A comprehensive player types model: player head

References

• Barrington, E. (2004). Teaching to student diversity in higher education: How multiple intelligence theory can help. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(4), 421–434. http://doi.org/10.1080/1356251042000252363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartle, R. (1996). Induced response of the Siebold’s Beech (Fagus crenata blume) to manual defoliation. Journal of Forest Research, 1(1), 1–7. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02348331
   Google Scholar
• Bateman, C., & Boon, R. (2005). 21st century game design (game development series). Charles River Media.
   Google Scholar
• Bateman, C., Lowenhaupt, R., & Nacke, L. E. (2011). Player typology in theory and practice. Proceedings of DIGRA 2011: Think design, play, 14–17.
   Google Scholar
• Bennacer, H. (2000). How the socioecological characteristics of the classroom affect academic achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(2), 173–189. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busch, M., Mattheiss, E. E., Hochleitner, W., Hochleitner, C., Lankes, M., Fröhlich, P., & Tscheligi, M. (2016). Using player type models for personalized game design an empirical investigation. Interaction Design and Architecture, 28, 145–163.
   Google Scholar
• BusinessTech. (2015). The biggest entertainment market in the world. https://businesstech.co.za/news/lifestyle/88472/the-biggest entertainment-markets-in-the-world/
   Google Scholar
• Crawford, C. (1984). The art of computer game design. McGraw-Hill/Osborne Media.
   Google Scholar
• De Bruyckere, P., Kirschner, P. A., & Hulshof, C. D. (2015). Urban myths about learning and education. Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O’Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Toward a definition. Proceedings of the CHI 2011 gamification workshop, 9–15. Vancouver.
   Google Scholar
• Drachen, A., Canossa, A., & Yannakakis, G. N. (2009). Player modeling using self-organization in Tomb Raider: Underworld. Proceedings of computational intelligence and games, 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Dunkin, M. J. (1978). Student characteristics, classroom processes, and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(6), 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078163
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fullerton, T. (2008). Game design workshop: A playcentric approach to creating innovative games. CRC press.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, H. E. (2000). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. Hanchette.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, L. T., & Gosling, S. D. (2013). Personality profiles associated with different motivations for playing world of Warcraft. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(3), 189–193. http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0090
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamutoğlu, N. B., Topal, M., Samur, Y., Gezgin, D. M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2020). The development of the online player type scale: Construct validity and reliability testing. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 10(1), 15–31. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJCBPL.2020010102
   Google Scholar
• Herbert, B., Charles, D., Moore, A., & Charles, T. (2014). An investigation of gamification typologies for enhancing learner motivation. Proceedings of interactive technologies and games (iTAG), IEEE, 71–78.
   Google Scholar
• Holland, J. L., Powell, A. B., & Fritzsche, B. A. (1994). The self-directed search (SDS). Psychological Assessment Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Hu, S., & McCormick, A. C. (2012). An engagement-based student typology and its relationship to college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 53(7), 738–754. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-012-9254-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ip, B., & Jacobs, G. (2005). Segmentation of the games market using multivariate analysis. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 13(3), 275–287. http://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740154
   Google Scholar
• Juul, J. (2003). The open and closed: Game of emergence and games of progression. Proceedings of computer games and digital cultures conference, 323–329. Tampere University.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, A. J. (2012). Social engagement: Who’s playing? How do they like to engage? http://amyjokim.com/2012/09/19/social-engagement-whos-playing-how-do-they-like-to-engage/
   Google Scholar
• Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. The Modern American College, 1, 232–255. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1981.4287844
   Google Scholar
• Kuh, G., & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. The Review of Higher Education, 24(3), 309–332. http://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2001.0005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuh, G. D., Hu, S., & Vesper, N. (2000). They shall be known by what they do: An activities-based typology of college students. Journal of College Student Development, 41(2), 228–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazzaro, N. (2004). Why we play games: Four keys to more emotion without story. XEOX Design, Ink.
   Google Scholar
• Manrique, V. (2013a, April 25). Gamification player types: The T-E Pyramid (I). http://www.epicwinblog.net/2013/04/gamification-player-types-t-e-piramidi.html?showComment=1367064859271
   Google Scholar
• Manrique, V. (2013b, April 28). Gamification player types: The T-E Pyramid (II). http://www.epicwinblog.net/2013/04/gamification-player-types-t-e-pyramid-ii.html
   Google Scholar
• Marczewski, A. (2015). User types. In Even Ninja Monkeys like to play: Gamification, game thinking and motivational design (1st ed., pp. 65–80). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
   Google Scholar
• Marzewski, A. (2013, February 4). User types in gamification – Part 2: Players and balance. https://www.gamified.uk/2013/02/04/user-types-in gamification-part-2-players/
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, H. (1996). An analysis of Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence. Roeper Review, 18(4), 263–269. http://doi.org/10.1080/02783199609553756
   Google Scholar
• Nacke, L. E., Bateman, C., & Mandryk, R. L. (2014). Brainhex: A neurobiological gamer typology survey. Entertainment Computing, 5(1), 55–62. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2013.06.002
   Google Scholar
• Newzoo. (2016). The global market reaches $99.6 billion in 2016, mobile generation 37%. https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/global-games-mark reaches-99-6-billion-2016-mobile-generating-37/
   Google Scholar
• Osipow, S. H., Ashby, J. D., & Wall, H. W. (1966). Personality types and vocational choice: A test of Holland’s theory. Journal of Counseling & Development, 45(1), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-4918.1966.tb03063.x
   Google Scholar
• Pike, G. R. (2006). Students’ personality types, intended majors, and college expectations: Further evidence concerning psychological and sociological interpretations of Holland’s theory. Research in Higher Education, 47(7), 801–822. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9016-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2003). The relationship between institutional mission and students' involvement and educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 44(2), 241–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prognos & Fraunhofer. (2012). The cultural and creative industries in the macroeconomic value added chain. Impact chains, innovation, potentials. German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Samur, Y. (2016). Dijital oyun tasarımı. Pusula.
   Google Scholar
• Samur, Y. (2019). Kes Sesi: A mobile game designed to improve kindergarteners’ recognition of letter sounds. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(2), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12331
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teng, C. I. (2008). Personality differences between online game players and nonplayers in a student sample. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 232–234. http://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0064
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & de Han, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577–588. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Petegem, K., Aelterman, A., Van Keer, H., & Rosseel, Y. (2007). The influence of student characteristics and interpersonal teacher behaviour in the classroom on student’s wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 85(2), 279–291. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9093-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiser, E. B. (2000). Gender differences in Internet use patterns and Internet application preferences: A two-sample comparison. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 3(2), 167–178. http://doi.org/10.1089/109493100316012
   Google Scholar
• Werbach, K. (2014). (Re)Defining gamification. Proceedings of international Conference on persuasive technology, 266–272. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Wharton Digital Press.
   Google Scholar
• Whang, L. S. M., & Chang, G. (2004). Lifestyles of Virtual world residents: Living in the on-line game ‘lineage’. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(5), 592–600. http://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2004.7.592
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Williams, D., Yee, N., & Caplan, S. (2008). Who plays, how much, and why? Debunking the stereotypical gamer profile. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(4), 993–1018. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00428.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yee, N. (2006). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(6), 772–775. http://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.772
   PubMedGoogle Scholar