How Personalization Affects Motivation in Gamified Review Assessments.

Personalized gamification aims to address shortcomings of the one-size-fits-all (OSFA) approach in improving students' motivations throughout the learning process. However, studies still focus on personalizing to a single user dimension, ignoring multiple individual and contextual factors that affect user motivation. Unlike prior research, we address this issue by exploring multidimensional personalization compared to OSFA based on a multi-institution sample. Thus, we conducted a controlled experiment in three institutions, comparing gamification designs (OSFA and Personalized to the learning task and users' gaming habits/preferences and demographics) in terms of 58 students' motivations to complete assessments for learning. Our results suggest no significant differences among OSFA and Personalized designs, despite suggesting user motivation depended on fewer user characteristics when using personalization. Additionally, exploratory analyses suggest personalization was positive for females and those holding a technical degree, but negative for those who prefer adventure games and those who prefer single-playing. Our contribution benefits designers, suggesting how personalization works; practitioners, demonstrating to whom the personalization strategy was more or less suitable; and researchers, providing future research directions. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40593-022-00326-x.

Are UX Evaluation Methods Providing the Same Big Picture?

The success of a software application is related to users' willingness to keep using it. In this sense, evaluating User eXperience (UX) became an important part of the software development process. Researchers have been carrying out studies by employing various methods to evaluate the UX of software products. Some studies reported varied and even contradictory results when applying different UX evaluation methods, making it difficult for practitioners to identify which results to rely upon. However, these works did not evaluate the developers' perspectives and their impacts on the decision process. Moreover, such studies focused on one-shot evaluations, which cannot assess whether the methods provide the same big picture of the experience (i.e., deteriorating, improving, or stable). This paper presents a longitudinal study in which 68 students evaluated the UX of an online judge system by employing AttrakDiff, UEQ, and Sentence Completion methods at three moments along a semester. This study reveals contrasting results between the methods, which affected developers' decisions and interpretations. With this work, we intend to draw the HCI community's attention to the contrast between different UX evaluation methods and the impact of their outcomes in the software development process.