LEARNING OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING THROUGH …

LEARNING OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING THROUGH SERIOUS GAMES

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

By

Suhni Abbasi

Department of Computer Science,

Faculty of Engineering, Science and Technology,

ISRA University, Hyderabad

October, 2020

LEARNING OBJECT ORIENTED

PROGRAMMING THROUGH SERIOUS GAMES

By

Suhni Abbasi

Names of Supervisor and Co-Supervisors

Prof. Dr. Hameedullah Kazi (Supervisor) Professor (Computer Science)

Dr. Ahmed Waliullah Kazi (Co-Supervisor) Associate Professor (Computer Science)

Dr. Kamran Khawaja (Co-Supervisor) Associate Professor (Computer Science)

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, I am highly thankful to Almighty ALLAH (SWT), who bestowed with

education, skills, capabilities, and most importantly, strength to undertake such

significant PhD research work. I would not have been able to achieve this goal

without His blessings and divine guidance.

I would like to express my deep gratitude and high respect to the

supervisor, Prof. Dr. Hameedullah Kazi. He has always been an important

source of inspiration, guidance and encouragement and whose constructive

criticism, wisdom, valuable comments, and inspirational feedback at all the

stages of work, has relatively passionate me to complete this research work.

Without his kind of crucial input, the research could not have been done at all!

I am deeply indebted to my co-supervisor, Dr. Ahmed Waliullah Kazi,

and sincerely grateful to Dr. Kamran Khowaja for providing useful insights,

always supporting and encouraging at every step of this research work. Their

kind reviews, hard questions, relevant feedback, and valuable time contributed

to the completion of the research.

I am very grateful for Sir Arshad Shaikh's guidance at the initial stage of

prototype design and development. He generously supported whenever I stuck

at any point in the phase of prototype development. I wont be in a position to

complete my PhD without his meaningful contribution. I am also grateful to

Prof. Dr. Ahsanullah Baloch, who always discusses research and always

encourages me for research work.

I am intensely grateful to my parents, who are an ocean of prayers and

siblings, and all the family member for their lasting wishes, prayers

iv

unconditional love, concern, and, most importantly, their tremendous support

throughout research work and for life. Special thanks to my husband for his

continuous support, prayers, and encouragement.

I offer special thanks to my friends Mehwish and Mahjabeen Leghari,

Taskeen Buriro, Saima Tunio, and my students supporting my work's

development and evaluation phase. Their discussions and interactions were

making my PhD simply amazing exposure and learning experience.

I take this opportunity to thank all the faculty of ITC, SAU, for their

unconditional moral support in keeping me encouraged and motivated to

accomplish PhD research work.

Sincere thanks to all Faculty of Isra University, especially Prof. Dr.

Ahsanullah Baloch, Dr. Mutee-ur-Rehman, Sir Asghar Mughal, Mam Sehrish

Abrejo, Mam Amber Baig, Mam Shadia, who have dedicated their time in

providing their valuable suggestions and efficient support, making research

work easy and achievable and special thanks to those well-wishers who were

practically not in sight but kept me remember in their prayers. Their support

would not be forgotten at any stage of my life.

v

ABSTRACT In today's world, where the promising use of serious games has made

STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics) learning

comfortable and productive, many serious games for learning OOP (Object

Oriented Programming) can be found. However, after many years of

considerable effort, empiric support of serious games is still lacking, especially,

the students’ difficulties and misconceptions preordained to be overcome using

serious games, have not been undertaken to be incorporated. The existing

literature also indicates a revealed paucity in implementing learning theory and

instructional designs to design and develop serious games of OOPs to attain

good learning results. Moreover, it is also debatable that the serious game's

motivation affects student’s learning outcomes.

The OO paradigm includes objects related to real life, so OO's domain

is considered a natural domain (in which work can be done). Nonetheless,

mapping those real-life objects with basic OOP concepts becomes challenging

for the students to understand. Thus, the goal of this thesis is to design and

develop a serious game prototype to resolve the challenges and

misconceptions of the student in learning OOP and achieve positive learning

outcomes. This study is carried out in five phases; in the first phase, the

students' difficulties and misconceptions faced while learning OOP were

identified. The existing studies showed the paradigm shift issues, i.e., from

procedural programming vs OOP, understanding in program flow, memory

management, problem decomposition, comprehension of OOP concepts,

debugging, and the motivational issues. The results of students’ completed

vi

task indicated obstacles in the comprehension of basic OOP concepts.

Moreover, students' feedback results showed that it is difficult to understand

the difference in procedural vs. OOP languages, lack of comprehension, and

applying basic OOP concepts. These difficulties become the main reason for

students' lack of interest in learning OOP. In the second phase of the research,

an extensive review was conducted to study the available serious games

facilitating OOP learning, the various ways they were incorporated in the

learning environment, instructional contents incorporated, game attributes

contributed to learning and motivation, methods of instructional delivery, and

learning theories and effects observed using those serious games. The third

phase of the research is dedicated to designing a serious game model for

learning OOP. The formulated model contains a detailed description of the

instructional contents or difficulties preordained to be overcome, mapping the

instructional steps into the game attributes. Since the model was intended to

improve learning, learning theories on model formulation are also considered.

A serious game prototype is built in the fourth phase to show a logical view of

the proposed model. The developed serious game incorporates all the

components and flow of activities involved in designing the serious game

model. In the fifth and final stage, an experimental evaluation was performed

to show the performance difference in results between the experimental group

of students, who interacted with the developed game and the control group of

the students who used to practice conventional teaching methods.

The results from the experimental evaluation indicate that the

experimental group performs better than the control group. The experimental

group's normalized learning gain is considerably higher than the control group

vii

(p<0.05, paired t-test). The effect size suggests for the experimental group a

substantially greater effect size (d=3.40) relative to the control group. The

perceived motivation effect showed a significant impact of motivation provided

by the serious games prototype on the students' learning outcomes (r=0.530,

p = 0.000). The results of the evaluation study show that the OOsg's perceived

motivation on the IMMS 5-point Likert scale resulted in the highest mean score

for attention (3.87) followed by relevance (3.66) subcategories. There was a

significant difference between the perceived feedback obtained using the

OOsg and those received using the traditional instructions (p<0.05, Wilcoxon

Signed Ranks). This study provided evidence that the overall game experience

was effective, and the developed serious game had the potential to improve

overall understanding of the OOP concepts. For the usability evaluation, the

students showed satisfactory results for the usefulness and quality of the

information provided by the serious game prototype.

This study concludes that the serious game prototype created is an

effective tool for education that can enhance learning outcomes and have the

potential to motivate to learn OOP.

viii

ABBREVIATIONS & SYMBOLS

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page #

Acknowledgments………………………………………………………….. Abstract …………………………………………………………………….. Abbreviations & Symbols ………………………………………………… Table of Contents ………………………………………………………… List of Tables ……………………………………………………………… List of Figures …………………………………………………………….. List of Appendices ………………………………………………………..

iii v

viii ix xiii xv

xviii

CHAPTER – I …………………………………………………………….. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………. 1. OVERVIEW ………………………………………………………….… 2. PROBLEM STATEMENT …………………………………………….. 3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS …………………………………………… 4. OBJECTIVES ………………………………………………………….. 5. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS ………………………………….

1 1 1 5 6 7 8

CHAPTER – II …………………………………………………………… LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………………….. 1. INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENTS OF OOP …………………………

1.1 Abstraction ………………………………………………………… 1.2 Class ……………………………………………………………… 1.3 Encapsulation …………………………………………………… 1.4 Inheritance ………………………………………………………… 1.5 Object ……………………………………………………………… 1.6 Message Passing ………………………………………………… 1.7 Method …………………………………………………………… 1.8 Polymorphism ……………………………………………………

2. IDENTIFICATION OF DIFFICULTIES AND MISCONCEPTIONS IN LEARNING OOP FROM THE EXISTING STUDIES …………… 2.1 Discussion …………………………………………………………

3. POSSIBLE CAUSES OF DIFFICULTIES IN LEARNING OOP…… 3.1 Improper Feedback for High Cognition Topics ……………….. 3.2 Lack of Comprehension ……………….………………………… 3.3 The shift from understanding to implementation ………………

4. COMPETENCIES REQUIRED FOR MASTERING OOP ………… 4.1 Havenga Competency Model (2008) ….……………………… 4.2 COMMOOP Structural Model (2016) ………………………….

4.2.1 OOP Knowledge and Skills ……………………………….. 4.2.2 Mastering Representation ………………………………… 4.2.3 Cognitive Process …………..…………………………….. 4.2.4 Metacognitive Processes ………………………………….

4.3 Simona Hierarchy-based Competency Structure Model (2019) …… 5. APPROACHES FOR TEACHING OOP …………………………….

5.1 Objects-First Approach ………………………………………….

10 10 10 12 12 13 14 14 14 15 15

16 20 24 24 24 25 25 26 27 27 27 28 28 28 30 30

x

5.2 Imperative-First Approach ……………………………………… 5.3 Concept-First Approach …………………………… …………….. 5.4 GUI-First Approach ….…………………………………………….. 5.5 Game-First Approach ……………………………………………..

6. SERIOUS GAMES (SGs)…………………………… ………………… 7. AVAILABLE TOOLS FOR LEARNING OOP ………………………..

7.1 MUPPETS ………………………………………………………… 7.2 Alice………………………………………………………………… 7.3 Scratch ……………………………………………………………… 7.4 Jeliot ………………………………………………………… ……… 7.5 Greenfoot ………………………………………………………….. 7.6 BlueJ ……………………………………………………………….. 7.7 Ztech de ……………………………………………………………. 7.8 POO Serious Games ………………………………………………. 7.9 Discussion …………………………………………………………..

8. GAMES ATTRIBUTE CONTRIBUTING TO LEARNING AND MOTIVATION FOR OOP ……………………………………………… 8.1 Game Attributes by Garris et al., (2002) ………………………… 8.2 Game Attributes by Wilson et al., (2009) ……………………….. 8.3 Game Attributes by Yusoff, (2010) ……………………………… 8.4 Game Attributes by Bedwell et al., (2012) ……………………… 8.5 Game Attributes by dos SANTOS, (2019) ……………………… 8.6 Discussion …………………………… …………………………….

9. LEARNINGTHEORIES AND SGs …………………………… ………. 9.1 Behaviourism Learning Theory …………………………… …….

9.1.1 Behaviourism instantiation within SGs …………………… 9.2 Cognitivism Learning Theory …………………………………….

9.2.1 Cognitivism instantiation within SGs ……………………… 9.3 Constructivism Learning Theory …………………………………. 9.3.1 Constructivism instantiation within SGs ………………….. 9.4 Experimentalism Theory …………………………… ……………. 9.4.1 Experimentalism instantiation within SGs ………………… 9.5 Discussion …………………………………………………………..

10. METHODS OF INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENTS DELIVERY ……… 10.1 The Gagné-Briggs-model ……………………………………….. 10.2 Dick-Carey Model ………………………………………………… 10.3 Kemp Design Model …………………………… ……………….. 10.4 Gerlach-Ely Model …………………………… ………………….. 10.5 The ARCS Model of Motivational Design ………………………

11. SUMMARY ……………………………………………………… ……..

31 32 33 34 35 36 38 38 39 40 40 41 41 42

52 53 53 54 54 54 55 65 65 67 67 68 69 70 71 73 75 75 77 79 80 81 82

xi

CHAPTER – III ……………………………………………………………. METHODS AND TOOLS ………………………………………………… 1. INVESTIGATION ON STUDENTS PERFORMANCE ……………

1.1 Experimental Design …………………………………………… 1.1.1 Demographical details: ………………………………… 1.1.2 Activity details: …………………………………………… 1.1.3 Procedure ………………………………………………… 1.1.4 Results: ……………………………………………………

2. STUDENT'S FEEDBACK FOR BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE OOP CONCEPTS ………………………………………………

3. THE PROPOSED COMPETENCY STRUCTURE MODEL …… 4. PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED MODEL……………………… 5. DESIGN OF THE MODEL ………………………………………… 5.1 Identification of attributes for Serious Games Model …… 5.1.1 Identification of the instructional contents and

difficulties needs to be incorporated as an input in the model ……………………………………………

5.1.2 Identification of the instructional design for the delivery of the contents …………………………………

5.1.3 Identification of the game attributes which contributes to learning and motivation…………………

5.1.4 Determine the expected learning outcomes to be achieved ……………………………………………….

5.2 Structure of the model ………………………………………… 5.2.1 Three phases of the model ………………………… 5.2.2 Linking the game attributes with instructional design

6. DEVELOPMENT OF THE OOsg ……………………………………. 6.1 Tools used ………………………………………..………………

6.1.1 Java Standard Edition(Java SE)……………………. 6.1.2 JavaFX Scene Builder v10.0…………………………. 6.1.2 JSON Library………………………………………….

6.2 Description About the OOsg ………………………………. 6.2.1 Navigation between OOsg screens ………………. 6.2.2 Game mechanics and dynamics………………….. 6.2.3 The UI of OOsg……………………………………… 6.2.4 Logfile generated as a result of playing OOsg …..

85 85 85 85 85 86 89 89

95

103 105 106 106

107

109

112

114 115 116 118 121 121 121 122 122 123 124 126 142

xii

CHAPTER – IV ……………………………………………….………….. RESULTS ……………………………………………………….………… 1. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN ………………………………..………….. 1.1 Experiment #1: Pre-Test Session …………………….…………

1.1.1 Personal information ……………………………...……….. 1.1.2 Institutional information ……………………………………. 1.1.3 Background in computer programming ……….…………. 1.1.4 Background in computer gaming …………..……..……… 1.1.5 Pre-Test learning activity session ………..……..………..

1.2. Division of the control and experimental groups …….……….. 1.3. Rubric for Student’s Assessment ……………………….……… 1.4. Teaching and Practice Session ……………………………..….. 1.5. Experiment#2: Post-Test Session ……………………..………..

1.5.1 Post-Test learning activity session …………..………….. 1.5.2 Parameters of the evaluation study ………….………….. 1.5.2.1 Perceived motivation ……………………………. 1.5.2.2 Perceived feedback …………………….………. 1.5.2.3 Game experience ……………………….………. 1.5.2.4 System usability ……………………….…………

2. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ……………………………….…………. 2.1 Result of Experimental Analysis …………………………………

2.1.1 Study-1: The difference in students’ performance for learning OOP with and without the intervention of prototype ……………………………………………………

2.1.2 Study-2: The difference in students’ normalized learning gain for learning OOP with and without the intervention of prototype …………………………………………………

2.1.3 Study-3: The effect size of the serious game prototype on learning outcomes ……………………………………..

2.1.4 Study-4: The effect of perceived motivation on the learning outcomes of the students ………………………

2.2 Results of Evaluation …………………………………………… 2.2.1 Results of perceived motivation ……………………….. 2.2.2 Results of perceived feedback ………………………… 2.2.3 Result of game experience ……………………………. 2.2.4 Results of system usability ……………………….

143 143 143 145 145 146 147 148 150 151 152 152

155 155 156

156 157 158 158 160 161

161

163

165

167 170 171 180 184 189

CHAPTER – V DISCUSSION

193 193

CHAPTER - VI CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

201 201

REFERENCES 205

APPENDICES

220

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Description Page

II-1 Comprehensive difficulties identified from existing work…… 22

II-2 Summary of the existing studies used serious games for learning OOP……………………………………………………

46

II-3 Summary of game attributes identified from the existing studies……………………………………………………………

57

II-4 Summarized learning theories, their major theorist, related learning method, game genre, and example games……..…

74

II-5 Gagne events of instruction and their associated actions (Gagné and Medsker, 1996)………………………………...…

76

III-1 Demographical details of the participants…………………… 86

III-2 Responses collected from the participants while solving OOP activities……………………………………………………

91

III-3 Overall mean score, frequency, and percentage for the category procedural programming vs OOP……………………

97

III-4 Overall mean score, frequency, and percentage for category understanding OOP concepts……………………………….…

99

III-5 Overall mean score, frequency, and percentage for category motivation for learning OOP……………………………………

101

III-6 Example game activities incorporated as Gagne instructional events………………………………………………………….…

111

III-7 Game attributes and possible outcomes provided by Garris 2002………………………………………………………………

113

III-8 Placement of the components in the serious games model’s phases…………………………………………………………….

116

III-9 Linking game attributes with the instructional design for the enhancement of the perceived motivation of the player……

121

III-10 Game mechanics and dynamics of OOsg…………………… 125

IV-1 Details about the teaching and practice session with control and experimental Groups………………………………………

154

IV-2 The difference in students’ performance for learning OOP with and without the intervention of prototype…………………

162

IV-3 The difference in students’ normalized learning gain for learning OOP with and without the intervention of prototype..

165

IV-4 The effect size of the OOsg on the learning outcomes……… 167

xiv

IV-5 Pearson correlation showing the effect of perceived motivation on the learning outcomes (control group) ….…….

168

IV-6 Pearson correlation showing the effect of perceived motivation on the learning outcomes (experimental group) …

169

IV-7 Average and standard deviation for the IMMS subcategory attention……………………………………………………………

173

IV-8 Average and standard deviation for the IMMS subcategory relevance…………………………………………………………

175

IV-9 Average and standard deviation for the IMMS subcategory confidence…………………………………………………………

177

IV-10 Average and standard deviation for the IMMS subcategory satisfaction………………………………………………………

178

IV-11

Overall mean score, frequency, standard deviation, and percentage about the learner’s perception of motivation towards learning OOP using OOsg……………………………

180

IV-12

The difference in student’s perception about feedback received while learning OOP with and without the intervention of prototype…………………………………………

182

IV-13 Average and standard deviation for the perceived feedback…………………………………………………………

183

IV-14 Correlation analysis between levels played/reached and the post-test scores………………………………………………….

185

IV-15 Participants comments about the OOsg……………………… 188

IV-16 Average and standard deviation for the usability subcategories……………………………………………………

191

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Description Page

II-1 Organizational quark of OOP given by Amstrong(2006)… 12

II-2 Havenga’s competency model (2008)……………………… 27

II-3 Simona’s hierarchy-based competency structure model (2019)………………………………………………………….. 29

II-4 Kolb experimentalism learning model (2014)……………… 72

II-5 Three phases of Gagné-Briggs instructional activities (Gagné and Briggs, 1974……………………………………. 77

II-6 Dick-Carey model (Dick, et al., 2005)………………………. 79

II-7 Kemp design model (Kemp and Rodriguez, 1992)..……… 80

II-8 Gerlach-Ely instructional design model (Gerlach and Ely, 1980)…………………………………………………………… 81

II-9 Components of the Keller’s ARCS model (Keller, 1983 and Keller, 2010)……………………………………………… 82

III-1 Alignment of the activities with Bloom's learning outcomes model…………………………………………………………... 87

III-2 Summarized responses while solving the OOP activities... 92

III-3 Proposed competency model for mastering OOP skills….. 104

III-4

Summarized difficulties from (A) the existing studies, (B) investigation on student’s activities, and (C) feedback provided from the students…………………………………... 109

III-5 Proposed Serious Game model for learning OOP…...…… 116

III-6 Linking game attributes with instructional model………..… 120

III-7 Navigation between OOsg screens………………………… 128

III-8 Screen 2 – Personal and game control information…….… 124

III-9 Screen 3 – Selection of game scenario……………………. 128

III-10 Screen 4 – Warm-up session……………………………….. 128

III-11 Screen 5 – Selection of game level………………………... 128

III-12 Screen 6 – Learning about the basic concepts of OOP….. 129

III-13 Screen 7 – Goals and rules of games……………………… 129

III-14 Screen 8 – Screen layout of the game levels……………… 132

xvi

III-15 Screen 9a) Level-1 main screen…………………………… 133

III-16 Screen 9b) Level-1 correct attempt made by the player…. 133

III-17 Screen 9c) Level-1 wrong attempt made by the player…... 134

III-18 Screen 9d) Level-1 achievement of game level’s goals….. 134

III-19 Screen 9e) Level-1 Statistics/evaluation as result of completing level………………………………………………. 134

III-20 Screen 10a) Level-2 main screen………………………….. 135

III-21 Screen 10b) Level-2 correct attempt made by the player... 135

III-22 Screen 10c) Level-2 adding details of the attributes……… 136

III-23 Screen 10d) Level-2 wrong attempt made by the player… 136

III-24 Screen 11a) Level-3 main screen…………………………... 137


III-26 Screen 11c) Level-3 adding details of the methods………. 138

III-27 Screen 11d) Level-3 wrong attempt made by the player… 138

III-28 Screen 12a) Level-4 main screen…………………………... 139


III-30 Screen 12c) Level-4 Number of objects created for a class……………………………………………………………. 139

III-31 Screen 12d) Level-4 effect of object destruction on class. 139

III-32 Screen 13a) Level-5 population of classes in combo-box for creating a relationship between classes……………….. 145


III-34 Screen 13c) Level-5 multi-level hierarchy identified by the player…………………………………………………………... 141

III-35 Screen 13d) Level-5 effect of selecting base-class as sub-class………………………………………………………. 145

III-36 Screen 13e) Level-5 effect of selecting the same class as both for child and parent-class………………………………. 141

III-37 Screen 13f) Level- effect of missing class between a hierarchy attempt to be made by the player……………….. 141

III-38 Sample log file generated as a result of interaction with level-1 142

IV-1 Sequence of steps carried out for conducting the experimental study……………………………………………. 144

xvii

IV-2 Gender of the participants………………………………..….. 146

IV-3 Age Group of the participants……………………………….. 146

IV-4 Institute/University of the participants………………….…… 147

IV-5 Program Enrolled of the participants………………..……… 147

IV-6 Prior experience in programming languages……………… 148

IV-7 Experience in types of programming language…………… 148

IV-8 Prior experience of playing games………………………… 149

IV-9 Types of games played………………………………………. 149

IV-10 Frequency of playing games by the participants………….. 150

IV-11 Perceived impact of educational games by the participants…………………………………………………… 150

IV-12 Perceived impact of educational games on participants' learning computer programming…………………………… 150

IV-13 Grouping of students for experimental study………………. 151

IV-14 Average normalized learning gain for control and experimental groups………………………………………….. 164

IV-15 Correlation analysis for perceived motivation and learning outcomes (control group) …………………..……………….. 168

IV-16 Correlation analysis for perceived motivation and learning outcomes (experimental group) …………..………………… 169

IV-17 Evaluation framework used in the study…………………… 170

IV-18 Reliability measure for IMMS……………………...………… 171

IV-19 Comparison between control and experimental group’s perceived motivational level…………………………………. 179

IV-20 Responses for close-ended questions for game experience survey…………………………………………….. 186

IV-21 Rating of overall game experience…………………….…… 187

IV-22 Reliability measure for PSSUQ……………………………… 189

xviii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Description Page

A. Problem scenario for the Identification of difficulties in learning OO……………………………………………………………………

220

B. Details about the learning objectives, designated activities, and related OO concepts ……………………………………………….

222

C. Questionnaire for the Identification of difficulties in learning Object-Orientation ………………………………………………….

223

D. JSON Solution Model…………………………………………… 225

E. Quick Reference to OOsg………………………………………… 226

F. Game Story ………………………………………………............... 229

G. Pre-Test Scenario and associated Questions ………………… 231

H. Rubric for Assessment ……………………………………………. 232

I. Post-Test Scenario and associated Questions …………………. 233

J. Questionnaire for Perceived Motivation …………………………. 234

K. Questionnaire for Perceived Feedback ………………………….. 236

L. Questionnaire for Game Experience……………………………... 237

M. Questionnaire for System Usability …………………………….. 238

N. Pre and post-test raw scores for control and Experimental Groups……………………………………………….......................

239

O. Result of the normality test and paired t-test for study-1……….. 241

P. Result of the normality test and paired t-test for study-2 ……….. 243

Q. Result of the normality test and Wilcoxon Signed rank for perceived feedback………………………………………………...

244

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1. OVERVIEW

Computer programming involves algorithm design, code writing,

debugging, testing and implementation. Computer programming is completely

related to the abstract principles of problem-solving. It requires logical

reasoning to solve various real-world problems in different situations. For

beginners, programming (mainly basic knowledge) is challenging to learn

(Alyami and Alagab, 2013 and Muratte, et al., 2009), because rote learning is

merely impossible. Basic level students cannot solve complex problems;

instead, they need to acquire basic concepts to build a higher cognitive

understanding of advanced programming concepts. Transitioning between the

programming paradigm, such as from procedural programming to object-

oriented programming (OOP) is also a challenging task for the students

(Bennedsen and Schulte, 2007).

The object-oriented paradigm (OO Paradigm) is a more natural domain

because OOP's problem domain is composed of objects related to real-life

objects (Livovský and Porubän, 2014). However, the mapping of those real-

life scenarios with OOP's basic concepts (for example, class, object, attribute,

method, message passing, inheritance, polymorphism, and encapsulation) is

tough to comprehend for students (Yan, 2009).

OOP's approach has many benefits, such as reducing the overall

software development time and providing code reusability and code

2

organization flexibility. However, the high-level software development skills are

required for learning OOP whereas it is complex for students to understand its

underlying concepts clearly in the beginning. The difficulties in learning OOP

needs to be addressed at the earliest level to reduce the frustration to grasp

the advanced topics of OOP and avoid poor learning outcomes.

If the students are presented with the complex and technical problems

at the foundation level, the result may compromise their grades and lose their

interest or demotivate towards the subject. Therefore, mastering the students

in computer programming, creates the urge to identify diverse ways in which

the programming problems can be presented and solved. Therefore, choosing

the correct programming method is important, because the boredom and

current knowledge in programming concepts may also affect students' learning

outcomes (Sandersn and Mueller, 2000). To provide an excellent learning

experience, one should start by conceptualizing OOP basic features and then

moving towards the language's technical details.

However, it remains a challenge for the researchers to provide such an

environment where the whole learning process is followed in a fun and

engaging way, as well as maximum learning outcomes, could be achieved.

The learning environment like learning by playing games that can motivate

students to learn entertainingly. Incorporating games in terms of the curriculum

means converting the instructional contents such as physics law, chemistry

equation, or the law of supply and demand into the game mechanics, operating

in independent systems based on choices and results (Perrotta, et al., 2013).

3

Besides, games help stimulate the learner's abstract thinking into the

cognitive thinking and further improve their advanced thinking skills

(Carbonaro, et al., 2008). Therefore, not only can students learn happily due

to the attractiveness, immersion and interactive characteristics of computer

games, but if teachers apply digital games to their curriculum properly, the

positive learning outcomes could be achieved (Smith and Gotel, 2007 and

Shaffer and Clinton, 2005 and Gee, et al., 2008). Other educational

advantages of using computer games for learning include enhancing problem

solving, motivation and retention (Livovský and Porubän, 2014), and to

advance learners' ability to adopt new skills level and support alternative

learning styles (Yan, 2009).

The term serious games refer to a category of games with a clear and

specific educational or learning purpose and is not designed and developed

primarily for entertainment purposes (Abt, 1987). Serious games may also

serve other purposes, such as government or company training, or achieve

goals in education, health, public policy and strategic communication (Perrotta,

et al., 2013). Some serious games, such as the basic rules of dealing with

emotions, learning healthy behavior and modeling adult behavior, are used to

learn social, physical, and psychological skills (Gee, et al., 2008).

Serious games are more learner-cantered, which makes the learning

process more comfortable, fun and effective, and the whole learning process

can be carried out naturally by playing. In games, entertainment and fun are

the main attributes that attract people to participate in the learning experience

and positive learning outcomes can be obtained by adequately mapping the

4

course content in the game elements (Shaffer and Clinton, 2005 and

Benedensen and Schulte, 2007).

Researchers have made efforts to identify the effect of incorporating

serious games as an instructional medium or supporting learning outcomes.

As the educational games were mainly used to achieve learning outcomes

(Connolly, et al., 2012), there is little debate about the implications of using

games for OOP learning (Xu, 2009, Al-Linjawi and Al-Nuaim, 2010, Yulia and

Adipranata, 2010, Rais and Syed-Mohamad, 2011, Depradine, 2011, Livovský

and Porubän, 2014, Poolsawas, et al., 2016, Seng and Yatim, 2014, Seng, et

al., 2015, Seng, et al., 2016, Seng and Yatim, 2018 and Seng, et al., 2018)

and the various ways of incorporating games into the learning environment

(Abbasi, 2017).

Earlier studies help provide valued knowledge regarding learning theory

issues, which provide the foundations for the development of serious games.

Smith (Smith, 1999) describes the five categories of learning theories:

behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, experimentalism, and Socio-

Contextual theory. These theories are invoked to strengthen the design of

educational computer games.

For achieving the positive learning outcomes from serious games, this

research study enlightens the development of a serious game prototype

named OOsg for learning OOP. There are many reasons why OOP was

chosen as the primary focus area of this research. Most students encountered

severe difficulties in understanding simple OOP concepts (Sheetz, et al., 1997,

Milne and Rowe, 2002, Or-bach and Lavy, 2004, Ragonis and Ben-Ari, 2005,

5

Thomasson, et al., 2006, Butler and Morgan, 2007, Kölling, 2010,

Liberman, et al., 2011, Bashiru and Joseph, 2015).

This study attempts to explore the challenges and misconceptions of

the students first and offer a solution to resolve these difficulties in a fun and

engaging way. Moreover, it appears that if the potential difficulties and

misconceptions are known in advance and the serious game prototype's

design is based on these obstacles, it would be significantly helpful to enhance

the learning experience and outcomes. Findings can be observed from

literature review and the investigation conducted on current OOP learning

students. Consequently, identifying the obstacles led to incorporating the

learning theories and instructional model to design and develop a serious

game.

2. PROBLEM STATEMENT

Learning programming is considered a challenging task and there has

been a drop in the number of students with majors in Information Technology

(IT) and Computer Science, as programming courses tend to have a high rate

of failure. The OO paradigm is considered a more natural domain to work with

because OOP's problem domain comprises objects related to real-life.

Nonetheless, it is very challenging for students to understand and map OOP's

basic concepts (e.g., classes, objects, attributes, methods, method passing,

inheritance, polymorphism, and encapsulation) through real-life scenarios and

vice versa. In today's world, the promising use of serious games has made

STEM learning comfortable and productive. This research study, about serious

6

games for learning OOP, attempted to set out the answers for the following

problems:

Several studies were conducted to assess the students' difficulties and

misunderstandings in OOP learning. Besides, it is imperative to know what

barriers make learning programming difficult and how students could learn

correctly and efficiently; the students' difficulties and misconceptions are not

undertaken in developing the serious games to achieve positive learning

outcomes. The current literature revealed paucity in using learning theories

and instructional designs for creating serious games prototypes for learning

OOP. Due to the high level of complexity involved in OOP subjects, student

boredom and dropout rates may increase. Serious games are therefore used

to attracts the students towards the subjects like programming and similar

domains. Despite some encouraging findings, current literature does not show

the presumed relation between the encouragement of serious games and

actual learning outcomes. It remains debatable that which specific aspects of

the game lead to learning or whether motivation affects learning outcomes or

not.

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This research study tried to address the research problem which arises

the need for the development of the prototype of the serious game based on

critical components of game elements, instructional and learning theories;

therefore, the following research questions are formulated:

Q1. What are the competencies required to master the OOP skills?

Q2. What are the difficulties faced by students for learning OOP?

7

Q3. What are the different programming approaches used for teaching

OOP?

Q4. What are the different serious games available to facilitate OOP

learning?

Q4.1 What and how the learning theories are integrated into

Serious games?

Q.4.1.1 Which game elements are essential to be incorporated

to facilitate learning?

Q4.2 How the delivery of the contents is provided in available

serious games?

Q4.2.1 What are the different ways of instruction delivery?

Q5. How can the motivation be sustained while playing the prototype

of the serious game?

Q.5.1 Which game elements are essential to be incorporated to

motivate the player?

Q6. Which learning outcomes could be achieved using a serious

game?

Q7. Is there any significant difference in student performance with and

without using the prototype?

Q7.1 What is the difference in students’ performance for learning

OOP with and without the prototype's intervention?

Q7.2 What is the difference in students’ normalized learning gain

for learning OOP with and without the prototype's

intervention?

Q7.3 What is the difference between the effectiveness in the

intervention of instructional techniques?

Q7.4 Is there any effect of perceived motivation on student’s

learning outcomes?

4. OBJECTIVES

This research study objectives include:

1. To investigate difficulties faced by the students during learning OOP

8

2. To formulate a model for fostering learning outcomes and improve the

learning performance of the OOP students

3. To design and develop a serious game prototype that supports the

model for learning OOP

4. To conduct an experimental study to analyze the student's performance

for learning OOP with and without using the prototype

5. ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS

The thesis organization continues as follows; Chapter II is about

literature review, which addresses the OOP and its instructional contents, the

learning difficulties in OOP available in the previous studies, approaches used

for teaching OOP and competencies required to master in OOP. The literature

review also discusses the various serious games available to support OOP

learning. The existing studies for learning OOP via serious games need to

understand how the learning theories and instructional design are incorporated

in serious games development. The different elements leading to motivation

and learning are also discussed. Chapter III is about methods and tools in

which first, the investigation is conducted on current OOP learning students

and feedback provided by the students. The investigation results led to the

instructional contents integrated as the game story of the OOsg. In the later

part of the chapter III, design of the serious games model and development of

the serious game prototype is discussed as a result obtained from chapter II

and the first part of the chapter III. The model emphasizes how the student's

difficulties and instructional contents of OOP are presented to achieve the

indented competencies and learning outcomes. The model also focused on

9

the design of the practice session for the improvement of the performance.

The development of a serious game prototype named OOsg, described the

activities in OOsg from the user's perspectives and represented the steps

required when interacting with it. Chapter IV discusses OOsg 's experimental

study and evaluation results. Discussion is given in Chapter V, and Chapter VI

addresses the conclusion and possible future work, followed by references and

appendices.

10

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

The primary aim of this chapter discuss object-oriented programming

(OOP) learning in general, instructional contents of the OOP, student’s

difficulties and misconception while learning OOP, possible causes of

student’s difficulties available in the existing studies, core competencies

required for mastering in OOP and the various approaches adopted for

teaching of OOP instructional contents. This chapter also includes a summary

of the related literature on the concept of serious games and their associated

terminology. This includes a review of existing serious games that facilitate

OOP learning, various attributes of serious games that contribute to students '

learning and motivation, a review of learning theories, and instructional

delivery methods.

The last part of the chapter is dedicated to an extensive review on

studies dedicated to the Identification of various programming approaches

applied to teach OOP concepts or to overcome OOP difficulties using available

serious games, how the intervention of serious games is done, which learning

theories or instructional design are integrated into available serious games and

learning outcomes achieved using these games.

1. INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENTS OF OOP

In software development, the OOP approach is commonly used

(Sommerville and Prechelt, 2004), and learning about the development of

high-quality OOP Software is a core theme of computer science, software

11

engineering, and Information Technology curricula. It is because many benefits

can be achieved by applying the OOP approach, including the reduction in

overall software development time, reusability of the code and flexible way to

organize the code. Despites, its benefits, the expert-level software

development skills are required to be master in OOP, and for students, it

becomes complex to comprehend their underlying concepts clearly.

There is a debate about what should be the instructional content to be

taught during the OOP course. The basic quarks include Class their associated

attributes and methods, message passing, abstraction, inheritance,

encapsulation, polymorphism, and relationships as key concepts in OOP

(Morris, et al., 1999). On the other hand, Rosson (Rosson and Alpert, 1990)

suggested that abstraction, class, objects, message passing, encapsulation,

information hiding, inheritance, object model, and polymorphism concepts

should be taught in OOP courses.

