The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education  Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016

Ethics Issues of Digital Contents for Pre-Service Primary Teachers: A
Gamification Experience for Self-Assessment with Socrative

Adolfina Pérez Garcias and Victoria I. Marín80	
  The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	  Abstract

The knowledge society has brought many possibilities for open education practices and,simultaneously, deep ethical challenges related to the use, sharing and reuse of digital content.
In fact, even at university level, many undergraduate students do not respect the licences ofdigital resources. As part of the contents of a third-year educational technology course forprimary teacher training at the University of the Balearic Islands (Spain), prospective teachers
learned about these ethics issues. During the 2015/16 academic year, 125 pre-service teachers
from two groups of this course were involved in a gamification experience, using Socrative inreal-time in the classroom, in which they had to answer different questions related to digital
ethics. Its aim was not only to find out what they knew before working directly with the topic– an initial self-assessment – but also to arouse interest and encourage dynamic participationand interaction. At the end of the course, the participants answered a questionnaire in which
they were asked about their perceptions of the use of this kind of educational strategy and theirtransfer in the future. Data were also collected from the same Socrative quiz and the final exam
results related to digital ethics. Overall, the assessment from pre-service teachers was highly
positive, as well as the scores of the questions related to digital ethics in the final test, and theconclusions of this study highlight both the importance of using more interactive educational
strategies in the classroom and the need for training on digital ethics issues in teacher studies.
Keywords: gamification; higher education; teacher training; digital ethics; Socrative; selfassessment.

	
  

81	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  Introduction
The Internet has made it possible to access information and digital content to be reused in othercontexts, which creates important ethical challenges (Farrow, 2016). Open education isespecially interesting for future teachers of any level, who can create their educational materials
by readapting the already available resources–images, sounds, videos and so on–on theInternet. However, the ethical challenges suggest that many student teachers do not respect thelicences of these resources, mainly because they are not aware of them.
Digital ethics is a part of the digital competence that every teacher needs to develop (UNESCO,2011). Thus, many teacher training programmes consider modules or contents related to this
aspect. At the University of the Balearic Islands (Spain), the student teachers in the Primary
Teacher Training program must attend a course on educational technology, which includes
digital competence and digital ethics, in their third year.
During the 2015/16 academic year, pre-service teachers of two groups of this course wereinvolved in a gamification experience using Socrative – a web 2.0 technology to create
interactive tests–in real-time in the classroom to work on concepts and ideas related to digital
ethics. The aim of this experiment was to connect teachers with their prior knowledge as an
initial self-assessment, arouse interest and encourage participation. After the experiment, theparticipants were given a questionnaire in which they were asked about their perceptions of theuse of this kind of educational strategy and their transfer in the future.
Therefore, the present work describes the educational gamification experiment with Socrativeon pre-service student teachers for primary school; the results obtained from the same
experiment; a final student questionnaire and the final test scores of the course (questions
related to digital ethics). The conclusions show the value of the experiment and future lines ofwork.
Reference Framework
The educational experiment is based on two main topics: ethics issues of digital contents, aspart of the digital competence; and gamification, as the didactic strategy used for theexperiment.
Digital Ethics
The new technological and digitalized world comes with deep ethical challenges, especiallyrelated to open education (Farrow, 2016). Open education practices are based on four mainprinciples (Valverde, 2010): (a) knowledge should be free and open to be used and reused, (b)collaboration in the construction and reelaboration of knowledge should be enhanced andpromoted, (c) sharing knowledge should be rewarded for its contribution to education andresearch and (d) educational innovation needs communities of practice and reflection thatprovide free educational resources. The practices and technologies from educational contexts
considered open could include access to educational or published research, software, policies,
teaching methods, data sets or other educational resources (Farrow, 2016). However, the Open
Educational Resources (OER) which are most considered in Teacher Education, areeducational tools, learning contents/resources and implementation resources (licenses andinteroperability) (Valverde, 2010). Although there are important advantages of OER, derived
from the open education principles, there are also some concerns. Two of the main issues in
Digital Ethics, derived from ICT dissemination on a large-scale, are privacy and the protection

