Chapter 3

GAMIFYING LEARNING FOR ESL LEARNERS IN

HIGHER INSTITUTION

N. Y. K. Zakaria1,2, S. N. A. Rabu 3, PhD, & A. Abdullah1, PhD,



*1, 3
School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Universiti
Sains Malaysia, Penang
2
Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43000 UKM, Bangi,
Malaysia
3
Centre for Instructional Technology & Multimedia, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
11800 Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang

ABSTRACT
One of the shifts that have been made in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4th IR) is to implement
a more digitalised, automated advancement of artificial intelligence, or what is better known as
Education 4.0. Education 4.0 refers to the use of technology-enhanced tools for learning. This
implementation includes gamification of classroom learning in the context of the gamified
learning situation. In language learning, gamification has great potential to improve a student's
motivation and attitude towards the learning process. In general, writing skills are becoming one
of the most difficult productive skills to master. Despite the growing interest in implementing
gamified learning, little attention has been given to honing students' writing skills. In the current
study, an online game application, Kahoot, was used as the primary source of students' assessment
in an academic writing course, which was participated in by 33 ESL learners at a public university
in Malaysia. After four months, the analysis of pre-and post-tests scores was conducted from the
single-group experiment. It is also noted that after implementing games in the classroom, two
types of learning performance were discovered, namely the declined learning performance and the
improved learning performance. The researchers also discovered three intensities of learning
performance from the analysis, namely: slight improvement, moderate improvement, and high
improvement. Levels of declination are also discovered, either slight declination, moderate
declination, or high declination. Learners in this study have undergone both improvement and
declination in learning performance. The results implied the students’ unfamiliarity with games in
a classroom setting despite their highly acceptable scores at the beginning of the course. On the
other hand, the study results also reveal that students who obtained lower scores in the pre-test,
which is referred to as low achievers, showed various types of learning performance. It is also
noted that several students in the low achiever category scored better in the post-tests and showed
an improvement at the end of the course.

Keywords: academic writing skills, gamification, language learning, English as a Second

Language (ESL)


Corresponding Author’s Email: [email protected].
2 N. Y. K. Zakaria, S. N. A. Rabu, & A. Abdullah

INTRODUCTION

In the new era of technology, a shift in human-machine relationships has emerged and
started to impact the growth of economies, societies, and personal lives. One of the shifts
that have been made in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4th IR) is to implement a more
digitalised, automated advancement of artificial intelligence, or what is better known as
Education 4.0. Education 4.0 refers to the use of technology-enhanced tools for learning.
As a result of this implementation, gamification can be used to help students learn in the
classroom.

In ESL learning, writing skills have become the most crucial skills to be acquired by
language learners. The ability to write efficiently reflects learners’ success in acquiring
productive skills. Previous studies have noted that language learners who can acquire
good productive skills such as speaking and writing are regarded as good language
learners (Coniam et al., 2017, Al-Naibi, Al-Jabri & Al-Kalbani, 2018). Successful
language learners possess a satisfactory level of language proficiency and can produce
decent output in the target language. These learners may have received the appropriate
amount of input from the target language, resulting in a satisfactory language production
level. In this context, "successful language learners" refers to learners who possess higher
proficiency in the target language. Acquisition of receptive and productive skills is
relatively equal (Chen & Zhang, 2017). In other words, these types of learners can
receive language input more effectively and can produce language output satisfyingly. It
is also noted that successful language learners possess a higher level of learning
motivation throughout the learning process. Students with strategic behaviour and
adequate knowledge of writing skills are predicted to produce better writing (Wijekumar
et al., 2019). Despite the success of language learning among successful language
learners, it is generally inevitable that productive skills are still the most difficult skills to
be acquired by language learners. The ability to master productive skills is highly
correlated to the amount of input received throughout the learning process. Language
learners' success in productive skills greatly depends on their receptive skills acquisition.
In other words, the success of productive skills mastery is parallel to the mastery of
language learners' receptive skills (Carolan & Kyppö, 2015). So, in order to learn
productive skills in a new language, language learners need to make sure they have
enough input to improve their receptive skills first.

