Contoh Artikel Mjli

Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 19, No.
2 (July) 2022, pp:183-211
MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF LEARNING

AND INSTRUCTION
https://e-journal.uum.edu.my/index.php/mjli
How to cite this article:

Ng, M. P., Alias, N., & Dewitt, D. (2022). Effectiveness of a gamification application
in learning Mandarin as a second language Malaysian Journal of Learning &
Instruction, 19(2), 183-211. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2022.19.2.7
EFFECTIVENESS OF A GAMIFICATION APPLICATION

IN LEARNING MANDARIN AS A SECOND LANGUAGE
Mun Pei Ng, 2Norlidah Alias & 3Dorothy Dewitt

1
Department of Curriculum and Instructional Technology

Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur
3
Corresponding author: dorothy@um.edu.my
Received: 13/9/2021 Revised: 14/4/2022 Accepted: 26/5/2022 Published: 31/7/2022
ABSTRACT
Purpose - Gamification is an effective method to boost students’

academic achievement and engagement in second language learning.
This study aimed to test the effectiveness of the gamification
application, Class Dojo, among Year 4 pupils who are learning
Mandarin as a Second Language (MSL). It also sought to investigate
how the MSL learners became more engaged in learning Mandarin
when using Class Dojo.
Methodology – A quasi-experimental design with a pre-test and a

post-test was conducted to collect data among thirty (30) Year 4 pupils
enrolled in the MSL course. The pre-test and a post-test were used
to determine the effectiveness of Class Dojo in elevating the pupils’
achievement in learning MSL. The mean scores of the pre-test and
post-test were compared and analyzed using t-tests to determine if
they were significantly different. Data from observations, the pupils’
183
Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 19, No. 2 (July) 2022, pp: 183-211
self-reflective journal, and the collection of ‘Dojo Points’ were

grouped into five main themes and analyzed in order to investigate
how the participants were engaged in learning MSL.
Findings – The findings showed that there was a significant

improvement in the academic results of the participants. The pupils’
high rate of attendance, task completion, frequent Mandarin usage,
positive behavior, and favorable perceptions of Class Dojo indicated
that they were engaged in learning in the MSL class.
Significance – The findings of this study provide MSL educators

and instructional designers with information to consider whether
gamification applications could be used as an effective teaching tool
or virtual class management tool to enhance pupils’ engagement and
improve learning outcomes.
Keywords: Gamification, Mandarin as a Second Language, learning

Mandarin.
INTRODUCTION
The significant development of the Chinese language worldwide is

mainly be attributed to China’s industrial and economic progress.
Mandarin is widely regarded as an important foreign language. By the
end of 2018, more than 2.7 million people from 154 countries were
reportedly learning Chinese as an additional language (Gong et al.,
2020). In Asia, courses in Mandarin are being offered in countries such
as Indonesia, Japan, Singapore, and India. In Malaysia, MSL is a new
elective subject introduced under the new transformative curriculum
(KSSR) for primary schools (Ministry of Education, 2016). The said
curriculum is in line with the Malaysian government’s policy of
preparing students to be global citizens who have acquired knowledge
of an additional language in primary school (Ministry of Education,
2013). MSL is gaining popularity among parents of children attending
national schools in Malaysia. It has been implemented as an elective
subject in 150 selected national primary schools in Malaysia since
2008. Teaching MSL is a challenging task as Mandarin is a fairly new
and unfamiliar language for pupils who study in national primary
schools. MSL teachers typically face a number of challenges which
184
Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 19, No. 2 (July) 2022, pp:183-211
include pupils’ lack of Mandarin communication skills, their lack of

exposure to Chinese culture, and their behavioral problems while
learning Mandarin.
Motivation is linked to a sense of purpose and it is an important factor

in language learning among learners who aspire to learn a second
or foreign language (Tan et al., 2012). Many students are strongly
motivated to learn Mandarin and become bilingual in Mandarin and
English in order to improve their job prospects, and these students tend
to perform well (Zhong, et al., 2021). Hence, goal-orientation and task-
value provide pupils with a purpose for studying a second language
and this directly affects self-regulated learning, pupils’ achievement,
and positive attitude (Ocak & Yamac, 2013). Passing examinations
is a goal-oriented target among students who need to perform well.
However, in Malaysia, pupils who enroll in MSL classes are exempt
from taking any exams (Ministry of Education, 2017). Hence, as there
are no examinations or language proficiency tests, students lack the
drive to study Mandarin. Hence, other strategies need to be adopted in
order to motivate the MSL learners.
Gamification has been shown to be effective as a language learning

tool to improve students’ achievement and facilitate their engagement
in learning Mandarin. A variety of gamification applications, such
as Chinese Candy Crush, DuoLingo, and ChineseSkill have been
developed to enhance the experience of learning Mandarin. Several
studies have found that gamification is an effective tool to teach MSL
(Chee et al., 2020; Osman & Abdul Malek, 2018; Rawendy et al.,
2017). Gamification has been employed as a tool for motivation in
learning (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017). MSL learners have difficulty
learning the tones in the “han yu pinyin” script. Rote learning and
repetitive exercises often lead to feelings of boredom and a resistance
to learning new characters among MSL learners (Nel et al., 2019). In
addition, lack of confidence and unwillingness to practice speaking
Mandarin among learners in the lower grades may be attributed to
feelings of anxiety about learning a new language. In this study, a
gamification application, Class Dojo, was introduced in the MSL
classroom to enhance pupils’ Mandarin language skills. Hence,
the effectiveness of the gamification approach on these pupils’
performance will be evaluated to determine whether there are any
significant differences in the pupils’ Mandarin language learning after
using Class Dojo. In addition, this study also aimed to investigate
how the pupils became more engaged in the MSL course when using
Class Dojo.
185
LITERATURE REVIEW
Gamification
Gamification, a term first defined by Nick Pelling in 2002, refers

to a tool that applies game-like elements to improve user interface
design in order to make electronic transactions more attractive
(Pelling, 2011). Gamification differs from game-based learning. It
employs game design elements and game mechanics in non-game
environments for the purpose of engaging the user and enhancing
desired behaviors (Alsawaier, 2018; Chou, 2020; Kapp, 2012; Morris
et al., 2013). Recently, gamification has started to gain popularity and
has been widely used in various areas.
Gamification techniques have been found to be effective in enhancing

users’ engagement and performance in various areas, such as business
and marketing (Arnab et al., 2015), medical training programs
(O’Connell et al., 2020), education (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Nand
et al., 2019; Smiderle et al., 2020), and sports (Bitrián et al., 2020).
In the context of education, the findings of several studies have

indicated that gamification is an effective tool in improving pupils’
engagement and facilitating learning outcomes (Arnab et al., 2015;
Cahyani, 2016; Orhan-Goksun & Gursoy, 2019; Smiderle et al., 2020;
Tan & Hew, 2016), bringing positive effects in terms of motivation
(Alsawaier, 2018; Bitrian et al., 2020), basic psychological needs, and
academic performance (Dindar et al., 2020; Orhan-Goksun & Gursoy,
2019). Gamification employs game-like elements such as scores,
badges, competition, achievements, leader boards, and rewards as
instant feedback, and when applied to real-world situations, it is able
to increase learners’ engagement by compelling them to reach their
targets (Glover, 2013). Feedback provides an appraisal of progress
towards goals, motivating the learner to put in more effort, to persist,
and to concentrate on the task assigned (Garris et al., 2002). As stated
in the Self-Determination Theory, specific game design elements
bring about specific psychological consequences and can influence the
satisfaction of basic psychological needs. According to certain studies,
badges and leader boards have a positive impact on competence and
needs satisfaction, while avatars influence experiences of social
relatedness (Sailer et al., 2017). Although extrinsic rewards can be less
effective than intrinsic motives, both intrinsic and extrinsic motives
play a role in determining learners’ behavior. Hence, gamification can
186
influence learners’ behavior and keep them engaged in the classroom.

However, while gamification has been shown to initially stimulate
learners’ motivation and promote engagement, it does not appear to
contribute to sustainable learning results (Hummel, 2020). In addition,
there is insufficient evidence to support the long-term benefits of
gamification in the context of education (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).
Gamification was adopted to enhance learners’ engagement and

improve language achievement in learning MSL, as well as to encourage
self-directed learning. It includes numerous fundamental game aspects
and is believed to be linked to students’ involvement and Mandarin
language achievement. Mandarin language achievement includes
listening, speaking, reading, writing, interpersonal communication
skills, and cognitive skills. Meanwhile, pupils’ engagement consists
of three engagement domains (cognitive, behavioral, and emotional)
and the Self-Determination Theory (SDT). The relationship between
Mandarin language achievement theory, pupils’ engagement, and
gamification are summarized and illustrated in the following diagram
(Figure 1). The following section will provide further explanation
regarding all the elements under Mandarin language achievement,
pupils’ engagement, and gamification.
Figure 1
The Relationship between Mandarin Language Achievement, Pupils’

Engagement, and Gamification
Mandarin as a Second Language (MSL)

Mandarin as a Second Language (MSL)
In foreign language education, the most influential national guidelines have summarized the objectives
In foreign
of foreign language
language education,
teaching under thealso
five goal areas most influential
known national
as the five “Cs”, guidelines
namely Communication,
have
Culture,summarized the objectives
Related Knowledge (Connections), of foreign language
Comparisons, and Community teaching under
Communication
(Communities) (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 1996). The goals of foreign
187
language teaching include to expand learners’ perspectives and enhance their knowledge as well as
cognitive thinking abilities.
Meanwhile, according to the International Curriculum for Chinese Language Education (Hanban, 2014),
five goal areas also known as the five “Cs”, namely Communication,
Culture, Related Knowledge (Connections), Comparisons, and
Community Communication (Communities) (American Council
on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 1996). The goals of foreign
language teaching include to expand learners’ perspectives and
enhance their knowledge as well as cognitive thinking abilities.
Meanwhile, according to the International Curriculum for Chinese

