COPYRIGHT

Copyright and Reprint Permission: Abstracting is permitted with credit to

the source. Libraries are permitted to photocopy for private use.
Instructors are permitted to photocopy, for private use, isolated articles
for non-commercial classroom use without fee. For other copies, reprint,
or republication permission, write to IIIS Copyright Manager, 13750
West Colonial Dr Suite 350 – 408, Winter Garden, Florida 34787, U.S.A.
All rights reserved. Copyright 2018. © by the International Institute of
Informatics and Systemics.

The papers of this book comprise the proceedings of the conference

mentioned on the title and the cover page. They reflect the authors’
opinions and, with the purpose of timely disseminations, are published as
presented and without change. Their inclusion in these proceedings does
no necessarily constitute endorsement by the editors.

ISBN: 978-1-941763-84-1 (Collection) ISBN: 978-1-941763-85-8 (Volume I)

 IMSCI 2018
The 12th International Multi-Conference on Society, Cybernetics and Informatics
The 16th International Conference on Education and Information Systems, Technologies and Applications: EISTA 2018

VOLUME I

CONTENTS

Contents
i
Interdisciplinary Research, Education, and Communication: IDREC 2018

Butler Carroll, Traci; Philips Jr., Billy (USA): ''Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
Frontiers in Telemedicine Simulation Lab and Certificate Course: Facility and Curriculum
1
Development''

Chavarría-Barrientos, Dante; Miranda, Jhonattan; Cortés, Daniel; Molina, Arturo (Mexico):

''Experiences in Product, Process and Manufacturing Systems Development in Industrial
7
Engineering Courses: The Integrated Manufacturing System Course as Case Study''

Detand, Jan; Emmanouil, Marina (Belgium): ''Multiple Research Perspectives as a Paradigm to Co-
Create Meaningful Real-life Experiences'' 14

Easton, Diana (USA): ''A Methodology to Integrate Regulatory Expertise, Research and Education
to Accelerate Biomedical Device Translation'' 18

Farouk, Hesham (Egypt): ''Setting the Scene for 2025 Video Technology Trends''
23
Giladi, Ran (Israel): ''A Tale of Interdisciplinary Studies: Communication Systems Engineering''
29
González Mariño, Julio César; Cantú Gallegos, Ma. de Lourdes; Camacho Cruz, Hugo Eduardo;
Rosales Camacho, José Alejandro (Mexico): ''Redesigning the Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology for
35
its Application in Gamification Processes of Learning''

Kusumi, Ariyoshi; Kobayashi, Kayoko (Japan): ''An Educational Framework for Decision-Making
and Problem-Solving'' 41

Leung, Tiffany; Zulkernine, Farhana; Isah, Haruna (Canada): ''The Use of Virtual Reality in
Enhancing Interdisciplinary Research and Education'' 46

Leybourne, Bruce (USA): ''Hurricane Irma 2017: Relationships with Lightning, Gravity, and
Earthquakes'' 52

Case Studies and Methodologies

Abdalla, Areeg (Egypt): ''Different Methodologies in Treating Uncertainty''

59
Ahmad, Norita; Catalan Opulencia, Maria Jade; Fadahunsi, Akinola O.; Elamin, Suraya (United
Arab Emirates): ''Sustainable Initiatives on Environmental Issues: A Case of UAE'' 65

i
 Proceedings of The 12th International Multi-Conference on Society, Cybernetics and Informatics (IMSCI 2018)

Redesigning the Bartle Test of Gamer psychology for its application in gamification
processes of learning.
Julio César GONZÁLEZ MARIÑO, Ma. De Lourdes CANTÚ GALLEGOS,
Hugo Eduardo CAMACHO CRUZ y José Alejandro ROSALES CAMACHO

FMeISCdeM, Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas

H. Matamoros, Tamaulipas, México

entertainment has managed to permeate all types of users. In the

ABSTRACT United States, the average age of video game users is 35 years.