Various factors have been noted to be the reasons that hinder students' ability to produce
a good piece of writing. This includes their anxiety towards the learning process and the
complexities of the writing process (Seow, 2002). Since the writing process requires
sufficient familiarity and practice, most language learners have endless problems
producing a good piece of writing. The writing process and the ability to write effectively
are highly correlated with the amount of input received by language learners along the
language process. It is also noted that the higher the amount of language inputs received,
the better the output produced by language learners.
3 Gamifying Learning for ESL Learners in Higher Institution

Language learners are constantly struggling with productive skills, especially writing
skills. Despite the numerous teaching approaches and methods that have been introduced,
their ability to write effectively is still unsatisfactory (Shams-Abadi & Ahmadi, 2015).
Difficulties in writing include planning, composing, and revising the materials. In higher
institutions, students constantly face difficulties in composing a piece of writing due to
inadequate content mastery, inability to retrieve appropriate resources for references, and
anxiety towards writing activities (Seow, 2002; Alzahrani, 2016). The factors mentioned
earlier generally have impacted language learners' writing skills and hindered their ability
to compose a piece of writing. Writing instructions in a language classroom are
conducted in a conventional manner whereby the pedagogical aspects of the instruction
are carried out formally. It is also asserted that learners' knowledge of writing skills
highly affects their production of writing, apart from their intrinsic motivation
(Wijekumar et al., 2019).

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

Literature Review

According to Ahmadi, technology has a significant impact on language acquisition since

students can study at their own speed, interact with instructors, and be strongly motivated
to gain language abilities (2018). Gamification in education is mainly becoming more
acceptable in language learning. Previous studies have noted numerous advantages of
implementing gamification in education. Concerning a gamified context, mobile is highly
acceptable as mobile devices are the main tools for a gamified learning context. In a
recent study by (Liu, Cheng & Hwang, 2018), gamified classrooms positively impacted
language learners' acquisition of the targeted skills. Learners in a language classroom
become highly motivated to participate in learning. Therefore, knowledge transfer
becomes more engaging and results in a fun classroom learning experience. In the context
of higher education learning, it is noted that the use of games as a learning tool has
become more helpful in establishing learners' autonomy to actively participate in the
learning process (Liao, Chang & Chan, 2018). In other words, learners may take charge
of their learning since they are accountable for their development. The situation is usually
the consequence of gamification components, which emphasise the use of points, levels,
and badges in learning. Being aware of their current learning progress gives the learners
the ability to modify their learning strategies and eventually improve their language
learning. Previous research has also shown that a positive attitude and belief may increase
motivation in learning and ultimately extend learners' attempts to use a different approach
to improve their writing (Johnson, 2008; Teng & Zhang, 2018; Liao, Chang & Chan,
2018). In a gamified learning context, game elements enable learners to keep track of
their learning progress and subsequently manage their learning strategies for future
improvement.

According to the "flow theory" in gamification, the process of learning becomes more
intuitive and impulsive as the learners usually take charge of their learning (Brom et al.,
2014). It is also noted that learning in a gamified context becomes more automatised as
4 N. Y. K. Zakaria, S. N. A. Rabu, & A. Abdullah

the learners are in the state of feeling a seamless sequence of responses with machine
interactivity, perceiving intrinsic enjoyment, loss of self-consciousness, and sensing self-
reinforcement during network navigation (Lu, Zhou & Wang, 2009). In the context of
writing instructions, the learners must be highly autonomous without feeling anxious
about the complexities of the writing process. Learners' anxiety towards writing can
hinder their ability to perform well and eventually affect their motivation in learning.
Therefore, it is crucial for language learners to learn the language in the most comfortable
and least threatening manner (Paiz, 2014). In response to the current language learning
situation, particularly in mastering writing skills, this study aims to discover the ESL
learners' performance after implementing gamified learning instruction in a blended
learning environment.

