GAMIFICATION AND MOTIVATION
TO LEARN MATH USING TECHNOLOGY
S
F
O
O
0
R
2
P
0
2
P
IA ©
Janice Watson-Huggins and Sandra Trotman
Nova Southeastern University
This article discusses a quantitative study, gamification and motivation to learn math using technology which
focused on gathering information to answer the questions “Can gamification motivate students toward learning mathematics?” Gamification, a method used to describe the use of game-based mechanics in nongame
contexts, can influence behavior, improve motivation, and increase engagement of students thereby promoting learning and problem solving (Kapp, 2012; Marczewski, 2013). Although gamification involves many
aspects such as components of a gamified software, the present study focused on motivation to learn. The theoretical framework used to guide this research is the self-determination theory of motivation (Ryan & Deci,
2017).
The research took place at a primary school in
an eastern Kingston inner-city community in
Jamaica. Sixth-grade students were selected
because they were preparing to sit the national
standardized exam, Grade Six Achievement Test (GSAT) and the Edufocal gamification mathematics software was being piloted.
Sixty-one students were randomly assigned to
two classes based on the scores they obtained
on the pretest (Diagnostic Mathematics Test/
Jamaica). One group (the experimental, n =
35) was given complete access to the Edufocal
gamification software for instructional purposes while the other class (control, n = 26)
received traditional mathematics instructions.
It was hypothesized that students exposed to
the gamified intervention will have a significantly higher GSAT gain score than their
peers, the control group.
A survey was used to collect data on the
participants’ perceptions of mathematics on
two occasions; that is, pre- and postgamified
interventions, over two consecutive academic
terms. SPSS was used to conduct a paired two
sample for means t test. The results revealed
that postmean scores for the experimental
group (M = 104.31, t(37)–0.38, N = 38, p –
0.71) was significantly greater than the
premean score M = 105.5, t(37) = –0.38. For
the control group, the postmean score was also
• Janice Watson-Huggins, Nova Southeastern University, 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314-7796. Email:
Watson.janice365@gmail.com
The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 20(4), 2019, pp. 79–91
ISSN 1528-3518
Copyright © 2019 Information Age Publishing, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
80
The Quarterly Review of Distance Education
greater than the premean score with (M =
108.08), t(37) = 2.31) while the pre scores
were recorded as (M = 100.16, t(37) = 2.31, N
= 38, p = 0.26).
The results proved that students expressed
increased motivation and increased engagement with the subject postgamified intervention, but the result was not significant. The
data also revealed that gamification could provide a temporary solution to the failing Math
scores. In addition, the data also revealed that
students exposed to the treatment performed at
the same level than their peers in the control
group did. However, there was no significance
in the mean scores from the t test. The results
can be used to assist in future planning on
whether or not to include some aspects of gamification in other institutions as a way to
improve student scores in other subjects.
Overview
The issue of worsening math scores has
plagued the Jamaican education system for
several years at both the primary and secondary levels. This research was designed to determine the effects of a gamified software
intervention in mathematics on the motivation
and achievement of sixth-grade students in a
small inner-city elementary school. In 2018, it
was reported by the Jamaica Information Service (JIS) that the average GSAT mathematics
score was 61.2% compared to 62.4% as
reported for 2017 (Smith-Edwards, 2016). A
similar trend is evident by fluctuating pass
rates: 2013, 61%; 2014, 60%; 2015, 56% and
2016, 58.2%. Against these statistics, the low
pass rate remains a major concern for both
administrators and educators alike.
Consequently, the government of Jamaica
continues in its effort at finding effective ways
to motivate students to learn mathematics in
order to increase their scores. In 2018, the government implemented its second phase of the
“Tablets in Schools Project”. This US$30 million project of 91,000 tablets will benefit over
1106 schools across the island (Patterson,
2018). Additionally, it included the training of
12,500 teachers and the distribution of 2,200
interactive smartboards, multimedia projec-
Vol. 20, No. 4, 2019
tors, laptops and other classroom management
software. A game called Math Farm was introduced to motivate students in the classroom
(Doan, 2018). The introduction of this software with its different levels, points, leaderboard, feedback and badges heralded a new
instructional approach to the learning environment. In 2014, the researched school purchased Edufocal to help its sixth-grade
students to better prepare for the GSAT exams.
