See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/357661342

The effects of a gamified morphological awareness intervention on students'

cognitive, motivational and affective outcomes

Article  in  British Journal of Educational Technology · January 2022

DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13178

CITATIONS READS

10 589

4 authors, including:

Susanna Siu-sze Yeung

The Education University of Hong Kong
61 PUBLICATIONS   835 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Linguistically mediated visual search (LMVS) in English reading among Chinese EFLs View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shen Qiao on 04 April 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 |
Received: 29 July 2021    Accepted: 13 December 2021

DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13178

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The effects of a gamified morphological

awareness intervention on students' cognitive,
motivational and affective outcomes

Shen Qiao1   | Susanna Siu-­sze Yeung2  | Xiaoai Shen3  |

Samuel Kai Wah Chu1

1
Faculty of Education, The University of
Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China Abstract
2
Department of Psychology, The Education Purpose: Morphological awareness (MA), the ability
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
3
Bau Institute of Medical and Health to reflect on and manipulate the smallest language
Sciences Education, The University of Hong units within a word, has been identified as an essen-
Kong, Hong Kong, China
tial metalinguistic awareness to predict literacy devel-
Correspondence
Samuel Kai Wah Chu, Faculty of Education, opment. In this study, we examine whether an online
The University of Hong Kong, Room 111B, gamified English MA programme is more effective
Runme Shaw Building, Hong Kong, Hong
Kong. than physical face-­to-­face instruction in terms of cog-
Email: samchu@hku.hk
nitive, motivational and affective learning outcomes.
Funding information
None Method: We applied a quasi-­ experimental design
using a sample of 33 students in an intervention
group (gamified MA programme) and 49 in a control
group (face-­to-­face programme). Both programmes
were 8 hours in duration (30 minutes/session for 16
sessions). Students' cognitive, motivational and af-
fective learning outcomes were evaluated before and
after delivery of the programmes. We took an explor-
atory sequential mixed-­methods approach, in which
qualitative data from semi-­structured interviews were
used to validate the quantitative results. Results: The
intervention group performed significantly better than
the control group in MA and intrinsic motivation. No
differences were found for word reading, reading
comprehension or affective engagement. The quali-
tative analyses of the interview responses revealed in

© 2022 British Educational Research Association

Br J Educ Technol. 2022;00:1–25.  |

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bjet    1
 |
2       QIAO et al.

detail the students' perceptions of gamified learning.

Conclusion: The findings provide evidence for the
beneficial effects of gamified learning experiences in
terms of cognitive and motivational outcomes in com-
parison to face-­to-­face instruction.

KEYWORDS
gamification, morphological awareness, pedagogy, reading

Practitioner notes
What is already known about this topic
• Morphological awareness (MA) is identified as a crucial reading-­related skill that
relates to students' word reading and reading comprehension. However, few stud-
ies can be found that have investigated the use of gamification to teach MA.
• Gamification is emerging as a popular approach to motivate learners and facilitate
learning. However, limited evidence has been presented of its effects on students'
cognitive, motivational and affective outcomes, and no clear theoretical framework
for gamified MA learning designs has been established.
What this paper adds
• In this study, the effects of gamified and face-­to-­face morphology programmes
were compared.
• Self-­determination theory was applied to gamification design and the meta design
theory ‘First Principles of Instruction’ was applied in the development of online MA
activities.
• Gamified morphology programme is more effective than a face-­to-­face programme
on students' cognitive and motivational outcomes.
Implications for practice and/or policy
• This study advances the pedagogical design of gamified learning, which can be
applied to the teaching of reading-­related skills such as MA.
• Both appropriate uses of game design elements and theory-­driven instructional
design are important to the success of gamified learning.
• Future studies should investigate the design of gamification that encourage col-
laboration and support low-­achieving students.

I NTRO DUCTI O N

English learning is regarded as essential for academic success in K-­12 schooling and ter-
tiary education in many non-­English speaking countries. Junior secondary school students
who learn English as a foreign language (EFL) often find reading morphologically complex
words challenging. Traditional EFL reading instruction throughout the world relies heavily
on the rote memorisation of English words (Yang & Dai, 2011). However, students do not
simply rely on rote memory when reading but draw on the information encoded in word
structure systems. Morphemes, the smallest meaning units in a word, are one such type of
information.
EFFECTS OF A GAMIFIED MORPHOLOGY INTERVENTION |
     3