	
  

82	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	  of intellectual property (Maggiolini, 2014), which could be included as part of ethics and digitalcompetences.
On the other hand, there is a need for students from different educational levels to developthese kinds of competences, including prospective teachers. New teachers must showcompetences that allow them to incorporate the digital world into the class–the use level–and
enable them to behave coherently with the theory–the sense level (Burguet & Buxarrais, 2013;
García-Gutiérrez, 2013). In fact, one of the areas to develop within the digital competences ofteacher education (concretely framed in the information literacy) is digital ethics, which
considers intellectual property rights, copyrights and ethics (UNESCO, 2011).
However, as Burguet and Buxarrais (2013) point out, training in the ethical dimension islacking not only in the study program of teacher education but also in schools in general.
According to the same authors, teacher training should include the development of the ethicalcapacities of educational professionals, who can in turn, secure the development of theautonomy of young students so that they can think and reflect by themselves, considering
ethical issues of digital content. In this study, we focus on the work done within the university
program for primary teacher training related to digital ethics in the module of technologies
applied to education.
Gamification
Gamification is defined as the use of game dynamics, mechanics and elements in non-gamecontexts (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011). As the main advantages in the
educational context, gamification affects students’ behaviour, commitment and motivation,
which can lead to improvement of knowledge and skills (Hsin Yuan Huang & Soman, 2013).
The game elements are shown in Figure 1:

Figure 1. The Game Element Hierarchy, adapted from Werback and Hunter (2012, p. 82)
Some of the more accepted game elements that can be used in the learning context are: points,
numerical values given for any single action or combination of actions; ranking, a classificationor comparison among students from the same class or year; levels, a system to show student’s
progress in the assigned activities; badges, distinct awards for the consecution of an objective;
and progression, a dynamic in which success is granularly displayed.

	
  

83	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  In the educational context, gamification includes a range of activities that cover: (a) the
incorporation of game rules and structures into class activities or management, (b) learning
activities through didactic games or serious games and (c) the gamified development ofcomplex didactic strategies, which include different activity sequences such as the resolutionof a case in a learning problem/project-based methodology. The latter is associated with agamification vision that differs from the classical vision called game thinking in which the goalof gamifying is to present a learning-teaching process centred on the students, where they (asplayers) get involved, make decisions, achieve progress, assume new roles, participate in asocial environment and receive immediate feedback (Gallego, Molina & Largo, 2014).
In recent years, the number of courses that implement gamification strategies in higher
education for different kinds of studies has been growing. These strategies are an effective wayof maintaining undergraduate students’ motivation, concentration and engagement in the
curriculum, such as in technical studies (Barragán, Ceada, Andújar, Irigoyen, Gómez & Artaza,
2015; Iosup & Epema, 2014; Villagrasa, 2016), economics (Arias & Djundubaev, 2015),
medicine (Martin, Martin, Sanz, & Martín, 2014) or educational sciences, including teacher
training (Villalustre & del Moral, 2015; Shiota & Abe, 2015).
Among the ICT tools that can be used to introduce game mechanics and dynamics into
educational contexts are webtools, platforms and software (commercial and free). Some ofthem are Badgeville (http://www.badgeville.com), Openbadges (http://openbadges.org/),
Classdojo (http://www.classdojo.com), Atta (http://www.attacommunity.com), Schoology(https://www.schoology.com/home.php),
Kahoot(https://kahoot.it)
andSocrative(http://www.socrative.com/).
Socrative is a free webtool that allows teachers to create quizzes and use them in real-time toempower the engagement and assessment of students, individually or in teams. While thestudents are answering, the results are aggregated and visualised in real-time, which enables
teachers to have instant insight into students’ level of understanding concerning a specific topic
related to the curriculum. This tool is very accessible as any device that has internet connection
can use it (the teacher needs to provide students with a code).
In the current experiment, Socrative was used to identify the initial knowledge and possible
misconceptions regarding digital ethics.
The Educational ExperimentContext and Methodology
The experiment was carried out with 125 third-year pre-service teachers in the Primary Teacher
Training program at the University of the Balearic Islands in the course Media and Technology
Resources for Teaching and Learning in Primary Education during the 2015/16 academic year.
Student teachers were organized into two groups with different teachers. The course wasorganized using a blended modality: mostly face-to-face classes and the virtual learning
environment Moodle. This support basically consisted of the delivery of online materials thatwere used for in-class work, study preparation or assignment submissions. The final assessmentof the course included a final exam, which was focused on the theoretical aspects of thecontents, and different practical activities.
The activity (described below) was done by using a computer, a projector, a whiteboard andthe student teachers’ personal technological devices (laptops and smartphones) and was

