**3. Methods**

*The Role of Gamification in Software Development Lifecycle*

systems. Except this, individuals have the right to be informed about each process concerns their data. Further to this, each type of organization has to follow specific rules referred in regulations, to ensure that data is protected and to define a person who will be the Data Protection Officer (DPO). Additionally, six principles related to processing of personal data should be considered by each organization [8]. Equally crucial is for the audience to be aware on such issues in order for the privacy protection processes to be accomplished more effectively. For instance, employees should be educated on the rights that they have regarding their data, so as to be able to protect themselves. However, the complexity of such issues signifies that specific educational processes are needed, aiming at training individuals on privacy subjects. This combination could be achieved by introducing several privacy topics in educational methods, in order for a privacy awareness program to be developed. Except this, to maintain users' interest is needed to have attractive interaction environments with elements by which the educational process will be occurred through a more engaging way. Gamification method [9] supports this purpose as the incorporation of game elements in systems creates gameful products, aiming to increase users' engagement on using ICTs. Considering this, by implementing such elements in educational processes on privacy issues, users will have the illusion that they participate into a game but in fact they will be trained. In spite of the benefits offered by this approach, it has been noticed that developers of instructional models have not emphasize on the consideration of its features during the development phases. Gamification has been mostly used as a tool for the development of applications [10], rather than as an approach which can be considered, so that to design a gamified instructional method. Further to this, the introduction of privacy issues into a such method would be useful for the design of products that purposing on having privacy aware users. Towards this, two main questions arise and will be addressed in this chapter, concerning the offered instructional methods and the mentioned privacy concepts on which users can be educated. The aim is to identify which features and phases have been recommended for the design of educational products and on which privacy topics would be helpful for users to be trained, so that to be able to protect their personal information. Additionally, gamification features are explained to highlight how this method is useful for creating an attractive educational process, especially, when the concept is complex for users, like privacy. These results could be useful for the development of an approach aiming on designing services on privacy awareness within a gameful

To select all this information regarding the two research questions, the PRISMA review method [11] has been followed and implemented. We, first, defined our research questions and the search terms based on each question. According to our search strategy and eligibility criteria, the final results were conducted for each research question which, afterwards, were described. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 gamification features are described. In Section 3, the methods, implemented for the conduction of the results are described. In Section 4, the findings are presented based on the described methods. A discussion of the

The provision of attractive ICTs which increase users' engagement is needed

while most of users' activities are accomplished through technologies, e.g. e-learning [12]. Such services can be developed through gamification method, as it concerns the implementation of game elements in applications [9]. According

results is presented in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper.

**2**

environment.

**2. The features of gamification**

In this Section, the implemented methodology for the conduction of the review results is described. This research was conducted during September 2020. The review protocol was based on the PRISMA statement [11]. First, the research questions (RQs), presented in **Table 1**, were addressed. The aim of the first research questions is to identify which studies refers to instructional models which can be implemented for developing programs, by using them individuals could be educated on various domains, and to record the steps that each one recommends. According to the second question, the aim is to identify the mentioned privacy topics in literature, which can be taken into consideration while designing training programs for making users to be aware of privacy issues.


**Table 1.**

*Research questions.*

Based on the above research questions, the next step was to define the search terms. The search string used to collect documents from sources, was constructed using the following terms and the Boolean OR was employed to link them.


A literature review of works, written in English, indexed in Google Scholar, Scopus, IEEExplore, ACM Digital Library, ScienceDirect and Google was conducted to explore the recorded educational methods and privacy topics. The search was applied to the titles, abstracts and keywords of journal, chapters, workshop and conference papers in order to ensure that their context is the appropriate for the purpose of this work. In addition, studies, identified in non-academic online publications, were collected. The search strategy is outlined in **Table 2**.