Prior to 2017, no structured evaluation was
conducted of the software effect on student
motivation. Furthermore, while numerous
studies investigate the impact of gamification
in higher education and high school settings,
this research focused on the impact of gamification in an elementary, middle-school school
setting in a Caribbean, developing country
context. Hence, the need for this research.
Edufocal Jamaica, launched in March 2012,
is an online social learning community focused
on using technology to enrich a student’s
learning experience outside of the classroom in
addition to designing innovative ways to promote the use of technology in education (Edufocal, 2017). The Edufocal social learning
community offers students the opportunity to
access over 15,000 questions to prepare for the
CSEC and GSAT examinations. The program
presents the questions akin to popular methods
wherein students role play using games. With
this instructional approach, students complete
a set of questions and are awarded with points
which will then allow them to upgrade to a
higher level based on the number of questions
they have correctly answered (Khalil, Davis, &
Wong, 2018). The more points a student accumulates, the higher the level they will achieve,
and they will be able to unlock a larger number
of rewards.
Gamification may be defined as the use of
gaming elements in a nongaming context
(Werbach & Hunter, 2012). It may be seen as
having elements of game-based learning.
These elements are i) increasing student’s ability to store and recall information, ii) increasing motivation, engagement, confidence, and
self-esteem, iii) reducing academic related
S
F
O
O
0
R
2
P
0
2
P
IA ©
Gamification and Motivation to Learn Math Using Technology
anxiety, and iv) helping students to apply
learning in different contexts (Werbach &
Hunter, 2012). When compared to game-based
learning, gamification provides a learning
environment where there is increased motivation hence increased engagement and participation, increase self-esteem and positive risktaking. Thus, there are several benefits for
using gamification in the classroom as altogether, these factors enhance the teaching and
learning process (Werbach & Hunter, 2012).
However, while using gamification in the
classroom offers several benefits, there are
drawbacks or challenges. Alsawaier (2018)
noted that there is still a large gap as it relates
to relevant literature on motivation to learn.
Schaaf and Mohan (2014) discussed five main
barriers that affect the adoption of digital
game-based learning in the classroom. These
barriers are funding, the stigma attached to
using video games and gamelike elements,
lack of time, lack of professional training and
development, and one of the most argued barriers is the fear of change by some teachers.
81
trums may be left behind which also creates a
new challenge.
This study provides empirical data on the
effects of using a gaming system as an instructional tool on student motivation and consequently, their achievement in mathematics.
Data collected identified several benefits that
can be gained from implementing gamified
tools in the mathematics classroom. The study
also provides recommendations on how to
implement such a system in the general Jamaican elementary, middle school system.
S
F
O
O
0
R
2
P
0
2
P
IA ©
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative study was
to determine if the use of gaming applications
contributed to increased motivation in sixthgrade mathematics students at a selected
Jamaican primary school. In today’s global
society, this research is essential, especially
since learning with technology is unavoidable
in developing countries. Further, the study is
conducted to find out if it is possible to use a
gamified software intervention to motivate K–
6 students in a small inner-city elementary
math classroom. Also, a study of this nature
has never been conducted in the Jamaican elementary classroom. Instructional technologists
and educators alike have been exploring different ways in which technology can be used in
the classroom. Shiota and Kyohei (2016) concluded that the incorporation of gamification
in the classroom increased student motivation
and interest in the subject. However, the downside is that students on different learning spec-
Research Question
What effects do gamified applications have
on sixth-grade students’ motivation, as measured by a mathematics motivation survey
developed based on the amended Kaput Center
student attitude survey?
Hypothesis
H0: Students using the gamified software will
have a significantly higher mean score in
motivation to learn than participants who did
not use the software.
Ha: There is no difference in mean motivation
scores between students who used the gamified software and those who did not use the
software.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The theory that guides this research is the selfdetermination theory of motivation (SDT).
The SDT theory focuses on motivation, human
behavior, and development, primarily on varying types of motivation that are subsumed as
part of this theoretical framework. In addition,
the theory examines “how social-contextual
factors support or thwart people’s living
through the satisfaction of their basic psychological needs for competence, relatedness and
autonomy” (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 3). The
authors posit that human beings in general
82
The Quarterly Review of Distance Education
require three basic needs: competence, autonomy and relatedness. The self-determination
theory of motivation further postulates that
human beings have the intrinsic desire to control and master their environment and the
expected outcomes. As human beings, we are
interested in finding out how things will “turn
out,” and what will evolve because of our
actions.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs focuses on
five-tiers of basic human needs that is depicted
within the triangular pyramid in Figure 1. In
the model, the needs at the lower end of the
hierarchy must be satisfied before individuals
can get to the point of esteem and self-actualization (Tay & Diener, 2011). Motivation to
play games stems from the innate psyche of the
player that encourages them to play the games.