Language Education (Hanban, 2014), the general aim of teaching
Mandarin as an international language is to enable learners to acquire
knowledge and skills in the language, while cultivating self-regulated
and cooperative learning. In Malaysia, learning MSL emphasizes
five focus areas: speaking, listening, reading, writing and ‘qu wei yu
wen’ (doing interesting language activities) (Ministry of Education,
2017). These focus areas in the MSL curriculum are similar to the
‘Chinese as a second language curriculum’ in China, where emphasis
is given to the four basic linguistic skills and cultural elements of the
Chinese language (Liu, 2001) in order to build a strong foundation for
language communication skills.
In the past, the objectives of learning MSL in Malaysia and China

were to achieve language skills, language learning strategies, and
cross-cultural communication skills. However, the MSL curriculum
currently shows the need to further expand MSL learners’ knowledge
of perspective and cultivate their cognitive thinking skills. As seen in
Malaysia, there has been a trend of younger learners learning MSL.
This phenomenon has prompted educators to consider a pedagogy that
is more suitable for young learners. As for children, second or foreign
language learning is synchronized with their cognitive ability and
cognitive processes. As a result, rather than just developing the ability
to communicate in the target language, second language teaching
should also help children learn to recognize their surroundings,
accumulate knowledge, and improve their cognitive abilities (Lu,
2018). Hence, relevant pedagogies for language teaching should be
considered with language teaching standards and used as reference to
further improve the teaching of MSL.
Motivation to learn a second language can be intrinsic or extrinsic

(Deci & Ryan, 1990). External motivation for learning a second
language is mainly manifested as an instrumental need, such as to
secure a job or for use when travelling. Meanwhile, the behavior
188
of self-determined learners can be derived from both intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation, identified as regulation (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Six categories of motivation have been identified, namely intrinsic
motivation, extrinsic motivation, task value, ability, belief, and
expectations for success (Hsieh, 2014). However, most models
have highlighted intrinsic motivation, which focuses on the aim of
completing a task derived from involvement (Malone, 1981; Malone
& Lepper, 1987). Moreover, motivation is commonly associated with
engagement, as the two display a variety of similar characteristics,
including cognitive engagement and intrinsic motivation.
Despite the fact that motivation and engagement are closely

related, the two are not the same. Motivation has been connected to
psychological factors that improve behavior. In contrast, engagement
is associated with the amount of energy expended on various tasks
and activities (Alsawaier, 2018). Pupils’ engagement dimensions and
SDT are further investigated in the following section to find out how
gamification might be useful for teaching MSL.
Student Engagement
Student engagement in classroom activities is essential for successful

learning (Digamon & Cinches, 2017). The SDT requires taking into
account fundamental psychological needs for competence, autonomy,
and relatedness, in order to understand human motivation (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). There are three main dimensions of student engagement:
emotional engagement, cognitive engagement, and behavioral
engagement (Bond & Bedenlier, 2019; Fredericks et al., 2004;
Redmond et al., 2018). The level of pupils’ thinking skills is often
used to indicate cognitive engagement (Skinner & Belmont, 1993),
where pupils put in a lot of effort to gain a deeper understanding of
a topic, become more independent, and increase their autonomy in
learning (Bond & Bedenlier, 2019). Autonomy refers to the amount
of freedom that a student has while learning in the absence of external
rewards, control, and pressures (Furrer & Skinner, 2003). Sometimes,
pupils tend to feel dominated by rewards, and this causes a change
in the perceived site of causality for their behavior from internal to
external (Deci & Ryan, 2000). If the teacher allows pupils to choose
their own learning activities and to make connections between their
schoolwork and their interests, learning is promoted. Therefore,
intrinsic motivation can be enhanced by engaging pupils in interesting
activities that provide novelty and optimal challenges.
189
When students’ engagement is addressed in emotional terms, it

apparently refers to the attitude or interest of the learners who
involve themselves with the instructional materials (Chi & Wylie,
2014). Pupils who are behaviorally engaged in learning activities
are more likely to adhere to behavioral norms such as attendance
and involvement (Cappella et al., 2013), and they are less likely to
participate in disruptive or negative behavior (Fredericks et al., 2004).
Such pupils will be attentive, ask pointed questions, find support for
task(s) assigned by the teacher, and actively participate in classroom
discussions (Boykin & Noguera, 2011).
In addition, researchers also believe that a good relationship between

a teacher and his or her pupils would enhance the learning process in
a classroom (Digamon & Cinches, 2017; Skinner & Belmont, 1993).
Pupils’ sense of relatedness is important for promoting engagement
in learning and improving academic performance (Furrer & Skinner,
2003). Pupils who are emotionally engaged will experience affective
reactions such as interest, enjoyment, and a sense of belonging
(Fredericks et al., 2004). Hence, pupils who are continuously engaged
in learning activities are more likely to achieve higher grades and
perform better in school.
The concepts of these dimensions of engagement and SDT can be

applied to the physical classroom or the digital learning environment.
However, the difference lies in the type of technology or instructional
methods used by instructors to foster student engagement in the
classroom (Bernotaite, 2020). Researchers believe that student
engagement is influenced by diverse contextual factors and that
technology plays an important role in improving student engagement
(Bond & Bedenlier, 2019; Schindler et al., 2017). Therefore,
gamification was applied in this study to investigate how pupils
engaged with this novel technology.
Gamification Elements and Classroom Evaluation
Gamification has the potential to help teachers monitor their pupils’

performance by conducting formative evaluation using this technology.
Evaluation is an important element in learning as it provides instructors
with useful feedback. The generally accepted position is that games
themselves are not sufficient for learning. However, there are elements
190
of games that can be triggered within an instructional context to help

pupils achieve effective learning (Garris et al., 2002). Some elements
of games, such as points, badges, and achievements, can be integrated
into evaluation components. Instant feedback in gamification can
provide valuable information about students’ performance and help
teachers to refine pedagogical strategies (Zapata-Rivera & Bauer,
2012). If evaluation using gamification is well-designed, it will
provide valuable information on education to relevant stakeholders
(Menezes & Bortolli, 2016). Game-based evaluation systems have the
ability to motivate pupils while also posing a challenge for teachers
(Fishman & Deterding, 2013). Hence, behavior management tools of
gamification can help teachers to reduce the amount of paperwork
they have to complete, although they still need to restructure the
pedagogies.
Gamification as a Classroom-based Assessment Tool
Classroom-based assessment is an evaluation method used by

teachers to determine how much and how effectively students are
learning in a classroom setting (International Bureau of Education,
2020). In the Malaysian context, classroom-based assessment is
a continuous assessment done throughout the year for all subjects
taught in school. It is a formative evaluation for feedback and
includes concrete, measurable details for specific requirements
(Morris et al., 2013). Classroom-based assessment aims to determine
and record the development of students’ progress in learning based
on teachers’ professional judgement. Teachers may evaluate their
students’ performance in a formative or summative way using various
evaluation methods, such as examination, writing exercises, oral
exercises, project work, quizzes, presentations, and other learning
activities (Ministry of Education, 2022).
There is limited research on gamification in education, and most studies

have focused on its use in higher education. Currently, there does not
appear to be any studies carried out on the usage of gamification in
the context of learning MSL in Malaysian primary schools to identify
whether it can improve student behavior and learning outcomes.
Therefore, this study aimed to investigate how pupils engaged with
gamification in the MSL course and to assess the usefulness of
gamification in improving Mandarin language proficiency.
191
METHODOLOGY
Design of Study
This study employed a single group pre-test and post-test designed to

determine the effectiveness of the gamification approach on pupils’
performance in learning MSL. This was conducted by investigating
whether there was any significant difference in pupils’ progress in
learning Mandarin after using the application, Class Dojo. In order to
investigate pupils’ engagement in the MSL course when using Class
Dojo, data was collected from observations, pupils’ self-reflective
journals, and records on the application such as ‘Dojo Points’
achievement and pupils’ attendance.
Participants
The participants consisted of a group of 30 Year 4 pupils from a

selected national primary school in Ipoh where MSL classes were
held. All of them were Malay pupils (100.0%, n= 30) whose first
language was not Mandarin. Some of the participants (6.67%, n=2)
did not have any experience learning Mandarin, some (16.67%, n=5)
have learned Mandarin for 1–2 years, about a third (36.66%, n=11)
have learned Mandarin for 3–5 years, while the rest (40.00%, n=12)
have learned Mandarin for more than 5 years.
Instruments
i) Instrument for Academic Achievement (Pre-test and Post-test)
The instrument to measure academic achievement was a set of pre-test

and post-test questions. The test comprised thirty (30) multiple-choice
questions designed to assess participants’ knowledge of Mandarin
terms and phrases. The questions for the pre-test and post-test were
the same, but they were arranged in random order to ensure internal
validity, since the same test was given to the same group of pupils.
This instrument was validated and verified by a group of experts who
are experienced MSL teachers.
The scores from the pre-test and post-test were used to evaluate the
effectiveness of the gamification application, Class Dojo in relation
192
to the participants’ learning achievement. A parametric statistical test

known as t-test was used to determine whether there was a significant
difference in achievement by comparing the means of the pre-test and
post-test scores (Fraenkel et al., 2019). This method has been used in
previous studies in the context of gamification and learning Mandarin
(Rawendy et al., 2017).
ii) Instrument for Pupils’ Engagement (Dojo Points)
The instrument for pupils’ engagement comprised checklists with a

