Motivation Games Questionnaire Eltahir2021

Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3251–3278
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10396-w
The impact of game-based learning (GBL)

on students’ motivation, engagement and academic
performance on an Arabic language grammar course
in higher education
Mohd. Elmagzoub Eltahir 1,2 & Najeh Rajeh Alsalhi 1,2 & Sami Al-Qatawneh 1 &
Hatem Ahmad AlQudah 3 & Mazan Jaradat 1
Received: 14 July 2020 / Accepted: 23 November 2020/ Published online: 6 January 2021
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of game-based learning (GBL)
on students’ motivation, engagement and academic performance on an Arabic language
grammar course at Ajman University. The study was carried out utilizing a case study
of quasi-empirical design. The respondents were 107 learners, grouped into two
groups: one empiric group (n = 54) that used the game-based classroom response
system; and the other a control group (n = 53) which was instructed using non-game-
based methods. The game-based online assessment tool Kahoot! was used as a
formative assessment method in the lectures, and a questionnaire was designed to
measure motivation and engagement. The findings indicated that there were statistical
differences in the benefit of the empiric group between the empiric and the control
groups between the groups. Empirical group students showed more improved knowl-
edge of the concepts taught on the Arabic language grammar course, and higher
motivation than the students taught using the traditional strategy.
Keywords Game-based learning . Academic performance . Motivation . Engagement .

Impact . Higher education
1 Introduction
New technologies have developed a range of learning models and tools that can
increase the efficiency of the language learning process. As we know, learning
languages is not as easy as learning Arabic. Where many students have lost their
enthusiasm, motivation, and interest in learning Arabic. The causes could be the
* Najeh Rajeh Alsalhi

n.alsalhi@ajman.ac.ae
Extended author information available on the last page of the article

3252 Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3251–3278
conventional methods of learning, the lack of educational materials to facilitate

learning, the lack of use of modern technologies in language learning. Therefore,
In the 21 century, the Global Conditions of today and computer-driven technology
are continuously pushing the higher education system to transition and adapt to
innovations created by the information revolution (Moylan et al. 2015).
According to Alkhafaf (2010) educational games are defined as a form of
targeted games based on specific plans, programs, tools, and supplies that teachers
prepare and experiment with, and then guide students to practice in order to
achieve specific objectives. Digital games by electronic devices, iPods, tablets,
and smartphones are not only for fun and entertainment but could also become an
important and active educational tool for students and teachers during the learning
and teaching process at universities and schools especially for teaching and
learning the language. (Mei et al. 2018). Chiang et al. (2011) claim that techno-
logical applications and software such as games and simulation programs have
recently come to be applied into the traditional educational process in a wide
range of ways, and these are expected to support and motivate learning of
students’. According to Belkhouche et al. (2014) the current educational methods
are adopting new technologies, they have not addressed systematically learning
processes, infrastructures, curriculum structures, and assessment methods to sup-
port e-learning. Therefore, there is an important need for new models for the
learning process through integrating technologies with educational content, to
improving the use of appropriate tools for representing, visualizing, manipulating,
and interacting with content.
Several studies have described the fact that games-based learning is an important
and innovative teaching technique in the field of learning and teaching, and therefore
can help students improve their performance in language study as well as enhance their
cooperation and keep learning more active (Belkhouche et al. 2014; Mei et al. 2018;
Sahrir and Yusri 2012). The results of these studies indicated that game-based learning
created a highly effective multimedia learning environment that supports students’
acquisition of Arabic language skills.
Since games are usually characterized by challenge, fantasy, curiosity, expec-
tation, control, and interactive features that might enhance students’ interest,
learning, engagement, internal motivation, and achievement (Amr 2012; Lim et
al. 2006).
The game named “Kahoot!” is a GBL platform that considers one of the famous
digital games using in learning in the education institutions, which is a fun
multiplayer classroom activity, that allows all your students in the classroom to
practice together by computer, IPad, Tablet and Smartphone (Lin et al. 2018). It is
multiple-choice quizzes that can be accessed via a web browser or the Kahoot app.
The results of the study conducted by Kaur and Naderajan (2019) showed that
almost all students had positive experiences when they had lessons in integrated
games. Moreover, they also mentioned that they were able to participate actively
in their language lessons by using Kahoot! Platform. Also, the study conducted by
Sahrir and Yusri (2012) also demonstrated the efficacy of GBL in the use of
Arabic language learning among students, and the students felt that they could
learn Arabic vocabulary easily through the application of the game.
Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3251–3278 3253
1.1 Research problem
One of the major challenges facing higher education institutions, such as universi-
ties, is their need to use new technologies to evolve and enhance the learning and
teaching process in order to achieve the highest standard of education. This is
accomplished by blended this technology into teaching and assessment methods.
Researchers have perceived students’ weakness, motivation, engagement, and aca-
demic achievement of students in Arabic grammar through their work in university
education, as grammar in Arabic is one of the courses that students are alienated
from, and they have no motivation and engagement to learn it. Which contributes to
their low academic performance. It is therefore clear to us that the problem lies in
the traditional teaching methods used and the inability to use modern teaching
methods correlated with the integration of technology. The researchers, therefore,
adopted to use GBL as a modern teaching method that improves thinking and the
ability to analyze and innovate freely and independently. It is also linked to modern
technology and moves away from the traditional method of teaching and memoriz-
ing information for students.
1.2 Research purpose
Nowadays, a lot of language teachers have a range of technical hardware and software
to support, motivate, and engage students’ in the language learning process. Thus, the
purpose of the research paper was to explore the impact of GBL on students’ motiva-
tion, engagement, and academic performance on an Arabic language grammar course
in higher education. The course is compulsory for all students in the college.
1.3 The significance of the research
The significance of the study is demonstrated in the following:
– The study will shed light on how the computerization and gamification technique
of classroom quizzes impacts students’ motivation, engagement, and academic
performance. This will contribute to the understanding of the value and potential of
GBL.
– It may contribute to introduce an anew modern method of teaching that motivates,
and engages students to learn the grammar of languages such as the grammar of the
Arabic language, English, Chinese, etc.
– The significance of GBL for students by opening the door to innovation, creativity,
and freedom from restrictions.
1.4 Research questions
The research issue is the pressing necessity for learning and teaching sectors such as
higher education institutions and public schools to explore the application of GBL in
teaching, and its influence on motivation, engagement, and achievement of pupils. This
study, therefore, raises the following main questions of the study, which aim to clarify
the impacts of GBL on students’ motivation, engagement, and achievement on an

Arabic language grammar course in higher education:
& RQ1: How does GBL impact students’ motivation to learn Arabic language
grammar in higher education?
& RQ2: How does GBL impact students’ engagement in learning Arabic language
grammar in higher education?
& RQ3: What is the impact of GBL on student achievement on the Arabic language
grammar course in higher education?
& RQ4. Does the motivation of students to use GBL differ by gender, student
academic performance (GPA) and computer skills?
& RQ5. Does student engagement toward the use of GBL differ according to gender,
student academic performance (GPA), and computer skills?
2 Literature review
2.1 Game-based learning concept
According to Salen and Zimmerman (2004), a game is a process in which participants

engage in an artificial conflict, specified by the rules, which leads in a quantifiable
outcome. Furthermore, Amr (2012) defined it as an active environment with features
like it is automatic, fundamentally motivational has rules governing the game, it has
elements of fantasy, it poses challenges, it has interaction, and it has conclusive
outcomes. The gameplay is the core of games and is described as’ the extent and
dynamic interactions that the game entails, i.e. how well the player is capable of
interacting with it (Smith and Mann 2002). Game-based learning is a type of gaming
that has learning outcomes, that renders it different from entertainment-oriented games
(Shu 2018). It is a type of gameplay with defined learning outcomes (Plass et al. 2015).
2.2 GBL’s relationship with student motivation, participation, and academic