Therefore, if an individual’s lower needs are
not met at the lower level, when playing the
games, then they will be unlikely to participate
in the gamified process at the higher level. An
individual will act if it satisfies their basic
needs.
In the current study, a student’s individual
ability to choose how to satisfy his or her individual needs, and further investigate their
actions in the classroom that requires some
degree of self-regulation was examined.
Vol. 20, No. 4, 2019
Therefore, the use of technology as a nontraditional learning method as described by SDT is
an out-of-class learning method (Ryan & Deci,
2017). This study investigates how well motivational factors described by SDT applies to
and explains sixth-grade learner’s perception
of the role of technology and gamification in
their classroom to improve their math scores.
LITERATURE REVIEW
S
F
O
O
0
R
2
P
0
2
P
IA ©
FIGURE 1
Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Needs
Although educators have been looking at new
and different techniques that can be used in the
classroom to improve teaching and learning,
e.g., using technology, the concept of gamification is still considered a new concept albeit
gaining attention in recent times. Gamification
as a concept was coined in 2002 by Nick
Pelling (Marczewski, 2013). However, the
term was first used publicly in 2008, since
then, it has been used on numerous occasions
within education (Scepanovic, Zaric & Matijevic, 2015). Gamification, usually used in nongame contexts, engages people in problem
solving activities. The benefits to gamification
include but is not limited to: (a) increased
engagement (b) higher levels of motivation
(c) providing instant feedback (d) reinforced
learning and increasing time spent on tasks and
(e) increased interaction and communication
with users (Al-Azawi, Al-Faliti, & Al-Blushi,
2016). For gaming in the classroom to be successful, it must possess several elements: stories, challenges, feedback, rewards, etc. to
create learning opportunities in the form of a
game setting.
As it relates to rewards, Boyd (2018) noted
that one way in which gamification can be
used to motivate students is by dividing tasks
into different stages and attaching rewards
after the successful completion of each stage.
Doing this the author argues, will motivate the
user rather than overwhelm them. Some games
also have a leaderboard. There are two types of
leaderboards in gamification; absolute and relative leaderboards (Marczewski, 2013). On a
leaderboard, players can see their ranking in
Gamification and Motivation to Learn Math Using Technology
relation to their peers, as well as their progress
(Kapp, 2012). Extrinsic motivation plays a key
role in student progress as they remain on task
because of the desire to obtain something such
as a main goal or any positive reward (Chou,
2015).
While there have been many discussions
from scholars on the effects of gaming systems
and how this affects a student’s academic performance, there has been little research to substantiate this claim (Kapp, 2012; Lister, 2015;
Schaaf & Mohan, 2014; Marczewski, 2013).
Clark (1983) argued “that media do not influence learning under any possible conditions”
(p.445). Instead, he argued, “media are mere
vehicles that deliver instruction but do not
influence student achievement any more than
the truck that delivers grocery causes a change
in our nutrition” (Clark, 2012, p. 2). Clark subscribed to the view that there are no direct
learning benefits associated with media and
urged that we should not continue the trend of
wasted efforts in attempting to answer the
question of whether media directly impacts
learning until a new theory is developed. Clark
also added that media do not influence learning, but it does influence the efficiency of
learning costs and access to education.
However, a study by Stewart-McKoy
(2016) conducted at the University of Technology, Jamaica in an Undergraduate Spanish language class to increase student’s engagement
in classroom activities found increased
engagement of students in the out-of-class
online games. This finding further supports the
idea that using gamification can lead to
increased learner motivation and engagement.
Hence, the need for further studies to examine
the impact of gamification on student learning
of mathematics.
83
St. Andrew, Jamaica. In 2014, Maas Penn Primary invested in a software called Edufocal
that would allow students to adequately prepare for their GSAT examinations.
Software
The Edufocal gaming software was developed in 2010 as an online learning community
focusing on using technology to enhance the
learning experience outside of the classroom.