	
  

84	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  focused on a part of the theoretical aspects of the contents of the course. As in the whole studies
program, the teaching and learning language for the activity was Catalan.
A gamified quiz was created using Socrative with 27 items related to digital ethics, including
copyright and the right to use and reuse digital information, as part of the second content
module of the course. The student teachers had previously worked in the first module with theconcept of digital competence and its areas, one of them being information literacy in which
digital ethics is included.
The quiz was composed of twenty-five statements about student teachers’ knowledge, beliefs
and personal use of digital information, in which twenty-three are a “True or False” type andtwo require multiple-choice responses. The remaining two were short answer questions. See
Figure 2 for a template on the quiz in appendix 1.
Student teachers entered their names, answered questions and could not skip items or change
their answers. Some of the student teachers worked in pairs to answer the quiz because not allof them had their devices in class.
After each response, student teachers received immediate feedback on the answers chosen–thesystem showed them if they were correct or incorrect providing a self-assessment. The
feedback included a brief explanation of the correct answer and some references to consult
related to the answer. As student teachers answered the quiz, the display of their progress witha table of results was shown on the class whiteboard in real time. At the end of the quiz, student
teachers received information on their scores in relation to the scores of their peers.

Figure 3. Screen of real time results of the Socrative quiz
The purpose of the quiz was to connect student teachers with their prior knowledge, arousing
interest and encouraging participation. The didactic sequence was developed through two main
activities in a 1.5-hour session:
1) First, the Socrative quiz was applied in the face-to-face class session. The student teachers
answered the quiz individually or in pairs using their personal technological devices in 15–20
minutes. This part was related to self-assessment because student teachers received thefeedback on their answers immediately.
2) After student teachers had completed the quiz, the teacher presented and assessed the global
results by starting a dynamic participatory class on the topic. Once the questions were discussed
and the answers justified, the student teachers posed new questions in the form of examples ofuse of digital information with the aim of consolidating their learning.

	
  

85	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  Results and discussion
To assess the experience, information was obtained and analysed based on: (a) the opinion of
the student teachers through a final online questionnaire and (b) the score obtained by thestudent teachers in the Socrative quiz regarding prior knowledge of the ethical use of digital
information aspects and examination of the subject.
The data obtained showed that the experience allowed pre-service teachers to connect with
their prior knowledge and encourage them to reflect on it. The results of the quiz showed little
prior knowledge and false belief, but the good grades obtained in the final test show the
improvement of their knowledge of digital ethics.
About the Gamification Experiment
Data Gathered from a Questionnaire
Seventy-eight student teachers (out of 125) that participated in the educational experiment with
Socrative answered a final questionnaire.
One of its sections was directed at assessing the learning activity carried out with Socrative, by
focusing on its usefulness for encouraging learning and reflection, boosting participation andthe student teachers’ attitudes towards gamification strategies, which were the issues that theteachers wanted to enhance in their class (see Table 1).
Table 1. Questionnaire statements on the educational experiment with Socrative
Statements
The use of quiz or games to detect previous knowledge encourages learning and reflection
The use of tools to manage student participation in classes (random selection of students who will
participate) would speed things up in a fun way.
Using badges in the working sessions of workshop (in the computer lab) would be a good strategy tomotivate and track our activity in class

