Application of the Educational Game

to Enhance Student Learning

Siu Yin Cheung *
Kai Yin Ng

 Department of Sport, Physical Education and Health, Hong Kong Baptist

University, Kowloon, Hong Kong

The purpose of this study is to investigate the use of an educational game to

enhance student learning effectiveness. This study consisted of 56 college
students majoring in physical education and recreation management (32 men,
24 women, age M = 21 years, SD = 1.72). Students used the educational
computer game “PaGamO” to study the motor learning and development
course. Students received rewards based on their individual and group
“PaGamO” scores. Regression analysis indicated that “PaGamO” score was a
significant (p < 0.01) predictor of multiple choice (MC) score in the final
examination, there was a medium positive correlation (β = 0.354).
The R2 suggests that 12.6% of MC score was explained by “PaGamO” score.
Quantitative and qualitative mixed-method approach was used to gain insights
into students’ perceptions and experiences of the educational game. The top
three statements of a modified questionnaire from Riemer and Schrader
(2015) are: (1) “In my opinion, the use of ‘PaGamO’ enables me to better
prepare for the final examination” (M = 5.04, SD = 1.41), (2) “In my opinion,
the use of ‘PaGamO’ enables me to understand learning contents” (M = 4.8,
SD = 1.19), (3) “In my opinion, the use of ‘PaGamO’ allows me to apply
knowledge” (M = 4.75, SD = 1.08). The top three motives to play “PaGamO”
were “fun,” “self-learning,” and “want to get a higher grade in the final
examination.” By using gamification as a tool for learning and studying,
students did find “PaGamO” effective for their learning experience. Both
intrinsic and extrinsic participation motives are reasons why students play
“PaGamO.” Furthermore, due to its convenience, using mobile devices to play
“PaGamO” is more popular than using computers and tablet devices. In
conclusion, the combination of gamification and traditional learning methods
can enhance students’ learning outcomes.

Introduction
Gamification in education has become the focus of attention in recent years.
While “gamification is the practice of using game design elements, game
mechanics and game thinking in non-game activities to motivate participants”
(Al-Azawi et al., 2016, p. 133), educational gamification is a teaching method
that requires learners to participate in competitions according to preset rules
(Fitzgerald, 1997). It has been an interdisciplinary and prevalent tool for
educators to utilize in teaching in the past few years (Robson et al., 2016). In
view of the rapid development of technology, learners may expect
teachers/lecturers to employ this tool in lessons/lectures (Rondon et al., 2013).
In the field of education, researchers have been eager to find new strategies to
enrich students’ learning experiences, especially in this technology-driven
world in which educational games are one of them (Minovic et al., 2012a).

Effectiveness of Educational Games

A systematic literature review had been conducted by Calderón and Ruiz
(2015) who found that 53 educational games research literature had adopted
different methods to assess the effectiveness of diverse educational games in
the period between November 2013 and April 2015, compared to 18 and 20
games used in health and wellness, and the professional learning and training
domain, respectively. They also reported that 60% of these 53 studies
examined the effectiveness of using educational games in higher education
setting, compared to only 40% in primary or secondary school settings,
indicating that teachers in higher education are more likely to combine
educational games with traditional teaching methods into students’ learning
experiences—a sign of creativity of embracing the new strategy to enrich
students’ learning experience.

Gamification has become popular in education in recent years. Its advantages

include, but not limited to, giving students the opportunity to experience
learning in a multi-sensory, active and experimental environment. Specifically,
learners can use these educational games for experimental learning to develop
their decision-making and problem-solving skills in a dynamic learning
environment (Adachi and Willoughby, 2013). In addition, students can receive
feedback/results immediately to get answers, instead of receiving delayed
feedback from traditional assessment methods (e.g., tests and examinations).
Moreover, some educational gamification may help to reduce limitations,
including time and place, as portable devices can enable students to study
and/or learn anytime and anywhere. These user-friendly tools can make
difficult subjects easier to understand and memorize (Hanus and Fox, 2015). In
other words, with the use of educational games, the learning process is
considered to be more interesting (Calliari, 1991), motivating (Sun-Lin and
Chiou, 2019), achieving knowledge retention (Gros, 2007), increasing attention
(Prensky, 2003), and can even enhance peer communication and social skills
(Liao et al., 2011).

Although extensive research supports the use of educational games to help

improve students’ learning experience, it has been found that young students
are more likely to be inattentive (Wickens, 1974), and the use of educational
games, among the many other solutions, to alleviate the issue may become
helpful. Research shows that students’ attitudes toward learning, class
attendance and mood were more positive when compared to primarily using
traditional methods of teaching and learning (Vernon and Blake, 1993). It is
believed that in the learning process, when students have the opportunity to
participate in decision-making, they are more likely to enjoy learning because
they regard “learning” as “playing” (Zapalska et al., 2012). Even though as
children grow older, their attention and concentration may correspondingly
increase (Wickens, 1974), it is important to ensure that students’ learning
motivation can remain at a high level. In other words, by using educational
games during lectures or teaching, students will be required to focus on the
teaching content in order to successfully complete the tasks in the game, whilst
their learning motivation may remain high due to the inclusion of game
elements in the learning process.

However, the advantages of using gamification in education does not

necessarily mean it would receive overwhelming advocacy, as it had produced
some mixed results (Hanus and Fox, 2015). Whitton (2007) even documented
that their participants did not find educational games motivating or interesting,
elucidating that since individuals normally play games for entertainment
purposes, the deployment of gamification in educational environments/settings
may not produce the same motivational effect. If individuals have the option of
either playing educational or casual games, they are more likely to choose the
latter (Karakus et al., 2008), because they may perceive educational games to
be dreary (Kinzie and Joseph, 2008). Furthermore, participating in educational
games may even have detrimental effects. According to Dominguez et al.
(2013), the utilization of education games was associated with a decline in
academic performance.