According to Ahmadi, technology has a significant impact on language acquisition since

students can study at their speed, interact with instructors, and be strongly motivated to
gain language abilities (2018). Gamification in education is mainly becoming more
acceptable in language learning. Previous studies have noted numerous findings on the
advantages of implementing gamification in education. Concerning a gamified context,
mobile is highly acceptable as mobile devices are the main tools for a gamified learning
context. In a recent study by (Liu, Cheng & Hwang, 2018), gamified classrooms
positively impacted language learners acquiring the targeted skills. Learners in a
language classroom become highly motivated to participate in learning. Therefore,
knowledge transfer becomes more engaging and results in a fun classroom learning
experience. In the context of higher education learning, it is noted that the use of games
as the learning tool becomes more helpful in establishing learners' autonomy to actively
participate in the learning process (Liao, Chang & Chan, 2018). In other words, learners
may take charge of their learning since they are accountable for their development. The
situation is usually the consequence of gamification components, which emphasise using
points, levels, and badges in learning. Being aware of their current learning progress
gives the learners the ability to modify their learning strategies and eventually improve
their language learning. Previous research has also shown that a positive attitude and
belief may increase motivation in learning and ultimately extend learners' attempts to use
a different approach to improve their writing (Johnson, 2008; Teng & Zhang, 2018; Liao,
Chang & Chan, 2018). In a gamified learning context, game elements enable the learners
to keep track of their learning progress and subsequently manage their learning strategies
for future improvement. According to the "flow theory" in gamification, the process of
learning becomes more intuitive and impulsive as the learners usually take charge of their
learning (Brom et al., 2014). It is also noted that learning in a gamified context becomes
more automatised as the learners are in the state of feeling a seamless sequence of
responses with machine interactivity, perceiving intrinsic enjoyment, loss of self-
consciousness, and sensing self-reinforcement during network navigation (Lu, Zhou &
Wang, 2009). In the context of writing instructions, the learners must be highly
autonomous without feeling anxious about the complexities of the writing process.
Learners' anxiety towards writing can hinder their ability to perform well and eventually
affect their motivation in learning. Therefore, it is crucial for language learners to learn
the language in the most comfortable and least threatening manner (Paiz, 2014). In
response to the current language learning situation, particularly in mastering writing
5 Gamifying Learning for ESL Learners in Higher Institution

skills, this study aims to discover the ESL learners' performance after implementing
gamified learning instruction in a blended learning environment.

METHOD

In this study, 33 undergraduates participated in the Teaching English as a Second

Language (TESL) programme. These students enrolled in a 4-month (one academic
semester) course related to academic writing skills. The course is a compulsory subject
for undergraduate students in the Faculty of Education, which is also a pre-requisite
course for their final year project dissertation. A single-case experimental study was
conducted to assess the students' performance. Kahoot, an online game platform, was
used as the primary tool for classroom learning. It is an online, synchronous platform that
allows learners to create online quizzes, surveys, or discussions, typically in a blended
learning setting. For this learning session, participants (the ESL students) are required to
be prepared with their devices, such as mobile phones, tablets, or laptops, to check on
their peers’ progress on a centralised screen controlled by the "Kahoot leader"
(instructor/peer initiating the Kahoot). The instructor sets up five sets of quizzes
throughout the course learning period. Each set of quizzes consisted of 12–15 multiple-
choice questions related to academic writing. As the learning took place in a flipped
classroom, the students were informed about the quiz before they were required to
participate in it. The students were given multiple-choice questions on a centralised
screen during the gameplay. The procedure for this study is presented in Figure 1 below.

Students accessed the

Students were required to
developed quiz on their web
wait at the waiting screen
browsers on mobile phones
(called the “lobby”) for
using a unique pin
their colleagues to register
generated by the cloud
into the system
gamified learning tool

Instructor initiates the quiz

after all students are ready
to start the quiz
6 N. Y. K. Zakaria, S. N. A. Rabu, & A. Abdullah

Figure 1. Procedure of gamified learning using Kahoot!

Students were instructed to access the developed quiz platform on their web browsers
using their mobile phones for each gamified learning session by entering a unique pin
generated by the system. After the students entered the game, they were required to wait
at the waiting screen (called the "lobby") while waiting for their colleagues to register on
the system. The instructor initiated the quiz after all the students were ready to start.

During the gameplay, the students key in their answers based on distinctive colours and
shapes, where each colour and shape represents their chosen answer. The students are
given 20 seconds to answer each question. At the end of each question, each student's
screen displays the number of points based on answer accuracy and response time. The
five highest points are displayed on the centralised screen of the instructor. The same
gameplay procedure is continued until the end of the online quiz. Scores are calculated
based on two criteria: correct answer and speed of answering. The default points for a
player are 1000 Kahoots, and then it is counted down to 500 (at zero seconds). For
example, if a question is 30 seconds long and a player answers correctly after 15 seconds,
the player will be awarded 750 Kahoots. Figure 2 below presents examples of questions
posed to the students.

