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

The paper addresses the growing reliance on social media and search engines for news consumption and the associated challenge of online misinformation. It emphasizes the importance of information literacy—especially critical evaluation of sources—to mitigate the spread and impact of fake news. While e-learning platforms proliferate, motivating learners remains difficult; serious games offer engaging, feedback-rich learning environments. Personalization in educational technologies may further enhance engagement by aligning experiences with learner characteristics. This study investigates whether a personalized serious game—tailored via game elements to introverted versus extraverted traits—improves information literacy outcomes (knowledge acquisition and retention), intrinsic motivation, and engagement compared to a non-personalized version. The research questions test differences in knowledge acquisition (RQ1), knowledge retention (RQ2), intrinsic motivation (RQ3), and engagement for introversion/extraversion (RQ4).

The literature review covers: (1) Fake news and information literacy—definitions and typologies (non-information, disinformation, misinformation, mal-information), with the present study focusing on misinformation; information literacy encompasses defining needs, searching, evaluating credibility (e.g., CRAAP), ethical use, and is essential for 21st-century learning. (2) Serious games for education—benefits include active involvement, feedback, motivation, and potential to collect learning process data; well-designed serious games can improve learning and critical thinking. (3) Personalized educational games—systems adapt content and methods to learner traits (personality, learning styles, prior knowledge), potentially improving engagement and outcomes; frameworks like PLE and use of MBTI/Big Five have been explored; AI and ML can enhance adaptivity. (4) Aspects of introversion and extraversion—effects on study habits, preferences for collaboration versus solitary study, and learning behaviors; introverts tend toward reflective, self-paced contexts; extraverts favor interactive, social learning. (5) Game elements and personality—evidence suggests extraverts prefer leaderboards, progress bars, points, badges, and rewards; introverts may be motivated by daily logins, personal ranking, and avatar-based self-expression; leaderboards may induce pressure for introverts. The review motivates tailoring game elements to personality traits to potentially enhance motivation and engagement while acknowledging uncertain effects on learning outcomes.

Design: Quasi-experimental study comparing a Non-personalized serious game (Control) versus a Personalized serious game (Experimental) tailored to introverted and extraverted traits. The serious game, "How to Spot Fake News," teaches information literacy with emphasis on CRAAP-based source evaluation. Game and versions: 2D side-scrolling RPG where players act as librarians verifying news (education, economy, social, health, religion/belief), engaging with citizens (NPC-provided instruction and CRAAP reminders), observing city-wide impacts of misinformation, and completing a quiz-based source evaluation task (about 40 items across seven in-game days; each full run ~2–3 hours). Developed in Unity for PC and web. Two personalized versions: Introvert version incorporated Avatar, Daily Reward (Login), and Ranking elements; Extravert version incorporated Badge, Progress, and Leaderboard. The Control used the non-personalized original without added elements. Participants: Undergraduate students at Chiang Mai University enrolled in Information Literacy and Information Presentation courses. Initial volunteers n=86; final sample n=58 (age 20–22, mean 20.91; 29 male, 29 female). Personality assessed with BFI; balanced distribution of introversion/extraversion and gender. Participants randomly assigned to Control (n=29; F=14, M=15) and Experimental (n=29; F=14, M=15), with Experimental subdivided into introvert (n=14/15) and extravert (n=15/14) personalized versions as per trait. Instruments: (1) Online serious game (personalized vs non-personalized). (2) Pre/post knowledge tests (30 items) on information literacy and CRAAP, developed by a LIS lecturer; delayed post-test at 2 months for retention. (3) Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (short IMI; 14 items, 5-point Likert) measuring Effort, Interest, Perceived Competence. (4) Login data statistics platform capturing usernames, timestamps, durations, scores, and number of logins. Procedure: Step 1—Consent, pre-test, pre-IMI, and attendance of a related lecture; accounts issued. Step 2—Two-week gameplay period; participants required to complete at least one game run; login routing directed to assigned version; accounts expired after two weeks. Step 3—Post-test and post-IMI administered; behavioral data extracted from server. Step 4—Delayed post-test (two months later) to assess retention; participants compensated 200 baht. Data analysis: Normality checked via Shapiro–Wilk. Paired samples t-tests assessed within-group pre–post and pre–delayed differences; significance at p<0.05. Effect sizes via Cohen’s d. Between-group comparisons for IMI and engagement used Welch’s t-test. Login data analyzed for total and average playtime and number of logins; engagement patterns examined over 14 days.