record of frequencies related to pupils’ attendance, task completion,
usage of Mandarin in production activities such as speaking and
writing, participants’ behavior in helping others, as well as responses
transcribed from pupils’ self-reflective journals. The frequencies were
obtained from the ‘Dojo Points’ system in the Class Dojo application,
which was employed to evaluate how the participants engaged in
learning MSL using Class Dojo. Pupils’ attendance and achievement
of ‘Dojo Points’ were analyzed and reported in the form of tables and
histograms. The presence of outliers in the histograms should prompt
researchers to study the use of median as synthesis statistics and the
use of parametric or nonparametric hypothesis test (Nuzzo, 2019). In
addition, pupils’ perception of the use of Class Dojo was examined
and recorded based on their feedback and self-reflective journals.
Class Dojo was selected because it is a well-developed gamification

application which serves as an observational assessment tool. It
is an effective classroom behavior management tool that allows
teachers to assess pupils and receive immediate feedback. A number
of teachers have used Class Dojo as a tool to assess their pupils in
science, engineering, and physical education classes (LaFave, 2016).
The digital platform helps teachers to track the behavior of their
pupils (both individually and in groups) immediately with the point
system using mobile devices (Cetin & Cetin, 2018). Quantitative and
qualitative evidence of pupils’ behavior are available to the pupils and
their parents. The pupils’ attendance can be easily tracked by their
parents and school administrators.
Procedure
Ethical approval was obtained from the school principal. Parents

and students were informed of the possible effects of the study and
193
qualitative evidence
qualitative evidence ofof pupils’
pupils’ behavior
behavior are
are available
available toto the
the pupils
pupils and
and their pare
their paren
attendance
qualitative can be easily
evidence of tracked
pupils’ by their parents
behavior are and school
available to administrators.
the pupils and their paren
attendance canbe
attendance be easilytracked
tracked bytheir
their parentsand
and schooladministrators.
administrators.
attendancecan
can beeasily
easily trackedby by theirparents
parents andschool
school administrators.
Procedure
Procedure
Procedure
Procedure
Ethical
parentalapproval
consentwas was obtained
obtained frombefore thetheschool principal.
gamification appParents and students were
was used.
Ethical
Ethical approval
approval was
was obtained
obtained fromthe
from theschool
school principal.
principal. Parents
Parents andstudents
and studentswere
werei
possible
Ethical effects ofwas
The researchers
approval the obtained
helped study and
each parental
participant
from the consent
to create
school was obtained
a portfolio
principal. before
in the
Parents and the gamificatio
students were
possibleeffects
possible effectsofofthethe studyand andparental
parentalconsentconsentwaswasobtained
obtainedbefore
beforethethegamification
gamificatio
The researchers
Class
possible
The
Dojo
effects
researchers of thestudy
helped
application
helped
each
study
each
participant
and and
taught themtoconsent
parental
participant to
create
how to amanage
create
portfolio
was
a obtained
portfolio
in the
their
in
Class
avatar
before
the theDojo
Class
applica
gamificatio
Dojo applic
Theandresearchers
them
The the
howapplicationhelped
to manage
researchers helped each
through
their participant
mobile
avatar
each participant thetoto
andphones create
application
createaaportfolio
and desktops.
throughThe
portfolio in the
mobile
in the Class
teacherphones
Class Dojo
andapplica
Dojo deskto
applic
them
them howtoto
explained
how manage
the rules
manage their
and
their avatarand
regulations
avatar andto the
the the application
participants,
application through mobile
including
through mobile how phonesand
phones anddeskto
deskt
explained
them how the
to rules and
manage regulations
their avatar and tothetheapplication
participants, including
through mobilehowphones
to gain badges
and deskt
explained
to gain
explained the rules
badges
the and
andandpointsregulations
withafter
theirtothethe participants,
participation, including
in class how to gainbadges
and after badges
their
explained
their therules
participation,
rulesin
participation, and
in
regulations
class
class
and
regulations
and after
toclass.
to theparticipants,
class. participants,including
includinghowhowtotogain
gain badgesa
class.
their
theirparticipation,
participation,ininclass
classandandafter
afterclass.
class.
The total duration of this study was 12 weeks and 12 hours. The contents of the MSL co
Thetotal
The totalduration
durationof of thisthisstudystudywas12 was
12weeks12 weeks
weeks and12 12 and 12 hours.
hours. Thecontents The of the MSL co
contents
The
on
The total
Year
total 4duration
syllabus.
duration ofofThe
this
this study
following
study was
was lessons
12 weeks wereand
and hours.
conducted
12 hours. The
using
The Class Dojo:
contents ofofthe
theMSL
MSLcou co
contents
on of
Year44syllabus. the MSL
syllabus. course
Thefollowing
following were basedwere
lessons on Yearconducted4 syllabus.
usingClass The Dojo:
Class
onon Year
Year 4 syllabus. The
The following lessons were conducted using
conducted using Class Dojo: Dojo:
following lessons were conductedlessons using Class were Dojo:
• Chapter 1: “jīn tiān qì zěn me yang? 今天天气怎么样？”（How is today’s weathe
Chapter1:
•••• Chapter
Chapter “jīntiān
1:“jīn
1: “jīn tiānqìqìzěn
tiān zěnme meyang? 今天天气怎么样？”（Howisistoday’s
yang?今天天气怎么样？”（How today’sweathe
weath
Chapter
• Chapter 1: “jīn tiān
2: “jié rìweather?) qì zěn
节日” (Festivals） me yang? 今天天气怎么样？”（How is today’s weath
(How
Chapter is today’s
“jiérìrì节日”
2:“jié (Festivals）
•••• Chapter
Chapter 3: 2: “jié rì
2: “wǒ
节日”(Festivals）
• Chapter yào节日” mǎi (Festivals
(Festivals）
我要买” (I want to buy)
•• Chapter
•• Chapter 3: “wǒ
3:3:“wǒ yào
yào mǎi
mǎi 我要买”
我要买” (Iwant
(I(I wanttotobuy) buy)
Chapter
•• Chapter
Chapter 4: “wǒ
4: “wǒ yào mǎi
“wǒ chuān 我穿” I（I 我要买” wear. want
wear）. to buy)
Chapter4:4:“wǒ
••• Chapter “wǒchuānchuān我穿” 我穿”（I （Iwear）.wear）.
Chapter 4: “wǒ chuān 我穿” （I wear）.
The lessons were designed to consist of a variety of activities: oral
The lessons were designed to consist of a variety of activities: oral exercise, role-play
exercise,
The lessons role-play,
weredesignedgroup activity,
designed toconsist
consistandofassessment.
varietyofofInactivities:
the MSL course,
The
and
The lessons
assessment.
lessons were
were Indesigned
the MSL toto course,
consist of aaavariety
formative
of variety
activities:
assessment,
of activities:
oralexercise,
oral exercise,role-play,
self-assessment
oral exercise,
role-play
(journal
role-play w
formative
andassessment. assessment,
assessment.InInthe theMSL self-assessment
MSLcourse,course,formative (journal
formativeassessment, writing in
assessment,self-assessment Class
self-assessment(journal (journalw
and
Dojo), and summative assessment were conducted in class to help the participants check
Dojo),
and
Dojo),assessment.
andsummative
and In theassessment
summative MSL course,
assessment were
were formative
conducted
conducted assessment,
inin classtotohelp
class self-assessment
helpthe theparticipants (journal
check
Dojo),
how
Dojo), farand
participantsthey
and summative
had
check
summative andassessment
progressed.understand
assessment were how
were conducted
far they
conducted in
had inclass to
progressed.
class to help
help the
the participants
participants check
check
how farthey
how they hadprogressed.
progressed.
howfar far theyhad had progressed.
Categoriesofof‘Dojo
Categories ‘DojoPoints’
Points’ were created in theClass
in the ClassDojo Dojoapplication
application such as “speak
Categories
Categories
such as ofof‘Dojo
“speaking‘DojoMandarin”,
Points’were
Points’ were created
created
“on task”, inin the ClassDojo
theClass
“participate” Dojo
and application
application
others, in suchasas“speak
such “speak
“on task”, “participate”
Categories of ‘Dojo and others,
Points’ were in orderintothe
created encourage
Class participants
Dojo application to speak
such Mandarin
as “speak
“on
ordertask”, “participate”
to encourage and others,to
participants inorder
order Mandarin
speak to encourage participants tospeak
speakMandarin
Mandarin
“on
2).
“on task”,
task”,“participate”
Participants who always
“participate” and
andothers,
spokeinin
others, Mandarin in class,ininteracted
ordertotoencourage
encourage
class (Figure
participants
participants withtoto others
speak in Mand
Mandarin
2).
2). Participants
2).Participants
Participants who always
whoalways
who always spoke
spokein
spoke Mandarin
Mandarin
Mandarin in class,
inquestions,
in interacted
class, interacted
class, interacted with others
with others
with ininManda
Mand
tasks
2). on time,
Participants participated
who always actively
spoke answering
Mandarin in class, and
interacted involved
with themselves
others in in
Mand
tasks
others
tasks ontime,
on intime, participated
Mandarin,
participated activelytasks
completed
actively ininanswering
answering questions,
on time,questions,
participated andactively
and involvedthemselves
involved themselvesining
were
tasks given
on time,points. Other positive
participated actively behavior
in answering badges, such as “helping
questions, and involvedothers”, were intro
themselves in
in answering
were
were given
given points.questions,
points. Other and
Otherpositive
positiveinvolved
behavior
behavior themselves
badges,
badges, in
such
such group
as “helping
activities,
as“helping others”,
others”, wereintrod
were intro
participants
were given who
points. extended
Other help
positive to their
behavior classmates
badges, such andas teacher.
“helping These
others”, badges
were we
intro
were given points.
participants who Other positive
extended help to behavior
their badges, such
classmates and asteacher.
“helpingThese badges w
participants
encourage
participants who extended
participants
who extendedto earn helpmore totopoints
their classmates
while developingand teacher.
excellent These badges
disciplinary
badgeshabi we
others”, were
encourage introduced
participants toearntohelp
earn reward
more their
points classmates
participants
while who and
developing extendedteacher.
excellenthelpThese
disciplinary habw
encourage
class,
to their the participants
teacher to
displayed more
the points
leader while
board developing
(Figure 3) excellent
in front disciplinary
of the class. habit
Al
encourage
class,
class, the classmates
the
participants
teacher displayed
teacher
and
displayed teacher.
to earn more
the leader
the
These
pointsboard
leader badges
while
board
were 3)
developing
(Figure
(Figure
designed
3)3) inin fronttoofdisciplinary
excellent
in front of the class.habi
the class. A
Alt
participants
encourage
class, the could check
participants
teacher their
to
displayed earn scores
more
the using
points
leader their
while
board personal
developing
(Figure Class Dojo
excellent
front application.
of the In addi
class. A
participants
participants could
could check
check their
their scores
scores using their personal Class
Class Dojo
Dojo application. In add
assigned
disciplinary
participants assignments
habits.
could Atorthe
check projects
end
their to using
of class,
scores be
usingthetheir
completed
teacher
their personal
at home
displayed
personal through
Class the application.
leader
Dojo the Class Dojo
application. InInaddit
app
add
assignedassignments
assigned assignments orprojects
or projects totobe becompleted
completed atathome
home through
through ClassDojo
theClass
the Dojo app
app
board
4).
assigned (Figure 3)
assignments in front
or of
projectsthe class.
to be Alternatively,
completed at the
home participants
through the Class Dojo app
4).
4).could check their scores using their personal Class Dojo application. In
4).
addition,
Figure 2 the teacher assigned assignments or projects to be completed
Figure
at
Figurehome 2 through the Class Dojo application (Figure 4).
Figure22
Categories of ‘Dojo Points’ in Class Dojo.
Categoriesofof‘Dojo
Categories ‘DojoPoints’
Points’ininClass
ClassDojo.
Dojo.
Categories
194 of ‘Dojo Points’ in Class Dojo.
Figure 2
Categories of ‘Dojo Points’ in Class Dojo.
Figure 3
Pupils’ Avatars
195
Figure 3
Pupils’ Avatars
Figure 4
Figure
Figure 4
4
Creating Activities
Creating Activities
Creating Activities
196
RESULTS
In this section, the findings are presented in terms of: i) the effectiveness
of Class Dojo, and ii) how the pupils were engaged during the MSL
classes through using Class Dojo.
i) Effectiveness of Class Dojo application
In order to determine the effectiveness of the Class Dojo application,