While the fun side of gamification has counterbalancing effect to learning

motivation is not yet known, an educational game is fun and/or motivating, and
ultimately effective for learning, will highly depend on learners’ personal
differences and learning preferences. It is therefore essential to investigate
factors affecting the effectiveness of educational games to enhance student
learning.

When May Educational Games Be Played?

The effectiveness of educational games is undoubtedly significant to scholars,
but it is equally important to consider how to make the best use of these
games. Most educational games are played on computers during classes, but
not many are played on mobile and tablet devices. This may limit the usage of
these educational games outside of traditional classroom. As a result, students
may not be able to take the full benefit of these games. It is worth noting that
learning and studying can take place outside the classroom, thus the
availability of these portable tools could meet the needs of the students. It is
believed that an educational game that enables students to “play” and study
conveniently and effectively may be more beneficial for students, particularly in
this fast-evolving modern society where individuals spend a vast majority of
time on their mobile phones. A study conducted by Hanson et al. (2010) found
that college students spend approximately 20 hours on their mobile phones per
week, for example, when they are traveling and waiting. The high usage of
mobile phones may indicate that if educational games are also available on
mobile phones, other than on computers, the opportunity to learn outside of the
classroom would increase as individuals may use the educational games
applications more often due to their convenience. Thus, the educational game
which is available on mobile devices was one of the criteria in the current
study.

Introduction of Educational Game: “PaGamO”

“PaGamO” is an online gamification learning platform for individuals to learn
and compete with each other by participating in a game. Individuals are
required to answer questions correctly in the game to successfully build,
occupy and conquer territories. It is believed that with such a popular and
unique method of motivating students to learn, students would be more
motivated and entertained in the learning process. In addition, “PaGamO”
provides information for teachers to monitor the learning progress of a large
group of students, as shown in the statistics of completion rate and percentage-
correctness rates.

With the increasing popularity of “PaGamO,” the game is now widely used for
different purposes, including but not limited to, language learning, license
examinations and other professional training. With over 500,000 players and
over US $6 million being invested into the game (Business Next, 2015), we may
wish to understand the factors behind its quick success ever since its start-up,
and more prominently, its effectiveness for learning.

One of the advantages of the “PaGamO” is that it can be accessed via

computer, mobile phone and tablet applications. Students can not only review
their knowledge prior to their academic tests/examinations, they can also use
educational games as study tools in their spare time. If these mobile
educational games are developed and used appropriately, they may help
enhance students’ learning motivation and change their perceptions of
learning, i.e., learning can be fun and interesting. In this rapidly changing
world, traditional education system may not be as effective as before, hence
researchers are very eager to explore alternative learning strategies (Minovic
et al., 2012b).

Thus, the principal researcher decided to use the educational game, i.e., the
“PaGamO,” in the current study. For students in the current study, other
assessments (such as quizzes and tests) that were conducted in class
accounted for a larger proportion of their final grades. The principal researcher
decided that the “PaGamO” assessment scores would contribute to only 5% of
the final grade, so students could try this educational game as a study tool
and/or as a supplement to the learning materials in the lectures. After the
selection of the educational game, the next step was to design the appropriate
instructional strategies according to the theory of enhancing students’
learning.

Educational Games and Motivation

In order to let educational game developers understand how to motivate and
encourage individuals to use educational games, it is important to first
understand the reasons behind the popularity of recreational games. According
to the Interactive Software Federation of Europe (2016), individuals from the
Great Britain, France, Germany and Spain spent more than 6 hours every week
playing video games, and their gaming activity further increased in 2017
(Interactive Software Federation of Europe, 2016, 2017). Those players are
believed to play games for enjoyment without any pressure from outside in
participation. Precisely, players are attracted to those games while no one else
“force” them or encourage them to play. One explanation is that playing games
is intrinsically satisfying for them, as players can experience a sense of
enjoyment and fun (Malone and Lepper, 1987). For some, they are willing to
pay an absurd amount of money to participate in these video games. Scholars
from the education sector are very interested in studying the sources of
motivation that lead individuals to spend time and money on these
entertainments. It would be fascinating to see if educational games, like
popular recreational video games, can enhance motivation for learners. As
such, the Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan, 2004), a widely used
theory in motivation, is adopted to aid the discussion in this study. It will also
be appropriate to use theoretical reasoning to elucidate the sources of
motivation to participate in recreational gamification.

Self-Determination Theory
Motivation is defined as a decisive psychological process that can stimulate
human behavior and guide our behavior to specific situations (Reeve et al.,
2004). Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan, 2004) meticulously
explains about the sources of motivation in some specific situations, in this
context, it is to play educational games. This theory comprises of three
different types of motivation, namely “intrinsic motivation,” “extrinsic
motivation,” and “amotivation.” “Intrinsic motivation” refers to internal
feelings, such as enjoyment, pleasure or interest, which drive the individuals to
participate in a particular activity. For example, a game player may play a
recreational game because he enjoys it. Conversely, “extrinsic motivation”
consists of external rewards or outside pressure that encourage or push
individuals to behave in a certain way. For example, a player may play a game
because he wants to win a medal. The behavior is merely directed by the
external reward rather than intrinsic feelings. It is worth noting that over-
reliance on extrinsic rewards can weaken the existing intrinsic motivation
because individuals are likely to focus on the extrinsic reward as a source of
motivation (Lepper and Henderlong, 2000). Finally, “amotivation” indicates
that individuals are not motivated at all to complete a particular activity. In the
educational context, individuals may not be psychologically driven to
participate in certain educational activities, for example, to play educational
games, because they are simply not motivated.

