دانشجویان رشتۀ مدیریت بازرگانی رابطۀ سبک‌های بازی و سبک‌های یادگیری
محورهای موضوعی : تربیتیمهسا مرادی 1 , خدیجه علی آبادی 2 , محمدرضا نیلی احمد آبادی 3 , سعید پور روستایی اردکانی 4
1 - دکتری تکنولوژی آموزشی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.
2 - دانشیار گروه تکنولوژی آموزشی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.
3 - دانشیار گروه تکنولوژی آموزشی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.
4 - استادیار گروه تکنولوژی آموزشی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.
کلید واژه: سبک‌های یادگیری, مدیریت بازرگانی, دانشجویان, سبک‌های بازی,
چکیده مقاله :
ﻫﺪف این ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ راﺑﻄﺔ سبک‌های بازی و سبک‌های ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮی بود. روش ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ توصیفی و از نوع همبستگی بود. جامعۀ آماری پژوهش همۀ دانشجویان دانشگاه زنجان در سال تحصیلی ۹۷-۹۸ بود که از بین آن‌ها 120 نفر به عنوان نمونۀ پژوهش و ﺑـﻪ روش نمونه‌گیری در دسترس اﻧﺘﺨﺎب شدند و به ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻨﺎﻣﺔ سبک‌های بازی ((Hexad ,2016 و سبک‌های ﻳﺎدﮔﻴﺮی (kolb,2005) پاسخ دادند. داده‌های پژوهش با استفاده از روش آماری رﮔﺮﺳﻴﻮن لجستیک مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. نتایج تحلیل داده‌ها در ﻣﻮرد راﺑﻄﺔ سبک‌های بازی و سبک‌های یادگیری ﻧﺸﺎن داد سبک بازی اجتماعی توسط سبک‌های یادگیری واگرا، عمل‌گرا و همگرا(p<./05) قابل پیش‌بینی است و جهت رابطه در این سه سبک مثبت است. همچنین نتایج نشان می‌دهد که سبک یادگیری واگرا به‌طور معناداری سبک بازی موفقیت‌طلب را پیش‌بینی می‌کند و جهت این رابطه منفی است (p<./05)؛ یعنی افرادی که سبک بازی موفقیت‌طلب بالاتری دارند سبک یادگیری واگرای کمتری دارند. همچنین سبک یادگیری همگرا به طور معناداری می‌تواند سبک بازی خرابکار(p<./05) را پیش‌بینی کند که جهت این رابطه مثبت است؛ بنابراین یادگیرندگانی که سبک یادگیری همگرا دارند سبک بازی خرابکار نیز دارند. در نتیجه ابعاد سبک‌های یادگیری و مؤلفه‌های آن می‌تواند پیش‌بینی‌کنندۀ خوبی برای سبک‌های بازی باشد.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between Hexad player styles and Kolb learning styles. The research method was a correlation. The statistical population of the study included all students of Zanjan University in the 2019 academic year, of which 120 people were selected as a sample of research by available sampling method. To measure the variables, the Hexad player style Questionaire (Marczewski, 2016) and learning styles Questionaire (Kolb's,2005) were used. The research data were analyzed using the logistics regression method. The results of data analysis on the relationship between game styles and learning styles indicate that the social player style is predictable by divergent, pragmatic, and convergent learning styles and the direction of the relationship in these three styles is positive: divergent (p = ./05), pragmatic (p =./05) and convergent (p =. /05). Also, the results show that the Diverging learning style significantly predicts achiever player style. The direction of this relationship is negative (p = ./05); That is, people who have a higher achiever player style have a less divergent learning style. Also, the Converging learning style can significantly predict the Disrupter player style. The direction of this relationship is positive so learners who have a convergent learning style also have a Disrupter player style. As a result, the dimensions of learning styles and their components can be a good predictor of game styles.
Abbaszadeh, A., Jamshidi, N., Najafi Kliaei, M. (2011). Comparison of learning styles of nursing students of Razi Kerman School of Nursing in 2008, Development Steps in Medical Education, 8 (2,) 199-195
Abdullah Zadeh, Z.,& Jafari, M, B. (2018). Investigating the relationship between the type of actor and learning styles in game design (gamification). Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 11 (3), 573-600. doi: 10.22059 / ijms.2018.256394.673107
Akbari Manjarmoui, F., Keshti Arai, N. (2015). The relationship between the dimensions of an effective teacher from the students' point of view with their learning styles. Research in curriculum planning. 45, 13-28
Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. Journal of MUD Research, 1(1), 19
Blunt, R. D. (2006). A causal-comparative exploration of the relationship between game-based learning and academic achievement: Teaching management with video games. Walden University.