a paired-sample t-test was used to compare the two sets of test scores
(pre-test and post-test). The findings of the pre-test and post-test
were evaluated. Table 1 shows that there was a significant difference
between the pre-test (mean = 56.078, SD=11.667) and post-test
(mean=64.957, SD=15.116) marks; t (30) =-4.597, p <0.5. The mean
scores indicated that the post-test scores were significantly higher than
the pre-test scores, reflecting the participants’ achievement following
the implementation of Class Dojo.
Table 1
Comparison of Pre-Test and Post-Test Achievement in Relation to

using Class Dojo
M SD t-value p -value Effect size

Pre-test 56.078 11.667
-4.597 0.00004 0.587
Post-test 64.957 15.116
The findings indicated that the gamification application, Class

Dojo brought about positive effects on the participants’ academic
achievement, as evidenced by the significant differences in the test
scores before and after the use of Class Dojo.
ii) Engagement of MSL learners
In order to investigate the level of participants’ engagement in the

MSL class using Class Dojo, the data collected through ‘Dojo Points’
achievement, pupils’ attendance, and observations were compiled
together with transcripts from the pupils’ self-reflective journals. The
data were gathered, analyzed, and classified into five categories: i)
participants’ attendance, ii) task completion, iii) participants’ Mandarin
usage, iv) participants’ behavior, and v) participants’ perception of
Class Dojo.
197
a) Attendance
Analysis of participants’ attendance was tabulated (Table 2). The

statistics revealed that 24 out of 30 MSL participants (80.00%,
n=24) came under the category of >100 percent (Figure 5). These
MSL participants attended the regular MSL classes as well as extra
classes which were scheduled on other days. A small percentage of the
participants (16.67%, n= 5) were within the 75 percent –100 percent
range. Only one of the new participants (3.33%, n=1) had an overall
attendance rate of less than 75 percent.
Participants’ attendance 0 – 25 %
Table 2
25% – 50 %
Analysis of Participants’ Attendance 50% – 75 %
75% – 100 %
% N > 100
Participants’ attendance 0 – 25 % 0
25% – 50 % 0
50% – 75 % Total number
1 of participants
* >100 indicate 75% – 100 % extra
pupils who attended classes.5
> 100 24
Total number of participants 30
Figure
* >100 indicate 5
pupils who attended extra classes.

Figure 5
Participants’ Attendance
Participants’ Attendance
198
b) Task Completion
b) Task Completion
b) Task Completion
The participants’ task completion shown in Table 3 was divided
into four categories: i) completed all given tasks (16.7%, n=5), ii)
mostlyThe participants’
completed all given task completion
tasks shown
(36.7%, n=11), iii) in Table 3some
completed was divided int
given tasks (30.0%, n=9) and iv) hardly completed any given
ies: i) completed allgiven tasks (16.7%, n=5), ii) mostly completed all given tasks (36.7% tasks
(16.75%, n=5) (see figure 6). The results showed that a majority of the
mpleted some giventasks (30.0%, n=9) and iv) hardly completed any given tasks (16.7
participants were able to complete the assignments given by the teacher
gure 6). The results
throughshowed that aParticipants
Class Dojo. majority ofwere the given
participants were
individual able to complete the
assignments
given by the teacher through
to complete Classeven
in class Dojo. Participants
though they were were given individual
also allowed to completeassignments
them at
n class even though they were
home. Onealso allowed
of the to complete
assignments given tothem at home. One
the participants was toof the assignm
createtoa video about the day’s weather. Participants were encouraged
the participants was create a video about the day’s weather. Participants were encourag
to apply what they had learned in class, and there was a particular
hat they had learned in class,
Mandarin and there
sentence to bewas a particular
mastered: Mandarin
“jīn tiān qì zěn sentence
me yang? to be mastere
zěn me yang? 今天天气怎么样？ ” （ HowHow is today’s
is today’s weather?),
weather?), which
which must be must be in
included in their video recording. Participants were
eir video recording.Participants were very excited and some of them even stayed back very excited
and some of them even stayed back after class to complete the task.
task.However,
o complete the However, some of the participants were unable to complete their ta
some of the participants were unable to complete their task
act that they did tohave
duenot the factinternet
that theyaccess and internet
did not have mobileaccess
phonesand at home.
mobile They were on
phones
theassignments
mplete some ofat home. They were only as theyablerelied on thesome
to complete school’s
of the desktop computers
assignments as with l
they relied on the
ns (e.g., camera andvideo functions). school’s desktop computers with limited functions
(e.g., camera and video functions).
Table Table
3 3
On task
On– task
Frequency of Participants’
– Frequency CompletionCompletion
of Participants’ of Given Tasks
of Given Tasks
Category N %
On task Completed all tasks 5 16.7
Completed most tasks 11 36.7
Completed some tasks 9 30.0
Hardly completed any task 5 16.7
Total number of participants 30 100
199
al number of participants 30 100
task Figure 6
Figure 6 Figure 6
gure 6 Total number of participants 30
TaskbyCompletion Task Completion by Participa
by Participants
Task Completion Participants
sk
ntsCompletion by Participants
Figure 6
Figure 6
Task Completion by Participants
Task Completion by Participants
c) Mandarin Usage c) Mandarin Usage