It is believed that the adherence to a particular activity will be longer if we

engage with intrinsic motivation (Ryan et al., 1997). Intrinsic motivation can be
enhanced when three basic psychological needs are met, namely “autonomy,”
“competence” and “relatedness.” How the three needs are relevant to the
current study will be discussed in detail in later part of this paper. It is
suggested that when one of them is achieved, it is likely to increase a sense of
intrinsic motivation in oneself. If three of the needs are all satisfied, the level of
motivation may be further enhanced (Deci and Ryan, 2004). However, it is
worth noting that the three basic psychological needs may offset each other
and can be an impediment of one or another needs. Specifically, one of the
needs can be fulfilled at the expense of the others, or two needs can be met
through the same task (Ryan and Deci, 2000). For example, collaboration in a
group may yield a sense of relatedness, but at the expense of one’s need for
autonomy because other group members may not approve certain decisions,
therefore freedom can be limited. On the other hand, two psychological needs
(relatedness and competence) can be satisfied when a group has successfully
mastered a particular task together. It is therefore recommended that when
teachers are supporting one of the psychological needs, they should be wary of
not thwarting the other needs (Van Roy and Zaman, 2017).

Need for Autonomy

In education, “autonomy” refers to the absence of external pressure to force
the learners to act or behave in a certain way during the learning process.
Individuals would have freedom of choosing whether or not they will take
certain actions, and when those actions are being taken. For example, if
individuals can choose when to exercise during the week, instead of having a
fixed schedule of running on every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, they are
more likely to enjoy exercising because they would enjoy a sense of autonomy.
In the educational context, when students are being put in situation where it is
controlling, such as having very strict parents and teachers, the level of
autonomous motivation is likely to descend (Rigby and Ryan, 2011). Moderate
level of choice and freedom have been found to be fundamental toward
autonomous motivation (Deterding, 2015). However, Rigby and Ryan
(2011) believed that individuals can still have a sense of autonomy even when
only one single option is provided. For example, if students are being
instructed to write an essay on a particular topic, and if that topic aligns with
their interest or strength, that will allow the students to have a sense of
volition.

With regard to the current study, the authors believe that a sense of autonomy
was achieved through the freedom of: (1) choosing when to play the game,
rather than forcing them to play in class, and (2) choosing whether to use the
“PaGamO” as a study tool or not. Although some may argue that students’
sense of autonomy may diminish as the “PaGamO” scores would contribute
only 5% to the students’ final academic grade, the researchers believe that the
small fraction would not negatively affect students’ sense of autonomy. On the
contrary, this could encourage students to participate in the game, and
students could possibly become more intrinsically motivated once they have
explored the interesting and motivating side of the game.

Need for Relatedness

The need for relatedness can be achieved when individuals feel that they
belong to a particular group (Deci and Ryan, 2004). When humans have the
opportunity to share experiences, the positive feelings will be strengthened and
fostered (Rigby and Ryan, 2011). Although students may be involved in school
settings where they can become competitive, they all share a common goal—to
achieve academic success. If teamwork is encouraged, it would enable students
to share their knowledge and experiences, resulting in stronger bonds, higher
sense of relatedness and motivation to complete a common task together (Carr
and Walton, 2014). The benign competition against other groups would
perhaps drive students to improve as a group to fulfill a sense of relatedness
and competence.

In the current study, 4–5 students formed a team. The “PaGamO” also allowed
students to send messages among themselves to discuss their team tactics and
share their academic knowledge. Taking the advantage of using social features,
the students were encouraged to work together to complete the “missions”—to
facilitate interaction among them and lead to better assessment grades (De-
Marcos et al., 2016).

Need for Competence

The “need for competence” refers to the feeling of being able to successfully
master a particular task/activity (Deci and Ryan, 2004). Students who
experience a sense of competence are more likely to persist in the face of
challenges, and have better academic results than those who are incompetent
(Rigby and Ryan, 2011). However, it is not just a matter of making the
activities/tasks easy to accomplish, so that students can experience a sense of
mastery. Teachers should ensure that the tasks are being set at an
“appropriately difficult level” where they are challenging, yet attainable (Peng
et al., 2012), as students may feel bored if they can do the task effortlessly, or
may become anxious if it is too difficult (Csikszentmohalyi, 1990).

In the current study, with over 50 students in the sample, it is not feasible to
ensure that the difficulty of the questions is challenging yet attainable for every
student. Therefore, the researchers included a set of easy, medium and hard
questions in the “PaGamO” sessions, with a large proportion being at medium
level. Students were also encouraged to seek advice from the principal
researcher if they would perceive the questions to be too challenging, i.e.,
tutorial sessions. Thus, students would feel more comfortable and competent
when they thoroughly understand the content, and would be able to master the
“hard” questions.
Ways to Enhance Intrinsic Motivation
One of the factors that Malone and Lepper (1987) mentioned to increase
intrinsic motivation is curiosity. If learners are curious and have a desire for
knowledge, they are more likely to pay more attention to the new information
in order to integrate into their existing knowledge. Curiosity is induced when
there is a gap between our perceived discrepancies or conflicts from our
personal expectations and knowledge (Loewenstein, 1994). As human beings,
we are curious about our surroundings and the world in order to make sense of
the things that we are not certain and/or could not explain. On the other hand,
as Garris et al. (2002) argued, whether an individual is motivated to learn can
be determined by the complexity of the information. For example, if the
information is considered to be slightly discrepant/easy, the learner may simply
disregard the message. On the contrary, if the new information has a high level
of discrepancy compared with our existing knowledge, or if the content is too
difficult, it may confuse the learner, and he/she may lose motivation or interest
to learn the new knowledge. In this sense, it should be taken into consideration
when designing the questions for students in educational games. The questions
should be set at a level where students can feel challenged, yet attainable.