Morphological awareness (MA) refers to the ability to recognise and manipulate mor-
phemes and the word-­ formation rules in a language (Kuo & Anderson, 2006). Words
containing more than two morphemes are deemed morphologically complex and can be
separated into smaller units to help students read and understand them (eg, unquestion-
able = un + question + able). Numerous correlational and longitudinal studies have estab-
lished that MA contributed unique variance in the reading development of English-­speaking
students (Deacon & Kirby, 2004; Kirby et al., 2012) and EFL students (Qiao et al., 2021).
Most morphology interventions have been delivered by teachers or experimenters
(Crosson et al., 2021), but the development of educational technologies had led to new op-
portunities for literacy learning. Gamification is an emerging approach aimed at enhancing
learning and motivation. It refers to the use of game design elements (eg, points, badges,
leaderboards) and game characteristics (eg, challenges, feedback) in non-­game contexts
(Deterding et al., 2011). In an analytical review of technology-­based reading intervention
programmes, Jamshidifarsani et al. (2019) suggested that gamified reading interventions
could be promising in the future because it makes literacy learning more appealing through
the use of game elements such as friendly competition, appropriate levels of challenges and
various rewards. As it enhances or modifies the learning process by adding a game layer to
activities without jeopardising the scientific nature of the teaching content, gamification has
considerable practical value (Landers et al., 2018). In this study, we extend physical face-­to-­
face MA instruction to an online gamified MA instructional approach, to establish whether
this can improve EFL students' cognitive, motivational and affective learning outcomes.

Theoretical framework

Reading Systems Framework (Perfetti et al., 2005) was adopted as our theoretical frame-
work. It explicitly states the role of MA in reading comprehension and put morphology in
two places in its model. As a part of the lexicon, morphology impacts word reading, which
in turn affects reading comprehension. Specifically, morphemes enable the identification of
morphemic boundaries within a word (dishonest = dis + honest rather than dish + onest)
and thereby facilitate word reading. MA facilitates effortless accurate word reading, which
frees attentional cognitive resources for reading comprehension and thus promotes suc-
cessful reading comprehension (Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012). As a part of the linguistic system,
morphology can directly affect reading comprehension because it incorporates semantic,
phonological and syntactic information which is a similar process as in higher-­order com-
prehension processing (Kuo & Anderson, 2006). A large number of studies support Reading
Systems Framework by showing MA contributed directly (eg, Deacon et al., 2014; Levesque
et al., 2017) or indirectly to reading comprehension via word reading (eg, Deacon et al., 2014;
Qiao et al., 2021) after controlling multiple control variables. Reading Systems Framework
and previous empirical evidence illustrated the important role of MA for the development
of word reading and reading comprehension, suggesting there is a great need for targeted
interventions to increase students' knowledge about morphology (Breadmore et al., 2021).
The ‘universal view’ of Verhoeven and Perfetti (2011) argues that MA is ‘universally part
of reading’ (p. 465) and universally contributed to literacy outcomes. It is a metalinguistic re-
source that generalizes across the first language (L1) and second language (L2). Past stud-
ies have shown MA is associated with literacy outcomes among L1 learners (eg, Deacon
et al., 2014) and L2 learners (eg, Kieffer et al., 2013; Qiao et al., 2021). For instance, Kieffer
and Lesaux (2012) found MA was related to English reading comprehension for students
from varying L1 backgrounds to the same extent. Therefore, instructions on MA have import-
ant implications for current educational theory and practice for students who learn English
as a L2 or foreign language.
 |
4       QIAO et al.

MA interventions

Face-­to-­face MA instruction in this study refers to the physical instruction delivered in the
classroom by the experimenter. It involves teaching students the form, pronunciation and
meaning of affixes and how to identify and analyse morphemes within a word (Goodwin &
Ahn, 2010). Carlisle (2010) identified the four main instructional approaches for MA instruc-
tion as developing awareness of the morphological structure of words (eg, breaking words
into morphemes), increasing morphological knowledge (eg, instruction on the meanings of
affixes and root words), supporting morphological problem solving (eg, thinking about how
morphemes lead to a word's meaning or grammatical role) and morphological analysis (eg,
guessing the meaning of unfamiliar words). Accumulating evidence has demonstrated the
positive effects of morphology instructions on facilitating students' literacy development (eg,
Gellert et al., 2021). A meta-­analysis by Bowers et al. (2010) found that MA interventions
positively influenced sublexical outcomes (eg, MA), lexical outcomes (eg, word reading,
spelling) and supralexical outcomes (eg, reading comprehension) with English-­speaking stu-
dents from preschool to grade 8.
Morphology instruction can support reading development, but successfully integrating
this into teaching within an online learning environment is complex. Theory-­driven peda-
gogy can help guide the development of online morphology instruction. We applied the most
highly cited meta-­theory, First Principles of Instruction (FPI; Merrill, 2002), when creating our
online learning modules. It involves a sequence of learning phases that are interconnected,
including activation, demonstration, application and integration. In a recent study of 382 sec-
ondary grade students, Lo et al. (2018) designed flipped learning by applying FPI and found
it had positive effects on student learning in mathematics, physics and Chinese language.
So far, there has been little insight into situating instructional design theories into a gamified
learning environment. To this end, this study aims to apply FPI to design the learning mod-
ules to teach MA in a gamified learning context.