In México the same phenomenon occurs in the video game

According to the literature review, to implement successful
industry, as Torreblanca [4] states the Mexican is recognized as
gamification processes of learning, it is necessary to know the
a compulsive gamer, the domestic market exceeds 15 thousand
personality types of gamers who dominate the audience. The
290 million in Mexican currency, representing an increase of
Bartle test is an instrument widely used by video game designers
10% over the last year [5].
that identify four Gamer personalities: Achievers, Explorers,
Socializers, and Killers.
Worldwide, Mexico ranks fourteenth as a video games consumer,
equivalent to the position occupied by the national economy in
Due to its limitations, the Bartle Test has been improved by
global areas. It is estimated that by 2018 the global market
updating the items and modifying the structure of questions using
exceeds 112 billion dollars and by then Mexico occupies more
the Likert scale, so that the results objectively represent the types
relevant places not only as a consumer but as a producer of video
of dominant gamers and the ecosystem of the current games.
games [4], [6].
The new Test was developed in a Web platform, to facilitate its
The reason for the success of this industry is its ability to
application and obtain immediate results, which allow making
effectively incorporate the knowledge generated by
decisions about the elements to be used in the design and
interdisciplinary research in areas such as psychology, design
development of gamification processes of learning.
and computational technology, to keep users committed and
intrinsically motivated to continue in the game.
This paper describes the methodology used for the modification
of the test and presents results of its application in a pilot group.
This has awakened the interest of experts in communication,
psychology, education, health, productivity, business and almost
Keywords: Bartle Test, Video Games, Gamification,
any area of human activity, to integrate this knowledge to achieve
Motivation, Learning.
behavioral and attitude changes in the activities they perform on
a regular basis.
1. INTRODUCTION
This gave rise to the emergence of Gamification as a new
discipline, which refers to the process of integrating elements of
Humans beings are game users since prehistoric times, this
design, mechanics, and dynamics, typical of video games in non-
activity has evolved in parallel with the evolution of society.
ludic contexts in order to enhance intrinsic motivation,
With the appearance of the first personal computers, in the last
concentration, effort and other positive values in users, to
decades of the XX century, the first video games or electronic
perform activities that otherwise would be tedious and boring [7].
games also appeared.
Given its potential to increase engagement and enjoyment,
Currently, video games are a powerful global industry,
researchers and academics have proposed the gamification as a
generating more than 90 billion dollars a year. Hundreds of
way to transform education [8]–[10]. In addition, students in the
millions of people in every corner of the world spend thousands
higher level, spend an average of more than ten thousand hours
of hours a day playing on consoles, personal computers, and
interacting with video games [11], so they are accustomed to
mobile devices [1]. It is considered a new form of art, which has
mechanics, dynamics and the emotional and social part of these
surpassed the film industry’s profitability [2].
systems.
These games are popular in all demographic, gender and age
When implementing a gamification process in the classroom,
groups, but especially they are more widely used by the current
students will be motivated by different ways of learning and/or
generation that integrates enrollment in higher education
enjoy tasks and activities that would otherwise be considered
institutions.
tedious and boring [12].
In the beginning, video games had content aimed at very specific
Videogames are attractive and motivational because they
users, the market was distinguished by children and young people
stimulate and impact the cognitive, emotional and social areas of
who had fixed consoles [3]. Currently the market has shown great
users, a gamification process in education has to also focus in
dynamism worldwide, positioning itself as a basic element of
these three areas [13].