(Armstrong, 2006) provides a detailed list of the eight fundamental OOP

concepts called OOP quarks. He provided the information about quarks and

presented a taxonomy by organizing these quarks into two primary constructs

named structure and behavior. The organizational quarks given by him are

shown in Figure II-1. The descriptions of these quarks are discussed below:

12

Figure II-1 Organizational quark of OOP given by Amstrong(2006)

1.1 Abstraction

Abstraction is a fundamental principle of OOP which is used to handle

or control complexity by hiding unnecessary information. This enables users

to apply complex logic to the given abstraction without comprehending or even

worrying about any of the system's secret complexities. Creating a class is to

use the inherent differences in the problem to simplify all aspects of reality.

Data abstraction is the standard term broadly defined as a mechanism that

allows us to show complex details by simplifying models, thereby suppressing

insignificant details to enhance understanding (Henderson-Sellers, 1996 and

Ledgard, 1995 and Yourdon, et al., 1995). Abstraction can also be used to find

the more common behaviors among objects by eliminating specific behaviors

(Morris, et al., 1999).

1.2 Class

A class can be defined as a blueprint or prototype having attributes and

methods common to all its objects. A class can also be described as a set of

objects described by the same declaration (Robson, 1981 and Rosson and

Alpert, 1990) and considered the essential OOP modeling element. The class

can also be defined as a set of objects that share a standard structure and

13

behavior (Booch, et al., 2008). The class at runtime can perform several things,

it describes how the object responds to messages; in the development

process, it provides programmers with an interface to interact with the object

definition; in the running system, it is becoming the source for the new objects

(Robson, 1981).

1.3 Encapsulation

Encapsulation can be defined as a technique for designing classes and

objects, restricting access to data and behaviors by defining a limited set of

messages that class objects can receive. Many researchers said that the

concept of encapsulation existed before OOP was introduced (Page-Jones

and Weiss, 1989), while others researcher asserts that its new concept initially

introduced in the Simula programming language (Booch et al., 2008). The

author also described encapsulation as a new term for the existing concept of

information hiding (Henderson-Sellers, 1996 and Yourdon et al., 1995).

Three main concepts exist in the literature behind encapsulation; first, it

is a combination of data and methods(which acts on data)(Wirfs-Brock and

Johnson, 1990). Second, the objects could be accessible via the their defined

external behavior as an implementation detail of the object is hidden (Wirfs-

Brock and Johnson, 1990; Booch et al., 2008). The third concept is combining

the first two concepts and summarizing it into information about the object, how

to process the information, keep it together strictly and separate it from all other

information (Morris et al., 1999).

14

1.4 Inheritance

Inheritance is a new concept, defined as data and behavior of one class

shared or used by another class (Wirfs-Brock and Johnson, 1990). The

inheritance provides a mechanism by which a class can inherit the properties

(attributes and methods) from another class. The class which requests the

sharing of the properties is known as child or subclass, and the class which is

being shared is known as the parent or superclass.

Inherited children or subclasses or lower levels of the hierarchy contain

more specific or concrete instances of abstract concepts at the top of the

hierarchy (Morris, et al., 1999).

1.5 Object

An object refers to the instance of a class (Booch, et al., 2008), where

objects can be a combination of variables, functions, and data structures. It is

a separate, identifiable item, whether real or abstract, containing data about

itself and its data operations description. An object has a well-defined role in

the problem domain (Morris, et al., 1999) and it is both data carriers and

objects that perform actions (Robson, 1981). Booch, et al., 2008 defined that

an object is simply something with the state, behavior, and identity (Booch, et

al., 2008); most commonly, the object maintains its state in variables and

implements its behavior with methods.

1.6 Message Passing

Message passing refers to the way of communication between two

objects. It is the process by which an object can send or receive data to each

other, or the request from one object to another to invoke a method. Therefore,

15

two groups of researchers see message passing as a different concept. The

first group focused on messages passing as objects making requests to

perform actions and pass information to each other (Morris, et al., 1999).

Another group focused the message as a signal from an object to another

object, and the message requested the receiving object to perform one of its

methods (Byard, 1990).

1.7 Method

The method is previously knowns as procedure or operation or function.

The method is the core elements of the object program, and the concept of the

method as an inseparable part of an object has emerged from the Smalltalk

programming language (Booch, et al., 2008). The method is a way to access,

set, or manipulate an object’s information (Robson, 1981).

In most cases, the discussion of methods is intertwined with the concept

of messages. Usually, a method is a carrier that sends messages to other

objects that call the object's methods (Rosson and Alpert, 1990).

1.8 Polymorphism

Before the introduction of OOP, the concept of polymorphism has been

used in software development. Polymorphism is the ability to hide different

implementations behind a standard interface (Yourdon, et al., 1995), while

some people conceptualize polymorphism as the ability of different objects to

respond the same message for invoking different responses (Stefik and

Bobrow, 1985). Polymorphism is a class's ability to have different method

signatures, which allow them to perform a single operation in different ways

(Morris, et al., 1999 and Ledgard, 1995).

16

There are two types of polymorphisms, compile or static and runtime or

dynamic type polymorphism.

The compile-time polymorphism is achieved by method or operator

overloading, whereas runtime polymorphism is achieved by method overriding.

2. IDENTIFICATION OF DIFFICULTIES AND MISCONCEPTIONS IN LEARNING OOP FROM THE

EXISTING STUDIES

The primary purpose of the literature review of the existing studies is to

identify the difficulties students facing while learning OOP. Topics covered in

the literature review include tools used for identifying the difficulties, OOP

concepts or contents covered in the studies, analysis technique used, specific

OOP problems addressed, and identified issues.

Programming involves algorithm design, code writing, debugging,

testing, and implementation. Students need to master these stages to become

good programmers. Computer programming is entirely related to problem-

solving, but students are not expected to solve complex problems; first, they

need to start from learning basic concepts to build a higher cognitive

understanding and possibly a better grasp of advanced programming

concepts. Problems that enable students to master programming concepts

include identifying different ways the programming problems are presented

and solved. The transition from one programming paradigm to another (from

procedural programming to OOP) is also difficult because it includes many

overlying concepts.

There are diverse dynamics related to the difficulties experienced by the

students while learning OOP. Thomasson (Thomasson, et al., 2006) designed

17

two phases of experimental design for the difficulties students faced in the

software development process. The topics covered in the study were related

to the classes, objects, and reference classes. In the first phase, the UML

diagram for model classes was supposed to be designed by the students, in

which they are supposed to identify the required classes and their relevant

attributes and methods. In the later phase, the same students were presented

with a different problem in which they are asked to design courses for car rental

companies with multiple warehouses, cars, and customers. Finally, to support

the final system, students need to create a class diagram.

The most common difficulty observed as a result of the experiment was

related to Non-Referenced Class fault means students were not able to

integrate the classes properly into the design. Other observed challenges were

related to references to Non-Existent Classes, attribute identification problem,

and cohesion issues such as single Attribute misrepresentation faults, multiple

attribute misrepresentation faults, multiple object misrepresentation faults, etc.

Or-Bach and Lavy (Or-bach and Lavy, 2004) explored the cognitive

difficulties the 3rd year students studied OOP and OOD(Object Oriented

Design). The testing instruments include the question related to basic OOP

concepts, such as classes, inheritance, and polymorphism. The different items

were presented to students, and solutions supposed to be solved by the

students were not abiding by any specific formal notation so that the

Identification of the cognitive difficulties could be possible without worrying that

how well students they remember and know to implement the notation they

had learned some time before. Moreover, the students' solution indicated that

only attributes in the abstract class were included, but they were fails to

18

include methods of any type. Some students also include extra classes

(classes that are not related to the solution, and classes that can be integrated

into existing classes' methods or attributes). They missed adding the

necessary class details, placing insignificant attributes within the class, and

reducing cohesion.

Sheetz (Sheetz, et al., 1997) study focused on identifying OOP

difficulties by the undergraduate and graduate students of information

systems. The specific problems presented to the students were about to

classify the categories of object-oriented concepts, provide the rank of

importance and determine the relationship between categories. The study

results revealed that learning basic OOP concepts, issues of design problems

and programming techniques are difficult for the students. The research results

show that learning basic object concepts is the most difficult for students,

followed by design problems and programming techniques.It is also difficult for

students to distinguish the functions of programming language and OOP

language and to use or reuse class libraries.

Ragonis (Ragonis and Ben-Ari, 2005) collected the observations and

field notes, audio and video recordings, and collection of Artefacts as well as

homework assignments, classwork, examinations, final projects for the two

semesters to precisely identify what concepts were understood and what

concepts were problematical to the students. The most common problems

arose during the analyses was difficulty in the general picture of the program

exaction, state-changing during execution, the sequence of method

invocations related to solving the problem, method invocation, where the

values of parameters come from and where the return value of a method goes

19

to, the need for the input instructions, the connections between the constructor

declaration, invocation and the execution.

Topics related to understanding memory-related concepts, such as

copy constructors and virtual functions, pointers, the execution of programs in

terms of memory, how to store them in memory, and how they are related to

each other in memory are struggling enough for students. Many

misconceptions have also lain about the memory operation in the students.

The precise construction of the mental model of what happened within the

machine and the memory while the program is running, when the object

attempts to communicate with another object, and how it solves the problem,

is difficult for students to understand (Bashiru and Joseph, 2015).

Students faced more difficulty understating and implementing high-level

concepts such as algorithm designing, methods, designing a program, and

OOP concepts compared to topics with low-level conceptual difficulty such as

understanding the syntax of any language (Bashiru and Joseph, 2015). Even

though the current teaching method applies the segmentation to the complex

topics into easily understandable pieces but it is still hard for novices to leap

from understanding to applying the concepts (Butler and Morgan, 2007,

Lahtinen, et al., 2005 and Winslow, 1996). Such methodology is as a novice

is limited to the surface knowledge of the subject, whereas experts have an in-

depth understanding of their subjects, which is hierarchical and many layers.

Liberman (Liberman, et al., 2011) addressed the student's difficulties

and misconceptions in the topics related to interfaces, inheritance, and

polymorphism. The difficulty lies in understanding these topics, but

implementing these topics is becoming a challenge for the students.

20

A study by Jenkins (Jenkins, 2002) shows that demographic factors and

programming experience are not an essential basis for programming success.

So, to understand the difficulty of learning programming, we can turn to the

cognitive perspective. Therefore, Jenkins reports two cognitive factors:

motivation and learning styles, which can make learning to program difficult.

He claims that students with the right learning style are motivated to learn and

master programming skills quickly. It is important to understand students'

cognitive styles, learning styles, motivations, and other possible factors to

alleviate learning problems and difficulties. Gomes (Gomes and Mendes,

2007) describe similar ideas. They propose a multimedia environment that

includes several types of problem-solving activities to attract students and

develop the motivation to learn to program.

2.1 Discussion

In this section, the result of the literature review is carried out with a view

to achieve objective 1 and to address research questions 1 and 2. The

summaries of literature reviews on students difficulties from the above studies

are comprehensively presented in Table II-1. The result of the reviews

indicates the issues of transition from procedural programming to OOP,

program flow and execution. Issues of memory such as what happened during

the execution of the program, how the operation are performed in the memory,

concepts of pointer and virtual function. Studies also reports the algorithmic

difficulties such as how to decompose the given problem, and how to analyse,

design the builds the solution for the given problem. As many libraries available

21

to perform specific function, the studies reports the students have difficulty in

importing those libraries.

The reviews regarding the OOP concepts includes the difficulties in the

comprehension of all basic quarks of OOP such as Classes, Objects, methods,

attributes, abstraction encapsulation, polymorphism, events, debugging and

message passing. In addition, the studies included in the literature review

conclude that obstacles arise because of the motivational problems that may

be due to an uninteresting approach to teaching OOP concepts such as

starting with technical language details, learning and practice environment

complexity, improper or incomplete feedback on the activities of students and

fear of failure during the course. As this thesis is concerned with the field of

object-oriented programming, the difficulties and myths associated with OOP

are therefore considered to be resolved by providing an environment in which

students' motivation is sustained by beginning the basic conceptualization in a

way that is entertaining and engaging.

22

Table II - 1 Comprehensive difficulties identified from existing work

Topics Covered in Literature

Sheetz, et al., 1997

Milne and Rowe, 2002

Or-bach and Lavy,

2004

Ragonis and Ben-Ari, 2005

Thomasson, et al., 2006

Butler and Morgan, 2007

Kölling, 2010

Liberman, et al., 2011

Bashiru and Joseph, 2015

• Switching from Procedural programming to OOP ✓ Program Flow ✓ Program Execution ✓ Memory Management

• During the execution of the program

• Misunderstand of memory operation

• Pointers

• Virtual function • Object relates to memory

✓ ✓

Problem decomposition • Analysis of program

• Design of program • Problem solution building

✓ ✓ ✓

Importing from Library ✓ Understanding OOP Concepts

• Classification

• Applying

• utilizing

• implementing

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Classes • Adding/creating classes • Assigning properties and methods to

class/abstract class

• Identify classes

✓ ✓ ✓

Objects • Multiple object representation

• Relationship between classes ✓

Authors & year

23

Methods • Creating methods

• Assigning methods to classes

• Method Invocation

• Order of method invocation

• Categorization

• Return values • Parameter • Procedural function vs. OOP methods

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Attributes • Assigning properties to classes • Multiple attribute Misrepresentation

• Single attributes misrepresentation

✓ ✓

Abstraction • Execution

• The desirable level of abstraction

Inheritance • Understanding the concept • Inheritance of function

• Understand hierarchies

✓ ✓

Encapsulation Polymorphism

• Method Overriding ✓ ✓

Event • State change during execution ✓

Debugging • Testing

✓

Message passing ✓ Motivational issues ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

24

3. POSSIBLE CAUSES OF DIFFICULTIES IN LEARNING OOP

Many difficulties in learning OOP have come in the notice from the

literature review; however, it is also a significant concern to find the possible

causes of those difficulties. Some of the identified reasons from the review are

discussed as under:

3.1 Improper Feedback for High Cognition Topics

Feedback is a significant factor for successful and active learning.

Students can receive feedback from a concerned instructor, from the

development environment or the testing or debugger tool (Butler and Morgan,

2007). However, the feedback is provided on the topics which need a low-level

of conceptualization such as syntax, variables, and data types, feedback on

high conceptualization and relevant issues such as program design, memory

management, and OO principles is either neglected or not properly given

which results in deficient performance in the implementation of OOP concepts.

An instructional method that can deploy students' learning and guide them

through a process as a program design can be valuable to reduce OOP's

advanced topic's perceived difficulties.

3.2 Lack of Comprehension

In most instances, students cannot get the right answers because they

cannot grasp what's going on in the memory while any program is running.

They have not developed a paradigm of accurate thought in their minds. If the

basic model built in students' minds is not correctly constructed, the whole

model will become a wreak (Milne and Rowe, 2002; Bashiru and Joseph,

25

2015). Understanding memory operations and misconceptions about class

and object is the source of several difficulties that occur at later stages of

learning (Bashiru and Joseph, 2015).

3.3 The Shift from Understanding to Implementation

Students struggled to comprehend the OOP concepts because they

were less effective at using and applying the OOP concepts because they had

trouble recognizing their concepts (Rajashekharaiah, et al., 2017 and Butler

and Morgan, 2007). Understanding the syntax of programming languages was

the only aspect that did not experience this change.

4. COMPETENCIES REQUIRED FOR MASTERING OOP

Competence refers to the cognitive abilities and skills that an individual

has or may learn to solve a specific problem (Weinert, 2001). Regarding

measurement, Klieme (Klieme, 2004) stated that competencies are the range

of situations or tasks that one needs to master, and assessment of those

competencies might be done by challenging the student by providing the

sample of such (eventually simulated) conditions. Determining such tasks or

situations for any course are essential for designing a competency model. The

competency model results from such Identification that describes and

measures the primary competencies that are subjects for an individual must

master in a specific topic. Klieme (Klieme, 2004) describes three types of

competency models:

• The competency structure model, usually composed of dimensions

(such as competence domain of competence characteristics), describing the

26

learner’s cognitive tendencies needed to solve tasks and problems in specific

content or required domains

• Competency Level Models, provides the details information or profiles

of the described competencies, and

• Competency Development Models represents how competencies will

evolve.

Usually, the level or development model is based on a structural model.

In this section, the various competency model available for mastering in OOP

are discussed, and in the end, the competency model proposed and

implemented by the researcher is presented.

The following sections discuss various OOP competency models

studied from literature reviews:

4.1 Havenga Competency Model (2008)

Havenga (Havenga, 2008) discusses how high-performance student

programmers can facilitate the development of successful computer programs

through thinking processes and strategies. The model proposed is intended to

assess student skills improvements in initial programming courses. The

score(s) in their model would be attributed to the student's work in the same

way that the teachers assign a score for the semester test. Figure II-2 shows

the dimensions of the proposed model. This research aims to find the

difference between successful programmers and failed programmers, and

showed that a framework is needed to support novice programmers. However,

no evidence is available for the measurement results based on this model as

per our knowledge.

27

Figure II-2 Havenga’s competency model (2008)

4.2 COMMOOP Structural Model (2016)

Karmer (Kramer, et al., 2016) proposed the OOP's competency

structure model and evaluation instruments. The proposed model includes two

major components: 1) a set of candidates for (potentially measurable)

competencies, and 2) a category system that supplies a structure for these

competencies. The model has the following four dimensions and sub

dimensions to measure the student’s competencies in OOP:

4.2.1 OOP Knowledge and skills

This dimension includes the competencies required for acquiring core

programming knowledge and skills. This dimension's subdimension consists

of the competencies for Data structure, Class & Object structure, Algorithmic

structure, Notional Machine, Representation structure, and Execution

structure.

4.2.2 Mastering representation

The competencies required to understand any system's formal

description, such as syntax or the semantics of any programming language,

are covered in this dimension. The master in this competency dimension is

28

considered as a competent programmer. The sub-dimension of this

competency level includes languages, syntax, and semantics.

4.2.3 Cognitive process

This dimension of the COMMOOP structural model includes the

competencies related to the Problem-solving stage, such as understanding the

problem, determining how to solve the problem, translating the problem into a

computer language program, testing, and debugging the problem program.

The programming is about generating a piece of software that serves a

specific predefined purpose, and the process is usually considered problem-

solving skills. The level is further divided as; problem-solving step, cognitive

process type, Interpretation, and production the software applications.

4.2.4 Metacognitive processes

Weinert (Weinert, 2001) addresses that metacognitive factors like

motivation, self-efficacy, perceived understanding, or theoretical value belief

may play a significant role in defining and measuring the competencies. This

dimension exists in many competency models, but the author places less

emphasis on this aspect.

4.3 Simona Hierarchy-based Competency Structure Model (2019)

Ramanauskait˙e (Ramanauskaite and Slotkiene, 2019) proposed a

level-based competence structure for object-oriented courses, and evaluated

students by designing and implementing selected data structures in the Java

programming language. The competency tree structure has been transferred

to the test competency tree; however, the lowest level has been eliminated.

29

The level of competence required to conduct the test, or the level of

competence evaluated in the previous test, is marked as the pre-required

competence, whereas the higher-level competence constitutes the level of

competencies being assessed.

Ramanauskait˙e model aims to evaluate students' skills, and the model

can be used to perform semantically expressed evaluation methods for manual

evaluation and electronic evaluation processes. The author focused that

competencies in the model should be mapped appropriately to the

competencies required for any study program, i.e., the levels in the

competency model could be used as guidelines for students’ evaluation. The

advanced students can skip some low-level tasks as per their expertise and

begin with higher-level tasks. The example competency model proposed by

the authors is shown in Figure II-3

Figure II-3 Simona’s hierarchy-based competency structure model (2019)

The findings obtained from the proposed model indicate that the

distribution of scores and the importance of the proposed e-evaluation process

are more similar to the teacher evaluation than the conventional e-assessment

system tasks. Instead of displaying the summary score of all skills, you will see

30

the results of many tasks. The author has nevertheless not implemented the

model in any current study framework to demonstrate implementation.

5. APPROACHES FOR TEACHING OOP

Besides the debatable arguments about the instructional contents to be

taught in the OOP courses, it is also vital to approach the teaching of these

contents. This section describes the various teaching approaches for OOP

observed in the existing literature. Each of these is discussed in the following

section.

5.1 Objects-First Approach

The Object-first is a widely used approach for teaching the OOP

paradigm (Cooper, et al., 2003, Bennedsen and Schulte, 2007, Proulx et al.,

2002, Mohammed, et al., 2018, Krishnamurthi and Fisler, 2019 and Kunkle

and Allen, 2016), focusing on the establishment of the OOP concepts, i.e.,

object, classes, inheritance, and encapsulation before introducing any

procedural programming concept, i.e., assignments, loops, operators or

conditional statements in the context of OOP (Cooper, et al., 2003). More

simply, it means focusing on usage before implementation (Livovský and

Porubän 2014).

In comparison to the classical teaching approach to introductory

programming concepts, students learn by beginning with a basic program and

progressing towards complex programming, allowing students time to master

each concept and build it step by step. The object-first is considered a more

challenging approach. In this approach, students have to conceptualize the

31

OOP terms and learn to write their programming syntax (Cooper, et al., 2003).

The complexity of learning OOP using object-first also arises because students

have to simultaneously grasp multiple tasks such as various concepts, ideas

and skills, which is mentally challenging (Proulx, et al., 2002).

The various strategies are used in literature to reduce the challenges of

the object-first approach such as design-first strategy such as using UML

(Unified Modelling Language) (Burton and Bruhn, 2003) to develop a visual

and intuitive model of objects and their relationship or use other visualizing

object tools such as BlueJ (Kölling, et al., 2003), Java Power Tools (Proulx, et

al., 2002), Karel J. Robot (Bergin, et al., 1997), Alice 3D (Cooper, et al., 2003),

Jeliot 3 (Levy, et al., 2003), and various graphics libraries.

5.2 Imperative-First Approach

The imperative-first is also known as a fundamental-first or procedural-

first or object-later approach. This approach focuses on establishing

procedural aspects of OO language such as assignments, control or

conditional structures, logical expression, or the function before introducing the

OOP quarks (Smolarski, 2003 and Kunkle and Allen, 2016). Writing the source

code is also presented while learning the procedural or OOP aspects of any

programming language intended to gain.

One of the advantages of this approach is to obtain the application

basics that will enable students to switch to new programming languages and

paradigms, if necessary, as they will be "completely based on language

independence." This approach is used by professional educators, who first

32

teach basic principles and master students' progress in designing and solving

problems (Johnson, et al., 2000).

Burton (Burton and Bruhn, 2003) point out that students with procedural

programming language experience will be more capable and competent in

learning OOP because the programming paradigm includes two main

components: algorithmic thinking and structured programming. Algorithmic

thinking itself is considered a paradigm because algorithms may contain

elements such as selection and repetition. Despite its many advantages, it is

still arguable that understanding algorithms and structured programming

before learning an OO paradigm is beneficial to students or not because the

paradigm of OOP involves the modeling structures and relationships that are

different in procedural programming languages.

5.3 Concept-First Approach

This approach aims to provide a clearer image of the problem area and

recognize the context under which the OOP concepts occur before providing

detailed descriptions of the individual OOP quarks, or we can say the problem

domain of OOP is explained as a whole at the beginning of this approach

(Livovský and Porubän, 2014). This approach primarily focuses on users

without having programming-related experiences (Haendler, 2019), as the

many computer science students facing problems in the abstract thinking,

especially from the perspective of abstractions of real-world issues in OOP

(Sien and Carrington, 2007).

Livovský (Livovský and Porubän, 2014) further provides the steps

required to implement the concept-first approach. The steps include, knowing

33

the domain, which is considered as a prerequisite than a recommendation, the

participants must be well aware of the domain to be used as an example or

project so that the student should focus on important things instead of the

process model. The second step is about using the complex examples,

emphasizing the concepts in a broader and related context, rather than

explaining in isolation, e.g., explaining multiple classes and communication,

relationships and responsibilities between them. The third step is to conceal

the programming language code they do not yet know and hide the principles

they do not know. The fourth step is to provide an immediate response, this

step focuses on providing the immediate or response with a minimum delay so

that students could change their solution without putting extra effort, and for

this, using the UML diagram for this approach is not suitable as they are not

executables. In the fifth and final step of this approach, computer games or

other interactive environments are used. So that students can observe the

game world, engage with it and learn by watching the effects of their actions,

and get enough and timely feedback.

5.4 GUI-First Approach

This approach illustrates all classes' common attributes by using

applets or other Graphical User Interfaces (GUI) (Decker and Hirshfield, 1999).

In this approach, the students needs to understand the classes' functions and

their components, followed by OOP concepts by developing the GUI

programs. This approach may lead students to think that there are more

practical programming in their curriculum than purely abstract theory (Gibbons,

2002). If students can see that their running programs are displayed in a GUI

34

rather than a static textual alternative, they can be more motivated and

satisfied. However, this approach is incapable of adaptation by many

academicians and practitioners due to the lack of emphasis on algorithmic

thinking, structured programming, and OOP design, and some believe that

students must look at these concepts from an OOP perspective from the start

before they do any hands-on programming (Hadjerrouit, 1998).

5.5 Game-First Approach

Yan (Yan, 2009) proposed a method of teaching OOP programming

through games. He used an interactive game-like environment named as

Greenfoot to show the interaction of objects in a wombat scene (Kölling, 2010).

Students will be exposed to the OOP concepts in this approach, including

objects, classes, observing behavior, calling methods, and instantiating

objects using this Greenfoot. Another similar environment BlueJ (Kölling, et

al., 2003), was also used in literature for teaching about observe behaviors,

invoke methods, and instantiate objects using the picture game.

Al-Linjawi (Al-Linjawi and Al-Nuaim, 2010) suggested using Alice, a

game like a 3D environment, helps beginners and novice learn about OOP's

fundamental quarks. Many other researchers (Mohammad, 2019 and Sideris

and Xinogalos, 2019 and Seng, et al., 2018 and Clark, et al., 2018 and Corral,

et al., 2014 and Livovský and Porubän, 2014) suggested that specific game-

like tools serve the entire educational process to be helpful for better

understanding of the OOP concepts and develop programming skills to the

students who do not have the programming-related experience. Additionally,

these tools help the students gain inspiration at the start of the course.

35

6. SERIOUS GAMES (SGs)

Game is a general term that applies to all organized play, consisting of

rules, objectives and challenges to diversion or amusement. Video games are

ideal for learning because they can allow players to practice their learning skills

and to control their learning according to their style (Papert, 1998). The

category of games has an explicit and unique aim of learning rather than just

amusement, referred to as serious games (SGs) (Abt, 1987). Serious games

are student-centered, making the learning process more relaxed, enjoyable

and effective. The whole learning process is carried out by playing games.

Entertainment and fun are the important qualities that draw people to the

learning experience.

Using games in curriculum terms means converting the subject (such

as the laws of physics, or the law of supply and demand) into a game’s

mechanism that will run in a separate system based on choices and results

(Perrotta, et al., 2013). Other educational benefits of using computer game

learning include improving the ability to solve problems, the level of motivation

and retention (Prensky and Thiagarajan, 2007), and it may provide an

excellent opportunity for the stimulation of student’s abstract thinking into the

cognitive development and further advanced thinking skills (Carbonaro, et al.,

2008). (Carroll, 1982, Gee, et al., 2008 and Shaffer and Clinton, 2005)

concluded that learning through digital games, e.g., simulation, video, or

computer games, carries out high power to be used as an instructional method

in many subject disciplines. Serious games' promising use has made STEM

learning comfortable and productive (Boyle, et al., 2016). Therefore, if teachers

36

apply digital games to the teaching of any subject area, then students will not

only get better learning results, but also learn happily through the interactivity,

immersion, and interactivity of these games (Smith and Gotel 2007 and Gee,

et al., 2008 and Shaffer and Clinton, 2005 and Carroll, 1982).

7. AVAILABLE TOOLS FOR LEARNING OOP

Computer programming is entirely linked to problem-solving and

building a higher cognitive understanding of advanced concepts. To solve

complex problems, students should first acquire basic concepts at the

grassroots level, as Muratet (Muratet, et al., 2009) explains that basic

programming concepts are difficult for inexperienced students to understand

rote learning is almost impossible in the programming context. Beginners,

learning programming languages, want to see their programs' immediate

outcomes, while learning programming languages also requires a great deal

of comprehension and work to produce useful results (Anderson and

McLoughlin, 2007). Immediate feedback on code-building during the

programming allowed students to revise iteratively more easily and

immediately see how their code changes were created (Phelps, et al., 2005).

However, it is very riotous to offer input as much as possible, and the programs

have no choice but to make errors more often. Researchers in the area use

simulation techniques to visualize student outcomes using programming

languages and are familiar with the syntax and examples of programming

processes (Jiau, et al., 2009).

Object-Oriented paradigm (OO Paradigm) is considered a more natural

domain to work with, as OOP's problem domain constitutes objects that are

37

interrelated to real-life objects (Livovský and Porubän, 2014). Nevertheless,

the understanding and mapping OOP's fundamental concepts with real-life

scenarios becomes challenging at the students' foundation level (Yan, 2009).

The shift in programming paradigm, such as from procedural to OOP, is

another challenging task as it contains many overlapping concepts

(Bennedsen and Schulte, 2007).

For providing a good learning experience, one should start by the

conceptualization of OOP basic features such as Object, Class, Inheritance,

Polymorphism, and so on, then move towards the technical details of the

language. Initial exposure to OOP concepts should be attractive and fun for

students, and the fun can be part of the learning environment to keep students

focused on learning. Serious games can deal with this problem by providing

close-to-real-life scenes in an immersive and engaging way of interaction

without worrying about failure.

In the past decade, the utilization of serious games to learn OOP and

other programming-related topics has increased. Many researchers stress that

the potential of using the serious games as initial exposure for learning basic

concepts of OOP interactively and engagingly. Mainly, there are two primary

purposes for using serious games for learning OOP: first is to promote

learning, secondly, motivating, and engaging the students. The example of

serious games developed for learning OOP can be found in the following

sections:

38

7.1 MUPPETS

MUPPETS (Multiuser Programming Pedagogy for Enhancing

Traditional Study) (Phelps, et al., 2005) is an immersive OOP learning

framework. The framework itself is not a game, but it has an essential

mechanism that can provide prompt feedback, interaction, and community

integration like modern games.

In MUPPET’S virtual environment, students work on a domain that

simulates work that must be done on real-world programming. Students learn

by creating objects and avatars and sharing the created objects with peers and

upper-division students to improve and contribute to students' success. The

senior students behave as role models and helpers to the novice. The authors'

findings on their student group research praise the strengths of the system.

MUPPETS intends to improve the affective and cognitive learning outcomes,

and it engaged the students by immediate feedback integrated into the

environment, enhancing peer-to-peer collaborations.

7.2 Alice

Alice (Cooper, et al., 2000) is an immersive programming environment

for 3-D graphics that has been designed for beginners through enticing 3-D

environments and explore the new learning medium. Alice has an OOP flavor

where users can learn by writing simple scripts and control the appearance

and actions of objects. When executing the script, objects react to user input

via mouse and keyboard. Each action is smoothly animated for a certain

length.

39

Alice is a learner-centric environment that facilitates OOP by allowing

objects to be manipulated directly using a limited set of simple commands. In

Alice, a simple story can be achieved by selecting objects in the world (such

as skaters) and calling one of them (such as Skate). Students can use the

graphical interface to incorporate method calls by drag the name of the method

from the object list and place it in the calling method of the valid location. This

textual representation is intended to allow the line of code to be read as a

sentence describing the object (Cooper, et al., 2000).

Many authors validated the potential of the developed environment by

performing statistical tests, such as (Al-Linjawi and Al-Nuaim, 2010) indicates

the student’s Knowledge of inheritance increased, many others have shown

improvement in computational thinking to middle school students (Qualls and

Sherrell, 2010, Lee, et al., 2011 and Razak, et al. 2016).

7.3 Scratch

Scratch (Scratch, 2010 is a syntax-free visual programming

environment developed by MIT Media Lab in collaboration with UCLA. It allows

point & click interface for creating media-rich games, stories, interactive

animations, music and art and other applications. Scratch is suitable for

teaching basic programming concepts such as variables, arrays, logic, and

user interface. Scratch also works similar to Alice (Alice, 2008), allowing the

program by placing sprites or objects on a screen and manipulate them by

drag-and-drop programming; besides basic programming concepts, they help

to get familiar with object-oriented concept to students where the students get

introduced through visually manipulating objects to implement some using

40

simple games. The use of visual programming environments is often perceived

to be ideal because they allow students to quickly create solutions without

having a background in game programming or the need for excessive program

code).

7.4 Jeliot

Jeliot is an interactive visualization platform designed to help beginners

learn procedural and OOP languages (Moreno and Robles, 2015). Jeliot

supports the method "First Object" or "First Fundamentals" for initial

programming courses (Myller and Nuutinen, 2006). But Jeliot is primarily

intended for OOP Java programming, making it difficult for students to

transition between various IDE's to make weaker students feel confused

(Mutua, et al., 2012). Furthermore, even though Jeliot can see control flow, the

effects of variables can not be visualized (Bednarik and Tukiainen, 2006).

7.5 Greenfoot

Greenfoot (k ̈olling, 2010) is a comprehensive educational software

development environment designed to teach and teach young novices.

Greenfoot helps in alleviating the use of the standard java programming

language by offering a customized environment, minimizing much of the

complexity of OOP. Simultaneously, it adds the ability to create graphics,

animations, and sounds easy, so you can handle compelling examples as

early as possible. Young learners can create simple games and simulations

with Greenfoot while learning basic programming principles. User feedback

seems to indicate successful using these examples to attract learners' goals.

41

For middle-aged and older learners, Greenfoot can be used as the first

programming approach or as the second for young learners.

7.6 BlueJ

BlueJ is an optimized Java framework for simple OOP concepts

(Kölling, et al., 2003). It aims to provide Java language's easy-to-use teaching

environment. However, the source code editor is not technically equivalent to

industrial IDEs. Integrating BlueJ with a competent IDE is ineffective.

7.7 Ztech de

ZTECH (Seng and Yatim, 2018) is a 2D role-playing to inspire students

to learn OOP in a relaxed, interactive atmosphere. In the gameplay, Ztech

traveled around the map using the navigation system to battle with enemies to

gain experience and win gold points. As the player enjoys the game, they learn

OO expertise. The gaming part aims to increase the interest of users in

learning the knowledge. The game offers users basic OO concepts such as

encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism, and other basic programming

concepts. Feedback is presented by appropriate dialogue. The authors'

findings claimed by testing their game on inexperienced learners include an

improvement in learner confidence, courage, and determination to learn and

understand OOP concepts.

7.8 POO Serious Games

POO (Mohammad, 2019) serious games is a 2D mobile-based game

developed for beginners of software development to teach OOP concepts

basics in a fun and engaging way. The environment of the zoo inspires the

42

gameplay. The game's primary purpose is to construct and identify animals

and understand various processes, e.g., "voices, acts, attitudes, etc.," by using

the OO paradigm. In-game assessment technique is applied to evaluate

learners’ knowledge about the field in each level of the POO, and the level

includes “class, object, inherence, and polymorphism” OOP concepts.