In addition, many children and adolescents do not participate in outdoor sports

or physical activities, but they play computer and video games in their spare
time (Mumtaz, 2001), so educators are interested in combining educational
content with educational games to enhance students’ intrinsic motivation for
learning (Prensky, 2001). Prensky has provided some suggestions to keep
players intrinsically challenged: (1) to ensure that individuals feel challenged,
and experience a sense of mystery and control while playing; (2) when
designing the game, ensure that the level of difficulty of the game should
neither be too easy nor too difficult, otherwise both may affect the player’s
motivation; (3) the player’s score should be provided to the player so that
he/she can track the progress while pursuing the goal; and (4) the purpose of
playing the game must be relevant and meaningful to the player—gaining
specific knowledge from participating in the game should provide a purpose for
the learner to be adherent to the game. This study has followed each of the
aforementioned guidelines with an aim to enhance intrinsic motivation in
learning.

Objective
This study uses a combination of gamification and traditional learning methods,
while implementing the elements of self-determination theory to design the
instructional strategies to motivate students. The aim is to study whether the
use of educational game “PaGamO” could enhance students’ learning ability
and understand students’ perceptions of educational games.

Materials and Methods

Participants
The participants consisted of 56 college students (32 men, 24 women, Mage =
21 years, SD = 1.72) majoring in physical education and recreation
management and taking the motor learning and development course. Each
group consisted of 4–5 students; a total of 12 groups were formed. In addition,
a total of five students, who had achieved low, medium, and high scores (score
range from 19 to 94 out of 100 points) in the tasks using “PaGamO,” had
participated in focus-group interviews, further enabling the researchers to
collect students’ opinions on “PaGamO” in exhaustive detail. According
to Morgan (1988), a small focus-group encourages participants to make more
contributions.

Procedure
Since the educational game “PaGamO” was newly introduced to the
researchers in this study, a meeting was held with the Senior Project Officer
(SPO) of the University’s Centre for Holistic Teaching and Learning in order to
gain a thorough understanding on how the educational game functions. SPO
provided clear instructions and recommendations to ensure that the game
could run and be managed smoothly and effectively.

Then, the principal researcher/lecturer of the course designed a list of 100

multiple-choice (MC) questions based on the course materials. Afterward, the
researchers checked the quality and the accuracy of the questions and
answers. They also discussed the difficulty of the questions and ensured that
the questions were comprised of different levels, namely simple, medium, and
difficult. After successfully uploading the questions to the “PaGamO” system,
the SPO and researchers introduced the game instructions to students in
detail. Technical support was also provided to ensure that all students could
download and install the “PaGamO” game effectively.

In order to increase the sense of competitiveness while playing the game, 4–5
students formed their own team. A total of 12 teams were eventually formed.
Teams and individuals with the highest scores at the end of the study would be
awarded. Meanwhile, the principal researcher would send weekly reminder to
students to participate in the game. Upon completion of each section, students
would receive individual and team scores.

Students played the “PaGamO” game in four sections according to the theme of
the module. As the principal researcher decided to encourage and increase the
motivation among the students, the latter were informed that 20 of the 100
questions in “PaGamO” would be included in the final examination. In addition,
the final “PaGamO” score would contribute 5% to the students’ final grade.
Students were given 7–10 days to complete the questions (the length of the
completion time depended upon the number of questions in different sections).
All tasks of the four sections were required to be completed within 5 weeks.
The principal researcher also encouraged students to collaborate with their
team-mates and/or search for answers in handouts and textbooks, that aimed to
stimulate their critical thinking and make it easier for them to absorb what
they have learned.

Data Collection and Analysis

A mixed-method approach was used to thoroughly assess the effectiveness of
“PaGamO.” The current study extracted primary data via the use of
questionnaires and was supplemented by interview in which feedback and
answers were thematically analyzed.

Quantitative Method
Students’ perceptions and opinions of “PaGamO” were evoked immediately
after the completion of their final examination through a questionnaire which
consisted of two sections. Questions on Section 1 were modified from the
questionnaire of Riemer and Schrader (2015) entitled “Students’ attitudes,
perceptions and intentions to learn with different types of serious games.” For
example, the question “I would like to use serious games regularly for learning” was
changed to “I would like to use ‘PaGamO’ regularly for learning.” The reason for
changing the wording was to ensure that students were indicating their level of
agreement or disagreement based on the “PaGamO,” instead of general
educational games. Questions on Section 2 specifically focused on “PaGamO,”
such as “Would you like the game ‘PaGamO’ to be played in other courses?” and “What
are your motives to play ‘PaGamO’?”

Qualitative Method
To help answer the research question (In what ways the application of the
educational game to enhance student learning?), a group of students were
subsequently invited as members of a focus-group to elaborate their thoughts
on “PaGamO.” In the questionnaire, a student strongly agreed to the
statement “I would like to use ‘PaGamO’ regularly for learning.” In order to understand
the reasons behind this response, the breadth and depth of the information was
gathered through exhaustive interviews with the students. For example, the
students elaborated and insisted, “‘PaGamO’ can help me revise for the final exam for
this module”. This extensive information enabled researchers to better
understand this circumstance.

