# Gamitest: A Game-like Online Student Assessment System +
## 4 Results
### Evaluation Results and Their Discussion  
The histograms of responses to the general evaluation questions (listed in the first seven rows of Table 2) are presented in Figure 8. As can be observed, among the primary evaluation questions (the first three), the respondents reacted most positively to question 2--which received 68% of indications in the top range of 4 to 5, with the net difference between the shares of positive and negative answers being 52 percentage points (pp). This means most students did perceive the gamified assessment as more fun than a classic test (on paper or in Moodle). The second best was the reaction to question 1, with 51% positive indications and a net difference of 27 pp, meaning that the tool helped most students to become more engaged than they would be with a classic test. These two answers combined indicate that the goal for which the tool was developed has been attained. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline
**No.** & **Question** \\ \hline  & _Possible Improvements Feedback [Open text]_ \\ \hline
14 & If you have specific suggestions for improvements, please write them below \\ \hline  & _Demographic and context-defining questions_ \\ \hline
15 & Your grade obtained in the completed test [Number] \\
16 & Your course title [Computer programming/Software testing] \\
17 & Your gender [Male/Female/Other] \\
18 & Your attitude towards computer and mobile games [Strongly Negative/Negative/Neutral/Positive/Strongly Positive] \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._  
Figure 8: Histograms of responses to the general evaluation questions. Students who perceived the gamified assessment as less stressful than a classic test (44%) outnumbered those who thought otherwise, though the margin was not large (net difference of 8 pp) (question 3). Regarding the students' perception of difficulty (question 4), only 21% of the respondents considered it easier than a classic test, whereas 16 pp more of them thought the opposite. This result may also be linked to the fact that in the classic forms of assessment with which the students were familiar, only the total test time was limited, and the students could return to questions skipped earlier, which was not the case in Gamitest. As for the envisaged use of the tool, the majority of the surveyed students (60%, with only 5% declaring the opposite) would like to be able to use the tool on their own (i.e., for formative assessment) (question 5), while similar shares of the respondents would like to use the tool to take tests during classes (56%) and for the final examination (57%); the shares of respondents declaring the opposite were more notable in this case (24% and 26%, respectively) (questions 6-7). In Figure 9, the results obtained from the students attending different courses are compared, revealing that the computer programming (first-year course) group gave notably lower evaluations than the software testing (third-year course) group on all questions except question 3. A probable cause of this discrepancy in results could be that many questions in the programming test required understanding a snippet of code, which requires time for beginner programmers, and excessively fast time-out was indicated in open-text answers to question 14 by several programming students but none of the software testing students. This indicates the importance of a fair setting of question time-out considering the students' fluency in answering the specific types of questions used in the test. Nonetheless, the intended purpose of the time-out is to help distinguish the very good students from the merely good ones, which obviously is not something that the latter would appreciate. No large differences were observed between genders (see Figure 10). The largest one (still below 10%) regarded the fun factor (question 2), more often appreciated by males. Figure 9: Survey results by student course. The differences between students who passed the test and those who failed the test were slightly higher but still small (see Figure 11).