How do we measure engagement in the learning management platforms? Gamification approach of Study Related Flow Inventory (WOLF-S)
Study — Related Flow Inventory (WOLF-S) Measurement
Flow Theory combines the factors of a user’s skill level to the difficulty of the challenge. (Chao, 2015). The Flow theory describes that when the difficulty of a challenge is too great compared to a user’s skill level, only when the user’s skill level is balanced with the difficulty of the challenge do they enter the state known as flow.
Literature review provide justification that WOLF-S in a university context to assess study-related flow experiences. In addition, measuring WOLF-S is not a spend a lot of time inventory. WOLF-S can be effectively and efficiently used in an academic setting for measuring flow in study-related activities. There are three metrics that will measure flow absorption, enjoyment, and intrinsic study motivation. Absorption refers to a state of total concentration, whereby students are totally immersed in their academic work. Enjoyment refers to a positive judgment about the quality of their study and academic obligations. Intrinsic study motivation indicates the desire to perform a certain study-related activity with the aim of experiencing inherent pleasure and satisfaction in the activity (Bakker A. , 2008)
A. Study Related Flow Inventory (WOLF-S)
Study Related Flow Inventory or WOLF-S is modified by Work-Related Flow Inventory, which includes thirteen items measuring absorption, work enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation. The previous study shows there are modifications in the original WOLF and WOLF-S measurement. For instance, the modification is where “ I work because I enjoy it” to “ I study because I enjoy it”. The scale of item rated on a seven-point scale which ranges from 1 (never) to 7 (always). (Bakker, Golub, & Rijavec, 2016)
B. Satisfaction with Studying
Satisfaction was measured with one item asking participants to indicate how satisfied they are with the study as a whole (Appendix.1). The scale ranged from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 4 (extremely satisfied). (Lizzio, Wilson, K., & Simons, R)
C. Content Product Perception
The content product of the feature was measure by a Likert scale (Appendix.1). The scale is rooted in the aim of the research. Sometimes the purpose of the research is to understand the opinions/perceptions of participants related to a single ‘latent’ variable (the phenomenon of interest) (Joshi, Kale, Chandel, & Pal, 2015). This measurement is asking subjects to determine perception users with when they see and experience using learning management content from the register the training, log in to the landing page, conducting training and assessment. The answer options range from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied).
D. Game Mechanic Feature Perception
The game mechanic feature was measure by the Likert scale, which measures perception when learning with game mechanic feature point, badge and leaderboard, and also interactive learning. The answer options range from 1 (very disagree) to 5 (very agree)
The author also wants to know several correlations between the result of WOLF-S, which represent total flow with study satisfaction, which will describe the correlation between work engagement and satisfaction. Second, the correlation between work engagement with content in every business process at the learning management system. Lastly, the correlation between work engagement with an engagement feature at learning management. The hypothesis is:
· Hypothesis 1: There is a correlation between the occurrence flow with study satisfaction
· Hypothesis 2: There is a correlation between the occurrence of flow with content product perception
· Hypothesis 3: There is a correlation between the occurrence flow and the game mechanic perception
Profile of research respondents where: (a) gender and (b) job role
Based on the descriptive analysis of the respondents used in the study (Figure 9), most of them were dominated by men with a percentage of 95.92%, the job role of supervisors in the respondent dominated by 55.10% compared to non-supervisors.
Flow and Sub-Component Analysis
A. Mean Result of Flow
The table (Table 1) below shows the mean of thirteen measurements of absorption, study enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation.
Overall, it can be seen from the table (Table 2). The most occurring instance is student enjoyment and absorption were ranked the least.
Before the variable analyzes with reliability analysis, all of the variables have been tested with Pearson correlation, which can be seen from Appendix 2–7 to validate each of the variables, which has significance, not more than 0.05. All of the Reliability is a tool for measuring a questionnaire, which is an indicator of variables or constructs. A questionnaire is said to be reliable or reliable if a person’s answer to a statement is consistent or stable over time. The reliability of a test refers to the degree of stability, consistency, predictive power, and accuracy. Measurements that have high reliability are measurements that can produce reliable data. Based on the results of the analysis, Cronbach’s Alpha value has a value of > 0.600. This indicates that the data obtained is classified as reliable
Overall flow accessed by WOLF-S
A. Overall Flow
The WOLF-S assessed 13 items on a 7 point scale. The maximum possible score is 91, and the minimum possible score being 13. A score of 52 or more suggests that the respondent regularly experience flow. Out of all, the total, 51% experience flow regularly to always.
