The rapid expansion of digital learning environments, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has prompted universities to explore innovative strategies to boost student engagement and learning outcomes. In engineering education, gamification—embedding game design elements into non-game contexts—has emerged as a prominent methodology. Its adoption varies globally, with strong development in the United States, Turkey, China, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Finland, while Latin America and the Caribbean exhibit moderate but consistent activity, with Peru, Brazil, and Chile leading regionally.
Gamification’s effectiveness in motivating engineering students is well documented, yet designing optimal gamified environments remains challenging. Success depends heavily on aligning game mechanics with player personality traits. The Bartle taxonomy, a foundational classification, identifies four profiles: Killer, Explorer, Socializer, and Achiever. Variants like the HEXAD model refine these categories, but Bartle’s framework remains prevalent in educational contexts.
While research has focused extensively on student player profiles—often finding Achiever dominant—there is scant literature on engineering professors’ profiles. This study addresses that gap, surveying 532 Latin American engineering professors to compare their self-identified profiles with those they deem most effective for learning. Participants underwent standardized training on gamification concepts before responding to a structured questionnaire.
Demographically, the sample was balanced by gender, skewed toward mid-career ages (35–54), and predominantly experienced educators. Public university faculty outnumbered private, and overall knowledge of gamification was intermediate-low, though valuation of its educational impact was high.
Results show most professors identify as Explorers, followed by Socializers and Killers, with Achievers in the minority. However, when asked which profile best supports learning, Explorer and Killer ranked highest. Notably, over 11% selected Explorer as most effective without identifying with it personally, revealing a divergence between self-perception and pedagogical preference. This contrasts with student populations, where personal and preferred profiles often align.
Gender differences emerged: females favored Explorer more strongly and rated Achiever lower than males. Age influenced identification—professors under 35 leaned toward Killer and Socializer, while older cohorts gravitated to Explorer. Preferences for active, competitive profiles diminished with age, aligning with broader psychological findings on personality evolution.
Teaching experience mirrored age trends, with Explorer dominant across all ranges. Achiever remained least common and least preferred for learning. University type affected preferences: private university professors more often chose Killer and Explorer as optimal, while public university faculty leaned toward Socializer alongside Explorer. These distinctions may reflect differing institutional cultures and digitalization levels, as private universities in Latin America have historically invested more in virtual infrastructure.
Knowledge of gamification did not significantly correlate with profile identification, suggesting that inherent traits outweigh training in shaping self-perception. However, valuation of gamification varied by profile, with Achievers rating it highest. Given that students are frequently Achievers, this alignment could be pedagogically advantageous, though Achievers are rare among faculty.
The study underscores a potential mismatch between professor and student profiles in engineering education. Since gamification’s impact is enhanced when game dynamics match learner profiles, faculty may need to design environments catering to profiles unlike their own. For example, Achiever-oriented students benefit from clear progress indicators and achievement rewards, tools that Explorer-identified professors might underemphasize.
Institutional implications include the need for targeted faculty training in gamification, sensitive to both professor and student profiles. Such training should equip educators to recognize and bridge profile gaps, ensuring gamified environments are tailored for maximum student engagement. Future research could expand sample diversity, compare across disciplines, and incorporate psychometric analysis to link personality dimensions with profile choice.
By illuminating the player profile landscape among engineering professors, this work provides a foundation for refining gamification strategies in Latin America’s engineering education, aligning digital pedagogy more closely with student motivations and learning styles.