Therefore, first, student teachers were asked to score (from 1 to 5) their agreement with thestatement the use of quizzes or games to detect previous knowledge (as the quiz used on the
topic of ethical uses of digital information) encourages learning and reflection, 1 indicating
disagreement and 5 indicating agreement. As can be seen in Figure 4, student teachers’ answers(groups 1 and 2) show a high agreement (79.3%). To indicate if there were significant
differences between the two groups, student teachers were also asked about their perceptionsof the use of gamification strategies in other activities, such as for managing participation inclasses and monitoring by using badges. The results show less agreement with the statements.

	
  

86	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  Figure 4. Results from the questionnaire on the agreement with the statement the use of quiz orgames to detect previous knowledge encourages learning and reflection.
Sixty percent of respondents showed a high degree of agreement with the statement the use oftools to manage student participation in classes (random selection of students who will
participate) would speed things up in a fun way with a deviation of 1.18 points in group 1 and0.95 in group 2. Thus, there is greater variation among the responses of group 1 (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. Results from the questionnaire on agreement with the statement the use of tools tomanage student participation in classes (random selection of students who will participate)would speed things up in a fun way.
Similarly, 65.9% of their answers show a high degree of agreement with the statement using
badges in the working sessions of workshop (in the computer lab) would be a good strategy tomotivate and track our activity in class with a deviation of 0.8 points for group 1 and 0.7 forgroup 2 (see Figure 6).

	
  

87	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  Figure 6. Results from the questionnaire on the agreement with the statement Using badges in
the working sessions of workshops would be a good strategy to motivate and track our activity
in class.
These results indicate that there are low expectations of student teachers in certain gamification
strategies. Perhaps this could be explained by the lack of experience with this type of activity
and the association of these aspects with games. This might shed light on the lack of knowledge
related to gamification strategies in education.
Class Scoring
The total, averaged score of the Socrative quiz was 64% (64.3% in group 1 and 63.7% in group2) with 16 correct answers out of 25 (15.4/25 in group 1 and 15.9/25 in group 2) (Table 2).
Table 2. Scores of the Socrative quiz on the ethical use of digital information
Total Score

Group 1 Score

Group 2 Score

64%

64.3%

63.7%

Total Correct
Answers

Group 1 Correct Answers

Group 2 Correct Answers

16

15.4

15.9

As illustrated in Table 3, items with the highest percentages of correct answers relate to broader
issues in digital ethics, and items with the lowest percentages include procedures or more
precise aspects of the ethical use of digital information, which is especially important toincorporate in their educational practices as future teachers.
	
  

	
  

88	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  Table 3. Questions in the quiz with higher and lower percentages of correct answers
Statements with higher percentages of correct answers
10. Using a fragment of a text segment to quote authorship is acommunication act against an author’s rights.

96.7%

16. Authors can authorise to distribute, copy or reuse the work.

92.7%

1. An author’s rights of a work recognises intellectual property as a naturalright to the individual creator.

92.2%

19. Creative Commons allows the authors to distribute their works withspecific rights under certain conditions.

92%

Statements with lower percentages of correct answers
12. A work is protected with copyright when the author registers it as such.

3.7%

6. Author rights allow the authors to adopt measures to preserve theirauthorship of the work—for example, in the promotion and recognition of
authorship.