The learning software has over 15,000 preparatory questions for the GSAT exam that is
presented in a manner that is akin to the traditional role-playing game. When students
answer each question correctly, they are
rewarded with points and medals which allows
them to “level up” in the game. The higher the
ranking, the more difficult the questions
become. The more answers you get correct, the
more rewards you are able to unlock, and the
more prizes you will win (Edufocal, 2017).
This research only focused on the math component of the program.
S
F
O
O
0
R
2
P
0
2
P
IA ©
METHODOLOGY
Maas Penn Primary school was selected for the
study because of its unique characteristics. The
school is located in an eastern Kingston innercity community on the border of Kingston and
Population
According to data provided by the Ministry
of Education, Jamaica, for 2017, the present
enrollment for Maas Penn Primary School
stands at approximately 809 students, 453
boys and 356 girls with a staff complement of
34 teachers including the principal and guidance counselor. The treatment or experimental
group (n = 35) was given complete access to
the Edufocal gamification software during
classroom activities while the second class
(control group; n = 26) did not have access.
Apart from this difference, both classes performed similarly on the Grade 5 mathematics
test, students in both groups completed identical class assignments, and were given the same
learning opportunities in class. It is highly possible that students in the treatment group
became aware of their position during the
course of the implementation.
84
The Quarterly Review of Distance Education
Instruments of Data Collection
The survey used in the study was the Student Attitude Survey created by the KAPUT
Center for Research and Innovation in Solomon, Tobin, and Schutte (2015) examined the
reliability and validity of Student Attitude Survey and concluded that the instrument possesses adequate internal consistency and
validity. The original instrument was modified
to measure students’ motivation toward learning mathematics. Respondents were asked to
report on the extent to which they agreed or
disagreed with each statement on a scale of 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The
modified version used in this study, included
items related to motivation.
Design
Vol. 20, No. 4, 2019
immediate problem-solving feedback for each
incorrect response. An excellent feature, the
report card, of the software is the availability
and accessibility afforded to teachers to monitor student progress as seen in Figure 2. The
report card shows the average scores a student
receives on each test and the highest and lowest score. It can also provide information on
the number of tests taken and time used to
complete each test, including the student fastest and slowest times. The report card provides
in-depth information for each mathematical
concept being covered. The teacher can readily
obtain the information and use it to identify a
student’s strongest and weakest areas and plan
for further instruction to meet that student
needs.
S
F
O
O
0
R
2
P
0
2
P
IA ©
Data Analysis
A two-group between-subjects design was
employed for the current study, that is, an
experimental group (using a gaming system)
and a control group (taught via traditional
methods). The experimental group was
exposed to the Edufocal gaming software for
two full terms of study. The control group was
taught math using traditional methods. The
groups were selected based on convenience,
i.e., there were only two Grade 6 classes, and
were randomly assigned to the treatment.
The descriptive data was analyzed using the
Statistical Package for the Social Science
(SPSS) data analysis software and Microsoft
Excel. Data were collected, coded and analyzed. Descriptive statistics were performed on
each scale comparing student attitude pre- and
postintervention. To investigate the impact on
student motivation to learn an independent t
test was performed using data collected from
the intervention’s pre- and posttests scores.
Fidelity
RESULTS
Within the software, students are able to
view their experience points, create a profile,
and view their overall rankings compared to
other students in their age groups. The focus
was only on the mathematics portion. Under
each topic, the student is able to watch videos
before attempting each test. These videos
demonstrated best practices by professional
mathematics teachers interacting and solving
each problem step-by-step with detailed explanations. Once the video was viewed, the student then completed a test on each topic. These
tests always asked different levels of questions
on each topic or concept. Students received
The researcher examined the effectiveness of a
gamified software intervention in mathematics
achievement among sixth-grade students in a
selected elementary school. The intervention
involved the use of Edufocal gaming software
to solve math questions. The results are presented in two sections. Section 1 looks at the
results from the experimental group, which
was exposed to using the software (i.e., the
focus of this study) while Section 2 looks at the
comparative results of both groups (experimental and control) as presented by the t test
results.
Gamification and Motivation to Learn Math Using Technology
85
S
F
O
O
0
R
2
P
0
2
P
IA ©
FIGURE 2
Screenshot of Edufocal Interface Capabilities
TABLE 1
Do You Enjoy Playing Edufocal Games?