Prior to the interviews, trust and rapport were built in order that participants
would provide truthful and exhaustive data for precise and valid analysis
(Hodge et al., 2014). In addition, the researchers also ensured that the
questions in the interview guide were open-ended and non-leading (Patton,
2002). Semi-structured interviews lasted 30 minutes on average. The audio
recording was used to assist the note-taking in order to ensure the accuracy of
the latter. After that, the transcript of the interview was translated back to
back to confirm accuracy.

Some of the literatures identified by Boyle et al. (2016) have examined the
effectiveness of educational games on learning using randomized control trial
(RCT) and quasi-experimental design. However, as the students participated in
this study were taking a university course, and they were assessed as a whole
class, it would not be feasible to allocate them into experimental and control
groups. Furthermore, it would be meaningless to conduct a pre-test as our
participants would have limited knowledge in the motor development and
learning topics.

Results and Discussion

Students’ “PaGamO” Score and Examination Score
There were 48.3% of the students completed a total of four sections of the
game, and eight of them scored above 80 points out of 100. The final
examination consisted of three parts, namely, MC questions (20%), fill in the
blanks (20%), and long questions (60%). A statistical analysis was conducted to
examine whether there was relationship between the educational game
“PaGamO” score and the final examination score. The quantitative data was
supported by qualitative findings received from focus-group interviews.

A simple regression was conducted to examine the relationship between the

“PaGamO” (“PaGamO” score) and the MC and final examination scores.
Regression analysis indicated that “PaGamO” score was a significant (p < 0.01)
predictor of MC score in the final examination. A medium positive correlation
(β = 0.354) was found. The R2 suggests that 12.6% of MC score was explained
by “PaGamO” score. For the final examination score, the “PaGamO” score was
not a predictor (p = 0.065). The R2 suggests that only 6.3% of final examination
score was explained by “PaGamO” score. One possible explanation was that the
format of the question in “PaGamO” was MC questions, while there were other
questions in different formats in the final examination. Therefore, it could be
more challenging if students were unable to transfer and apply their knowledge
from one format to another while answering the questions. Also, they had never
seen the long questions before the final examination, unlike the questions in
MC which primarily were included in the “PaGamO” game.

Some students had a low “PaGamO” score, but had a high MC 20 mark on the
final examination were observed. We assumed that students tended to use their
existing knowledge to conduct self-tests rather than searching for answers
directly using their lecture notes. These assumptions are supported by students
in the focus group:

“At the beginning, I don’t use notes because I want to see how much I know, but for the
questions that I did wrongly, probably when I was wrong twice, I would use the notes in
the third time. Because if you get the notes out at the beginning, you won’t remember
the answer (for the final exam), but when you are wrong, you will know what you have
done wrong.”—Student A.
 “When I played it the first time, I did not revise for it, I based on my memory only and
tested myself to see how much I remember. For second time, I did do a bit of revision,
because I want to get higher scores.”—Student B.
“PaGamO” could be an effective tool for studying and students seemed to have
learnt by adopting the “trial and error” strategy to strengthen their memory on the
subject. Another reason for scoring the high MC mark was possibly because the
students had been informed that 20% of the questions in “PaGamO” would
repeat in the MC section in the final examination.

One of the main purposes for using educational games is to provide an

alternative learning option for students, with an aim to help them study more
effectively in an entertaining manner. A student said, “I think this app is quite good,
because it is a game, it allows me to revise in a relaxing way, unlike how I normally revise
which I just try to remember everything” (Student C). When nearing the end of the
semester, with assignment deadlines and examination periods approaching, it
could become a stressful period for students. The quote aforementioned
suggests that students perhaps can study effectively “in a relaxing way” rather
than simply over-loading their memory. The elements of the game could be
new, exciting and challenging for students to learn and study. This method was
also welcomed by other students from the same class, “I can play education game
in this subject, I think it’s quite special” (Student D) and “it’s better than keep on revising my
notes again and again, PaGamO is a more interesting way to revise, so why not use it.”
(Student E). Hence, the findings support that the educational game can enhance
students to study the course materials and could be effective in learning.

Students’ Motives to Play “PaGamO”

Motives for participating in the “PaGamO” were mainly intrinsic as suggested
in the top 10 motives of the list, i.e., (1) fun, (2) self-learning, (3) want to get a
higher grade in the final examination, (4) challenging, (5) want to get a higher
score in the game, (6) enjoyment, (7) I can choose when to play, (8) self-
achievement, (9) want to win, and (10) the game has high relevance to my
learning. The findings are consistent with previous research (Dominguez et al.,
2013; Sun-Lin and Chiou, 2019) and they support the gamified design to make
learning tasks more interesting and fun, thereby attracting students’ attention
and motivating them to complete the learning tasks.

In addition, not only were the students driven by both intrinsic and extrinsic
motives to play the “PaGamO,” there was also the social factor involved.
Student A remarked:

“The game is simple and it has ranking, that’s why it is competitive, it is fun. It is
challenging… you have to compete with others, so that you have the motivation to
play, because you would want to compare with others, if you can see the ranking, the
motivation level is higher.”
Herodotou et al. (2014) argued that the theory of self-determination did not
well predict individuals’ motivations for playing entertainment games. In their
research, they found a weak association between basic psychological needs and
game playing. The researchers believe that one of the main factors motivating
individuals to play casual games is the social interaction between players, who
would cooperate and/or compete with each other. In the current study, the
view provided by Student A supports the discovery of Herodotou and the
research team, suggesting that social interaction and competitiveness are key
to game players’ participation in the game.