Figure 2. Examples of questions posed to students.

7 Gamifying Learning for ESL Learners in Higher Institution

Learning Environment

The current study was designed in a blended learning environment with a face-to-face
and online learning experience. In this study, the students were required to enrol in an
academic writing course mainly about learning research skills. As shown in Figure 3, a
website was also developed for an online learning experience, and the materials are
accessible at https://ggge3143.weebly.com/. At the end of the course, the students were
required to produce a 5000-word research proposal.

Figure 3. Learning materials in an online gamified context.

In this course, the students were exposed to the aspects of research skills and academic
writing particularly related to the learning of the basis of educational research, the
foundations of educational research procedures, literature review, sampling techniques,
survey method, instrument construction, case study method, experimental method, action
research method, statistics in research, descriptive statistics as well as topics related to
inferential statistics and hypothesis testing as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Summary of course contents

TOPIC SUMMARY
 Introduction to Research Introducing the learners with the basis of a research
 Foundations of Educational Learning about the steps and procedures to be taken before
Research Procedures conducting research
 Literature Review Analysis of past studies and resources related to the conduct
of research
 Sampling Techniques Learning about sampling procedures and steps and collecting
 Survey Method data using different methods.
8 N. Y. K. Zakaria, S. N. A. Rabu, & A. Abdullah

 Instrument Construction
 Case Study Method
 Experimental Method
 Action Research Method
 Statistics in Research
 Descriptive Statistics
Learning of statistical analysis of data in educational research
 Inferential Statistics and
Hypothesis Testing

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This current study aims to discover learners' performance after the implementation of
gamified learning instruction in a blended learning environment. Analysis of the learners'
performance was analysed from the students’ initial and final scores on the gamified
learning application, Kahoot! From the Kahoot! scores collected, the researchers also
noted different categories of learners, namely the low achiever, the moderate achiever,
and the high achiever. This categorisation of students is conducted according to the initial
scores obtained in the pre-test analysis. Students who scored 0 to 3 are referred to as low
achievers, and those who obtained 4–6 scores are considered moderate achievers. On the
other hand, the higher achievers are those who obtained 7–10 scores in the pre-test. The
categorisation of students indicate the students’ competency levels before the
implementation of gamified learning instruction using Kahoot! application.

After the implementation of gamified learning instruction using Kahoot! application,

further analysis of the students’ gained scores (differences of post-test and pre-test
scores) revealed two types of learning performance after the implementation of gamified
learning instruction. The two types of learning performance are: improved learning
performance and declining learning performance. For each type of learning performance,
it is also noted that the students may have different levels of learning performance
changes (slight, moderate, and high). Therefore, the students either undergo either a slight
improvement, a moderate improvement. In addition to that, they could also undergo
either a slight decline, a moderate decline and high decline in learning performance. The
following discussion presented the results obtained throughout the learning sessions. This
includes presenting the categorisation of learners (based on pre-test results) and the types
of learning performance shown by the students based on their results in the post-tests.

Categorisation of Learners

Generally, the categorisation of students was conducted according to their initial learning
scores in the pre-test. Categorisation of students was conducted to discover the level of
students’ competency before the implementation of gamified learning instruction. It is
crucial for the researchers to identify their level of competency, as this will reflect their
current level of learning performance. Based on their initial scores, students who
achieved 0-3 marks were considered low achievers, while students who scored 4-6 marks
were regarded as moderate achievers, and students who scored 7-10 marks were
9 Gamifying Learning for ESL Learners in Higher Institution

considered high achievers. Table 2 below presents categories of learners according to

distinctive competency, namely low-achievers, moderate-achievers, and high-achievers.

Table 2. Categories of learners

Frequency
Categories of Learners Percentage (%)
(N)
(based on the scores obtained in the pre-test)
Low Achiever
6 18.8%
(Scores between 0-3)

Moderate Achiever
10 31.31%
(Scores between 4-6)

High Achiever
17 51.51%
(Scores between 7-10)

Analysis of the pre-test results revealed that 18.8% of the students achieved 0-3 marks
(low achiever), 31.13% achieved 4-6 marks (moderate achiever), and the rest of the
students (51.51%) scored 7-10 marks (high achiever). Low achievers are referred to as
students who obtained lower scores on pre-tests. An overview of students’ overall
achievement is presented in Table 3 after implementing Kahoot as a learning tool for a
gamified learning experience. An increase in scores implies the students' familiarity and
acceptance of Kahoot as a learning tool after four months of Kahoot implementation.
Categories of students discovered in this study implied the changes in learning
performance throughout the learning.