Year
October 2017
March 2018
Motivation toward Math. This was measured based on student perceived fun and usefulness and observation of their interaction as
they engaged with the gamification software
activities. Students were asked the following
question: Do you enjoy playing Edufocal
games? The response options and codes were
either yes (1) or no (2). This question, asked of
the experimental group in October 2017, was
repeated in March 2018. The results in March
2018 were similar to that of October 2017; an
overwhelming majority (i.e., 88.9%) stated
that they enjoyed playing games on Edufocal
while the remaining 11% said no (see Table 1).
Response
N%
Yes
29 (84.2)
No
5 (15.8)
Yes
30 (88.9)
No
4 (11.1)
As it relates to the different components of
the game, students were asked: Which parts of
the game did you enjoy the most? as represented by Question 3 on the questionnaire.
This was an open-ended question, which
allowed students to write in their individual
responses. The final five categories were
addressed: (a) tests, (b) different subjects, (c)
leaderboard, (d) feedback and (e) everything.
After recoding, the final analysis provided the
following response. The results in Table 2
show that in October 2017, just under a half of
students (42% or n = 15) indicated that they
enjoyed the tests while 34.2% (n = 11) said
they enjoyed the different choices of subjects
86
The Quarterly Review of Distance Education
Vol. 20, No. 4, 2019
TABLE 2
Parts of the Game Enjoyed Most
Oct.17
n (%)
Categories
Mar 18
n (%)
Tests
15 (42.1)
6 (19.4)
Different subjects
11 (34.2)
11 (30.6)
Leaderboard
2 (5.3)
5(13.9)
Feedback
3 (7.9)
5 (13.9)
Everything
4 (10.5)
8 (22.2)
S
F
O
O
0
R
2
P
0
2
P
IA ©
TABLE 3
Parts of the Game Most Disliked
Oct 17
n (%)
Mar 18
n (%)
5 (13.2)
14 (38.9)
Categories
Design
Feedback
11 (28.9)
7 (22.2)
Rules
17 (42.1)
6 (16.7)
Dynamics
4 (10.5)
2 (5.6)
Nothing
2 (5.3)
6 (16.7)
TABLE 4
Mean Differences Between Experimental and Control Groups
Pretest
M (t stat)
Posttest
M (t stat)
Experimental group
(n = 35)
104.3 (–0.38)
105.5 (–0.31)
Control group
(n = 26)
100.16 (–2.31)
108.08 (12.47)
Condition
or content areas that the software offers. Only
7.9% and 5.3% respectively stated that they
enjoyed the feedback and everything that the
game offers.
As it pertains to which aspects of the game
the students disliked most, the question was
asked; “Which parts of the game did you dislike
most?” as represented by Question 4 on the
questionnaire. The responses are as follows: (a)
design (b) feedback (c) rules and (d) dynamics
as presented in Table 3. When students were
asked what part of the game they dislike the
most, the results in October 2017 showed that
more than 42% (n = 17) did not like the rules
while a surprising 28.9% or (n = 11) said they
did not like the feedback. 13.2% did not like the
design while 10% did not like the dynamics
presented in the game. These results differ from
those of March 2018. The results were 38.9%
(n = 14) did not like the design aspect, 2% and
16.7% disliked the feedback and rules respectively, and 5% disliked the dynamics. It was
surprising to note that 16% liked everything
that the game had to offer.
Gamification and Motivation to Learn Math Using Technology
A comparative analysis of both groups’
motivation pre- and postintervention is presented in Table 4. A paired t test was performed to determine if students in the
experimental group were more motivated
toward learning mathematics compared to
their peers in the control group. The pretest
mean scores (M = 104.31, t(37)–0.38, N = 35,
p – 0.71) for the experimental group was not
significantly greater than its posttest mean
score M = 105.5, t(37) = –0.31. However, there
is an observable difference in the pre- and
posttests mean score for the control group (pre/
M = 100.16, t(37) = 2.31, N = 26, p = 0.26
compared to post/((M = 108.08), t(37) =
12.47). Although exposed to the treatment, the
experimental group’s t stat remained negative.
While it may appear that students in both
groups are motivated to learn, especially the
control group, the difference in their performances was not statistically significant.
FINDINGS
87
paid to the elements of the learning technology, overall objectives of the subject matter,
and available resources (Huang & Soman,
2013). Gaining any positive results from
implementing technological games in the
classroom will depend on how accurately one
of the above factors is implemented.
