Issue

Vol. 10, No. 1, February 2025

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How HEXAD Types Influence Systemic and Finer-Grained Experiences in Gameful Educational Media: An Exploratory Study

https://doi.org/10.22219/kinetik.v10i1.1985
Sugiarto
University of Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jawa Timur
Pratama Wirya Atmaja
University of Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran Jawa Timur
Eka Prakarsa Mandyartha
University of Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jawa Timur

Corresponding Author(s) : Pratama Wirya Atmaja

pratama_wirya.fik@upnjatim.ac.id

Kinetik: Game Technology, Information System, Computer Network, Computing, Electronics, and Control, Vol. 10, No. 1, February 2025

Abstract

Education in the 21st century demands technology support, in which gameful media, such as educational games, can provide. Providing this support also requires the media to accommodate the different needs of the players, which can be identified by classifying the players’ type using HEXAD typology. However, the effect of HEXAD type classification on players’ experience in gameful media is still vague. This study aims to adress this vagueness by exploring the implementation of HEXAD in a more systemic and fine-grained manner using a playtest of an educational role-playing game. We measured the playtesters’ gameplay and learning experiences (n = 60) through a questionnaire developed based on HEXAD scale, GUESS, and EGameFlow. We also measured the correlation between the playtesters’ HEXAD types and their gameplay and learning experiences. Our analysis of the correlations uncovers exciting findings, including that the “achiever” type strongly appreciates playability features and that playability is among the essential gameplay factors for HEXAD types. We also propose design principles that can guide future research and development of the media.