Generally, these students are likely to be less motivated to learn and require more
time to adapt to a new situation. In a gamified learning context, this type of student may
require extra time to get familiar with gamification elements. Despite the fun and
entertaining effects of the games, learners with lower performance usually face more
difficulties in grasping a new concept in a newly introduced context (Zhao, 2013).
Moderate achievers are students with average achievement at the beginning of the course.
This type of learner is referred to as a student with a moderate level of learning
performance with high potential for learning improvement. Despite their average scores
in the pre-test, these students are highly motivated and have the potential to succeed in a
gamified context. Previous research has found that average students have higher
motivation and interest in learning due to their moderate achievement in the learning
assessment (Ahmadi & Reza, 2018). From the pre-test results, the students who obtained
high scores are regarded as high achievers.

Students’ Overall Achievement

10 N. Y. K. Zakaria, S. N. A. Rabu, & A. Abdullah

An overview of students’ overall achievement is displayed in Table 3 after implementing

Kahoot as a learning tool for a gamified learning experience. An increase in scores
implies the students' familiarity and acceptance of Kahoot as a learning tool after four
months of Kahoot implementation. Categories of students discovered in this study
implied changes in learning performance throughout learning.

Table 3. Pre-test and post-tests results of Kahoot sessions

Initial Categories of Final Pre-test- Learning
Students Scores Student (based on (Post- Post-test Performance
(Pre-test) the scores obtained test) Difference (after post-tests)
in the pre-test) (Gained
Score)

P1 8 High Achiever 9 1 Slightly Improved

P2 9 High Achiever 7 -2 Slightly Declined
P3 6 Moderate Achiever 5 1 Slightly Declined
P4 5 Moderate Achiever 6 1 Slightly Improved
P5 1 Low Achiever 8 8 Highly Improved
P6 6 Moderate Achiever 8 2 Slightly Improved
P7 9 High Achiever 7 -2 Slightly Declined
P8 9 High Achiever 2 -7 Highly Declined
P9 9 High Achiever 9 2 Slightly Improved
P10 5 Moderate Achiever 2 -3 Slightly Declined
P11 1 Low Achiever 5 4 Moderately
Improved
P12 8 High Achiever 4 -4 Moderately
Declined
P13 8 High Achiever 6 -2 Slightly Declined
P14 6 High Achiever 9 3 Moderately
Improved
P15 8 High Achiever 10 2 Slightly Improved
P16 3 Low Achiever 5 -4 Slightly Improved
P17 6 Moderate Achiever 2 -4 Moderately
Declined
P18 9 High Achiever 0 -9 Highly Declined
P19 4 Low Achiever 5 -3 Slightly Improved
P20 7 High Achiever 9 2 Slightly Improved
P21 6 Moderate Achiever 5 1 Slightly Declined
P22 5 Moderate Achiever 6 1 Slightly Improved
P23 2 Low Achiever 8 8 Highly Improved
P24 6 Moderate Achiever 8 2 Slightly Improved
P25 9 High Achiever 7 -2 Slightly Declined
P26 4 Low Achiever 2 -7 Highly Declined
P27 7 High Achiever 9 2 Slightly Improved
P28 5 Moderate Achiever 2 -3 Slightly Declined
P29 10 High Achiever 8 -2 Slightly Declined
11 Gamifying Learning for ESL Learners in Higher Institution

P30 5 High Achiever 9 4 Moderately

Improved
P31 6 Moderate Achiever 9 9 Moderately
Improved
P32 9 High Achiever 0 -9 Highly Declined
P33 5 High Achiever 8 3 Slightly Improved

Types of Learning Performance

In education, learning refers to permanent changes in knowledge or behaviour that are

largely permanent with the goal of achieving a specific educational objective. On the
other hand, performance refers to changes in knowledge or behaviour that may be
quantified or seen during (or immediately after) teaching (Al-Rahmi et al., 2014). Table 4
below presents two types of student learning performance. In the current study, "learning
performance" refers to the changes that are quantified after the implementation of
gamified learning instruction. An improved learning performance refers to an increase in
the students' gained scores. These students are the ones who obtained higher scores on the
post-tests. Students who obtained lower scores in the post-tests are the ones who
possessed lower gained scores, thus referred to as students with declined learning
performance. After the implementation of gamified learning instruction, more than half
of the students (54.54%) obtained higher final scores, which reflected an increase in
gained scores. These students are classified as learners with improved learning
performance.

