MUET logo

An Adaptive Gamification Optimization Algorithm for Analyzing Programming Learning Difficulties

Authors

  • Jairam Das Bather

    Department of Information Technology, Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering, Science and Technology, Nawabshah 67480, Pakistan
    Author

  • Muhammad Saleem

    Department of Computer Science, Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering, Science and Technology, Nawabshah 67480, Pakistan
    Author

  • Nisar Ahmed

    Faculty of Education Sciences and Technology (FEST), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 81310, Malaysia
    Author

  • Zahid Khaskheli

    Department of Software Engineering, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro 76060, Pakistan
    Author

  • Zoha Waheed

    Computational Science and Technology, National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad 4000, Pakistan
    Author

  • Ali Kolachi

    Department of Software Engineering, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro 76060, Pakistan
    Author

  • Umer Ghaffar

    Department of Statistical and Actuarial Sciences, University of the Punjab, Lahore 54590, Pakistan
    Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22581/muet1982.0792

Keywords:

Adaptive Gamification, Coding, Computer Education , Introductory Programming , PLDT, AGOA

Abstract

This study develops and empirically evaluates an Adaptive Gamification Design Model (AGDM) to address programming learning difficulties (PLDs). A three-phase mixed-methods design was employed. Phase I used a PRISMA-guided systematic review of studies published from 2010 to 2025 (N = 112) to construct a multidimensional Programming Learning Difficulty Taxonomy (PLDT) encompassing cognitive, affective, and instructional challenges. In Phase II, the taxonomy was validated through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of survey data from 842 undergraduate computer science and software engineering students at four public universities. Phase III comprised a 14-week quasi-experimental intervention involving a control group (n = 142) and an adaptive-gamification group (n = 144). Cognitive load, syntax anxiety, and self-efficacy deficit significantly predicted course failure. Compared with traditional instruction, the AGDM environment produced higher academic performance and intrinsic motivation and reduced the dropout rate from 34% to 12%. Structural equation modeling indicated that engagement and self-efficacy mediated the relationship between adaptive gamification and academic performance. The framework is operationalized through the Adaptive Gamification Optimization Algorithm (AGOA), which dynamically adjusts task difficulty, feedback scaffolding, and motivational incentives according to each learner's PLDT profile. The study contributes a validated taxonomy and a scalable adaptive-gamification framework that can be integrated into computing curricula to support competence, retention, and personalized learning.

Downloads

References

[1] R. Mason, Simon, B. A. Becker, T. Crick, and J. H. Davenport, “A Global Survey of Introductory Programming Courses,” in Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1, Portland OR USA: ACM, Mar. 2024, pp. 799–805. doi: 10.1145/3626252.3630761.

[2] R. P. Medeiros, G. L. Ramalho, and T. P. Falcao, “A Systematic Literature Review on Teaching and Learning Introductory Programming in Higher Education,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 77–90, May 2019, doi: 10.1109/TE.2018.2864133.

[3] Hafizul Fahri Hanafi et al., “A Review of Learner’s Model for Programming in Teaching and Learning,” J. Adv. Res. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 169–184, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.37934/araset.33.3.169184.

[4] S. L. Marshall and A. A. Grooms, “Industry’s push for computer science education: Is computer science really for all?,” Policy Futur. Educ., p. 14782103211045601, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1177/14782103211045601.

[5] J. Tao, S. C. McClure, X. Zhang, M. Waqas, and X. Wen, “A scientific writing pedagogy and mixed methods assessment for engineering education using open-coding and multi-dimensional scaling,” Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 413–426, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10798-019-09504-w.

[6] C. S. Cheah, “Factors Contributing to the Difficulties in Teaching and Learning of Computer Programming: A Literature Review,” Contemp. Educ. Technol., vol. 12, no. 2, p. ep272, May 2020, doi: 10.30935/cedtech/8247.

[7] H. G. Lapierre, P. Charland, and P.-M. Léger, “Looking ‘Under the hood’ of learning computer programming: the emotional and cognitive differences between novices and beginners,” Comput. Sci. Educ., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 331–352, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1080/08993408.2023.2214033.