c) Mandarin Usage
Mandarin Usage
In terms of by the initiative t
c) Mandarin Usage In terms of In the terms of the
initiative initiative
taken by thetakenparticipantsthe toparticipant
speak a
terms of the initiative
c) Mandarintaken by
Usage the participants to speak and write in Mandarin
of Class after
aken by the participants to speak and implementation
implementation write in Mandarin
of Class Dojo, of almost implementation
after
Class theofalmost
Dojo,
half half
the class of the Doj
(46.7%, cla
n=
plementation of
o, almost halfInof Class
the of
terms Dojo,
class almost
(46.7%,
the initiative half
n=14)
taken of the class
attempted
by the (46.7%,
to n=14)
communicate
participants to speak attempted
complete
andin write in to
Mandarin communicat
sentences
complete Mandarin complete Mandarin
sentences withsentences
the teacherwith the teacher
while in classwhile in
or after
mplete
with theMandarin sentences
In
Mandarin
teacher terms
while after with
of thethe
in class the teacher
classwhile
initiative
implementation
or after of in
taken
(Table class
by
Class
4). theorparticipants
Dojo, after classhalf
almost (Table 4). and write i
toof speak
the
implementation
class of Class Dojo,
(46.7%, n=14) attempted almost half
to communicate in of theTable
complete class 4(46.7%, n=14) attemp
Mandarin
Table 4 while Table 4
ble 4 sentences
completewithMandarin
the teacher sentencesinwith
classthe
or teacher
after class (Table
while 4). or after class (Tabl
in class
Activities Involving Activities Involving Speaking
Table 4 Activities Involving Speaking and Speaking and Writing
Writing Mandarin Mandarin
tivities Involving
and Writing Speaking
Table
Mandarin 4 and Writing Mandarin
Activities Involving Speaking and Writing Mandarin Total number Total num
Activity
Activities
Total number Involving Speaking Total number
and
Activity Activity
Writing Mandarin
Activity N of pupils % N of pupils% of pupi
Activity
of pupils Total number of pupils
Speaking in Mandarin N Speaking
% in Mandarin 30
Speaking in Mandarin 30
Speaking in Mandarin
Speaking 30in Mandarin 30
14Mandarin 30 Total14 14number46.7
Writing % in 46.7 %
Mandarin
Activity
Writing in Writing in46.7 %
Mandarin 30 N 30
Writing in Mandarin
Writing 30in Mandarin 10 3030 33.3 % 10 10 33.3 %
of pupils 33.3 %
Speaking in Mandarin 30 pupils tried to converse
The 14
The pupils tried The pupils tried
toMandarin
converse Thetothe
with pupils
converse triedusing
teacher to converse
with the
simpleteacher with the in
using
sentences teacher using simw
simple sentences
e pupils tried to converse
Writing with
in the teacher using simple sentences in
chī ma?30Mandarin such as 10“nǐ chī bǎy
with the teacher using simple
Mandarin such as sentences
chī bǎoinleMandarin
“nǐ 你吃饱了吗？”
ma? ma?
ma? 你吃饱了吗？” suchyou
(Have as “nǐ (Have
(Have
eaten?), bǎoyoule
“wǒ
你吃饱了吗？”
you èeaten?),
eaten?),
le 。我饿了。”（“wǒ è(Havele 。我 I
? 你吃饱了吗？”
ou eaten?), “wǒ
“wǒèèle (Have
le 。我饿了。”（ you eaten?), I “wǒ
(I am am è le 。我饿了。”（
hungry.）,
hungry.), “ nǐ chī“ nǐ
shén chī
me shén
? I ”am me hungry.）,
你吃什么？” ? “ nǐ chī are
（What shényoum
Thearepupils 你吃什么？”
tried to converse 你吃什么？”
（What
with （What
areteacher
the you eating?）, are simple
you
“wǒ eating?）,
yào shàng“wǒ yào 。我
cè Mandari
suǒ shàn
What
eating?）,（What
u吃什么？” “wǒ yàoare you cè
you
shàng eating?）,
eating?, “wǒ
suǒ 。我要上厕所。”“wǒ yàoyào shàng
shàng suǒ” using
cè(Icèsuǒ
want 。我要上厕所。”
to go to the
toilet)
sentences
and “kuài
in
(I want
diǎn to! go
快点 to
(I ma?
want to go to
你吃饱了吗？” toilet)
the and
toilet) (Have
and toilet)
“kuài
“kuài diǎn
you
diǎnand “kuài“wǒ
! 快点!
eaten?), diǎn !le快点!
”（Quickly!）.
è
(Quickly!). ”（Quickly!）.
Although
Although
。我饿了。”（ I these
am Althou
sent
hungry
let) and “kuài diǎnAlthough
! ”（Quickly!）. ! 快点! these ”（Quickly!）.
sentences Although
were simple these sentences
conversational were simple
sentences, the pupils conversatio
manage
these sentencessentences,
你吃什么？” were
（What simple
the
are conversational
sentences,
pupils
you the pupils
managed
eating?）, sentences,
“wǒ to yàomanaged
pronounce the cè
shàng pupils
tothepronounce
suǒ Mandarin
。我要上厕所。 the Ma
words
ntences, the
ed to pronouncepupils
managed managed to
to pronounce
the Mandarin pronounce
words the the
Mandarin
accurately Mandarin
words
without words
accurately
the accurately
assistance.
teacher’swithout without
Somewere
the the
of the teach
partic
assistance. Someassistance. Some
of ”（Quickly!）. of
the participants who the participants
were shy who
andsentences shy
never spoke and M
istance. Some oftoilet)
the and
teacher’s and “kuài
participants
assistance. diǎnwere
who
Some ! 快点!
of theshy and never
participants spoke
who were Although
Mandarin
shy and in these
class
never before the were
lau
pants who were shy never spoke Mandarin in class before the launch
200
sentences, the pupils managed to pronounce the Mandarin words accurately
assistance. Some of the participants who were shy and never spoke Mandarin in
spoke Mandarin in class before the launch of Class Dojo, tried to say
these simple sentences in order to gain more badges.
of Class Dojo, tried to say these simple of Class sentencesDojo, tried in order to say thesemore
to gain simple sentences
badges.
lass
f ClassDojo,Dojo,
tried ofClass
oftried
toClass
One-third
say Dojo,
to say Dojo,
these thesetried
tried
ofsimple
the totosentences
simple say
say
participants these
these
sentences simple
in simple
(33.3%, order
in sentences
n
order sentences
to=30)gain
to tried
gain inin
more order
to order
morewrite
badges. toto gain
in
badges. gain more
Mandarin morebadges. badges.
yethese
simple One-third
sentences of the participants (33.3%, One-third
n =30) of the
tried toinparticipants
write inofgain (33.3%,
Mandarin bynusing =30) the triedwrt
One-third
simple
-third of the of the by in
sentences
One-third
One-third
participants
participants
order
using of
of in
of the
the
Class
(33.3%,
towriting
order
the gain
Dojo,
(33.3%,
to more
participants
n =30)
gain
ntool
participants
tried=30)
badges.
tomore
triedin
(33.3%,
say(33.3%,
tried
to
badges.
Class
these
write nDojo
n=30)
simple
toDojo
write=30)
in (Table
intried
tried
sentences
Mandarin Mandarinto4). Some
towrite
write
by byinto
order
using in
using them
Mandarin
Mandarin
the more
the
writingevenby bytool
badges.
writing using
using
tool
in thethe
in wri
Class wr
Cla
3.3%,
nts n =30)
(33.3%, Dojo
tried
n =30) to (Table
triedwriteto 4).Mandarin
in
write Some
in of by
Mandarin them usingbyeven the
using tried (Table
writing
the towriting
type
tool 4).in
in Some
Mandarin
Class
tool in of
Class themwith by even
the tried to
helptheofwritingtype
their ti
Dojo
Dojotried
(Tableto
(Table type
One-third
4).
4).Someinof
SomeMandarin
the participants
ofof with the
(33.3%, help
n =30) of their
tried to teacher
write in (Figure
Mandarin 7).
using tetot
Dojo
o (Table (Table4). Some
4). Someof them
of them even even
triedtried tothem
them
type
to type even
even
in tried
tried
Mandarin
inOne Mandarintototype type
with in
with inMandarin
the Mandarin
the
help help
of with
with
their
of their the
the
teacher help
help
teacher ofof
(Figure their
their
(Figure 7).
even
hem eventried tried One
to type One
to ofMandarin
in
type the
of the
in
Dojo participants
participants
Mandarin
(Table with thetried
with
4). Some tried
help
the
of tothemtype
toof
helptype
their
of
even “wǒ
“wǒ ofjué
teacher
their
tried the
jué départicipants
dé
toteacher
type hǎo
hǎo
(Figure wán
wán7).我觉得好玩
(Figure
in Mandarin withto
tried
7). thetype
help”“wǒ ( Itheir
of juéteacher
think déit hǎ
is
One
of theof the One
One
participants
participantsofof the
tried the participants
to
tried participants
type
to type
“wǒ tried
“wǒ
juétried
jué
dé toto
hǎo
détype
type
hǎo
wán“wǒ“wǒ
wán jué
我觉得好玩 jué
我觉得好玩 dédéhǎo hǎowán ”wán
( I”我觉得好玩
我觉得好玩
think
( I think
it is itfun)
is ”fun)
”(in(I Ithink
think
Mandarin
in Mandaititisisf
type
ed to “wǒ
type jué (I
déjué
“wǒusing hǎothink
dé
thewánOne