However, the author did not statistically prove the developed game.

7.9 Discussion

The OOP was taught through the playing and creation of various SGs.

The effects of other game-related tools, such as simulators, microworld and

game engine were also evaluated in addition to the SGs. Alice, Jeliot are used

as an immersive learning environment in which the code must be used to

define the object. Greenfoot, though, is just an educational software creation

platform for the use of OOP learning scenarios and expected to understand

the technical specifics of the code. BlueJ and MUPPETS are optimized

learning systems and again need sound computer code skills to learn with

these tools. The effect on students observed in terms of results provided by

these tools and almost all studies in the study showed results that affect

student learning directly or indirectly. Learning from other related instruments,

however, includes the order to underscore programming codes that contain all

game features like demotivation, boredom, irritation and lack of interest in the

topics.

In comparison, ZTECH and POO are SGs to learn OOP and have a

positive influence on their integration. The studies resulted in cognitive and

affected outcomes, learning improvement, problem-solving skills, motivation,

43

student engagement, Improved grading, reinforced learning, knowledge

acquisition, and student satisfaction effects observed, but still they lack in

providing the statistical evidences for the improvement in the learning

outcomes of the students. The studies do not demonstrate the purported link

between the game motivation and the actual learning results that are to be

obtained with the inclusion of SGs. The studies lacks in consideration of the

difficulties and misconceptions of the student that impede mastering OOP

skills. Other problems may include the lack of use of learning theories and

instructional design for prototyping SGs. Thus this research acknowledges all

of the constraints such as the student's difficulties and misunderstanding, the

incorporation of learning theories and instructional design in the design and

development of SGs prototype. The statistical evidence for the effectiveness

of the developed prototype is also closely analyzed and provided the

relationship between motivation and actual learning outcomes.

The Table II-5 presents a detailed review of existing studies dedicated

to available serious games for learning OOP. The reviewed studies focused

on instructional contents covered in available SGs, programming approaches

applied, learning theories or instructional design applied, and the effect

observed by the SG intervention, if any.

The results for the instructional contents covered in available serious

games include core OOP concepts such as classes, objects, inheritance,

encapsulation, message passing, polymorphism, encapsulation, abstraction,

modularization, and generalization. Most of the studies incorporated the object

and class concepts by implementing the avatars, game scenes, Enemy

44

Characters, balls, paddles, etc. In one of the studies (Corral, et al., 2014), all

the basic concepts were represented via tangible and visible way through

Tangible User Interface (TUI) with sensing, wireless communication, and user-

directed performance of several small physical devices. The review results

showed that existing studies did not consider the student's difficulties as

instructional content, which needs to be overcome and improved.

The studies under investigation involve the various programming

approaches applied for OOP learning. The result shows that four studies

(Phelps, et al., 2005 and Chen and Cheng and 2007 and Yan, 2009 and

Livovský and Porubän, 2014) applied object-first, seven as game-first (Xu,

2009 and Seng and Yatim, 2014 and Seng, et al., 2015 and Seng, et al., 2016

and Seng and Yatim, 2018 and Seng, et al., 2018 and Poolsawas, et al., 2016),

two as GUI first (Yulia and Adipranata, 2010 and Al-Linjawi and Al-Nuaim,

2010) two as code first approach (Depradine, 2011 and Corral, et al., 2014)

and one used a concept first (Rais and Syed-Mohamad, 2011). Thus, it has

been observed that most of the studies applied game as the first programming

approach followed by Object, GUI, code, and concept first approach.

A study (Chen and Cheng, 2007) used a mixture of imperative

programming and objects as the first programming approach, and we treated

it as an object-first method. Five studies from a single researcher (Seng and

Yatim, 2014 and Seng, et al., 2015 and Seng, et al., 2016 and Seng and Yatim,

2018 and Seng, et al., 2018) claims game as the first programming approach

by considering the games as supporting educational tools.

45

The current literature also revealed paucity in the use of learning

theories and instructional designs in the available serious game prototypes for

learning OOP (Xu, 2009, Al-Linjawi and Al-Nuaim, 2010, Yulia and Adipranata,

2010, Rais and Syed-Mohamad, 2011, Depradine, 2011, Livovský and

Porubän, 2014, Poolsawas, et al., 2016, Seng and Yatim, 2014, Seng, et al.,

2015, Seng, et al., 2016, Seng and Yatim, 2018, and Seng, et al., 2018).

Despite some promising results obtained from the current literature does not

show the presumed link between the motivation provided by the games and

actual learning outcomes supposed to be achieved by incorporating SGs for

learning OOP (Phelps, et al., 2005).

Effect on students observed in terms of outcomes produced through

SGs. Almost all the studies under the investigation presented outcomes that

directly or indirectly impact student learning. However, the majority of the

studies lacks in providing the statistical evidences for the improvement in the

learning outcomes of the students by various modes of intervention of the SGs.

The results presented in Table II-2 revealed that most of the studies resulted

in cognitive and affected outcomes, learning improvement, problem-solving

skills, motivation, student engagement, Improved grading, reinforced learning,

knowledge acquisition, and student satisfaction effects observed.

46

Table II-2: Summary of the existing studies used serious games for learning OOP

Author & year Programming Approach

OOP CONCEPTS

Participants Serious games

intervention

Game Contents/ Difficulties

Incorporated

Learning Theory/Instructio

nal Design

Games/Tools Incorporated

Outcomes

Pla

yin

g

Cre

atin

g

Rela

ted

tools

Phelps, et al., 2005

Object-First • Encapsulation • Inheritance • Polymorphism

N= 2 or 4 Final Year Project

✓ ACM/IEEE Computing Curriculum 2001 Computer Science

Active and Constructivist Learning

Name: MUPPETS Game Genre: Not Available Details: Virtual Environment in which Programming is learned by creating objects and avatars. Created objects can be shared with peers and upper-division students for further improvements.

Cognitive & affective level outcomes and peer-to-peer collaboration improved in students. Due to the small number of participants, the results were not validated.

Chen and Cheng, 2007

Mix(imperative and objects-first)

• OOP principles and Design patterns

N=38 (19 Teams) Fall 2005 OOP Laboratory Undergraduates students

✓ ✓ ACM/IEEE Computing Curriculum 2001 Computer Science

Instruction Design: teaming, theme selection, theme confirmation, one-to-one instruction, project monitoring, support from TA, midterm milestones, final

Name: Game Framework Game Genre: Not Applicable Details: Game Framework was used in the laboratory course to create Games

Student deeply understands OOP concepts to develop Games. For sixteen teams, results were significant but insignificant for two teams. One team

47

evaluation, and grading.

let fall out at the start, of the course.

Xu, 2009 Game-First • Basic OOP concepts

• Graphics • Animation • JavaBeans • vent handling,

- Special Topics (Game Programming)

✓ - - Name: WormChase, Breakout, Othello Game Genre: Puzzle Details: Game’s static scenes, dynamic object animation, collision detections, player controls, a score calculation system, and a level system were analyzed and synthesized to understand OOP and COP concepts.

Cognitive & affective level outcomes and improvement in Problem-solving skills. Limited participant’s information led to the invalidation of results.

Yan, 2009 Object-First • Class • Object

- 1st year CS/IT

✓ - Experiential learning

Name: GreenFoot and BlueJ Game Genre: Not Applicable Details: Wombat game scenario was implemented in Greenfoot to understand Objects, instantiation, class, observing behaviors, and invoking methods. BlueJ was used to create Picture Game by applying the concepts learned using Greenfoot.

The student successfully learns about Objects, Classes, instantiation, method invoking, and Observing behaviors. Limited participant’s information led to the invalidation of results.

48

Al-Linjawi and Al-Nuaim, 2010

GUI-First • Inheritance

N=45( Treatment Gr: 24 Control Gr: 21) 3rd-year female students

✓ - - Name: Alice Game Genre: Not Applicable Details: Bunny family Tree was created for understanding inheritance

Student’s Knowledge of inheritance increased in pre-and post-tests between the control and treatment groups. The results were statistically significant.

Yulia and Adipranata, 2010

GUI-First • Class • Object • Inheritance

N=125 It is divided into five heterogeneous groups. 2ndsemester

✓ ✓ ✓ - - Name: GameMaker, MinimUML, and WARCRAFT Game Genre: Not Applicable Details: GameMaker was used for Object concepts by creating Games, MinimUML for Classes, and WARCRAFT for learning Inheritance concepts

Improvement in student’s grading and passing ratio. The results were significant when comparing results with previous semester results.

Rais and Syed-Mohamad, 2011

Concept-First • Classes • Objects • Encapsulation • Inheritance

N=10 Treatment Gr. (GAPS and Alice) and Control Gr. (Traditional learning) 2nd Year CS

✓ ✓ Contents of: Principles of Programming Programming Methodology and Data Structures Database Organization and Design

- Name: Traditional learning, GAPS 1.0 and Alice 2.0 Game Genre: Not Applicable Details: Student learns about basic programming concepts, classes, and object by playing

Student learning was improved, high percentage scores, and improved grading, but the insignificant result for learning about objects using Alice. Overall, the results

49

Software Development Workshop

game GAPS 1.0 2D game. Students learn about objects, class, methods, repetition, and control structures by dragging and dropping graphic tiles using the Alice 3D environment.

were statistically significant.

Depradine, 2011

GUI-First • classes and objects, encapsulation

• Class Design (e.g., inheritance versus composition relationships)

• Design by Contract (e.g., exception handling)

• Advanced Concepts (e.g., abstract classes)

• Applications using Class Libraries

N=54 Advanced level II (second year)

✓ ✓ - - Name: SIMOO Game Genre: Arcade Details: SIMOO is a paddle, balls, and blocks game. Paddle and single ball game was presented to the students who need to be completed by applying the programming concepts

Student’s ability to solve programming problems was improved. The course and final examination results were satisfactory as compared to prior years. The statistical significance of the results was limited because of the primary sort of study.

50

Livovský and Porubän, 2014

Object-First • Object • Class • Attribute • Operation • Encapsulation • inheritance

N=14 1st Phase: teacher and Ph.D. Student 2nd Phase: 2nd-year students 3rd Phase: 14 students

✓ - - Name: Amiga action-adventure game Game Genre: RPG Details: 2D game, where player have shoot enemies to success for the next level

Five students showed significant results for the MCQs test but insignificant for explanation type questions. Three students showed insignificant results for MCQs but significant results for explanation type, two students ignored the explanation type question. Four students didn’t submit their responses. Significant results for learning performance.

Corral, et al., 2014

GUI-first • Basic OOP concepts and Events

N=30( Experimental Group: 15 Control Group:15) 1st students (Industrial Technology Engineering)

✓ - Experiential learning

Name: TUI Sifteo cubes Game Genre: Not Applicable Details: OOP concepts were learned by programming the visible and tangible Sifteo Cubes

Student learning was improved; the experimental group achieved high marks in the acquisition of basic OOP concepts, spent less time for task completion, and feeling less difficulty. The results were

51

statistically significant.

Seng and Yatim, 2014 and Seng, et al., 2015 and Seng, et al., 2016; Seng and Yatim, 2018; Seng, et al., 2018

Game-First

• Basic OOP concepts,

• Control and Repetition Statements,

• Array •

N=40 BS(CS)and BS(SE) 1st Year 3 semester N=60 1st year BS(GD)

✓ - - Name: Ztech de Game Genre: RPG Details: The Game Player Ztech should move around the map using the navigation system. Player success to the next level by defeating the boss.

Students showed significant improvement in their final examination grades. The results were significant.

Poolsawas, et al., 2016

Game-First • Object Classes inheritance

•

N=40 3rd year, majoring IS and ID&GD

✓ - Problem-Based Learning

Name: Unity 3D Game Genre: Not Applicable Details: OOP concepts were learned from the tool’s objects such as game scenes, Enemy Characters, logics, and items.

Students will understand the OOP concepts using the GDP. Improved scores from pre- and post-test. The findings were statistically significant.

MUPPETS: Multi-User Programming Pedagogy for Enhancing Traditional Study, SCRUMBAM: the combination of agile methodologies Scrum and Kanban, SIMOO: Simulator for Teaching Object-Oriented Programming, RDGC: Rapid Digital Game Creation, IS: Information System, ID & GD: Interactive Design and Game Development, GDP: Game Development Platform; RPG: Role Playing. TUI: Tangible User Interface; GAPS: Game-Based Approach to Support Programming Skill

52

8. GAMES ATTRIBUTE CONTRIBUTING TO LEARNING AND MOTIVATION FOR OOP

Game elements are components that compose a game (Bedwell, et al.,

2012). Game elements, sometimes known as game attributes (Bedwell, et al.,

2012), can promote learning and boost student’s interest if used adequately

during game design. Serious game attributes are those aspects of a game that

support learning and engagement (Yusoff, 2010). To ensure the Serious

games provide the same teaching practices as traditional teaching methods,

certain successfully proven aspects of traditional teaching are important to

consider in their design and development. These successful game design

elements are called game attributes. The widely accepted view is that games

themselves are not appropriate for learning, but game elements can be

enabled within an instructional framework to improve the learning process

(Garris, et al., 2002). Ricci (Ricci, et al., 1996) suggested that instruction

integrating game features increased student motivation, resulting in greater

exposure to learning programs and better retention. The game attributes help

learning, encouragement, and interaction while playing the game and

encourage players to think critically while playing games (Khowaja, 2017).

Instead of selecting game attributes to produce expected learning

outcomes, it is difficult to align learning outcomes with game attributes; on the

other hand, tying game attributes with particular learning outcomes to achieve

desired learning objectives would seem advantageous to instructors, trainers,

practitioners even the learners themselves. Several studies have been on

identifying the game attributes dedicated to effective learning, and user

53

motivation and engagement, some of them are discussed in the following

section:

8.1 Game Attributes by Garris et al., (2002)

The study based on reviews for games used for motivation and learning

concluded there are six core elements for every game, which includes (1)

fantasy, (2) rules/goals, (3) sensory stimuli, (4) challenge, (5) mystery, and (6)

control. The description of these attributes and outcomes produced using

these attributes when applied in games is given in Table II-3. The author

concluded that motivational characteristics of games encourage participation,

which ultimately leads to learning (Garris, et al., 2002).

8.2 Game Attributes by Wilson et al., (2009)

The researcher extends Garris's work (Garris, et al . , 2002) by deciding

which game attributes contribute to learning outcomes. The authors identified

18 potential game attributes which are (1) Adaptation (2) Assessment (3)

Challenge (4) Conflict (5) Control (6) Fantasy (7) Interaction (equipment) (8)

Interaction (Interpersonal) (9) Interaction (Social) (10) Language/

Communication (11) Location (12) Mystery (13) Pieces or players (14)

Progress and surprise (15) Representation (16) Rules/goals (17) Safety, and

(18) Sensory stimuli. The description of these attributes and outcomes

produced using these attributes when applied in games given in Table II-3.

Wilson's attributes may be used as a template for evaluating possible learning

outcomes as a result of playing.

54

8.3 Game Attributes by Yusoff, (2010)

The twelve more serious game attributes were identified to support

effective learning (Yusoof, 2010). The serious games attribute suggested by

the author has (1) incremental learning, (2) linearity, (3) attention span, (4)

scaffolding, (5) transfer of learned skills, (6) interaction, (7) learner control, (8)

practice and drill, (9) intermittent feedback, (10) rewards, (11) situated and

authentic learning and (12) accommodating to the learner’s styles. The Table

II-3 describes these attributes and outcomes produced using these attributes

when applied in games.

8.4 Game Attributes by Bedwell et al., (2012)

In this study, an extensive review of linking game attributes with learning

was conducted, and in results, the author specified many overlaps between

different game attributes (Bedwell et al., 2012). The list of nineteen attributes

(the attribute progress/surprise, which was initially proposed by Wilson

(Wilson, 2009) were generated and summarized by subject matter experts

(SMEs) was split into two individual attributes of progress and surprise by

SMEs because of inherent disparity) identified by Wilson (Wilson, 2009) into

the nine non-overlapping categories using the card-sort technique. The

description of the attributes and outcomes produced when applied in games

given in Table II-3.

8.5 Game Attributes by dos SANTOS, (2019)

A mapping study to identify the game elements used in Serious games

for learning programming was conducted, and the author identified 27

attributes used in 43 serious games (dos Santos, et al., 2019). The author

55

classifies the defined attributes in three categories, which are dynamics,

components, and mechanics. There were four attributes under the category of

dynamics, which were, 1) fantasy, (2) meaning, (3) constraint, and (4)

progression. Among them, fantasy is the most used element in the games. In

the group of components, nine attributes were classified which includes, (1)

level, (2) quest, (3) avatar, (4) virtual good, (5) boss fight, (6) hint, (7)

leaderboard, (8) combat, and (9) card. Among them, level, quest, and avatar

were the most used attributes in the identified games. There were 14 elements

in the group of mechanics, which includes (1) goal, (2) point system, (3)

reminder, (4) time pressure, (5) change difficulty, (6) progressive disclosure,

(7) competition, (8) achievement (9) win state, (10) cooperation, (11) resource

acquisition, (12) badge, (13) loss aversion, and (14) turns, whereas the most

used attributes from this category were goal and point system.

Overall, the six attributes most commonly used in identified games

include fantasy, level, quest, avatar, goal, and point system. However, the

author avoids discussing the essential attributes of serious games for learning

programming due to the lack of evaluation of game elements. Moreover, it has

been observed that did author overlaps the meaning of many attributes.

8.6 Discussion

The description about the various game attributes and the possible

outcomes produced using those attributes from the existing studies are

summarized in Table II-3.

Matching the desired learning outcomes with the game attributes, or

instead of selecting the game attributes to produce the desired outcome, is a

56

difficult task. On the other side, tying the game attributes with exclusive

instructional design to achieve intended learning outcomes would help

trainers, instructors, practitioners, and learners. To ensure that serious games

have the same degree of teaching experience as traditional teaching methods,

it is important to integrate traditional teaching elements that have been

successfully established in design and development of the serious games

prototype.

The game attributes, which are majorly used by all the authors of

reviewed studies, are selected to be incorporated in the design of SGs model.

Furthermore, the selection is also based on the type of outcomes produced by

the game attributes. Conclusively, the game attributes defined by Garris

(Garris, et al., 2002), i.e. (1) fantasy, (2) rules/goals, (3) sensory stimuli, (4)

challenge, (5) mystery, and (6) control and one more attributes “Progress” is

used by the majority of the authors. However, we have a limit to use the six-

game attributes defined by the Garris (Garris, et al., 2002), as the outcomes

produced by the game attribute “Progress” are yet not well defined by the

authors. Specifically, to make the learning activities intrinsically motivating,

Malone (Malone,1981) proposed challenge, curiosity, and fantasy attributes

very effectively.

57

Table II-3: Summary of game attributes identified from the existing studies

Attributes Description Output

Studies

Ga

rris

, e

t a

l.,

20

02

Wils

on

, 2

009

Yu

so

ff,

20

10

Be

dw

ell,

et

al.,

20

12

Dos S

anto

s,

et

al., 2

01

9

Fantasy

The game's fantasy element represents something different from real life and evokes a mental image that does not exist (Garris et al., 2002; Malone and Lepper, 1987).

Increase learning and interest (Cordova and Lepper, 1996; Parker and Lepper, 1992).

Increase the Automaticity

Increase the focus of attention and self-absorption (Driskell and Dwyer, 1984)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Rules/Goals

The rules are the game's goal makeup and the well-defined standard defining how to win a game. Specific, well-defined rules and guidelines are necessary for serious games, and feedback on progress towards achieving goals. There are three types of rules: (1) system rules, (i.e., functional parameters

Enhance performance and motivation (Locke and Latham, 1990)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

58

inherent in the game), (2) procedural rules (i.e., actions in-game to regulate behavior), and (3) imported rules (i.e., rules originating from real-world).

Sensory stimuli Visual or auditory stimuli are helpful to change the perception and imply temporary acceptance of alternative reality.

Enhance the motivational appeal of instructional activities

Helps in grabbing attention (Malone and Lepper, 1987)

✓ ✓ ✓

Challenge

Challenge refers to the difficulty of the possibility of achieving the goal. The challenging game has multiple specified goals, progressive complexity, and information ambiguity. The challenge also increases fun and competition by creating obstacles between the current state and the target state.

Improve personal competencies, Engaging competitive or cooperative motivations,

Improves the learner’s retention of knowledge

✓ ✓ ✓

Mystery

Mystery refers to the gap between known and unknown information. It is the product of differences or inconsistencies in knowledge. Inconsistent information, complexity, novelty, violation of surprises and expectations, incompatible ideas, and inability to make predictions enhance the mystery in the game.

Drive learning evokes curiosity to complete the next levels or quests, Enhance motivation

✓

✓ ✓

59

Control

It is the degree to which learners in the game can direct their learning activities to provide the abilities of self-learning and self-exploration that fit their speed and experience.

Enhance motivation, learning, and affect skill-based learning.

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Adaptation

Adaptation refers to the adjustments of difficulty of game levels according to the player's skills bt matching challenges and possible solutions

Increase learner’s cognitive strategies

✓ ✓

Assessment

It is a measure of achievement by continuously monitoring players' activities (e.g., points or score).

Enhance motivation and attitude

✓ ✓

Conflict

The way to solve the problem in the game usually drives the game's plot or the game's actionroviding interaction. Conflict in the game creates a competition either with other players or outside force. There are four types of conflict: (1) direct conflict, (2) indirect conflict, (3) violent conflict, and (4) non-violent conflict.

Enhance positive cognitive learning

✓ ✓

Interaction (equipment)

It refers to the adaptability and operability of the game, that is, when the player makes any action, the change in-game will occur.

Improve skill-based learning

✓ ✓

Interaction (Interpersonal)

Face-to-face interaction, the relationship between players in real space and time, provides opportunities for others to recognize achievements, and challenges become meaningful, thereby stimulating participation.

Not-provided ✓ ✓

60

Interaction (Social)

Interpersonal activities using technology as a medium encourage recreational gatherings by creating a sense of belonging.


Language/ Communication

The specific communication rules of the game may be an important part of the game. The two communication methods are verbal and written.


Location

The physical or virtual world where the game is located. It affects rules, expectations, and solution parameters. The location may be real, or fantasy, and space may be bound, unbound, or augmented.


Pieces or players

Objects or people such as proxy items, avatars or human participants, contained in the game narrative or game scenario.


Progress It refers to the value that indicates how the player progresses towards the game goal

Not-provided ✓ ✓ ✓

surprise The random elements of the game. Not-provided ✓ ✓

Representation

The player's perception of the reality of the game. It is a subjective function that makes the game psychologically real..

Increase the psychomotor skill’s learning

Enhance motivation

✓ ✓

Safety

Separate actions and consequences (i.e., a safe way to experience reality). The only result is the loss of dignity when lost. The results are not as demanding as the modeling solution


61

Incremental learning

Provide learning materials and gradually introduce learning activities

Helps to understand/adopt new learning, keep the learner engaged

✓

Linearity

The degree to which the game ranks learning activities (and is suitable for a continuous learning style), and the degree to which active learners may construct their sequence.

Not-provided ✓

Attention span

It involves the cognitive processing and short-term memory load imposed by the game on the player. These loads need to be carefully calibrated for the target learner.

Not-provided ✓

Scaffolding The support and help gave by the game in learning activities.

Not-provided ✓

Transfer of learned skills

Support provided by the game to apply previously learned knowledge to other game levels.

Not-provided ✓

Interaction The extent to which game activities require learners to respond and participate

Not-provided ✓

Practice and drill

Provide repetitive learning activities, and the task becomes more and more arduous, can better achieve the expected learning outcomes.

Not-provided ✓

Intermittent feedback

The degree of feedback received during each game interaction, or whether the frequency of feedback is low.

Not-provided ✓

62

Rewards The arrangement in the game aims to encourage learners and maintain their motivation.

Not-provided ✓

Situated and authentic learning

It involves providing a game environment or world where learners can relate their learning to the outside world's needs and interests.

Not-provided ✓

Accommodating to the learner’s

styles

It refers to the game's ability to adapt and influence different learner styles by providing multiple gameplay methods.

Not-provided ✓

Constraint

Constraints are rules that apply to the entire game mode. The limitation provides boundaries to the players that enable or restricts the game in some way.

Not-provided ✓

Level

Levels are parts of the game that contain one or more complete challenges. Subsequent levels are usually built on previous foundations by adding new or more complicated problems, new abilities, exploring new areas, or adding new opponents. Levels range from simple to complex or from easy to hard.

Not-provided ✓

Quest

Tasks provide the players with a fixed goal. Usually consists of a series of interconnected challenges that doubles the sense of accomplishment

Not-provided ✓

Avatar It is a picture or character used as a graphical representation of the game player.

Not-provided ✓

63

Virtual good Virtual goods are items purchased or traded for games such as coins, or money.

Not-provided ✓

Boss fight

These are challenges with the primary opponent (usually physical conflicts) and typically mark the entire game level's final challenge. Many games require players to achieve specific achievements or score levels to win the opportunity to participate in boss challenges.

Not-provided ✓

Leaderboard The leaderboard in games is used to show players ranks relative to other peers in the game.

Not-provided ✓

Hint The indirect suggestion in the form of text, audio, or animations is provided to solve or achieve something.

Not-provided ✓

Combat It is a fight or contest between individuals or groups.

Not-provided ✓

Card The piece of paper or something used to provide information in the game.

Not-provided ✓

Point system A system to identify players by evaluating their activities based on scores representing the quality of achievement.

Not-provided ✓

Reminder It is alert for times or lives remaining in the game.

Not-provided ✓

64

Time pressure It is part of the challenge and subjective state related to the players' perception about allocated time to complete a task.

Not-provided ✓

Progressive disclosure

It is a concept of managing information that indicates that everything in the game should evolve naturally, from simple to complex.

Not-provided ✓

Competition The competition allows players to compete with others. This may be a way to win rewards.

Not-provided ✓

Achievement It is the form of feedback provided to the players when meeting the game levels' goals.

Not-provided ✓

Win state It is the state where the player achieves the goals in specified rules.

Not-provided ✓

Cooperation The Player has to work in a group to complete a goal. It is helpful in team building, communication, and trust.

Not-provided ✓

Resource acquisition

It is a situation in the game where the player has to acquire resources to complete their tasks.

Not-provided ✓

Badge Badges and achievements are a form of feedback—rewards to the player who has achieved it.

Not-provided ✓

Loss aversion

Fear of losing status, friends, points, achievements, property, progress, etc. may be a strong reason for the player to perform actions in the game.

Not-provided

Turns The game flow is partitioned into defined parts, called turns, moves, or plays.

Not-provided

65

9. LEARNING THEORIES AND SGs

Learning is the process of obtaining new knowledge or modifying

existing knowledge, abilities, or actions. It can also be characterized as

permanent behavioral change or knowledge from experience or training. This

skill includes integrating many types of knowledge over time, and the skill of

humans, animals, and even machines (Nicolescu and Mataric, 2003). Learning

may be part of knowledge, self-education, or some other particular awareness

or unconsciousness (Prince and Felder, 2006 and Leahey and Harris, 1989).

Merrill reports (Merrill, 2002) that it is highly desirable to present course

content in various knowledge presentations to apply knowledge in the virtual

world to support and facilitate the learning process. The use of computer

games for this purpose includes several aspects, such as encouraging and

attracting learners, allowing learners to choose or making decisions at specific

points, and checking their learning outcomes based on their decisions and

actions while playing the game. They can also improve their social skills while

working with other learners. However, the effectiveness of overall learning

outcomes can be accomplished by employing other aspects that can be

investigated by considering the learning theories (De Gloria, et al., 2014).

Overview of some learning theories integrated with the Serious games

discussed in the following sections;

9.1 Behaviourism Learning Theory

According to behaviourist theories, learning happens inside the mind,

and it cannot be seen directly (Roblyer and Doering, 2014). The key

behaviourist Theorist comprising (Thorndike, 1923, Pavlov, 1927 and Skinner,

66

2011); all these theorists have assumed that modification or change in

apparent behaviour that is happening by exterior stimuli occurs the

atmosphere is learning. In simple words, learning is any change that happens

in behavior. Learning can be interpreted, explained and predicted on the basis

of observable events, namely the actions of the learner and the context and

implications of the environment.

According to the behaviourist theory, the efficiency and regularity of the

learner increase by positive reinforcement or award. Likewise, the learner's

efficiency and consistency decrease by negative reinforcement or punishment,

and in such a response, the learner is discouraged and less likely to repeat

such tasks.

Reeve (Reeve, 2009) suggests behaviorism and characterizes many

games are severe (story) construction and preparation of rewards.

Reeve (Reeve, 2009) enlists Positive reinforces for games comprise the

following kinds of rewards:

• Increasing extras

• Increasing bonus points

• Increasing power-ups

• Unlock the next levels

Likewise, Negative reinforces comprise:

• Failure to a shattered higher score

• An increase in difficulties or enemies

• The weakening in strength

• Losses of lifelines

67

9.1.1 Behaviourism Instantiation within SGs

As the gaming rule aspect, the player essentially knows about the pride

and lauds rules to understand the game mechanism. Players are rewarded for

completing specific tasks through promotion to successive levels or provided

with tools that will help them advance in the game. "Punishments" include

losing lives or restarting the game at different entry points to re-learn or

practice the material, or directly losing to a peer.

In almost all the genre of the game, the behaviourism learning plays an

important part. For example, to move forward, the player must press button A

and press button B should press button B. Behavioural learning is particularly

useful in explaining the autonomic response triggered in certain situations.

Players need to stimulate their reaction process to understand their goals and

achieve them, for example, in Tetris. Third, from the point of view of "game

narratives," behaviourists see players as machines full of information and are

expected to absorb narratives passively. This is usually done by editing non-

player character (NPC) scenes or textual information (Ang, et al., 2008).

9.2 Cognitivism Learning Theory

According to the cognitivism theory, learning originates from mental

activities, such as motivation, memory, reflection, and thinking. Cognitivism

considers learning is the fundamental procedure that relies upon the learner’s

capacitance, determination, and motivation (Craik and Lockhart 1972, Craik

and Jacoby, 1975). The cognitivism theory is based on exploring the mind

(mental processes) while observing the outside behaviour (Gagné and

Driscoll, 1988).

68

Transferring the knowledge from someone expert in knowledge to the

user or learner who does not know the subject is cognitivism. The inexpert

users' mechanism works as the knowledge is received, takes it on board,

stored, and correlates with existing ideas and information, index it such as an

archiving system). Later, if the information is required, it will retrieve to find it

in memory. It is integrating chunks of information in a more precise and

unforgettable manner. Besides the comprehensive description of the shared

and undistinguishable destination in cognitive philosophy, goals and outcomes

are common-sense guidelines for the learning journey (Protopsaltis, et al.,

2010).

Cognitivism pays more attention to the process than the product.

Therefore, the game's cognition is more important than improving the

response, promoting critical thinking, or helping people learn using various

communication modes (Reeve, 2012). The student becomes the focus of

attention and gains knowledge in various ways (for example, text, pictures, and

sound), enabling players to identify and analyze problems and use past

learning experiences. Players are immersed in a world where they can

integrate with society, and players can interact with other participants and

acquire and use the acquired knowledge in a virtual environment (Protopsaltis,

et al., 2010).

9.2.1 Cognitivism instantiation within SGs

From the perspective of game rules, cognitivism stresses the context-

related essence of knowledge and facilitates learning to complete tasks by

scaffolding. Also, player/learner control is an important part of any game, and

69

players can play the game according to their mood. Some games have a

"warm-up" scene, which helps players to understand how the game is played

and how it works. The player can observe, reflect, and infer the rules below by

interacting with the game. In terms of "game story," environments can be

complicated and include interpersonal tensions between game characters.

Players do not need to develop behavioural patterns, they need to grasp the

significance of scenes, events, characters, etc. In the early days, players will

continue to use the game-like strategies that have been used before and try to

apply the old experience to the new world (Wu, et al., 2012).

9.3 Constructivism Learning Theory

Learning is not a stimulus-response phenomenon defined in behavioral

science, but involves self-regulation and the creation of a conceptual

framework through reflection and abstraction (von Glasersfeld, 2012). The

constructivist approach means that, in addition to receiving the information

from others who know best, the learner has an active part in building their

understanding. Conferring to constructivists, learners view new information

from their unique personal experience of previous understanding. Leaner learn

from their perception, processing and interpretation: personalization of

information through experience (Cooper, 1993 and Wilson, 1997). Situated

learning theory is the lighting point of constructivist theory since it

acknowledges the cognitivist approach to learning. Ernest (Ernest, 1995)

describes that, in contextual learning, the facts are placed in a relevant

situation, taking a version of the trainee's opinions and ideas on the details.

70

Constructivism often recognizes what happens in the real world by

communicating, sharing, and generating new ideas, while stressing the

importance of socio-cultural experiences. Six conventions about the

constructivism learning coined by Dimock and Boethel, (1999) includes:

• It is an adaptive action

• It is situated in a situation where it occurs

• The learner constructs knowledge

• Experience and prior understanding play a role in learning

• There is resistance to change

• Social interaction plays a role in learning

Papert (Papert, 1998) believes that computer programming is a tool for

constructivism. His ideas have appeared in non-professional development

environments, such as the Kudu for Xbox, Mission Maker, and GameStar

Mechanic. Creating games allows users to express their understanding in new

ways and simultaneously consider communicating the basic principles best.

Essentially, this is an opportunity for ordinary game developers to make games

in their own words. The Constructivists suppose the learner as a knowledge

constructor for personal demonstrations of objective certainty (Bednar, et al.,

1991).

9.3.1 Constructivism Instantiation within SGs

From a gaming perspective, constructivism sees learning as a social

mechanism. Constructivism's "playing laws" underscore the relationship

between players and socially created games. Most of the new data can relate

to prior knowledge; thus, mental demonstrations are subjective (Resnick, 1987

and Brown, e*t al., 1989).

71

Constructivist games are the primary source of knowledge, essential

elements and raw data for players to experiment and manipulate. Simulation,

roles and strategy games are good examples of constructivist environments,

since they allow participants to manage resources, sustain and improve these

resources, involve mathematical calculations, and manage a complex

inventory of human, material and financial resources (Frasca 2003). From the

"game story" viewpoint, players' personal views are constructed by players

communicating with each other. In this situation, the world is founded on the

perception of culture's interaction as a whole.

9.4 Experimentalism Theory

Experimental learning focuses on student-centered and personalized

teachers, or educators only act as mediators or promoters. The purpose of this

theory is to create a self-actualized, supportive environment by recognizing the

cognitive and emotional needs of individuals.

Experiential learning is free from requiring any expert or teacher and

encourages learners' straight experience through the meaning-making

process. Kolb (Kolb, 2014) describes that knowledge uninterruptedly

processes, obtained by environmental and individual experiences.

Kolb (Kolb, 2014) suggested that the user learns from their experience.

He defined the learning cycle consists of the following stages, also shown in

Figure II-4:

1. Concrete Experience

2. Observation and Reflection

3. Abstract Conceptualisation

4. Testing concepts in new situations

72

Figure II-4 Kolb experimentalism learning model (2014)

In simple terms, learns to do something, think about the process of

doing that thing, understand and note down the main points, and apply this

knowledge to their future work. The first half cycle is considered perceptual, in

which the user senses and absorb the information originates from concrete

experience and reflects on significance. The second half cycle is regarded as

a processing period, in which the user constructs cognitive models that can be

tested in exercise.

