In recent years, academia has begun recognizing the necessity of integrating innovative assessment methods into academic courses. Nevertheless, initiatives to introduce alternative assessment practices may encounter resistance, despite the strong pedagogical rationale behind it. This research was conducted following a workshop titled “Make Games, Not Exams,” which aimed to introduce higher education instructors to an alternative method of assessing academic course achievements through student-generated online quiz games. The primary objective was to explore the instructors’ attitudes toward the assessment method introduced in the workshop and their willingness to integrate it into their courses, two months after the program’s conclusion. The study utilized a qualitative approach involving the participation of 10 instructors who took part in the workshop. The results revealed that only half of the instructors were willing to incorporate this method into their teaching. Most instructors agreed with the pedagogical rationale for using digital game generators as assessment tools. Nevertheless, they expressed reluctance to adopt this method primarily due to resistance to change, the time investment required, concerns about the compatibility of games with academic content, and apprehensions regarding evaluating student outcomes. Institutional support and peer influence were also noted as barriers. These findings suggest that integrating such an innovative approach demands a prolonged commitment involving ongoing exposure and consistent support for instructors within the institutional context.
AmzalagM.ShapiraN.DolevN. (2021). Two sides of the coin: Lack of academic integrity in exams during the corona pandemic, students’ and lecturers’ perceptions. Journal of Academic Ethics, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09413-5
2.
ArnoldL. E.HodgkinsP.KahleJ.MadhooM.KewleyG. (2020). Long-term outcomes of ADHD: Academic achievement and performance. Journal of Attention Disorders, 24(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054714566076
3.
BirenbaumM. (2016). Assessment culture versus testing culture: The impact on assessment for learning. In LaveaultD.AllalL. (Eds.), Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of implementation (The Enabling Power of Assessment, vol 4). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39211-0_16
4.
BroadbentJ.PanaderoE.BoudD. (2018). Implementing summative assessment with a formative flavour: A case study in a large class. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(2), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1343455
5.
BuilI.CatalánS.MartínezE. (2018). Exploring students’ flow experiences in business simulation games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(2), 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12237
6.
ChaudyY.ConnollyT. M. (2019). Integrating assessment, feedback, and learning analytics in educational games: Literature review and design of an assessment engine. InAzevedoA.AzevedoJ. (Eds.), Handbook of research on e-assessment in higher education. https://doi.org/127-169.10.4018/978-1-5225-5936-8.ch006
7.
ChengI.RodriguezS.BasuA. (2009, August4–6). Multimedia and games incorporating student modeling for education [Conference session]. 2009 International Workshop on Technology for Education, Bangalore, India (pp. 91–94). IEEE.
8.
CicchinoM. I. (2015). Using game-based learning to foster critical thinking in student discourse. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 9(2), article 4.
9.
CollinsR. (2014). Skills for the 21st Century: Teaching higher-order thinking. Curriculum & Leadership Journal, 12(14), 1–8.
10.
CookD. A.ArtinoA. R.Jr. (2016). Motivation to learn: An overview of contemporary theories. Medical education, 50(10), 997–1014. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1481
11.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
12.
de la FuenteJ.Fernández-CabezasM.CambilM.VeraM. M.González-TorresM. C.Artuch-GardeR. (2017). Linear relationship between resilience, learning approaches, and coping strategies to predict achievement in undergraduate students. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1039. https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2017.01039
13.
DesrochersM. N.PusateriM. J.JrFinkH. C. (2007). Game assessment: Fun as well as effective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(5), 527–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930601116789
14.
DuPaulG. J.Dahlstrom-HakkiI.GormleyM. J.FuQ.PinhoT. D.BanerjeeM. (2017). College students with ADHD and LD: Effects of support services on academic performance. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(4), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12143
15.
Ejsing-DuunS.KaroffH. S. (2015). Creativity and playfulness: Producing games as a pedagogical strategy [Conference session]. European Conference on Game Based Learning, 8-9 October 2015, Steinkjer, Norway (pp. 171–177).