performance
Chen et al. (2005) pointed out that motivation and engagement are essential to
the learning of languages such as Arabic, English, and Chinese. Nowadays,
regular assessments and tests do not measure the student’s understanding and
application of the language effectively. As a result, traditional education assess-
ment strategies have evolved over the last few years with the use of high-tech
applications and online platforms that depend on technology to ensure that
students develop a deeper understanding of the language skills that help them
correctly apply those skills in their lives. Furthermore, Gamlo (2019) confirmed
that Arabic language grammar learners may need motivation and engagement to
overcome the barriers to a deeper understanding of grammar since it seems like
mathematics that needs more focus and understanding among learners. Games
have been described as one of the major contributors to the creation of
interactive, motivational, and engaging learning environments during this
transition. Moreover, Conati (2002) and Rowe et al. (2011) one strategy to
enhancing motivation and engagement in learning environments is the integration

of game features.
Shu (2018) defined engagement as a series of goal-oriented behaviors and reflec-
tions that represent a deep involvement in learning activities. While Motivation is
usually defined as forces that responsible for the excitement, enthusiasm, selection,
direction, and continuation of the behavior of an individual (Biehler and Snowman
1997). Li and Pan (2009) pointed out that among the factors influencing students’
learning and academic performance, motivation, and engagement are thought to be
very important reasons that could affect positively or negatively on academic
performance of students. In addition, Xie (2003) confirmed that motivation, engage-
ment, and students’ academic performance were directly related to each other, which
could affect the success or failure of language learning of students’. This may be due to
the fact that motivation and engagement directly influence the readiness and persistence
of students in learning a language and is practiced (Mayer and Johnson 2010).
Moreover, the findings of a study performed by Kotob and Ibrahim (2019) which
aimed to verify the impact of applying GBL to student motivation and academic
performance in learning Arabic, confirmed that GBL has improved student
motivation, engagement, and academic performance. Also, the study conducted by
Abbas and Muhamid (2016) which aimed to study the effect of using GBL on the
achievement of second-grade intermediate students in the subject of Arabic grammar.
Its results indicate that the use of GBL has improved the motivation, engagement, and
achievement of students. In higher education, research by Sahrir and Alias (2011) at the
Islamic University of Malaysia has shown that GBL’s use in teaching Arabic Grammar
has made students more motivated, engaged, and academic performance.
GBL platforms offer an immense opportunity to boost student engagement and
motivation. Shaffer (2006) pointed out that digital games provide a multitude of
mechanisms to motivate and engage players both immediately and through multiple
interactions. Furthermore, Smith (2011) confirmed that the strategy of game-based
learning (GBL) aimed at improving student engagement in classroom activities and
encouraging similar behaviors. Further, Wouters and van Oostendorp (2013) pointed
out that Computer games may be described to be interactive instructional platforms
involving training in mental tasks, such as decision-making. GBL may promote a
constructivist model of learning by encouraging students to work together, engage in
virtual environments (multiplayer games), solve problems and learn from interactions
(Pivec and Kearney 2007). Additionally, Knight et al. (2010) indicated out that certain
games had the ability to enhance the learning and success of pupils compared to
traditional education methods. Where Trybus (2015) argues that GBL refers to
adopting such game ideas and implementing them in real-life environments to engage
users, this means that GBL is not really making games for students to enjoy, but is
building learning exercises and tasks that can slowly incorporate ideas and direct
participants toward the final objective. Rapid technological progress has changed the
way in which activities are carried out on a daily basis in all aspects of our life. In
education, in particular learning and teaching processes, learners will have the chance
to introduce and to implement and combine technology-based learning actions into
their learning (Zarzycka-Piskorz 2016). GBL is considered to be the standard style of
education. It is based on the cognitive and empirical nature of the game, which enables
pupils to actively share in the educational cycle, and engages them in logical reasoning
and review of content knowledge in addition to problem-solving (Kapp 2012).
Johnson et al. (2015) refer to a report by New Media Consortium (NMC) of the
Horizon Project, which argued that GBL and gamification in education will become
widespread within two to three years, because the average age of players of games is
now 30 years. The report adds also that 68% of those gamers over 18 years of age are of
university-going age. Kim (2013) pointed out that GBL could promote incentive,
motivation, and involvement in university study, especially through the growth and
progress of the science of software programs and innovations, which has made the
introduction of GBL much simpler. Judson (2002) pointed out that models of student
response systems (SRS) have existed since the 1960s.Response systems may be applied
to guarantee the consistency of focus and student engagement during their learning in
the classroom (Turan and Meral 2018). Further, according to Caldwell (2007), the
primary generation of SRSs was prepared and designed on particular hardware that
permitted learners to respond using keypads and clickers that named the zappers. A
significant shortcoming of primary system generation is that it demands exploitation in
devices and services, as well as hardware and software management and maintenance.
Gruenstein et al. (2009) pointed out that a new generation of SRS has been launched
through a campaign entitled “Bring Your Own Device,” where pupils are able to use
their own electronic devices to respond to questions posed to them.
Madhavan (2018) argued that fully-prepared videotapes games are instructional
devices. and they have the ability to motivate and engage players so they do not
realize that they are actually learning. Rosas et al. (2003) and Sharples (2000) have
confirmed that games have been pinpointed as advantageous for educational perfor-
mance, motivation and classroom interactions in K-12 grades, and a similar effect has
also been found in higher education, such as universities.
2.3 Kahoot! As game-based student response systems (GSRS)
Several studies have indicated that the advent of smartphones and tablets, quick and
simple wireless network connectivity, and support for HTML5 has created the condi-
tions for a large market of new-generation SRSs and similar new tools, such as Quizlet,
Learning Catalytics, Socrative, Poll Everywhere, and iClicker (Gruenstein et al. 2009;
Lucas 2009; Schell et al. 2013; Sellar 2011). Moreover, using HTML5 web technology
allows these operating systems to be used without any program being developed and
allows up a host of new methods of communicating in the schoolroom.
According to Lin et al. (2018) Kahoot! is a GBL platform that may be used as a
technology of teaching in academic establishments like School and university educa-
tion. Johan Brand, Jamie Brooker, and Morten Versvik announced a collaborative
project with the University of Science and Technology of Norway. It is considered as a
game-based learning platform that is applied in public and private education and higher
educational institutions as educational information technology, which was put on the
market for the people in the fall of 2013. The major variation among student-response
systems (SRS) and game-based student response systems like Kahoot (GSRS) seems to
be that the GSRS concentrates further on pupils’ engagement in addition to motivating
them via catchy graphical and audio. The gamification process is achieved by showing
the game display on a screen in the classroom, in which the instructor takes on the
function of steward of the game display and the students are the competitors.
2.4 Previous studies
ExtensivestudieshavebeencarriedoutontheuseofGBLineducation,bothatschooling
and in universities and colleges. This studies ‘results indicated that pupils who educated
utilizing the GBL strategy showed improvements over those taught in the traditional
way. Some of these studies examined the impact on utilize of GBL on educational
outcomes and the performance of students (Akinsola 2007; Kebritchi et al. 2010; Liu
and Chen 2013; White and McCoy 2019). The findings of these studies confirmed that
GBL could promote students’ academic achievement. Numerous studies have demon-
strated a significant relationship between GBL and learners motivation for learning
(Abbas and Muhamid 2016; Carr and Bossomaier 2011; Kotob and Ibrahim 2019;
Licorish et al. 2017; Papastergiou 2009; Sahrir and Alias 2011; Wang 2015).
Certain studies confirm progress in student engagement through using GBL
(Licorish et al. 2017; Muhridza et al. 2018; Plump and LaRosa 2017). In addition,
Serious studies over the use of Kahoot! have been conducted specifically, as an e-
learning web-app in online testing, in order to examine its effect on motivation,
engagement, and achievement of students during the learning process (Bicen and
Kocakoyun 2018; Darma 2016; Dellos 2015; Licorish et al. 2017; Lin et al. 2018;
Muhridza et al. 2018; Plump and LaRosa 2017; Yürük 2019). These studies have
shown that students’ motivation, engagement, and academic performance improved
when using Kahoot!.
3 Research method
3.1 Participants
The study participants comprised 107 students studying in the College of