Brace, N., Camp, R., Senlager, R. (2018). Analysis of psychological data with the SPSS program Translated by Aliabadi and Samadi, Tehran: Doran.
Chong, Y., Wong, M., & Thomson Fredrik, E. (2005). The impact of learning styles on the effectiveness of digital games in education. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Information Technology in Education, KDU College, Patailing Java, Malaysia.
Ghiasi, A, R. (2014). Learning styles of academic achievement of agricultural students and natural resources of Tehran University, Quarterly Journal of Agricultural Education Management Research, 31, 36-29.
Habibpour, K., Safari Shali, R. (2009). Comprehensive Guide to Spread Carrier in Survey Research. Tehran: Loya, thinkers.
Hosseini Lorgani, M. (1998). Comparison of learning styles of undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral students of strong and weak medical and technical-engineering men and women of Tehran universities. Master's thesis. Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University.
Izadi, S., Mohammadzadeh Admalaei, R. (2007). Investigating the Relationship between Learning Styles, Personality Traits, and Academic Performance of Students, Shahed University Quarterly, 1.(27) 15-28.
Joy, S., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Are there cultural differences in learning style?. International Journal of intercultural relations, 33(1), 69-85.
Khenissi, M. A., Essalmi, F., & Jemni, M. (2013, March). Toward the personalization of learning games according to learning styles. In 2013 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Software Applications (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Kim, A. J. (2012). Social engagement: Who’s playing? How do they like to engage. Amy Jo Kim: Musings on games, apps, 30.
Kirriemuir, J., McFarlane, A.(2005): Literature Review in Games and Learning http://www.futurelab.org.uk/download/pdf8/research/ litreviews/Games_Review1.pdf
Kolb, A. Y. (2005). The Kolb learning style inventory-version 3.1 2005 technical specifications. Boston, MA: Hay Resource Direct, 200(72).
Marczewski, A. (2015). User types. In Even ninja monkeys like to play: gamification, game thinking and motivational design (pp. 65–80). Retrieved from http://www.gamified.uk/user-types/
Mourtos, N. and McMullin (2001). A comparison of student satisfaction in online and on-ground engineering courses. 4th UICEE Annual Conference on Engineering Education.
Orji, R., Vassileva, J., & Mandryk, R. L. (2014). Modeling the efficacy of persuasive strategies for different gamer types in serious games for health. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 24(5), 453–498. doi:10.1007/s11257-014-9149-8.
Rahmani Shams, H. (2000). A study of the relationship between cognitive styles of four different fields of humanities-medicine-engineering and art with the personality traits of Eisenhower. Master Thesis. Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University.
Ranjbar, H.& Ismaili, H. (2007). Study of learning styles of students of Torbat Heydariyeh School of Nursing and Midwifery in torbat heydariye. Quarterly Journal of Urmia School of Nursing and Midwifery. 5. (4) 64-76.
Rapeepisarn, K., Wong, K. W., Fung, C. C., & Khine, M. S. (2008). The relationship between game genres, learning techniques, and learning styles in educational computer games. In International conference on technologies for E-learning and digital entertainment (pp. 497-508). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Sahin, S., Egitimi, B., & Fakultesi, G. (2008). The relationship between student characteristics, including learning styles, and their perceptions and satisfaction in web-based courses in higher education. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9(1), 123-138.
Seyf, Ali Akbar. (2019). Modern Educational Psychology: Learning and Education Psychology. Tehran: Doran.
Shamsi, M., Jalali, Y. (2014). The state of computer games in Iran and the world. Policies for working with approaches and organizations. Quarterly Journal of Strategic Public Policy Studies. 4 (10), 161-193.
Mora, A., Tondello, G. F., Nacke, L. E., & Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2018, April). Effect of personalized gameful design on student engagement. In 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1925-1933). IEEE.
Tondello, G. F., Wehbe, R. R., Diamond, L., Busch, M., Marczewski, A., & Nacke, L. E. (2016). The Gamification User Types Hexad Scale. 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1145/2967934.2968082
_||_