Blending Crowdvoting in Modern e-Learning Environments

Given that the most students spend considerable time on social networks, many educational institutions use this habit as a basis for educational purposes. Increasing students’ active participation in learning activities is one of the main goals of education. The purpose of this research was to investigate to what extent crowdvoting techniques can increase students’ participation and interest in the e-learning process. Additionally, we set out to explore social networks as a medium for crowdvoting, contests, and collaboration among students. The research participants included 131 students in the information technologies area of the Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade who participated in contest related to their 3D modeling projects. Voting was performed via Facebook. The students voted for particular projects primarily based on the quality of the project itself. Additionally, the competition was an incentive for students to prove themselves to colleagues, but also to provide an opportunity for teamwork, additional engagement, and acquisition of new skills and knowledge. The research results indicate a generally positive attitude among students towards the competition and rewards.


Article abstract
Given that the most students spend considerable time on social networks, many educational institutions use this habit as a basis for educational purposes. Increasing students' active participation in learning activities is one of the main goals of education. The purpose of this research was to investigate to what extent crowdvoting techniques can increase students' participation and interest in the e-learning process. Additionally, we set out to explore social networks as a medium for crowdvoting, contests, and collaboration among students. The research participants included 131 students in the information technologies area of the Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade who participated in contest related to their 3D modeling projects. Voting was performed via Facebook. The students voted for particular projects primarily based on the quality of the project itself. Additionally, the competition was an incentive for students to prove themselves to colleagues, but also to provide an opportunity for teamwork, additional engagement, and acquisition of new skills and knowledge. The research results indicate a generally positive attitude among students towards the competition and rewards.

Introduction
Crowdsourcing is an emerging concept that involves user participation in problem solving. This term implies the process of collecting opinions, ideas, services, or content from a particular group of individuals (so-called crowd) usually via an online community (Howe, 2006). It includes a wide range of Internet activities, with crowdvoting included as one of the crowdsourcing categories (Howe, 2009;Starbird, 2012).
Crowdvoting is usually used to assess the prominent ideas of the crowd (Standing & Standing, 2017).
Educators and researchers are continually trying to find new ways to increase student interaction and participation in educational activities. Social networks and other modern technologies have become pervasive among youth, and they also allow individuals to contribute to decision-making processes simply by voting. In recent years, the use of social networks has also become popular for stimulating critical thinking skills, collaboration, and knowledge construction (Griesemer, 2014).
In this paper, we investigate whether harnessing crowdvoting techniques and social networks can have a positive impact on the results of student learning and interaction. Further, we set to explore social networks as a medium for crowdvoting, contests, and collaboration among students. Using crowdvoting techniques within courses should help teachers improve many aspects of their teaching.

Crowdvoting in Education
As James Surowiecki (2005) stated, crowdsourcing is a combination of crowd and outsourcing that collects the wisdom of crowds, which refers to the superiority of groups over individuals in predicting public opinion.
Crowdvoting is a crowdsourcing method for collecting ideas, opinions, and concepts in an intelligent, accurate, and cost-effective way (Dietrich & Amrein, 2016). Crowdvoting increases community participation and awareness of the importance of business decisions (Pedersen, et al., 2013).
When it comes to security and privacy issues, it should be mentioned that crowdvoting systems have certain problems and constraints in terms of misuse, hacking, lobbying, social engineering, and so on. Given that users post information about themselves on a crowdsourcing platform, the data they post is no longer under their control and it can easily become public (Rahim, Ismail, & Samy, 2014;Sarwar & Khan, 2013). As crowdsourcing becomes more popular, the phenomenon of crowd attacking becomes more frequent (Hassan & Rahim, 2017).
Despite the issues and constraints when harnessed crowdvoting in an educational context, the role of crowdvoting activities in both our educational system and specific approach studied here was to encourage students to be engaged and more interested in course content.
Crowdvoting is applicable in education in that it enables students to evaluate their colleagues' projects and thus encourage participation in the educational process (Bogdanović, Labus, Simić, Ratković-Živanović, & Milinović, 2015). Al-Jumeily, Hussain, Alghamdi, Dobbins, and Lunn (2015) stated that crowdvoting techniques can effectively be applied to technology-enhanced learning since it can help collect the crowd's view on a certain subject. Wang and Kinuthia (2004) stated the four characteristics of technology-enhanced learning environments: motivation, learning enrichment, learning implementation, and learning assessment and evaluation. Therefore, we can conclude that crowdvoting techniques can be applied to learning purposes through discussions, group projects, feedback, and so on (Keppell, Au, Ma, & Chan, 2006). As well, we should not ignore the influence of peer learning on students' performance, like development of social and leadership skills, and high attendance rates (Stiller- Reeve, et al., 2016). This also includes peer assessment which can be both formal and informal (McLuckie & Topping, 2004). Barker and Bennett (2011) described the process of evaluating projects by using an electronic voting system (EVS).
Voters evaluated the quality of the websites made by their fellow students, as well as the quality of the applications within the websites. The research results showed that the voting process was objective and was not based on acquaintance with the candidate.
The Utah Valley University organized a competition with use of digital media that relied on the wisdom of the crowd whose choice influenced the selection of the winner. The winners had the highest number of online votes, and the technologies they used during the competition included mobile and Web applications, video games, 3D animation, film, special effects, and digital audio (Solemon, Ariffin, Din, & Anwar, 2013).
As Kibble (2007) stated, rewards increase students' participation, so it is important to investigate whether the reward concept provides an incentive and has a positive impact on students' learning outcomes. Baranek (1996) stated that grades are the most common type of reward (Seoane & Smink, 1991). Therefore, one of the research questions in this study deals with which type of prize would most encourage students to participate in the competition.
However, a few studies could not find scientific proof of a link between use of social networks and academic performance (Doleck & Lajoie, 2018).