Students’ Perceptions of Educational Games

In order to study students’ cognitive perception and intention to use the
“PaGamO,” 15 statements on the 7-point Likert scale were listed and utilized
for in-depth analysis. The top five statements are: (1) “In my opinion, the use of
‘PaGamO’ enables me to better prepare for the final examination” (M = 5.04, SD =
1.41), (2) “In my opinion, the use of ‘PaGamO’ enables me to understand learning
contents” (M = 4.8, SD = 1.19), (3) “In my opinion, the use of ‘PaGamO’ allows me to
apply knowledge” (M = 4.75, SD = 1.08), (4) “In my opinion, by using ‘PaGamO,’ I can
learn easily” (M = 4.67, SD = 1.28), and (5) “In my opinion, using ‘PaGamO’ enhances
my learning performance” (M = 4.65, SD = 1.35) (see Table 1).

Table 1

TABLE 1. Students’ perceptions and intentions to use the educational game.

Since “In my opinion, the use of ‘PaGamO’ enables me to better prepare for the final
examination” was the highest ranked statement, it was deemed essential to
ensure that further elaboration was heard from the students. When being
asked how “PaGamO” was helpful in their final examination, Student C
recalled, “in ‘PaGamO,’ when you are wrong, you are more likely to remember it better,
and when the questions come up again in the exam, then you won’t be wrong
again.” Similar responses were also heard from Student D, who said, “after
answering the questions, I can remember it very well.” It was evident that the “trial-and-
error” approach had helped students memorize the content successfully who
subsequently could apply the knowledge in the final examination.

Furthermore, based on the 15 statements of “Students’ attitudes, perceptions

and intentions to learn with different types of serious games” questionnaire
of Riemer and Schrader (2015), three factors were also examined and the
findings are as follows: (1) perceived potential to support performance which
includes items on beliefs about whether the game promotes specific learning
performance, such as the final examination (range = 8–35, M = 23.82, SD =
5.48); (2) perceived potential to support performance which includes items on
beliefs about the overall efficiency and effectiveness of academic performance
through the use of games (range = 6–35, M = 22.89, SD = 6.27); (3) usage
intention, address the intention to use or avoid using serious games for
learning (range = 5–35, M = 19.38, SD = 5.38). Moreover, independent t-test
results of the three factors show that men and women have similar views on
“PaGamO.”

However, as mentioned earlier, perceptions of whether “PaGamO” is

interesting and motivating largely depend on individual differences and
learning preferences. As Student E recalled:

“PaGamO” doesn’t help that much… after I complete it, I won’t actually remember what
we have answered… I don’t actually like to use these methods (educational games) to
revise. Traditional learning and revision will help me more, it is better to have quizzes
in classes than “PaGamO.”
Consistent with previous literature by Whitton (2007), and Chen et al. (2019),
the citations above suggest that not all students would find educational
gamification fun and motivating. Some students may prefer to use traditional
learning and teaching methods as a result of, perhaps, its being a habitual
behavior. Furthermore, the game design may also affect students’ perceptions
of “PaGamO.”

“PaGamO” is less fun compared to the one I played before, in “PaGamO,” you can only
upgrade your land or rob other people’s lands, but the one that I played before had
different subjects, it had some words that come out and you select the right ones, but
“PaGamO” only had A, B, C, like exams.—Student C.
As such, it is important to ensure that the game design is fun enough to keep
students engaged. MC questions may appear too similar to the examination in
the current study. Although the researcher is convinced that if MC questions
can mimic the format of the examination, students may prepare better for the
examination. However, Student C’s view suggests that when educational
gamification is too similar to the formats of the examination, it can become
demotivating and tedious. Since it is not clear which question format is best for
students’ learning, further research is necessary.

Technological Devices for Playing Educational Games

In relation to the devices used by students to play “PaGamO,” it was reported
that 42 students used mobile phones, 12 used tablets and 2 used computers.
The use of a mobile phone enabled students to play “PaGamO” conveniently,
which could increase the frequency of game participation. Student A and C
mentioned, respectively, “I think this game is quite good, because it is portable, you can
bring it anywhere (mobile), so when you are free, you can take it out and play the
game” and “because it is more convenient, you can simply press the app button, and you
can play.” The convenience undoubtedly enabled students to learn and/or study
more often without having to carry textbooks/lecture materials around. They
could simply open the “PaGamO” application on their mobile phones and
immediately start playing and studying.

Likewise, despite not many students used computers to play “PaGamO,” one
student pointed out its convenience, as student B recalled, “When I open the
‘PaGamO’ link, I don’t normally close it, so when I turn on my computer, I can play the
game.” The choice of devices used to play “PaGamO” would depend upon
personal preferences and the availability of devices. This game also allowed
students to have freedom to decide when to play and on what devices to play.

Average Time Spent on “PaGamO” for Each Session

For each “PaGamO” session, 62.5% of students used “PaGamO” for less than
an hour, while 32.7 and 1.8% of them spent between 1 hours and within 2
hours, and between 2 hours and within 3 hours, respectively. Studying can be
mentally demanding and dull for students as they would have to maintain high
concentration during the process. One of the purposes of using “PaGamO” was
to enable students to study while “playing” and make it more interesting rather
than boring. Notwithstanding the time spent on “PaGamO” was not
considerably long, “PaGamO” can be considered effective and successful in
helping students to prepare for their final examination as the average score for
MC was 16.12 out of 20 points (SD = 2.99). When asked about how much time
was spent on “PaGamO,” Student E revealed that “around 35–40 min, including
time spent on viewing notes.” It was sufficient for students to study the key points
of the subject within an hour.