35
 Proceedings of The 12th International Multi-Conference on Society, Cybernetics and Informatics (IMSCI 2018)
To implement successful gamification processes of learning, it is
necessary to know the personality types of gamers who dominate
the audience, to incorporate mechanics and dynamics in the
system design relevant for the types of gamer found [14]. The
Bartle test of gamer psychology is an instrument widely used by
video game designers that identify four Gamer personalities:
Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers.
In the next section, we explain the Bartle test in detail and the
reasons to improve it.
2. BARTLE TEST OF GAMER PSICHOLOGY.
Richard Bartle is a British writer, professor and researcher,
considered by many to be a pioneer in the videogame industry.
Current online role-playing games are based in the first MUD
(Multi-User Dungeon) created by Bartle and Roy Trubshaw in
1978. These games employ the architecture of classic role-
playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons and Pathfinder, in
an environment where users can chat with each other, sharing
secrets, solving puzzles together and putting their skill and their
avatar’s abilities to the test [15].
Bartle (1996) developed a study about gamer psychology in
virtual worlds. In his analysis, players are classified in four types:
Achievers, Explorers, Socializers and Killers.
1. Achievers have overcoming challenges and
accumulating rewards for doing so as their main objective.
2. Explorers prefer to discover and learn any new or
unknown element in the system
3. Socializers feel attraction for the social aspects in the
game
4. Killers seek to compete with other players
These approaches may arise from the inter-relationship of two
dimensions of playing style: action versus interaction, and world-
oriented versus player-oriented [16]. For example, Socializers
interacts with other players and Killers acts on them, Explorers
interacts with the virtual world and Achievers interacts in the
virtual world [17]. Figure 1.
Figura1. Two Dimensions of player style
Source: Bartle, R. (2004). Designing Virtual Worlds.
Based on this taxonomy, Erwin Andreasen and Brandon Downey
created the Bartle Test of Gamer Psychology, commonly referred
to as the Bartle Test to identify the different types of players that
predominates in a group of users.
36
The test consists in a series of questions associated with a
mathematic formula to obtain a result known as the “Bartle
coefficient”, which is calculated on the basis of the answers of
thirty random questions that make a 200% sum in all categories,
without a single category reaching above 100%. This means a
user can get something like "100% Killer, 50% Socializer, 40%
Achiever, 10% Explorer". The example represents a player that
prefers to fight other players more than any other area of interest.
Results tend to be abbreviated with the first letter of each
category, in coefficient order. In the previous example, this result
would be written down as a “KSAE” result.
Despite criticism imposed for its limitations, the original Bartle
Test has been answered by more than one million users, and it’s
an international reference used by video game designers and
gamification experts.
The limitations of the Bartle test as originally written are
multiple. Demographically, the test is limited to players of the
MUDs genre, which although considered the originator of
multiple genres of videogames, does not cover the whole range
of genres and subgenera that have appeared in the last decades.
So, it is possible that young users do not understand the video
game scenario presented in the question.
Various adaptations of the test have been created in an attempt to
reach a wider audience, but no formal extension has been made
to other well-defined genres [18].
The original Test is designed with dichotomous questions, that
limits the user and may represent an inconsistency in the results,
by choosing one of the two options presented to him, even if he
does not understand the question or does not apply in its context
[19].
For this reason, the Bartle Test has been improved by updating
the items and modifying the structure of questions using the
Likert scale, so that the results objectively represent the types of
dominant gamers and the ecosystem of the current games.
The new Test was developed in a Web platform, to facilitate its
application and obtain immediate results, which allow making
decisions about the elements to be used in the design and
development of gamification processes of learning.
The following section describes the materials and methods used
to achieve the objectives.
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
To customize the Test’s questions, in a way that it presents
scenarios according to the game genre that the user prefers,
before the start of the Test they will be given the option to choose
a videogame genre that better reflects their preferences. The
genres to be used are: Action, Adventure, Roleplay, Simulation,
Strategy and Sports, due to these being the most popular genres
of video games in Mexico.
The items were designed, in such a way that it is possible to
evaluate two types of player personality with the same question.
For example, two opposing categories such as Socializer and
Killer are tested against each other. In Table 1, all the possible
user answers are described.
 Proceedings of The 12th International Multi-Conference on Society, Cybernetics and Informatics (IMSCI 2018)