hǎo it
“han is
of
wán
我觉得好玩 fun)
the
yu 我觉得好玩 in Mandarin
participants
pin yin 汉语拼音” tried
” ( I think tousing
using
type
” ( I think the
“wǒ
itkeyboard.the
is fun) “han
jué
it is in “han
dé
fun) yu
hǎoyu
Mandarinpin
pin
wán yin
yin
我觉得好玩
in Mandarin
Meanwhile, ” keyboard.
another participant usedinG
汉语拼音” ( I think it is fun) Me
gsing “han
the the yu using
“han using
pin
yu yinthe
pin the
yin
keyboard. “han
汉语拼音” “han
汉语拼音”
using yuyu“han
pin
Meanwhile,
the pin yin
yin
keyboard. 汉语拼音”
汉语拼音”
keyboard.
yu pin yinMeanwhile,
another 汉语拼音” keyboard.
Meanwhile, keyboard.
participant another
keyboard. Meanwhile,
another
used Meanwhile,
participant
participant
Google
Meanwhile, another
another
usedused
translation
another participant
participant
Google Google
to“yǔ
participant used
translation
used usedGG
translati
Google
拼音”
汉语拼音” keyboard. to Meanwhile,
keyboard.find out Meanwhile, another
the Chinese participant
anothercharacterparticipant forto“yǔ
used findGoogle
used雨 out”Googlethe
(rain) Chinese
translation
translation
and character
“xuě雪 for
” (snow). They雨 ”also
(raina
ondfind
out out
the the to
Chinese find
tofind
find
Chinese out
out
outtothe
character theChinese
find
character Chinese
out
for the character
“yǔChinese
for “yǔ
雨 charactercharacter
”雨(rain) for
” (rain) for“yǔ
for
and “yǔ
“yǔ
for“xuě雪
and 雨
“yǔ 雨雨
“xuě雪””(rain)
””(rain)
(rain)
”
(snow). and
and“xuě雪
and
and
(snow). “xuě雪
“xuě雪
They Theyalso (snow).
” ”(snow).
”also
(snow).
(snow).
attemptedThey
attemptedThey
They
also
to also
also
attempt
write
to wra
er for “yǔ
aracter for雨“yǔ”the
(rain)” (rain)
Chinese
雨They and
also “xuě雪
and “xuě雪
characters
attempted ”characters
(snow).” (snow).
they
to write They
had the the
also
They
learned
ChineseChinese
attempted
also
such characters
attempted
as
characters to write
“yī 衣” they
to(cloth)，
they write
(cloth)，
had had
learned learned
“kāi zhāi such as
jiélèkuà
the Chinese they had learned such as
asas“yī “yī
“yī衣” “kāi“kāi zhāi
“kāi jié kuài
Chinese
he Chinese the
theChinese
characters
charactersChinese
theythey hadcharacters
characters
had
learned
learned they
they
such had
suchashad learned
“yī
as learned
“yī
衣”衣” such
such
(cloth)， (cloth)， “kāi 衣”
衣”
“kāi
zhāi (cloth)，
(cloth)，
zhāi
jié kuài
jié kuài lè lèzhāi
开斋节快乐”zhāi
开斋节快乐 jié
jiékuàikuà
开
d learned
ey had learned such
such(Selamat
as
such “yīasas衣” “yī
“yī
Hari
(Selamat(cloth)，
衣”
Raya)， (cloth)
(cloth)，
Hari “kāi
Raya)，“yǔ“kāi zhāi
“kāi
雨”
“yǔ zhāi jiéjié
zhāi
(rain)，
雨” kuài
(Selamat
jié“kuài
kuài
(rain)， “lèmǎi
lèmǎi Hari Raya)，
lè买”开斋节快乐”
开斋节快乐”
买” (buy),
(buy), and “yǔ
(Selamat
and “tiān雨”
“tiānqì 天气”qìHari
(rain)，
天气” “(weather
(weather) mǎiafter买”u
amat
Selamat HariHari (Selamat
Raya)，(Selamat
Raya)， “yǔ“yǔ
Raya)“yǔ Hari
Hari
雨” 雨”Raya)，
Raya)，
(rain)，(rain)，
(rain) “yǔ
“yǔ
““mǎi
mǎi“ 雨” 雨”(rain)，
mǎi
买” (rain)，
(buy),
(buy),
买” (buy), ““mǎi
and mǎi
“tiān
and 买” 买”
“tiānqì(buy),
(buy),
qì 天气”
天气” and“tiān
and “tiānqìqì
(weather)
(weather)
(weather) 天气”
after
after 天气”after
using(weather)
(weather
usingClass Cla
”ǔ(rain)，
雨” (rain)， “ mǎiDojo.
“买”mǎi(buy),
买” and “tiān
(buy),
Dojo. and “tiānqì 天气” qì 天气” (weather)Dojo.
(weather) after after usingusing ClassClass
Dojo.
o. Dojo. using
Dojo. Class Dojo.
Figure 7 Figure 7
Figure 7
Figure
Figure
ure
re 7 7 Figure
Figure77 7
Samples of Participants’ Writings
Samples
Samples
Samples
of of
Samples Participants’
ofofWritings
Participants’
Participants’ WritingsSamples of Participants’ Writings
Writings
Participants’
Writings
Writings
ples
amples
of Participants’
of Participants’
Writings
ngs
Writings
d) Participants’ Behavior
d) Participants’ Behavior
The participants
The participants displayed
displayed positive
positivebehavior
behavior suchsuch asas helping
helpingothers,
others,which were all tr
which recorded
were allontracked and recorded on Class Dojo. The data revealed
Class Dojo. The data revealed that a majority of the participants frequently as
that a friends
majority and ofthe the
MSLparticipants
teacher in frequently
d)class (Table 5).assisted
Participants’ The their of
frequency
Behavior friends
participants helping
d) and
Participants’
the MSL Behavior
teacher in class (Table 5). The frequency of participants
articipants’
) Participants’ d)d)Behavior
Participants’
Participants’
Behavior classifiedBehavior
Behavior
into four categories, namely: always helping others (23.3%, n=7), mostly help
helping(23.3%,
others was
n=7), classified
sometimes intoothers
helping four(40.0%,
categories, namely:
n=12), and alwaysothers (13.3%, n=
hardly helping
The participants
helping 8). others displayedn=7),
(23.3%, positive Thebehavior
mostly participants
helping such displayed
as helping
others (23.3%, positive
others, behavior
which wer
n=7), which su
Theparticipants The
participantsThe participants
participants
displayed
displayed positive displayed
displayed
positive behavior
behaviorpositive
positive
such such
as behavior
behavior
helping
as helping such
such
others, asaswhich
others, helping
helping
which others,
were others,
were
all allwhich
tracked
trackedwere
wera
and
ositive behavior
ed positive sometimes
recorded
such such
behavior as helping
Class
on helping Dojo.
as helping others
The
others, (40.0%, recorded
datawhich
which
others, n=12),
revealed
were all
were onand
that Class
a hardly
tracked
all Dojo.
andhelping
majority
tracked The
and data
of the othersrevealed that
participants freque a
rded on Class
ecorded recorded
recorded
on ClassDojo.Dojo.
Theonon
TheClass
Class
data data Dojo.
Dojo.
revealed The
revealed The
that data
data
that
a revealed
revealed
majority
a majorityof that
that
the
of a
theamajority
majority
participants
participantsof
ofthe
the participants
participants
frequently
frequently assisted frequen
freque
assisted
theirth
ata revealed that (13.3%,
friends
athat
majority n=4)
aTable
and 5 (Figure
the MSL 8).participants
teacher friends
in frequently
class and
(Table the MSL
5).assisted
The teacher
their in
frequency ofclass (Table 5)
participants he
The
riends
data revealed
ds andand friends
the thefriends
MSL MSL and
and
teacher
teacher theofclass
majority
the
in
theofparticipants
MSL
inMSL
class
the
teacher
teacher
(Table
(Table inin5).
5). class
Theclass
The
frequently
(Table
(Table
frequency
assisted
5).
frequency 5).
of Thetheir
The frequency
frequency
participants
of participants ofofparticipants
helping participants
helpingothers
otherswashel
he
wh
in class
cher (Table
in class classified
5).
(Table The
5). into four
frequency
The categories,
frequencyof participants
of classified
namely: always
helping
participants into
others
helping four
helping
wascategories,
others others
was namely:
(23.3%, always
n=7), most
sified
lassified
ified intointo classified
classified
fourfour
categories,into
into
categories, four
Frequency four
namely:of categories,
categories,
Participants
namely: alwaysalways namely:
namely:
Helping
helping always
Others
helping always
others
others helping
helping
(23.3%,
(23.3%, others
others
n=7), n=7),
mostly 201
(23.3%,
(23.3%,
mostly n=7),
helpingn=7),
helping mostl
most
othersothe
,ories,
namely: (23.3%,
always
namely: n=7),
helping
always sometimes
others
helping (23.3%,
others helping
n=7),
(23.3%, (23.3%,
others
mostly
n=7), n=7),
(40.0%,
helping
mostly sometimes
n=12),
others
helping and
othershelping
hardly others
helping (40.0%,
others (13n
3%,
23.3%,n=7),
n=7), (23.3%,
(23.3%,
sometimes
sometimes n=7),
n=7),
helping sometimes
helpingsometimes
others
others helping
helping
(40.0%,
(40.0%, others
n=12),others
n=12),
and(40.0%,
(40.0%,
and
hardly n=12),
hardlyn=12),
helping and
and
helping hardly
othershardly
others helping
helping
(13.3%,
(13.3%,n=4)others
others
n=4) (13.3
(Figure(13
(Figu
ng othersothers
helping 8).
(40.0%, n=12),
(40.0%,
8).
8). and hardly
n=12), helping
and hardly others8).
helping (13.3%,
others n=4) n=4)
(13.3%,
Category (Figure(Figure N %
).
Table 5