Other Key Factors Extracted From Questionnaire Data and

Interviews
There were 48.3% of students completed all four sessions of the game. While
the researchers have been studying the effectiveness of the game and students
responses, adding to the fact that educational games have just been developed
and are still in the early stage in higher education, the present full-
participation rate is acceptable.

However, the researchers understood that there were still areas for further
enhancement in educational game, such as the number of the questions (a few
respondents reported that 100 questions were insufficient) and the format of
the question (students recommended different formats to be used along with
the MC questions). Additionally, when asked if students would like to play
“PaGamO” in other modules, 56% said they would welcome this idea, while
some mentioned that it would be difficult to play “PaGamO” in two or more
subjects simultaneously.

In summary, by using gamification as a tool for learning and studying, students

did find “PaGamO” effective for their learning experience. The motives of using
“PaGamO” came from both intrinsic and extrinsic motives, with more students
toping to play “PaGamO” for “Fun.” In addition, the use of mobile phones to
play “PaGamO” was indeed more popular than using computers and tablet
devices because of its convenience. Furthermore, the combination of
gamification and traditional learning methods could enhance students learning.

Recommendations for Further Research

The sample size of the present study was 56. As mentioned earlier, this is an
exploratory study which aims to examine the application of educational game
on students’ learning. Considering the cost of the game accounts,
administration time, and manpower, it would not have been appropriate to
widely utilize the educational game before assessing its suitability and
effectiveness. As the results of the current research are positive, it is expected
that a larger sample size can be used in future to investigate students’
attitudes, perceptions and willingness to learn.

During the research period, only three courses (computer sciences, music, and
physical education) had utilized this educational game as a supplementary tool
to integrate into the traditional teaching method in the University. At the same
time, different course instructors adopted different approaches to design the
questions and the degree of involvement of students was varied. It is suggested
that, in future, course instructors of different subjects should discuss and
standardize the research procedures, so as to conduct comparative study to
facilitate the investigation of the effectiveness of educational games on student
learning and students’ perceptions on educational games for different
disciplines.

Due to the experimental nature of the study, only MC questions were used in
the educational game. To avoid the limitation, in future, more formats of
questions could be explored, such as using fill-in-the-blanks and short
questions. This strategy can help students learn by mimicking real test
scenarios under less stressful situations.

It is also feasible that, as researchers in this study introduced the use of

educational game prior to students’ final examination, future studies may
explore the long-term effects of gamification on students’ knowledge retention
and the applicability of information in other contexts.
Conclusion
The results of the current study show that the combination of gamification and
traditional learning methods can enhance students’ learning motivation and
learning effects. The higher the “PaGamO” score, the higher the MC score is
observed. Student learning is also influenced by the content of the game, the
format of the question, the instructional strategies, and the motivation for
participation. In addition, due to its convenience, playing educational game on
mobile devices is more popular than using computers and tablet devices. In
conclusion, with the development of educational technology, educational games
are becoming more and more popular, and further research is therefore
recommended.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available
by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human
participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional
requirements. Written informed consent for participation was not required for
this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional
requirements.

Author Contributions
SC: design of the study, data collection, data analysis, and writing of the
manuscript. KN: data collection, assist in data analysis, and draft of the
manuscript. Both authors contributed to the article and approved the
submitted version.

Funding
This research was funded by the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong,
under the Funding Scheme for Teaching and Learning Related Projects (2016–
2019, Triennium; HKBU4/T&L/16-19).

Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any
commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential
conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank our colleagues at the Centre for Holistic Teaching and
Learning of Hong Kong Baptist University for supporting this study.

References
Adachi, P. J., and Willoughby, T. (2013). More than just fun and games: The
longitudinal relationships between strategic video games, self-reported
problem-solving skills, and academic grades. J. Youth Adolescence 42, 1041–
1052. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-9913-9

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Al-Azawi, R., Al-Fatma, F., and Al-Blushi, M. (2016). Educational gamification

vs. game based learning: Comparative study. Int. J. Innovat. Manag. Technol. 7,
132–136. doi: 10.18178/ijimt.2016.7.4.659

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Boyle, E. A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Gray, G., Earp, J., Ott, M., et al.
(2016). An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of
the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games. Comput.
Educ. 94, 178–192. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Business Next (2015). Revolving education with science and technology, National
Taiwan University team “PaGamO” received a USD 6 million investment from Hong
Hai. Available online at: https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/36116/BN-2015-04-
29-134339-34. (accessed June 26, 2019).

Google Scholar

Calderón, A., and Ruiz, M. (2015). A systematic literature review on serious

games evaluation: An application to software project management. Comput.
Educ. 87, 396–422. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.011

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Calliari, D. (1991). Using games to make learning fun. Rehabilitation Nursing J. 16,
154–155. doi: 10.1002/j.2048-7940.1991.tb01202.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carr, P. B., and Walton, G. M. (2014). Cues of working together fuel intrinsic
motivation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 53, 169–184. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.03.015

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, S. W., Yang, C. H., Huang, K. S., and Fu, S. L. (2019). Digital games for
learning energy conservation: A study of impacts on motivation, attention, and
learning outcomes. Innovat.Educ. Teach. Int. 56, 66–76. doi:
10.1080/14703297.2017.1348960

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Csikszentmohalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York,

NY: Harper & Row.