When comparing the S category with the K category, it’s not

necessary to conversely compare the K and S categories in this Similarly, if we begin with Object B, there exists two ways to
later, since these two would be evaluated in the same question, complete the order, which correspond to the way we can order
and the results stay the same [19], [20]. Objects A and C. It’s then when we have the orders BAC and
BCA. Finally, if we start by using Object C, we can order the rest
In this manner, the number of questions can be considerably of objects A and B in the same way, obtaining the sets CAB and
shortened, to only six questions per video game genre. As CBA. These six orders, ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB and CBA
mentioned in the previous section, the original Text had thirty are the entirety of the results of combining these three Objects.
items. With the elimination of unnecessary questions, we also This is, II(3) = 3 x 2 x 1 = 6. With this information, we can
diminish the chance of deviation from true results, caused by the conclude that the number of permutations in n number of objects
tediousness of an overly long instrument. This encourages people equals n amount of permutations in n – 1 number of objects.
to answer truthfully and not skip questions just to finish quicker.
As result of the formula II(n) = n, we conclude that the number
Table 1 Example analyzing the Socializer and Killer gamer types of permutations for three objects equals 3! = 3 x 2 x 1 = 6, as seen
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly above. As an additional example, the number of permutations in
Disagree Agree
Situation Greatly Slightly The user Slightly Greatly
a set of seven Object equals 7! = 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 5040
that increases increases score increases increases [25].
implies a the the remains the the
way of Socializer Socializer unchanged Killer Killer For the purposes of this research, the Objects assigned to this set
thought score score score score
that pulls are those that represent the Achiever, Explorer, Killer and
away Socializer gamer types, which result in the Objects A, E, K and
from S, respectively. These objects must be combined in pairs, this is,
Socializer
behaviors
two Object permutations for each, with no repetitions, until all
and is in possible combinations have been fulfilled (Table 2). This is, to
favor of a apply the combinatory formula in each of these pairs of
Killer categories.
point of
view.
Source: Own Elaboration. Table 2. Object Combinations
Combinatory A E K S
Objects
This kind of instrument has been utilized for many years to
A AA AE AK AS
measure attitudes towards an object or phenomenon and is known
as the Likert method. It’s based on the premise that people have E EA EE EK ES
tendencies that vary within a threshold that goes from the
negative to the positive [21]. The versatility to apply this kind of K KA KE KK KS
instrument in any context and its flexibility to provide diverse
answer options make it ideal for the objectives proposed in this S SA SE SK SS
project.
Source: Own Elaboration.
Basic statistics techniques were employed to determine the
amount of questions to assign each user in direct relation with the Excluding redundant combinations of the same object and by
maximum amount of non-repeated combinatorics that represent commutative property (underlined), the result obtained is of six
every player type [22], [23]. combinations of objects; AE, AK, AS, EK, ES, KS, to evaluate
the four gamer personalities.
A permutations formula was used to determine these
combinations, which allows us to know the amount of ways a That is, with six questions it is possible to measure to what type
simple set of elements (named Objects) can be ordered without of gamer personality the user is oriented.
repeating [24] . This formula Eq (1) goes as follows:
Table 3 shows an example of how to measure the player
S(n): Π(n)= n! while n ≥ 1 Eq (1) personality, according to their responses on the scale of Achiever
to Explorer.
To explain the use of this formula in detail, we’ve enumerated
the amount of permutations in a list of low-order objects. First, it Table 3. How to measure between Achiever and Explorer
More Neither More
must be clear that II(1) = 1. This is, if there is a single object A Achiever Achiever Explorer
in the set, there’s a single order for it: A. than nor than
Explorer Explorer Achiever
Question 3 points 2 points 1 points 1 points 0 points
Now, let’s assume the set contains two Objects, A and B. We can in a scale towards towards towards towards towards
select one of these Objects to appear first and the rest to appear from Achiever, Achiever, Achiever, Achiever, Achiever,
later. In this case there’s two orders: AB and BA. Therefore, II(2) Achiever 0 points 1 points 1 points 2 points 3 points
= 2 x 1 = 2. Now, let’s assume the set contains three Objects: A, to towards towards towards towards towards
Explorer Explorer Explorer Explorer Explorer Explorer
B and C. We can select any of the three to appear first. Let’s score
consider the case in which we select A to appear first in the set. Source: Own Elaboration.
Then, the rest of the Objects in the set -B and C- can be ordered
in any of the previously mentioned orders to complete the After the user answers the six questions, individual scores are
permutation. Through this method, we can see there’s two orders added for each of the four player categories, and a new restriction
that begin with the A Object: ABC and ACB.