4
Educational institutions should consider use of social media to support the creation of knowledge (Macià & Garcia, 2017;Moskaliuk, Kimmerle, & Cress, 2009). There are numerous groups on social networks that are maintained by universities for the purpose of interacting with students (Selwyn, 2012) and contributing to their persistence and motivation to study (Mason & Rennie, 2007). Cost, accessibility, and flexibility are the advantages for students and educational institutions to engage in online learning (Chau, 2010).
Authors like Junco, Heiberger, and Loken (2011) and Hung and Yuen (2010) stated that social networks have a positive influence on students' grades. Positive aspects of using social networks for educational purposes are: • Better communication and quick information sharing (e.g., increased productivity and team work) (Waycott, Thompson, Sheard, & Clerehan, 2017).
• Focus on technology for educational and business purposes (e.g., building skills).
• Getting instant feedback from friends and family (e.g., developing artistic abilities and getting confidence) (Raut & Patil, 2016;Vural, 2015). Mesipuu (2012) investigated the translation system improvement process of both open (e.g., Facebook) and closed (e.g., Skype) social networks where the user-translators voted for appropriate or inappropriate translations. Traunmueller and Schieck (2013) emphasized that social networks also allow the users to give their opinion using the voting system. Since the participants in this research voted via Facebook, we examined whether social networks are a suitable channel for implementing crowdvoting techniques and the benefits of such channels.

Research Questions
Based on the analyzed literature, the main research questions set during this study are: RQ2: Are social networks suitable channel for crowdvoting implementation? (Mesipuu, 2012;Traunmueller & Schieck, 2013).
RQ3: Which factors influence the voting choice when it comes to students' projects? (Barker & Bennett, 2011).
RQ4: Does the reward concept provide an incentive and have a positive impact on students' learning outcomes? What type of reward motivates students the most? (Kibble, 2007;Baranek, 1996). Figure 1 shows the research methodology. As part of a course in the fourth year of undergraduate studies, at the Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, students were tasked with creating a 3D model and animation. They worked in teams of three. After creating the projects, students uploaded them on the Moodle learning management system, which is used as an open and distance learning engine. After the projects were analyzed and evaluated by teachers, the best 10 projects were selected and published on the course's official Facebook page. Students could vote for one or more projects; the three projects with the highest number of votes (likes) were declared as winners. Depending on the ranking, winners got prizes.

Methodology Research Design
These prizes were (a) additional points within the course that can help students to get a higher grade, (b) promotion and presentation of the animation on the e-Business Department website, or (c) free participation in ELAB summer school and free printed e-Business textbook.