16.
EvanR.SethC. (2021). Game-assisted assessment for broader adoption: Participatory design and game-based scaffolding. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 19(2), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.34190/EJEL.19.2.2143
17.
FloresM. A.Veiga SimãoA. M.BarrosA.PereiraD. (2015). Perceptions of effectiveness, fairness and feedback of assessment methods: A study in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(9), 1523–1534. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.881348
18.
GamageK. A.DehideniyaS. C.XuZ.TangX. (2023). ChatGPT and higher education assessments: More opportunities than concerns?Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.32
19.
GozuyesilE.TanrisevenI. (2017). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of alternative assessment techniques. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 17(70), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2017.70.3
20.
GrimleyM.GreenR.NilsenT.ThompsonD.TomesR. (2011). Using computer games for instruction: The student experience. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787410387733
21.
IshaqK.RanaA. M. K.ZinN. A. M. (2020). Exploring summative assessment and effects: Primary to higher education. Bulletin of Education and Research, 42(3), 23–50.
22.
JalilzadehK.CoombeC. (2023). Constraints in employing learning-oriented assessment in EFL classrooms: Teachers’ perceptions. Language Testing in Asia, 13(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-023-00222-8
23.
Jean JusticeL.RitzhauptA. D. (2015). Identifying the barriers to games and simulations in education: Creating a valid and reliable survey. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 44(1), 86–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239515588161
JonesM.BlantonJ. E.WilliamsR. E. (2023). Science to practice: Does gamification enhance intrinsic motivation?Active Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874211066882
26.
JongM. S.LeeJ. H.ShangJ. (2013). Educational use of computer games: Where we are, and what’s next. In HuangR.KinshukSpectorJ. M. (Eds.), Reshaping learning (pp. 299–320). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32301-0_13
27.
KennedyT. J.SundbergC. W. (2020). 21st century skills. In AkpanB.KennedyT. J. (Eds.), Science education in theory and practice. Springer texts in education (pp. 479–496). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43620-9_32
28.
KlimmtC.HartmannT. (2006). Effectance, self-efficacy, and the motivation to play video games. In VordererP.BryantJ. (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 133–145). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
29.
KnightP. T. (2002). Summative assessment in higher education: practices in disarray. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070220000662
30.
LeanJ.MoizerJ.TowlerM.AbbeyC. (2006). Simulations and games: Use and barriers in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(3), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787406069056
31.
LimC. P. (2008). Spirit of the game: Empowering students as designers in schools?British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 996–1003.
32.
LinC. H. S.WenL. Y. M. (2007). Academic dishonesty in higher education: A nationwide study in Taiwan. Higher Education, 54(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9047-z
33.
LiuQ.GeertshuisS.GraingerR. (2020). Understanding academics’ adoption of learning technologies: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 151, 103857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103857
34.
MarchandG. C.NardiN. M.ReynoldsD.PamoukovS. (2014). The impact of the classroom built environment on student perceptions and learning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.06.009
35.
MavridisA.TsiatsosT. (2017). Game-based assessment: Investigating the impact on test anxiety and exam performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12170
36.
McCabeD. L.ButterfieldK. D.TrevinoL. K. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators can do about it. JHU Press.
Meishar-TalH.KeslerA. (2023). “If I create a game I’ll learn”: online game creation as a tool to promote learning skills of students with learning difficulties. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(5), 3071–3082. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1919146
39.
MoizerJ.LeanJ.TowlerM.AbbeyC. (2009). Simulations and games: Overcoming the barriers to their use in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(3), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787409343188
40.
NguyenT. T. T.YukawaT. (2019). Kahoot with smartphones in testing and assessment of language teaching and learning, the need of training on mobile devices for Vietnamese teachers and students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 9(4), 286–296. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2019.9.4.1214
41.