Kolb (Kolb, 2014) claimed that the user could arrive in the learning cycle

from any point, and the cycle is repeated through the remaining phases. In

this cycle, response achieves through experience befits significant in

enhancing performance and the apprentice’s capability and relating

information to advance situations.

When comparing experimentalism with behaviorism or constructivism,

the empiric view of learning is more complex since it represents a more

detailed learner's view. However, as constructivism does, experiential learning

Reflection

Conceptulization

Test

Experience

73

often focuses on the personal experience of learners. The promoter's task is

to enable learners to solve all stages of the learning cycle, which means that

the practitioner's goal is not to teach specific knowledge or train fixed habits,

but to help learners find one useful to them (Reeve, 2012).

The promotion applies to developing and providing learners with space

to try new things, focus on the learners' experiences, draw new conclusions,

and apply the outcomes to the job and life or learner. With this in mind, the

learner will learn with their help instead of having it done to or for them.

9.4.1 Experimentalism instantiation within SGs

Experimentalism emphasizes "game rules" that learners should have

direct experience and focus on reflection. More learner-centered are the Ludus

rules and Payeia rules, which means players can set standards for winning or

losing games (Wu, et al., 2012). The learner-centric approach is the most

important component in terms of 'gameplay,' and players can play the game at

their own pace and mood (Wu, et al., 2012).

Typical experimental games include task-based simulations or role-

playing games, where players have a set or chosen goal and have to "play"

the role consistently to achieve the goal. The benefit of these "open

sandboxes" is that players can try and "fail gently" (Reeve, 2012).

9.5 Discussion

The learning theories, their prominent theorist, related learning method,

game genre, and game example from the above literature review are

summarized in Table II-4.

74

Table II-4: Summarized learning theories, their major theorist, related learning method, game genre, and example games

Behaviourism Cognitivism Constructivism Experimentalism

Major Theorist

B.F. Skinner

Ivan Pavlov,

Edward Thorndike,

John B. Watson

Jean Piaget,

Robert Gagne,

Lev Vygotsky

John Dewey,

Jerome Bruner,

Merrill,

Lev Vygotsky,

Seymour Papert

David A. Kolb

Learning Method

Learning from mistakes,

Learning by doing,

Practice and feedback

Guidance and instructions,

Practice and feedback,

Practice and feedback,

Task-based learning

Task-based,

Problem-solving

Game genre

Simulation, Adventure,

Strategy,

Drill & Practice,

Trial and Error and Puzzle games

Simulation,

Strategy,

Drill & Practice,

Role-Playing and Puzzle games

Simulation,

Strategy,

and Puzzle games

Simulation,

Strategy,

Role-Playing games

Example Games

Myst, Logical journeys of Zoombinis, Math for the Real World, Math blaster

Age of Empires, Professor Layton, Zadarh, The Fifth Empire

SimSchool,

The Incredible Machine,

Pandemic 2,

War on Paper 2

Pediatric Board Game,

Global Conflicts: Palestine,

Europa Universalis II

75

10. METHODS OF INSTRUCTIONAL CONTENTS DELIVERY

Instructional design is a systemic process in which programs for

education and training can be developed and constructed to considerably

increase learning quality (Reiser, 2007). The instructional design model (IDM)

plays a vital role in effectively delivering teaching content to learners. It

provides a program framework for systematic production and delivery of the

instructions by analysing teachers' and learners' learning needs and goals.

Some example of IDM from the literature reviewed is discussed in the following

sections:

10.1 The Gagné-Briggs-model

Robert Gagne is the foremost contributor to the systematic approach to

instructional design and training. Gagné (Gagné and Briggs, 1974) model aims

to answer three essential questions, which are:

1. Which human learning knowledge is relevant to the instructional

design?

2. Does the knowledge about human learning apply to specific

learning situations?

3. What methods and procedures can be used to use knowledge

about human learning for instruction design effectively?

The Gagné-Briggs model thus describes how instructional and teaching

content can be created to meet the basic needs of learning. The model

classifies the nine Gagné instructional events in Table II-5 into three phases

(1) Preparation of learning, (2) acquisition and performance, and (3) transfer

of learning. The model can be expressed as a closed circuit that describes the

76

iterative design, trial-error and revision process shown in Figure II-5. Before

introducing these nine events, Gagné recommended setting course goals and

learning objectives to ensure that they understood or did something that they

did not know or did before instruction. In short, instruction is "stimulation", and

learning is "response".

Table II-5. Gagne events of instruction and their associated actions (Gagné and Medsker, 1996)

Instructional Events Actions

iGain attention iIntroduceistimulusitoieleciticuriosity

iInform learner of the objectives

iDescribeitheiexpectediperformance

iStimulate prerequisite recall iRecallioficonceptsiandirules

iPresent learning material iPresentiexamplesiofitheiconcepts/rules

iGuide learning iUseiverbalicues, iillustrations, ietc

iElicit performance iLetitheilearnersiapplyitheiconcepts/rules

iProvide feedback iConfirmicorrectnessiofiperformance

iAssess performance iTestitheiapplicationiofitheiconcept/rule

iEnhance retention and transfer

IProvideiaivarietyiofiotheriapplications

77

Figure II-5 Three phases of Gagné-Briggs instructional activities (Gagné and Briggs, 1974

10.2 Dick-Carey Model

The Dick (Dick, et al., 2005) model uses a systematic and procedural

approach to design instructions. It is a widely standard instructional design

process model, and all the other models are compared with this model to meet

the standard requirements for the design and development of ID (Gustafson

and Branch, 2002). Figure II-6 depicts the events of design for this model,

which must be executed in sequence to achieve the purpose of instruction

evaluation. The details of the events are also discussed here;

1. Identify instructional goals – It describes the skills, knowledge, or

attitudes that the learner expects to obtain.

2. Conduction of instructional analysis -Specification of learner’s prior

knowledge or abilities for accomplishments of the task.

78

3. Analyze the learner and background-determine the target audience's

general characteristics, including previous skills, experience, and

demographic information; Identify characteristics directly related to

the skills taught; analyze performance and learning settings.

4. Writing of performance goals – goals include descriptions of

behaviors, conditions, and standards. The components of the goal

describe the criteria that will be used to judge learner performance.

5. Develop assessment tools: to conduct testing of initial behavior, pre-

testing, post-testing, and practical intervention.

6. Specify pre-class activities, an intro of contents, learner participation,

and evaluation.

7. Development and selection of instructional materials

8. Design and conduct a formative evaluation of instruction -identify

areas of teaching materials that must be improved.

9. Revise instruction -identification of areas in which students have poor

results and their relevant instructional events

10. Design and conduct a summary evaluation.

79

Figure II-6 Dick-Carey model (Dick, et al., 2005)

10.3 Kemp Design Model

The model is appropriate for all the areas and systematic and non-linear

when working with it (McGriff, 2001). Although the model is useful for

developing instructional plans that integrate technology and pedagogy, it does

not address learners ’mobility and attention. Kemp model depicted in Figure II-

7, uses all the factors in the learning environment, including topic analysis, to

obtain learner characteristics of objective teaching activities, resources to be

used, support service needs, and assessment. Kemp (Kemp and Rodriguez,

1992) design model uses six questions to emphasize the learner's point of

view:

1. What level of preparation does each student need to achieve?

2. Which teaching strategy is most appropriate in terms of goals and

student characteristics?

3. What are the suitable resources and media for the delivery of content?

80

4. Is the support necessary for successful learning?

5. What are the various ways by which the determination for the

achievement of the goals could be done?

6. If the trial version of the program does not meet expectations, what

revisions are required?

Figure II-7 Kemp design model (Kemp and Rodriguez, 1992)

10.4 Gerlach-Ely Model

Gerlach-Ely designed an illustrative instructional model shown in Figure

II-8, the same as the Dick-Carey model. The model has been tested and

applied to both the K-12 level of education and higher education (Gerlach and

Ely, 1980). The model is suitable for its emphasis on content section and media

selection within instruction. It is also ideal for resource allocation (Gerlach and

Ely, 1980). The selection and inclusion of the media or other material within

the instructions are also part of this model. It also handles the allocation of

resources and focuses on resource allocations and enhancement of behavior

while ignoring other factors like learner characteristics, e.g., attention.

81

Figure II-8 Gerlach-Ely instructional design model (Gerlach and Ely, 1980).

10.5 The ARCS Model of Motivational Design

Keller's motivational design approach (Keller, 1983 and Keller, 2010)

focuses on learning motivation and refers specifically to strategies, principles,

and processes that make instructions attractive. Keller believes that when

students are involved in the entire learning process, and proper guidance

methods ensure that student engagement can continue until completing the

learning task, learning can proceed more effectively. Keller’s model is based

upon Gagné’s instructional events. As a central part of the teaching plan,

motivation design refers to the process of organizing teaching resources and

procedures to change learning motivation. The Keller model aims to (1) identify

the motivations and needs of the students, (2) analyze the characteristics of

the students that indicate the motivation requirements for the instructional

system to be designed, and (3) The diagnosis of the materials stimulates the

motivation of the students; (4) Choose appropriate strategies to maintain

motivation; (5) Application and evaluation. Figure II-9 depicts the model

82

constituting four significant components, which provides a theoretical

explanation of the motivation problem, as shown in Figure II-9.

Figure II-9 Components of the Keller’s ARCS model (Keller, 1983 and Keller, 2010)

Keller, (2010) suggests that the ARCS model is designed for effectively

used classrooms and professional learning environments. The ARCS model

has become the most popular motivational model applied in education and is

considered the minimum requirement for designing a learning environment.

From Keller's perspective, the motivation design model is regarded as a

necessary supplement to Gagne's traditional ID model.

11. SUMMARY

In summary, basic concepts of object-oriented programming (OOP) and

their related difficulties and misconception provided in existing studies are

discussed in this chapter. The core competencies required for mastering in

OOP and the various approaches adopted for teaching of OOP instructional

contents are looked in details. The sections 1 to 5 and its subsection

contributed for the setting learning objectives and expected learning outcomes

Stimulate Learner’s

curiosity and interest

Attention

Related to learner’s

experiences and needs

RelevanceScaffold learner’s

success of meaningful tasks

Confidence

Builds learner’s sense of

reinforcement and achievement

Satisfaction

83

of the proposed study. The result of these sections will also help in creating

the competency model for SGs prototype.

Summary of the related literature on the concept of serious games and

their associated terminology. This includes a review of existing serious games

that facilitate OOP learning, various attributes of serious games that contribute

to students ' learning and motivation are discussed. Section 6 to 10 and its

subsection provides the guidelines for design and development of SGs model

to achieve enhance the learning outcomes or achieves the objectives

discussed in section 1 to 5.

84

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND TOOLS

This chapter aims for the investigation of students’ difficulties and

misconceptions while performing OOP tasks. The investigation was carried to

get a better picture of the type of difficulties, and misconception students were

making while solving the OOP related task. The feedback was also gathered

to know the student's opinions on the learning experience and OOP learning

issues. The authors’ competency model to be incorporated into the design and

development of the SGs model to overcome the identified difficulties and

misconceptions.

In order to design a serious game model, the purpose of the proposed

model is first introduced, followed by an explanation of the design of the model.

The formulated model contains a detailed description of the instructional

contents or difficulties preordained to be overcome using the model. The

mapping of the instructional steps into the game attributes is also focused on the

formulated model. Since the model to be developed is related to learning, the

influence of learning theory on model formulation is also considered. The

ARCS model for perceived motivation is incorporated into the development of

the model for the difficulties arising from the lack of motivation.

Serious game prototype development is given to illustrate the proposed

model's logical view. The developed OOP learning serious game is named as

OOsg. OOsg integrates all the elements and tasks involved in developing the

serious game model. Details of each stage are discussed in the below

sections;

85

1. INVESTIGATION ON STUDENTS PERFORMANCE

The purpose of this investigation on the performance of students to

better understand the types of difficulties and misconceptions encountered in

solving some OO-related tasks and activities. Below are the detailed objectives

of this study:

• To find students’ abilities for the achievement of OOP

competencies presented through OOP related tasks.

• Find out if students' abilities are different in solving various

activities involving OOP concepts

• To find out the types of mistakes and misconceptions student

make when various activities involving OOP concepts are given to

them.

1.1 Experimental Design

For the achievement of the objectives, a questionnaire was designed,

including two parts; the first part was about the participants' demographical

details; in the second part, a problem scenario depicting the hospital

management systems (available in Appendix-A) was designed. A model-test

involving the various activities related to OOP concepts was presented to the

students based on problem-scenario. The detail of the demographical

variables and activities will be discussed in the next sections.

1.1.1 Demographical details:

A total of 319 students from four separate universities participated in

this research. Two hundred thirty-one participants were from Information

Technology Centre, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam, 53 participants

were from the University of Sindh, Mirpurkhas campus, 18 students were from

86

Isra University, Hyderabad, and 11 students from Indus University, Karachi. All

the participants were grouped in the same age category, i.e., in the range of

18-25 age group. The volunteer participants were comprised of 26% of

females and 74% of male participants. The participants were enrolled in the

second term of their degree programs, which comprises 91% of the students

enrolled in a B.S. (Information Technology), 5% of the participants enrolled in

B.S. (Software Engineering) and 4% in B.S. (Computer Science) program.61%

(124) participants have previous programming experience regarding the prior

programming experience, whereas 39% (195) participants do not possess any

prior programming experience. The above details are also presented in Table

III-1.

Table III-1 Demographical details of the participants

No. of participants 319

Gender 74%(236) Male, 26%(83) Female

Age 18-25 years

Level of education Undergrad students

Program enrolled BS(IT), BS(CS), BS(SE)

Institutes Information Technology Centre, SAU, Tandojam Isra University, Hyderabad University of Sindh, Mirpurkhas campus Indus University, Karachi

Prior Programming Experience

61%(124) Yes, 39%(195) No

1.1.2 Activity details:

Learning activities are a series of activities designed to enable

participants to participate in problem-solving actively. The practical design of

these activities ensures that participants are focused on while solving them.

Before providing the activities to be addressed, a problem scenario depicting

87

the hospital management systems (available in Appendix-A) was briefly

explained to the students. The problem scenario was followed by a set of eight

cognitive activities based on OOP concepts. All the activities were aligned to

achieve the Bloom's (Bloom, 1956) levels of outcomes, as shown in Figure III-

1. The details about the objectives, designated activities, and related OOP

concepts are also provided in Appendix-B.

Figure III-1 Alignment of the activities with Bloom's learning outcomes model

Activity-1(A1) is about the identification of the potential classes from the

given scenario. This activity was aimed to develop cognition about the sensible

identification of various groups such as happened in class in OOP.

Activity-2(A2) was about identifying the properties and behaviors for

three different roles presented in the hospital, i.e., doctor, nurse, and patient.

This activity's objective was to decompose a problem domain into classes of

objects with related states (data members) and behavior (methods).

88

Activity-3(A3) was about providing the most relevant and irreverent

details that the patient must provide when they visit the doctor. This activity's

objective was to define the class at the proper degree of abstraction to

minimize the complexity.

Activity-4(A4) was about considering any medical equipment and

participants are supposed to describe how to operate the medical equipment,

how difficult it would be to describe the internal components of this item, such

as complete technical details, that how it works. The objective of this activity

was to explain how the class mechanism supports encapsulations and

information hiding.

In the activity-5(A5), the participants were supposed to consider the

hospital's people. The participants were supposed to write common list

occupations they expect to be employed there and some staff categories. The

objective of this activity was to analyse and explain the concepts of

generalization.

Activity-6(A6) was about some common properties that all the doctors

must share, and participants have to provide one statement that would true for

one specific kind of doctor and one statement that is not to be true for all other

types of doctors. The objective of this activity was to understand and

implement a class-hierarchy design for modelling.

Activity-7(A7) was about one statement about how hospital

management employee interacts with other hospital doctors of all kinds. This

activity's objective was to explain the relationship between the class's static

structure and the dynamic structure of the instances of the class, especially in

the context of how dynamic dispatch is involved in subtype polymorphism.

89

In the activity-8(A8), participants were supposed to think about any

object and list its current state and what they can do with that object. The

objective of this activity was to understand the concept of object interaction.

1.1.3 Procedure

The test was conducted in only one session. The participants were not

allowed to discuss their answers with each other. They were told to write down

all the answers in a given ample space. No time limit was imposed on the

participants to answer all the problems. However, the session lasts for two

hours when all the participants have handed in their work. Each student’s

answers were assessed and analyzed as complete and correct answers,

partially correct answers, partly wrong answers, a wrong answer, and no

response for the given set of activities. Moreover, the type of mistakes and

misconceptions participants frequently made during solving the activities were

also analysed. The difficulties and misconceptions were categorized based on

each of the participant’s responses; however, in this study, we focused only

on the difficulties and misconceptions related to classes, attributes,

behaviours, inheritance, and object concepts.

1.1.4 Results

The investigation results on students' performance in solving OOP-

related have shown that students have difficulty in almost every activity;

however, each activity has different results, as presented in Table III-2 and

Figure III-2. Students feel more difficulty in solving the activity-1 for providing

the complete or correct or even partially correct answers for the activity-1;

moreover, it has been observed from the results that the majority of the

90

students presented the wrong answer or no answer at all. Furthermore,

students performed better for activity-5, which is about “generalization”

compared to the activity-6, which is about “inheritance,” it is; therefore, we may

not include the activities related to the OOP's generalization concepts.

Table III-2 shows the percentages of the responses made by students

while solving OOP activities. Figure III-2 represents the result of Table III-2

graphically, but instead of proportion, the responses are given in count

numbers. Each activity's responses are given as a complete and correct

answer, partially correct answers, partly wrong answers, a wrong answer, and

no response for the given set of activities.

91

Table III-2: Responses collected from the participants while solving OOP activities

Activities

Complete and

Correct Answers

Partly correct

Answers

Partly Wrong

Answers

Wrong Answers

No Response

A1: identification of the classes

3.13% 7.84% 13.79% 59.56% 15.67%

A2: Identification of properties and Behavior

8.46% 20.69% 28.84% 23.82% 18.18%

A3: Abstraction (Relevant and Irrelevant)

22.57% 32.92% 6.27% 17.24% 21.00%

A4: Encapsulation (Example Object with internal Details)

16.61% 43.57% 0.00% 8.78% 31.03%

A5: Generalization (Types and Sub Types)

5.02% 62.07% 1.25% 10.34% 21.32%

A6: Inheritance (True Statement about Doctor and Surgeon)

20.38% 5.96% 23.20% 29.78% 18.81%

A7: Polymorphism (Interaction)

33.54% 0.00% 0.00% 33.23% 33.23%

A8: Object 10.97% 12.54% 6.58% 26.65% 43.26%

92

Figure III-2 Summarized responses while solving the OOP activities

93

If we look at the feedback from the student investigation on the

performance, difficulties in comprehension of OOP 's concepts can be found;

however, if we look at the suggestions provided by the students, they have

faced certain some other problems and misconceptions, following are the few

that can be noticed:

a. Difficulties and Misconceptions In Understanding Classes:

From the results of the solution provided for the activity-1, most of the

students had mistaken to give a reference to some-non-existing classes. The

researcher observes that the student did not identify the classes by

considering the given problem scenario. Another difficulty that has been seen

is that students fail to provide the complete identification of the classes.

Besides these difficulties, students also have some misconceptions of

conflation between class and attribute or method or object. Some students'

solutions included repeated identification of the classes as the same

occurrences of classes are written multiple times in the given problem

scenario.

b. Difficulties And Misconceptions In Understanding Objects:

From the results of the solution provided for the activity-8, the majority

of the students had shown the wrong instantiation of the classes, or in other

words, students have difficulty in showing association of an object with a

particular class. Besides these difficulties, students also have some

misconceptions about conflation between object and attribute or class. Some

student’s solutions included repeated identification of the objects, like the

94

same occurrences of objects written multiple times in the given problem

scenario.

c. Difficulties and misconceptions in understanding attribute:

From the results of the solution provided for the activity-2, most students

had difficulty giving the complete identification of attributes or properties for the

particular class. Another difficulty observed is that students fail to identify the

attributes of all the classes they have previously identified. Besides these

difficulties, students also have some misconceptions of conflation between

attributes and class or method or object.

d. Difficulties and Misconceptions In Understanding Methods:

From the results of the solution provided for activity-2, most of the

students had difficulty giving the complete identification of methods or

behaviors for the particular class. Another difficulty observed is that students

fail to identify the methods of all the classes they have previously identified.

Besides these difficulties, students also have some misconceptions of

conflation between methods and class or attributes or objects.

e. Difficulties and Misconceptions In Understanding Inheritance:

From the results of the solution provided for the activity-6, most of the

students had mistakenly provided a reference to some-non-existing

hierarchies of the classes. Another difficulty that has been observed is that

students fail to provide the complete hierarchies of classes. Besides these

difficulties, students also have some misconceptions about finding the class

that may exist in the between the identified hierarchy, and students sometimes

select the same class as both parents and children. Moreover, in many

95

occurrences of the student’s solution, it has been observed that they have

chosen child class as a parent class.

For this research purpose, the focus is only on the difficulties and

misconceptions in activities 1, 2, 6, and 8, as most students made mistakes

when solving these activities.

2. STUDENT'S FEEDBACK FOR BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE OOP CONCEPTS

After performing the investigations, the feedback was collected from

students for various factors that hindered learning OOP. The questionnaire

developed by the researcher, for obtaining the feedback (provided in

Appendix-C) consists of items for the following categories:

• Procedural programming Vs. OOP

• Understanding OOP concepts

• The motivation for learning OOP

There were 48 items included in the questionnaire, and each item is

presented to participants on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 for “Strongly

disagree” to 5 for “Strongly Agree.” This questionnaire's results were not

formally analysed but were instead to analyse the strengths and weaknesses

of the various factors that hindrances in learning OOP.

The category procedural programming vs. OOP includes five items

related to the transition from procedural programming to OOP, utilization of the

procedural or OOP logic, the interestingness of OOP comparing procedural

programming, difficulty in solving given task using OOP or procedural

programming, and prior programming language helps learn OO or not. The

96

overall means score, frequency, and percentage of the students' responses

for the category procedural programming Vs. OOP is presented in Table III-3.

The percentage of “transition from procedural programming to OOP

paradigm,” “utilization of the procedural or OOP logic,” and “interestingness of

OOP comparing procedural programming” shows that participants have the

highest scores of 112 (35.10%), 125 (39.18%) and 125 (39.18%) score

between 3.01 to 4.00 respectively. However, for the item “difficulty in solving

given task using OOP rather than procedural programming,” most of the

students strongly disagree 150 (47.02%) on this. The majority of the students

were Dis-Agree for the item “prior programming experience helps learn OOP”.

The researcher assumed that shift from procedural to OOP or having prior

programming experience was not helpful because the existing teaching

methodology makes OOP learning hard.

97

Table III-3 Overall mean score, frequency, and percentage for the category procedural programming vs OOP

Items/Scores Score

1.00-2.00 Score

2.1-3.00 Score

3.1-4.00 Score

4.1-5.00

Me

an

Sco

re

The transition from procedural programming to OOP paradigm is easy?

81 (25.39%)

84 (26.33%)

112 (35.10%)

42 (13.16%)

3.30

Is it difficult to utilize the procedural programming logic wherein required in the OOP structure?

90 (28.21%)

74 (23.19%)

125 (39.18%)

30 (9.40%)

3.14

Does programming OOP is more interesting than procedural programming?

70 (21.94%)

64 (20.06%)

125 (39.18%)

60 (18.80%)

3.49

Is it difficult to solve a given task using the OOP approach than the Procedural programming approach

150 (47.02%)

42 (13.16%)

103 (32.28%)

24 (7.52%)

2.84

YES NO

Prior programming language experience is helpful in learning the OOP?

78 (24.45%)

241 (75.55%)

The category Understanding of the OOP concepts includes 23 items.

The items are related to the order of class or object being learned, difficulty in

identification of objects, attributes, methods, categorize class members,

applying attributes or methods to the objects, analyzing the interaction by

message passing, providing hierarchy, integrating class, remembering the

structure of the classes, comprehending the given problem/task in terms of

OOP, implementing the OOP concepts for creating programs, remembering

the importing the required package, applying specific access specifier,

optimization of the code, remembering the naming conventions when declaring

identifiers and difficulty in understanding which OOP structure best used in

98

given situation/task. The other items are about the necessity of ordering

sequence of topics learned in OOP, comparing polymorphisms and if-else

condition, and starting learning OOP by writing code, seeing graphical

components, or providing the real-life examples. The last item is whether

learning by start writing code is challenging to grasp the OOP concepts.

The overall means score, frequency, and percentage of the student’s

responses to the category understanding of the OOP concepts presented in

Table III-4. Results revealed that for the order of class or object being learned,

the majority156 (48.90%) of the students rated the highest score between 4.1-

5.00 for class should be learned before the object, whereas for the object

should be learned before class the majority of the students 222 (69.59%) rated

the highest score between 1.00-2.00. As evidence of the students' activities

before the feedback form, all the students rated between the 3.1-4.00 score

for all the items related to the difficulties in OOP concepts. For the item about

the necessity of having ordering sequence of topics learn in OOP majority of

the students111 (34.79%) rated the highest rated score between 3.1-4.00, and

for item comparison between polymorphisms and if-else condition, the majority

of the students 178(55.79%) have provided lowest rating score between 1.00-

2.00. For the items related to the starting of learning OOP by writing code or

seeing graphical components or providing a real-life example, the students

highly rated 190 (59.56%) for start learning by giving the real-life example

followed by seeing graphical components, i.e., 168 (52.66%). Students rated

a highest-rated score of 116 (36.36%) between 3.1-4.00 for item starting the

OOP by writing the code is difficult to grasp the concepts.

99

Table III-4 Overall mean score, frequency, and percentage for category understanding OOP concepts

Items/Scores Score

1.00-2.00

Score

2.1-3.00

Score

3.1-4.00

Score

4.1-5.00 Mean Score

Should the class be learned before the object?

77 (24.13%)

27 (8.46%)

59 (18.49%)

156 (48.90%)

3.58

Should an object be learned before class?

222 (69.59%)

38 (11.91%)

32 (10.03%)

27 (8.46%)

2.45

Is it difficult to identify /list the different objects to be used for the given task

81 (25.39%)

41 (12.85%)

145 (45.45%)

52 (16.30%)

3.43

Is it difficult to grasp class attributes and methods?

58 (18.18%)

45 (14.10%)

168 (52.66%)

48 (15.04%)

3.53

Is it difficult to categorize the class members (static members), local variables, and parameters of the methods

64 (20.06%)

51 (15.98%)

113 (35.42%)

91 (28.52%)

3.62

Is it difficult to apply attributes and methods to objects

68 (21.31%)

43 (13.47%)

142 (44.51%)

66 (20.68%)

3.53

Is it difficult to analyse the interaction between the objects by message passing

55 (17.24%)

71 (22.25%)

103 (32.28%)

90 (28.21%)

3.62

Is it difficult to provide the hierarchy of the classes

74 (23.19%)

56 (17.55%)

132 (41.37%)

57 (17.86%)

3.48

Is it difficult to integrate the classes

62 (19.43%)

81 (25.39%)

126 (39.49%)

50 (15.67%)

3.45

Is It difficult to remember the structure of the class?

68 (21.31%)

56 (17.55%)

144 (45.14%)

51 (15.98%)

3.53

Is it difficult to comprehend the given problem/programming task in OOP terms?

81 (25.39%)

62 (19.43%)

153 (47.96%)

23 (7.21%)

3.24

Is it difficult to implement the OOP

115 (36.05%)

126 (39.49%)

41 (12.85%)

37 (11.59%)

2.98

100

concepts for creating the program?

Is it difficult to remember which package is required to import for the specific method

74 (23.19%)

48 (15.04%)

44 (13.79%)

152 (47.64%)

3.91

Is it difficult to apply access specifier depending on a given task

79 (24.76%)

72 (22.57%)

114 (35.73%)

53 (16.61%)

3.35

Is it difficult to optimize the code in OOP

93 (29.15%)

60 (18.80%)

113 (35.42%)

52 (16.30%)

3.29

Is it difficult to remember the naming convention when declaring identifiers

66 (20.68%)

45 (14.10%)

132 (41.37%)

75 (23.51%)

3.60

Is it difficult to understand which OOP structures best to be used in the given situation

63 (19.74%)

45 (14.10%)

172 (53.91%)

39 (12.22%)

3.55

Is it necessary to have an ordering sequence in topics learn in OOP?

53 (16.61%)

46 (14.42%)

111 (34.79%)

109 (34.16%)

3.80

Is the polymorphism useless to use in OOP, as this can be achieved by using the if-else statement

178 (55.79%)

44 (13.79%)

39 (12.22%)

58 (18.18%)

2.76

Do You want to start learning Programming by coding?

235 (73.66%)

41 (12.85%)

37 (11.59%)

6 (1.88%)

2.08

Is it good to start learning OOP by seeing graphical components?

37 (11.59%)

35 (10.97%)

168 (52.66%)

79 (24.76%)

3.87

Is it good to start learning OOP by providing a real-life example?

74 (23.19%)

30 (9.40%)

190 (59.56%)

25 (7.83%)

3.43

Starting the OOP by writing the code is difficult to grasp the concepts

70 (21.94%)

33 (10.34%)

116 (36.36%)

100 (31.34%)

3.71

101

The category motivation for learning OOP includes 20 items related to

the satisfaction, completeness, enjoy-ability, interestingness, attention of the

activities provided before the feedback form, and the majority of the student

rated the highest score between 1.00-2.00 for all these items. The overall

means score, frequency, and percentage of the student’s responses to this

category in Table III-5. For the items related to learning, OOP is boring in the

classroom, putting extra efforts to understand OOP concepts, trouble in

understanding OOP, thinking to quit the program currently enrolled in, and

leaving because of programming the highest rated score was between 3.1-

4.00.

Table III-5 Overall mean score, frequency, and percentage for category motivation for learning OOP

Items/Scores Score

1.00-2.00 Score

2.1-3.00 Score

3.1-4.00 Score

4.1-5.00 Mean Score

I am satisfied with my performance at this task.

153 (47.96%)

52 (16.30%)

40 (12.53%)

74 (23.19%)

3.01

After working at this activity for a while, I felt pretty competent.

198 (62.06%)

25 (7.83%)

61 (19.12%)

35 (10.97%)

2.67

I thought this activity was quite enjoyable.

187 (58.62%)

33 (10.34%)

72 (22.57%)

27 (8.46%)

2.73

I would describe this activity as very interesting

169 (52.97%)

61 (19.12%)

39 (12.22%)

50 (15.67%)

2.82

While I was doing this activity, I was thinking about how much I enjoyed it.

198 (62.06%)

31 (9.71%)

50 (15.67%)

40 (12.53%)

2.56

I am very interested in learning OOP

138 (43.26%)

47 (14.73%)

86 (26.95%)

48 (15.04%)

2.90

Solving OOP activities like this hold my attention at all.

174 (54.54%)

70 (21.94%)

40 (12.53%)

35 (10.97%)

2.71

I like the way I am learning about OOP in class

192 (60.18%)

60 (18.80%)

30 (9.40%)

37 (11.59%)

2.61

102

I enjoy learning new things in class

147 (46.08%)

50 (15.67%)

44 (13.79%)

78 (24.45%)

3.05

When I run into a difficult homework problem, I keep working at it until I think I’ve solved it.

168 (52.66%)

56 (17.55%)

59 (18.49%)

36 (11.28%)

2.81

Is your course grades accurately reflect how much you have learned?

168 (52.66%)

29 (9.09%)

65 (20.37%)

57 (17.86%)

2.97

I always enjoyed learning about OOP in the classroom.

183 (57.36%)

60 (18.80%)

34 (10.65%)

42 (13.16%)

2.67

I always enjoyed learning about OOP outside the classroom.

169 (52.97%)

40 (12.53%)

59 (18.49%)

51 (15.98%)

2.91

I am satisfied with the way the OOP subject is taught to me during this course

209 (65.51%)

60 (18.80%)

30 (9.40%)

20 (6.26%)

2.40

I have enjoyed the way the OOP subject is taught to me during this course

198 (62.06%)

66 (20.68%)

30 (9.40%)

25 (7.83%)

2.47

I think learning OOP is boring in the classroom environment

66 (20.68%)

35 (10.97%)

145 (45.45%)

73 (22.88%)

3.66

In class, I have to put extra efforts to understand OOP

50 (15.67%)

35 (10.97%)

122 (38.24%)

112 (35.10%)

3.89

I have trouble understanding the OOP problems; I go over it again until I understand it.

49 (15.36%)

37 (11.59%)

162 (50.78%)

71 (22.25%)

3.77

Have you ever thought about the quit the program you are enrolled in?

72 (22.57%)

65 (20.37%)

146 (45.76%)

36 (11.28%)

3.43

If yes, is it because of the difficulty in learning programming languages?

81 (25.39%)

53 (16.61%)

153 (47.96%)

32 (10.03%)

3.37

103

3. THE PROPOSED COMPETENCY STRUCTURE MODEL

In chapter II and section 4, the various competency models are

discussed. However, some limitation creates urge for creating the new

competency structure model, such as competency model proposed by

Havenga (Havenga, 2008) discussed in section 4.1 of chapter II, lacks in

providing the evidence for the measurement of the discussed competencies.

The COMMOOP structural model (Kramer, et al., 2016) discussed in section

4.2 of chapter II, focused on many other competencies besides competencies

related to OOP such as mastering in the syntax and semantics, problem-

solving testing, debugging and meta-cognitive competencies. The model also

lacks in refinement of the core competencies related to OOP, which results in

widen the scope of research. Simona Hierarchy-based competency model

discussed in section 4.3 of Chapter-II does fails in the implementation of model

given study framework.

Henceforth, it is observed that available models fail to describe that

how the competencies should be evaluated either in the traditional learning

system or using any game prototype; it is; therefore, the researcher design the

competency model herself. The competency model is also required to be

implemented in the research study prototype aiming to evaluate the core

competencies of OOP in students.

The proposed competency structure model is presented in Figure III-3.

104

Figure III-3 Proposed competency model for mastering OOP skills

Figure III-3 shows the competency model, used to describes the

student's competencies that we want to assess, such as knowledge, skills, or

other attributes. CM is used primarily to support the reasoning for specific

purposes, such as providing scores for students' homework or assignments,

certificates, diagnosis, or further guidance. A group of knowledge and skills in

CM are called nodes. A more specific CM version is called the student model,

which describes competencies at a finer granularity, such as transcripts or

progress reports.

This research study emphasizes the achievement of competencies

related to the “understand structures” and their underlying sub-competencies.

The sub-competencies of “understand structures,” which are "understanding

inheritance", "understanding of classes," and "understanding of objects," and

105

their sub-competencies (that is, the shaded parts in Figure II-5) are focused in

this research study and incorporated in the serious game model. The

competency "understanding inheritance" has sub- competency or tasks "sub-

and super-classes". The node “identification of class” does not include any

sub-competency; therefore, it is referred to as concrete tasks/activities. The

competency “creation of class” have two sub-nodes related to the “define the

status” and “define behaviors”, furthermore, the “define state” and “define

behaviors” have other child nodes, considered as a concrete task/active

nodes.

4. PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED MODEL

From identifying the student’s difficulties and misconceptions through

the investigation on student’s performance discussed in chapter III, section 1,

and existing serious games available for learning and teaching OOP discussed

in chapter II, section7, identifying the essential elements that make up the

proposed model. From the findings of Chapter II and section 2, which is about

identifying difficulties and misconception in learning OOP from the literature

review as well from the chapter III and section 1, investigation on students’

performance, the proposed model could serve as:

1. A model is required to overcome the difficulties and avoid

misconceptions in comprehending given OO problems such as identifying the

classes, their attributes and methods, the impact of creation and destruction

of class objects, and establishing the correct hierarchy. The model also aims

to foster the learning outcomes and improve the performance of the students.

106

From the findings of chapter II and section 7, which is a study about the

existing serious games to support OOP, the purpose of the proposed model

could be viewed as:

2. A model is needed to overcome students’ obstacles and follow

the entire learning process in a fun and engaging way. Therefore, the

development of models is influenced by learning theories, and by linking game

attributes to instructional design models. For the difficulties arise because of

the lack of motivation, the motivational model is incorporated into the model's

design.

5. DESIGN OF THE MODEL

In order to design a model of a serious game, the following process

needs to be performed:

5.1 Identification of Attributes for Serious Games Model

To propose a new model for the serious games, students' difficulties or

misconceptions are identified as instructional contents of the prototype.

Moreover, the mapping of the instructional contents related with the game

attributes either suitable for the achievement of the expected learning

outcomes or to sustain motivation while learning so that it becomes a

challenge, curiosity, and fantasy for students to complete them. The details of

these attributes are provided in the below sections.

107

5.1.1 Identification of the instructional contents and difficulties needs to be incorporated as an input in the model

There is a great debate about the instructional content to be taught in the

course of OOP. The discussion about the instructional contents or core OOP

quarks is available in chapter II from section 1.1 through 1.8.

Many difficulties in learning OOP have come in the notice from

reviewing the existing studies discussed in chapter II section 2, and the st6.2

udent’s evaluation performed after investigating to find the possible causes by

which those difficulties have occurred. Moreover, it is concluded from the

studies included in the literature review that obstacles are arises because of

the motivational issues which may be due to uninteresting approach for

teaching OOP concepts such as starting with technical details of the language,

complexity of learning and practicing environment, improper or incomplete

feedback on students’ activities and fear of failure during the course.

The results of the investigation on the student's activities provided in

chapter III indicates that students faced obstacles in the comprehension of

basic OOP concepts such as identifying classes, defining states and

behaviors, associations between classes, the impact of creating or destructing

objects of specific classes, defining the proper degree of abstraction,

mechanism of encapsulation and information hiding, concepts of

generalization, relationship between the static structure of the class and the

dynamic structure of the instances of the class, especially in the dynamic

context dispatch in a given problem scenario are a big challenge. Besides,

student feedback results indicate that it is difficult to understand the difference

in procedural vs. OOP languages, lack of comprehension, and applying basic

108

OOP concepts. The difficulties in existing teaching methods results become

the main reason for students' lack of interest in learning OOP.

For the design and development of the serious game model, this

research focused on instructional contents or quarks of OOP described by the

(Armstrong, 2006), i.e., structural (Abstraction, Class, Encapsulation, Object,

Inheritance) and behavioural (Message Passing, Method, Polymorphism).

However, in this study, the three structural, i.e., class, object, inheritance, and

one behavioural, i.e., method, are included as the model's instructional

contents.

Subsequently, the summarized difficulties found from above mentioned

three methods, i.e. (A) difficulties from the existing studies, (B) results of the

investigation on student’s activities, and (C) feedback provided as shown in

Figure III-4. The results of the most common difficulties in (A) & (B) and (B) &

(C) indicates the difficulties incomprehension of the OOP concepts, and the

result of the common difficulties between (A) &( C) indicates the difficulties

incomprehension of the OOP concepts and difficulties arises because of the

motivational issues.

Hence, the following difficulties need to be incorporated as input content

in developing the Serious games model.

1. The result indicates that students have difficulties and

misconception in the comprehension of almost all the quarks of the OOP;

however, it will become the beyond the scope of the study to incorporates all

those difficulties in the design and development of the prototype of a serious

game, it is; therefore, we limit this study to consider the difficulties related to

109

the classes, attributes, behaviours, objects, and hierarchies as discussed in

Chapter -III section 1.

2. Difficulties related to motivation issues are solved by using the

design of the Serious games model. This is because the method of teaching

OOP concepts is not interesting enough; the complexity of the learning and

practice environment, and improper or incomplete feedback on student

activities.

Figure III-4: Summarized difficulties from (A) the existing studies, (B)

investigation on student’s activities, and (C) feedback provided from the students

5.1.2 Identification of the instructional design for delivery of the contents

So far, in Chapter II and Section 10, various teaching models have been

discussed. Instructional design is the process of analyzing learning needs and

goals and developing instructional content accordingly. The instructional

A. Summary of Difficulties from Literature Review

B. Summary of Difficulties from Student’s Investigation

C. Summary of Difficulties from Student’s Feedback

110

contents for this study are based on the Gagné-Briggs model (discussed in

Section 10.1 of Chapter II). Later, Gagné's pioneering work in instructional

design, his disciples, has reached a consensus that teaching effectiveness

depends on the learner's motivation to learn. For motivation stimulation, some

measures must be taken first to attract the learner's attention. However, the

analysis of the existing ID model showed after preliminary analysis and

evaluation, most people have given up worrying about learners' motivation,

such as immediate results for learning effects, but despite that, they support

its internal processes. Other areas of education that are critical to learning are

content delivery. Learner feedback (as content delivery) followed the method

proposed by Gagné (Gagné and Briggs, 1974), which involves nine events to

support internal processes related to learning in this study.

The most important thing about these events is ensuring the learner

stays engaged and learning within the environment and stays immersed

without becoming bored. Activities should involve learning materials that are

appropriate and challenging for the target learner seeking competency at a

level slightly above that of their current competency. Subsequently, applying

the nine instructional events of Gagné-Briggs are considered to be an excellent

way to ensure effective and systematic delivery of instructional contents,

because it provides a structure for the lesson plan and provides a holistic view

of teaching.

The connecting game attributes to these in instructional events serve to

be an effective way to benefit from the designed Serious games (Becker,

111

2007). Some of the example game activities incorporated as Gagne

instructional events are presented in Table III-6.

Table III-6 Example game activities incorporated as Gagne instructional events

Gagne Instructional Events Example Game Activities

Gain attention The welcoming player with their chosen Avtar and name, or background music

Inform learner of the objectives Presenting the game objectives, outcomes or about information

Stimulate prerequisite recall Providing the warm-up scenarios or presenting the information for related items in the game

Present learning material Presenting the game activities

Guide learning

Presenting the information regarding rules and goals of each level, how to increase and decrease in points/score, how to get hints, win/lose strategies

Elicit performance Presenting the game levels needs to play, performing actions in the levels

Provide feedback Providing feedback on players action taken in the game

Assess performance Providing game score, correct and wrong attempts, remaining tasks, etc

Enhance retention and transfer Provide the previous information in the next levels with increased challenged or complexity

Besides effective instructional content delivery to achieve the expected

learning outcomes, the motivational design model should be considered the

necessary completion of the ID models in Gagné’s tradition. Therefore, the

Keller’s ARCS model, discussed in chapter II, section 10.5, is included in the

Serious games model design in this research. The ARCS model is chosen

because of its exceptional quality of emphasizing the instructional design

domain, such as learner’s motivation, attention, and so on, which is not

considered by other instructional models. The ARCS model has developed into

112

the most popular motivation design method in education, and its components

should be considered the minimum requirements for designing a learning

environment.

5.1.3 Identification of the game attributes which contributes to learning and motivation

Bedwell (Bedwell, et al., 2012) suggested that if the game attributes are

adequately used during game design, they help promote learning and boost

student’s interest. To ensure that serious games have the same degree of

teaching experience as traditional teaching methods, it is important to integrate

traditional teaching elements that have been successfully established in

designing and developing serious games prototype. These successful aspects

are known as game attributes in the field of game design. Ricci (Ricci, et al.

1996) proposed that instruction that incorporated game features enhanced

student motivation, which led to more considerable attention to training content

and greater retention.

Matching the desired learning outcomes with the game attributes, or

instead of selecting the game attributes to produce the desired outcome, is a

difficult task. On the other side, tying the game attributes with exclusive

instructional design to achieve intended learning outcomes would help

trainers, instructors, practitioners, and learners. Several studies have been

reviewed for the identification of the game attributes contributing to effective

learning and motivation. The summary of game attributes and outcomes that

are supposed to be achieved using those attributes is presented in Table II-3

of chapter II. The game attributes, which are majorly used by all the authors of

113

reviewed studies, are selected to design the Serious games model in this

research study.

Furthermore, the selection is also based on the type of outcomes

produced by the game attributes. Conclusively, the game attributes defined by

Garris (Garris, et al., 2002), i.e. (1) fantasy, (2) rules/goals, (3) sensory stimuli,

(4) challenge, (5) mystery, and (6) control and one more attributes “Progress”

is used by the majority of the authors. However, we have a limit to use the six-

game attributes defined by the Garris (Garris, et al., 2002), as the outcomes

produced by the game attribute “Progress” are yet not well defined by the

authors. Specifically, to make the learning activities intrinsically motivating,

Malone (Malone,1981) proposed challenge, curiosity, and fantasy attributes

very effectively. The description of Garris (Garris, et al., 2002) game attributes

and the outcomes produced is sum-up in Table III-7.

Table III-7 Game attributes and possible outcomes provided by Garris 2002

Attributes Description Possible Outcomes

Fantasy

The fantasy element in the game represents something different from real life and evokes a mental image that does not exist

Increase learning and interest (Cordova and Lepper, 1996; Parker and Lepper, 1992). Increase the Automaticity The Increase focus of attention and self-absorption (Driskell and Dwyer, 1984)

Rules/ Goals

The rules are the game's goal makeup and the well-defined standard defining how to win a game. Specific, well-defined rules and guidelines are necessary for serious games, and feedback on progress towards achieving goals.

Enhance performance and motivation (Locke and Latham, 1990)

Sensory stimuli

Visual or auditory stimuli are helpful to change the

Enhance the motivational appeal of instructional activities

114

perception and imply temporary acceptance of alternative reality.

Helps in grabbing attention (Malone and Lepper, 1987)

Challenge

Challenge refers to the difficulty of the possibility of achieving the goal. The challenging game has multiple specified goals, progressive complexity, and information ambiguity. The challenge also increases fun and competition by creating obstacles between the current state and the target state.

Improve personal competencies, Engaging competitive or cooperative motivations, Improves the learner’s retention of knowledge

Mystery

Mystery refers to the gap between known and unknown information. It is the product of differences or inconsistencies in knowledge. Conflicting information, complexity, novelty, violation of surprises and expectations, conflicting ideas, and inability to make predictions helps to enhance the game's mystery.

Drive learning evokes curiosity to complete the next levels or quests, Enhance motivation

Control

It is the degree to which learners can guide their learning activities in the game to provide self-learning and self-exploration abilities that suit their pace and experience.

Increased motivation, learning, and affect skill-based learning.

5.1.4 Determine the expected learning outcomes to be achieved

The overall game goals, followed by game rules, need to meet to

achieve the expected learning outcome during playing. The game gaols are

created by combining the specific functions implemented in the game and the

related instructional contents. The game activities included in the game design

have at least one specified learning outcome that needs to be achieved. These

results will be broken down into all game activities according to the overall

teaching content that the player wants to learn. The player is known about,

115

what needs to be done and what they can learn from the learning materials

included in specific activities. The intended learning outcomes supposed to be

achieved using the proposed Serious games model are described in the form

of OOP competencies. The competency model proposed by the researcher is

described in Chapter-III, section 3 (Figure III-3). Besides these core

competencies, this research also analyzes the learning outcomes by finding

the difference in student’s performance for learning OOP with and without the

intervention of prototype, the difference in students’ normalized learning gain,

the effect of perceived motivation on the learning outcomes of the students

and finally the effect size is measured to see how important a difference with

and without the intervention of prototype.

5.2 Structure of the Model

Based on the details given in sections 5.1.1 to 2.1.5, is useful to create

serious game models. Figure III-5 shows a serious game model based on the

described components i.e., instructional contents or learning difficulties, game

attributes, learning theories, required competencies, and motivational aspects

logical placed in the presentation, practice, and performance phases. The

purpose of the placement of the components in these phases is presented in

Table III-8.

116

Figure III-5: Proposed Serious Game model for learning OOP

Table III-8: Placement of the components in the serious games model’s phases

Phase Purpose Components

Presentation The input content presented to the user/player as learning material

Instructional contents, learning difficulties, and misconceptions Intended learning outcomes, required competencies

Practice Learning and practicing of the user/player

Instructional Models, Learning Theories, Game attributes

Performance Assessment of the performance of the user/player

perceived motivation and game statistics and log files

5.2.1 Three phases of the model

The proposed serious game model is divided into three phases. The

following subsections describe all three phases and their related components.

117

i. Presentation

In the presentation phases, the instructional contents of OOP, and the

contents on which students faced difficulties and misconceptions collected

from existing studies, from student’s investigation and feedback survey

(discussed in section 2 of chapter III) are presented as a game input or

contents to the user/player to learn and improve their performance in OOP

skills.

ii. Practice

In the practice phase, the inputted data from the presentation phase is

presented to the user/player in learning activities to practice and accomplish

the intended learning outcomes. This stage helps trigger a cycle that includes

a sense of achievement or response (such as perceived motivation or interest)

or change in user behaviour (such as more remarkable persistence or time on

task completion), and further system feedback. The practicing phase is the

core of the serious games model where the game activities are prudently

designed by linking the game attributes with the instructional design model,

and the whole learning process has occurred under the rules of the adapted

learning theories. Every game activity in the practicing phase is supposed to

be played and mastered in one or more learning outcomes and some

motivational aspects. This phase's components include the instructional

design, learning theories, and game attributes, which are discussed in section

5.1.2 and 5.1.3.

118

iii. Performance

Each activity played by the user/player in the practicing phase is

assessed to check their performance. Two types of assessment are done in

this phase, first is the formative assessment, where the player is informed

about their every correct and incorrect action performed while playing the

activities in each game levels. In the formative assessment, the player is not

only informed of their right and wrong actions, but they are also provided with

tailored feedback to improve their performance. A summative assessment is

done to evaluate the performance of each player, and it is usually done at the

end of each level, either completed or not completed by the player. In the

summative assessment, the player is informed about their correct and

incorrect attempts, remaining actions required to solve the complete level, total

time is taken in playing the level, overall score, and their percentage of

performance (i.e., correct solution attempted/total correct solution x100).

5.2.2 Linking the game attributes with instructional design

The design of serious games involves creating learning activities that

can be used in the game environment or entails some game attributes to

change students' learning experience (Lameras et al., 2016). Therefore, it is

the link between instructional design and game attributes that are important to

be found to scaffold teachers’ understanding of how to perpetuate learning in

optimal ways while enhancing the in-game learning experience.

The limitation of the existing research has little focused on what game

attributes lead to learning outcomes, and whether the relationship between

games and learning is direct or indirect, and if so, what the mediating variables

119

may be. It is, therefore, for designing the serious game model, we have first

understood whether a single game attribute leads to learning or enhance

perceived motivation or a combination of multiple attributes within a game has

a more substantial effect, and which game elements mainly helps to produce

which learning outcomes, the result of such analysis from the existing studies

is presented in Chapter II, Table II-3. In addition to this, the identification of

game attributes required for the intended outcomes supposed to be achieved

from the proposed model is discussed in section 5.1.3, and outcomes

produced from each of these game attributes are presented in Table III-9.

Figure III-6 Illustrates the serious game model, in which linking of the

game attributes with instructional design is established. In this model, the

cognitive process of the Gagne model is presented as the instructional model.

The model depicts which Gagne cognitive process of instructional events

combines with game attributes could enhance the players' motivation and

produce the learning outcomes. It can be seen from the model that a single

game attribute is not always a situation, but the combination of game attributes

helps to enhance motivation and learning outcomes.

120

Figure III-6 Linking game attributes with instructional model

As mentioned above, a game's learning outcomes can be viewed as

indicators of assessment methods achieved as in-game experience played by

the player. Linking the game attributes with instructional design helps in

recurring and self-motivated gameplay. The combination of instructional

events with game attributes, conceptualized for the serious game model, is

presented in Table III-9 in detail.

121

Table III-9 Linking game attributes with the instructional design for the enhancement of the perceived motivation of the player

Gagne Event of Instruction

Gagne Cognitive Process

Game Attributes

Keller’s ARCS model

Gain attention Reception Control Sensory stimuli

Attention Inform learner of the objectives

Expectancy

Stimulate prerequisite recall Retrieval

Present learning material Selective Perception

Fantasy Rules/Goals Sensory stimuli

Relevance

Guide learning Semantic Encoding

Elicit performance Responding Fantasy Rules/Goals Sensory stimuli

Confidence

Provide feedback Reinforcement

Assess performance Retrieval Fantasy Sensory stimuli Challenge Mystery

Satisfaction Enhance retention and transfer

Generalization

6. DEVELOPMENT OF THE OOsg

The details of the development of OOsg is described in the following

sections:

6.1 Tools Used

The libraries and tools used for prototyping are discussed in the

sections below.

6.1.1 Java Standard Edition (Java SE)

The Java SE was used to build a prototype that can be compiled,

deployed, and run in desktop, server, and embedded environments. The Java

122

library provides numerous functions needed in today's applications, such as a

rich user interface, performance, flexibility, portability, and security features.

6.1.2 JavaFX Scene Builder v10.0

JavaFX is now part of Java SE, allowing developers to build desktop

applications and rich Internet (RIA) applications that can run on different

platforms and devices. The library has been designed to replace Swing

components with the standard GUI library in Java SE. JavaFX Scene Builder

is used to generate all screens used in the prototype development.

6.1.3 JSON library

The solution model used to validate the student solution is stored in the

JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format (Available in Appendix-D). JSON

was chosen because the JSON data format provides the flexibility needed to

accommodate mapping and validating the student’s solution model with the

game solution model. The result of the Student is also written in an external

JSON format. JSON. Simple is a simple Java-based toolkit used in this

research to encode or decode JSON format.

6.2 Description About the OOsg

The developed 2D game is named OOsg (Object Oriented game). The

motivational point behind the design and development of OOsg is to provide a

Serious games environment in which the novice programming students or the

student who has difficulty in the conceptualization of fundamental quarks of

OOP can start learning interestingly and engagingly. The students can improve

their concepts, especially the concepts of classes, attributes, methods,

123

objects, and inheritance using developed Serious games. The post-test would

be performed to provide proof of the validity of student outcomes using the

OOsg.

6.2.1 Navigation between OOsg screens

In OOsg navigation between screen are controlled by the player. Figure

III-7 shows the sequence of OOsg screens displayed to the player. The

screens are represented with a rectangle, whereas an arrow's direction

indicates that navigation could be possible between the screen. The “Start”

indicated the splash or welcoming screen of the game. After the “Start” screen,

a screen about “Provide basic and game control information” is displayed in

which the player should provide their basic info such as name and gender, and

some game controlling information or Game Dynamics such as player type

(i.e., Beginner, Intermediate, or Expert) and difficulty level (i.e., Easy, Medium

or Hard) for playing the game (details are also provided in Table III-10).

After providing the information, the player may either navigate to play a

“warm-up session” or “select scenario” for playing the game. The two-headed

ended arrow from the “warm-up session” or “select scenario” screen indicated

that the player could navigate backs to change their provided information on

the “Provide basic and game control information” screen. After “select level”

for playing, the player can learn about the level-related concept provided on-

screen “Learn concept” and then move towards the screen “Level goals and

rules” to reads the goals and rules for clearing the level. After then, the player

can play level provided on-screen “Play Level.” The player can switch back

and forth to any level by navigating to the “Select Level” screen or switching

124

directly to the next level by moving to the “Level goals and rules” screen. The

player can quit from the game from any screen except the “Start” screen.

Figure III-7 Navigation between OOsg screens

6.2.2 Game mechanics and dynamics

The set of actions, behaviours and control mechanism handed to the

player is known as game mechanics (Hunicke, R., et al., 2004), whereas the

dynamics are the change which occurs in the game environment when the

game mechanism is triggered. Game Mechanics help define a rule-based

system for the game environment by explicitly stating all the objects available

within the game environment, how each object would behave, and how the

user can interact with them in the game world. The dynamics of the game

provide more entertainment and engagement for the player. If the user is

playing a game in which they have identified the different classes from a given

story-based scenario. The story may also contain other non-playing elements

125

such as an object, attributes, or other non-reference classes in the scenario,

but if the player is identifying the wrong classes, i.e., attributes, methods,

object, or non-existing classes, then ultimately, they may lose all the lives, and

time will also run out. The game mechanics and the game dynamics used in

the OOsg are presented in Table III-10.

Table III-10 Game mechanics and dynamics of OOsg

Game Level

Game Mechanics

Player Type

Difficulty Level

Game Dynamics

Level1 Identify classes

Beginner

Easy 10 correct class identification needs to be done in 20 minutes The correct identification of classes

• The name of the class is added in the class box

• The name of the classes is loaded in the offline list

• Positive feedback is provided

• Increase-in-score-based music will be played in the background

• Increase in the score by 10 points

• The decrement in the total number of classes needs to be identified

The incorrect identification of classes

• Tailored feedback is provided depending on the specific wrong identification

• decrease-in-score-based music will be played in the background

126

• The decrease in the score by 10 points

Medium 20 correct class identification needs to be done in 20 minutes Same as above

Hard 60 correct class identification needs to be done in 20 minutes Same as above

Intermediate Easy 10 correct class identification needs to be done in 15 minutes Same as above



Expert

Easy 10 correct class identification needs to be done in 5 minutes Same as above



6.2.3 The UI of OOsg

The following section provides brief details about the screen of OOsg.

The details about the game UI are also available in Appendix-E.

127

Screen 1 – Splash Screen

The splash screen or “start” screen is the welcoming screen of the

game, which provides the information regarding the game's title and its

developer.

Screen 2 – Personal and game control information

In screen-2 shown in Figure III-8, players should provide some personal

information, such as name and gender, as well as information about game

controls or game dynamics, including player type (i.e., beginner, intermediate

or expert) and difficulty level (i.e., easy, medium or hard) (details about game

dynamics is provided in Table III-10). This information is needed to create and

maintain log files for individual players and their interaction with the game. As

soon as the player press play or exit buttons provided on screen 2, a log file

will generated.

Screen 3– Select Scenario

In screen-3 shown in Figure III-9, players can select a scenario to be

played in the developed game. After choosing the particular scenario by the

player, the activities are presented in the game environment accordingly.

Currently, the designed game implements a scenario related to the hospital

management system only. However, the game's architecture is flexible enough

to perform any scenario by adding a solution JSON file discussed in section

5.2.1.2.

128

Figure III-8: Screen 2 – Personal and game control information

Figure III-9: Screen 3 – Selection of game scenario

Screen 4– Warm-up Session

In screen-4 shown in Figure III-10, instead of selecting the scenario,

players can choose the option of playing warm-up sessions available on

Screen-3. The warm-up session helps the students provide an idea of an

environment they are supposed to play the actual game.

Screen 5– Select Level

In screen-5 shown in Figure III-11, the player is presented with three

different levels (Class, Object, and Inheritance) in the game that the player can

select to play. The Level Class has two sub-levels about the attributes and

behavior provided once the player plays the level Class; the details about these

levels are given in the next section.

Figure III-10: Screen 4 – Warm-up

session Figure III-11: Screen 5 – Selection

of game level

129

Screen 6– Learn basic concepts

In screen-6 shown in Figure III-12, the player is presented with a brief

description of the topic/concept of the OOP they have selected on screen 5.

The screen also provides the relationship of the concepts with the game story

(available in Appendix-F) embedded in the game environment.

Screen 7– Level goals and rules:

Once the player learns about the basic concept related to the level they

choose to play, screen 7- level goals and rules shown in Figure III-13, will be

displayed. The level goals define the learning objectives which players have to

achieve by playing that particular level. The level goals are different for the

different levels of the game. The level rules are game dynamics configured

based on the information provided on Screen-2; the details are also available

in Table III-10. The screen-7 also includes information about the options

available to the next screen, such as reading the story and how to activate the

hint option, if required.

Figure III-12: Screen 6 – Learning about the basic concepts of OOP

Figure III-13: Screen 7 – Goals and rules of games

130

Screen 8– Level Screens

After careful reading of the goals and rules for playing the levels, the

games' levels will be activated for the player, Screen 8, and Figure III-14 shows

the necessary information used throughout as background of the game level’s

screens. The game level’s screen layout is divided into five regions, i.e., top,

bottom, left, right, and center, shown as a dotted rectangle in Figure III-14 The

region “T” is used as a scoreboard of the game which includes the information

for the total number of correct solution attempted, score, other options

available to get help or hint if the player stuck on any point, timer, information

about the current level and option to quit from the game. The “T” region is

almost the same for all the levels, except the information may vary for the

number of correct attempts and remaining attempts. Option for showing or

hiding the game story (available in Appendix-D) may also be enabled using

the “T” region. The region “B” is used as a game story drawer, and the drawer

can be shown or hidden by pressing a hamburger sign available in the region

“T.” The region “L” and “R” are dedicated to navigating to the previous or next

screen/levels. The region “C” is the leading region used for the actual play of

the game. The contents of this region are different for different levels available

in the game.

The number in the circle shown in Figure III-14 Indicated different points

of information such as 1) hamburger symbol by pressing this button, the drawer

for the game story (available in Appendix-D) will be shown/hide at the bottom

of the screen, the game story will be available in chunks, the player can read

the story and perform the level’s activity accordingly. 2) indicated the number

of solution or task correctly made by the player upon the total number of correct

131

solutions available, such as for the current scenario shown in Figure III-14, the

total number of class the player has to identify is 60, whereas he/she didn’t

identify any class yet. 3) Timer information, the timer is set depending on game

control information provided at Screen-2 and shows elapsed time at the level.

4) shown the number of levels currently being played by the player. 5)

Navigation towards the previous level or screen of the game, in case of the

game's level-1, the last screen will be the “select level” or screen-5 of the

game. On other levels, it will navigate to the previous level. 6) Navigation

towards the next level or screen of the game, in case of the last level of the

game, this button will be disabled. 7) shows the score information. For every

correct attempt, increment in the score table with animation and playing

incremental sound will be done, and for every wrong decrement in the score

table with animation and playing decremental sound will be done. For every

correct attempt, the increment of 10 points, and every wrong attempt,

decrement of 10 points is also recorded in the player’s log files. 8) the button

is used to show/hide the context menu. The menu contains the necessary

information, such as, loads/unload the information from the previous levels. If

the player already played on the same device any, the player can seek any

hint if he/she stuck on any point while playing the game, switch to the “select

level” or Screen-5 of the game. They can also mute/unmute the background

music of the game using this menu. 9) player can quit from the entire game

using this button.

132

Figure III-14 Screen 8 – Screen layout of the game levels

Screen 9– Level-1 Screens

The level-1 and some of its action occurred during play are shown in

Figure III-15 to Figure III-19 and its subsequent parts. In Level-1, the game

story is presented to the player in chunks (shown at the bottom of the Screen-

9 a), and the player has to identify the correct candidates for the class

according to the domain of the story. The player will be supposed to drag the

candidate class from the game story and drop on the empty box available to

populate the class list, as shown in Figure III-15, screen 9a. Suppose the

player's correct identification, the candidate class occurrence, would appear in

the class list available in the playing region of the screen. In that case, the

player will also be notified with feedback for their attempt with increment in the

score table, and an increase in the number of solution or task correctly made

by the player as well as decrement in the total number of correct solutions

available, as shown on Figure III-16, screen 9b. The player's wrong attempt

leads towards the decrement in the score table with appropriate feedback, as

1

2 3 4

5 6

7

8 9

T

L R

C

B

133

shown in Figure III-17, Screen9c. If the player has successfully achieved the

game goals, which are set based on the game control information, the player

will greet congratulation messages to enhance their motivation to play the

game, as shown in Figure III-18, screen 9d. Once the game control information

is matched, the game will go into the stop state, all the actions taken, and game

statistics are recorded into the log files. Some game level statistics/evaluation

information is also presented to the player, such as Win/Lose status, correct

and incorrect attempts/solution, how many correct attempts/solutions were

remaining, the performance of playing level, total time played, and total score,

as shown on Figure III-19, screen 9e. This screen is presented for all the levels

if the players play the level until it matches the game control information;

otherwise, this information with more details is only recorded into the log files.

Figure III-15: Screen 9a) Level-1 main screen

Figure III-16: Screen 9b) Level-1 correct attempt made by the

player

134

Figure III-17: Screen 9c) Level-1 wrong attempt made by the player

Figure III-18: Screen 9d) Level-1 achievement of game level’s goals

Figure III-19: Screen 9e) Level-1 Statistics/evaluation as result of completing level


The level-2 and some of its actions during play are shown in Figure III-

20 to Figure III-23 and its subsequent parts. In Level-2, the player will be

provided with the class list identified in Level-1, the player is also equipped

with the same game story as of Level-1. At this level, the player has to identify

the attributes from the story for the previously identified classes. The class box

for each identified class will have separately appeared with animation. If the

player clicks on the classes available in the class-list, the box will be

highlighted with the class-name on the top of the newly opened class-box, and

space for adding the attributes is enabled on each class-box as shown in

135

Figure III-20, Screen 10a. The player will be supposed to drag the candidate

attributes from the game story and drop on the relevant class-box. For every

correct identification, the player will receive the appropriate feedback with

further instruction to complete the task, as shown in Figure III-21, Screen 10b.

The increment in the score table and attempt/solution will only be updated once

the player completes the details of the identified attributes, i.e., access

specifier, attribute type, and attribute name (it is the same as attribute name

identified and written automatically if the player clicks on identified attributes)

as shown on Figure III-22, screen 10c. Initially, the attribute types combo-box

is populated with basic data types and will incrementally be populated with

class names, as the class can also be the type of any attributes. However, the

strict validation of these details is limited to the scope of this research. The

Player will receive the appropriate feedback for their wrong attempt and

decrement in the score table, as shown in Figure III-23, Screen 10d. The

achievement of the level-goals, game statistics, and record in log files will be

done in the same way as of Level-1.


Figure III-21: Screen 10b) Level-2 correct attempt made by the player

136

Figure III-22: Screen 10c) Level-2 adding details of the attributes

Figure III-23: Screen 10d) Level-2 wrong attempt made by the player



Figure III-24 to Figure-27 and its subsequent parts. In level-3, the player will

be provided with a class list identified in Level-1 and information of the

attributes identified for classes in level-2, if any, and the player is also equipped

with the same game story as of Level-1. In this level, the player has to identify

the game story methods for the classes they previously identified in Level-1.

The class box for each identified class will have separately appeared with

animation. If the player clicks on the class names available in the class-list, the

box will be highlighted with the class-name on the top of the newly opened

class-box, and space for adding the method is enabled on each class-box.

However, the area dedicated to the attributes is enabled but inactive at this

level, as shown in Figure III-24 Screen 11a. The player will be supposed to

drag the game story's candidate method and drop on the relevant class-box.

For every correct identification, the player will receive the appropriate feedback

with further instruction to complete the task, as shown in Figure III-25, Screen

11 b. The increment in the score table and attempt/solution will only be updated

137

once the player completes the details of the identified methods, i.e., access

specifier, return type, method name (it is the same as the method name

identified and written automatically if the player clicks on identified method),

parameter name and type of the player, the player can add as many as a

parameter as they want as shown in Figure III-26, Screen 11c. Initially, the

return type of method and type of parameter combo-box is populated with

basic data types and will incrementally be populated with class names, as the

class can also be the type of any method; however, the strict validation of these

details is limited for the scope of this research. The Player will receive the

appropriate feedback for their wrong attempt and decrement in the score table,

as shown in Figure III-27, Screen 11d. The achievement of the level-goals,

game statistics and record in log files will be done in same way as of Level-1.



138

Figure III-26: Screen 11c) Level-3 adding details of the methods

Figure III-27: Screen 11d) Level-3 wrong attempt made by the player


The level-4 and some of its actions during play are shown in Figure III-

28 to Figure III-31 and its subsequent parts. In Level-4, the player will be

provided with a class list identified in Level-1 and game story as of Level-1. In

this level, the player will be supposed to learn the concept of creation and

deletion of the objects and their effects on the class. The Player has to identify

the objects available in the game story or create new objects. If the object for

a class is available in the game story, and the player drags and drop the object

on the relevant class correctly, then the player will be notified with appropriate

feedback and increment in the score table, and attempts/solution made

correctly, as shown in Figure III-28, Screen 12a & Figure III-29, Screen 12b.

The player can also create as many as the object for a class they want.

However, they have to keep the object name the same as of class followed by

a digit, e.g., for class “patient,” the player can create object patient1, patient2,

and so on, as shown in Figure III-30, Screen 12c. The number of generated

objects could be checked by either clicking the drop-down arrow available for

any class in the list of classes, or the player can simply select any class name

139

from the list of classes.. All its objects and box for a class itself will pop-up on

the screen's playing region, as shown on Screen 12 c. Player will also learn

that if an object for a class is destroyed, it will not affect the class itself.

However, if any class is destroyed, all its objects will automatically be

destroyed, as shown in Figure III-31, Screen 12d. The achievement of the

level-goals, game statistics, and record in log files will be done in the same

way as of Level-1.



Figure III-30: Screen 12c) Level-4 Number of objects created for a class

Figure III-31: Screen 12d) Level-4 effect of object destruction on class



Figure III-32 to Figure 37 and its subsequent parts. In the Level-5, the player

will be provided with the class list identified in Level-1. The class list is also

140

populated in the combo-box available on the class-box's top-right, as shown in

Figure III-32, Screen 13a. In this level, the player will be supposed to learn the

concept of creating the relationship between the classes they have identified.

The player can activate any class from the class-list and select their parent

from the top-right combo-box. If the player correctly identifies the relationship,

they will be notified with appropriate feedback, increment in the score table,

increment in attempt/solution made correctly, and decrement in the remaining

relationship they are supposed to create. The hierarchical relationship

between the classes will also have appeared on the screen's playing region,

as shown in Figure III-33, Screen 13b. The player can also check the multi-

level hierarchy by pressing the class name from the class-list if there is any,

as shown in Figure III-34, Screen 13c. The player is also notified with

appropriate feedback if they have made any logical mistake for creating the

relationship between the classes, such as if the player selects base-class as

sub-class as shown on Figure III-35, Screen 13d if they select the same class

as both for child and parent-class as shown on Figure III-36, Screen 13e if a

class is missing between the hierarchy attempt to be made by the player as

shown in Figure III-37, Screen 13f. The achievement of the level-goals, game

statistics, and record in log files will be done in the same way as of Level-1.

141

Figure III-32: Screen 13a) Level-5 population of classes in combo-box for

creating a relationship between classes


Figure III-34: Screen 13c) Level-5 multi-level hierarchy identified by the

player

Figure III-35: Screen 13d) Level-5 effect of selecting base-class as sub-

class

Figure III-36: Screen 13e) Level-5 effect of selecting the same class as

both for child and parent-class

Figure III-37: Screen 13f) Level- effect of missing class between a hierarchy

attempt to be made by the player

142

6.2.4 Logfile generated as a result of playing OOsg

The log files are generated once the user-created their profile shown in

on screen-2. This file keeps all the interaction which players made with the

game, the first row shows the variable names for which data is gathered from

OOsg, while the remaining rows shows the values received for those variables.