Instruments
A survey was conducted in order to examine student attitudes regarding crowdvoting on the social network, as well as the concept of the competition and prizes. The survey was intended to examine whether the crowdvoting process encouraged students to make creative projects or to promote their work. Since the voting was performed on Facebook, it is important to examine whether students voted based on acquaintance with the candidate or exclusively based on the quality of the project itself, as well as how the rewards influenced their interest to participate in the competition.   • Did you participate in the competition?
• You did not participate because you did not create project on time. • You did not participate because you did not want to.
• Was your project selected for voting? • Have you looked at the selected projects?
• I think the best project has won.
• Would you participate again in the ELAB competition?
• I think that the candidates were encouraged by teamwork. • I think that the candidates were encouraged by additional engagement and acquiring new skills. Suitability of social networks as a crowdvoting implementation channel (Mesipuu, 2012;Traunmueller & Schieck, 2013) (RQ2) • Are you familiar with the ELAB competition?
• Did you participate in the voting?
• You voted for one project.
• You voted for more projects.
• I think the competition is useless.
Influencing factors on voting choice (Barker & Bennett, 2011) (RQ3) • I voted based on my acquaintance with the candidate.
• I voted based on the quality and creativity of the project.
Impact of the rewards on students' learning outcomes and their role as an incentive (Kibble, 2007) Rewards with the greatest motivational impact on students (Baranek, 1996) (RQ4) • What does it mean for you to win this competition?
• I think the rewards are appropriate and motivating.
• I think the prizes are unnecessary.
• I think that the candidates were encouraged by the prizes. • What inspired you to participate in the competition? • Make a proposal for a prize that would encourage you to participate in the competition. • I think that additional points are the most useful reward.
• I consider promotion and presentation of animation on the site of the e-Business Department as the most useful prize. • I consider the ELAB summer school course as the most useful prize. • I consider the e-Business textbook as the most useful prize.
In order to examine the consistency and reliability of a data set, the Cronbach's alpha measure was used.

Participation and Attitude Toward Competition
The results show that almost all respondents were familiar with the competition (only three respondents However, there were also those who believed that determining the winner based on the number of votes collected on Facebook was not adequate, because in this way the quality of the project itself was neglected, and increases in the number of votes was affected by the candidates' self-marketing (i.e., collecting votes from friends or family).
Respondents' answers to the questions defined by the Likert-type scale are shown in Table 2. According to the results, the students gave positive answers regarding encouraging both teamwork (mean score = 3.6) and acquiring new skills (mean score = 3.616). In addition, the students did not agree that competition was useless (mean score = 2.1).

Incentives for Participation and Rewards Types
The analysis found that the teamwork (39.53%), acquiring new skills (31.40%), and rewards (22.09%), respectively, were the biggest incentives for respondents to participate in the competition. The category "Other" includes competitive spirit, grade, obligatory homework, and points ( Figure 2).   Students' answers for RQ3 and RQ4 are shown in Table 3. The majority of students stated that they voted based on the quality and creativity of the project (mean score = 3.975). The prizes were appropriate and motivating for the students (mean score = 3.72). The ELAB summer school courses prize was considered the most beneficial (mean score = 3.888).

Correlation Analysis
Correlation analysis identified the links between individual questions, with the goal of determining how consistent the respondents were in their evaluation of prizes and competition. The analysis found that the highest correlations (more than 50%) were observed between the following indicators: • 68% between questions "I consider these competitions as desirable and interesting" and "I think that the rewards are appropriate and motivating." • 61% between questions "I think that the candidates were encouraged by teamwork" and "I think that the candidates were encouraged by additional engagement and acquiring new skills." • 55% between questions "I think the competition is interesting and motivating" and "I think the rewards are appropriate and motivating." • 54% between the questions "I think the rewards are appropriate and motivating" and "I think that the candidates were encouraged by the prizes." All of these correlations are statistically significant (1%). The data were analyzed by using the IBM SPSS tool.
In order to determine the consistency of the answers from respondents who participated in the competition, we examined whether they considered that the candidates were encouraged by the rewards, teamwork, or 12 by additional engagement and acquiring new skills. Also, among the respondents who did not want to participate in the competition, it was important to investigate whether they believed that the competition was useless. During this analysis, the authors of this paper had to take into account the opinions from the respondents who voted for projects based on their quality and creativity and who thought that the best projects had won. It was also important to investigate whether the respondents who participated in the voting process considered that the competition was interesting or useless. Therefore, we created 16 variables for determining the consistency in the respondents' answers. In order to determine the relationships between individual variables, a statistical method of cross tabulation (contingency table) was used, and it was performed by using the χ 2 test. Table 4 shows the naming conventions for the individual variables. Since the value of Pearson's χ 2 coefficient is 1.706 for the 5% significance level, and P level for the first combination of questions (Competition participant → Prizes encouragement) is 0.790, we can conclude that there is no relationship between the variables we have chosen. In other words, there are no statistically significant differences in the answers between the students who participated in the competition and those who did not, in relation to their opinion regarding the incentive of the prizes to the candidates. Table 4 indicates that there is a statistically significant difference for just one of the examined combinations of questions because the Pearson's coefficient is 17.132 and the P level is 0.002 for 5% significance, which means there is a relationship between the answers to the question "I think the best project has won" and "I voted based on quality and creativity of the project." Given the results of our analysis, we can conclude that the selected variables were independent of each other, except in one case. When we observe these selected combinations separately, we realize that there is no statistically significant difference between those who participated in the competition and those who did not, in relation to their opinions on candidates' incentive regarding prizes, teamwork, and additional engagement. Also, there is no difference in answers from the respondents who did not want to create the project and those who did, in relation to their opinions on the competition's uselessness. Finally, there is no statistically significant difference between the respondents who voted and those who did not, in relation to their opinion on the competition as interesting or as useless.