Due to the large number of results, returned by a general search and in order to keep the search within reasonable bounds, the number of the results was limited, by selecting publications according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, presented in **Table 3**. First, academic, journal, conference, workshop studies and sites with


**5**

*Gamification: A Necessary Element for Designing Privacy Training Programs*

educational simulation methods

• Studies whose full-text is not accessible • Papers available only in the form of abstracts

• Papers written in English • Publication date: since 2005

• Studies without steps

instructional methods and privacy awareness topics were recorded. The publication date for the studies was defined since 2005, since, according to the literature, most of the studies regarding these methods are published since this year. Thus, it was also preferable to limit the search of the publication period to the last fifteen years. Furthermore, studies which do not include steps would not be considered useful for the purpose of this review. In order for the comprehension of this research to be

Inclusion criteria • Academic journal, conference, workshop papers which include instructional or

• Studies which include privacy awareness topics

In this Section, the conducted results based on the described strategy are presented. Especially, the total number of publications regarding each research question along with specific information about each study are described. It would be interesting to note that many studies were found, but most of them were not appropriate for this research based on the criteria, described in **Table 3**. For the RQ1, 390 studies were identified and after removing duplicates, 336 were screened. The total number of studies included in for this research question is ten, while 326 were excluded according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The study selection process is reported and in **Figure 1**, the results are presented based on the

Specifically, based on the findings in **Table 4**, most of them were identified in ACM digital library and IEEExplore databases, whilst few of the results were found in ScienceDirect database. As presented in **Table 5**, most of the selected studies, which include steps for designing instructional programs, concern journals. On the other side, either workshop papers or non-academic publications meeting the eligibility criteria were not found. Afterwards, the publication year of each work was mentioned

For the second research question, our search identified 2.821 studies. After removing duplicates, 1.976 works remained. Many of them, i.e. 1.968, did not pass the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eight final eligible studies were selected for this research question. These results are presented in **Figure 3**. In **Table 6**, the amount of the identified records is presented, where it is noted that, in contrast to the RQ1, most of them were identified in Scopus and ScienceDirect databases. The included records are eight and most of them were found in non-academic publications, as

Based on the conducted results of this Section, it was noticed that the number of the final studies were included in this review regarding the second research question is greater than this of the RQ1 which concern the educational design

and according to **Figure 2**, half of them were published from 2010 to 2015.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97420*

Exclusion criteria • Duplicates

*Inclusion and exclusion criteria.*

**Eligibility Criteria**

effective, the studies had to be written in English.

**4. Results**

**Table 3.**

PRISMA model.

illustrated in **Table 7**.

*Gamification: A Necessary Element for Designing Privacy Training Programs DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97420*


#### **Table 3.**

*The Role of Gamification in Software Development Lifecycle*

awareness?

Based on the above research questions, the next step was to define the search terms. The search string used to collect documents from sources, was constructed

Research Question 2 Which privacy topics have been recorded in literature for increasing users' privacy

*Rationale:* The aim is to identify if there are such topics and to record them.

"Educational simulation model" OR "Instructional simulation method" OR "Instructional simulation framework" OR "Educational simulation

• Search terms for RQ2: ("Privacy educational topics" OR "Privacy awareness

A literature review of works, written in English, indexed in Google Scholar, Scopus, IEEExplore, ACM Digital Library, ScienceDirect and Google was conducted to explore the recorded educational methods and privacy topics. The search was applied to the titles, abstracts and keywords of journal, chapters, workshop and conference papers in order to ensure that their context is the appropriate for the purpose of this work. In addition, studies, identified in non-academic online

Due to the large number of results, returned by a general search and in order to keep the search within reasonable bounds, the number of the results was limited, by selecting publications according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, presented in **Table 3**. First, academic, journal, conference, workshop studies and sites with

• Google (only non – academic sources)

• Non-academic online publications

using the following terms and the Boolean OR was employed to link them.

• Search terms for RQ1: ("Instructional simulation model" OR

Research Question 1 Which instructional simulation models have been recorded? *Rationale:* The aim is to record their steps.

publications, were collected. The search strategy is outlined in **Table 2**.