5%

20. Which one of these uses of information is adequate?
A) Publishing a document that belongs to another person on a website or
blogB) Making a copy of a musical work that is public domainC) Accessing and downloading free content
D) Distributing our works with a Creative Commons licenseE) Creating a website or blog with links to other pages

12%

8. Making a copy of a CD is a reproduction act against author’s rights.

18%

The final exam of the course, which was a multiple choice quiz, included questions on the topic
of digital ethics. The scores of these exams are high (around 90%). Group 1 included twoquestions (out of 20) with 94% and 83% of correct answers, respectively. Group 2 included
one question (out of 20) about digital ethics with 94% of correct answers.
Conclusions
The educational experiment with Socrative has been an interesting experience that has achieved
the expected objectives of the teachers and authors of the current paper, which were: (a) to
expose the prior knowledge of student teachers on the topic of digital ethics while removing
misconceptions, (b) to motivate learning and (c) to encourage participation. In fact, the answers
to the questionnaire resulted in a dynamic participatory class that addressed these aspects indepth and in response to student teachers’ interests and/or their false beliefs.
Thehe ludic/gamified elements in the learning activity seemed useful to student teachers to bewilling to verbalize and participate. In the activity, some of the dynamics, components andelements of games were identified (Werback & Hunter, 2012), i.e., progression in the quiz (adynamic), competition among peers or collaboration in the case of working in pairs, immediate
feedback (components) and the existence of a leader board and punctuations (elements).
	
  

89	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  However, student teachers’ perceptions of the educational possibilities of gamified elements
were rather low. This is probably related to the fact that they had not experienced this kind ofactivity during their studies, so they did not know what the educational possibilities related to
gamification are or how to design educational experiences that use these strategies in an
effective way. Or, perhaps, they considered that these elements cannot be useful in othercontexts. Perhaps they consider the technology to not be for academic purposes. Therefore,
for future research, it would be interesting to go deeper into the reasons for these scores andsee the actual motives, contrasting with successful gamification experiences, like the one
explained in Villalustre and del Moral (2015), which show a high level of motivation andsatisfaction by the undergraduate students and the development of generic competences.
Despite the limitations related to the coverage of the educational experiment on gamification,
this study has shed light on the importance and need of teaching pre-service teachers about
aspects related to the use of digital information, as they will be the future teachers (Burguet &Buxarrais, 2013; García-Gutiérrez, 2013). Technology is becoming increasingly more present
in every aspect of life, so it is essential that every citizen now and in the future uses digitalcontents and manages licensing in a proper way, being respectful to others’ authorial rights
when using contents and conscious of the rights of their own works when creating new content.
Of course, this also applies to any educational resource:images, videos, audio, activities,
documents and so on that teachers use and/or create. This idea is also one of the trends thatwere included in the Horizon 2016 report for university teaching (Johnson, Adams Becker,
Cummins, Estrada, Freeman & Hall, 2016).
On the other hand, in the current knowledge society,where information is available everywhere,
every educational institution needs to find ways to engage students with the course content,
arouse interest in them and motivate students’ dynamic participation and interaction in theclassroom. This educational experiment has shown a successful way to do this based on asmall-scale gamification experience focused on higher education. As future work, a large-scale
gamification experience could be considered including different courses in the academic year.
Acknowledgments
This work is framed within the teaching innovation project funded by the University of the
Balearic Islands in the academic year 2015/16 called The student's participation in learningassessment through the use of formative assessment strategies.
	
  

	
  

90	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education  Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016

