Alexandru Smarandache and Elvira Popescu
pp. 41 – 53, download
(https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-062-003)
Abstract
In traditional, old-fashioned educational settings, students are passive consumers of learning content and do not actively contribute to the overall improvement of the learning process. While the situation has been changing lately and novel teaching approaches have been proposed, there are many educational systems in which the problem still persists. In this context, we introduce an innovative educational platform called ShaLe, which aims to provide comprehensive support for learnersourcing and gamification. More specifically, the ShaLe system allows students to share additional educational resources alongside those provided by the teachers. It features an integrated question-answer system to facilitate discussions and clarifications related to the teacher’s materials. Additionally, the platform introduces a dedicated task that encourages students to create new assignments and evaluate solutions proposed by their peers. Furthermore, students can visualize their own performance metrics and can earn badges for exceptional achievements, adding a gamification component to the learning process. As such, the platform is designed to facilitate collaborative learning among students, stimulate learner engagement, while also decreasing the workload of the teacher.
Keywords: Learnersourcing, Gamification, Student generated content, Rewards, Badges, Educational platform, Collaborative learning.
CRediT Authors Statement. Alexandru Smarandache: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft preparation. Elvira Popescu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Resources, Writing – review and editing, Supervision.
References
1. Badea, G., Popescu, E.: LearnEval peer assessment platform: iterative development process and evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 15(3), 421-433 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2022.3185423
2. Brooke, J: SUS: A Retrospective. Journal of Usability Studies 8(2), 29-40 (2013). https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2817912.2817913
3. Darvishi, A., Khosravi, H., Sadiq, S.: Employing peer review to evaluate the quality of student generated content at scale: A trust propagation approach. In: Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S ’21), pp. 139-150 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1145/3430895.3460129
4. Denny, P., Hamer, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Purchase, H.: PeerWise: students sharing their multiple choice questions. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ’08), pp. 51-58 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1404520.1404526
5. Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., Hamer, J.: The PeerWise system of student contributed assessment questions. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Australasian Com-puting Education (ACE ’08), vol. 78, pp. 69-74 (2008).
6. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., Nacke, L.: From game design elements to game-fulness: defining gamification. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, pp. 9–15 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
7. Dichev, C., Dicheva, D.: Gamifying education: what is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a critical review. International Journal of Educational Tech-nology in Higher Education 14, article 9 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5
8. Gu, C: Student peer assessment. Review of Educational Theory 3(2), 74-78 (2020). https://doi.org/10.30564/ret.v3i2.1762
9. Gyamfi, G., Hanna, B., Khosravi, H.: Supporting peer evaluation of student-generated content: a study of three approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 47(7), 1129–1147 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.2006140
10. Hilton, C.B., Goldwater, M.B., Hancock, D., Clemson, M., Huang, A., Denyer, G.: Scal-able science education via online cooperative questioning. CBE—Life Sciences Edu-cation 21(1) (2022). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-11-0249
11. Huynh, D., Zuo, L., Iida, H.: Analyzing gamification of “Duolingo” with focus on its course structure. In: Bottino, R., Jeuring, J., Veltkamp, R. (eds) Games and Learning Alliance. GALA 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10056. Springer, Cham, pp. 268–277 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50182-6_24
12. Jeong, H., Hmelo‐Silver, C.E., Jo, K.: Ten years of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: A meta-analysis of CSCL in STEM education during 2005–2014. Educa-tional Research Review 28 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100284
13. Kaliisa, R., Rienties, B., Mørch, A.I., Kluge, A.: Social learning analytics in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers and Education Open 3, 100073 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100073
14. Khosravi, H., Denny, P., Moore, S., Stamper, J.: Learnersourcing in the age of AI: Stu-dent, educator and machine partnerships for content creation. Computers and Educa-tion: Artificial Intelligence 5, 100151 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100151
15. Khosravi, H., Kitto, K., Williams, J. J.: RiPPLE: A crowdsourced adaptive platform for recommendation of learning activities. Journal of Learning Analytics 6(3), 91–105 (2019). https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2019.63.12
16. Kim, J.: Learnersourcing: improving learning with collective learner activity. Doctor-al dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2015). Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/101464
17. Langreo, L.: 4 Things Educators Need to Know About Kahoot!. Available at: https://www.edweek.org/technology/4-things-educators-need-to-know-about-kahoot/2023/08 (2023).
18. Lehtinen, E., Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., Rahikainen, M., Muukkonen, H.: Com-puter supported collaborative learning: A review. The JHGI Giesbers reports on edu-cation 10 (1999).
19. Manzano-León, A., Camacho-Lazarraga, P., Guerrero, M., Guerrero-Puerta, L., Aguilar-Parra, J., Trigueros, R., Alias, A.: Between level up and game over: A systematic litera-ture review of gamification in education. Sustainability 13(4), 2247 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042247
20. Nastase, M.M., Popescu, E.: Towards integrating learnersourcing, microlearning and gamification in Moodle. In: Proceedings ITS 2023, Lecture Notes in Computer Sci-ence, vol. 13891, Springer, pp. 352–363 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32883-1_32
21. Nastase, M.M., Popescu, E.: Kahoot! as a Tool to Maintain Students’ Attention and Increase Retention Rates: An Experience Report with Computer Science Students. In: Proceedings ITS 2024, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14799, Springer, pp. 80-87 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-63031-6_7
22. Papandrea, S., Sterbini, A., Temperini, M., Popescu, E.: Q2A-I: A support platform for computer programming education, based on automated assessment and peer learning. In: Proceedings ICWL 2018, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11007, Spring-er, pp. 3-13 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96565-9_1
23. Seaborn, K., Fels, D.I.: Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 74, 14-31 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006
24. Singh, A., Brooks, C., Lin, Y., Li, W.: What’s in it for the learners? Evidence from a randomized field experiment on learnersourcing questions in a MOOC. In: Proceed-ings of the Eighth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S ’21), pp. 221–233 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3430895.3460142
25. Smarandache, A: Platformă educațională bazată pe conceptul de learnersourcing. Un-published bachelor thesis, University of Craiova, Romania (2023).