Impact of Crowdvoting on the Students' Participation (RQ1)
The crowdvoting concept itself can have a positive impact on students' learning and on increasing their participation in educational activities. Conclusions from RQ1 testify to this by indicating that more than half of respondents participated in the project creation, and also mastered the use of advanced techniques in the field of 3D modeling and animation. As Al-Jumeily et al. (2015) stated, crowdvoting can help students improve their engagement as well as their learning skills, bearing in mind their learning style preference.
The competition shows that teamwork, as well as additional engagement, have had a positive impact on students.

Social Networks as a Crowdvoting Channel (RQ2)
As assumed, results confirm that crowdvoting techniques can be successfully conducted via Facebook, in agreement with Mesipuu (2012) and Taunmueller and Schieck (2013). Therefore, social networks have been showed as a suitable channel for voting. In this research, not only students, but also friends and family of candidates who had access to the Facebook account participated in the voting process.

Factors That Influence Voting Choice (RQ3)
There are pros and cons to using crowdvoting principles on a social network. On the positive side is certainly easier accessibility and transparency. According to RQ3 and influencing factors on voting, the negative aspect is reflected in the fact that in some situations, project quality can be neglected and someone with better self-marketing can be declared a winner. However, the research has shown that the voters who thought the best project won were most probably those who voted based on the project's quality and creativity. It can be said that the acquaintance with the candidate in some cases is not crucial factor in voting process.

Impact of Rewards (RQ4)
It can be concluded that the competition itself encouraged many students to create a project. Rewards were also an incentive for students to do a better project and thus learn more. Although students highlighted free-of-charge participation in ELAB summer school course as the most desirable of the offered prizes, additional points were also a reward that provided students with an incentive to participate in the competition. According to RQ4, a majority of the respondents were satisfied with the provided prizes.
Further, that additional points were the most desirable rewards among the students conforms to Baranek (1996). However, there were those for whom further learning and recognition by colleagues were more important.