Frequency of Participants Helping Others
Category N %
Helping others Always 7 23.3
Mostly 7 23.3
Sometimes 12 40.0 30
Hardly 4 13.3
30 100
Figure 8
Figure 8
e) Pupils’ Perception of Class Dojo

e) Pupils’ Perception of Class Dojo
At the end of the study, participants were asked to answer the question
“HowAtdid theyou
endfeel
of the study,
after usingparticipants were asked
Class Dojo?”. from the
to answer
Responses thequestion “How d
pupils’Class
self-reflective journal were
Dojo?”. Responses fromcollected,
the pupils’analyzed, transcribed,
self-reflective journal were collected,
and grouped into four
and grouped intomain themes
four main (Table(Table
themes 6), namely: i) having
6), namely: fun, fun, ii) happy, i
i) having
ii) happy, iii) willingness
Mandarin, to learn Mandarin,
and iv) difficulties faced. and iv) difficulties faced.
Table 6
Pupils’ Perception of Class Dojo
Theme Example of quote
202
Having fun “Having fun in Mandarin class.” (P8)
“Mandarin class is the best and fun.” (P5)
“I am having fun using Class Dojo.” (P25)
Table 6
Pupils’ Perception of Class Dojo
Theme Example of quote Frequency (%)

Having fun “Having fun in Mandarin class.” (P8) 15 (50.00)
“Mandarin class is the best and fun.” (P5)
“I am having fun using Class Dojo.” (P25)
Happy “I am very happy in class.” (P15) 4 (13.33)
Willingness to “I want to learn more.” (P15) 6 (20.00)
learn Mandarin “I like Mandarin and I want to learn.” (P16)
“I like Mandarin because I can use Class
Dojo.” (P22)
Difficulties faced “I can’t access Class Dojo at home because 5 (16.67)
• No network and I do not have a computer.” (P23)
mobile devices “I do not have a handphone.” (P7)
“No internet access.” (P13)
• Difficulty in using “I am having problems typing in Mandarin
application using Class Dojo.” (P27)
Total number of participants, n=30
Most of the participants claimed that they were happy (13.33%, n=4)
and having fun (50.00%, n=15) using Class Dojo. A small number
of participants (20.00%, n= 6) expressed their willingness to learn
more about the language using Class Dojo, but a few participants
(16.67%, n=5) expressed their disappointment at being unable to
access the application after school, since they did not have internet
access at home. Despite the difficulties they faced while using Class
Dojo, the participants still held a favorable attitude towards the
application. Almost all of the participants considered the lessons to be
very interesting. They expressed a strong desire and keenness to learn
Mandarin and to attend the MSL classes. The responses in the pupils’
self-reflective journals revealed that they not only provided answers
to the assignments, but used terms and phrases which they had learnt
on their own. The participants also used journals, drawings, and video
recordings to comment on their own portfolios. The participants
always gave positive feedback whenever they found Class Dojo to be
interesting. Their perception of Class Dojo in the MSL class suggested
that Class Dojo had increased their interest in studying Mandarin.
DISCUSSION
The present study aimed to investigate whether there was a difference

in MSL pupils’ Mandarin language achievement after using Class Dojo
203
application and the engagement of pupils in the MSL class when using
the application. The mean scores of the pupils’ post-test in Mandarin
had improved significantly after using the gamification application,
Class Dojo in the MSL class. This study found that Class Dojo had a
positive effect on Mandarin language achievement in the MSL class.
Participants who were shy and never spoke Mandarin in class before
the launch of Class Dojo attempted to converse in Mandarin throughout
the use of Class Dojo. They wanted to gain more points so that they
could upgrade their avatars. Gamified elements such as avatars,
points, ranking, and badges enhanced the participants’ engagement
and learning outcomes (Fishman & Deterding, 2013; Smiderle et al.,
2020). The pupils were initially drawn to the gamification’s game-like
design in their attempts to achieve their goal, and in the process of
earning gamification points they had improved their Mandarin skills.
The pre-test and post-test results indicated that the pupils’ Mandarin
language achievement had increased significantly following the
implementation of Class Dojo. This is consistent with the findings of
past studies which showed that gamification applied in the classroom
not only improved pupils’ academic achievement but also enhanced
pupils’ level of engagement (Dindar et al., 2020; Orhan-Goksun &
Gursoy, 2019). The pupils scoring highly on the gamification app
brought about positive affirmation as they were able to achieve higher
academic grades (Pechenkina et al., 2017).
Pupils were highly motivated to attend the MSL class as they could
earn more points in Class Dojo, and the majority of them were willing
to come for extra classes to learn Mandarin. The pupils’ intrinsic
motivation had been activated by the gamification application, as they
focused on the goal of finishing a task derived from their involvement
(Malone & Lepper, 1987). They were willing to spend time and put
in effort to complete the tasks assigned to them, while they actively
participated in the activities during the MSL lessons. Engagement
has been tied to the amount of energy expended on various tasks and
activities (Alsawaier, 2018). The pupils’ effort in finishing the task,
as well as their willingness to speak in Mandarin, demonstrated that
they were engaged in the use of Class Dojo during lessons. The pupils
developed positive behavior such as helping others, while striving to
earn points to enhance their grades in Class Dojo. Pupils who are
behaviorally engaged are more likely to adhere to behavioral norms
such as attendance and participation, and are less likely to engage in
disruptive or negative behavior (Fredericks et al., 2004). The pupils
204
were also found to have developed a positive attitude over time

in their use of Class Dojo in the MSL class, claiming that it made
the class more engaging and enjoyable. Emotional involvement, as
defined by SDT, means that emotionally engaged pupils will exhibit
affective responses such as interest, enjoyment, or a sense of belonging
(Fredericks et al., 2004). Due to the aforementioned findings, we can
conclude that the pupils were actively engaged in the MSL class due
to the implementation of Class Dojo. Hence, it is believed that Class
Dojo is effective in boosting academic achievement and increasing
engagement among pupils in completing given tasks, including
participation, communication, and enhanced enthusiasm in learning
MSL.
CONCLUSION
The findings have proven that gamification (Class Dojo) has been
successful in enhancing the engagement of primary pupils in the MSL
classroom and increasing their academic achievement in learning
Mandarin. Thus, gamification can be used as an effective classroom
management system as its elements enable self-directed learning and
self-evaluation, which allow learners to find out for themselves the
extent of their progress. Parents can be involved and stay connected
with the teacher by following the activities in Class Dojo. The
changing styles of learning has led educators to employ the new trend
(Hummel, 2020), in order to achieve a broader learning outcome,
while making the required philosophical and conceptual adjustments.
Despite facing issues with internet connectivity and access to the
application, learners were positive about the gamification activities
(Orhan-Goksun & Gursoy, 2019).
This study has several limitations. Class Dojo was only applied to
Year 4 primary pupils enrolled in one MSL class. Sampling bias
may be present in the findings, as the pupils who participated in the
research were selected via convenience sampling. Another limitation
is the lack of previous studies in this research area, as literature review
is an important aspect in a study. Previous research on the use of
gamification in learning MSL in the Malaysian context is rather scare.
This study could gain more credibility if supported by qualitative data,
for example, an interview designed for qualitative research. Further
research could be conducted to investigate the impact of gamification
in teaching other subjects and in different language contexts.
205
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research is funded by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme

(FP029-2021).
REFERENCES
Alsawaier, R. S. (2018). The effect of gamification on motivation

and engagement. International Journal of Information and
Learning Technology, 35(1), 56–79. Emerald Group Publishing
Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-02-2017-0009
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1996).
Standards for foreign language learning. https://www.actfl.org/
Arnab, S., Nalla, M., Harteveld, C., & Lameras, P. (2015). An inquiry
into gamification services: Practices, experiences and insights.
Paper presented at The International Gamification for Business
Conference 2015, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Bernotaite, A. (2020, November 5). Flipping the course curriculum:
Digital engagement for active learning. British Educational
Research Association. https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/flipping-
the-course-curriculum-digital-engagement-for-active-learning
Bitrián, P., Buil, I., & Catalán, S. (2020). Gamification in sport apps:
The determinants of users’ motivation. European Journal of
Management and Business Economics, 29(3), 65–381. https://
doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-09-2019-0163
Bond, M., & Bedenlier, S. (2019). Facilitating student engagement
through educational technology: Towards a conceptual
framework. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1,
1–14. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.528
Boykin, A. W., & Noguera, P. (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn.
http://www.ascd.org/Publications/Books/Overview/Creating-
the-Opportunity-to-Learn.aspx
Cahyani, A. D. (2016). Gamification approach to enhance
students engagement in studying language course.
MATEC Web of Conferences, 58. https://doi.org/10.1051/
matecconf/20165803006.
Cappella, E., Kim, H. Y., Neal, J. W., & Jackson, D. R. (2013).
Classroom peer relationships and behavioral engagement in
elementary school: The role of social network equity. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 52(3-4), 367–379. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10464-013-9603-5
206
Cetin, H., & Cetin, İ. (2018). Views of middle school students about
class dojo education technology.
Acta Didactica Napocensia, 11(3–4), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.24193/
adn.11.3-4.7
Chee, K. Y., Ismail, A., & Mohamad Mustafa, M. (2020). Pendekatan
gamifikasi dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran bahasa
Mandarin sebagai bahasa asing: A gamification approach
to teaching and learning Mandarin as a foreign language.
Journal of Advanced Research in Social and Behavioural
Sciences, 19(1), 51–56. https://www.akademiabaru.com/doc/
ARSBSV19_N1_P51_56.pdf
Chi, M., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive
engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational
Psychologist, 49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Chou, Y. K. (2020). Yu-kai Chou gamification & behavioral design:
What is gamification. https://yukaichou.com/gamification-
examples/what-is-gamification/
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1990). A motivational approach to self:
Integration in personality. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation,
38, 237–88.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal
pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.
Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268 https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15327965PLI1104_01
Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: What is
known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: A critical
review. International Journal of Educational Technology in
Higher Education, 14(1), Springer Netherlands. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5
Digamon, J., & Cinches, M. F. (2017). Schlechty’s student engagement
continuum in the work team experience: A pilot study. Journal
of Institutional Research South East Asia, 15(3), 5–18.
Dindar, M., Ren, L., & Järvenoja, H. (2020). An experimental study
on the effects of gamified cooperation and competition on
English vocabulary learning. British Journal of Educational
Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12977
Fishman, B., & Deterding, S. (2013). Beyond badges and points:
Gameful assessment systems for engagement in formal
education. In C. Williams, A. Ochsner, J. Dietmeier & C.
Steinkuehler (Eds.), Proceedings of the Games, Learning, and
Society Conference 9.0 (pp. 365–370).
207
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2019). How to design