37
 Proceedings of The 12th International Multi-Conference on Society, Cybernetics and Informatics (IMSCI 2018)

is created towards the result of this sum, via: pA+ pE+pK+pS=1
Eq (2).
In this manner, the relational graph connects completely. This
restriction is only needed to know the final result of the category
combinations. Once we know the amount of n genres to work
with, and the amount of needed questions to create a new test
based on one of the m hypothetical genres, we can conclude the
amount of needed questions to cover the entire body of the
instrument is as follows: n * m = 6 * 6 = 36 Eq (3) questions.
Validating the new Test
Each of the test items was written and validated via cognitive pre-
testing, in which a determined number of users solve the test,
arguing in a qualitative manner if the content of the items is
adequate for their purposes [20].
In this case, the objective is to reflect the new video game
ecosystem and their categorization, as well as the interests of the
gamers themselves.
To validate the content of the items, a group of experts was
selected who fulfilled two conditions: having finished, or about
to conclude, higher education; and know or have played enough
video games of one or more genres used in the test.
fundamental elements for the project's objectives [27]. For this
purpose, Boostrap's CSS3 technology was used with design
templates based on HTML and CSS; for typography, shapes,
buttons, navigation and other interface components, as well as
optional JavaScript [28]. This facilitates the development with
the Responsive Web Design approach. It is a new network
paradigm, based on the assumption that users have access to
many devices with different screen resolutions and capacities
[29]. The websites return to a simplified and minimalist state,
optimized to be uploaded to the quick page and adjusting its size
in real time.
To store, access and edit the test results, a database was created
with Controller View Model methodology [30]. The database
interacts with the HTML platform via SQL Server 2014 tools, a
generic Microsoft DBMS with ASP.NET infrastructure. In
addition, the new Razor view engine was used, which due to its
intuitive syntax allows to optimize the code lines [31].
Figure 2 graphically shows the technologies used in the
development of the Web platform, the database and their
interactions.

The group of experts answers the test and is asked for the
following:
• Explain qualitatively your experience regarding the
genres of video games chosen to answer the test.
• Number of titles played that belong to the chosen genre
to answer the test.
• Answer Yes or No. The content of the test questions is
contextually appropriate for the genre of video games Figure 2. Interactions of technologies used in the Web Platform.
that represent. Source: Own Elaboration
• If the expert's response was "no", he should explain his
answer, selecting one or more of three possibilities: The Interface
1. The questions are not contextually In the initial screen the first interaction of the user with the test,
applicable to the gender they are trying to is to choose between the six genres of video games, the one he
represent. likes the most to play. Figure 3.
2. The questions include concepts and
situations that do not belong to the genre that The next screen collects personal data of the user. The following
I selected. six screens contain questions related to the genre of video games
3. The questions are too ambiguous to cover all that the user selected as their favorite.
the games of the genre that I selected

The Lawshe Coefficient [26] method was used, which indicates

the minimum percentage of approval by experts for the validation
of the content. This can be calculated by: CVR = [(ne – N) -N/2
]/2 Eq (4).

Where n is the number of experts interviewed, and N is the

number of experts who claimed that the content is valid. In this
case, 5 experts were interviewed, so the coefficient is solved as
follows CVR = [(5e – 4) -4/2 ]/2 = 0.5.