Table 4. Levels of students’ learning performance

Learning Level of Learning Frequency Percentage

Performance Performance (N) (%)

Improved Slightly Improved

(Gained 12 66%
(0-2 of scores increment)
Scores)
Moderately Improved
4 22%
(3-6 of scores increment)

Highly Improved
2 11%
(7-10 of scores increment)

Total 18 100%

Declined Slightly Declined

(Gained 9 60%
(0-2 of scores decline)
Scores)
Moderately Declined 2 13.30%
12 N. Y. K. Zakaria, S. N. A. Rabu, & A. Abdullah

(3-6 of scores decline)

Highly

Declined 4 26.70%

(7-10 of scores decline)

Total 15 100%
Based on overall gained scores, it is noted that more than half of the students (N = 18)
obtained an increase in their gained scores. According to Table 4, 66% (N = 12) showed
a slight improvement in their learning progress, while 22% (N = 4) showed moderate
improvement in their learning progress. However, only 11% of the students (N = 2)
showed high improvements in their studies throughout the four months of the course.
Analysis of their scores also revealed that a number of students showed a slight decline in
learning performance with a total percentage of 60% (N = 9), 13.3% of the students (N =
2) showed a moderate decline in learning performance, and 26.7% of the students showed
a high decline in learning performance.

Categories of Learners and Types of Learning Performance

After the implementation of gamified learning instruction, it was noted that all categories
of learners showed different types of learning performance, regardless of their previous
competency and achievement in the pre-test. Henceforth, it could be asserted that the
previous competency does not reflect the students’ upcoming performance after the
implementation of gamified learning instruction. From the scores obtained, it could be
deduced that there are different types of learning performance from three different
categories of learners (low achievers, moderate achievers, and high achievers).
Henceforth, the researchers discovered six different contexts of the learning process that
occurred after the implementation of gamified learning instruction, namely low achiever
with improved learning performance, low achiever with declined learning performance,
moderate achiever with improved learning performance, moderate achiever with declined
learning performance, high achiever with improved learning performance, and high
achiever with declined learning performance.

Low achiever with improved learning performance

A low achiever with improved learning performance is referred to as the category of
students who obtained lower scores in the pre-test analysis and obtained higher scores
during the post-test. These students have either shown slight improvement, moderate
improvement, or high improvement in their scores. Analysis of the scores implies
moderate achievers' acceptance of the use of games in language learning. Lower scores
noted in the pre-test implied students' average performance before implementing the
games. Students from the low-achiever category showed an improved learning
performance after implementing Kahoot for gamified learning. Improvement in learning
among low achievers implies their acceptance and familiarity with learning in a gamified
context (Ahmadi, 2018).
13 Gamifying Learning for ESL Learners in Higher Institution

Low achiever with declined learning performance

Students who obtained generally low scores in the pre-test analysis and obtained even
lesser scores in the post-test are referred to as low achievers with declined learning
performance. These students have either shown a slight decline, a moderate decline, or a
high decline in their scores. Low scores noted at the beginning of the course implied
students' current performance before implementing the course. The scores implied their
unsatisfactory level of learning progress. Apart from lower scores at the beginning of the
course, a decline in learning performance at the end of the course implied students'
dissension on the implementation of gamification in a classroom setting.

Moderate achiever with improved learning performance

A moderate achiever with improved learning performance is referred to as the category of
students who obtained average scores in the pre-test analysis and improved scores during
the post-test. These students have either shown slight improvement, moderate
improvement, or high improvement in their scores. Analysis of the scores implied
moderate achievers’ acceptance of games in language learning. Despite their average
scores in the pre-test, an improvement in learning performance was notably discovered
during the post-test. The abovementioned situation reflected the feasibility and
adaptability of a new learning tool in a language learning setting. Acceptance of the
gamification approach among moderate learners showed that it is also applicable to
learners of moderate proficiency in the language.