Humanities and Sciences during the first semester of the 2019/2020 academic
year. The participants were selected by using the purposive sampling method,
which is a form of non-probability sampling techniques in which researchers
rely on their own judgment when choosing members of the population to
participate in their study (Bernard 2002). The study participants were divided
into an empiric group 54 of students and a control group of 53 students, who
learned the topics of the Arabic Grammar Course through GBL and traditional
methods, respectively. The course they were taking is a compulsory course for
all students in the Department of Arabic Language and Islamic Studies, in the
College of Humanities and Sciences. Table 1 displays the details of the
participants. Table 1 show the participants’ details.
In addition, Fig. 1 shows the demographics of participants in the empirical
group were taught through GBL in order to assess how GBL impacts the
motivation and engagement of students to learn Arabic grammar in higher
education.
Table 1 Participants Details
Group Number Percentage (%)
Empirical 55 51%
Control 52 49%
Gender Female 59 55%
Male 48 45%
Student academic evaluation (GPA) 2- less than 2.5 26 24%
2.5 - less than 3 25 23%
3 - less than 3.5 34 32%
3.5–4 22 21%
Total 107 100%
Computer skills Poor 18 17%
Moderate 46 43%
Good 25 23%
Excellent 18 17%
Total 107 100%
3.2 Research design
The quasi-empirical research design was used due to its appropriateness to the aims of
the study. In this study, the researcher used two groups of students (empirical group =
54 students; control group = 53 students) to run a formative assessment test focusing on
selected topics from the Arabic language grammar course. The test was used to review
what had been taught about the selected topics in the lectures. The test consisted of
twenty numerous-choice questions. The control group answered the quiz using a
traditional paper-and-pen based format, while the empirical group used the GSRS
Kahoot! The design of the study is illustrates as shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 1 Demographics of the participants of empirical group

Fig. 2 Design of the study
3.3 Two approaches for conducting a formative assessment test in a lecture
In the study presented, two different approaches were used to conduct a formative
assessment test as part of a lecture to review what students had learned in the lecture.
The first method used was paper forms for control group students, and the second
method used for empiric group students was a game-based student response system
called Kahoot!. The lecturer has taken the following factors into account:
– The two groups were taught the same topics during the lectures.
– The students of both groups were given the same time to answer the formative test
items.
– The similarity of the questions in the paper form and the game Kahoot.
– The formative assessment test consisted of 20 multiple-choice questions.
– The test time was 30 min.
The two approaches of a formative assessment test of students in the control group
(Paper Form) and the empirical students’ group (The Kahoot! Game-based Student
Response System) will now be described more in detail as follows:
3.3.1 Paper form
For students of the control group, before a lecture, the teacher prepared paper forms of a
formative assessment test, which is an analog, well-known, and proven approach for
running tests in a classroom. The test included twenty numerous-choice questions.
Every element of the questions received a single score for the right response and (0) for
the incorrect response; the highest possible score of the exam was twenty, and the
testing time was 30 min. During the lecture, the teacher handed out the paper forms,
and the students answer as well as they can during the test period. Students used a pen
or pencil to tick the answer from four alternative answers.
After that, the normal procedure for such a paper form test is that the teacher then
gathers the paper forms from the students at the end of the test period, and then usually
the students get feedback in the following lecture on how they performed and their
scores. Figure 3 shows the procedures of the Paper form.
3.4 The Kahoot! Game-based student response system (GSRS)
Kahoot! is a GBL platform that may be used as a technology of teaching in academic

establishments like School and university education. Johan Brand, Jamie Brooker, and
Morten Versvik announced a collaborative project with the University of Science and
Technology of Norway (Lin et al. 2018). It can be opened by a lecturer in an internet
browser on a personal computer or a notebook, and then linked to a large display. It can
be used to create tests, including inserting images and Videos to the question (Dervan
2014). Furthermore, it enables the teacher to release and post their own assessments and
to edit tests made by others. Using multicolored visual effects and video imitates the
format and impact of the game show (Hwang et al. 2015).
For the empirical component of this study, the teacher created the Kahoot! game to
be used by drawing on the topics of the Arabic language grammar course that were to
be reviewed. Students were given a game pin, and asked to log into the system using a
self-chosen user name on their own digital devices (iPad, tablet, smartphone, laptops, or
desktop PC) (see Figs. 4 and 5).
As shown in Fig. 6, in Kahoot! the question appears on a big display, straight with
the 4 possible answers. Each answer has a specific graphic symbol and color, and
students choose the color and symbol to denote their answers. Students try answering
the right answer as quickly as probable to gain as many points as probable. Each
answer is then sent to Kahoot!‘s online processing unit (server), which analyzes it and
awards students’ scores based on their precision and response time (Fig. 6).
Kahoot! generates a distribution chart of the learners’ answers for each question in
the formative assessment, which enables the teacher to obtain a quick insight into
students’ understanding of the topics. Students receive personal guidance on their
Fig. 3 Procedures of the Paper form

Fig. 4 Kahoot! game screenshot
questions with regard to performance, the number of points, scoring, how far the
participant is behind the above-ranked participant, and the correct answer (if the
question has been answered incorrectly). On finishing a Kahoot! the session, the name
of the winner and points they obtained will appear on the big display screen. Through-
out the test, Kahoot! utilizes a playful graphical user interface, along with music and
sounds, to create a humorous and competitive environment like a TV quiz show.
Participants are also invited to give feedback on the test they have just completed by
providing Likert-style responses to whether the test was enjoyable, pedagogical, can be
suggested to others, and how they felt about the test in general. Eventually, Kahoot!
allows the instructor to upload the findings to the Excel spreadsheet.
3.5 Equivalence of empirical and control groups
In order to examine the equivalence of the participants in the study, the participants
completed a pretest of the revision topics of Arabic language grammar, before applying
the Kahoot! game. A t-test was then applied to compare the findings to ensure
equivalence. The findings are presented in Table 2.
As presented in Table 2, given that the p (0.830) extracted is larger than 0.05, the test
is not significant at a scale of 0.05. This confirms that there is no significant difference
between the two study groups (empirical group and control group). This detects that the
empiric and control groups have been equal (equivalent) before the empiric method
was applied.
3.6 Research instrument (questionnaire)
In order to assess participants’ attitudes to the empirical method adopted, a Likert-scale

based questionnaire was administered. This explored how students’ perceptions about
the utilize of Kahoot across the lectures of Arabic language grammar course, and how
the technology affected their motivation and engagement in the class. The Likert level
will be adopted by the researchers of this study: very high, high, moderate, little and
very little. The choices used to test the measuring and calculating periods as presented
in Table 3:
The questionnaire comprised of two sections: the first section gathered details
demographic and other related data for students, and the other consisted of twenty
elements that concentrated on the objective of the tool. Due to the quantitative aim for
which the researchers utilized this data, Closed Likert scale was to be applied. To assess
it for reliability and validity, the questionnaire was sent to specialists from diverse
academic institutions, who granted written notes about the elements of the question-
naire that researchers can improve and amend to ensure that the study goal is achieved.
Table 2 T-test of pretest results: empirical and control groups
Group N Mean Standard Deviation (SD) T. value Sig.
Control 53 11.53 1.65 0.215 0.830