The example log file for level-1 is shown in Figure III-38; in this example,

detailed information about players attempts such as how many time the player

attempted to select the attributes, method, or object as a class, what is the

total number of class player is supposed to identify and how many classes are

remaining will be recorded. The log file records many other concrete details

such as total wrong and correct attempts, score, performance (calculated as

correctattempts/totalNoOfSolutions*100), total time played, date and time of

playing, and correctly attempted solution. The log file is generated locally for

each level player played in a separate file. The information recorded in the log

file helps evaluate the students, who used to learn basic OOP concepts using

OOsg.

Figure III-38: Sample log file generated as a result of interaction with level-1

143

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

This chapter discusses the fourth research objective of this study. It

introduces the experimental setup, evaluates the OOsg, and the results of the

evaluation. The two primary analyses performed during the study were:

1. The experimental analysis to determine the difference in student

performance and normalised learning gain with or without the intervention of

the serious game prototype, and effect size and effect of perceived motivation

by using the developed serious game prototype on the students' learning

outcomes.

2. The evaluation of serious game prototype and traditional teaching

method for perceived motivation, perceived feedback, game experience, and

system usability by the students of control or/and experimental groups.

1. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The experimental study was conducted at three local universities of

Pakistan named Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam, University of Sindh,

Mirpurkhas Campus, and Indus University, Karachi. There was a total of

eighty-three students participated in the experimental study, and all were

enrolled in various computer science-related degree programs offered, such

as Bachelor of Science (Information Technology), Bachelor of Science

(Computer Science), and Bachelor of Science (Software Engineering).

Potential students to participate in the study were selected voluntarily. A pre

and a post-test was implemented to address the research questions that

guided this study. The control and experimental grouping were done according

144

to pre-test scores to ensure that the students are grouped according to their

OOP performance.

After grouping the participants, the intervention session begins with

introducing the environment to the control and experimental groups. The

control group was treated with the traditional teaching method to grasp the

OOP concepts in the classroom setting whereas, the experimental group was

presented with a OOsg to interact and grasp the basic concepts of the OOP.

After the intervention sessions, the post-test session started. In the post-test

session, the participants were presented with an OOP scenario and question

which needs to solve in the given time. The scenarios for the pre- and post-

test sessions were different; however, the questions that need to be solved

were kept the same to ensure the responses' accuracy. The sequence of the

steps carried out for conducting the experimental study is shown in Figure IV-

1.

Figure IV-1 Sequence of steps carried out for conducting the experimental study

145

1.1 Experiment #1: Pre-Test Session

At the beginning of the pre-test, students were required to fill the

personal information, institution information, computer programming

background, and computer game background. The purpose of the information

is to identify everyone and get information about their programming languages

experience and playing computer games. Students were guaranteed the

confidentiality of their personal information. After completing the personal

information filling session, the pre-test learning activity session begins in which

all the eighty-three participants were asked to read the learning scenario and

answer for the questions related to OOP based on a given learning scenario.

1.1.1 Personal information

The personal information section includes the information of student ID,

which is not necessarily a student's genuine ID but can be any number chosen

by the students and will be used in the post-test session also, gender, and age

range of the students. The information about the gender reveals that among

83 participants, 39 (47%) were the male, whereas 44 (53%) were the female

students; the distribution is shown in Figure IV-2. The 59 (71%) students

belonged to the age groups of 15-18 years, whereas 24 (29%) student’s age

ranges from 19 to 24 years, as shown in Figure IV-3

146

1.1.2 Institutional information

The institutional information was aims to investigates the information

about the a) institute/university the students belong to and b) the program they

are enrolled and c) the semester/term in which they are currently studying. The

information about the institute/university is shown in Figure IV-4, which shows

that most of the participants, i.e., 48 (58%), were from the Information

Technology Centre, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam, followed by the

participants from the Sindh University, Mirpurkhas campus and Indus

University, Karachi which was 21 (25%) and 14 (17%) students respectively.

The information about the program enrolment is shown in Figure IV-5, shows

that 69(83%) participants were enrolled in the BS(IT) / BS(ITC) program,

followed by the BS(SE) and BS(CS) which were 10 (12%) and 4 (5%)

participants respectively. All the participants were studying in their second year

of the degree program.

Figure IV-2 Gender of the participants

Figure IV-3 Age Group of the participants

147

Figure IV-4 Institute/University of the participants

Figure IV-5 Program Enrolled of the participants

1.1.3 Background in computer programming

In this section, the information about the participant’s computer

programming experience, if they have any, was collected. This section

includes the information about a) do participants have any earlier computer

programming experience b) if yes, which computer programming language

they have experience. The answer to these questions would help find any

potential threats to the validity of findings on pre and post-test scores. The

responses show that 61 (74%), participants have no prior programming

language experience, whereas 22 (26%) participants have previous

programming experience, as shown in Figure IV-6. Among those 22(26%) with

previous programming experience, 20 participants have experience

programming languages like c, c++ or c#, whereas 1 participant has

experience in web programming and 2 have experience in other programming

experience. The details of the responses for the background in computer

programming languages are shown in Figure IV-7.

148

1.1.4 Background in computer gaming

This section provides information about the participant’s computer

gaming experience if they have any, or perception regarding learning computer

programming or any other subject by plying games. The participants were first

asked about a) whether they possess any gaming experience, if yes, b) which

kind of the games they play, and c) how often they play. The participants were

then investigated about their d) perception regarding the significant impact of

playing educational games, if they have played any. The participants have also

investigated about their e) perception regarding the substantial impact in

playing educational games specifically for learning computer programming, if

they have played any. The intention behind these questions would help find

any potential threats to the validity of findings on the experimental group's post-

test scores. The responses show that 37(45%), participants have no prior

game experience, whereas 46 (55%) participants have previous gaming

experience, as shown in Figure IV-8. Among those 46 (55%) participants, only

12 (14%) participants have prior experience playing educational games,

Figure IV-6 Prior experience in programming languages

Figure IV-7 Experience in types of programming language

149

whereas all other participants have experience in other games. The details of

the responses are shown in Figure IV-9.

The play's frequency indicates that most of the participants replied that

they play games during their leisure time 33(40%), followed by the once a week

or daily; the details of responses are shown in Figure IV-10. Among the 12

participants who have prior experience of playing educational games, 9(11%)

perceive the educational games significantly impact their learning, as shown

in Figure IV-11. Among those 12 participants who have prior experience of

playing educational games, 3(4%) think that educational games explicitly

designed to learn computer programming have a significant effect on their

learning. Other participants may be assumed as they didn’t experience the

educational games specifically for learning computer programming, the details

are shown in Figure IV-12.

Figure IV-8 Prior experience of playing games

Figure IV-9 Types of games played

150

Figure IV-10 Frequency of playing games by the participants

Figure IV-11 Perceived impact of educational games by the

participants

Figure IV-12 Perceived impact of educational games on participants' learning computer programming

1.1.5 Pre-Test learning activity session

In the pre-test learning activity session, all eighty-three participants

were asked to read the learning scenario related to OOP and answer the given

questions based on a given learning scenario (the sample of pre-test scenarios

and questions are available in Appendix-G). The students were given two

hours to answer all the questions. Before the start of the pre-test, the

151

researchers briefly described the purpose of the study. However, students

were not notified of the existence of the experimental and control groups. The

analysis of the result of the pre-test session will be discussed in the section

2.6 of this chapter.

1.2 Division of the Control and Experimental Groups

The division of groups is done by dividing the students into two groups, and

the first group includes the students who secure more than 40% marks in the pre-

test learning activity session, and another group consists of the students who

secure less than 40% marks. The final grouping ensures that each sample size

for the more than 40% and less than 40% pre-test score is almost the same for

the experimental and control groups. There was a total of eighty-three students

participated in the experimental study. Later, forty-one students were part of the

control group, whereas forty-two students were part of the experimental group.

This division is shown in Figure IV-13.

Figure IV-13 Grouping of students for experimental study

33

8

33

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Less than 40% in Pretest More than 40% in Pretest

No

. of

Part

icip

ants

Groups

Control Group Experimental Group

152

1.3 Rubric for Student’s Assessment

Scoring strategies for rubrics involve using a scale for interpreting the

judgments of a student’s tasks. Rubrics are not only set for grading the

students, but it can serve as part of a formative assessment of their works in

progress. The scoring system is based on a rubric to measure students’

achievement in mastering OOP skills through competencies defined in

Chapter II. The main competencies assessed in pre- and post-test scenarios

in this research study include class identification, structuring class, object

creation, deletion, and establishing the relationship between classes. The

scoring scheme consists of a total of 4 points scales. Some of the

competencies have sub-competencies as well, and there were 11 total

competencies or sub-competencies. The maximum score for each completely

correct and accurate answer is 4 points, and the minimum score is 0 for no

attempt or wrong response by the participants. Thus, the maximum score

gained by the participants could be 44 points. The sample of the rubric used

in the experimental study is available in Appendix-H.

1.4 Teaching and Practice Session

The teaching and practice session started with the introduction session

in which the domain area of the scenarios needs to be solved, and the

procedure to write the solutions was introduced to the experimental and the

control groups. This session lasted for two and a half hours, in which, one hour

was dedicated for the lecture session, one hour for exercises, and 30 minutes

were occupied for the question-answer session if the participants have any.

153

The introduction session was covered in two sessions, each having twenty to

twenty-two participants.

After, the introduction session, the intervention session begins to learn

about the essential feature of OOP. The intervention session is the practice

session in which the control group students learn and practice the OOP

concepts in the traditional classroom environment. In contrast, the

experimental group students were demonstrated with the OOsg to learn and

practice by interacting with it. The researcher for both the groups serves as a

teacher and facilitator in different sessions. The intervention session lasted for

four days in four weeks, and there were two hours per week.

At the end of the intervention session, the post-session was conducted

to assess the learning of students. The post-test session has lasted for 2 hours

for control and experimental groups separately.

After the completion of the post-test session, the evaluation session was

started. In the evaluation session, some survey form was given to students of

both groups separately. The evaluation session was intended to obtain

evidence about the OOsg's impact or traditional teaching method. There was

no time limit set for conducting the evaluation session. The details about all

these sessions are presented in Table IV-1.

154

Table IV-1: Details about the teaching and practice session with control and experimental Groups

Participants Purpose Activities

Duration of

Session

No of

Days

Participants per session

Introduction Session

Control Group

Familiarize students with the domain area of the scenarios needs to be

solved and how to write solutions

1. Lectures 2. Exercises 3. Question

& Answers

1 hour

1 hour

30 minutes

1

20-21

Experimental Group

Familiarize students with the domain area of the scenarios needs to be solved using

OOsg

20-22

Intervention Session

Control Group To learn about

the basic feature of OOP

1. Lectures 2 hour/we

ek 4

20-21

Experimental Group

2. Practice with OOsg

20-22

Post-test Session

Control Group To assess the

learning of students

Class test 2 hours 1

20-21

Experimental Group

20-22

Evaluation Session

Control Group

To obtain the sound evidence about the impact of the OOsg or

traditional teaching method

Survey forms - 1 41-42 Experimental

Group

155

1.5 Experiment#2: Post-Test Session

For the post-test session, the students were required to fill in personal

information and institution information. The purpose of the filling is to identify

everyone and match the result with their pre-test scores. The participants were

requested to keep their ID number the same as they mentioned in the pre-test

session. Students are guaranteed the confidentiality of their personal

information. The two primary analyses performed during the post-test session

for the control and experimental groups were about;

1. The experimental analysis for the difference in student’s performance

and normalized learning gain with or without the intervention of the serious

game prototype, and the effect of perceived motivation and effect size of the

serious game prototype on the learning outcomes of the students

2. The evaluation of serious game prototype and traditional teaching

method for perceived motivation, perceived feedback, game experience, and

system usability by the students of control or/and experimental groups

A learning activity followed by the question response session was

conducted to investigate the student's achievement before and after/with or

without the serious game prototype's intervention. The evaluation from both

groups was conducted to analyse the OOsg or traditional teaching method's

impact. The details about these sessions are discussed in the following

session.

1.5.1 Post-Test learning activity session

In the post-test learning activity session, the control and experimental

students were provided with a learning scenario related to OOP and answer

156

for the given questions based on a given learning scenario (the sample of post-

test scenarios and questions are available in Appendix-I). The students were

given two hours to answer all the questions. The analysis of the result of the

control and experimental groups' responses is discussed in the 2.6 section of

this chapter.

1.5.2 Parameters of the evaluation study

The second part of the experiment is concerned about the evaluation of

developed serious game prototype and traditional teaching methods by the

students of control or/and experimental groups. There were four evaluation

parameters performed, two of them, namely perceived motivation and

perceived both groups of students evaluated feedback. In contrast, for the

other two, i.e., game experience and system usability, were performed by

experimental group students only. The details of these parameters will be

discussed in the following sections.

1.5.2.1 Perceived motivation

According to Keller (Keller, 2010), four components affect motivation in

the learning process: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction

(ARCS). All these components contribute to and sustain motivation throughout

the learning and this models also help in the diagnosis of motivational

problems. To measure the perceived motivation IMMS (Instructional Materials

Motivation Survey) instrument is used in this research study, the IMMS survey

includes 36 items and four subscales. The four subscales are attention (12

items), relevance (9 items), confidence (9 items), and satisfaction (6 items).

There are ten reverse items in the IMMS instrument. The motivational score

157

becomes higher in the reverse item if the learner gives the lower score to

reverse items. The reverse coded items are scored by recording the same

variables using SPSS software. Each item is presented to participants on a 5-

point scale, ranging from 1 for “Strongly disagree” to 5 for “Strongly Agree.”

The items of the questionnaire are available in Appendix-J.

1.5.2.2 Perceived feedback

Feedback is a necessary condition for student goal setting (Erez, 1977).

Feedback is defined as information provided to students about their

performance (Rowe and Wood, 2008). It includes written comments on

assignments, verbal responses supplied in class or individually, postings on

WebCT (the online student learning system), and peer- and self-evaluation

forms of feedback. Feedback is an essential component, and it has the most

significant impact on student learning through formative assessments (Black

and Wiliam, 1998). Feedback identifies gaps between students' performance

levels and expectations (Shute, et al., 2008), which hinders learning (Alton-

Lee, 2003). Perceived feedback is about the importance of the feedback which

students received while learning. Students were asked whether they found the

feedback valuable on their tasks or whether it only helps them when they

receive low grades, how they perceive positive or negative feedback, and the

detailed feedback is encouraging or annoying to them.

The questionnaire for the perceived feedback includes the value of the

feedback in students’ points of view and their perception of the feedback

received while playing the OOsg. The questionnaire consists of 17 items; none

of them was scored inversely. Each item is presented to participants on a 5-

158

point scale, ranging from 1 for “Strongly disagree” to 5 for “Strongly Agree.”

The items of the questionnaire are available in Appendix-K.

1.5.2.3 Game experience

The game experience is about what the game is and what it affects. It’s

the game itself, its presentation, its style, the community's interactions, and the

nature of the community itself. Most of the game experience questionnaire

items are about gameplay experience and used for observational purposes, or

as supporting data to find correlations with students' post-test scores in this

research study. The questionnaire includes both closes-ended and open-

ended questions, and each closed-ended item is presented to participants on

a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 for “Strongly disagree” to 5 for “Strongly Agree.”

In contrast, open-ended questions and comments sections are provided for

suggestions and know the student's opinion regarding the gameplay

experience. The items of the questionnaire are available in Appendix-L. The

reliability test result for the game experience questionnaire shows a Cronbach

alpha value of .766.

1.5.2.4 System usability

Usability is the measure of the general quality of the appropriateness of

a system in particular context (Brooke, 1996). Usability refers to assessing the

quality attributes of the user interface that are easy to use (Jokela, et al., 2003).

Brooke (Brooke, 1996) suggests that usability measures covers the

effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of a user's implementation of a

specific target environment. The measurement of usability is complex

because usability is not a specific property of a person or thing. Usability

159

cannot be measure with simple device such as “usability” thermometer

(Dumas, 2003; Hertzum, 2010; Hornbæk, 2006). Rather, it is an emergent

property dependent on interactions among users, products, tasks, and

environments

There are many widely used standardized usability questionnaires

available for assessment of the perception of usability such as the

Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction(QUIS) (Chin et al., 1988), The

Software Usability Measurement Inventory (SUMI) (Kirakowski & Corbett,

1993; McSweeney, 1992), Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire

(PSSUQ) and its non-lab variant, the Computer Systems Usability

Questionnaire (CSUQ) (Lewis, 1990, 1992, 1995, 2002) and SUS (Software

Usability Scale) (Brooke, 1996; Sauro, 2011).

Among many different metrices available for usability, QUIS and SUMI

were not freely available questionnaire, whereas SUS is the most widely used

and freely available standardized usability questionnaire (Sauro & Lewis,

2009), but SUS consists mixed tone or composed of alternating positive and

negative tone items. On the other hand, PSSUQ and CSUQ are consistently

positive item tone. This research prefer on PSSUQ, because mixed tone

questionnaire create undesirable structure in a metric in which positive items

align with one factor and negative items align with the other (Barnette, 2000;

Davis, 1989; Pilotte & Gable, 1990; Schmitt & Stuits, 1985; Schriesheim & Hill,

1981; Stewart & Frye, 2004; Wong, Rindfleisch, & Burroughs, 2003). Another

issues for mixed tone metric includes various types of errors such as

misinterpretation(Users might respond to items forced into a negative tone in

160

a way that is not the simple negative of the positive version of the item),

mistakes (Users might not intend to respond differently to mixed-tone items

but might forget to reverse their score, accidentally agreeing with a negative

item when they meant to disagree) and miscode(to generate a composite

overall score from mixed-tone items, it is necessary to reverse the scoring of

the negative-tone items before combination with the positive-tone items.

Failure to perform this step would result in incorrect composite values, with the

errors not necessarily easy to detect) (Lewis, 2014). The other limitation for

SUS scale includes that respondents are expected to record their immediate

response to each item, rather than thinking about items for a long time (Brooke,

1996).

The PSSUQ is a 16-item questionnaire that measures users’ perceived

satisfaction with a product or system. Obtaining an overall satisfaction score is

done by averaging the four sub-scales of System Quality (item 1-6),

Information Quality (item 7-12), and Interface Quality (item 13-16). Each item

is presented to participants on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 for “Strongly

disagree” to 5 for “Strongly Agree.” The items of the questionnaire are available

in Appendix-M.

2. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

For the experimental research conducted in this study, two types of

analyses were performed. The primary analysis was performed using diverse

statistical methods to answer the research questions that guided this study to

test whether there is any significant improvement in the students who

participated in the experimental group compared to the students who

161

participated in the control group. Four different studies were performed for this

type of analysis, and the test data used for this part of the analysis were the

pre-test and post-test scores and normalized learning gain. The raw scores for

the pre-test and the post-test and scatter plots for both the experimental and

control group are shown in Appendix-N. The second type of evaluation is

conducted on control or/and experimental students to evaluate the serious

game prototype and traditional teaching methods to understand these two

methods' impact. The results of the experimental analysis and evaluation are

discussed in the following sections.

2.1 Result of Experimental Analysis

In this analysis, four studies were performed to achieve objective-4 of

this research study. In this experimental evaluation, the pre-test scores of both

the experimental and control groups are compared with the post-test scores.

The main aim is to determine whether the difference between means for the

two sets of scores (pre-test and post-developedtest) is the same or different.

The details of the studies are discussed in the following section.

2.1.1 Study-1: The difference in students’ performance for learning OOP with and without the intervention of prototype

In this analysis, the pre-test scores of both the experimental and control

groups are compared with the post-test scores. The main aim is to determine

whether the difference between means for the two sets of scores (pre-test and

post-test) is the same or different.

To perform any statistical test, first, the normality of each group was

tested. The results of the normality of each group revealed that the assumption

162

of the t-test is meet for both, the control and experimental groups (The results

of the normality are provided in the Appendix-O(a)). It is; therefore, the paired

t-test is performed for both groups separately.

The paired t-test result for the control, and experimental groups are

given in Table IV-2. The control group reveals that t(40)=0.933, p>0.05, which

indicates homogenous results or there is no significant difference in the

average of the pre-test scores and the post-test average for the control group.

The paired t-test results for the experimental group show that t(41)=14.11,

p<0.05, and indicates the significant difference in the average of the pre-test

scores and averages of post-test scores. Appendix-O (b) provides complete

SPSS output for paired t-test results on pre and post-test scores of the control

and the experimental group.

Table IV-2: The difference in students’ performance for learning OOP with and without the intervention of prototype

Test-Data Mean Statistical test t-value df Sig. (2-tailed)

Control Group

Post-Test 14.341 Paired t-test .933 40 .356

Pre-Test 13.829

Experimental Group

Post-Test 33.285 Paired t-test 14.11 41 .000

Pre-Test 15.190

Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in

the performance for learning OOP with and without the intervention of the

163

OOsg, the participants in the experimental group performed better in learning

OOP than the participants in the control group.

2.1.2 Study-2: The difference in students’ normalized learning gain for learning OOP with and without the intervention of prototype

The normalized learning gain is the rough measure of the prototype's

effectiveness in promoting conceptual understanding of the subject. The

amount of students learned was divided by the amount they could have

learned (Hake, 1997). The formula for calculating the normalized gain

proposed by Hake (Hake 1997), is given below:

Normalized Learning Gain=𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡−𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒−𝑃𝑟𝑒−𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒

100−𝑝𝑟𝑒−𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒………(1)

For example, if a student scored 70 in the post-test and 30 in the pre-

test score, then the normalized learning gain could be as

70−30

100−30 =

40

70 = .57

Thus, it indicates that students gained .57 (or 57%) of the possible

gained from pre to post the test scores.

For this analysis, the normalized gain for each participant from the

control and experimental group was first calculated by using the formula (1).

The average normalized learning gain shown in Figure IV-14 indicates that for

the control group shows the normalized learning gain was 0.01 or 1% learning

gain found, whereas the experimental groups show .21 or 21% gain in the

learning of the participants.

164

Figure IV-14: Average normalized learning gain for control and experimental groups

For performing the statistical test to check the difference in students’

normalized learning gain with and without the intervention of serious game

prototype, first, the normality of each group was tested. The normality of each

group revealed that the assumption of the t-test is meet for both, the control

and experimental groups (The details of the normality are provided in

Appendix-P(a)).

The paired t-test result Table IV-3 reveals that t (40)=12.499, p<0.05,

which indicates the significant difference in the average normalized learning

gain of the control and experimental groups. Appendix-P(b) provides complete

SPSS output to analyze the control and experimental groups' normalized

learning gain.

1%

21%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

% in

No

rmal

ized

Lea

rnin

g G

ain

Average Learning Gain

Control Group Experimental Group

165

Table IV-3: The difference in students’ normalized learning gain for learning OOP with and without the intervention of prototype

Test-Data Mean Statistical

test t-value df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Experimental Group- Normalized Learning Gain

0.2105

Paired t-test

12.499 40 .000 Control Group-Normalized Learning Gain

0.0056

Therefore, it can be concluded that the normalized learning gain of

participants in the experimental group is significantly higher than the

participants in the control group.

2.1.3 Study-3: The effect size of the serious game prototype on learning outcomes

The effect size (ES) is the magnitude of the difference between groups.

Absolute ES is the difference between the average or means of two different

intervention groups (Cohen, 1988). ES is the main finding of quantitative

research, and the statistical p-value only helps to understand whether there is

a difference, but it does not reveal the size of the effect (Sullivan and Feinn

2012). Data used for this analysis include the pre and post-test scores of both

the control and experimental groups. The effect size is calculated using

Cohen's d, which can be found by the following formula:

d = <𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡−𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒>−<𝑃𝑟𝑒−𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒>

𝑆𝐷𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑑………(2)

166

where <post-test score>is the average of the post-test score, <pre-test

score> is the average of the pre-test score, and s is the pooled standard

deviation, which can be calculated as formula given in (3)

𝑆𝐷𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑑 = √(𝑆𝐷1 2+ 𝑆𝐷2

2)

2………(3)

Where SD1 is the standard deviation for the values of pre-test scores

and SD2 is the standard deviation for the values of post-test scores of control

or experimental groups, Cohen suggested that effect sizes of 0.2-0.3 are small,

0.5 medium, and ≥0.8 large effect size.

The pre and post-test raw score details used for calculating the effect

size for both the control and experimental groups are available in Appendix-N.

The result of the effect size for the control group, experimental group, and the

effect size of the post-test score of both the control and experimental groups

are presented in Table IV-6. The result of the effect size for the control groups

is 0.41, which is, according to Cohen’s suggestion, considered as small effect

size, whereas the effect size for the experimental group is 3.40, which is

significant results to be regarded as large effect size, same as the effect size

for the post-test score of both groups, the result is 3.43 which is also

considered as large effect size.

167

Table IV-4: The effect size of the OOsg on the learning outcomes

est-Data Mean SDPooled Values Effect Size

Control Group

Post-Test 14.341 3.68 (14.341-13.829)/3.68 0.14

Pre-Test 13.829

Experimental Group

Post-Test 33.285 5.32 (33.285-15.190)/5.32 3.40

Pre-Test 15.190

Control and Experimental Group

Post-Test Exp Group

33.285

5.52 (33.285-14.341)/5.52 3.43 Post-Test

Control Group 14.341

Therefore, it can be concluded that the effect size for the control group

where the traditional teaching method was used, shows the small effect of such

intervention, and the results were not statistically reliable. In contrast, the effect

size for the experimental groups and post-test scores shows a more significant

impact and proves to be a significantly reliable intervention method.

2.1.4 Study-4: The effect of perceived motivation on the learning outcomes of the students

As one of the research problems addressed in this research was to find

the answer for, does the perceived effects on the learning outcomes of the

students or not. The data used in this study include, values for the perceived

motivations were collected using the IMMS scale for both control and

experimental groups after performing post-test sessions and data for learning

outcomes were the normalized learning gain used in study-2. The Pearson

168

product-moment correlation coefficient is calculated for both the control and

the experimental groups for performing analysis of this study. The main aim of

this analysis is to find the effect of the perceived motivation on the learning

outcomes of the students.

The Pearson correlation for the control group students is shown as

Scatterplot in Figure IV-15 and Table IV-4. The results reveal, r=0.046, which

shows no effect of perceived motivation on the learning outcomes in the control

group (r= .046, n=41, p>0.05).

Figure IV-15 Correlation analysis for perceived motivation and learning outcomes (control group)

Table IV-5 Pearson correlation showing the effect of perceived motivation on the learning outcomes (control group)

Perceived Motivation

Normalized Learning Gain


Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

1 41

.046

.773 41


Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

.046

.773 41

1 41

169

The result of the Pearson correlation for the experimental group

students is shown as Scatterplot in Figure IV-16 and Table IV-5. The results

reveal r=0.530, which shows there is a significant effect of perceived

motivation on the experimental group's learning outcomes. (r=.530, n=42,

p<0.05).

Figure IV-16 Correlation analysis for perceived motivation and learning outcomes (experimental group)

Table IV-6 Pearson correlation showing the effect of perceived motivation on the learning outcomes (experimental group)




Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

1

42

.530**

.000

42


Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

.530**

.000

42

1

42

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level(2-tailed)

170

Therefore, it can be concluded that positive and modestly strong

correlation (r=.530, n=42, p<0.05) was identified between the perceived

motivation and learning outcomes for the experimental group. However, there

was no significant correlation between the two variables for control group

students.

2.2 Results of Evaluation

For performing the evaluation, various parameter discussed in section

2.6.2.1 to 2.6.2.4 is used for the analysis; two of them, namely perceived

motivation and perceived feedback was evaluated by both group of students

whereas, for other two, i.e., game experience and system usability, were

performed by the students of the experimental group only. The descriptive

statistics were used for each of these parameters; the parameters used in the

evaluation are shown in Figure IV-17. The details of each parameter evaluation

are described in the following sections.

Figure IV-17: Evaluation framework used in the study

171

2.2.1 Results of perceived motivation

Learner’s perception of their motivations refers to how they perceive

their motivations while playing OOsg. Although we can't measure players'

direct motivation by any scale, we can estimate the perceived motivation of

players. Students of both groups evaluated the learner’s motivations, i.e.,

control and experimental group students. The quantitative data was generated

using scale IMMS (Instructional Materials Motivation Survey). The four

subcategories of the IMMS scale include attention, relevance, confidence, and

satisfaction. The mean alpha reliability of the overall scale was 0.92, whereas,

the mean alpha reliability for subscale attention was 0.862, relevance was

0.815, confidence was 0.928, and satisfaction was 0.871. The result of the

reliability is also shown in Figure IV-18. The quantitative analysis of these

subcategories is as follows:

Figure IV-18 Reliability measure for IMMS

172

For designing the serious game model, we have first understood

whether a single game attribute leads to learning or enhance perceived

motivation or a combination of multiple attributes within a game has a more

substantial effect, and which game elements mainly helps to produce which

learning outcomes, the details about Gagne’s instructional events, OOsg

activities, game attributes and type of the motivational aspects supposed to be

achieved.

The attention subcategory is about acquiring and continuously focusing

on the learning environment (Green and Sulbaran, 2006). It is measure of how

much students are aware of the instructional design materials used. The game

attributes control, and sensory stimuli used in OOsg activities such as

welcoming player with their chosen name, or background music or presenting

the game objectives, outcomes or about information or Providing the warm-up

scenarios helps in achieving the attention subcategory.

In the case of the experimental group students, the goal was to

determine how the OOsg attracted students’ attention, which contributed to

students’ perceptions of their overall motivation during the learning or playing

process. Attention is acquired in the developed game by applying (Gagne and

Driscoll, 1998) three actions that vary the appearance or sound of instructional

materials, use concrete examples, and informing the novelty and incongruity.

The subcategory attention includes twelve items, five of which are

reverse scoring items. The average score and standard deviation of this

subcategory are given in Table IV-7. Attention categories had an average

score of 2.76 and a standard deviation of 1.21 for the control group students,

173

whereas the average score of 3.87 and a standard deviation of 1.22 for the

experimental group students. It is concluded that students believe OOsg helps

to gain or maintain their attention more during playing the game than those

who used to be attentive in a traditional teaching way.

Table IV-7: Average and standard deviation for the IMMS subcategory attention

Item Description

Control

iGroup

Experimental

iGroup

�̅� 𝑠 �̅� s

M1 Something was interesting at the beginning of this course\game that got my attention.

2.54 1.19 4.14 1.18

M2 These materials are eye-catching. 2.56 1.43 4.21 1.05

M3 The quality of the writing helped to hold my attention.

2.17 0.92 4.00 1.17

M4 This course\game is so abstract that it was hard to keep my attention. (Reverse)

2.44 0.90 4.12 1.02

M5 The pages of this course\levels, of course, look dry and unappealing. (Reverse)

2.71 1.19 3.67 1.46

M6 The way the information is arranged on the pages\level helped keep my attention.

2.44 1.23 3.67 1.41

M7 This course\game has things that stimulated my curiosity.

3.29 1.29 3.79 1.30

M8 The amount of repetition in this course\game caused me to get bored sometimes. (Reverse)

3.22 1.37 3.88 1.23

M9 I learned some things that were surprising or unexpected.

2.78 1.33 3.57 1.27

M10 The variety of reading passages, exercises, illustrations, etc., \levels helped keep my attention on the course\game.

2.66 1.09 3.64 1.39

M11 The style of writing is boring. (Reverse) 2.51 1.31 4.31 0.98

M12 There are so many words on each page\level that it is irritating. (Reverse)

3.80 1.31 3.43 1.13

Average 2.76 1.21 3.87 1.22

174

The relevance aims that learning content should not only be accurate,

but it must also be consistent with the learning outcomes. The purpose of this

category is to determine whether students think that instructional method, i.e.,

OOsg or traditional teaching, is related to their existing knowledge, interests,

experience, and real life. It shows the learners that their success is a direct

result of their efforts and can enhance personal needs and traits related to

relevance. They are providing feedback to access learners' efforts and which

helps in increase the sense of achievement. In the design of the OOsg, the

game attributes like, rules, goals, fantasy, and sensory stimuli used in OOsg

activities like providing or presenting the information regarding rules and goals

of each level, increase and decrease in points/score, how to get hints, win/lose

strategies, helps develop relevance between the learning contents and

learning outcomes.

The relevance subcategory is composed of eight items, one of which is

a reverse scoring item. The average scores and standard deviation for the

relevance category presented in Table IV-8 show the average and standard

deviation for the control group was 2.69 and 1.25, respectively, whereas, for

the experimental group students, the average score was 3.66 and the standard

deviation of 1.10. Students from the experimental groups believe that OOsg is

often related to their existing knowledge, experience, and real life.

175

Table IV-8: Average and standard deviation for the IMMS subcategory relevance

Item Description

Control iGroup

Experimental iGroup

�̅� 𝑠 �̅� s

M13 It is clear to me how the content of this material\game is related to things I already know.

2.56 1.21 3.93 1.16

M14 There were stories, pictures, or examples that showed me how this material could be important to some people.

3.07 1.23 3.55 1.19

M15 Completing this course\game successfully was important to me.

2.83 1.38 3.71 1.11

M16 The content of this material\levels of the game is relevant to my interests

2.56 1.18 3.86 0.93

M17 There are explanations or examples of how people use the knowledge in this course\game.

2.76 1.26 3.74 1.04

M18

The content and style of writing in this course\presentation of material in-game convey the impression that its content is worth knowing.

2.66 1.28 3.74 0.80

M19 This course\game was not relevant to my needs because I already knew most of it. (Reverse)

1.95 1.05 3.62 1.19

M20 I could relate the content of this course\game to things I have seen, done, or thought about in my own life.

2.98 1.44 3.45 1.33

M21 The content of this course\game will be useful to me.

2.80 1.25 3.36 1.16

Average 2.69 1.25 3.66 1.10

Confidence is about students' expectancy of success and learning

failure (Bohlin, Milheim, and Viechnicki 1990). Keller (Keller and Keller 2010)

indicated that confidence is related to the learners' feeling of personal control

and its influence on learning effort and performance. In the OOsg, Fantasy,

Rules/Goals, Sensory stimuli used for presenting the game levels needs to

play, performing actions in the levels or providing feedback on players action

taken in the game helps to develop confidence in the learners.

176

Gagné (Gagne and Medsker, 1996) also suggest designing an

environment where learners capable of performing their potential are always

challenging. This subcategory's goal was to determine how confident students

felt about the sustainability of the instructional methods, which contributed to

their overall perceptions of their motivation. However, the learning situation

should begin to strengthen their confidence and gradually change the level of

difficulties. The facilitator needs to establish a good rapport with the learners

then increase expectancy for success. Instructional strategies expected to

enhance the learners’ confidence include advancing advance organizers and

clear learning objectives. In this, confidence can develop through feedback,

highlighting the relationship between learner effort and the results achieved.

The confidence scale consists of 9 items, 4 of which are reverse scoring

items. The average scores and standard deviation for the confidence category

are presented in Table IV-9. The results show, an average score of 2.59 and

a standard deviation of 1.16 for the control group students, whereas an

average score of 3.45 and a standard deviation of 1.22 for the experimental

group students. The experimental group students think they can learn using

the OOsg, but there are some difficult factors in the learning process, and

students of the control group are less confident in learning using the traditional

teaching method.