Moderate achiever with declined learning performance

Moderate achievers with declined learning performance refer to students who generally
obtained average scores in the pre-test analysis and obtained generally lower scores in the
post-test. These students are moderate learners with a declining learning performance.
These students have either shown a slight decline, a moderate decline, or a high decline
in their scores. Notification of decline in learning performance implied moderate learners'
inability to be familiar with elements of games in a gamified context (Pourhossein
Gilakjani, 2017). The student's average performance in the pre-test analysis delineated
moderation in their learning progress and potential in learning. However, due to the
unfamiliarity of the game’s elements, the learners' performance declined throughout the
course.

High achiever with improved learning performance

High achievers with improved learning performance are referred to as students who
obtained higher scores in the pre-test analysis and maintained their relatively good scores
during the post-test. These students have either shown slight improvement, moderate
improvement, or high improvement in their scores. Analysis of the students' scores
implied their general acceptance and familiarity with the use of Kahoot as a gamified
learning tool. Students who have achieved relatively more extensive improvement can
adapt better to the elements of gamification in classroom learning. Compared to students
who only showed a moderate or slight improvement in learning performance, these
students can grasp the concepts and technicalities in a game environment faster (Barret &
Liu, 2016). Inability to show higher improvement in learning progress may imply the
complexities of the learning tool and their unfamiliarity with learning in a new context.
14 N. Y. K. Zakaria, S. N. A. Rabu, & A. Abdullah

Higher achiever with declined learning performance

Students who obtained high scores in the pre-test analysis and generally obtained lower
scores in the post-test are referred to as higher students with declined learning
performance. These students have either shown a slight decline, a moderate decline, or a
high decline in their scores. Analysis of the students' scores implied their general
acceptance and familiarity with the use of Kahoot as a gamified learning tool. Students
who showed a relatively higher decline are students who cannot adapt to the elements of
gamification in classroom learning. The decline in learning performance could be due to
students' unfamiliarity with and anxiety towards using technology in a classroom setting
(Chen et al., 2009).

CONCLUSION

One of the shifts that have been made in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4th IR) is to
implement a more digitalised, automated, and advanced artificial intelligence, or better
known as Education 4.0. Education 4.0 refers to the use of technology-enhanced tools for
learning. This implementation includes gamification in classroom learning in the context
of the gamified learning situation. The fun and engaging features enable learners to be
fully equipped for the learning situation, apart from being highly motivated by the game's
elements. An online game platform, Kahoot, is one of the most popular and acceptable
tools for learning due to its usability and feasibility. This type of learning tool has
become highly accepted among students. Gamification features such as points, levels, and
rankings motivate learners to be fully engaged in the learning session. The main objective
of this study is to discover learners’ performance after the implementation of Kahoot as a
gamified learning tool. Analysis of the results obtained revealed three main categories of
learners, namely low achievers, moderate achievers, and high achievers. The
categorisation of learners was constructed according to the scores in the pre-test. It was
also noted that after implementing the gamification approach in the classroom, there were
two types of learning performance: declining learning performance and improved
learning performance. The researchers also discovered three primary levels of learning
performance from the analysis. Each student may have a slight, moderate, or high
improvement or decline after implementing gamified learning. Notably, students in the
higher achiever category do not necessarily obtain improved scores at the end of the
course. Despite their decent scores in the pre-test, some students in the high achiever
category also declined in the post-test. The results implied the students' unfamiliarity with
games in a classroom setting despite their highly acceptable scores at the beginning of the
course. On the other hand, the study results also revealed that students who obtained
lower scores in the pre-test, which are referred to as low achievers, also showed various
types of learning performances. It is also noted that several students in the low achiever
category scored better in the post-test and showed an improvement at the end of the
course.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
15 Gamifying Learning for ESL Learners in Higher Institution

Acknowledgement to the Universiti Sains Malaysia Short Term Grant

304/PMEDIA/6315468.