and evaluate research in education (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School
engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence.
Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in
children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148–162. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148
Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and
learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming,
33(4), 441–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238607
Glover, I. (2013). Play as you learn: Gamification as a technique for
motivating learners. Paper presented in Proceedings of World
Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and
Telecommunications 2013. http://shura.shu.ac.uk/7172/
Gong, Y., Ma, M., Hsiang, T. P., & Wang, C. (2020). Sustaining
international students’ learning of Chinese in China: Shifting
motivations among New Zealand students during study abroad.
Sustainability, 12(6289). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156289
Hanban. (2014). International Curriculum for Chinese Language
Education. Beijing Language and Culture University Press.
Hsieh, T.-L. (2014). Motivation matters? The relationship among
different types of learning motivation, engagement behaviors
and learning outcomes of undergraduate students in Taiwan.
Higher Education, 68(3), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10734-014-9720-6
Hummel, H. (2020). The thin line between gaming and learning.
https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/the-thinline-between-gaming-
and-learning
International Bureau of Education. (2020). Classroom-based
assessment (CBA). http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fr/node/12053
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction:
Game-based methods and strategies for training and education.
Pfeiffer.
LaFave, N. (2016). Class Dojo – An observational assessment tool.
http://edtechpicks.org/2016/04/class-dojo-an-observational-
assessment-tool/
Liu, X. (2001). Hanyu zuowei di’er yuyan jiaoxue jianlun. Beijing
Language and Culture University Press.
208
Lu, Lu. (2018).An analysis of peer-assessment in chinese as a second

language classroom presentation. Chinese Language Teaching
Methodology and Technology. 1(3), Article 3, 18-30. https://
engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cltmt/vol1/iss3/3
Malone, T. W. (1981).Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating
instruction. Cognitive Science, 5, 333–369. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15516709cog0504_2
Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A
taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow
& M. J Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction volume
3: Conative and affective process analyses (pp. 223–253).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Menezes, C. C. N., & Bortolli, R. D. (2016). Potential of gamification
as assessment tool. Creative Education, 7, 561–566. https://
doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.74058
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2016). Implementation guide of
Mandarin language in national primary school in teaching and
learning. https://www.moe.gov.my/en/muat-turun/penerbitan-
dan-jurnal/dskp-kssr.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2017). Dokumen standard
kurikulum dan pentaksiran Bahasa Cina tahun3. http://bpk.
moe.gov.my/index.php/terbitan-bpk/kurikulum-sekolah-
rendah/category/228-dskp-tahun-3
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2022, July 13). Pentaksiran Bilik
Darjah. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. https://www.moe.
gov.my/en/soalan-lazim-menu/kurikulum/kurikulum
Morris, B. J., Croker, S., Zimmerman, C., Gill, D., & Romig, C. (2013).
Gaming science: The “Gamification” of scientific thinking.
Frontiers in Psychology, 4(607). https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2013.00607
Nand, K., Baghaei, N., Casey, J., Barmada, B., Mehdipour, F., &
Liang, H.-N. (2019). Engaging children with educational
content via gamification. Smart Learning Environments, 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0085-2
Nel, N. M., Krog, S., & Lebeloane, L. (2019). South African Grade 5
non-native learners learning Mandarin as a second additional
language with a focus on Chinese characters. Literator, 40(1).
https://doi.org/10.4102/lit.v40i1.1557
Nuzzo, R. L. (2019). Histograms: A useful data analysis visualization.
American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,
11(3). https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.12145
209
Ocak, G., & Yamaç, A. (2013). Examination of the relationships

between fifth graders’ self-regulated learning strategies,
motivational beliefs, attitudes, and achievement. Educational
Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(1), 380–387.
O’Connell, A., Tomaselli P. J., & Stobart-Gallagher, M. (2020).
Effective use of virtual gamification during Covid-19 to
deliver the ob-gyn core curriculum in an emergency medicine
resident conference. Cureus, 12(6). https://doi.org//10.7759/
cureus.8397
Orhan-Goksun, D., & Gursoy, G. (2019). Comparing success and
engagement in gamified learning experiences via Kahoot and
Quizizz. Computers & Education, 135, 15–29. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.015
Osman, A., & Abdul Malek, S. N. (2018). Development and evaluation
of Mandarin language exploration game for non-native
speakers. Journal of Computing Research and Innovation,
2(3), 16–19. https://doi.org/10.24191/jcrinn.v2i3.48
Pechenkina, E., Laurence, D., Oates, G., Eldridge, D., & Hunter,
D. (2017). Using a gamified mobile app to increase student
engagement, retention and academic achievement. International
Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14,
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0069-7
Pelling, N. (2011). The (short) prehistory of “gamification”... Funding
Startups (& other impossibilities). https://nanodome.wordpress.
com/2011/08/09/the-short-prehistory-of-gamification
Rawendy, D., Ying, Y., Arifin, Y., & Rosalin, K. (2017). Design and
development game Chinese language learning with gamification
and using mnemonic method. Procedia Computer Science, 116,
61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.10.009
Redmond, P., Heffernan, A., Abawi, L., Brown, A., & Henderson, R.
(2018). An online engagement framework for higher education.
Online Learning Journal, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.
v22i1.1175
Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & Mandl, H. (2017). How
gamification motivates: An experimental study of the effects
of specific game design elements on psychological need
satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 371–380.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033
Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C.
(2017). Computer-based technology and student engagement:
A critical review of the literature. International Journal of
Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(25). https://
doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0063-0
210
Skinner, E., & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom:

Reciprocal effect of teacher behavior and student engagement
across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology,
85(4), 571–581. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571
Smiderle, R., Rigo, S. J., Marques, L. B., Peçanha de Miranda Coelho,
J. A., & Jaques, P. A. (2020). The impact of gamification on
students’ learning, engagement and behavior based on their
personality traits. Smart Learning Environments, 7(1). https://
doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0098-x
Tan, M., & Hew, K. (2016). Incorporating meaningful gamification in
a blended learning research methods class: Examining student
learning, engagement, and affective outcomes. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.14742/
ajet.2232
Tan, T. G., Ooi, A. K., & Ismail, H. N. (2012). The orientation for
learning Mandarin amongst Malay undergraduate students.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(12).
Zapata-Rivera, D., & Bauer, M. (2012). Exploring the role of
games in educational assessment. In Mayrath, M, Clarke-
Midura, J., Robinson, D. and Shraw, G. (Eds.), Technology-
based assessments for 21st century skills: Theoretical and
Practical Implications from Modern Research, (pp.147–171).
Information Age Publishing.
Technology-Based Assessments for 21st Century Skills: Theoretical
and Practical Implications from Modern Research. Pages
147–169. Information Age Publishing
Zhong, W., Muyunda, G., & Cheng, J. (2021). Epistemological
beliefs and conceptions about language teaching and learning:
A study of secondary school non-native learners and teachers
of Mandarin Chinese in Zambia. Asian-Pacific Journal of
Second and Foreign Language Education, 6(10). https://doi.
org/10.1186/s40862-021-00117-2
211

Contoh Artikel Mjli

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Contoh Artikel Mjli

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 19, No.

2 (July) 2022, pp:183-211

MALAYSIAN JOURNAL OF LEARNING

How to cite this article:

EFFECTIVENESS OF A GAMIFICATION APPLICATION

Mun Pei Ng, 2Norlidah Alias & 3Dorothy Dewitt

Department of Curriculum and Instructional Technology

Received: 13/9/2021 Revised: 14/4/2022 Accepted: 26/5/2022 Published: 31/7/2022

Purpose - Gamification is an effective method to boost students’

Methodology – A quasi-experimental design with a pre-test and a

self-reflective journal, and the collection of ‘Dojo Points’ were

Findings – The findings showed that there was a significant

Significance – The findings of this study provide MSL educators

Keywords: Gamification, Mandarin as a Second Language, learning

The significant development of the Chinese language worldwide is

include pupils’ lack of Mandarin communication skills, their lack of

Motivation is linked to a sense of purpose and it is an important factor

Gamification has been shown to be effective as a language learning

Gamification, a term first defined by Nick Pelling in 2002, refers

Gamification techniques have been found to be effective in enhancing

In the context of education, the findings of several studies have

influence learners’ behavior and keep them engaged in the classroom.

Gamification was adopted to enhance learners’ engagement and

The Relationship between Mandarin Language Achievement, Pupils’

Mandarin as a Second Language (MSL)

Meanwhile, according to the International Curriculum for Chinese

In the past, the objectives of learning MSL in Malaysia and China

Motivation to learn a second language can be intrinsic or extrinsic

of self-determined learners can be derived from both intrinsic and

Despite the fact that motivation and engagement are closely

Student engagement in classroom activities is essential for successful

When students’ engagement is addressed in emotional terms, it

In addition, researchers also believe that a good relationship between

The concepts of these dimensions of engagement and SDT can be

Gamification Elements and Classroom Evaluation

Gamification has the potential to help teachers monitor their pupils’

of games that can be triggered within an instructional context to help

Gamification as a Classroom-based Assessment Tool

Classroom-based assessment is an evaluation method used by

There is limited research on gamification in education, and most studies

This study employed a single group pre-test and post-test designed to

The participants consisted of a group of 30 Year 4 pupils from a

i) Instrument for Academic Achievement (Pre-test and Post-test)

The instrument to measure academic achievement was a set of pre-test

to the participants’ learning achievement. A parametric statistical test

ii) Instrument for Pupils’ Engagement (Dojo Points)

The instrument for pupils’ engagement comprised checklists with a

Class Dojo was selected because it is a well-developed gamification

Ethical approval was obtained from the school principal. Parents

Categories of ‘Dojo Points’ in Class Dojo.

i) Effectiveness of Class Dojo application

In order to determine the effectiveness of the Class Dojo application,

Comparison of Pre-Test and Post-Test Achievement in Relation to

M SD t-value p -value Effect size

The findings indicated that the gamification application, Class

ii) Engagement of MSL learners

In order to investigate the level of participants’ engagement in the

Analysis of participants’ attendance was tabulated (Table 2). The

c) Mandarin Usage c) Mandarin Usage

e) Pupils’ Perception of Class Dojo

Pupils’ Perception of Class Dojo

Theme Example of quote