Another concern is that gaming is no more
effective than teaching the content. This point
was also argued by Clark (2012) who claimed
the media is the vehicle through which instruction is delivered, hence it has no direct influence on student achievement. According to
Clark, we cannot seek to justify the use of
instructional media based only on the claims of
the unique contributions to learning that the
media has offered over the traditional brick
and mortar methods (Clark, 2012, p. xiii.). In
essence, media can improve instruction; however, it should not be viewed as the main determinant that explains why a student learns.
Hence, the media itself does not influence
learning. In the paper entitled “Reconsidering
research on learning from media” (Clark,
2012), stated that “studies clearly suggest that
media do not influence learning under any
conditions” (p. 23). Clark’s perspective is that
no matter how many media tools the instructor
invests in, it is the contribution of the material/
content, the methods used and the way in
which it is designed that causes a student to
learn. In relating to Maslow’s hierarchy of
needs, the design component of the game may
be one factor which would lead to student
motivation. Each will be discussed separately
below.
S
F
O
O
0
R
2
P
0
2
P
IA ©
As educators, one of our greatest tasks is to
capture the attention and interest of the learner.
That is, we need to keep them highly engaged
and on task. Capturing their attention and
motivating them to remain engaged with the
task will help students to keep coming back for
more of the motivator (Buckley & Doyle,
2014). The findings of this study support previous research findings. Higgins, HuscroftD’Angelo and Crawford (2017) study focused
on using technology as an intervention tool in
mathematics. The outcomes show that technology as an instructional tool can influence student outcomes due to changes in their attitude
toward learning and motivation to learn. On
the other hand, Huang and Soman (2013) cautioned that if gaming elements are not used
correctly, they may backfire on the instructor
and by extension the student. This view is
related to the notion that in order to get to certain stages of a specific game, the student must
be motivated to continue and to learn new
things. Therefore, special attention must be
Design
One of the main elements of a game is its
design as it pertains to the instructional content
that is inherent in the game. Another important
element is the behavior of the user, that is, and
how they respond to the gaming elements, the
feedback provided from answering each question, and the judgment of the user based on
what they thought of the game. In the study,
38.9% of respondents indicated that they
88
The Quarterly Review of Distance Education
disliked the design of the game. A welldesigned game should have specific learning
outcomes that correspond to course content
(Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell, 2002). Sandusky
(2015) opined that incorporating gamification
into the curriculum would be helpful to students if it can assist the learners to remember
90% of what they learned.
Rules-game playing involves several rules
that must be adhered to in order to complete a
specific lesson/quest or journey. When a user
violates these rules that govern game-play,
where the gamer responds out of the normal
characters, the game is stopped or reset from
the beginning. 42% of respondents in the study
indicated at the beginning that they did not like
the rules inherent in the game. Rules are very
important in any setting as, without rules, there
would be chaos and confusion (Marczewski,
2013). Marzewski believes that when rules
change, this can create negative feedback from
users especially if the rules were forced upon
them in the middle of a mission.
Feedback
Vol. 20, No. 4, 2019
an effective way to show users where they currently rank in comparison to their peers. The
leaderboard can be used as a motivating factor
as it is usually displayed on the front page
where the user is in full view of their activities.
However, it can be concluded from these
results that the leaderboard did not serve as a
motivating factor for students to play games on
Edufocal. In the study, only 13.9% indicated
that they enjoyed the leaderboard. When a leaderboard displays your score along with those
of your peers, it may encourage peer pressure,
as you may feel influenced that you must get to
the top. When a user rises on the leaderboard,
it can serve as a motivating factor as this may
mean that you are succeeding at the tasks that
you set out to do (Marczewski, 2013).
S
F
O
O
0
R
2
P
0
2
P
IA ©
This form of expression occurs when users
are engaged in a process where they are repeatedly experimenting with new technological
devices, as they are confident in the feedback
that will be given if it is correct or not (Chou,
2015). The feedback they receive will allow
them to adjust accordingly. The example was
given of playing with Legos where it is fun, but
you also have to use your brain to create art. In
the study, 13.9% indicated that they enjoyed
the feedback while 28.9% indicated that they
disliked the level of feedback given in the
game. Marczeski (2013) argued that instant
feedback to the user gives them a better understanding of the task, what they are doing, and
their overall progress.