Keywords

Gameful Educational Media HEXAD Typology Player Experience Systemic Finer-grained
Sugiarto, Atmaja, P. W., & Mandyartha, E. P. (2025). How HEXAD Types Influence Systemic and Finer-Grained Experiences in Gameful Educational Media: An Exploratory Study. Kinetik: Game Technology, Information System, Computer Network, Computing, Electronics, and Control, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.22219/kinetik.v10i1.1985
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. C. Troussas, A. Krouska, and C. Sgouropoulou, “Collaboration and fuzzy-modeled personalization for mobile game-based learning in higher education,” Computers & Education, vol. 144, Jan. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103698
  2. H. Xie, H.-C. Chu, G.-J. Hwang, and C.-C. Wang, “Trends and development in technology-enhanced adaptive/personalized learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2017,” Computers & Education, vol. 140, Oct. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103599
  3. G. F. Tondello, R. R. Wehbe, L. Diamond, M. Busch, A. Marczewski, and L. E. Nacke, “The Gamification User Types Hexad Scale,” in Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, Oct. 2016, pp. 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1145/2967934.2968082
  4. E. van Laar, A. J. A. M. van Deursen, J. A. G. M. van Dijk, and J. de Haan, “Determinants of 21st-century digital skills: A large-scale survey among working professionals,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 100, pp. 93–104, Nov. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.017
  5. J. Hamari and J. Tuunanen, “Player Types: A Meta-synthesis,” Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 29–53, Mar. 2014. https://doi.org/10.26503/todigra.v1i2.13
  6. G. F. Tondello, A. Mora, A. Marczewski, and L. E. Nacke, “Empirical validation of the Gamification User Types Hexad scale in English and Spanish,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 127, pp. 95–111, Jul. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.10.002
  7. F. Spyridonis and D. Daylamani-Zad, “A serious game to improve engagement with web accessibility guidelines,” Behaviour & Information Technology, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 578–596, Apr. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1711453
  8. T. Govender and J. Arnedo-Moreno, “An Analysis of Game Design Elements Used in Digital Game-Based Language Learning,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 12, Jun. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126679
  9. S. Arnab et al., “Mapping learning and game mechanics for serious games analysis,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 391–411, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12113
  10. F. Ke, “Designing and integrating purposeful learning in game play: a systematic review,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 219–244, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9418-1
  11. M. Hendrix, T. Bellamy-Wood, S. McKay, V. Bloom, and I. Dunwell, “Implementing Adaptive Game Difficulty Balancing in Serious Games,” IEEE Transactions on Games, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 320–327, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/tg.2018.2791019
  12. A. Azadvar and A. Canossa, “UPEQ: ubisoft perceived experience questionnaire: a self-determination evaluation tool for video games,” in FDG ’18: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, Aug. 2018, pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3235765.3235780
  13. B. Bontchev and O. Georgieva, “Playing style recognition through an adaptive video game,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 82, pp. 136–147, May 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.040
  14. R. Robinson, K. Wiley, A. Rezaeivahdati, M. Klarkowski, and R. L. Mandryk, “‘Let’s Get Physiological, Physiological!’: A Systematic Review of Affective Gaming,” in CHI PLAY ’20: Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, Nov. 2020, pp. 132–147. https://doi.org/10.1145/3410404.3414227
  15. S. K. Holm, “Player Types: What, Why and How,” in CHI PLAY ’17 Extended Abstracts: Extended Abstracts Publication of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, Oct. 2017, pp. 707–710. https://doi.org/10.1145/3130859.3133220
  16. G. Barata, S. Gama, J. Jorge, and D. Gonçalves, “Studying student differentiation in gamified education: A long-term study,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 71, pp. 550–585, Jun. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.049
  17. M. Gholizadeh, F. Taghiyareh, and S. Alvandkoohi, “Toward a Propensity-Oriented Player Typology in Educational Mobile Games,” International Journal of Game-Based Learning, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 55–67, Apr. 2018. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2018040105
  18. W. S. Ravyse, A. S. Blignaut, V. Leendertz, and A. Woolner, “Success factors for serious games to enhance learning: a systematic review,” Virtual Reality, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 31–58, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-016-0298-4
  19. P. W. Atmaja and S. Sugiarto, “Balancing Entertainment, Cost, and Educational Strength: A Design Framework for Medium-Coupling Educational Games,” Kinetik: Game Technology, Information System, Computer Network, Computing, Electronics, and Control, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 27–40, Feb. 2021. https://doi.org/10.22219/kinetik.v6i1.1158
  20. L. E. Nacke, C. Bateman, and R. L. Mandryk, “BrainHex: A neurobiological gamer typology survey,” Entertainment Computing, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 55–62, Jan. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2013.06.002
  21. R. Orji, R. L. Mandryk, and J. Vassileva, “Improving the Efficacy of Games for Change Using Personalization Models,” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1–22, Nov. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1145/3119929
  22. É. Lavoué, B. Monterrat, M. Desmarais, and S. George, “Adaptive Gamification for Learning Environments,” IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 16–28, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2018.2823710
  23. M. Busch, E. Mattheiss, R. Orji, P. Fröhlich, M. Lankes, and M. Tscheligi, “Player Type Models: Towards Empirical Validation,” in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 2016, pp. 1835–1841. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892399
  24. R. Stein and A. B. Swan, “Evaluating the validity of Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator theory: A teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology,” Social and Personality Psychology Compass, vol. 13, no. 2, Feb. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12434
  25. R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 61, Apr. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
  26. J. Krath and H. F. O. von Korflesch, “Player Types and Game Element Preferences: Investigating the Relationship with the Gamification User Types HEXAD Scale,” in HCI in Games: Experience Design and Game Mechanics. HCII 2021. LNCS, vol. 12789, 2021, pp. 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77277-2_18
  27. J. Ooge, R. De Croon, K. Verbert, and V. Vanden Abeele, “Tailoring Gamification for Adolescents: a Validation Study of Big Five and Hexad in Dutch,” in CHI PLAY ’20: Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, Nov. 2020, pp. 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1145/3410404.3414267
  28. Ö. E. Akgün and M. Topal, “The Turkish Adaptation Study of the Gamification User Types Hexad Scale,” International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 389–402, May 2018. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.379139
  29. R. Hunicke, M. Leblanc, and R. Zubek, “MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research,” in AAAI Workshop - Technical Report, 2004, vol. WS-04-04.