Empirical 54 11.59 1.43
Table 3 The choices of scale and score periods of Likert scale
Choices Evaluation Evaluation periods
Very little 1 1.00–1.80

Little 2 1.81–2.60
Moderate 3 2.61–3.40
High 4 3.41–4.20
Very high 5 4.21–5.00
The questionnaire’s reliability was also tested using Cronbach’s alpha. Cronbach’s
alpha was 0.835, showing a strong level of internal consistency.
3.7 Compilation of data and statistical analysis
The data gathered from the questionnaires was quantitatively analyzed and displayed in
tables and charts. The study utilized SPSS software to perform the descriptive analysis
like frequency, mean, and standard deviation, further to an independent sample test (t-
test) and one-way ANOVA.
4 Findings
4.1 Findings of the study attributed to question 1
RQ1 is: How does GBL impact students’ motivation to learn Arabic language grammar
in higher education? Average scores and SD have been computed to address the first
research question. Responses of participants to elements 1–10 of the questionnaire
related to motivation, as presented in Table 4.
The findings shown in Table 4 demonstrate that the mean for all elements
pertaining to motivation (1–10) was 4.16, with a SD of 0.76. As a result, students
are motivated to learn Arabic language grammar was at a high level as a result of
using the Kahoot! game for the empirical group. It is therefore apparent from
Table 3 that students’ answers to Items A5 (“I felt that using the Kahoot! game
gave me the enjoyment of completing the test in a satisfactory manner”) obtained
an elevated mean degree of consensus (4.48), with very high level. In addition,
item A7 (“I liked the test even more than I asked for more information on the
given topic.”) had the second elevated mean degree of consensus, with an average
of 4.44, and at a very high level.
Item A4 (‘I was satisfied when I finished my test ‘) demonstrates the third largest
dgree, with an mean of 4.33 and a very high grade of consensus. Likewise, for items A3
and A1, a “really high” ranking was also observed. Further, it is also clear from the
students’ answers to Item A2 (“During the test, I felt encouragement and enthusiasm”)
that this item was ranked as having a “high” degree with an average of 4.20. Likewise,
a “high” level was also present for items A10, A9, and A6, with respective average
values of 3.98, 3.93, and 3.78.
Table 4 Statistics of motivation findings
No. Items Mean SD Order Description
A5 I felt that using the Kahoot! game gave me the enjoyment 4.48 .57 1 Very High
of completing the test in a satisfactory manner.
A7 I liked taking the test through Kahoot! game because 4.44 .54 2 Very High
it encourages me to answer the questions.
A4 I was satisfied when I finished my test. 4.33 .55 3 Very High
A3 I felt that using the Kahoot! game gave me the satisfaction 4.30 .77 4 Very High
of completing the learning topics.
A1 Using the Kahoot! game made me answer test questions 4.22 .84 5 Very High
without help from others.
A2 During the test, I felt encouragement and enthusiasm. 4.20 .74 6 High
A10 I think my time and effort were worth this lecture. 3.98 .84 7 High
A8 After playing the game, I have been more positive about 3.96 .85 1 High
understanding the topics.
A9 I think that using the Kahoot! game allowed me to focus 3.93 .89 8 High
on the quiz to have the right response.
A6 I took the test because I liked the Kahoot! game idea 3.78 .98 9 High
of learning and doing this test.
Total 4.16 0.76 Very High
4.2 Study results related to research question 2
RQ2 is: How does GBL impact students’ engagement in learning Arabic language
grammar in higher education? Average scores and standard deviations have been
computed to address the first research question. Responses of participants to elements
11–20 of the questionnaire related to engagement, as presented in Table 5.
The findings shown in Table 5 demonstrate that the average for all elements
pertaining to engagement (11–20) was 3.57, with SD of 1.07. As a finding, learners
are engagement to learn Arabic language grammar was at a very high level as a result of
using the Kahoot! game for the empirical group. It is therefore apparent from Table 3
that students’ answers to Items A12 (“I felt that using the Kahoot! game pushed me to
find out the topics correctly.”) had the highest average grade of consensus (4.48), with a
high level.
Furthermore, it is also clear from the students ‘answers to item A11 (‘I felt the
Kahoot! learning game was enjoyable ‘) thateven this element was ranked as getting the
second greatest consensus degree, by an average of 3.85 and a high level. Likewise, it is
also clear from the students’ answers to Item A16 (“I feel that my performance in the
test was good due to using the Kahoot! game in the lecture”) that this item was ranked
as having the third highest level of consensus, with an average of 3.67, and at a high
degree. Identically, a “high” level was also found for Items A17, A19, A18 and A13,
by the particular average values of 3.57, 3.50, 3.46 and 3.43. The minimum average
(2.96) was received for element A20 (“I only took the test because the teacher told me
to do it”), indicating a moderate agreement. Likewise, Item A15 (“I was able to answer
questions in the test due to the use of Kahoot! game”) and Item A14 (“Though I haven’t
liked the course topics I feel comfortable participation”) indicated also a moderate
degree of agreement.
Table 5 Statistics of motivation engagement
No. Items Mean SD Order Description
A12 I felt that using the Kahoot! game pushed me 4.48 .88 1 Very High
to find out the topics correctly.
A11 I felt that the Kahoot! game in learning was enjoyable. 3.85 .96 2 High
A16 I feel that my performance in the test was good due 3.67 .97 3 High
to using the Kahoot! game in the lecture.
A17 I hope other lecturers use the Kahoot! game. 3.57 1.00 4 High
A19 During the Kahoot! game, I was able to concentrate 3.50 1.21 5 High
better than in regular lectures.
A18 Kahoot! offers a more pleasant and relaxed atmosphere 3.46 1.14 6 High
in the classroom.
A13 While doing the test, I loved and enjoyed getting 3.43 1.27 7 High
feedback after each question.
A15 I was able to answer questions in the test due to the 3.37 1.20 8 Moderate
use of Kahoot! game.
A14 Though I didn’t like the course topics, I felt comfortable 3.37 1.10 9 Moderate
participating.
A20 I only took the test because the teacher told me to do it. 2.96 .97 10 Moderate
Total 3.57 1.07 High
RQ3 is: What is the impact of using GBL on student achievement in the Arabic
grammar course in higher education?
The difference between the mean student scores in the empiric group and the control
group in the formative assessment test was calculated. In addition, a t-test was used for
two independent samples as presented in Tables 6 and 7.
The students who were taught with the Kahoot, as appear in Table 6. Game scores
were different (M = 18.41, SD = 1.25) from those taught through regular lessons (M =
15.42, SD = 1.68).
As appear in Table 7, given that the p value (0.000) is lower than 0.05, this
confirms there are significant differences at the significance level of 0.05, which
implies that there is a substantial difference between the two groups of partici-
pants. In respect to their comprehension of the issues discussed by Arabic lan-
guage grammar during the lectures. Taking this in conjunction with the findings, it
may be indicated that using Kahoot! had a significant impact on students’ acqui-
sition of the target content.
Table 6 Means and SD of post-

Group N Mean SD
test results
Empirical 54 18.41 1.25
Control 53 15.42 1.68
Table 7 The independent sample t-test of post-test
Levene’s Test for Equality of t-test

Variances
F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Difference
Equal variances assumed 2.932 .090 10.459 105 0.000 2.99231