Leaderboard
The use of the leaderboard is also an
important element of this study. Marczewski
(2013) argued that leaderboards can be used as
Rewards and Badges
Some essential elements in gaming such as
rewards and badges it is argued can be used as
support mechanisms to support the independence of learners, which inherently leads to a
higher level of motivation to learn (Landers &
Armstrong, 2017). Rewards should serve as
influencing the achievement of the user and
not becoming the achievement itself (Marczewski, 2013).
Byun and Joung (2018) believe that video
or computer games are an effective method
that can be used in the classroom to improve
student performance and motivation in mathematics. Wang, Goh, Lim, Liang, and Chua
(2018) also agree that game-based learning is a
potential approach to addressing the issue of
motivating students to learn math. While many
educators warn against viewing technology as
the cure-all, it should not go unrecognized that
media and technology plays a very important
role in the classroom as students are no longer
limited to the confines of the classroom.
Through computer networks and the internet,
the world then becomes each student’s classroom (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012). The study results concluded that,
there exists a gap between theory and practice
Gamification and Motivation to Learn Math Using Technology
as it relates to implementing gamification in
the classroom curriculum.
LIMITATIONS
• To strengthen the validity of the study, one
elementary school located in an inner-city
community was used.
• The researcher used the results from the
sample to generalize to the population.
• The study used only sixth-grade math
scores.
• Current research gap was limited to the
understanding of the potential nature of
gamification as a learning tool to improve
student math scores.
89
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The researcher measured student motivation to
learn mathematics across two full terms of
study. A survey was used to collect data at two
different periods (i.e., pre- and postimplementation) to examine student views and attitudes
toward mathematics and using technology to
learn mathematics. Based on the results, this
intervention did not statistically improve the
mathematics scores for these Grade 6 students.
However, data points show an overwhelming
majority of students agreed that they can learn
mathematics in both the experimental and control groups based on the mean scores. As such,
one cannot rule out the place of gamification
may be used as a motivator toward students
learning mathematics. Increase in the use of
technology in Jamaican primary classrooms
will lead to gamification and other similar software becoming a part of our students’ world;
hence, gamification will play a role in student
learning. However, more research is needed to
find ways in which to minimize the effects of
factors preventing students from good math
performance including using technology to fill
this gap.
S
F
O
O
0
R
2
P
0
2
P
IA ©
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
A mixed method perspective could be considered where focus groups and interviews are
included along with the traditional quantitative
method of data collection. This strategy would
allow researchers to get an opportunity to
speak face to face with users and ask the
“why” questions. This will include conducting
research involving administrators, instructors,
computer personnel, math teachers and everyone involved in the process including the
maker/owner of the software. Research should
also focus more on how to improve student
academic performance rather than what is the
“best” technology to implement. Gamification
and its benefits should not be used only as a
control mechanism; however, it should serve
the task of motivating and engaging the users
(Marczewski, 2013). In further discussing
what teaching strategies and media to be used,
Simonson et al. (2012, p. 135) points out that
“it is important to utilize students in this process as they can seek to provide insight into the
design of the learning experience. A longer
time period with different geopolitical educational boundaries/districts could be implemented at different time periods.
REFERENCES
Al-Azawi, R., Al-Faliti, F., & Al-Blushi, M. (2016).
Educational gamification vs. game-based learning: Comparative study. International Journal of
Innovation, Management and Technology, 7(4),
132–136. doi:10.18178/ijimt.2016.7.4.659
Alsawaier, R. S. (2018). The effect of gamification
on motivation and engagement. The International Journal of Information and Learning
Technology, 35(1), 56–79. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-02-2017-0009
Boyd, A. (2018, February). Gamification is a key to
motivating students https://blogs.edweek.org/
edweek/education_futures/2018/02/gamification_is_a_key_to_motivating_students.html
Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2014). Gamification and
student motivation. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 116–1175. doi:10.1080/
10494820.2014.964263
90
The Quarterly Review of Distance Education
Byun, J., & Joung. E. (2018, April). Digital gamebased learning for K–12 mathematics education:
A meta-analysis. Journal of School Science and
Mathematics, 118(3–4), 113–126.
Chou, Y. (2015). Actionable gamification—Beyond
points, badges, and leaderboards. Octalysis
Media.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on
learning media. Review of Educational
Research, 53(4), 445–459.