  30. S. Deterding, “The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: A method for gameful design,” Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 30, no. 3–4, pp. 294–335, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2014.993471
  31. J. Paavilainen, “Defining Playability of Games: Functionality, Usability, and Gameplay,” in Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Academic Mindtrek, Jan. 2020, pp. 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377290.3377309
  32. F. L. Fu, R. C. Su, and S. C. Yu, “EGameFlow: A scale to measure learners’ enjoyment of e-learning games,” Computers and Education, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 101–112, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.004
  33. R. A. Tasnim and F. Z. Eishita, “Analyzing the Distinctive Impact of Personality Traits on Serious Gameplay Experience,” Aug. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEGAH52098.2021.9551856
  34. G. F. Tondello, A. Mora, and L. E. Nacke, “Elements of Gameful Design Emerging from User Preferences,” in CHI PLAY 2017 - Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, Oct. 2017, pp. 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1145/3116595.3116627
  35. A. C. G. Santos et al., “The relationship between user types and gamification designs,” User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 907–940, Nov. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-021-09300-z
  36. L. Nacke and A. Drachen, “Towards a framework of player experience research,” in Proceedings of EPEX 2011, 2011, pp. 1–6.
  37. R. Stebbins, Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States of America: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2001. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984249
  38. V. Garneli, K. Patiniotis, and K. Chorianopoulos, “Integrating Science Tasks and Puzzles in Computer Role Playing Games,” Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, vol. 3, no. 3, Jul. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti3030055
  39. P. W. Atmaja and S. Sugiarto, “Integration between Learning Content and Educational Game Narrative: An Empirical Investigation of Technical Factors,” in Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Games Based Learning, 2021, pp. 43–52. https://doi.org/10.34190/GBL.21.144
  40. P. W. Atmaja and S. Sugiarto, “Efek Kebebasan Kreatif Pemain pada Proses Pembelajaran di Gim Edukasi: Penelitian Empiris Awal [The Effect of Player’s Creative Freedom on Learning Processes in Educational Games: Preliminary Empirical Study],” in Prosiding Seminar Nasional Informatika Bela Negara (SANTIKA), 2021, pp. 136–143. https://doi.org/10.33005/santika.v2i0.130
  41. P. W. Atmaja and Sugiarto, “The Relationships between Aspects of Playability and Learning Content in Educational Games,” in 2021 IEEE 7th Information Technology International Seminar (ITIS), Oct. 2021, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITIS53497.2021.9791525
  42. J. Hardy, S. Wyche, and T. Veinot, “Rural HCI Research: Definitions, Distinctions, Methods, and Opportunities,” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 3, no. CSCW, pp. 1–33, Nov. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359298
  43. S. L. Müller and A. Richert, “The Big-Five Personality Dimensions and Attitudes to-wards Robots: A Cross Sectional Study,” in PETRA ’18: Proceedings of the 11th PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments Conference, Jun. 2018, pp. 405–408. https://doi.org/10.1145/3197768.3203178
  44. J. M. Rohrer, “Thinking Clearly About Correlations and Causation: Graphical Causal Models for Observational Data,” Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 27–42, Mar. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917745629
  45. A. C. G. Santos, W. Oliveira, J. Hamari, S. Joaquim, and S. Isotani, “The Consistency of Gamification User Types: A Study on the Change of Preferences over Time,” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 7, no. CHI PLAY, pp. 1253–1281, Sep. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3611068
  46. V. Verma, S. D. Craig, R. Levy, A. Bansal, and A. Amresh, “Domain Knowledge and Adaptive Serious Games: Exploring the Relationship of Learner Ability and Affect Adaptability,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, Sep. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211031287
  47. A. All, E. P. Nuñez Castellar, and J. Van Looy, “Assessing the effectiveness of digital game-based learning: Best practices,” Computers and Education, vol. 92–93, pp. 90–103, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.007
  48. M. H. Phan, J. R. Keebler, and B. S. Chaparro, “The Development and Validation of the Game User Experience Satisfaction Scale (GUESS),” Human Factors, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 1217–1247, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816669646
  49. L. Anderson et al., A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, 1st ed. Pearson, 2000.
  50. L. Bringman‐Rodenbarger and M. Hortsch, “How students choose E‐learning resources: The importance of ease, familiarity, and convenience,” FASEB BioAdvances, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 286–295, May 2020. https://doi.org/10.1096/fba.2019-00094
  51. A. Bayaga, C. Fountain, E. S. Young, A. DeMarte, and M. J. Bossé, “Mathematics Learning Through the Lens of Language Acquisition,” lnternational Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 103–113, Sep. 2019. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2019155342
  52. A. A. Manap, N. A. Sardan, and R. P. M. Rias, “Interactive Learning Application in Microbiology: The Design, Development and Usability,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 90, pp. 31–40, Oct. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.062
  53. E. Zgraggen, Z. Zhao, R. Zeleznik, and T. Kraska, “Investigating the Effect of the Multiple Comparisons Problem in Visual Analysis,” in CHI ’18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Apr. 2018, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174053
  54. S.-Y. Chen, Z. Feng, and X. Yi, “A general introduction to adjustment for multiple comparisons,” Journal of Thoracic Disease, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1725–1729, Jun. 2017. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2017.05.34
  55. H. Akoglu, “User’s guide to correlation coefficients,” Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 18, no. 3. pp. 91–93, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001
  56. C. Busch, F. Conrad, and M. Steinicke, “Digital Games and the Hero’s Journey in Management Workshops and Tertiary Education,” Electronic Journal of e-Learning (EJEL), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 3–15, 2013.
  57. C. S. Rigby and A. K. Przybylski, “Virtual worlds and the learner hero: How today’s video games can inform tomorrow’s digital learning environments,” Theory and Research in Education, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 214–223, Jul. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104326
  58. M. E. Gray and K. J. Holyoak, “Teaching by Analogy: From Theory to Practice,” Mind, Brain, and Education, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 250–263, Aug. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12288
  59. M. A. Bujang and N. Baharum, “Sample Size Guideline for Correlation Analysis,” World Journal of Social Science Research, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 37–46, Mar. 2016. https://doi.org/10.22158/wjssr.v3n1p37
  60. C. Dichev, D. Dicheva, G. Angelova, and G. Agre, “From Gamification to Gameful Design and Gameful Experience in Learning,” Cybernetics and Information Technologies, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 80–100, Jan. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1515/cait-2014-0007
  61. S. De Freitas, “Are games effective learning tools? A review of educational games,” Educational Technology and Society, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 74–84, 2018.
Read More