177

Table IV-9: Average and standard deviation for the IMMS subcategory confidence

Item Description

Control iGroup

Experimental iGroup

�̅� 𝑠 �̅� s

M22 When I first looked at this course\game, I had the impression that it would be easy for me.

2.78 1.19 3.60 1.25

M23 This material was more difficult to understand than I would like for it to be. (Reverse)

2.24 0.97 3.36 1.19

M24 After reading the introductory information, I felt confident that I knew what I was supposed to learn from this course/game.

2.88 1.35 3.67 1.22

M25

Many of the pages had so much information that it was hard to pick out and remember the important points. (Reverse)

2.24 0.73 3.31 1.28

M26 As I worked on this course\game, I was confident that I could learn the content.

2.73 1.27 3.40 1.29

M27 The exercises in this course\game were too difficult. (Reverse)

2.27 1.27 3.50 1.06

M28 After working on this course\game for a while, I was confident that I would be able to pass a test on it.

2.56 1.25 3.33 1.20

M29 I could not understand quite a bit of the material in this course\game. (Reverse)

2.88 1.23 3.52 1.23

M30 The good organization of the content helped me be confident that I would learn this material.

2.71 1.21 3.38 1.25

Average 2.59 1.16 3.45 1.22

The last subcategory, satisfaction, is about accomplishments in

learning. Several factors can affect satisfaction, such as feedback. Using a

comprehensive feedback process, learning iterations, and experiences can

support learner self-confidence, maintaining the relationship between attention

and learning activities. Establishing clear learning goals can avoid adverse

effects on learners. Therefore, providing a clear and concise guide will enable

learners to make a difference. The game attributes such as Fantasy, Sensory

178

stimuli, Challenge and Mystery provided in activities like providing game score,

information for correct and wrong attempts, remaining tasks, etc or to provide

the previous information in the upcoming levels with increased challenged or

complexity, helps the learners to satisfy about their level of satisfaction.

The satisfaction scale consists of six items, none of which were scored

reversed. The average scores and standard deviation for the satisfaction

subcategory are presented in Table IV-10, The average score for the

satisfaction category was 2.83, and the standard deviation was 1.27 for the

control group students, whereas the average and standard deviation of 3.28

and 1.33 respectively for the students of the experimental group. Students

agreed it was generally true that they were satisfied with the OOsg compared

to the traditional teaching method.

Table IV-10: Average and standard deviation for the IMMS subcategory satisfaction

Item Description

Control iGroup

Experimental iGroup

�̅� 𝑠 �̅� s

M31 Completing the exercises\levels in this course gave me a satisfying feeling of accomplishment.

2.78 1.37 3.38 1.38

M32 I enjoyed this course\game so much that I would like to know more about this topic.

2.93 1.21 3.07 1.22

M33 I enjoyed studying this course/game 2.93 1.06 2.98 1.14

M34

The wording of feedback after the exercises, or of other comments in this course/game, helped me feel rewarded for my effort.

2.80 1.29 3.52 1.19

M35 I felt good to complete this course/game 2.80 1.36 3.07 1.63

M36 It was a pleasure to work on such a well-designed course/game.

2.76 1.34 3.64 1.43

Average 2.83 1.27 3.28 1.33

179

The comparison between the average score for all the IMMS scale

subcategories for both the control and experimental groups is shown in Figure

IV-19. The comparison results reveal that the experimental group students'

motivation levels were positive for all the sub-categories of IMMS.

Figure IV-19 Comparison between control and experimental group’s perceived motivational level

The overall means score, frequency, standard deviation, and

percentage of the learner’s perception of motivation for the experimental group

is presented in Table IV-11. The highest percentage (47.61%) of the mean

score indicates that the majority of the participants have means score between

4.01 to 5.00 for the attention subcategory, same for the satisfaction

subcategory also have the highest percentage (47.61%) for the means score

between 3.1 to 4.0 The overall mean score of subcategories of the IMMS scale

shows that participant has the high score in attention (3.87) followed by

relevance (3.66).

180

Table IV-11 Overall mean score, frequency, standard deviation, and percentage about the learner’s perception of motivation towards learning

OOP using OOsg

IMMS subcategories

Mean Score 1.00-2.00

Mean Score

2.1-3.00

Mean Score

3.1-4.00

Mean Score

4.1-5.00

Mean Score

SD

Attention 1

(2.38%) 4

(9.52%) 17

(40.47%) 20

(47.61%) 3.87 0.65

Relevance 2

(4.76%) 11

(26.19%) 13

(30.95%) 16

(38.10%) 3.66 0.75

Confidence 7

(16.66%) 6

(14.28%) 15

(35.71%) 14

(33.33%) 3.45 0.97

Satisfaction 8

(19.04%) 5

(11.90%) 20

(47.61%) 9

(21.42%) 3.28 1.07

2.2.2 Results of perceived feedback

Feedback is defined as providing students with information about their

performance, such as written reviews on assignments, oral responses

submitted to the classrooms or individuals, posts or comments from online

learning systems, and feedback can take the form of peers and self-

assessments (Rowe and Wood, 2008). Feedback is probably the essential

component, and it has the most significant impact on student learning through

formative assessments (Black and Wiliam, 1998). Effective feedback affects

student progress and success. Feedback identifies gaps between students'

performance levels and expectations (Shute, et al. 2008), which hinders

learning (Alton-Lee, 2003). When students have a proper understanding of

their progress, they can easily determine their next steps (Education Review

Office, 2012). This study aimed to explore the value of the feedback in

students’ points of view and their perception of the feedback received during

the classroom or playing the developed game.

181

The perceived feedback questionnaire includes 17 items; none of them

was scored inversely. The reliability test was conducted to evaluate the

perceived feedback items; the overall scale's result had a value of α=.769. For

performing the statistical analysis to check the difference of student’s opinion

for perceived feedback they received using their particular instructional

methods, the Shapiro Wilk’s test(p>0.05) and visual inspection of the

histogram test of normality were performed to check the normality test (The

details of the normality test are provided in the Appendix-Q(a)), the result

reveals that means values of perceived feedback for the control group are

normally distributed, however for experimental groups values deviates from a

normal distribution, hence Wilcoxon Signed-rank test was performed.

The result of the Wilcoxon test is presented in Table IV-12. The results

show that at a 5% level of significance, z= -5.55, p<0.05, which indicates the

significant difference in the control and experimental groups' perceived

feedback. Further, the mean values of the experimental group are higher than

the control group. Therefore, it can be concluded that the experimental group

participants have better results for perceived feedback than the control group

participants. Appendix-Q(b) provides complete SPSS output to analyze the

control and experimental groups' perceived feedback.

182

Table IV-12 The difference in student’s perception about feedback received while learning OOP with and without the intervention of prototype

Test-Data Mean Statistical test z-

value Sig. (2-tailed)

Experimental Group -Perceived Feedback

3.657 Wilcoxon

Signed Ranks -5.55 .000

Control Group -Perceived Feedback-

2.616

For the descriptive statistics, the average score and standard deviation

of perceived feedback are provided in Table IV-13. The average rating for the

feedback value category was 2.62, and the standard deviation was 1.20 for

the control group, whereas the average and standard deviation for the

experimental group was 3.28 and 0.90, respectively. Further, it is concluded

that the average values about the feedback perception are higher for the

experimental group students as compared to the control group students.

183

Table IV-13 Average and standard deviation for the perceived feedback

Item Description

Control iGroup

Experimental iGroup

�̅� 𝑠 �̅� s

F1 Feedback is important to me 2.54 1.19 3.71 0.51

F2 I always collect my assignments/task 2.56 1.43 4.14 0.75

F3 I always read the feedback on my assignments/tasks

2.17 0.92 3.74 0.89

F4 I use feedback to try and improve my results in future assignments

2.44 0.90 3.67 0.75

F5 Feedback is only useful when I receive a low grade

2.71 1.19 4.02 0.75

F6 General feedback provided in class/game helps me learn independently

2.56 1.21 3.62 0.88

F7 Teachers’/games written comments are often difficult to read and poorly explained

3.07 1.23 3.43 1.23

F8 Feedback is only useful when it is positive 2.83 1.38 3.48 0.89

F9 Individual feedback is better because I can clarify any issues with the teacher/game

2.56 1.18 3.64 1.12

F10 I like it when teacher/game post sample answers on assignment/tasks

2.76 1.26 3.81 0.86

F11 I feel encouraged when teacher/game provide general feedback in class/game

2.66 1.28 3.07 0.81

F12 An essential part of learning can discuss the subject with my teacher/game

1.95 1.05 3.43 0.97

F13 I learn better when the teacher/game encourages me to think deeply about the subject matter

2.98 1.44 3.64 1.25

F14 Written feedback is easier to understand 2.80 1.25 3.79 0.95

F15 Specific feedback is better because it helps me to understand what I did right and wrong in an assignment/task

2.78 1.19 3.60 1.08

F16 I learn more when my teacher/game focuses on the questions I got wrong

2.24 0.97 3.79 0.90

F17 It is annoying when the teacher/game provide general feedback to the class/game

2.88 1.35 3.62 0.73

Average 2.62 1.20 3.28 0.90

184

2.2.3 Result of game experience

The game experience analysis was done to identify the effect of the

OOsg on the participant's experience during playing. The questionnaire

consists of 15 questions, 10 of them were closed-ended questions, and 5 were

open-ended questions. The open-ended questions were about the dedicated

for the number of the levels in the game played/reached by the participants,

the overall game rating scale, what did the participants most liked in the game,

and what did they don’t like in the game, and in the last suggestions were also

collected for the improvement of the prototype. The mean alpha reliability of

the close-ended items was α=.766. The expected answers for various

questions such as the developed game were easy to learn and understand,

participants enjoyed playing the game, besides the game tasks were clear, the

tasks varied behaviour from easy to difficult, improved the engagement of

playing the game. Participants felt that they were happy to complete the game

tasks, but the developed game provides an excellent example for learning

OOP and has the potential to improve overall understanding of the OOP

concepts. The results of the close-ended responses are parented in Figure IV-

20.

When working with the questions, the number of levels played/reached

by the participants, Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient was

used to identify the strength and direction of correlations between post-test

scores. The result of Pearson’s analysis is presented in Table IV-14, and it

shows, that there is a strong positive correlation between the levels reached

by the player and post-test scores (r=0.737, n=42, p=0.000).

185

Table IV-14 - Correlation analysis between levels played/reached and the post-test scores

Level Played Post-test scores

Level Played Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

1

42

.737**

.000

42

Post-test scores

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

.737**

.000

42

1

42

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level(2-tailed)

186

Figure IV-20 Responses for close-ended questions for game experience survey

187

Another open-ended question was about the rating of the developed

serious game on a rating scale ranging from 1 (worst) to 5(best)—the results

for the overall game rating presented in Figure IV-21. The result shows that

none of the participants rated the game as worst, and only 7 participants rated

the game less than the good or best. The other 35 students ranked the game

from good to best.

Figure IV: Rating of overall game experience

Participants also received three optional open-ended questions to

express their preferences in the game, what they like in the developed serious

game, what they don’t like, and suggestions on improving the game. This

qualitative data helps in providing the strength and weaknesses of the OOsg.

Table IV-15 presented some useful and most frequent comments from the

participants.

188

Table IV-15. Participants comments about the OOsg

What student’s liked in the developed Serious Game

Idea, content, theme, and time challenging warnings.

Everything, but the presentation of the game from beginning up to end, is fantastic.

The interface of this game was I most liked.

if anyone knows how to play, then it’s very fantastic to play and increase knowledge

I like all over the game

Presentation of the contents, animation, and sound

Clarity of the concept of class attributes methods, relations, and objects.

I like the presentation of relationships

The story of the game

It establishes the understanding of objects, class, relationship using hospital scenario, drag and drop feature, and especially the popup congratulations menu when aiming to achieve goals.

The feedback when I made any mistake

What student’s did not like in the developed Serious Game

It's a long and in-depth story.

When I am making a mistake, the sound is a little bit annoying

I can only find the few objects and classes

There were no pictures in the game; that's why it was boring for me.

In 3 level, my game hanged, and this was irritating for me

It’s hard to play this game for a non-game player like me

The level 2 was challenging

The story was too deep and required more time to read it, and therefore, I could not complete all the levels.

The object is being selected by right-clicking rather than left.

Student’s comments for the improvement of the developed serious game

Add more attractive sounds

Include some bonus level and bonus lives

Add the pause button while reading the story in the game

Improve drag and drop mechanism

Resolve errors and fix bugs

There should be an enhanced warm-up session for easiness

You can more improve this game by providing different stories to choose according to their interested domains.

The level should be selective from the start menu not to skip from inside

189

Currently, making the selection is available via mouse only. Please provide a way so that it can be played through the keyboard

We need animated games with interesting stories that attract

I can suggest that just improve some things of OOsg like play in full-screen mood, sounds, show how to play levels before starting level.

Improve some bugs which are faced during play

In level 4, add a complete and empty hierarchy structure, so the user just drags and drops the parent or a child class in an empty box in the hierarchy.

2.2.4 Results of system usability

Usability measures are concerned with measuring the user’s

satisfaction while using the OOsg. All the selected participants evaluated the

system’s usability to be part of the experimental group in this study. The

quantitative data was generated from the Post-Study System Usability

Questionnaire (PSSUQ) developed by (Lewis, 1995). PSSUQ scale

subcategories include system usability, information quality, and interface

quality. The means reliability of PSSUQ was (.94) and is entirely free; the result

of each subscale's reliability is also shown in Figure IV-22.

Figure IV-22 Reliability measure for PSSUQ

190

The quantitative analysis of three subdomains of PSSUQ is as follows:

The System Usefulness or usability domain refers to a system that is

easy to use and easy to learn, allows the user to complete tasks effectively,

and becomes productive quickly. The goal was to determine how easily they

can use the OOsg to accomplish their tasks and whether they were satisfied

with using the developed game.

The subdomain system's usability includes six items. The average

score and standard deviation of all the sub-domain are presented in Table IV-

16. The system usability domain had an average rating of 3.77 and a standard

deviation of 0.20. The highest-rated item was U2 ‘It was simple to use this

game,’ with 3.98 out of 5 possible scores. Overall, the students believe that

OOsg was easy to use and learn and satisfied to learn with it.

The information quality domain refers to the system's feedback, such as

error messages and or other information they receive if something was done

wrong and how to fix problems. It may also include other help options such as

hints, onscreen messages, rules, and goals of playing the game at the start of

the game. Moreover, it also measures if the contents included in the game are

easy to understand, effectively helps the user complete tasks, and is

organized.

The subdomain system information quality includes six items.

Information quality had an average score of 3.67 and a standard deviation of

1.07. Overall the students believe that information provided in the OOsg for

learning contents and the information provided if students performed any

mistake was effectively helpful and presented in an organized manner.

191

The interface quality domain concerns with how pleasant the system

was to their user. It measures if s/he liked the system and if the system has all

the functionality and capabilities s/he expected. The domain is also concerned

with the participant’s overall satisfaction for using the interface.

The subdomain interface quality includes four items; one is dedicated

to whether the participant’s satisfaction for using the developed game. The

interface quality had an average score of 3.60 and a standard deviation of

1.26.

Table IV-16: Average and standard deviation for the usability subcategories

i �̅� s

System Usability (�̅�=3.77, s=1.20)

U1 Overall, I am satisfied with how easy it is to use this game. 3.83 1.25

U2 It was simple to use this game. 3.98 1.00

U3 I was able to complete the levels and scenarios quickly using this game.

3.88 0.99

U4 I felt comfortable using this game. 3.67 1.32

U5 It was easy to learn to use this game. 3.38 1.23

U6 I believe I could become productive quickly using this game. 3.86 1.39

Information Quality (�̅�=3.67, s=1.07)

U7 The game gave error messages that told me how to fix problems. 3.69 1.30

U8 Whenever I made a mistake using the game, I could recover easily and quickly. 3.60 0.96

U9 The information (such as online help, on-screen messages, and other documentation) provided with this game was clear. 3.55 0.89

U10 It was easy to find the information I needed. 3.83 1.03

U11 The information was effective in helping me complete the tasks and scenarios. 3.86 1.16

U12 The organization of information on the game level screens was clear. 3.52 1.06

Interface Quality (�̅�=3.60, s=1.26)

U13 The interface of this game was pleasant. 3.33 1.44

U14 I liked using the interface of this game. 3.90 1.25

192

U15 This game has all the functions and capabilities I expect it to have. 3.69 1.12

U16 Overall, I am satisfied with this game. 3.48 1.23

The highest-rated subcategory was the system's usefulness, followed

by information quality, with an average score of 3.77 and 3.67.

193

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

This chapter focused on the work carried out throughout the research

study. First, the purpose and motivation of the research are introduced.

Second, it shows the findings that meet the research objectives and research

questions. This research's main focus is to design and develop serious game

prototypes to improve the performance of students learning OOP. Initially,

students regarded learning programming languages as a difficult task, which

led to low motivation for learning object-oriented and, in many cases, the

dropout rate of computer science or related courses was high. Therefore, the

prototype is developed and designed to provide an environment where

students can learn and practice OOP concepts in a stimulating and engaging

way in which the motivation to learn is enhanced without having to worry about

failure.

For the achievement of the objective-1 of the study, a comprehensive

survey for identifying potential difficulties in learning OOP was carried out

through an extensive review of existing studies as well the investigation was

conducted on current OOP learning students. It is discovered that some many

misconceptions and difficulties hinder the students in learning OOP.

Consequently, the objective was necessary to be achieved, because, if the

potential obstacles are identified in advance, the serious game prototype could

be designed and developed accordingly. The Chapter II and section 1,

dedicated to identifying student's potential difficulties and misconceptions

while learning OOP. The topics covered in the literature review include: tools

194

for identifying difficulties, OOP concepts or instructional contents covered,

content analysis techniques used, specific OOP solved and identified

problems. The result of the reviewed studies is comprehensively presented in

Table II-1 of chapter II. The results showed that many studies concluded that

programming is difficult for the first time, regardless of the type of programming

language (Bennedsen and Schulte, 2007 and Wei, et al., 2005 and Xinogalos

and Satratzemi, 2005 and Bergin, et al., 2012 and Robins, et al. 2003 and

Bennedsen, et al., 2008) they are learning. Results show that students faced

difficulties throughout the whole learning process, from topics related to the

transitioning of procedural programming to OOP to the issues concerned with

perceived motivation form their existing learning environment. After gaining an

essential understanding of the problem area, students are better off starting to

solve the problem. The potential difficulties identified from the studies include

the difficulty in understanding of basic OOP concepts, which is classification,

application, utilization, implementation, and debugging of the OOP features.

More concretely, the majority of the studies stressed on the cognitive

difficulties related to fundamental quarks of OOP such as adding or creation of

the classes, assigning properties and methods to the classes, identification of

the classes, method creation, deletion, invocation, return values of the

methods and passing the parameter to the methods, message passing and so

on. All the studies also showed that difficulties arise because of the

motivational issues of the learning environment in which the existing

instructional method is carried out.

Besides, the results of student feedback provided in chapter III and

section 2, indicate that it is difficult to understand the difference between the

195

programming language and OOP, lack of understanding, and unable to apply

basic OOP concepts. Difficulties in existing teaching methods have led to a

lack of interest in learning OOP.

In summary, the overall results indicate that students have difficulties

and misunderstandings in understanding almost all OOP quarks. However,

incorporating all these difficulties into the design and development of serious

game prototypes is beyond research scope. Therefore, this study is limited to

considering cognitive difficulties related to classes, attributes, behaviors,

objects and hierarchies. Difficulties related to motivation issues are also

considered, because the method of teaching OOP concepts was not attractive

enough, the complexity of the learning and practice environment was the

primary cause for student's lack of interest in learning.

Objective-2 of this study was aimed at the formulation of a model for a

learning environment that overcomes the student's difficulties in learning OOP

as a result of objective-1. The designed model focused on fostering learning

outcomes and improving learning performance by rather starting with the

technical details of OOP, students would be provided with an environment

where the basic concepts of OOP at the beginning of the course are taught

using the entertaining and engaging environment. The students can be

motivated to learn boring topics by enjoying the experience. To achieve the

objective-2 of study, first, the review of existing instructional methods used for

teaching OOP was carried out. In section 5 of Chapter II, the approaches

available for teaching OOP have been discussed. Among the various available

approaches (approaches?), the game-first was selected as the instructional

method for this research. The reason for considering this method is because

196

game-like tools have played a vital role in the entire educational process,

helping to understand better and promote learning and this method helps to

gain student motivation at the beginning of the course. After finalizing the

game-first approach, reviewing the existing games available for learning OOP

has been reviewed in Chapter II, Section 7. The review involves various game

attributes of serious games that contribute to learning and motivation, the

integrated learning theories, and instructional delivery methods in the existing

serious games available.

The review results in Table II-2 of chapter II showed that existing serious

game design and development did not consider the student's difficulties, which

needs to be overcome and improved. The current literature also revealed

paucity in the use of learning theories and instructional designs in the design

and development of serious game prototypes for learning OOP (Xu, 2009, Al-

Linjawi and Al-Nuaim, 2010, Yulia and Adipranata, 2010, Rais and Syed-

Mohamad, 2011, Depradine, 2011, Livovský and Porubän, 2014, Poolsawas,

et al., 2016, Seng and Yatim, 2014, Seng, et al., 2015, Seng, et al., 2016, Seng

and Yatim, 2018 and Seng, et al., 2018). Despite some promising results

obtained from the current literature, it does not show the presumed link

between the motivation provided by the games and actual learning outcomes

supposed to be achieved by incorporating SGs for learning OOP (Phelps, et

al., 2005).

Therefore, by considering the limitations of the existing serious games,

the new model was effectively designed. The developed model is presented

and discussed in section 5.2 of chapter III. In the third phase of the research,

a serious game model was designed for learning OOP. In the formulated model

197

shown in Figure III-5 of chapter III, the components discussed in existing

serious games, i.e., instructional contents or learning difficulties, game

attributes, learning theories, required competencies, and motivational aspects,

are logically placed in the presentation, practice, and performance phases.

The presentation phase provides the input content to the user/player as

learning material; in this case, the basic OOP quarks and the objective-1 result

were used as instructional contents. The practice phase is about the logical

mapping of the instructional contents over game attributes and content delivery

instructions. The learning theories are also integrated into the design of the

model in this phase. The assessment and evaluation of the user/player as a

result of playing the game is provided in the performance phase. The

performance was evaluated based on intended learning outcomes or required

OOP competencies and the effect of the developed model's motivation.

The Objective-3 was achieved by the design and development of a

serious game prototype that supports the model for learning OOP designed as a

result of objective-2. The developed serious game for learning OOP is named

OOsg. The detail about the development of the OOsg and its OOsg incorporates

all the components and flow of activities involved in designing the serious game

model.

To achieve the objective-4, an experimental evaluation was carried out

to analyze the student's performance for learning OO with and without using

the developed serious game prototype. The four studies, i.e., the difference in

student's performance, normalized learning gain, effect size, and effect of

perceived motivation by using the developed serious game prototype on the

198

students' learning outcomes, were performed to achieve objective-4 of this

research study.

For the experimental evaluation of the study-1, the pre-test scores of

both the experimental and control groups are compared with the post-test

scores. The study aimed to determine whether the difference between means

for the two sets of scores (pre-test and post-test) is the same or different. The

experimental study-1 presented in Table IV-2, showed that the experimental

group's post-test scores are higher than the pre-test scores. However, no

significant difference was found in the post-test and pre-test scores of the

control group (p<0.05, paired t-test).

The experimental Study-2 was aimed to find the difference in students'

normalized learning gain for learning OOP with and without the prototype's

intervention. The average normalized learning is estimated to measure the

effectiveness of the prototype in promoting conceptual understanding of the

subject. The result of mean scores for average normalized learning gain shown

in Figure IV-14 indicates that only 1% of the gain has been observed for the

control group, whereas the experimental groups showed a 21% gain in the

participants' learning. The experimental analysis results for the study-2

presented in Table IV-3 showed that students' normalized learning gains led

to highly significant for the experimental group than those of the control group

(p<0.05, paired t-test).

The experimental study-3 was conducted to find the effect size of the

serious game prototype on the students' learning outcomes. The effect size

was measured because the p-value determined as the result of study-1 could

only inform whether an intervention effect exists or not, but it is not sufficient

199

to determine the size of the effect. The result of study-4 presented in Table IV-

6 indicates a significantly larger effect size (d=3.40) for the experimental group

compared to the control group (d=0.14).

The experimental study-4 aimed to find the effect of perceived

motivation on the learning outcomes of the students. The experimental group

results presented in Table IV-4 showed a significant impact of motivation

provided by the OOsg on the students' learning outcomes (r=.530, n=42,

p<0.05). However, the control group results presented in Table IV-5 revealed

no significant effect of perceived motivation on the students' learning outcomes

(r= .046, n=41, p>0.05).

The evaluation of the prototype was performed by considering the four

different parameters; two of them, namely perceived motivation and perceived

feedback, were evaluated by both groups of students, whereas evaluating the

other two, i.e., game experience and system usability, were performed by

experimental group students.

The evaluation of perceived motivation was conducted using a 5-points

IMMS scale. The result of the evaluation presented in Table IV-7 to Table IV-

10, showed the highest mean score for attention �̅�=3.87 followed by relevance

�̅�=3.66 subcategories. The percentage of the score presented in Table IV-11

indicates that the highest percentage of 47.61% for subcategories attention

and satisfaction is at a rating of 4.01 to 5.00 and between 3.1 to 4.0,

respectively.

The results for the evaluation of the perceived feedback presented in

Table IV-12 showed that significant differences had been observed for the

perception of the feedback received from the OOsg than those obtained using

200

the traditional instructions (p<0.05, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks).

The evaluation of game experience presented in Table IV-14 showed a

strong positive correlation between the number of the levels played/reached

and the post-test scores for the participants of the experimental

groups(r=0.737, n=42, p = 0.000). The evaluation provided evidence that the

overall game experience was effective and the developed serious game had

the potential to improve understanding of the OO concepts.

For the usability evaluation, results presented in Table IV-16 indicate

that students showed satisfactory results for the usefulness of the OOsg with

an average score of 3.77, followed by the information quality subcategory with

an average score of 3.67.

201

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

This chapter outlines the major contribution to achieving the research

objectives, limitations, and the possible future work. The two major

contributions in this research include designing the serious game model and

its implementation named OOsg. The design and development of the OOsg

fulfils the missing evidence found in existing serious games such as

considering the difficulties and misconceptions of the student in learning OOP,

incorporation of learning theories, instructional designs, improper mapping of

the game and learning attributes. The second is the statistical contribution for

providing the missing rigorous statistical evidence between the students used

the traditional teaching methods and OOsg for learning OOP. The details

about these two contributions are discussed below;

• Investigation on students

The investigation on the performance of students was done to better

understand the types of difficulties and misconceptions encountered in solving

some OO-related tasks and activities. In the first phase students’ abilities for

the achievement of OOP competencies presented through OOP related tasks

and to find out the types of mistakes and misconceptions student make when

various activities involving OOP concepts are given to them. Investigation on

the students' difficulties has been done to be considered as guidelines for the

incorporation of the instructional contents in the serious games model.

• Design of Competency Model

In this study, we addressed the issues in designing and developing the

202

serious game prototype for learning OOP. Thus, as a result, the competency

model was designed to determine the major competencies required for

mastering the skill of OOP. The competency model is also used as the

expected learning outcomes intended to achieve by the OOsg.

• Design of Serious Game Model

The issues of paucity in learning theories, instructional designs and

improper mapping of the game attributes in the available games are expedited

by designing a new model for serious games. The formulated model is

designed based on the extensive review conducted to identify students'

difficulties and pitfalls in the existing serious game models.

• Development of Serious Game Prototype

A serious game prototype was created to demonstrate the

implementation of the designed model. The prototype allows students to

practice and learn the basic OOP concepts, such as classes, objects,

attributes, methods, and inheritance using different scenarios provided in the

prototype.

• Experimental study and evaluation of the OOsg

The experimental analysis results showed that the prototype proved to

be helpful for the students in improving the learning outcomes of OOP

concepts in which they were facing difficulties. The effect size by intervening

in the OOsg is also observed to be significantly larger. This study aimed at

presenting the lacking observational proof that the game's motivation has an

effect on improving learning outcomes for OO learning. The impact of the

prototype's motivation proved a significant impact on the students' learning

203

outcomes. Through the strong results obtained from the prototypes that have

been developed, our work has made an important contribution in encouraging

the use of OOsg to learn OO in a fun and engaging environment. The flexible

techniques and strategies used in developing the prototype can set the path

for quickly building serious games for other programming domains, which help

reduce the development time and simplify the integration of instructional

content.

• Limitation and future recommendation

As future recommendations, there are various suggestions to improve

this study. The combination of the experimental study results and the

limitations of this study marks several directions that can be explored. This

research is related to the design and development of a serious game named

OOsg, which is specifically used to help students improve their learning OOP

performance. In the future, improvements can be made by enhancing more

functions related to polymorphism, encapsulation, abstraction in the prototype,

and expanding the prototype's evaluation scope.

In developing the existing serious games prototype, the incorporation of

instructional contents was based on an analysis of students' difficulties and

misconceptions in learning OOP. However, considering and overcoming all

these difficulties is beyond the scope of this study, so the prototype can be

further enriched in the future to consider other encountered difficulties such as

abstraction (Relevant and Irrelevant details), encapsulation (internal details of

the classes), generalization (types and subtypes), and polymorphism

(Interaction). Besides, for practicing and learning using OOsg, only one game

story related to the hospital management system is included. In the future, as

204

the prototype is flexible enough to adapt to changes in instructional content or

game stories without changing the prototype's architecture, more stories can

be easily included.

In the existing prototype, the player/users' assessment is performed

from the log files generated as a result of playing the game, the assessment

mechanism could be improved by providing real-time results, and more

accurate and tailored feedback is certain while playing the game. Furthermore,

the students' comments given in-game experience surveys for the game's

improvement could also be considered in the future.

For the experimental evaluation, a limited number of participants from

the local universities were selected, the scope of the evaluation may further be

lengthened by increasing the number of the participant as well as participants

across geographical boundaries. The experimental evaluation of the OOsg is

completed by students participating in the OOP course. The prototype can be

further evaluated by experts in the OO field to collect their opinions to

determine the effectiveness of OOsg and make further improvements based

on their suggestions.

205

REFERENCES

ABBASI, S., KAZI, H., and KHOWAJA, K., (2017), “A systematic review of learning object oriented programming through serious games and programming approaches”. In 2017 4th IEEE International Conference on Engineering Technologies and Applied Sciences (ICETAS) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.

ABT, C.C., (1987), “Serious games”, University Press of America. AL-LINJAWI, A. A. and AL-NUAIM, H. A., (2010), “Using Alice to teach novice

programmers OOP concepts”, Journal of King Abdulaziz University: Science, 148(632), pp.1-20.

ALICE, (2008), Carnegie Mellon University, “Alice.org”. http://www.alice.org/.

(Accessed, June 2018). ALTON-LEE, A., (2003), “Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling:

Best evidence synthesis”, Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

ALYAMI, S. M. and ALAGAB, A. M., (2013), “The Difference in Learning

Strategies in Virtual Learning Environment and Their Effect on Academic Achievement and Learning Satisfaction for Distance Teaching and Training Program Students”, In Proceedings - 4th International Conference on e-Learning Best Practices in Management, Design and Development of e-Courses: Standards of Excellence and Creativity, ECONF, pp. 102–112.

ANDERSON, E. F. and MCLOUGHLIN, L., (2007), “Critters in the Classroom:

A 3D Computer-Game-like Tool for Teaching Programming to Computer Animation Students”, In ACM SIGGRAPH 2007 Educators Program on - SIGGRAPH ’07, 7. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.

ANG, C. S., AVNI, E. and ZAPHIRIS, P., (2008), “Linking pedagogical theory

of computer games to their usability”, International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), pp.533-558.

ARMSTRONG, D.J., (2006), “The Quarks of Object-Oriented Development”,

Communications of the ACM, 49(2), pp.123–28. BLOOM, B. S., (1956), “Bloom’s taxonomy” BASHIRU, L. AND JOSEPH, A. A., (2015), “Learning difficulties of Object

Oriented Programming (OOP) in University of Ilorin-Nigeria: Students perspective”, In Eighth TheIIER-Science Plus International Conference, Dubai, UAE. cf. p. 45, 46, 50.

206

BECKER, K., (2007), “Oh, the thinks you can think: language barriers in serious game design”, In Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Future Play, pp. 229-232.

BEDNARIK, R. and TUKIAINEN, M., (2006), “An eye-tracking methodology for characterizing program comprehension processes”, In Proceedings of the 2006 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications, pp. 125-132.

BEDNAR, A. K., CUNNINGHAM, D., DUFFY, T. M. and PERRY, J. D. (1991), “Theory into practice: How do we think: In CJ Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future”, Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, pp. 88-101.

BEDWELL, W. L., PAVLAS, D., HEYNE, K., LAZZARA, E. H. and SALAS,

E., (2012), “Toward a taxonomy linking game attributes to learning: An empirical study”, Simulation & Gaming, 43(6), pp.729-760.

BENNEDSEN, J. and SCHULTE, C., (2007), “What does objects-first mean?

An international study of teachers' perceptions of objects-first”, In Proceedings of the Seventh Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research, Vol.88, pp. 21-29.

BENNEDSEN, J., CASPERSEN, M.E. and KÖLLING, M. Eds., (2008),

“Reflections on the teaching of programming: methods and implementations”, Vol. 4821. Springer.

BERGIN, J., STEHLIK, M., ROBERTS, J. and PATTIS, R., (1997), “Karel++:

A gentle introduction to the art of object-oriented programming”, Vol. 1, New York: Wiley.

BERGIN, J., ECKSTEIN, J., VOLTER, M., SIPOS, M., WALLINGFORD, E.,

MARQUARDT, K., CHANDLER, J., SHARP, H. and MANNS, M.L., (2012), “Pedagogical patterns: advice for educators”, Joseph Bergin Software Tools.

BLACK, P. and WILIAM, D., (1998), “Assessment and classroom learning”,

Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, 5(1), pp.7-74. BOHLIN, R. M., MILHEIM, W. D. and VIECHNICKI, K. J., (1990), “A

Prescriptive Model for the Design of Motivating Instruction for Adults”, In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.

BOOCH, G., MAKSIMCHUK, R. A., ENGLE, M. W., YOUNG, B. J.,

CONNALLEN, J. and HOUSTON, K. A., (2008), “Object-oriented analysis and design with applications”, ACM SIGSOFT software engineering notes, 33(5), pp.29-29.

BOYLE, E. A., HAINEY, T., CONNOLLY, T. M., GRAY, G., EARP, J., OTT,

M., LIM, T., NINAUS, M., RIBEIRO, C. and PEREIRA, J., (2016), “An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the

207

impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games”, Computers & Education, No.94, pp.178-192.

BROWN, J. S., COLLINS, A. and DUGUID, P., (1989), “Situated cognition

and the culture of learning”, Educational researcher, 18(1), pp.32-42. BURTON, P. J. and BRUHN, R. E., (2003), “Teaching programming in the

OOP era”, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(2), pp.111-114. BUTLER, M. and MORGAN, M., (2007), “Learning challenges faced by novice

programming students studying high level and low feedback concepts”, Proceedings ascilite Singapore, pp.99-107.