REFERENCES

Ahmadi, D., & Reza, M. (2018). The use of technology in English language
learning: A literature review. International Journal of Research in English
Education, 3(2), 115 125.
Al-Naibi, I. H., Al-Jabri, M., & Al-Kalbani, I. (2018). Promoting Students'
Paragraph Writing Using EDMODO: An Action Research. Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 17(1), 130-143.
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Othman, M. S., & Musa, M. A. (2014). The improvement of
students' academic performance by using social media through collaborative
learning in Malaysian higher education. Asian Social Science, 10(8), 210.
Alzahrani, H. F. (2016). Teachers’ stated beliefs on coded unfocused corrective
feedback in EFL writing at Saudi University. TESOL International Journal,
11(1), 52-63.
Barrett, N. E., & Liu, G. Z. (2016). Global trends and research aims for English
academic oral presentations: changes, challenges, and opportunities for
learning technology. Review of Educational Research, 86, 1227–1271.
doi:10.3102/0034654316628296
Brom, C., Buchtova, M., Sisler, V., Dechterenko, F., Palme, R., & Glenk, L. M. (2014).
Flow, social interaction anxiety and salivary cortisol responses in serious
games: A quasi‐experimental study. Computers and Education, 79, 69–100
Carolan, F., & Kyppö, A. (2015). Teaching process writing in an online environment. In
J. Jalkanen, E. Jokinen, & P. Taalas (Eds), Voices of pedagogical
development
Expanding, enhancing and exploring higher education language learning (pp. 13-30).
Dublin: Research-publishing.net. doi:10.14705/rpnet.2015.000285
Chen, T. S., Chang, C. S., Lin, J. S., & Yu, H. L. (2009). Context-aware writing in
ubiquitous learning environments. Research and Practice in Technology
Enhanced Learning, 4, 61–82. doi:10.1109/ WMUTE.2008.12
Chen, . & Zhang, L. (2017). Formative Assessment of Academic English Writing for
Chinese EFL Learners. TESOL International, 47.
Coniam, D., Zhao, W., Xiao, Y., & Falvey, P. (2017). Researching and publishing
in the English departments of Chinese tertiary institutions: Status and
challenges. Asian EFL Journal, 19(2), 111-140.
Johnson, M. S. (2008). Public writing in gaming spaces. Computers and Composition,
25(3), 270–283
Liao, C. C., Chang, W. C., & Chan, T. W. (2018). The effects of participation,
performance, and interest in a game‐based writing environment. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3), 211-222.
Lu, Y., Zhou, T., & Wang, B. (2009). Exploring Chinese users’ acceptance of instant
messaging using the theory of planned behavior, the technology acceptance
model, and the flow theory. Computers in human behavior, 25(1), 29-39.
16 N. Y. K. Zakaria, S. N. A. Rabu, & A. Abdullah

Liu, G. Z., Chen, J. Y., & Hwang, G. J. (2018). Mobile ‐based collaborative learning
in the fitness center: A case study on the development of English listening
comprehension with a context‐aware application. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 49(2
Paiz, Joshua, "Encouraging the Growth of OWLs Worldwide: Utilizing Intercultural
Rhetoric to Inform Best Practices" (2014). Purdue Writing Lab/Purdue
OWL Graduate Student Presentations. Paper 10.
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/writinglabgradpres/10
Pourhossein Gilakjani, A. (2017). A review of the literature on the integration of
technology into the learning and teaching of English language skills. International
Journal of English Linguistics, 7(5), 95-106. doi:
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n5p95
Seow, A. (2002). The Writing Process and the Process Writing. In J. C. Rhichards
& W. A Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An
Anthology of Current Practice (pp. 315–320). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Shams-Abadi, B. & Ahmadi, S. & Mehrdad, A. (2015). The Effect of Edmodo onEFL
Learners’ Writing Performance. International Journal of Educational
Investigations, 2 (2). 88-97.
Tan, S., & Zhang, F. (2018). Computer-enhanced and mobile-assisted language
learning: emerging issues and trends. Journal of Foreign Language
Education and Technology, 3, 2.
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2018). Effects of motivational regulation strategies on
writing performance: A mediation model of self-regulated learning of writing
in English as a second/foreign language. Metacognition and Learning, 13(2),
213-240.
Wijekumar, K., Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Lei, P. W., Barkel, A., Aitken, A., ... &
Houston, J. (2019). The roles of writing knowledge, motivation,
strategic behaviors, and skills in predicting elementary students’ persuasive
writing from source material. Reading and Writing, 32(6), 1431-1457.
Zhao, Y. (2013). Recent developments in technology and language learning:
Literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 7-27.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ674877