NieminenJ. H. (2020). Crossing the boundaries of mathematics assessment through summative self-assessment [Conference session]. Interim Proceedings of the 44th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 21-25 July 2020Khon Kaen, Tailand (pp. 430–438).
42.
NørgårdR. T.MoseleyA. (2021). The playful academic. The Journal of Play in Adulthood, 3(1), 1–8.
43.
ParkJ. H. (2012). The effects of principal’s leadership style on support for innovation: Evidence from Korean vocational high school change. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13, 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9182-9
PereiraD.FloresM. A.NiklassonL. (2016). Assessment revisited: A review of research in Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(7), 1008–1032.
46.
PrenskyM. (2006). Don’t bother me, Mom, I’m learning! How computer and video games are preparing your kids for 21st century success and how you can help!Paragon house.
47.
PrenskyM. (2008). Students as designers and creators of educational computer games: Who else?British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1004–1019. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00823_2.x
48.
ProudfootK. (2023). Inductive/Deductive hybrid thematic analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(3), 308–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221126816
49.
RanieriM.RaffaghelliJ. E.BruniI. (2021). Game-based student response system: Revisiting its potentials and criticalities in large-size classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418812667
50.
ReidP. (2014). Categories for barriers to adoption of instructional technologies. Educational Information Technology, 19, 383–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9222z
51.
RobertsonJ.HowellsC. (2008). Computer game design: Opportunities for successful learning. Computers & Education, 50(2), 559–578.
52.
RogersE. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). Free Press.
53.
RomeroM.UsartM.OttM. (2015). Can serious games contribute to developing and sustaining 21st century skills?Games and Culture, 10(2), 148–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412014548919
54.
RudolphJ.TanS.TanS. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education?Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 342–363. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9
55.
SinghS.RemenyiD. (2016). Plagiarism and ghostwriting: The rise in academic misconduct. South African Journal of Science, 112(5–6), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2016/20150300
56.
SchleicherA. (2012). Preparing teachers and developing school leaders for the 21st century: Lessons from around the world. OECD Publishing.
57.
SpielbergerC. D.AntonW. D.BedellJ. (2015). The nature and treatment of test anxiety. In ZuckermanM.SpielbergerC. D. (Eds.), Emotions and anxiety: New concepts, methods, and applications (pp. 317–344). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315744643
58.
SteinertY.McLeodP. J.BoillatM.MeterissianS.ElizovM.MacdonaldM. E. (2009). Faculty development: A ‘field of dreams’?Medical Education, 43(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03246.x
59.
Van LaarE.Van DeursenA. J.Van DijkJ. A.De HaanJ. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010
60.
van RensburgC. J.CoetzeeS. A.SchmulianA. (2022) Developing digital creativity through authentic assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(6), 857–877. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1968791
WeitzeC. L. (2015, October8–9). Students learning when designing digital learning games based on cross curricular learning goals [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Games Based Learning. Nord-Trondelag University College, Steinkjer, Norway.
WilliamsM. D.RanaN. P.DwivediY. K. (2015). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): A literature review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(3), 443–488. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2014-0088
65.
YangY. T. C.ChangC. H. (2013). Empowering students through digital game authorship: Enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic achievement. Computers & Education, 68, 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.023
66.
YiannoutsouN.KynigosC.DaskoliaM. (2014). Constructionist designs in game modding: The case of learning about sustainability [Conference session]. Proceedings of Constructionism, 19-23 August 2014, Vienna Austria (pp. 19–23).
67.
Yurdabakanİ. (2011). The view of constructivist theory on assessment: Alternative assessment methods in education. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 44(1), 51–78. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000001215
68.
Zlatkin-TroitschanskaiaO.ShavelsonR. J.PantH. A. (2017). Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education: International comparisons and perspectives. In SecolskyC.DenisonD. B. (Eds.), Handbook on measurement, assessment and evaluation in higher education (pp. 686–698). Routledge.