• Scopus • Science Direct • ACM Digital Library

• Workshop papers • Conference papers • Chapters

• Abstracts • Keywords

Academic databases searched • IEEExplore

Other data sources • Google Scholar

Target items • Journals papers

Search applied to • Titles

Language • English

Publication period • From 2005 until today

method" OR "Educational simulation framework")

topics")

**Table 1.** *Research questions.*

**4**

**Table 2.** *Search strategy.* *Inclusion and exclusion criteria.*

instructional methods and privacy awareness topics were recorded. The publication date for the studies was defined since 2005, since, according to the literature, most of the studies regarding these methods are published since this year. Thus, it was also preferable to limit the search of the publication period to the last fifteen years. Furthermore, studies which do not include steps would not be considered useful for the purpose of this review. In order for the comprehension of this research to be effective, the studies had to be written in English.

### **4. Results**

In this Section, the conducted results based on the described strategy are presented. Especially, the total number of publications regarding each research question along with specific information about each study are described. It would be interesting to note that many studies were found, but most of them were not appropriate for this research based on the criteria, described in **Table 3**. For the RQ1, 390 studies were identified and after removing duplicates, 336 were screened. The total number of studies included in for this research question is ten, while 326 were excluded according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The study selection process is reported and in **Figure 1**, the results are presented based on the PRISMA model.

Specifically, based on the findings in **Table 4**, most of them were identified in ACM digital library and IEEExplore databases, whilst few of the results were found in ScienceDirect database. As presented in **Table 5**, most of the selected studies, which include steps for designing instructional programs, concern journals. On the other side, either workshop papers or non-academic publications meeting the eligibility criteria were not found. Afterwards, the publication year of each work was mentioned and according to **Figure 2**, half of them were published from 2010 to 2015.

For the second research question, our search identified 2.821 studies. After removing duplicates, 1.976 works remained. Many of them, i.e. 1.968, did not pass the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eight final eligible studies were selected for this research question. These results are presented in **Figure 3**. In **Table 6**, the amount of the identified records is presented, where it is noted that, in contrast to the RQ1, most of them were identified in Scopus and ScienceDirect databases. The included records are eight and most of them were found in non-academic publications, as illustrated in **Table 7**.

Based on the conducted results of this Section, it was noticed that the number of the final studies were included in this review regarding the second research question is greater than this of the RQ1 which concern the educational design

#### **Figure 1.**

*Flow diagram for RQ1.*


**7**

**5. Discussion**

*Number of instructional design studies by year.*

**Figure 2.**

*Gamification: A Necessary Element for Designing Privacy Training Programs*

Journals papers 6 Workshop papers — Conference papers 1 Chapters 1 Books 2 Non-academic online publications **—** Total 10

approaches. The aim of this review process was to identify the recorded instructional methods and the recommended privacy issues on which users could be

The completion of several activities by using technologies may raise several privacy risks, while users' actions and information are recorded. Thus, it is crucial to have aware users on such issues in order to be able to protect their personal information. For instance, many individuals use increasingly various social media, where the creation of a personal account is one of the requirements. Several personal information has to be provided in order to create an account, e.g. the date of birth or an email account. Such information is stored along with users' actions, like communication history and preferences concerning posts or publications. According to

The development of instructional programs aiming to train the audience on privacy issues would be a useful process to avoid privacy violations. Several instructional design methods have been recorded in the literature and can be implemented for the development of such services. Additionally, privacy awareness topics have been noticed which could be considered during designing them. The aim of this

educated. Both are presented and described in the next Section.

this, privacy risks arise while using various social platforms [30].

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97420*

**Summary of search results – RQ1**

*Summary of search results for RQ1.*

**Table 5.**

#### **Table 4.**

*Summary of target items for RQ1.*

*Gamification: A Necessary Element for Designing Privacy Training Programs DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97420*


#### **Table 5.**

*The Role of Gamification in Software Development Lifecycle*

**6**

**Table 4.**

**Figure 1.**

*Flow diagram for RQ1.*

**Summary of target items – RQ1** Academic databases searched

*Summary of target items for RQ1.*

Scopus 16 IEEExplore 134 ACM Digital Library 185 ScienceDirect 15 Other data sources 40 Total 389 Total without duplicates 336 *Summary of search results for RQ1.*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Number of instructional design studies by year.*

approaches. The aim of this review process was to identify the recorded instructional methods and the recommended privacy issues on which users could be educated. Both are presented and described in the next Section.