BYARD, C., (1990), “Object-oriented technology a must for complex systems”, Computer Technology Review, 10,(14), pp.15-20.

CARBONARO, M., KING, S., TAYLOR, E., SATZINGER, F., SNART, F. and

DRUMMOND, J., (2008), “Integration of e-learning technologies in an interprofessional health science course”, Medical teacher, 30(1), pp.25-33.

CORDOVA, D. I. and LEPPER, M. R., (1996), “Intrinsic motivation and the

process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice”, Journal of educational psychology, 88(4), p.715.

CARROLL, J. M., (1982), “The adventure of getting to know a computer”,

Computer, Vol.11, pp.49-58. CARTER, J. and FOWLER, A., (1998), “Object oriented students?(poster)”,

ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 30(3), p.271. CHEN, W.K. and CHENG, Y.C., (2007), “Teaching object-oriented

programming laboratory with computer game programming”, IEEE Transactions on Education, 50(3), pp.197-203.

CLARK, D. B., TANNER-SMITH, E., HOSTETLER, A., FRADKIN, A. and

POLIKOV, V., (2018), “Substantial integration of typical educational games into extended curricula”, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(2), pp.265-318.

COHEN, J., (1988), “Statistical Power Analysis for the Social Sciences”. CONNOLLY, T. M., BOYLE, E. A., MACARTHUR, E., HAINEY, T. and

BOYLE, J. M., (2012), “A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games”, Computers & education, 59(2), pp.661-686.

COOPER, S., DANN, W., PAUSCH, R. and PAUSCH, R., (2000), “Alice: a 3-

D tool for introductory programming concepts”, In Journal of computing sciences in colleges, Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges.

208

15(5), pp. 107-116. COOPER, S., DANN, W. and PAUSCH, R., (2003), “Teaching objects-first in

introductory computer science”, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(1), pp.191-195.

COOPER, P. A., (1993), “Paradigm shifts in designing instruction: From

behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism”, Educational Technology,

33(5), pp. 12-19. CORRAL, J. M. R., BALCELLS, A. C., ESTÉVEZ, A. M., MORENO, G. J. and

RAMOS, M. J. F., (2014), “A game-based approach to the teaching of object-oriented programming languages”, Computers & Education, Vol. 73, pp.83-92.

CRAIK, F. I. and LOCKHART, R. S., (1972), “Levels of processing: A

framework for memory research”, Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 11(6), pp.671-684.

CRAIK, F. I. and JACOBY, L. L., (1975), “A process view of short-term

retention”, Cognitive theory, No. 1, pp.173-192. DECKER, R. and HIRSHFIELD, S., (1999), “Programming Java: An

Introduction to Programming Using Java”, Brooks. DEPRADINE, C. A., (2011), “Using gaming to improve advanced

programming skills”, The Caribbean Teaching Scholar, 1(2). DICK, W., CAREY, L. and CAREY, J. O., (2005), “The systematic design of

instruction”, Third Edition, Harper Collins DIMOCK, V. and BOETHEL, M., (1999), “Constructing Knowledge With

Technology”, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. DIVJAK, B. and TOMIĆ, D., (2011), “The impact of game-based learning on

the achievement of learning goals and motivation for learning mathematics-literature review”, Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, 35(1), pp.15-30.

DOS SANTOS, A. L., SOUZA, M. R., DAYRELL, M. and FIGUEIREDO, E.,

(2018), “A Systematic Mapping Study on Game Elements and Serious Games for Learning Programming”, In International Conference on Computer Supported Education, pp. 328-356.

DRISKELL, J. E. and DWYER, D. J., (1984), “Microcomputer videogame

based training”, Educational technology, 24(2), pp.11-16. EREZ, M., (1977), “Feedback: A necessary condition for the goal setting-

performance relationship”, Journal of Applied psychology, 62(5), p.624.

209

ERNEST, P., (1995), “The nature of mathematics and teaching”, PERSPECTIVES-EXETER-, No. 53, pp.29-41.

FRASCA, G., (2003), “Simulation versus narrative. The video game theory

reader”, pp.221-235. GAGNE, R. M. AND BRIGGS, L. J., (1974), “Principles of instructional

design”, Holt, Rinehart & Winston. GAGNE, R. M. and DRISCOLL, M. P., (1988), “Essentials of learning for

instruction”, Englewood Cliffs. GAGNE, R. M. and MEDSKER, K. L., (1996), “The conditions of learning:

Training applications”. GARNER, S., HADEN, P. and ROBINS, A., (2005), “My program is correct

but it doesn't run: a preliminary investigation of novice programmers' problems”, In Proceedings of the 7th Australasian conference on Computing education, Vol.42, pp. 173-180.

GARRIS, R., AHLERS, R. and DRISKELL, J. E., (2002), “Games, motivation,

and learning: A research and practice model”, Simulation & gaming, 33(4), pp.441-467..

GEE, J. P., HAYES, E., TORRES, R. J., GAMES, I. A., SQUIRE, K. and

SALEN, K., (2008), “Playing to learn game design skills in a game context”, In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences, Vol.3, pp.368-374. International Society of the Learning Sciences.

GERLACH, VERNON S., DONALD P. ELY, and ROB M., (1980), “Teaching

& Media: A Systematic Approach”. GIBBONS, T. E., (2002), “Using Graphics in the First Year of Programming

with C++”, College of St. Scholastica. GIRAFFA, L. M., MORAES, M. C. and UDEN, L., (2014), “Teaching object-

oriented programming in first-year undergraduate courses supported by virtual classrooms”, In The 2nd International Workshop on Learning Technology for Education in Cloud, pp. 15-26. Springer, Dordrecht.

GUSTAFSON, K. L. AND BRANCH, R. M., (2002), “What is instructional

design”, Trends and issues in instructional design and technology, pp.16-25.

DE GLORIA, A., BELLOTTI, F. and BERTA, R., (2014), “Serious Games for

education and training”, International Journal of Serious Games, 1(1).

210

GOMES, A. and MENDES, A. J., (2007), “Learning to program-difficulties and solutions”, In International Conference on Engineering Education–ICEE, Vol. 2007.

GREEN, M. and SULBARAN, T., (2006), “Motivation assessment instrument

for virtual reality scheduling simulator”, In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), pp. 45-50.

HADJERROUIT, S., (1998), “A constructivist framework for integrating the

Java paradigm into the undergraduate curriculum”, In Proceedings of the 6th annual conference on the teaching of computing and the 3rd annual conference on Integrating technology into computer science education: Changing the delivery of computer science education pp. 105-107.

HAENDLER, T., (2019), “A Card Game for Learning Software-Refactoring

Principles”, In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Gamification and Games for Learning (GamiLearn’19). Barcelona, Spain.

HAKE, R. R., (1997), “Evaluating conceptual gains in mechanics: A six

thousand student survey of test data”, In AIP Conference Proceedings, 399(1), pp. 595-604). American Institute of Physics.

HAVENGA, M., MENTZ, E. and DE VILLIERS, R., (2008), “Knowledge, skills

and strategies for successful object-oriented programming: a proposed learning repertoire”, South African Computer Journal, 12(Dec 2008), pp.1-8.

HENDERSON-SELLERS, B., (1996), “A book of object-oriented knowledge:

an introduction to object-oriented software engineering”, Prentice-Hall, Inc.

HOLLAND, S., GRIFFITHS, R. and WOODMAN, M., (1997), “Avoiding object

misconceptions”, In Proceedings of the twenty-eighth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, pp. 131-134.

HUNICKE, R., LEBLANC, M. AND ZUBEK, R., (2004), “MDA: A formal

approach to game design and game research”, In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, 4(1), p. 1722.

JENKINS, T., (2002), “On the difficulty of learning to program”, In Proceedings

of the 3rd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, pp. 53–58.

JIAU, H. C., CHEN, J. C. and SSU, K. F., (2009), “Enhancing self-motivation

in learning programming using game-based simulation and metrics”, IEEE Transactions on Education, 52(4), pp.555-562.

211

JOHNSON, W. L., RICKEL, J. W. and LESTER, J. C., (2000), “Animated

pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments”, International Journal of Artificial intelligence in education, 11(1), pp.47-78.

JOKELA, T., IIVARI, N., MATERO, J. and KARUKKA, M., (2003), “The

standard of user-centered design and the standard definition of usability: analyzing ISO 13407 against ISO 9241-11”, In Proceedings of the Latin American conference on Human-computer interaction. pp. 53-60.

KEBRITCHI, M., HIRUMI, A. and BAI, H., (2008), “The effects of modern math

computer games on learners’ math achievement and math course motivation in a public high school setting”, British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), pp.49-259.

KELLER, J. M., (1983), “Motivational design of instruction”, Instructional

design theories and models: An overview of their current status, 1(1983), pp.383-434.

KELLER, J. M., (2010), “What is motivational design?. In Motivational design

for learning and performance”, Springer, Boston, MA. pp. 21-41. KEMP, J. E. and RODRIGUEZ, L., (1992), “The basics of instructional design”

The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 23(6), pp.282-284. KHOWAJA, K., (2017), “A serious game design framework for vocabulary

learning of children with autism”, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Malaya, Malaysia.

KLIEME, E., (2004), “The development of national educational standards: An

expertise”, BMBF, Publ. and Website Division. KÖLLING, M., (2010), “The Greenfoot Programming Environment”, ACM

Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), pp.1–21. KÖLLING, M., QUIG, B., PATTERSON, A. and ROSENBERG, J., (2003),

“The BlueJ system and its pedagogy”, Computer Science Education, 13(4), pp.249-268.

KOLB, D. A., (2014), “Experiential learning: Experience as the source of

learning and development”, FT press. KOULOURI, T., LAURIA, S. and MACREDIE, R. D., (2014), “Teaching

introductory programming: A quantitative evaluation of different approaches”, ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(4), pp.1-28.

KRAMER, M., HUBWIESER, P. and BRINDA, T., (2016), “A competency

212

structure model of object-oriented programming”, In 2016 International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTICE). pp. 1-8.

KRISHNAMURTHI, S. and FISLER, K., (2019), “Programming Paradigms and

Beyond”, The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, pp.377–413.

KUNKLE, W. M. and ALLEN, R. B., (2016), “The impact of different teaching

approaches and languages on student learning of introductory programming concepts”, ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 16(1), pp.1-26.

LAHTINEN, E., ALA-MUTKA, K. and JÄRVINEN, H. M., (2005), “A study of

the difficulties of novice programmers”, Acm sigcse bulletin, 37(3), pp.14-18.

LAMERAS, P., ARNAB, S., DUNWELL, I., STEWART, C., CLARKE, S. and

PETRIDIS, P., (2017), “Essential features of serious games design in higher education: Linking learning attributes to game mechanics”, British journal of educational technology, 48(4), pp.972-994.

LEAHEY, T. H. and HARRIS, R. J., (1989), “Human learning”, Prentice Hall. LEDGARD, H. F., (1995), “The little book of object-oriented programming”,

Prentice-Hall, Inc.. LEE, I., MARTIN, F., DENNER, J., COULTER, B., ALLAN, W., ERICKSON,

J., MALYN-SMITH, J. and WERNER, L., (2011), “Computational thinking for youth in practice”, Acm Inroads, 2(1), pp.32-37.

LEWIS, J. R., (1995), “IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires:

psychometric evaluation and instructions for use”, International Journal of Human‐Computer Interaction, 7(1), pp.57-78.

LEVY, R. B. B., BEN-ARI, M. and URONEN, P. A., (2003), “The Jeliot 2000

program animation system”, Computers & Education, 40(1), pp.1-15. LIBERMAN, N., BEERI, C. and BEN-DAVID KOLIKANT, Y., (2011),

“Difficulties in learning inheritance and polymorphism”, ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 11(1), pp.1-23.

LIVOVSKÝ, J. and PORUBÄN, J., (2014), “Learning Object-Oriented

Paradigm by Playing Computer Games: Concepts First Approach”, Central European Journal of Computer Science, 4(3), pp.171–182.

LOCKE, E. A. and LATHAM, G. P., (1990), “A theory of goal setting & task

performance”, Prentice-Hall, Inc.

213

LOTFI, E. and MOHAMMED, B., (2018), “Teaching Object Oriented Programming Concepts Through a Mobile Serious Game”, In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Smart City Applications. pp. 1-6.

MALONE, T. W., (1980), “What makes things fun to learn? Heuristics for

designing instructional computer games”, In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSMALL symposium and the first SIGPC symposium on Small systems, pp. 162-169.

MALONE, T. W. and LEPPER, M. R., (1987), “Aptitude, learning, and

instruction”, Cognitive and affective process analyses. McGRIFF, S. J., (2001), “ISD knowledge base/instructional design &

development/instructional systems design models”, No.28, pp:2005. MERRILL, M. D., (2002), “First principles of instruction”, Educational

technology research and development. 50(3), pp.43-59. MILNE, I. and ROWE, G., (2002), “Difficulties in Learning and Teaching

Programming-Views of Students and Tutors”, Education and Information Technologies 7(1): 55–66.

MOHAMMED, K. S., POTRUS, M. Y. and DAHAM, B. F. A., (2018), “Effect of

Hybrid Teaching Methodology and Student Group Policy on Object Oriented Problem Solving”, ZANCO Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences. 30(5), pp.140-148.

MOHAMMED, B., (2019) “Towards a Mobile Serious Game for Learning

Object Oriented Programming Paradigms”, In Innovations in Smart Cities Applications Edition 2: The Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Smart City Applications, pp. 450-462.

MORENO-LEÓN, J. and ROBLES, G., (2015), “Computer programming as an

educational tool in the English classroom a preliminary study”, In 2015 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), pp. 961-966.

MORRIS, M. G., SPEIER, C. and HOFFER, J. A., (1999), “An Examination of

Procedural and Object‐oriented Systems Analysis Methods: Does Prior Experience Help or Hinder Performance?”, Decision Sciences, 30(1), pp.107-136.

MURATET, M., TORGUET, P., JESSEL, J. P. and VIALLET, F., (2009),

“Towards a Serious Game to Help Students Learn Computer Programming”, International Journal of Computer Games Technology, pp.1–12.

MUTUA, S., WABWOBA, F., OGAO, P., ANSELMO, P., AND ABENGA, E.

(2012), “Classifying program visualization tools to facilitate informed choices: teaching and learning computer programming”.

214

MUURO, M. E., OBOKO, R. O. and WAGACHA, W. P., (2016), “Evaluation of intelligent grouping based on learners’ collaboration competence level in online collaborative learning environment”, International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), pp.40-64.

MYLLER, N. and NUUTINEN, J., (2006), “JeCo: Combining program

visualization and story weaving”, Informatics Edition, 5(2), pp. 267–276 NICOLESCU, M. N. and MATARIC, M. J., (2003), “Natural Methods for Robot

Task Learning: Instructive Demonstrations, Generalization and Practice”, In Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems,pp. 241–48.

OR-BACH, R. and LAVY, I., (2004), “Cognitive activities of abstraction in

object orientation: an empirical study”, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(2), pp.82-86.

PAGE-JONES, M. and WEISS, S., (1989), “Synthesis: An object-oriented

analysis and design method”, American Programmer, 2(7-8), pp.64-67. PAPERT, S., (1998), “Does easy do it? Children, games, and learning. Game

Developer”, 5(6), p.88. PAPERT, S., (1998), “Technology in schools: To support the system or render

it obsolete”, Milken exchange on education technology. PARKER, L. E. and LEPPER, M. R., (1992), “Effects of fantasy contexts on

children's learning and motivation: Making learning more fun”, Journal of personality and social psychology, 62(4), p.625.

PROTOPSALTIS, A., PANNESE, L., HETZNER, S., PAPPA, D. and DE

FREITAS, S., (2010), “Creative learning with serious games”, International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 5.

PAVLOV, I., (1927), “Conditioned Reflexes”, Oxford University Press. PERROTTA, C., FEATHERSTONE, G., ASTON, H. and HOUGHTON, E.,

(2013), “Game-based learning: Latest evidence and future directions”, Slough: NFER.

PHELPS, A. M., EGERT, C. A. and BIERRE, K. J., (2005), “MUPPETS: multi-

user programming pedagogy for enhancing traditional study: an environment for both upper and lower division students”, In Proceedings Frontiers in Education 35th Annual Conference. pp. S2H-8.

POOLSAWAS, B., CHAIPORNKEAW, P. and SUPARKAWAT, S., (2016),

“Platform-based for Game Development to Improve The Object-oriented Programming Skills”, in 30th Natl. Conf. Educ. Technol. Naresuan Univ. Phitsanulok 65000 Thailand, Vol. 30, pp. 6.

215

PRENSKY, M. and THIAGARAJAN, S., (2007), “Digital Game-Based Learning”, Paragon House, St. Paul, MN, pp.17.

PRINCE, M. J. and FELDER, R. M., (2006), “Inductive teaching and learning

methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases”, Journal of engineering education, 95(2), pp.123-138.

PROULX, V. K., RAAB, J. and RASALA, R., (2002), “Objects from the

beginning-with GUIs”, In Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education. pp. 65-69.

QUALLS, J. A. and SHERRELL, L. B., (2010), “Why computational thinking

should be integrated into the curriculum”, Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 25(5), pp.66-71.

RAGONIS, N. and BEN-ARI, M., (2005), “On Understanding the Statics and

Dynamics of Object-Oriented Programs”, Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - SIGCSE ’05, 226.

RAIS, A. E., SULAIMAN, S. and SYED-MOHAMAD, S. M., (2011), “Game-

based approach and its feasibility to support the learning of object-oriented concepts and programming”, In 2011 IEEE Malaysian Conference in Software Engineering. pp. 307-312.

RAJASHEKHARAIAH, K. M. M., PAWAR, M., PATIL, M. S., KULENAVAR,

N. and JOSHI, G. H., (2016), “Design Thinking Framework to Enhance Object Oriented Design and Problem Analysis Skill in Java Programming Laboratory: An Experience”, In 2016 IEEE 4th International Conference on MOOCs, Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE). pp. 200-205.

RAMANAUSKAITĖ, S. and SLOTKIENĖ, A., (2019), “Hierarchy-Based

Competency Structure and Its Application in E-Evaluation”, Applied Sciences, 9(17), pp.3478.

RAZAK, S., GEDAWY, H., DANN, W. P. and SLATER, D. J., (2016), “Alice in

the Middle East: An Experience Report from the Formative Phase”, In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education, pp. 425-430.

REEVE, C., (2009), “Narrative-based serious games”, In Serious Games on

the Move. Springer, Vienna, pp. 73-89. REISER, R. A., (2007), “What field did you say you were in”, Trends and

issues in instructional design and technology, Vol. 3, 1-7. RENKL, A., (2005), “The worked-out-example principle in multimedia

learning”, The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, pp.229-245.

216

RESNICK, L., (1987), “Learning in school and out: Educational Researcher”. RICCI, K. E., SALAS, E. and CANNON-BOWERS, J. A., (1996), “Do

computer-based games facilitate knowledge acquisition and retention?”, Military psychology, 8(4), pp.295-307.

ROBINS, A., ROUNTREE, J. and ROUNTREE, N., (2003), “Learning and

teaching programming: A review and discussion”, Computer science education, 13(2), pp.137-172.

ROBLYER, M. D. and DOERING, A. H., (2014), “Integrating educational

technology into teaching”, Pearson new international edition. ROBSON, D., (1981), “Object-Oriented Software Systems”, Byte. ROWE, A. and WOOD, L., (2008), “What feedback do students want?”, In

Australian Association for Research in Education, Conference, pp. 1-9. ROSSON, M. B. and ALPERT, S. R., (1990), “The cognitive consequences of

object-oriented design”, Human-Computer Interaction, 5(4), pp.345-379.

SANDERS, I. and MUELLER, C., (2000), “A fundamentals-based curriculum for first year computer science”, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 32(1), pp.227-231.

SANDERS, K., BOUSTEDT, J., ECKERDAL, A., MCCARTNEY, R.,

MOSTRÖM, J. E., THOMAS, L. and ZANDER, C., (2008), “Student understanding of object-oriented programming as expressed in concept maps”, In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, pp. 332-336.

SANDERS, K. and THOMAS, L., (2007), “Checklists for grading object-

oriented CS1 programs: concepts and misconceptions”, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(3), pp.166-170.

SATRATZEMI, M., XINOGALOS, S. and DAGDILELIS, V., (2003), “An

environment for teaching object-oriented programming: ObjectKarel”, In Proceedings 3rd IEEE International Conference on Advanced Technologies, pp. 342-343.

SCRATCH., (2010), A programming language for everyone: Create interactive

stories, games, music and art – and share them online. http://scratch.mit.edu (Accessed: August 2018).

SENG, W. Y. and YATIM, M. H. M., (2014), “Computer game as learning and

teaching tool for object-oriented programming in higher education institution”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 123, pp.215-224.

217

SENG, W. Y., YATIM, M. H .M. and HOE, T. W., (2015), “Learning Object-Oriented Programming With Computer Games : A Game-Based Learning Approach”, In the Proceedings Of The European Conference On Information Management & Evaluation, pp. 729–38.

SENG, W. Y., YATIM, M. H .M. and HOE, T. W., (2014), “Use Computer Game

to Learn Object-Oriented Programming in Computer Science Courses”, IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON, pp: 9–16.

SENG, W. Y., YATIM, M. H .M. and HOE, T. W., (2016), “A Propriety Game-

Based Learning Game as Learning Tool to Learn Object-Oriented Programming Paradigm”, In Joint International Conference on Serious Games Springer International Publishing, pp. 42–54.

SENG, W. Y. and YATIM, M. H. M., (2018), “A Propriety Multiplatform Game-

Based Learning Game to Learn Object-Oriented Programming”, Proceedings - 2018 7th International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics, IIAI-AAI 2018, pp. 278–83.

SENG, W. Y., YATIM, M. H .M. and HOE, T. W., (2018), “Learning Object-

Oriented Programming Paradigm Via Game-Based Learning Game – Pilot Study”, The International Journal of Multimedia & Its Applications. 10(6), pp. 181–97.

SHAFFER, D. W. and CLINTON, K. A., (2005), “Why All CSL Is CL:

Distributed Mind and the Future of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning”, In Proceedings of th 2005 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning: learning 2005: the next 10 years!, pages 592–601.

SHEETZ, S. D., IRWIN, G., TEGARDEN, D. P., NELSON, H. J. and

MONARCHI, D. E., (1997), “Exploring the difficulties of learning object-oriented techniques”, Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(2), pp.103-131.

SHUTE, V. J., HANSEN, E. G. and ALMOND, R. G., (2008), “You can't fatten

A hog by weighing It–Or can you? evaluating an assessment for learning system called ACED”, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 18(4), pp.289-316.

SIDERIS, G., and XINOGALOS S., (2019), “PY-RATE ADVENTURES: A 2D

Platform Serious Game for Learning the Basic Concepts of Programming With Python”, Simulation and Gaming, 50(6), pp. 754–70.

SIEN, V. Y. and CARRINGTON, D., (2007), “A concepts-first approach to

object-oriented modelling”, In Proceedings of the Third Conference on IASTED International Conference: Advances in Computer Science and Technology, Phuket, Thailand, pp. 108–113.

218

SKINNER, B. F., (2011), “About behaviourism”, Vintage. SMITH, M. K., (1999), “Learning theory”, The encyclopedia of informal

education. SMITH, R. and GOTEL, O., (2007), “Using a game to introduce lightweight

requirements engineering”, In 15th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2007), pp. 379-380.

SMOLARSKI, D. C., (2003), “A first course in computer science: Languages

and goals”, Teaching Mathematics and Computer Science, 1(1), pp.137-152.

SOMMERVILLE, I. and PRECHELT, l., (2004), “Object-Oriented Design”,

Software Engineering. STEFIK, M. and BOBROW, D. G., (1985), “Object-oriented programming:

Themes and variations”, AI magazine, 6(4), pp.40-40. SULLIVAN, G. M. and FEINN, R., (2012), “Using effect size-or why the P value

is not enough”, Journal of graduate medical education, 4(3), pp.279-282.

THOMASSON, B. J., (2005), “Identifying Faults and Misconceptions of Novice

Programmers Learning Object Oriented Design”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wales, United Kingdom.

THOMASSON, B., RATCLIFFE, M. and THOMAS, L., (2006), “Identifying

novice difficulties in object oriented design”, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(3), pp.28-32.

THORNDIKE, E. L., (1923), “Educational Psychology: Mental work and fatique

and individual differences and their causes”, Vol. 3. Teachers college, Columbia university.

VON GLASERSFELD, E., (2012), “A constructivist approach to teaching”, In

Constructivism in education, Routledge. pp. 21-34 WEI, F., MORITZ, S. H., PARVEZ, S. M. and BLANK, G. D., (2005), “A

student model for object-oriented design and programming”, Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20(5), pp.260-273.

WEINERT, F. E., (2001), “Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification”. WILSON, K. A., BEDWELL, W. L., LAZZARA, E. H., SALAS, E., BURKE, C.

S., ESTOCK, J. L., ORVIS, K. L. and CONKEY, C., (2009), “Relationships between game attributes and learning outcomes: Review and research proposals”, Simulation & gaming, 40(2), pp.217-266.

219

WILSON, B. G., (1997), “Reflections on constructivism and instructional

design”, In C. R. Dills & A. J. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional

development paradigms, Educational Technology Publications,

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 63-80. WINSLOW, L. E., (1996), “Programming pedagogy-a psychological overview”,

ACM Sigcse Bulletin, 28(3), pp.17-22. WIRFS-BROCK, R. J. and JOHNSON, R. E. (1990), “Surveying current

research in object-oriented design”, Communications of the ACM, 33(9), pp.104-124.

WU, W. H., HSIAO, H. C., WU, P. L., LIN, C. H. and HUANG, S. H., (2012),

“Investigating the learning‐theory foundations of game‐based learning:

a meta‐analysis”, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(3), pp.265-279.

XINOGALOS, S. and SATRATZEMI, M., (2005), “Using hands-on activities

for motivating students with OOP concepts before they are asked to implement them”, In ITiCSE, pp. 380.

XINOGALOS, S., (2015), “Object-oriented design and programming: an

investigation of novices’ conceptions on objects and classes”, ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 15(3), pp.1-21.

XU, C. W., (2009), “Teaching OOP and COP technologies via gaming”, In

Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education, IGI Global. pp: 508-524.

YAN, L., (2009), “Teaching Object-Oriented Programming with Games”, ITNG

2009 - 6th International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations, pp. 969-974.

YOURDON, E., NEVERMANN, P., OPPEL, K., THOMANN, J. and

WHITEHEAD, K., (1995), “Mainstream Objects: An Analysis and Design Approach for Business”, Yourdon Press.

YULIA AND R. ADIPRANATA, (2010), “Teaching object oriented

programming course using cooperative learning method based on game design and visual object oriented environment,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Education Technology and Computer (ICETC '10), pp. V2-355–V2-359,

YUSOFF, A., (2010), “A Conceptual Framework for Serious Games and Its

Validation”, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southampton, United Kingdom.

220

APPENDICES

APPENDIX- A

Problem scenario for the identification of difficulties in learning OO:

222

APPENDIX- B

Details about the learning objectives, designated activities, and related OO concepts:

223

APPENDIX- C

Questionnaire for the identification of difficulties in learning Object-Orientation

225

APPENDIX- D

JSON Solution Model

226

APPENDIX- E

Quick reference to OOsg

Start-up of the game

Screen for the personal and game control information

Selection of the scenario will appear after inserting the personel and control information

227

At the scenario selection screen user may select the warm-up session to get fimiliar with the envirnment of playing game; User may learn from the warm-up session as much as they want, or skip and play the game

By skiping the warm-up session, user will be presented to play the various levels related to the OOP concepts

After selecting the particular level related to the OOP concepts user may get fimiliar with the introduction of that topic

228

Once the user get the introduction of the topic, user will be presented with game goals and rules to play and clear the level

Once the user read the game goals and rules, game level screen will be presented. The game level’s screen layout is divided into five regions, i.e., top, bottom, left, right, and center. The top region is used as a scoreboard of the game which includes the information for the total number of correct solution attempted, score, other options available to get help or hint if the player stuck on any point, timer, information about the current level and option to quit from the game. The top region is almost same for all the levels, except the information may vary for the number of correct attempts and remaining attempts. Option for showing or hiding the game story may also be available in top region. The bottom region is used for displaying the game story, the drawer can be shown or hidden by pressing a hamburger sign available in the top region. The left region is dedicated to navigating to the previous screen/levels same as right region is used for navigating to the next screenlevel. The center region is used as actual play area, the contents of this region are different for different levels available in the game.

229

APPENDIX- F

Game Story

It was a great relief for Sara because her first-year undergrad examinations were over, and she had done quite well in them, but that was not the only reason for her joy. Sara, for a long time, had been waiting for the vacation so that she could finally tour the hospital of her father. She had always wanted to run a hospital, not only because she found this profession noble, but also because her father was an inspiration for her, and she wanted to become like him.

So instead of taking a rest, she decided to spend them learning about the hospital of her father, because she was the only child in her family, and she was going to inherit the position. So the next day she visits the hospital, where her father was already waiting for her. So first, they exchanged greetings. Her father started walking her towards the way of his office, where she has seen the nameplate of his father, Dr. Adnan Malik, M.B.B.S, F.C.P.S on the door, then they were passing through a psychiatric ward, where two patients were talking. Her father said that one of them used to be a great doctor until he went insane. They overheard the patient who spoke to the other.

Patient 1, Everything is unique; everything in this universe is an object with distinct features and qualities.

The Patient 2 nodded, so he continued. Patient 1: and that object can be anything, from a person to a small rock, and

the object can be created or destroyed. He then pointed to the tag attached to the uniform of the other patient and nurse

who was passing by and said You see, every person has different things for their identification such as N.I.C., and also name, father name, gender, dob, address, the phone, next of kin person, next of kin relation, and they all belong to other persons as well, they are not alone. All the while, Sara and her father were hearing the patient talk. Her father said…

Sara was your first lesson. They both then started walking into the first wing of the hospital, her father then

started talking, and Sara held a little notebook in her hand to note every important thing which his father was telling about.

Father: There are different groups of persons, one group of persons are the hospital employees, which include doctors and nurses, and they are responsible for medical care and curative treatment of the patients. There are several other employee types, such as salaried, commission-based employees. He then gave Sara a temporary I.D. And said to her. Every hospital employee you see has an Id, date of joining, the specified department, and the duty timings.

We can get the id, get name, get the address, or get the phone of any employee at any time. We can also set id, set name, set address, or set phone of any newly appointed employee.

Then they walked back towards the offices of the doctors, where he said the doctors could give a prescription, give suggestions, view prescription, view suggestions, or view reports to the patient. Her father said: All the doctors have information about their degree, their specialization, and commission list of commission information if they are the commission-based employees.

The commission information is about the date and time on which the commission is arranged, the patient on which the commission is to be earned, and also the total amount of the commission. Then they reached the wing of patients, where her father said:

230

Another group that requires medical treatment and cure are patients. See Sara Patients also have the I.D., and for all the patients at the date of the first registration, the new patient session is created in the patient session list, which is evolved If you want to know detail about any patient such as the date and time of the previous visits of the patient, the type of session, which kind of doctors assigned, the receipt list, the prescribed treatment list, the report list and remarks given by the doctor.

If any invoice item list is availed by the patient, then their receipt list is also maintained in the patient session. He then showed Sara a sample and said. Each receipt has a unique receipt no, date and time, mode of payment, and the description of the drug. Not only this, the patient history, the doctor assigned, and their ward, room and bed details, these all are part of the patient session. When we convert O.P.D. to I.P.D., then the admission of patients is dependent on the availability of the room, bed, and the ward. Then they reached the wing, which had many wards. He continued all of the wards, rooms, and bed have ward number, ward name, room number, room name, and bed numbers. The representatives you see in the front table have information about room list, room type, and bed list, suppose if a room is occupied already, they also have information about the doctor and patient who occupy it. Then he showed Sara a hospital room and tell him room details, which includes the allocated room, deallocate room, checks availability, and cleaning of the room.

Then he also briefs about the bed details in the room; he said the details include about to allocate bed, deallocate bed, and check availability. The lab test, the image test, and vitals can be the prescribed investigations by the doctors.

They stopped at the diagnostic room where he continued Treatment given by the doctors may include surgery, nebulization, dialysis, or

just simple medicines. Then, he showed her a sample of lab tests, and said For every lab test, a report is generated, which becomes a part of the patient

record. The reports can be the imaging report, a text report, the parametric report, or the chart report. The doctors may ask the patient for the blood pressure report, the temperature report, a sample lab report, the lab test report, or a lab parameter report. However, for some severe condition doctors, can ask the patient for X-Ray reports, E.C.G. report, ultrasound report, or the C.T. scan report. Then they reached a counter, where he said:

All the laboratory tests are invoiced items; the patients must pay for the items prescribed to them. There can be other invoiced items such as surgeon fees to operate, anaesthesia fees, O.T. recovery room charges, blood bank charges, nebulization fees, dialysis fees, lab test fees, imaging test fees, room charges, bed charges, doctor fees. The prescribed treatment given to patient includes the details about dose frequency such as, the dose can be given once, at morning, at midday, at night, B.D., T.D.S., QID, hourly, four hourly, six-hourly, eight hourly, once a week, three times a week, PRN, STAT, before food, after food, the duration and date and time, should be included. He also showed a medicine sample to Sara and said, The medicines prescribed by the doctor have a medicine name, potency, dose frequency, and preparation instructions. Walking towards the waiting room he said

The patient session can be closed, which, in the case of I.P.D. patients, results in discharge. Once the patient session is closed, the patient must open a new one upon the next visit. Now they reached the office of the head nurse, where there were many nurses together discuss their tasks. One was talking about viewing suggestions by the doctor and file reports. Another nurse was talking about to view reports to view the prescription by the doctor. They both got tired of all the walk and talk. It was an excellent lesson for Sara to learn about the systematic way of the hospital management system. So, they both back to the home. Sara was done with the first-day lesson, so she penned down all that her father said to remember and start dreaming of establishing her hospital.

231

APPENDIX- G

Pre-Test Scenario and associated Questions

232

APPENDIX- H

Rubric for Assessment

233

APPENDIX-I

Post-Test Scenario and associated Questions

234

APPENDIX- J

Questionnaire for Perceived Motivation

236

APPENDIX- K

Questionnaire for Perceived Feedback

237

APPENDIX- L

Questionnaire for Game Experience:

238

APPENDIX- M

Questionnaire for System Usability:

239

APPENDIX- N

240

Scatter plots for Pre and post test scores of control and Experimental Groups

241

APPENDIX- O

Result of the normality test and paired t-test for study-1

(a)

Normality of Control Group

Normality of Experimental Group

242

(b)

Result of Paired Sample t-test of Control Group

Result of Paired Sample t-test of Experimental Group

243

APPENDIX- P

Result of the normality test and paired t-test for study-2

(a)

Normality of Control and Exp Groups’ Normalized

learning gain

(b)

Paired Sample T-Test of Control and Exp Groups’

Normalized learning gain

244

APPENDIX- Q

Result of the normality test and Wilcoxon Signed rank for perceived feedback

(a)

Normality of Control and Exp Groups’ perceived feedback

(b)

Wilcoxon Signed rank of Control and Exp Groups perceived feedback

LEARNING OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING THROUGH …

Documents

Transcript of LEARNING OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING THROUGH …