Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Use of Gamification in
Vocabulary Learning: A
Case Study in Macau
Sze Lui, LAM
University of Macau
tesslam@umac.mo
Abstract: The power of gamification has widely been acknowledged in education to engage and motivate learners when used properly in classrooms (Hammer & Lee, 2011; Muntean, 2011). More
specifically, games can increase students level of attention and persistence in learning. In order to win, students typically experience repeated failures when playing games, but through
such repeated failures, learning takes place. This is particularly important for vocabulary
learning. According to Nation (1990), learning new vocabulary in a second language requires
5 to 16 exposures. In this sense, games help provide such exposures as they involve repeated
failures. This study investigated the usefulness of using Web 2.0 games to help students learn
vocabulary in a tertiary institution in Macau. In this study, students learned and reviewed vocabulary through two online games, namely Fling the Teacher and Jeopardy. Then an online survey was conducted to collect feedback from 91 freshmen. The aim of the survey was
to find out students opinions and attitudes towards using online games in learning vocabulary and its effectiveness. The results showed that students preferred using technology to
learn vocabulary not only because it was more fun and exciting but also because it facilitated
vocabulary retention. Gamification improved students attitudes towards language learning.
This study confirms that the appropriate use of gamification can enhance learning.
Key Words: gamification, Web 2.0, vocabulary learning, online games
Introduction
90
91
92
Jeopardy
After playing Fling the Teacher, students formed into
groups of 4-5 to play the Jeopardy game. Jeopardy
Labs is a free, online tool for creating an answer-andquestion game like the popular American television
quiz Jeopardy! The game was slightly adapted in which
contestants were asked a question and had to provide
an answer rather than being presented with clues in the
form of answers and phrasing their responses in question
form. Questions were divided into five categories with
five questions each (see Figure 2). Each team took turns
to select a point value from any category. Each question
carried different marks according to the level of difficulty
of that question. If students gave the correct answer,
they gained the corresponding point value. If their
answer was wrong, points would be deducted from the
team. The team who obtained the highest mark won.
Results
Data from the survey were converted so as
to analyze descriptive statistics. Frequencies, means
and standard deviations were calculated. A t-test was
run to test if students from the two groups, that is,
students who took English I and students from Business
English classes, had different perspectives towards
the usefulness of online games in helping them learn
vocabulary. The data obtained correspond to the
research questions listed below:
1. Can interactive online games help students
learn and retain vocabulary?
2. What are students perceptions of using online
games to review vocabulary?
When students were asked to choose whether they
preferred using online games or worksheet to review
93
No
Yes
No
29
(100%)
0
(0%)
53
(85.5%)
9
(14.5%)
Business
English (N=62)
Yes
No
Yes
No
29
(100%)
0
(0%)
51
(82%)
11
(18%)
How useful
do you think
online games
help you learn
vocabulary?
(1=not useful;
5=very useful)
3.59
0.87
Significance level
(p = 0.05)
Yes
t
test
Standard
deviation
Do you prefer
revising vocabulary
using online
games more than
worksheet?
Business
English (N=62)
Business
English
(N=62)
Mean
English I
(N=29)
Mean
Standard
deviation
0.88
0.92
0.72
3.52
Business
English (N=62)
Fling
the
Teacher
Jeopardy
Fling
the
Teacher
Jeopardy
16
(55%)
13
(45%)
33
(53%)
29
(47%)
94
using computers.
Business
English (N=62)
Yes
No
Yes
No
28
(97%)
1 (3%)
54
(87%)
8
(13%)
Business English
(N=62)
More challenging
18 (62%)
28 (45%)
Not challenging
0 (0%)
5 (8%)
No response
11 (38%)
29 (47%)
More fun
27 (93%)
60 (97%)
Not fun
1 (3.5%)
2 (3%)
No response
1 (3.5%)
0 (0%)
More interesting
23 (79%)
49 (79%)
Not interesting
0 (0%)
3 (5%)
No response
6 (21%)
10 (16%)
More motivating
20 (69%)
36 (58%)
Not motivating
1 (3%)
9 (15%)
No response
8 (28%)
17 (27%)
More intimidating
13 (45%)
20 (32%)
Not intimidating
1 (3%)
9 (15%)
No response
15 (52%)
33 (53%)
More frustrating
13 (45%)
15 (24%)
1 (3%)
11 (18%)
15 (52%)
36 (58%)
Not frustrating
No response
No. of responses
It is good.
It is fun.
It is exciting.
It is interesting.
11
10
Negative feedback
No. of responses
Suggestions
No. of responses
95
References
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my colleague, Phil Cozens,
in encouraging me to use games in my teaching.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M., & Arici, A. (2009). Why educators should
care about games. Educational Leadership, 67, 76-80.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial,
M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning:
Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational
Psychologist, 24, 369-398.
Carlson, S. (2005). The net generation goes to college. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 52, A34.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal
experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Dai, W., & Gao, Y. (2011). Rote memorization of vocabulary and
vocabulary development. English Language Teaching, 4, 61.
de Freitas, S. (2006). Learning in immersive worlds: A review
of game-based learning. Retrieved April 4, 2013, from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/
elearninginnovation/gamingreport_v3.pdf
Deng, L. J., & Hu, H. P. (2007, August). Vocabulary acquisition
in multimedia environment. US-China Foreign Language, 5(8),
55-59.
Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., OHara, K., and Dizon, D.
(2011). Gamification: Using game-design elements in nongaming contexts. In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(CHI EA11) (pp. 2425-2428). Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Flatla, D. G. (2011). Calibration games: Making calibration
tasks enjoyable by adding motivating game elements. In UIST
11: Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User
interface software and technology (pp. 403-412). Santa Barbara,
California, USA.
Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: Using computers to
change what we think and do. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers.
Gray, P. (2012). Video game addiction: Does it occur? If so, why?
Retrieved April 4, 2013, from Psychology to Learn: Freedom
to Learn: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedomlearn/201202/video-game-addiction-does-it-occur-if-so-why
Hoogeveen, M. (1995). Toward a new multimedia paradigm:
Is multimedia assisted instruction really effective? System, 28,
113-115.
Johnson, B. (2012). Why students can benefit from playing
games in college. Retrieved April 4, 2013, from Online College
Courses: http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com/2012/06/18/
why-students-can-benefit-from-playing-games-in-college/
Jones, M. G. (1998). Creating engagement in computer-based
learning environments. Retrieved April 24, 2013, from ITFORUM:
http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper30/paper30.html
Kirriemuir, J., & mcFarlane, A. (2004). Literature Review in Games
and Learning. Retrieved April 24, 2013, from FurtureLab: http://
archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reportsarticles/literature-reviews/Literature-Review378
Lee, J. J., & Hammer, J. (2011). Gamification in education: What,
how, why bother? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15(2).
Malone, T. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? A study of
intrinsically motivating computer games. Palo Alto: Xerox, Palo
Alto Research Center.
96
97