Google Scholar

Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (eds) (2004). Handbook of self-determination

research. Rochester: University Rochester Press.

Google Scholar

De-Marcos, L., Garcia-Lopez, E., and Garcia-Cabot, A. (2016). On the

effectiveness of game-like and social approaches in learning: Comparing
educational gaming, gamification & social networking. Comput. Educ. 95, 99–
113. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.008

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Deterding, S. (2015). The lens of intrinsic skill atoms: A method for gameful
design. Hum. Comput. Interact. 30, 294–335. doi: 10.1080/07370024.2014.993471

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dominguez, A., Saenz-De-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., Fernandez-Sanz, L.,
Pages, C., and Martinez-Herraiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences:
Practical implications and outcomes. Comput. Educ. 63, 380–392. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fitzgerald, K. (1997). “Instructional methods: Selection, use, and evaluation,”

in Nurse as educator: Principles of teaching and learning, ed. S. Bastable (Burlington,
MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning), 261–286.

Google Scholar

Garris, R., Ahlers, R., and Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and
learning: A research and practice model. Simulat. Gaming 33, 441–467. doi:
10.1177/1046878102238607

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gros, B. (2007). Digital games in education: The design of games-based

learning environments. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 40, 23–38. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hanson, T. L., Drumheller, K., Mallard, J., McKee, C., and Schlegel, P. (2010).
Cell phones, text messaging, and Facebook: Competing time demands of
today’s college students. College Teach. 59, 23–30. doi:
10.1080/87567555.2010.489078

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hanus, M. D., and Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the
classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison,
satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Comput. Educ. 80, 152–161. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Herodotou, C., Kambouri, M., and Winters, N. (2014). Dispelling the myth of
the socio-emotionally dissatisfied gamer. Comput. Hum. Behav. 32, 23–31. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.054

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hodge, K., Henry, G., and Smith, W. (2014). A case study of excellence in elite
sport: Motivational climate in a world champion team. Sport Psychol. 28, 60–74.
doi: 10.1123/tsp.2013-0037
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Interactive Software Federation of Europe (2016). Game track digest Q4

2016. Available online at: https://www.isfe.eu/publication/gametrack-digest-q4-
2016/ (accessed June 26, 2019).

Google Scholar

Interactive Software Federation of Europe (2017). Game track digest Q4

2017. Available online
at: https://www.isfe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/gametrack_european_sum
mary_data_2017_q4.pdf (accessed June 26, 2019).

Google Scholar

Karakus, T., Inal, Y., and Cagiltay, K. (2008). A descriptive study of Turkish
high school students’ game-playing characteristics and their considerations
concerning the effects of games. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24, 2520–2529. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2008.03.011

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kinzie, M. B., and Joseph, D. R. (2008). Gender differences in game activity

preferences of middle school children: implications for educational game
design. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 56, 643–663. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9076-z

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lepper, M. R., and Henderlong, J. (2000). “Turning ‘play’ into ‘work’ and ‘work’
into ‘play’: 25 years of research on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation,”
in Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, eds C. Sansone and J. M. Harackiewicz
(Cambridge,MA: Academic Press), 257–307. doi: 10.1016/b978-012619070-
0/50032-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Liao, C. C., Chen, Z. H., Cheng, H. N., Chen, F. C., and Chan, T. W. (2011). My-
Mini-Pet: A handheld pet-nurturing game to engage students in arithmetic
practices. J. Comput. Assisted Learn. 27, 76–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2010.00367.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and

reinterpretation. Psychol. Bull. 116, 75–98. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Malone, T., and Lepper, M. (1987). “Making learning fun: A taxonomy of
intrinsic motivations of learning,” in Aptitude, learning and instruction: Vol 3:
Cognitive and affective process analyses, eds R. E. Snow and M. J. Farr (Lawrence:
Erlbaum Associates), 223–253.

Google Scholar

Minovic, M., Milovanovic, M., Kovacevic, I., Minovic, J., and Starcevic, D.
(2012b). “Motivational and cognitive aspects of applying educational games as
a learning tool,” in Handbook of Research on Serious Games as Educational, Business
and Research Tools, ed. M. M. Cruz-Cunha (Pennsylvania: IGI Global), 892–917.
doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-0149-9.ch046

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Minovic, M., Štavljanin, V., and Milovanovic, M. (2012a). Educational games

and IT professionals: Perspectives from the field. Int. J. Hum. Capital Inform.
Technol. Profess. 3, 25–38. doi: 10.4018/jhcitp.2012100103

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Google Scholar

Mumtaz, S. (2001). Children’s enjoyment and perception of computer use in the

home and the school. Comput. Educ. 36, 347–362. doi: 10.1016/S0360-
1315(01)00023-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd Edn. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Google Scholar

Peng, W., Lin, J. H., Pfeiffer, K. A., and Winn, B. (2012). Need satisfaction
supportive game features as motivational determinants: An experimental study
of a self-determination theory guided exergame. Media Psychol. 15, 175–196.
doi: 10.1080/15213269.2012.673850

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game-Based Learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Google Scholar
Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. ACM Comput. Entertain. 1, 21–
24. doi: 10.1145/950566.950596

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Reeve, J., Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2004). “Self-determination theory: A

dialectical framework for understanding socio-cultural influences on student
motivation,” in Big theories revisited, eds D. M. Mclnerney and S. Van Etten
(Charlotte: Information Age Press), 31–60.