#### **5. Discussion**

The completion of several activities by using technologies may raise several privacy risks, while users' actions and information are recorded. Thus, it is crucial to have aware users on such issues in order to be able to protect their personal information. For instance, many individuals use increasingly various social media, where the creation of a personal account is one of the requirements. Several personal information has to be provided in order to create an account, e.g. the date of birth or an email account. Such information is stored along with users' actions, like communication history and preferences concerning posts or publications. According to this, privacy risks arise while using various social platforms [30].

The development of instructional programs aiming to train the audience on privacy issues would be a useful process to avoid privacy violations. Several instructional design methods have been recorded in the literature and can be implemented for the development of such services. Additionally, privacy awareness topics have been noticed which could be considered during designing them. The aim of this

#### *The Role of Gamification in Software Development Lifecycle*

**Figure 3.** *Flow diagram for RQ2.*

Section is to present and discuss the results of both research questions, mentioned above regarding the amount of instructional design approaches and the recommended awareness topics on privacy issues.

#### **5.1 Instructional design approaches**

According to the results of the research for the first question, ten educational models have been recorded and presented in **Table 8**. Dissimilar steps and processes are included in each model and two of them consist of a specific concept, e.g. the development of gamified educational programs. Nevertheless, all of them focus on designing applications, whose purpose is to engage users on educating. In [31], the ADDIE approach is described and its name is based on the included steps, i.e. **A**nalyze, **D**esign, **D**evelop, **I**mplement and **E**valuate. In summarily, the aim of each

**9**

unexpected motivational effects.

*Gamification: A Necessary Element for Designing Privacy Training Programs*

Scopus 1000 IEEExplore 79 ACM Digital Library 800 ScienceDirect 910 Other data sources 32 Total 2.821 Total without duplicates 1.976

step, respectively, is to a) define the context, the aim of the system and users' needs, b) design the application, c) develop it along with the instruction for the audience, d) implement it after preparing the users, and e) evaluate based on the determined evaluation criteria. Similar to this approach, is the ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction) model presented in 2010 [32], which includes the analyzation of the objectives, materials and audience motivation, the selection of tactics and the writing of instructions, the development and implementation of the materials, and the revision of the product in order to detect the expected and

Journals papers 1 Workshop papers — Conference papers — Chapters — Books — Non-academic online publications 7 Total 8

In 2015, the ARCS+G model [33] was presented, which extends the ARCS model by incorporating gamification principles in order to provide an approach for using gamification in learning. The gamified approach of ARCS model includes the design and implementation stages in which a sequence of steps is described. Especially, the introduction of gamification principles is accomplished by including the definition of motivational design goals, the preparation of a list with the motivational tactics, which help instructors to accomplish the goals, as well as the development of learning environments with motivational elements. All these processes concern the design phase. During the implementation phase, the selection and explanation of gamification mechanisms is described. For instance, in case of implementing the "competition" element, the use of leaderboards will show the leading scorers, so that users to be motivated and compete more with others. For the implementation of each element, the motivational tactic is considered. In the case of competition,

the proposed tactic is the provision of the results to engage users.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97420*

**Summary of target items – RQ2** Academic databases searched

*Summary of target items for RQ2.*

*Summary of search results for RQ2.*

**Summary of search results – RQ2**

**Table 6.**

**Table 7.**


#### **Table 6.**

*The Role of Gamification in Software Development Lifecycle*

Section is to present and discuss the results of both research questions, mentioned above regarding the amount of instructional design approaches and the recom-

According to the results of the research for the first question, ten educational models have been recorded and presented in **Table 8**. Dissimilar steps and processes are included in each model and two of them consist of a specific concept, e.g. the development of gamified educational programs. Nevertheless, all of them focus on designing applications, whose purpose is to engage users on educating. In [31], the ADDIE approach is described and its name is based on the included steps, i.e. **A**nalyze, **D**esign, **D**evelop, **I**mplement and **E**valuate. In summarily, the aim of each

mended awareness topics on privacy issues.