- Knowledge acquisition and retention: Both groups improved substantially from pre-test to post-test and maintained learning at two months, but differences between Personalized and Non-personalized were not significant. Pre-test means: Control M=6.24 (SD=2.42), Experimental M=6.48 (SD=2.14). Post-test: Control M=16.68 (SD=4.04), Experimental M=17.34 (SD=4.62). Delayed post-test: Control M=13.65 (SD=4.19), Experimental M=14.37 (SD=4.22). Between-group pre–post difference p=0.711, d=0.296; pre–delayed difference p=0.619, d=0.272. - Intrinsic motivation (IMI): Control showed significant gain in Interest only (p<0.001); no significant change in Perceived Competence or Effort. Experimental showed significant gains across all dimensions: Perceived Competence (p=0.003), Interest (p<0.001), Effort (p<0.001). Between-group (Welch’s t-test) significant only for Perceived Competence (p=0.035); Interest (p=0.714) and Effort (p=0.175) not significant. - Engagement (login statistics): Overall total playtime higher in Personalized group (3635 min) versus Control (2726 min). Average playtime per user: Personalized 125.34 min vs Control 94.00 min. By trait: Introverts—Control average 93.78 min (total 1313 min; 57 logins) vs Personalized average 140.53 min (total 2108 min; 77 logins); Welch’s t-test p<0.001 indicating significant increase (~37% improvement). Extraverts—Control average 94.20 min (total 1413 min; 46 logins) vs Personalized average 109.07 min (total 1527 min; 51 logins); difference not significant (p=0.053). Temporal patterns showed sustained engagement late in the period for Personalized, especially among introverts.

The study directly answers the RQs: (RQ1, RQ2) Personalization via game elements tailored to introversion/extraversion did not yield superior knowledge acquisition or retention compared to a non-personalized serious game; both versions produced significant learning gains, aligning with literature that serious games enhance learning but suggesting limited additive effect of these specific personalization elements on cognitive outcomes. Possible explanations include modest impact of individual elements on learning processes and the strong baseline efficacy of the core instructional game design. (RQ3) Personalized versions enhanced intrinsic motivation more broadly, with a significant advantage in Perceived Competence relative to Control. This supports the premise that aligning game elements with personality may bolster competence perceptions and sustained effort/interest, though between-group differences were limited to competence. (RQ4) Engagement improved notably for introverted participants using the Personalized version, reflected in higher average/total playtime and significant differences over Control; extravert engagement differences were not significant. This suggests personalization can be particularly beneficial for introverts, possibly due to elements (e.g., avatar, daily rewards, personal ranking) aligning with their preferences for privacy, reflection, and individualized progress without social pressure. The findings highlight that tailoring game elements affects motivational and behavioral outcomes more than knowledge outcomes in this context.

The study developed and evaluated a personalized serious game for information literacy focused on combating misinformation, tailoring game elements to introverted and extraverted traits. Key conclusions: (1) Personalization did not outperform a non-personalized serious game for knowledge acquisition or retention; both approaches significantly improved learning. (2) Personalized versions enhanced intrinsic motivation, particularly perceived competence, indicating value for educational engagement. (3) Engagement increased substantially for introverts (about 37% higher playtime), while effects for extraverts were limited. (4) Personality-centered selection of game elements shows promise as a cost-effective strategy to improve motivation and engagement; careful element selection is necessary, as individual elements may affect learners differently. Future work should explore broader combinations of elements and traits beyond introversion/extraversion, diverse learner demographics, other subject domains, and integration of emerging technologies (AI, VR/AR).

Generalizability may be limited by the specific university cohort and controlled educational setting; variability in participant access to and use of devices could influence experiences. Complex interactions among game elements and personality traits make it difficult to isolate optimal combinations, potentially diluting detectable effects on learning outcomes. The study focused on introversion/extraversion within Big Five; other traits and factors (prior knowledge, learning styles) were not personalized. The intervention duration and assessment instruments, while rigorous, may not capture long-term or transfer effects beyond the two-month retention window.