That is, at least 50% approval is needed for the content of the test
items to be considered valid. Therefore, the content validity test
of the instrument had an 80% acceptance, which far exceeds the
acceptable minimum according to the selected method. Figure 3. Initial Interface. Video game genre selection.
Web Platform Development
For the design and development of the Web platform, we chose Figure 4, shows an example of a question related to the genre of
to use a Front-End to Back-End model. Considering in the video games selected by the user.
design, the user experience (UX) and the user interface (UI) as

38
 Proceedings of The 12th International Multi-Conference on Society, Cybernetics and Informatics (IMSCI 2018)
Figure 4. Example of question of a selected genre.
By answering only six questions, the user has a better experience
completing the test in a few minutes, and getting immediate
feedback on his gamer personality. Figure 5.
Figure 5. Example test result screen.
4. FINDINGS
The test was applied to a pilot group of seventy undergraduate
students, most in the range of 18 and 22 years of age. The gender
distribution of the group was 61% men 39% women.
To measure the reliability of the test, we simply asked the users
if they were in agreement with the result they had obtained from
the test. That is, if they considered to be the type of gamer that
the system had determined. Most of the students respond
affirmative.
The result obtained from the pilot test, to the group in general,
represents a Bartle SEKA coefficient. That is, the majority
resulted with a Socializer personality type, followed closely by
the Explorer type. With lower score the Killer personality and
finally the Achiever type. Figure 6.
39
Figure 6. Pilot group results.
5. CONCLUSIONS
According to the literature review, gamers evolve between player
types, from Killer to Explorer, as they mature as players for the
time they have playing. In this sense, the results obtained in the
pilot test are consistent, the university students have the age and
sufficient hours playing, to have personality type of Explorer and
Socializer.
In the group of students who answered the test, some decided to
do it more than once to choose another genre of video games.
That is, a player can have more than a favorite video game genre.
This led us to the next question. Can a user have a gamer
personality type with a certain genre of video games, and a
different type of gamer personality when using another genre of
video games? We suggest further testing in order to respond to
this new research question.
The expected objectives with the redesign and update of the
Bartle Test were fulfilled, obtaining more reliable results. By
updating the items to the current context of video game
ecosystem, changing the structure using the Likert scale and
adding the function to submit pertinent questions with selected
videogame genre, significantly reducing the time it takes to
answer it.
Undoubtedly, the redesign and update of the Bartle Test will be
an essential tool for the design and development of gamification
processes of learning, by efficiently provide reliable data of the
types of gamer personalities in a user’s group.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was financed for the Higher Education office in
México (PRODEP); as part of the project "Implementation and
Evaluation of a Gamification Process to Strengthen Learning of
Cardiovascular Anatomy ", managed by research group
“Competencias Tecnológicas” UAT-CA-129.
7. REFERENCES
[1] K. Werbach and D. Hunter, For the Win. How GAME
THINKING Can Revolutionize your Business.
Philadelphia: Wharton Digital Press, 2012.
[2] Entertainment Software Association, “2016 Annual
Report,” 2016.
 Proceedings of The 12th International Multi-Conference on Society, Cybernetics and Informatics (IMSCI 2018)