[8] D. Huang, H. Wang, Y. Tang, H. Lei, and D. Koh, “Enhancing athlete performance under pressure: The role of attribution training in mitigating choking,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 16, p. 1435374, 2025.

[9] A. Dirzyte, A. Vijaikis, A. Perminas, and R. Rimasiute-Knabikiene, “Associations between Depression, Anxiety, Fatigue, and Learning Motivating Factors in e-Learning-Based Computer Programming Education,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health, vol. 18, no. 17, p. 9158, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.3390/ijerph18179158.

[10] C. S. Cheah, “Factors Contributing to the Difficulties in Teaching and Learning of Computer Programming: A Literature Review,” Contemp. Educ. Technol., vol. 12, no. 2, p. ep272, May 2020, doi: 10.30935/cedtech/8247.

[11] H. G. Lapierre, P. Charland, and P.-M. Léger, “Looking ‘Under the hood’ of learning computer programming: the emotional and cognitive differences between novices and beginners,” Comput. Sci. Educ., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 331–352, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1080/08993408.2023.2214033.

[12] C.-H. Su, “The effects of students’ motivation, cognitive load and learning anxiety in gamification software engineering education: a structural equation modeling study,” Multimed. Tools Appl., vol. 75, no. 16, pp. 10013–10036, Aug. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11042-015-2799-7.

[13] A. Khaldi, R. Bouzidi, and F. Nader, “Gamification of e-learning in higher education: a systematic literature review,” Smart Learn. Environ., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 10, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1186/s40561-023-00227-z.

[14] L. Jaramillo-Mediavilla, A. Basantes-Andrade, M. Cabezas-González, and S. Casillas-Martín, “Impact of Gamification on Motivation and Academic Performance: A Systematic Review,” Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 6, p. 639, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.3390/educsci14060639.

[15] R. Mellado and C. Cubillos, “Gamification improves learning: Experience in a training activity of computer programming in higher education,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 1959–1973, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1111/jcal.13000.

[16] A. Khaleghi, Z. Aghaei, and M. A. Mahdavi, “A Gamification Framework for Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: Qualitative Study,” JMIR Serious Games, vol. 9, no. 2, p. e21900, May 2021, doi: 10.2196/21900.

[17] R. Mellado and C. Cubillos, “Gamification improves learning: Experience in a training activity of computer programming in higher education,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 1959–1973, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1111/jcal.13000.

[18] K. Ishaq and A. Alvi, “Personalization, Cognition, and Gamification-based Programming Language Learning: A State-of-the-Art Systematic Literature Review,” 2023, arXiv. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2309.12362.

[19] C. Baah, I. Govender, and P. R. Subramaniam, “Enhancing Learning Engagement: A Study on Gamification’s Influence on Motivation and Cognitive Load,” Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 10, p. 1115, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.3390/educsci14101115.

[20] C.-H. Su, “The effects of students’ motivation, cognitive load and learning anxiety in gamification software engineering education: a structural equation modeling study,” Multimed. Tools Appl., vol. 75, no. 16, pp. 10013–10036, Aug. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11042-015-2799-7.

[21] L. Ding and H. Zhang, “The Gradual Cyclical Process in Adaptive Gamified Learning: Generative Mechanisms for Motivational Transformation, Cognitive Advancement, and Knowledge Construction Strategy,” Appl. Sci., vol. 15, no. 16, p. 9211, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.3390/app15169211.

[22] Z. Zhan, L. He, Y. Tong, X. Liang, S. Guo, and X. Lan, “The effectiveness of gamification in programming education: Evidence from a meta-analysis,” Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell., vol. 3, p. 100096, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100096.

[23] J. Krath, L. Schürmann, and H. F. O. Von Korflesch, “Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning,” Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 125, p. 106963, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963.

[24] S. Balaskas, I. Yfantidou, T. Nikolopoulos, and K. Komis, “The Psychology of EdTech Nudging: Persuasion, Cognitive Load, and Intrinsic Motivation,” Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ., vol. 15, no. 9, p. 179, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.3390/ejihpe15090179.

[25] A. Mora, D. Riera, C. González, and J. Arnedo-Moreno, “Gamification: a systematic review of design frameworks,” J. Comput. High. Educ., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 516–548, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s12528-017-9150-4.