**5.1 Instructional design approaches**

**8**

**Figure 3.**

*Flow diagram for RQ2.*

*Summary of target items for RQ2.*


#### **Table 7.**

*Summary of search results for RQ2.*

step, respectively, is to a) define the context, the aim of the system and users' needs, b) design the application, c) develop it along with the instruction for the audience, d) implement it after preparing the users, and e) evaluate based on the determined evaluation criteria. Similar to this approach, is the ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction) model presented in 2010 [32], which includes the analyzation of the objectives, materials and audience motivation, the selection of tactics and the writing of instructions, the development and implementation of the materials, and the revision of the product in order to detect the expected and unexpected motivational effects.

In 2015, the ARCS+G model [33] was presented, which extends the ARCS model by incorporating gamification principles in order to provide an approach for using gamification in learning. The gamified approach of ARCS model includes the design and implementation stages in which a sequence of steps is described. Especially, the introduction of gamification principles is accomplished by including the definition of motivational design goals, the preparation of a list with the motivational tactics, which help instructors to accomplish the goals, as well as the development of learning environments with motivational elements. All these processes concern the design phase. During the implementation phase, the selection and explanation of gamification mechanisms is described. For instance, in case of implementing the "competition" element, the use of leaderboards will show the leading scorers, so that users to be motivated and compete more with others. For the implementation of each element, the motivational tactic is considered. In the case of competition, the proposed tactic is the provision of the results to engage users.


**11**

**Instructional Design Approaches**

**Publication** A model for the systematic design of instruction

(Walter Dick et al.)

2013

Instructional design

1.Instructional Goals

2.Instructional Analysis

4.Performance Objectives

5.Criterion-Referenced Test Items

6.Instructional Strategy

7.

Instructional Materials

8.Formative Evaluation

9. 1.Design 2.Implementation

Enhancement of the ARCS Model for Gamification of Learning

2014

Gamification & Instructional Simulation

(W. M. Amir Fazamin W. Hamzah et al.)

Comparative Analysis between System Approach,

2015

Instructional design

1.instructional program identification, and goal specifi-

Journal

Google

cation of an instructional course

2.examination of learners' characteristics based on the

instructional decisions

3. to goals and purposes

4.instructional objective specification

5.instructional unit in arranged, in logical sequential

6.instructional strategies design to meet the mastery of

order of learning

lesson objectives

7. 9. activities

plan and develop instruction

8.evaluate instruments for measuring course objectives,

resource selection for instruction and learning

subject content identification with task analysis related

Kemp, Journal

(Ibrahim, Ahmad Abdullahi)

Summative Evaluation

 3.Entry Behaviors and Learner Characteristics

**Year**

**Target**

**Context**

**Type of publication**

Journal

Google

**Database**

*Gamification: A Necessary Element for Designing Privacy Training Programs*

Conference

IEEE

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97420*


#### *Gamification: A Necessary Element for Designing Privacy Training Programs DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.97420*

*The Role of Gamification in Software Development Lifecycle*

Google

Journal

**10**

**Instructional Design Approaches**

**Publication** Instructional Design: The ADDIE Approach

(Robert Maribe Branch et al.)

Backward Design: Targeting Depth of Understanding

2009

Instructional design

1.Identify learners

2.Identify Curricular Priorities

3.Design Assessment Framework

4.Create learning activities

for All Learners

(Childre Amy et al.)

First principles of instruction

2009

Instructional design

1.Activation

Journal

Google

2.Demonstration

3.Application

4.Integration

(David Merrill, M.)

Motivational Design for Learning and Performance

2010

Instructional design

1.Define

Book

Google

2.Design

3.Develop

4.Pilot

(Keller, John M.)

Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain

2011

Instructional design

1.Knowledge

Journal

Google

2.Comprehension

3.Application

4.Analysis

5. Synthesis 6.Evaluation

**Year** 2009

Instructional design

1.Analyze

2.Design

3.Develop

4.Implement

5.Evaluate

**Target**

**Context**

**Type of** 

**Database**

**publication**

Book

Google