Equal variances not assumed 10.430 96.090 0.000 96.090
RQ4 was: Does student motivation toward the use of GBL differ according to gender,
student academic performance (GPA) and computer skills? Average scores and stan-
dard deviations have been computed to the relevant questionnaire items for the relevant
details variables under consideration. T-test, one-way ANOVA tests, and LSD tests
were performed to determine the importance of average differences. The findings
linked to the answers to the questions are outlined below, based on the research
variables.
4.4.1 Gender variable among students
T-test was utilized to assess the significance of the differences between genders in
terms of motivation, as appearing in Table 8.
The findings recorded in Table 8 illustrate that the observed p (0.813) is larger than
0.05. Thus, the test in 0.05 scale is not significant, suggesting that there is no significant
difference in motivation for GBL depending on the variable of gender between students
in the empirical group.
4.4.2 Students’ academic performance (GPA)
The findings of the one-way ANOVA test of students’ answers to this variable are
appearing in Table 9.
As presented in Table 9, the findings clearly illustrated that there are no statistically
significant differences in students’ motivation based on the variable of students’ (GPA),
given that p is 0.155, which is greater than the statistical significance level needed
(0.05).
Table 8 Means and standard deviations of the student answers based on gender
Gender N Mean SD T. Value Sig.
Female 28 3.90 1.00 0.238 0.813

Male 26 3.83 .91
Table 9 One-way ANOVA test for student (GPA)
Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
(GPA) Between Groups 4.686 3 1.562 1.823 0.155

Within Groups 42.834 50 .857
Total 47.520 53
4.4.3 Computer skills variable
Regarding the students’ computer skills, Table 10 displays the findings of the one-way
ANOVA test of the students’ answers for this variable.
As presented in Table 10, the findings clearly illustrated that there are statistically
significant differences in students’ motivation based on the variable of computer skills,
given that p is 0.049, That it is less than the statistical significance level needed (0.05).
Therefore, in order to identify the origin of the differences, the LSD test was used for
the following comparisons and the findings are appeared in Table 11 below.
The results shown in Table 11 emphasize that the source of the differences in the
students’ motivations based on the variable of computer skills arose from students with
computer poor skills.
4.5 Study results related to question 5
RQ5 was: Does student engagement toward the use of GBL differ according to gender,
student academic performance (GPA), and computer skills? Average scores and stan-
dard deviations have been computed to the relevant questionnaire items for the relevant
details variables under consideration. T-test, one-way ANOVA tests, and LSD tests
were performed to determine the importance of average differences. The findings
linked to the answers to the questions are outlined below, based on the research
variables.
4.5.1 Gender variable among students
T-test was utilized to assess the significance of the divergences among genders in terms
of engagement toward the use of GBL as appearing in Table 12. The findings in
Table 12 illustrate that the observed p (0.204) is larger than 0.05. Thus, the test is not
significant at the 0.05 level, which suggests that there is no significant difference in
Table 10 One-way ANOVA test for variable computer skills
Computer skills Between Groups 6.851 3 2.284 2.808 0.049*

Total 47.520 53
Table 11 LSD test findings for the variable students’ computer skills
(I) Computer skills (J) Computer skills Mean difference (I-J) Sig.
Poor Moderate 0.31264 0.419

Good 0.94127* 0.044
Excellent 0.95238* 0.031
Moderate Poor −.31264 0.419
Good .62863 0.078
Excellent .63974* 0.047
Good Poor −.94127-* 0.044
Moderate −.62863 0.078
Excellent .01111 0.978
Excellent Poor −.95238-* 0.031
Moderate −.63974-* 0.047
Good −.01111 0.978
engagement toward GBL based on the variable of gender between students in the
empirical group.
4.5.2 Students’ academic performance (GPA)
Regarding the variable student academic performance (GPA), Table 13 displays the
findings of the one-way ANOVA test of their answers based on this variable.
As presented in Table 13, the findings clearly illustrated that there are no statistically
significant differences in students’ engagement based on the variable of students
academic performance (GPA), given that p is at the level of 0.476, That it is larger
than the statistical significance level needed (0.05).
4.5.3 Computer skills variable
Table 14 displays the findings of the one-way ANOVA test of the students’ answers
based on the variable of computer skills.
As presented in Table 14, the findings clearly illustrated that there are statistically
significant differences in students’ engagement based on the variable of computer
skills, given that p is 0.048. That it is less than the statistical significance level needed
(0.05). Therefore, in order to identify the origin of the differences, for the comparisons,
the LSD test was utilized and the findings are appeared in Table 15 below.
Table 12 Means and standard deviations of the students’ answers based on the gender variable
Gender N Mean SD T. Value Sig.
Female 28 2.99 .86 1.286 0.204

Male 26 3.27 .67
Table 13 One-way ANOVA test for variable student academic performance variable (GPA)
(GPA) Between Groups 1.569 3 0.523 0.845 0.476

Within Groups 30.930 50 0.619
Total 32.499 53
Findings displayed in Table 15emphasize that the origin of the variation in the
learners’ engagement based on the variable of computer skills arose from students with
computer poor skills.
5 Discussion
The aim of this study was to explore the impact of GBL on students’ motivation,
engagement and achievement on an Arabic language grammar course in higher
education, which is a compulsory course for all students in the Department of Arabic
Language and Islamic Studies, in the College of Humanities and Sciences. The results
of this study confirmed that the use of GBL had a positive impact on students’
motivation, engagement, and achievement. Additionally, our findings show that stu-
dents’ motivation and engagement for the use of GBL varies depending on their
computer skills (in favor of those students with poor skills). No statistically significant
difference was found in this respect with regard to the variables of gender and student
(GPA).
The findings achieved in connection the 1st study question, related the impact of the
use of GBL on students’ motivation to learn Arabic language grammar in higher
education, showed that students’ motivations to learn Arabic language grammar were
at a very high level as a result of the use of the Kahoot! game for the empirical group
(Table 4). The mean for all questionnaire items focusing on motivation (1–10) was
4.21, with a SD of 0.76.
This finding is compatible with a number of prior research studies that verified that
GBL increased the motivation of students to learn as a study conducted by Kotob and
Ibrahim (2019) aimed at verifying the impact of GBL on student motivation and
academic performance in Arabic learning, confirming that GBL has improved
student motivation, engagement, and academic performance. In higher education,
research conducted by Sahrir and Alias (2011) at the Islamic University of Malaysia
has shown that GBL’s use in teaching Arabic Grammar has made students more
Table 14 One-way ANOVA test for variable computer skills
Computer skills Between Groups 4.710 3 1.570 2.825 0.048*

Total 32.499 53
Table 15 LSD test findings based on the variable students of computer skills
(I) Computer skills (J) Computer skills Mean difference (I-J) Sig.
Poor Moderate .85495* .010

Good .86349* .026
Excellent .92738* .012
Moderate Poor −.85495-* .010
Good .00855 .976
Excellent .07244 .782
Good Poor −.86349-* .026
Moderate −.00855 .976
Excellent .06389 .847
Excellent Poor −.92738-* .012
Moderate −.07244 .782
Good −.06389 .847
motivated, engaged, and academic performance. Likewise, the study conducted by