[26] S. I. Malik and J. Coldwell-Neilson, “A model for teaching an introductory programming course using ADRI,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1089–1120, May 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10639-016-9474-0.

[27] J. Figueiredo and F. Garcia-Penalvo, “Teaching and Learning Tools for Introductory Programming in University Courses,” in 2021 International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE), Malaga, Spain: IEEE, Sep. 2021, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/SIIE53363.2021.9583623.

[28] M. B. Garcia, “Profiling the skill mastery of introductory programming students: A cognitive diagnostic modeling approach,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 6455–6481, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-13039-6.

[29] L. E. Margulieux, B. B. Morrison, and A. Decker, “Reducing withdrawal and failure rates in introductory programming with subgoal labeled worked examples,” Int. J. STEM Educ., vol. 7, no. 1, p. 19, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1186/s40594-020-00222-7.

[30] F. Hermans, “Hedy: A Gradual Language for Programming Education,” in Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, Virtual Event New Zealand: ACM, Aug. 2020, pp. 259–270. doi: 10.1145/3372782.3406262.

[31] Y. Qian and J. Lehman, “Students’ Misconceptions and Other Difficulties in Introductory Programming: A Literature Review,” ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–24, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1145/3077618.

[32] R. Duran, A. Zavgorodniaia, and J. Sorva, “Cognitive Load Theory in Computing Education Research: A Review,” ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1–27, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1145/3483843.

[33] J. Hanham, J. C. Castro‐Alonso, and O. Chen, “Integrating cognitive load theory with other theories, within and beyond educational psychology,” Br. J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 93, no. S2, pp. 239–250, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1111/bjep.12612.

[34] J. H. Berssanette and A. C. De Francisco, “Cognitive Load Theory in the Context of Teaching and Learning Computer Programming: A Systematic Literature Review,” IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 440–449, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TE.2021.3127215.

[35] J. Sweller, P. Ayres, and S. Kalyuga, Cognitive Load Theory. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2011. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4.

[36] R. Kumar, B. S. Chowdhry, and H. Kazi,

“Identifying cognitive weaknesses in students' learning through Bloom’s taxonomy,” Journal of Information Communication Technologies and Robotic Applications, pp. 68–73, 2018.

[37] A. Emerson, A. Smith, F. J. Rodríguez, E. N. Wiebe, B. W. Mott, K. E. Boyer, “Cluster Based Analysis of Novice Coding Misconceptions in Block Based Programming,” in Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’20), New York, NY, USA: ACM, Mar. 2020..

[38] G.-Y. Lin, Y.-W. Liao, Z.-Y. Su, Y.-M. Wang, and Y.-S. Wang, “What drives undergraduates’ effort and persistence in learning programming,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 12383–12406, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-11670-3.

[39] Y. Pan and J. Harun, “Conquering Coding Fears: A Systematic Review of Programming Anxiety in Higher Education,” J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res., vol. 24, p. 020, 2025, doi: 10.28945/5543.

[40] R. Thinakaran, S. Chuprat, V. Varadarajan, M. Yussubaliyeva, and M. Maqsood, “Self-efficacy as students’ motivation factor in learning programming,” J. Infrastruct. Policy Dev., vol. 8, no. 16, p. 9252, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.24294/jipd9252.

[41] M. Sailer, J. U. Hense, S. K. Mayr, and H. Mandl, “How gamification motivates: An experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction,” Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 69, pp. 371–380, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033.

[42] S. R. Sobral, “Two different experiments on teaching how to program with active learning methodologies: a critical analysis,” in 2020 15th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), Sevilla, Spain: IEEE, Jun. 2020, pp. 1–7. doi: 10.23919/CISTI49556.2020.9141115.

[43] I. Calderon, W. Silva, and E. Feitosa, “Active Learning Methodologies for Teaching Programming in Undergraduate Courses: A Systematic Mapping Study,” Inform. Educ., Sep. 2023, doi: 10.15388/infedu.2024.11.