The WOLF-S assessed four items on a 7 point scale. The maximum possible score is 28, and the minimum possible score is 4. A score of 16 or more suggests that the respondent regularly experience flow. Out of all the total, 41,84% experience absorption regularly to always.
C. Study Enjoyment
The WOLF-S assessed four items on a 7 point scale. The maximum possible score is 28, and the minimum possible score being 4. A score of 16 or more suggests that the respondent regularly experience flow. Out of all, the total 63,36% experience study enjoyment regularly to always.
D. Intrinsic Motivation
The WOLF-S assessed five items on a 7 point scale. The maximum possible score is 35, and the minimum possible score being 5. A score of 20 or more suggests that the respondent regularly experience flow. Out of all, the total, 42,86%, are intrinsically motivated regularly to always.
Based on the results of the analysis (Table 8), it shows that there is a correlation between two variables at the 95% confidence level, with a total of 3 correlations. Flow with satisfaction with studying shows a positive correlation, and it also strengthens by a previous study that shows the correlation with the overall flow with satisfaction with the study. (Bakker, Golub, & Rijavec, 2016) However, the flow with the content producers does not show a significant correlation. The flow with the game mechanic product shows a significant correlation. Based on the literature review that, badges as one of game mechanic also have a positive impact on learners’ engagement in online learning (Bista, Nepal, Paris, & Colineau, 2012). The research demonstrates how badges and rewards enhanced learners outcomes and raised their engagement.
It can be concluded that, after measure the work engagement of PT XYZ employees, which has been done by measuring the three aspects, namely absorption, study enjoyment, and intrinsic motivation. The concept called flow, and the WOLF-S survey created by Arnold Bakker was used to measure and understand work engagement in the educational setting. Overall in PT XYZ found statistically the among users flow occurrence (M= 3,93), and reaching 51% of the respondents experience flow regularly, and 49% of respondents do not reach flow. Intrinsic motivation (M=4,12) was the most occurring following study enjoyment (M= 3,99) and then absorption (M= 3,64).
Bakker, A. (2008). The work-related flow inventory: Construction and initial validation. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
Bakker, A., Golub, T., & Rijavec, M. (2016). Validation of the Study-Related Flow Inventory (WOLF-S). Croatian Journal of Education, 147–173.
Bista, S., Nepal, S., Paris, C., & Colineau, N. (2012). Using Gamification in an Online Community. CollaborateCom 2012. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Camacho-Cruz, H. E., Cantú, M., & Mariño, J. (2018). Redesigning the Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology for Its Application in Gamification Processes of Learning. The 12th International Multi-Conference on Society, Cybernetics and Informatics. Orlando, FL. USA.
Central, I. D. (2016). Instructional Design Models. https://www.instructionaldesigncentral.com/instructionaldesignmodels.
Chao, Y.-K. (2015). Actionable Gamification Beyond Points, Badges, and Leaderboards.
Chaudari, C., & Mukhopay, S. (2003). Application of theory of constraints in anintegrated poultry industry. International Journal of Production Research.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: HarperCollins.
Gafoor, K. A. (2012). Considerations in the Measurement of Awareness. National Seminar on Emerging trends in education.
Mihaly, C. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins.
Nazarbayev, N. H. (2020). Games in Everyday Life: For Play . Kazakshtan University.
Potgieter, T., & Merwe, R. V. (2002). ASSESSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE:. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology.
RE, M. (1992). Cognition and Instruction: Their Historic Meeting within Educational Psychology. J.Educ.Psychol.
Witte, R. S., & Witte, J. (2017). Statistics. Wiley.
Zichermann, G., & Linder, J. (2013). The Gamification Revolution. United State: McGraw-Hill Education.