Clark, R. E. (Ed.). (2012). Learning from media:
Arguments, analysis and evidence (2nd ed.).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Doan, Q. (2018, January). Gamification to math
activities. Retrieved from https://www
.researchgate.net/publication/322244034_
Gamification_to_Math_Activities
Edufocal. (2017, March 2). Gamification: A tool for
lifelong learning [Blog post]. Retrieved from
https://blog.edufocal.com/
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002,).
Games, motivation, and learning: A research and
practice model. Simulation and Gaming, 33(4),
pp. 441–467.
Higgins, K., Huscroft-D-Angelo, J., & Crawford, L.
(2017). Effects of technology in mathematics
achievement, motivation, and attitude: A metaanalysis. SAGE Journals. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0735633117748416
Huang, W., & Soman, D. (2013). A practitioner’s
guide to gamification of education. Research
Report Series. Behavioral Economics in Action.
Toronto, Canada: Rotman School of Management.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning
and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. New York,
NY: Pfieffer. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207270
.2211316
Khalil, M., Davis, D., & Wong, J. (2018). Gamification in MOOCs—General overview. Open Education Global Conference 2018, At Delft,
Netherlands, doi:10.4233/uuid:559c4fa0-60e64e1a-8540-37f59afa7745
Landers, R. N., & Armstrong, M.B. (2017). Enhancing instructional outcomes with gamification:
An empirical test of the technology-enhanced
training effectiveness model. Computers in
Human Behavior, 71, pp.499–507. doi:1 0.1016/
j.chb.2015.07.031
Lister, M. C. (2015). Gamification: The effect on
student motivation and performance at the post-
Vol. 20, No. 4, 2019
secondary level. Issues and Trends in Educational Technology, 3(2), 1–22
Marczewski, A. (2013). Gamification: A simple
introduction and a bit more (1st ed.). (E-Book).
Kindle edition.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.
Retrieved from http://www.motivationalmagic
.com/library/ebooks/motivation/maslow_a-
theory-of-human-motivation.pdf
Patterson, C. (2018). Contracts signed for tablets in
schools project. Jamaica Information Service.
Retrieved from https://jis.gov.jm/contractssigned-for-tablets-in-schools-project/
Ryan, R., & Deci, L. E. (2017). Self-determination
theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation,
development and wellness. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Sandusky, S. (2015). Gamification in education.
Retrieved from http://arizona.openrepository
.com/arizona/handle/10150/556222
Schaaf, R. L., & Mohan, N. (2014). Making school
a game worth playing: Digital games in the
classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Scepanovic, S., Zaric, N., & Matijevic, T. (2015,
September). Gamification in higher education
learning-state of the art, challenges and opportunities. Paper presented at the sixth international conference on e-Learning (e-Learning),
Belgrade, Serbia.
Shiota, K., & Kyohei, S. (2016). A practical study of
mathematics education using gamification.
International Conferences ITS, ICEduTech and
STE. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/ED571606.pdf
Simonson, M. R., Smaldino, S.E, Albright, M., &
Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a
distance: Distance education foundations. London, England: Pearson Publications
Smith-Edwards, A. (2016). Students shine in
GSAT. Jamaica Information Service. Retrieved
from http://jis.gov.jm/students-shine-gsat/
Solomon, B., Tobin, K., & Schutte, G. (2015).
Examining the reliability and validity of the
effective behavior support self-assessment survey. Education and Treatment of Children,
38(2), 175–191.
Stewart-Mckoy, M. (2016). “Back in the game”:
Using gamification as an engagement tool with
Spanish language learners at UTech, Jamaica.
Journal of Arts Science and Technology, 9, 124.
Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective
well-being around the world. Journal of Person-
S
F
O
O
0
R
2
P
0
2
P
IA ©
Gamification and Motivation to Learn Math Using Technology
ality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354–356.
doi:10.1037/a00
Wang, X., Goh, D. H., Lim, E., Liang, A.W., &
Chua, A. Y. (2017). Examining the effectiveness
of gamification in human computation. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,
33(10),
813–821,
doi:10.1080/
10447318.2017.1287458
Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win:
How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Philadelphia, PA: Wharton Digital Press.
S
F
O
O
0
R
2
P
0
2
P
IA ©
91
Copyright of Quarterly Review of Distance Education is the property of Information Age
Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.