Design and analysis of personalized serious games for information literacy: catering to introverted and extraverted individuals through game elements

Fake news and information literacy

In the delineation of false or deceptive information in news, extensive investigations by researchers and journalists have led to the dissemination of their findings. Numerous initiatives have been undertaken to discern and differentiate misleading information. For example, Wang (2020) defined fake news as “reports disseminating erroneous or inaccurate information while failing to acknowledge the inaccuracies within”. Park et al. (2020) established a comprehensive framework for categorizing fake news based on the intent to deceive and inflict harm, comprising four distinct categories: non-information, disinformation, misinformation, and mal-information (Park et al., 2020). Non-information involves substantial intent to deceive with minimal intent to inflict harm, while disinformation denotes significant intent for both deception and harm. Misinformation indicates minimal intent for both deception and harm, while mal-information involves limited intent to deceive with a pronounced intent to cause harm (Park et al., 2020). Despite the presence of four separate types of fake news: non-information, disinformation, misinformation, and mal-information, this study centers solely on misinformation. The definition of misinformation has been presented by several researchers. Pennycook and Rand (2019) define misinformation as “inaccurate or misleading facts that are disseminated with the intention to mislead.” Lewandowsky, Ecker, and Cook (2017) define misinformation as “information deemed inaccurate or misleading.” In their study, Vosoughi et al. (2018) define misinformation as “bogus data that is conveyed without considering a motive to mislead.” Tandoc (2021) argued that fake news represents a distinct category of deliberately crafted falsehoods mimicking legitimate news content. Consequently, individuals must possess essential skills for information retrieval and utilization due to the prevalent use of digital technology and the interconnectedness of the Internet in today’s information-centric society.

To combat fake news, information literacy can serve as an educational tool. Information literacy, defined differently by various authors, showcases an individual’s ability to determine their information requirements, efficiently search for information, critically assess procured information, and apply it to achieve their objectives (Guo & Huang, 2020). It involves defining information needs, managing information sources effectively, and proficiently using digital technology for sourcing, analyzing, and synthesizing information resources (Pinto et al., 2020). Information literacy encompasses critically evaluating the credibility of resources, utilizing appropriate citation methodologies, adhering to legal and ethical considerations, and formulating research inquiries precisely and efficiently (Reddy, et al., 2020). However, the Internet poses risks, especially for those lacking information literacy skills. In the 21st century, education emphasizes lifelong learning skills, where information literacy forms the foundation for adapting to an ever-evolving information landscape (White (2019)). White’s findings support that individuals equipped with information literacy and lifelong learning skills are better prepared to face the multifaceted challenges of the 21st century (White (2019)). Therefore, information literacy has evolved into an indispensable skill set for contemporary survival and proficiency (Banik & Kumar, 2019).

Serious games for education

Serious video games have increased in popularity being used in educational contexts because of their ability to improve educational experiences and performance. Such games are created with particular educational objectives in mind, seeking to involve students in engaging and immersive experiences that enhance knowledge acquisition, improve skills, and critical thinking. In contrast to traditional educational techniques, serious games provide an innovative and interactive atmosphere for learning that fosters active involvement and engagement (Chen & Michael, 2005). Landers (2014) differentiates serious games from those aimed purely at amusement by focusing on promoting learning in various forms. These games attempt to improve players’ understanding of various subjects while also helping to change their attitudes and views on such subjects. Serious games create informative material during gameplay, usually in the form of raw user data that represents the player’s actions inside the game. This information reveals the learner’s techniques for finding, acquiring, and digesting knowledge. Vidakis et al. (2019) demonstrate how distinct serious games gather varying datasets, including queries, user interactions, and task completions, which are used to compute educational progression results. Connolly et al. (2012) underline various well-established benefits of using serious games in education, such as active learner involvement, facilitated and seamless learning experiences, timely feedback, and a significant increase in student motivation and engagement. Romero et al. (2015) go on to assert that well-designed serious games have proven to be very effective instructional tools, boosting students’ learning capacity by encouraging participation and generating critical thinking throughout the educational process. Furthermore, Ketamo et al. (2018) highlight how educational video games offer the customization of learning material and manner of delivery in order to accommodate customized learning experiences. This personalizing component improves the flexibility of educational interventions, making them more successful at fulfilling learners’ different requirements and preferences.