Findings
This study examined two roles-the project creator and the voter. Project creators, under the influence of the prizes or some other internal urge, tried to create better and more creative projects by using advanced technologies. If their project was selected in the top 10 and published on the course Facebook page, they most likely promoted their project. On the other hand, there were voters who were most probably students who did not want or failed to participate in the competition. They are the ones who decide who will win the competition. Some of the terms from the analyzed literature highlighted in this paper are: crowdvoting techniques, social networks, peer assessment, reward influence. Given that the majority of students were familiar with the competition, and that very few of them did not create a project, it can be said that students were generally interested in participating in the competition. The results certainly point out the fact that the rewards were an incentive for students, as was assumed. However, teamwork has been singled out as the biggest incentive for our respondents.
Based on this research, we can conclude that the concept of rewarding certainly has a positive impact on students and their additional engagement, and consequently on their learning results, as Kibble (2007) stated. Although the prizes of this competition were of a prestigious character, it turned out that for most of the students, winning meant a recognition by their colleagues.
The correlation analysis showed that the creativity and quality of the project were the most important in terms of voting for a particular candidate. In other words, the students who voted for the candidates based on acquaintance with them still considered that they voted based on the quality of the project. This shows that Barker and Bennet's (2011) assumption is correct-students vote for candidates regardless of their acquaintance. Nevertheless, survey results indicate that the quality of the project was a key factor for voting 15 as well for the respondents who did not know the candidates for whose projects they voted. A topic for some further research may be examining ways to overcome candidates' self-promotion in order to make the quality of a project most prominent.
The contribution of this research is in providing an overview of how crowdvoting principles can be implemented in a social network environment for e-education purposes. The authors of this paper believe that the findings can be used as a framework for other education practitioners, in order to help them adjust learning methods to students' needs and habits. This paper describes an example of how educators can innovate by designing new interesting ways to encourage students to be more involved in such activities and also become more creative. As well, it calls attention to the importance of taking measures to ensure that more teaching activities account for students' opinions and let them participate in the decision-making process. Such approaches can certainly elicit a number of positive reactions from students as well as a greater sense of control. Bearing in mind that social networks are close to students and that they spend time following events on them, it seems logical to integrate teaching activities into social network structures. The primary aim of this research is to make an impact on practice and to provide educators with needed information regarding students' attitude towards crowdvoting implementation in a competition context. This paper brings new value to e-education, as it encourages lecturers to increase students' participation in an acceptable way and thus positively influence the results of their learning. Our analysis indicates that for most respondents, recognition for their effort is very important, as it can be identified by proving themselves in front of their colleagues. Students should be allowed to express themselves in creative ways and in a familiar environment, such as the social network, and enabled to participate in the decision-making process, such as crowdvoting. All these factors can help students improve their level of engagement as well as their learning skills. Table 5 provides a list of the main implications and practical recommendations for different interested parties in the educational process.  (Dougiamas & Taylor, 2003;Reeve, 2009;Skiner & Belmont, 1993).
2. As it is necessary to invest time and effort in e-education in order to achieve positive results, the use of social networks integrated with crowdvoting techniques can make students feel they are important actors in the decision-making process (Cubillo, Sánchez, & Cerviño, 2006). This contributes to their sense of control and desire for additional engagement (Moogan, Baron, & Harris, 1999;Siribunnam, Nuangchalerm, & Jansawang, 2014). In addition to the feeling of control in the decision-making process, teamwork and additional engagement were of a great importance to the participants.
3. When it comes to rewards, the research indicates that additional points and the possibility of further learning and promotion are very important for the participants in the competition. This should not be neglected and rewards should be chosen carefully. Although prizes are only a part of what encouraged the students to participate in the competition, a reward system must be designed to have a positive impact on students (Sloggett, 1971).
Education practitioners 1. The crowdvoting process on the social network should be organized in a way to highlight the quality of the project itself. Since voting takes place on Facebook, the choice of winner should not be influenced by candidates' self-marketing through collecting votes from friends or family. Voting should be performed within a closed group so voters are not familiar with or able to identify the author of a particular project (Kennedy & Cutts, 2005). For instance, a closed Facebook group could be visible only to the voters, without including the author's name.
2. Generally, the use of crowdvoting principles on social networks has its advantages (Brady, Holcomb, & Smith, 2010), because of the quick and easy way decisions can be made on a given topic (Wang, Gill, Mohanlal, Zheng, & Zhao, 2013).
3. The use of social networks does not represent a major investment for educational institutions; therefore, this kind of environment can be easily used for educational purposes (Madge, Meek, Wellens, & Hooley, 2009;Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman, & Witty, 2010). However, there are some challenges in the use of social networks such as security and unproductive behavior which should not be neglected (Ngonidzashe, 2013).

Students
1. Due to the use of social networks for educational purposes, students are given the opportunity to invest more effort in the development of their projects, with the possibility of showing their creativity to the broader audience.
2. In addition to the assessment by professors, crowdvoting takes into account the opinions of other evaluators such as peer colleagues. This could encourage students' participation in the educational process and develop their social skills.
3. Public recognition may have an impact on their future career and provide a reference for further work.
Research has shown that in this case, the use of crowdvoting techniques is possible and has potential but with certain limitations. The main limitation is that the research was conducted solely within the course of 3D modeling and animation. Thus, it is not possible to guarantee that these results are applicable to other 17 educational contexts. Authors of this paper, however, believe that this kind of competition can be applied to other courses and environments as well. An additional limitation is self-marketing by some candidates which resulted in them getting more likes from friends and family members than from peers. In fact, a method of preventing candidates' self-marketing should be devised. In this way, the voting would have been exclusively based on the quality and creativity of the project (i.e., being acquainted with the candidate would have no effect on the voting results). However, the focus of our research was on increasing student engagement, interest, and participation, not on constraints of crowdvoting.
The possibilities of using crowdvoting/sourcing in education are still on a low level and have to be fueled in future research. Further research should be conducted in order to explore topics such as social engineering, negative marketing, as well as motivation for voting and taking a part in the competition. Taking into account that crowdvoting and other crowdsourcing techniques are rather a philosophy than a wellestablished concept, it is of great importance to investigate how to implement them in different contexts.
Understanding all the challenges in implementation of crowdvoting could be of great interest for both academia and practitioners in order to enhance students' motivation and participation, particularly within millennial generations.