Abbas and Muhamid (2016) which aimed to study the effect of using GBL on the
achievement of second-grade intermediate students In the subject of Arabic grammar.
Its results indicate that the use of GBL has improved the motivation, engagement, and
achievement of students. Also, the results are consistent with the study conducted by
Licorish et al. (2017) at reporting on the effects of employing a game-based student
response system, Kahoot!, in an Information Systems Strategy and Governance course
at a research-intensive teaching university in New Zealand. The study also explored
students’ views about Kahoot!‘s influence on classroom dynamics, motivation, and the
learning process. The results showed that the deployment of Kahoot! enriches the
quality of student learning in the classroom, with the highest influence reported on
classroom dynamics, engagement, motivation, and improved learning experience.
Also, the study conducted by Papastergiou (2009) aimed to assess the learning effec-
tiveness and motivational appeal of a computer game for learning computer memory
concepts of Greek high school Computer Science (CS) curriculum. The findings
showed that the gaming approach was both more effective in promoting students’
knowledge of computer memory concepts and more motivational than the non-gaming
approach. Furthermore, the paper conducted by Wang (2015), aimed at showing the
results from investigating the wear off effect of using the game-based student response
system Kahoot! in classroom teaching. The results show the game-based student
response system managed to boost students’ engagement, motivation and learning,
and GSRS can motivate those students who may not normally participate in class
discussion. In another study, conducted by Carr and Bossomaier (2011) the results
showed improvement of the test scores for students, and the students also found that
learning the course topics through the game was motivating and engaging, and it was
effective at improving their comprehension.
The findings achieved concerning the second research question, regarding the
impact of the use of GBL on students’ engagement to learn Arabic language grammar
in higher education, show that the students’ engagement to learn Arabic language
grammar was at a high level as a result of the use of the Kahoot! game for the empirical
group (Table 5). The mean for all items of the questionnaire focusing on engagement
(11–20) was 3.51, with a standard deviation of 1.07.
This finding is compatible with a number of research studies that also verified that
GBL increased the engagement of students to learn as a Muhridza et al. (2018) study
aimed at examining the level of engagement of students while playing Kahoot! and also
looking at the level of achievement of students in English as a Second Language
(ESL).The findings showed that Kahoot! is proven to be useful in initiating and
fostering students’ engagement in language learning activity and at the same time
enhancing their language skills. Likewise, the study conducted by Plump and LaRosa
(2017) aimed to explore the effect of using Kahoot! in the classroom to create
engagement and Active Learning in higher education. The results indicate that students
of graduate and undergraduate classrooms welcome the use of this game, and they have
become more engaged and motivated during the learning process. In addition, several
studies also confirm improvement in student engagement through the use of GBL
(Dellos 2015; Carr and Bossomaier 2011; Licorish et al. 2017; Sahrir and Alias 2011;
Wang 2015).
The findings achieved relating the third research question, regarding the impact
of using GBL on student academic performance in the Arabic grammar course in
higher education, stated that there was a significant variation among learners in
the empiric and control groups in the benefit of learners in the empiric group. The
average score of students in the empirical group who got the formative assessment
test via Kahoot! was 18.41, compared to 15.42 for the control group, which took
the formative assessment test in paper form (Tables 6 and 7). Additionally, as seen
in Table 7, since the acquired p value (0.000) is less than 0.05, this implies there
are significant differences at the significance level of 0.05, which confirmed that
there is a significant difference between the two groups of learners in their
comprehension of grammar topics in Arabic covered during the lectures. This
result is consistent with previous studies that confirmed that GBL was able to
promote academic achievement for students, such as the White and McCoy (2019)
study, which reported all students, with the exception of one, saw a large increase
in their score from the pretest to the posttest. The average individual score
increase was 39.5 points from the pretest to the posttest. Also, Kotob and
Ibrahim (2019) study which aimed to verify the impact of applying GBL to
student motivation and academic performance in learning Arabic, the results
confirmed that GBL has improved student academic performance. The results
showed that the mean of the scores of students in the written test prior to
applying GBL was 17/30. After applying GBL and doing a post written exam,
the mean score appeared to be 20/30, which means that the overall achievement of
students improved in written exams. Similarly, the Kebritchi et al. (2010) study,
which reported a significant improvement in the performance of the experimental
group versus the control group. Moreover, the study conducted by Akinsola
(2007) revealed that students’ poor academic achievement is might due to the
method of teaching used. Also, the findings confirmed that the use of the GBL
environment led to improve the achievement of students and their attitude towards
learning. This indicates that GBL had a positive effect on the acquisition of the
target teaching content learning which leads to improving the academic
performance of students (Abbas and Muhamid 2016; Carr and Bossomaier 2011;
Licorish et al. 2017; Papastergiou 2009; Sahrir and Alias 2011; Wang 2015).
The fourth research question centered on determining whether students’ motivation
toward the use of GBL varies according to gender, student academic performance
(GPA), and computer skills. Our findings (illustrated in Tables 8, 9, 10 and 11) showed
that students’ motivation did differ according to computer skills (in favor of those
students with poor skills), but that there is no statistically significant difference in
students’ motivation according to gender and GPA. Similarly, the fifth question from
the study focused on how students’ engagement toward the use of GBL varies
according to gender, student (GPA), and computer skills. Our findings (illustrated in
Tables 12, 13, 14 and 15) indicated that students did differ according to computer skills
(in favor of those students with poor skills), while there was no statistically significant
difference according to gender and GPA.
Nevertheless, the findings of the study were not in line with the findings of other
studies (Reid 2018), which found that Kahoot! had less of an impact than traditional
formative assessment tests such as quizzes. Furthermore, the results of the current study
also were not consistent with the findings of a study conducted by Basuki and Hidayati
(2019) aimed at knowing the students’ perceptions of Kahoot! and Quizizz’s efficacy in
a daily online quiz. The finding pointed out that Quizzes were more effective to foster,
motivating students’ enthusiasm for learning, and better than Kahoot!.
However, there are some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, this study is
mainly based on the Kahoot! GBL strategy, which affects students’ scores ratings based on
their quick response to the questions. Second, a lack of knowledge about the GBL strategy
among faculty members in the universities hinders their proper use. Third, the inability to
increase student participation in both control and empirical groups due to the fact that only
107 students were enrolled in the Arabic language grammar course (ARB 151). Fourth, the
authors used parametric statistical methods to investigate the RQ4 and RQ5 of this study, and
the Likert scale questionnaire (1 = very high, 2 = high, 3 = moderate, 4 = little, and 5 = very
little) according to the choices of scale and intervals score of Likert scale as seen in Table 3.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned limitations, the researchers refer according to
their view of suggested some educational implications for future research on the impact
of GBL on students’ motivation, engagement, and achievement:
& The findings of this study could provide insights into the development and im-
provement of better educational games tools used in classrooms to motivate and
engage students in the learning process.
& There remains a need for further exploration of the full impact of GBL on
engagement and motivation between supports of full GBL of the curriculum
relative to those who believe that GBL is a distraction from the learning objectives.
& The need for further empiric and descriptive studies to explore the benefits and
challenges of implementing GBL in the learning and teaching processes.
& There is a need for studies into the most active features of GBL which might create
the appropriate circumstances for the development of motivation, engagement, and
academic performance students.
& This study contributes to the literature regarding the use of GBL for learning
languages like English as a second language (ESL), Arabic as a Second Language
(ASL), and learning & teaching English as a foreign language (EFL).
& The interest of higher education institutions in teaching through the use of digital
technology tools like Kahoot! instead of traditional teaching methods will address
the problem of weak motivation and the engagement of students to learning in
educational institutions.
6 Conclusion
Learning and Teaching are witnessing accelerated changes and developments in the
twenty-first century, especially in terms of integrating technology with learning pro-
cesses by using new learning strategies such as GBL and types of mixed learning.
Thus, establishments of higher education are seeking to utilize these advanced instruc-
tion and techniques to educate learners in the desire to achieve a high-quality education
that is aligned with global criteria.
The aim of this study was to explore the impact of GBL on students’ motivation,
engagement, and achievement on an Arabic language grammar course in higher
education. The results of this study confirmed that the use of GBL had a positive
impact on students’ motivation, engagement, and achievement. From the students’
responses, Kahoot. It is found to motivate students to become more engaged and more
motivated during lectures. It also enhanced language skills and communication be-
tween students through the game. Additionally, our findings show that students’
motivation and engagement for the use of GBL varies depending on their computer
skills (in favor of those students with poor skills). No statistically significant difference
was found in this respect with regard to the variables of gender and student (GPA). This
means that the GBL application was equally effective for all students in terms of
motivation, engagement, and academic performance. It’s obvious from these findings
that GBL is like Kahoot! It should be consistently implemented in the lecture halls to
motivate and engage students in the learning process.
7 Delimitations of study
& Subject limits: The study was limited to the all topics from the Arabic language
grammar course (ARB 151), which were taught to the students during the first
semester of the 2019/2020 academic year.
& Human limits: The study was limited to Students at Ajman University in United
Arab Emirates (UAE) who registered the Arabic language grammar course.
& Spatial limits: Ajman University in the United Arab Emirates.
& Time limits: first semester of academic year (2019/2020).
Acknowledgments The authors’ would like to thank Ajman University for their cooperative and the dean of
scientific research for his guidance and mentorship.
Author’s contributions All authors were involved in research design, implementation of the study, data
gathering, data analysis, and writing of the manuscript. All authors approve submission of the manuscript for
publication consideration. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Availability of data and materials We would have loved to share the data however, the data is primary in