References
Arias, D., & Djundubaev, R. (2015). Gamification of the teaching-learning process at the
Official Master in Economics. XII Jornadas Internacionales de Innovación Universitaria,
Villaviciosa de Odón. Retrieved August 20, 2016, from http://hdl.handle.net/11268/4490
Barragán, A. J., Ceada, Y., Andújar, J. M., Irigoyen, E., Gómez, V., & Artaza, F. (2015). Una
propuesta para la motivación del alumnado de ingeniería mediante técnicas de
gamificación. Actas de las XXXVI Jornadas de Automática, Bilbao. Retrieved August 20,
2016, from http://www.ehu.eus/documents/3444171/4484747/77.pdf
Buguet, M., & Buxarrais, M. R. (2013). La eticidad de las TIC. Las competencias transversales
y sus paradojas. Revista Teoría de la Educación: Educación y Cultura en la Sociedad dela Información, 14(3), 87-100. Retrieved August 20, 2016, fromhttp://148.215.2.10/html/2010/201029582005/index.html
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements togamefulness: Defining “gamification”. Proceedings of MindTrek ‘11 the 15th
International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments(pp. 9-15). New York, USA: ACM.
Farrow, R. (2016). A framework for the ethics of open education. Open Praxis, 8(2), 93-109.
https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.8.2.291
Gallego, F., Molina, R., & Largo, F. (2014). Gamificar una propuesta docente. Diseñando
experiencias positivas de aprendizaje. XX Jornadas sobre la Enseñanza Universitaria dela Informática (JENUI), Oviedo. Retrieved August 20, 2016, fromhttp://rua.ua.es/dspace/handle/10045/39195
García-Gutiérrez, J. (2013). Aproximación ética a la competencia digital. Los niveles de uso ysentido en ámbitos educativos virtuales. Revista Teoría de la Educación: Educación yCultura en la Sociedad de la Información, 14(3), 121-145. Retrieved August 20, 2016,
from http://148.215.2.10/html/2010/201029582007/index.html
Hsin Yuan Huang, W., & Soman, D. (2013). A practitioner’s guide to gamification of
education. Toronto: University of Toronto. Retrieved August 20, 2016, fromhttp://inside.rotman.utoronto.ca/behaviouraleconomicsinaction/files/2013/09/GuideGam
ificationEducationDec2013.pdf
Iosup, A., & Epema, D. (2014). An experience report on using gamification in technical higher
education. Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer scienceeducation (pp. 27-32). New York, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538899
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016).
NMC horizon report: 2016 higher education edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media
Consortium. Retrieved August 20, 2016, from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2016-nmchorizon-report-he-EN.pdf
Maggiolini, P. (2014). A deep study on the concept of digital ethics. Revista de Administraçao
de Empresas, 54(5). https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020140511
Martin, A. P., Martin, D. D., Sanz, J. M., & Martín, E. R. (2014). Experiencias de aplicaciónde estrategias de gamificación a entornos de aprendizaje universitario. ReVision, 7(2).
91	  The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education  Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016Retrieved August 20, 2016, fromhttp://www.aenui.net/ojs/index.php?journal=revision&page=issue&op=view&path%5B%5D=15
Shiota, S., & Abe, M. (2015). A study on teacher training to incorporate gamification in classdesign--Program development and implementation in a teacher training course. IADISInternational Conference on e-Learning, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Retrieved August20, 2016, from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED562476
UNESCO (2011). UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers. Paris: UNESCO.
Valverde, J. (2010). El movimiento de “educación abierta” y la “universidad expandida”.
Tendencias pedagógicas, 16, 157-180. Retrieved August 20, 2016, fromhttp://dialnet.uniroja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo3341542
Villagrasa, S. (2016). Technologies enhanced learning and gamification for teaching andlearning innovation. Doctoral thesis. Universitat Ramon Llull. Retrieved August 20,
2016, from http://hdl.handle.net/10803/351961
Villalustre, L., & del Moral, M. E. (2015). Gamificación: Estrategia para optimizar el procesode aprendizaje y la adquisición de competencias en contextos universitarios. Digital
Education Review, 27, 13-31. Retrieved August 20, 2016, from http://greav.ub.edu/der/Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). How game thinking can revolutionize your business.
Philadelphia, USA: Wharton Digital Press.

92	
  The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Appendix 1

	
  

93	
  

Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education  

	
  

  

94	
  

Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education  

	
  

  

95	
  

Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  Figure 2. Template in PDF format of the Socrative quiz (in Catalan).

	
  

96