Personalized educational games

Personalized educational games have developed as a potential strategy for meeting the different educational requirements and preferences of individual students. These games are intended to customize instructional material and learning experiences depending on each student’s unique features, talents, and interests, thereby increasing engagement and improving successful learning results. Personalized learning systems possess the capacity to adapt the presented educational content in real-time, tailoring it to the specific preferences, abilities, and existing knowledge of individual learners. Furthermore, these systems have the capability to individualize instructional methods to optimize the learner’s performance. Consequently, they offer solutions to several challenges commonly encountered in traditional learning environments, including resource constraints, learner engagement, and the diversity of learners’ knowledge and preferred learning modalities (Tlili et al., 2019). Hence, to accommodate the distinctive needs of learners, numerous researchers and educators have contemplated the utilization of personalized learning systems as an alternative to the conventional one-size-fits-all approach (West, 2011). Hwang and Tsai (2011) presented the “Personalized Learning Environment” (PLE) framework, which is an example of customized games for learning. The PLE framework takes into account a variety of student characteristics, including their cognitive style, approach to learning, and previous knowledge, to personalize educational material and tasks according to learners’ requirements. PLEs provide specific educational experiences that increase the effectiveness of learning by utilizing unique learning methods. Additionally, devised an educational system known as LearnFit, which employs the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to assess the learner’s personality. Subsequently, it tailors a personalized learning approach for each individual based on their personality traits. Nevertheless, numerous personality models featuring diverse personality dimensions have been elucidated in the academic literature (Tlili et al., 2019). Among these dimensions, the introvert-extravert dimension is a prominent element, commonly observed in well-known personality models like the Big Five Factor and Myers-Briggs (Tlili et al., 2019). In addition to personality, learning styles, cognitive capacities, and past knowledge are important components in customized learning systems (Newman et al., 1995). Furthermore, technological advancements such as artificial intelligence and machine learning are improving the potential of personalized educational platforms, allowing for greater accuracy and effective adjustment to learners’ demands (VanLehn, 2006).

Aspects of introverted and extraverted personality types

Personality traits influence people’s habits of study and attitudes toward education. According to study findings, traits of personality, including extraversion, introversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism, impact how people perform learning activities and engage in educational contexts (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Extraverts, for example, may favor collaboration environments for learning and prefer social engagement in the course of their studies, whereas introverts may favor isolated and independent study (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Mount et al. (2005) characterize personality traits as enduring psychological attributes that delineate individuals’ conduct and cognitive approach. Extensive research in the literature has demonstrated that personality exerts influence on learners across multiple dimensions, including their perception of educational systems (Cohen & Baruth, 2017), preferences for game genres and design elements in educational environments (Denden et al., 2018; Schimmenti et al., 2017), and their learning performance (Anderson et al., 2018). Moreover, extraversion and introversion preferences contribute to people’s perceptions of education, affecting their perspectives, drive, and participation in educational activities (Poropat, 2009). Extraverted people may see school as a chance for social engagement, connections, and personal development, whereas introverted people may perceive it as a method of intellectual study, discovering themselves, and contemplation (Poropat, 2009). Chen et al. (2016) discovered that variances in learners’ personalities can significantly influence their learning behaviors within the context of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). As mentioned in the previous section, this study focuses on the introvert-extravert dimension. The designations “introversion” and “extraversion” trace their origins to the 1920s and are credited to the work of the psychologists Jung and Baynes (1923). The concept of introversion pertains to individuals who derive their vitality from internal sources such as thoughts, imagery, and contemplation. Conversely, extraversion refers to individuals who are action-oriented and derive their vitality from the external world (Tlili et al., 2019). Costa, McCrae (2008) have delineated six facets corresponding to each trait within the Big Five Factor model, including extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. In the context of extraversion, the six facets, as defined by Costa, McCrae (2008), are outlined as follows:

1. 1.

   Warmth: These individuals are characterized by their amiable nature, demonstrating friendliness and affection towards others.

2. 2.

   Excitement seeking: They exhibit a propensity for experiencing boredom quickly and actively seek excitement and stimulation.

3. 3.

   Activity: They are marked by their high energy levels, liveliness, and preference for physical movement.

4. 4.

   Assertiveness: These individuals exude self-assurance and often take on leadership roles within their social groups.

5. 5.

   Gregariousness: They have an aversion to solitude and generally favor the company of others.

6. 6.

   Positive emotions: They frequently experience a profusion of positive emotional states.

Introversion is characterized by being thoughtful, less inclined towards socializing, often reserved in speech, and feeling self-conscious when engaging in social interactions. Introverts typically enjoy smaller gatherings or one-on-one interactions, preferring to take their time getting acquainted with someone new. However, it is important to recognize that introverts simply express their sociality in unique ways, valuing personal connections, privacy, and tranquility (Paradilla et al., 2021). Introverts typically enjoy moments of solitude, favoring self-reflection over outward expression, prioritizing depth in their interactions, and often showing less emotional demonstration. They tend to confide personal information in a small circle of trusted individuals. Writing may be more appealing to introverts than verbal communication, and they may occasionally experience social fatigue, seeking consolation in solitude to recharge their energy (Dossey, 2016). The book by Grimes et al. (2011) “Four Meanings of Introversion: Social, Thinking, Anxious, and Inhibited Introversion” studies many aspects of introversion. Following is a description of each type:

1. 1.

   “Social Introversion” is mainly concerned with interaction with others. People with social introversion may favor isolation or small groups over significant social gatherings. They prefer to recharge by enjoying themselves on their own or with a small group of companions, as opposed to huge groups.