nature and the authors do not wish to share the data as this may breach participant confidentiality.
Compliance with ethical standards
Ethical considerations This study was approved by Research Ethics Committee /Deanship of Graduate
Studies and Research of Ajman University (Reference Number: F - H - 1 5–1 - 0 1).
Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Competing interests As authors, we declare that have no significant financial, professional or personal
interests that may affect the performance or presentation of the work described in this manuscript. (The authors
declare that they have no competing interests).
References
Akinsola, M. (2007). The effect of stimulation-games environment on students’ achievements in and attitudes
to math in secondary school. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 6(3). Retrieved
October 13, 2020, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED500054.pdf
Amr, K. (2012). Learning through games: Essential features of an educational game. Doctoral dissertation,
Syracuse University, New York, USA. Retrieved December 4, 2019, from https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=idde_etd
Abbas, B., & Muhamid, H. (2016). The effect of using educational games on the achievement of second-grade
intermediate students in the subject of Arabic grammar. Journal of Human Sciences, 23(4), 1–15.
Alkhafaf, I. (2010). Games are Modern Teaching Strategies. Dar Almanahij for publishing and distribution.
2nd Edition, Amman, Jordan.
Basuki, Y & Hidayati, Y. (2019). Kahoot! Or Quizizz: The students’ perspectives. Proceedings of the 3rd
English Language and Literature International Conference, ELLiC, 27th April 2019, Semarang,
Indonesia.
Belkhouche, B., Al Darei, N., Ali, S., Al Mandhari, S., & Al Mehairi, M. (2014). Learning Arabic through
games. Eighth Annual Conference on Computer Games Multimedia and Allied Technologies
(March 2014). CGAT, 2014, p.
Bernard, H. R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.).
Walnut Creek: Alta Mira Press.
Bicen, H. & Kocakoyun, S. (2018). Perceptions of students for gamification approach: Kahoot as a case study.
IJET, 13(2).
Biehler, R., & Snowman, J. (1997). Psychology applied to teaching (8th ed.). Houghton: Mifflin Co..
Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. Sciences
Education, 6(1), 9–20.
Carr, D., & Bossomaier, T. (2011). Relativity in a rock field: A study of physics learning with a computer
game. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(6), 1042–1067.
Chen, J. F., Warden, C. A., & Chang, H. T. (2005). Motivators that do not motivate: The case of Chinese EFL
learners and the influence of culture on motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 39(4), 609–633. https://doi.org/10.
2307/3588524.
Chiang, Y. T., Lin, S. S. J., Cheng, C. Y., & Liu, E. Z. F. (2011). Exploring online game players’ flow
experiences and positive affect. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1), 106–114.
Conati, C. (2002). Probabilistic assessment of user's emotions in educational games. Applied Artificial
Intelligence, 16(7–8), 555–575.
Darma, G. (2016). Students’ perception of the use of Kahoot! As an ice breaker in interpretation class. Thesis,
Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta. Retrieved January 22, 2020, from https://repository.usd.ac.id/
6822/2/121214160_full.pdf.
Dellos, R. (2015). Kahoot! A digital game resource for learning. International Journal of Instructional
Technology and Distance Learning, 12(4), 49–52.
Dervan, P. (2014). Increasing in-class student engagement using Socrative (an online Student Response
System). AISHE-J: The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 6(3),
1801–1813.
Gamlo, N. (2019). The impact of Mobile game-based language learning apps on EFL learners’ motivation.
English Language Teaching, 12(4), 49–56.
Gruenstein, A. et al. (2009). A self-transcribing speech corpus: Collecting continuous speech with an online
educational game. SLaTE workshop. Retrieved November 10, 2019, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.
org/212d/dfa75e58f0d1f0eb0cc1e03d69e9ced44bd9.pdf.
Hwang, I., Wong, K., Lam, S. L., & Lam, P. (2015). Student response (clicker) systems: Preferences of
biomedical physiology students in Asian classes. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13(5), 319–330.
Johnson, L., Becker, S. A., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC horizon report: 2015 higher Education
Edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved January 29, 2020, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=
ED559357.
Judson, E. (2002). Learning from past and present: Electronic response systems in college lecture halls.
Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(2), 167–181.
Kapp, K. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction game-based methods and strategies for training
and education. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Kaur, P., & Naderajan, R. (2019). Kahoot! In the English language classroom. South East Asia Journal of
Contemporary Business, Economics and Law., 20(6), 49–54.
Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A., & Bai, H. (2010). The effects of modern mathematics computer games on
mathematics achievement and class motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2), 427–443.
Kim, B. (2013). Gamification. Keeping Up With... ACRL. Retrieved January 29, 2020, from https://www.acrl.
ala.org/acrlinsider/archives/7294.
Knight, J. F., Carley, S., Tregunna, B., Jarvis, S., Smithies, R., de Freitas, S., & Mackway-Jones, K. (2010).
Serious gaming technology in major incident triage training: A pragmatic controlled trial. Resuscitation,
81(9), 1175–9. Retrieved January 2, 2020, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.03.042.
Kotob, M., & Ibrahim, A. (2019). Gamification: The effect on students’ motivation and achievement in
language learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 6(1), 177–198.
Li, P., & Pan, G. (2009). The relationship between motivation and achievement a survey of the study
motivation of English majors in Qingdao Agricultural University. English Language Teaching, 2(1),
123–128.
Liu, E., & Chen, P. (2013). The effect of game-based learning on students’ learning performance in science
learning: A case of “Conveyance Go”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 1044–1051.
Licorish, S., George, J., Owen, H. & Daniel, B. (2017). Go Kahoot! enriching classroom engagement,
motivation and learning experience with games. Retrieved January 28, 2020, from https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/322150947
Lim, C. P., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Gaming in a 3D multiuser virtual environment: engaging students
in Science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-8535.2006.00531.x.
Lin, D., Ganapathy, M., & Manjet, K. (2018). Kahoot! It: Gamification in higher education. Pertanika Journal
of Social Sciences & Humanities, 26(1), 565–582.
Lucas, A. (2009). Using peer instruction and i-clickers to enhance student participation in calculus. Primus,
19(3), 219–231.
Madhavan, P. (2018). The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and English teaching in
polytechnic colleges. International Journal of Advanced Research, Ideas, and Innovations in
Technology, 4(4), 609–610.
Mayer, R., & Johnson, C. (2010). Adding instructional features that promote learning in a game-like
environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(3), 241–265.
Mei, S. Y., Ju, S. Y., & Adam, Z. (2018). Implementing Quizizz as game based learning in the Arabic
classroom. European Journal of Social Science Education and Research, 5(1), 194–198.
Moylan, G., Burgess, A., Figley, C., & Bernstein, M. (2015). Motivating game-based learning efforts in higher
education. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 13(2), 54–72.
Muhridza, N., Rosli, N., Sirri, A., & Abdul Samad, A. (2018). Using game-based technology, Kahoot! For
classroom engagement. LSP International Journal, 5(2), 37–48 Retrieved January 5, 2020, from https://
lspinternationaljournal.utm.my/index.php/lspij/article/view/77/73.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play game design fundamentals. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Schell, J., et al. (2013). Catalyzing learner engagement using cutting-edge classroom response systems in
higher education. Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education, 6, 233–261.
Sharples, M. (2000). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers &
Education, 34(3–4), 177–193.
Sahrir, M., & Yusri, G. (2012). Online vocabulary games for teaching and learning Arabic. GEMA Online™
Journal of Language Studies, 12(3), 961–977.
Sahrir, M., & Alias, N. (2011). A study on Malaysian language learners’ perception towards learning Arabic
via online games. GEMA Online™. Journal of Language Studies, 11(3), 129–145.
Shaffer, D. (2006). How computer games help children learn. Macmillan: Palgrave.
Sellar, M. (2011). Poll everywhere. The Charleston Advisor, 12(3), 57–60.
Shu, L. (2018). Student engagement in game-based learning: A literature review. Master dissertation, Texas
University, Austin, Texas, USA.
Smith, S. (2011). An introduction to gamification. Retrieved April 22, 2016, from http://awesome.hubpages.
com/hub/Intro-to-Gamification
Smith, L and Mann, S. (2002). Playing the game: A model for gameness in interactive game based learning. In
Proceedings of the 15th annual NACCQ, pp. 397–402.
Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on
educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52, 1–12.
Pivec, M., & Kearney, P. (2007). Games for learning and learning from games. Organizacija, 40, 267–272.
Plass, J., Homer, B., & Kinzer, C. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist,
50(4), 258–283.
Plump, C. M., & LaRosa, J. (2017). Using Kahoot! In the classroom to create engagement and active learning:
A game-based technology solution for e-learning novices. Management Teaching Review, 2(2), 151–158.
Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille, P., Marianov, V., Correa, M., Flores, P., Grau, V., Lagos, F., López, X.,
López, V., Rodriguez, P., & Salinas, M. (2003). Beyond Nintendo: Design and assessment of educational
video games for first and second grade students. Computer Education, 40(1), 71–94.
Rowe, J., Shores, L., Mott, B., & Lester, J. (2011). Integrating learning, problem solving, and engagement in
narrative-centered learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education,
21, 115–133.
Reid, S. (2018). Why Quizizz is better than Kahoot? Medium. Retrieved November 13, 2019, from https://
medium.com/@Stephen_Reid/why-quizizz-is-better-than-kahoot-9d585cb1ee3e.
Trybus, J. (2015). Game-based learning: What it is, why it works, and where it’s going. New M media
institute. Retrieved April 6, 2019, from http://www.newmedia.org /game-based-learning–what-it-is- why-
it-works-and-where-its-going.Html.
Turan, Z., & Meral, E. (2018). Game-based versus non-game-based: The impact of student response systems
on students’ achievements, engagements and test anxieties. Informatics in Education, 17(1), 105–116.
Xie. X. (2003). Objects management and English achievements Teacher’s role in inspiring students’ motiva-
tion and objects management. Exploration of Medical Education, No. 1.
Wang, A. I. (2015). The wear out effect of a game-based student response system. Computers & Education,
82, 217–227.
Wouters, P., & van Oostendorp, H. (2013). A meta-analytic review of the role of instructional support in
game-based learning. Computers & Education, 60(1), 412–425.
White, K. & McCoy, L. P. (2019). Effects of game-based learning on attitude and achievement in elementary
mathematics. Networks, 21(1), 1–19. Retrieved [date], from https://doi.org/10.4148/2470-6353.1259.
Yürük, N. (2019). Edutainment: Using Kahoot! As a review activity in foreign language classrooms. Journal
of Educational Technology & Online Learning, 2(2), 89–101.
Zarzycka-Piskorz, E. (2016). Kahoot it or not? Can games be motivating in learning grammar? Teaching
English with Technology, 16(3), 17–36.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Affiliations
Mohd. Elmagzoub Eltahir 1,2 & Najeh Rajeh Alsalhi 1,2 & Sami Al-Qatawneh 1 &
Hatem Ahmad AlQudah 3 & Mazan Jaradat 1
Mohd. Elmagzoub Eltahir

