A recent publication in Language Teaching Research compared the effect of a gamified collaborative intervention to non-gamified collaborative learning on students’ English reading outcomes and motivation. The participants were two classes of junior secondary students at a school in northern China. One class (N=52) was assigned to the experiment group receiving gamified instruction, while another class (N=52), the control group, received non-gamified instruction. All students were native speakers of Chinese learning English as a foreign language.

Both groups received their assigned program on learning word meaning through morphological analysis for a total of ten 55-minute sessions from the same instructor with the same materials, but only the experimental group was exposed to physical game elements.  Although both gamification and game-based learning share game-design elements, they differ in nature. Game-based learning involves the design of complete games, while gamification only employs game-design elements to make learning more game-like. In this research, game-like situations but not games were used, which does not alter the instructional contents but incorporates a gameful environment guided by rules, responsive feedback, challenging tasks, cumulative feedback (e.g., cards, badges, small gifts) and an inviting environment. In the experimental group, collaboration in gamification was achieved through students working in teams to tackle challenges and win awards.

Results of ANCOVA after controlled pretest scores are indicated below.

• There was no difference in morphological analysis scores between the experimental group and the control group (ES = +0.01)
• The gamified group significantly outperformed the non-gamified group in reading comprehension (ES = +0.33)
• The gamification approach was more effective in enhancing students’ self-reported intrinsic motivation (ES = +0.47). Two of the three components of intrinsic motivation demonstrated significant effects (relatedness, ES = +0.56; autonomy, ES = +0.48), but not perceived competence (ES = +0.20).

Due to the sample of this study including only two classes from one school, the results of the study cannot be generalized. Moreover, the results have to be interpreted with caution as no class effect was taken into consideration, for instance, the baseline scores equivalence was not mentioned in the paper.

Source: Qiao, S., Yeung, S. S., & Chu, S. K. W. (2023). Design and evaluation of non-digital gamification to support collaborative morphological analysis. Language Teaching Research, 13621688231161168. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231161168