[3] T. Apperley, “Genre and game studies,” Simul. Gaming, [20] D. Collins, “Pretesting survey instruments: An overview
vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 6–23, 2006. of cognitive methods,” in Quality of Life Research,
[4] Torreblanca Jacques Eduardo, “México, ¿Potencia en la 2003, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 229–238.
industria del videojuego? | El Financiero,” El [21] R. Johns, “Likert Items and Scales,” Surv. Quest. Bank
Financiero, 2014. [Online]. Available: Methods Fact Sheet, vol. 1, no. March, pp. 1–11, 2010.
http://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/opinion/mexico- [22] P. Gendall, “A Framework for Questionnaire Design:
potencia-en-la-industria-del-videojuego.html. Labaw Revisited,” Mark. Bull., vol. 9, pp. 28–39, 1998.
[Accessed: 24-May-2015]. [23] T. Kline, “Psychological testing: A practical approach
[5] Piedras Ernesto and Alejandro Arriaga, “Mercado de to design and evaluation,” Can. Psychol., vol. 1, p. 356,
Videojuegos en México,” The Competitive Intelligence 2005.
Unit, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://the- [24] C. Martínez-Salgado, “El muestreo en investigación
ciu.net/nwsltr/152_1Distro.html. [Accessed: 24-May- cualitativa: principios básicos y algunas controversias,”
2015]. Cien. Saude Colet., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 613–619, 2012.
[6] Newzoo, “2016 Global Games Market Report An [25] J. Uhlman and A. Aho, “Foundations of Computer
Overview of Trends & Insights,” 2016. [Online]. Science in C,” Found. Comput. Sci., pp. 776–786, 1994.
Available: https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/global- [26] L. R. Aiken, “Content validity and reliability of single
games-market-reaches-99-6-billion-2016-mobile- items or questionnaires,” Educ. Psychol. Meas., vol. 40,
generating-37/. no. 4, pp. 955–959, 1980.
[7] K. Kapp, “The Gamification of Learning and [27] S. Kujala, V. Roto, K. Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, E.
Instruction, Pfeiffer,” San Fr., p. 480, 2012. Karapanos, and A. Sinnelä, “UX Curve: A method for
[8] R. N. Landers and R. C. Callan, “Casual social games evaluating long-term user experience,” Interact.
as serious games: the psychology of gamification in Comput., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 473–483, 2011.
undergraduate education and employee training,” in [28] V. Shannon, “A ‘more revolutionary’ Web,” The New
Serious Games and Edutainment Applications, 2011, York Times, 2006.
pp. 399–423. [29] B. Frain, Responsive Web Design with HTML5 and
[9] J. McGonigal, “Reality is Broken: Why Games Make CSS3. 2012.
Us Better and How They Can Change the World,” New [30] C. Shalizi, “Lecture 15: Top-Down Design and
York, p. 402, 2011. Refactoring.” [Online]. Available:
[10] C. C. I. Muntean, “Raising engagement in e-learning http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~cshalizi/statcomp/14/lecture
through gamification,” 6th Int. Conf. Virtual Learn. s/15/lecture-15.html#/. [Accessed: 12-Aug-2016].
ICVL 2011, no. 1, pp. 323–329, 2011. [31] F. Ates, “What is a Modern Browser? – Faruk Ateş.”
[11] J. Palfrey and U. Gasser, “Born Digital: Understanding [Online]. Available:
the First Generation of Digital Natives,” Hedgehog http://farukat.es/journal/2011/02/528-modern-browser/.
Rev., vol. 198, no. 2008, p. 288, 2008. [Accessed: 16-Sep-2016].
[12] M. D. Hanus and J. Fox, “Assessing the Effects of
Gamification in the Classroom: A Longitudinal Study
on Intrinsec Motivation, Social Comparison,
Satisfaction, Effort, and Academic Performance,” Fall
2014 Issue of ETFO Voice, no. 5. 2014.
[13] J. J. Lee, T. College, D. Ph, E. Hammer, and M.
Interdisciplinary, “Gamification in Education : What ,
How , Why Bother ? What : Definitions and Uses,”
Acad. Exch. Q., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1–5, 2011.
[14] B. Stewart, “Gamasutra - Personality And Play Styles:
A Unified Model,” Gamasutra, 2011. [Online].
Available:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6474/personal
ity_and_play_styles_a_.php?print=1. [Accessed: 29-
May-2015].
[15] E. Carroll, “MUD Timeline,” 1995. [Online]. Available:
http://www.iol.ie/~ecarroll/mud/timeline.html.
[Accessed: 16-Aug-2016].
[16] R. Bartle, “Richard A. Bartle: Players Who Suit
MUDs,” 1996. [Online]. Available:
http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm%5Cnhttp://sc
holar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=inti
tle:Richard+A.+Bartle:+Players+Who+Suit+MUDs#1.
[Accessed: 12-Aug-2016].
[17] R. A. Bartle, Designing Virtual Worlds, 1st ed. New
Riders, 2004.
[18] M. J. P. Wolf, “Genre and the video game,” in The
Medium of the Video Game, 2002, pp. 1–20.
[19] Y. Corral, “Diseño de cuestionarios para recolección de
datos,” Rev. Ciencias La Educ., vol. 20, no. 36, pp. 152–
168, 2010.

40