m.babiker@ajman.ac.ae
Sami Al-Qatawneh
s.alqatawneh@ajman.ac.ae
Hatem Ahmad AlQudah
hatem.alqudah@aa.ac.ae
Mazan Jaradat
m.jaradat@ajman.ac.ae
1
College of Humanities and Sciences, Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates
2
Nonlinear Dynamics Research Center (NDRC), Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates
3
College of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, Al Ain University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates

Motivation Games Questionnaire Eltahir2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motivation Games Questionnaire Eltahir2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motivation Games Questionnaire Eltahir2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Education and Information Technologies (2021) 26:3251–3278

The impact of game-based learning (GBL)

Keywords Game-based learning . Academic performance . Motivation . Engagement .

* Najeh Rajeh Alsalhi

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

conventional methods of learning, the lack of educational materials to facilitate

1.1 Research problem

1.2 Research purpose

1.3 The significance of the research

The significance of the study is demonstrated in the following:

1.4 Research questions

the impacts of GBL on students’ motivation, engagement, and achievement on an

2.1 Game-based learning concept

According to Salen and Zimmerman (2004), a game is a process in which participants

2.2 GBL’s relationship with student motivation, participation, and academic

enhancing motivation and engagement in learning environments is the integration

2.3 Kahoot! As game-based student response systems (GSRS)

2.4 Previous studies

The study participants comprised 107 students studying in the College of

Table 1 Participants Details

Group Number Percentage (%)

3.2 Research design

Fig. 1 Demographics of the participants of empirical group

Fig. 2 Design of the study

3.3 Two approaches for conducting a formative assessment test in a lecture

3.3.1 Paper form

3.4 The Kahoot! Game-based student response system (GSRS)

Kahoot! is a GBL platform that may be used as a technology of teaching in academic

Fig. 3 Procedures of the Paper form

Fig. 4 Kahoot! game screenshot

3.5 Equivalence of empirical and control groups

Fig. 5 Kahoot! game screenshot

3.6 Research instrument (questionnaire)

In order to assess participants’ attitudes to the empirical method adopted, a Likert-scale

Fig. 6 Kahoot! game screenshot

Table 2 T-test of pretest results: empirical and control groups

Group N Mean Standard Deviation (SD) T. value Sig.

Control 53 11.53 1.65 0.215 0.830

Table 3 The choices of scale and score periods of Likert scale

Choices Evaluation Evaluation periods

Very little 1 1.00–1.80

3.7 Compilation of data and statistical analysis

4.1 Findings of the study attributed to question 1

Table 4 Statistics of motivation findings

No. Items Mean SD Order Description

4.2 Study results related to research question 2

Table 5 Statistics of motivation engagement

No. Items Mean SD Order Description

4.3 Study results related to research question 3

Table 6 Means and SD of post-

Table 7 The independent sample t-test of post-test

Levene’s Test for Equality of t-test

F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Difference

Equal variances assumed 2.932 .090 10.459 105 0.000 2.99231

4.4 Study results related to research question 4

4.4.1 Gender variable among students

4.4.2 Students’ academic performance (GPA)

Gender N Mean SD T. Value Sig.

Female 28 3.90 1.00 0.238 0.813