Author Biographies

Sugiarto, University of Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jawa Timur

Sugiarto is a lecturer in the Faculty of Computer Science of the University of Pembangunan Nasional “Veteran” Jawa Timur, Indonesia. His expertise lies in software development, database development research, and digital entrepreneurship development. His evolving research focus centers around software development for marketing and product development of SMEs and local communities.

Pratama Wirya Atmaja, University of Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran Jawa Timur

Pratama Wirya Atmaja is a lecturer in the Faculty of Computer Science of the University of Pembangunan Nasional “Veteran” Jawa Timur, Indonesia, with a background in games and software engineering. His research focuses on educational games, interactive narratives, systems thinking, and transmedia learning. He is especially interested in design topics, both theoretical (e.g., the intersection between information, narrative, and interactivity) and practical (e.g., how to connect specific game components to specific components of learning content). He has been a member of ARDIN (Association for Research in Digital Interactive Narratives) and COST Action INDCOR (Interactive Narrative Design for Complexity Representations) since 2022.

Eka Prakarsa Mandyartha, University of Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jawa Timur

Eka Prakarsa Mandyartha is a lecturer in the Faculty of Computer Science of the University of Pembangunan Nasional “Veteran” Jawa Timur, Indonesia. His background and research are in smart computing and artificial intelligence. He is currently interested in the practical uses of LLM systems such as ChatGPT in education and other fields.

Download this PDF file
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.