[44] R. Kumar, N. Sarwar, K. Maheshwari, P. Lal, and K. Dev., “An EPIC technique for learning outcome assessment in OBE through Bloom’s taxonomy,” EAI Endorsed Transactions on Creative Technologies, vol. 6, no. 18, p. e3, 2019.

[45] C.-W. Tsai et al., “The effects of online peer-facilitated learning and distributed pair programming on students’ learning,” Comput. Educ., vol. 203, p. 104849, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104849.

[46] X. Liu, “Implementation of Interactive Technology to Improve Students’ Active Learning and Engagement in MATLAB Programming,” in 2022 ASEE St. Lawrence Section Annual Conference Proceedings, Syracuse University, New York: ASEE Conferences, Mar. 2022, p. 45414. doi: 10.18260/1-2--45414.

[47] F. Calles-Esteban, C. J. Hellín, A. Tayebi, H. Liu, M. López-Benítez, and J. Gómez, “Influence of Gamification on the Commitment of the Students of a Programming Course: A Case Study,” Appl. Sci., vol. 14, no. 8, p. 3475, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.3390/app14083475.

[48] A. N. Saleem, N. M. Noori, and F. Ozdamli, “Gamification Applications in E-learning: A Literature Review,” Technol. Knowl. Learn., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 139–159, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10758-020-09487-x.

[49] K. Ishaq et al., “Level up your coding: a systematic review of personalized, cognitive, and gamified learning in programming education,” PeerJ Comput. Sci., vol. 10, p. e2310, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.2310.

[50] G. Çetin and S. Kuru Çetin, “GAMIFICATION IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING EDUCATION: A BIBLIOMETRIC REVIEW OF GLOBAL RESEARCH TRENDS,” Uluslar. Sürdürülebilir Mühendis. Ve Teknol. Derg., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 159–173, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.62301/usmtd.1710461.

[51] M. E. Hangün and Y. K. Türel, “The Effects of Robot Programming on Mathematical Achievement, Mathematics Anxiety, and Programming Self‐Efficacy,” Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ., vol. 33, no. 3, p. e70030, May 2025, doi: 10.1002/cae.70030.

[52] M. Moreno-Barahona, B. Fraijo-Sing, G. Fleury-Bahi, O. Navarro-Carrascal, and C. Tapia-Fonllem, “Conceptual Integration and Empirical Validation of a Unified Taxonomy: Quantitative Data Analysis for Virtual Learning Environments,” Front. Psychol., vol. 13, p. 814592, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.814592.

[53] “The Impact of Gamification Strategies on Motivation and Knowledge Retention in Learning Environments,” REST J. Bank. Account. Bus., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 255–265, May 2025, doi: 10.46632/jbab/4/1/28.

[54] W. D. Huang, V. Loid, and J. S. Sung, “Reflecting on gamified learning in medical education: a systematic literature review grounded in the Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy 2012—2022,” BMC Med. Educ., vol. 24, no. 1, p. 20, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04955-1.

[55] M. Ç. Uludağlı, “A Preliminary Analysis of Gamification on Assembly Language Programming Education,” Eur. Conf. Games Based Learn., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 845–854, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.34190/ecgbl.19.2.3886.

[56] M. J. Page et al., “The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, p. n71, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.

[57] V. Braun and V. Clarke, “One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?,” Qual. Res. Psychol., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 328–352, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238.

[58] L. Hu and P. M. Bentler, “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives,” Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–55, Jan. 1999, doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.

[59] C. Schulte, B. A. Becker, M. Divitini, and E. Barendsen, “[No title found],” in Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1, Virtual Event Germany: ACM, Jun. 2021.

[60] K. Mohammadani, R. A. Khan, K. A. Memon, N. N. Hussaini, J. H. Awan, and R. Kumar,

“Stress-based performance analysis of AODV and DSDV routing protocols in MANET,” Engineering Science and Technology International Research Journal, vol. 2, pp. 1–6, 2018..

Published

2026-07-01

Issue

Vol. 45 No. 3 (2026): July Issue

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and Technology

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

An Adaptive Gamification Optimization Algorithm for Analyzing Programming Learning Difficulties. (2026). Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 45(3), 178-192. https://doi.org/10.22581/muet1982.0792