “Feedback” are integrated into the design to enhance the learning experience. The platform consists of two main components, the Instructor Interface and the Learner Interface. The Instructor Interface allows the course instructor to populate a question bank, organize these questions by topic, and create levels within each topic that increase in difficulty. It also enables the specification of prerequisite relationships between levels. The Learner Interface includes an uncompleted jigsaw puzzle that reveals its pieces as learners progress through the game. Preliminary trials will involve the integration of the platform into select engineering courses at a pilot level, refining the plat-form based on feedback obtained from focus groups. To measure impact on students' learning experience and learning outcome, comprehensive surveys and study of pre- and post-exposure grades will be conducted. Further plans include integrating AI algorithms to provide learners with personalized feedback and assist instructors in generating content.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207