The effects of a gamified morphological awareness intervention on students' cognitive, motivational and affective outcomes

Abstract

Purpose: Morphological awareness (MA), the ability to reflect on and manipulate the smallest language units within a word, has been identified as an essential metalinguistic awareness to predict literacy development. In this study, we examine whether an online gamified English MA programme is more effective than physical face‐to‐face instruction in terms of cognitive, motivational and affective learning outcomes. Method: We applied a quasi‐experimental design using a sample of 33 students in an intervention group (gamified MA programme) and 49 in a control group (face‐to‐face programme). Both programmes were 8 hours in duration (30 minutes/session for 16 sessions). Students' cognitive, motivational and affective learning outcomes were evaluated before and after delivery of the programmes. We took an exploratory sequential mixed‐methods approach, in which qualitative data from semi‐structured interviews were used to validate the quantitative results. Results: The intervention group performed significantly better than the control group in MA and intrinsic motivation. No differences were found for word reading, reading comprehension or affective engagement. The qualitative analyses of the interview responses revealed in detail the students' perceptions of gamified learning. Conclusion: The findings provide evidence for the beneficial effects of gamified learning experiences in terms of cognitive and motivational outcomes in comparison to face‐to‐face instruction. What is already known about this topic Morphological awareness (MA) is identified as a crucial reading‐related skill that relates to students' word reading and reading comprehension. However, few studies can be found that have investigated the use of gamification to teach MA. Gamification is emerging as a popular approach to motivate learners and facilitate learning. However, limited evidence has been presented of its effects on students' cognitive, motivational and affective outcomes, and no clear theoretical framework for gamified MA learning designs has been established. What this paper adds In this study, the effects of gamified and face‐to‐face morphology programmes were compared. Self‐determination theory was applied to gamification design and the meta design theory ‘First Principles of Instruction’ was applied in the development of online MA activities. Gamified morphology programme is more effective than a face‐to‐face programme on students' cognitive and motivational outcomes. Implications for practice and/or policy This study advances the pedagogical design of gamified learning, which can be applied to the teaching of reading‐related skills such as MA. Both appropriate uses of game design elements and theory‐driven instructional design are important to the success of gamified learning. Future studies should investigate the design of gamification that encourage collaboration and support low‐achieving students.

Gamification in EFL/ESL instruction: A systematic review of empirical research

“…Based on Supplementary Table 1 , most of these journal articles were published in the last 6 years, which indicates that gamified EFL/ESL instruction is a relatively new field of research. Researchers of the studies reviewed used a variety of digital learning environments, not only including the widely used Kahoot ( Hung, 2017 ; Zou, 2020 ; Alawadhi and Abu-Ayyash, 2021 ; Almusharraf, 2021 ; Chen, 2021 ; Ebadi et al, 2021 ), Duolingo ( Bahjet Essa Ahmed, 2016 ; Guaqueta and Castro-Garces, 2018 ; Ajisoko, 2020 ), Moodle ( Barcomb and Cardoso, 2020 ; Ho, 2020 ; Qiao et al, 2022 ), and some gamified English learning APPs used in China like Baicizhan ( Dindar et al, 2021 ) and Shanbay ( Fan and Wang, 2020 ); but also self-designed gamified software or webpage ( Hwang et al, 2017 ; Hung, 2018 ), which indicates that digital gamified tools could play a vital role in EFL/ESL instruction and learning. The publication sources are influential SSCI-indexed or Scopus-indexed journals and to some extent show the characteristics of the combination of modern technology and language learning.…”

“…As shown in Supplementary Table 1 , although there were some drawbacks of using gamification, many empirical studies reviewed reported that both students and teachers held a positive attitude toward using gamification in EFL/ESL learning and teaching, because a gamified course system did increase students’ motivation to learn ( Liu and Chu, 2010 ; Hwang et al, 2017 ; Ge, 2018 ; Homer et al, 2018 ; Hung, 2018 ; Sun and Hsieh, 2018 ; Ho, 2020 ; Zou, 2020 ; Alawadhi and Abu-Ayyash, 2021 ; Almusharraf, 2021 ; Chen, 2021 ; Kaban and Karadeniz, 2021 ; Qiao et al, 2022 ), stimulate students’ interest and engagement in learning English ( Hung, 2018 ; Kingsley and Grabner-Hagen, 2018 ; Sun and Hsieh, 2018 ; Ho, 2020 ; Zou, 2020 ; Alawadhi and Abu-Ayyash, 2021 ; Wang et al, 2021 ), help to create an authentic language environment ( Wu et al, 2014 ; Mei and Yang, 2019 ), help students to make improvements in English skills performance and competence ( Sandberg et al, 2014 ; Hung, 2017 ; Hwang et al, 2017 ; Sevilla Pavón and Haba Osca, 2017 ; Lam et al, 2018 ; Hashim et al, 2019 ; Hong et al, 2020 ; Zou, 2020 ), foster the habit of self-learning and realize learning autonomy ( Sandberg et al, 2014 ; Rueckert et al, 2020 ), and help students to get better knowledge retention ( Ge, 2018 ; Chen et al, 2019 ).…”

“…However, gamification is not a perfect approach. According to Supplementary Table 1 , the drawbacks of utilizing gamification involve the technical problems ( Hung, 2017 ; Guaqueta and Castro-Garces, 2018 ; Tan, 2018 ; Ebadi et al, 2021 ), fixed learning routines ( Fu et al, 2021 ), the potential useless implementation of the gaming elements in teaching and learning ( Iaremenko, 2017 ), not necessarily to improve students’ English skills ( Homer et al, 2018 ; Lam et al, 2018 ; Qiao et al, 2022 ), and causing students’ high-level learning anxiety in a competitive learning context ( Hwang et al, 2017 ; Ge, 2018 ). Moreover, some gamified elements like the leaderboard and the competition context might scare off some children and could not improve their academic performance ( Li and Chu, 2021 ).…”

Examining the effects of mixed and non‐digital gamification on students' learning performance, cognitive engagement and course satisfaction

“…Another reason is that the leader board made the students take their decision‐making about challenging tasks more seriously (Haruna et al, 2021; Hew et al, 2016), such as in relation to reading comprehension activities. It enabled students to see ‘what was possible’ by showing them the progress of more advanced students (Bai et al, 2021; Qiao et al, 2022) and motivated students to exert the cognitive effort to climb the leader board or maintain their positions (Ding et al, 2017). Consequently, the students who participated in the mixed gamification tended to tackle not only the easier task but also challenging tasks.…”

The impact of an online gamified approach embedded with self‐regulated learning support on students' reading performance and intrinsic motivation: A randomized controlled trial

“…Gamification elements in our gamification application involves systematic levels, ranking students on the leaderboard based on their collection of points, assigning badges to award their achievements, and progress bars showing completed and uncompleted tasks. These game‐like elements provide an enjoyable and motivating environment that motivated students to exert more efforts in completing the tasks (Ding et al, 2018; Qiao et al, 2022; Shortt et al, 2021), and consequently improve students' learning performance. This research extends the finding to a highly under‐researched area (i.e., MA) and advances our understanding of how to design the gamified courses using two theories, namely the instructional theory First Principles of Instruction (Merrill, 2002) and the motivational theory self‐determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2012).…”