2. 2.

   “Thinking introversion” refers to how people organize knowledge for themselves. These people can devote a lot of time to meditating on their ideas and thoughts, valuing reflective thinking over external expression. They can succeed at tasks that involve profound conceptualization or creative thinking.

3. 3.

   “Anxious Introversion” type is characterized by an increased response to social interactions as well as an inclination for sensations of unease in situations that involve others. People with such a type of introversion can become self-conscious or uneasy around other people, which causes them to refrain from some social gatherings or encounters.

4. 4.

   “Inhibited Introversion” indicates a guarded or wary attitude toward interacting with other people. Those with this form of introversion can be cautious when interacting with other people or conveying themselves completely. They can choose to watch instead of taking part in social events, usually spending their time relaxing before utterly participating.

Nevertheless, according to Blevins et al. (2022), introversion can occasionally be interpreted incorrectly as being a complete contrast to extraversion. The misunderstanding associates introversion with unfavorable valenced features, such as awkwardness in social situations as well as low social self-esteem. This misperception comes from an inclination to perceive extraversion and introversion as opposite in characteristics, with introverts perceived as having no ability to interact with others or confidence when contrasted to extroverts. Nevertheless, this simplification dismisses the richness and variety that come with every character type. Table 1 provides a summary of the distinctions between extraversion and introversion traits, focusing on empirical data and theoretical frameworks.

Personality traits are notably linked to the learning styles of individuals. Extraversion and introversion are two essential personality types that have a major effect on people’s ways of learning and attitudes toward education. Extraversion is defined by socialization, assertiveness, and a desire for outward stimulation, whereas introversion is distinguished by contemplation, reserve, and an inclination for the inside thought (Costa, McCrae (2008)). Introvert learners are characterized as reflective thinkers, gravitating towards more contemplative learning approaches; in contrast, extravert learners exhibit a preference for active and interactive learning methodologies (Felder & Silverman, 1988). Individuals with a high level of extraversion excel in interactive and social educational environments, enjoying collaborative tasks, and discussions in groups. According to research, extraverts tend to favor active learning techniques that involve group assignments and hands-on tasks, which encourage social connection and participation (Borg & Shapiro, 1996). Furthermore, extraverts can try out extracurricular events and leadership positions to enhance their overall school experience and personal growth (Borg & Shapiro, 1996). Introverts, on the other hand, may favor isolated and independent study, as well as serene and concentrated situations that enable deep thought and concentration (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Introverts may succeed in self-paced educational settings where they can investigate issues at their own speed and dive deeply into complicated topics (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Furthermore, introverts may favor written communications and written reflection projects that allow them to communicate their ideas and opinions. Moreover, several research investigations have underscored the impact of personality on the cognitive load experienced by individuals (Gray et al., 2005). Within this framework, Eysenck (1967) posited within his personality model that introverted and extraverted individuals may exhibit distinct cognitive loads contingent upon the level of arousal present in a given learning environment. As demonstrated by Nuckcheddy (2018) through a comprehensive literature review, personality traits, particularly introverted and extraverted characteristics, can exert a discernible influence on the motivation levels of individuals within a workplace. Introverted and extraverted tendencies exhibit distinct approaches to dealing with the two motivational elements delineated in Frederick Herzberg’s motivation theory, namely motivators and hygiene factors. For example, individuals with introverted tendencies tend to adeptly address hygiene factors like supervision and interpersonal relationships, while those with extraverted inclinations effectively navigate the existence of intrinsic motivators such as attainment and acknowledgement (Herzberg (2008).

Game elements for learner personalities

Learner personalities have been observed to exert influence over their inclinations towards specific game elements. For example, in the study by Jia et al. (2016), it was noted that extravert learners displayed significantly favorable attitudes toward utilizing game elements like leaderboards and progress bars, whereas their introvert counterparts did not share this preference. In other words, extraverted individuals exhibited a higher level of motivation when exposed to points, levels, and ranking elements. Moreover, researchers observed that individuals with extraverted personalities tended to derive greater enjoyment from rewards (Jia et al., 2016). Additionally, Codish, Ravid (2014a) discovered that extravert learners exhibited a greater inclination for using badges compared to introvert learners. Besides, they conducted a study using preference questionnaires to investigate how individuals with extraverted and introverted characteristics perceived gamification. It was observed that extraverts exhibited a preference for badges in this context (Codish, Ravid (2014b)). Further, participants exhibiting introverted characteristics, within both the Experimental and Control groups, demonstrated a notably increased accumulation of logins in comparison to the extraverted participants (Smiderle et al., 2020). Besides, the inclusion of an avatar element can provide a degree of anonymity to introverted individuals, facilitating their self-expression in a more carefree manner. Introverted users found that avatars offered novel avenues for adjusting their appearances to facilitate communication in various contexts (Baker et al., 2021). Table 2 demonstrates the summary of the effects of game elements on introverts and extraverts.