Gamified interventions

Gamification involves the application of game design elements, such as points, badges,
leaderboards and levels, in a non-­game context, thus providing a game-­like learning experi-
ence (Landers et al., 2017). The gamification approach is increasingly viewed as an effective
means of enhancing students' academic performance, motivation and engagement (Chu
et al., 2015; Ding, 2019; Li & Chu, 2021; Zainuddin et al., 2020b). A recent meta-­analysis of
24 gamification studies found that gamification approaches yielded significant effects with
medium effect sizes on student learning (Bai et al., 2020). However, gamification does not
always lead to positive effects. For example, Hanus and Fox (2015) found that the perfor-
mance and motivation of students in a gamified programme were lower than that of those in
a non-­gamified programme.
Gamification does not necessarily guarantee the quality of learning and its design may be
related to its outcomes. Zainuddin et al. (2020a) conducted a systematic review of 46 gami-
fication studies and concluded that the simple use of extrinsic motivators cannot ensure stu-
dents to be more engaged. Rather, the use of game design elements should be well-­aligned
with established motivational theories. Similarly, Ding (2019) argued that inappropriate game
design elements may be counterproductive, thus reducing students’ intrinsic motivation to
learn. In this study, we adopted the self-­determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2012) as
the theoretical framework to guide our use of game design elements. Although we acknowl-
edge that other motivational approaches such as flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) or
goal-­setting theory (Locke & Latham, 2002) may be equally applicable, SDT has extensive
EFFECTS OF A GAMIFIED MORPHOLOGY INTERVENTION |
     5

empirical support in terms of motivation in various contexts, including education. SDT sug-
gests that if the three basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy and relatedness
are satisfied, students' intrinsic motivation will be enhanced (Deci & Ryan, 2012).
We also acknowledge existing frameworks for gamified learning, such as that for the de-
sign of badges for different types of learning and behaviours (Park & Kim, 2019); the activity
theory, which is aimed at guiding the design of serious games and gamification in sexual
health education for adolescent students (Haruna et al., 2018); and the Gamified Authentic
Mobile Enquiry in Society (GAMES) framework developed by Jong (2019), which guides
gamified outdoor social enquiry learning design. However, few theoretical frameworks for
gamifying reading-­related skills have been developed in the literature. To fill this gap, we pro-
pose applying the FPI theory to the design of online learning modules and the motivational
theory SDT to guide how game design elements can be used.
Gamification has increasingly been used to support students' foreign language learning
in recent years (see Dehghanzadeh et al., 2019 for a systematic review). Despite the vast
research has been done on game-­based learning for different aspects of language learning
(eg, Thompson & Gillern, 2020), the picture of applying gamification in language learning is
less clear (Dehghanzadeh et al., 2019). The current gamification literature in language learn-
ing focused predominantly on improving students' vocabularies. So far, only a few studies
extended the instructional content to improve students' other basic skills, such as reading
(Li & Chu, 2021; Li et al., 2018). Among the few studies, Li and Chu (2021) developed the
gamified e-­quiz platform ‘Reading Battle’ and evaluated its effects on the reading skills of a
sample of Hong Kong primary grade students. Their results support the positive effects of
gamification on students' reading and their motivations, habits and abilities, particularly in
terms of the English language. Unlike Li and Chu (2021) which developed a gamified reading
platform and engaged students in reading e-­books through a book-­battle, the present study
focused more on the instructional design of gamified reading environments and gamify the
learning of an important reading-­related skill (ie, MA) through a morphology battle. Till now,
few studies can be found that have investigated the use of the gamification approach in the
teaching of MA. This study will contribute to a growing body of knowledge in designing a
gamified environment to improve student reading.

Assessment outcomes

We offer a holistic view of the effects of gamification by examining three learning outcomes.
First, cognitive outcomes represent students' acquisition of knowledge (Bloom, 1956).
Bowers et al. (2010) argued that sub-­lexical MA instruction can lead to gains at the lexical
(eg, word reading) or supralexical (eg, reading comprehension) levels, as increased mor-
phological knowledge can help decompose and provide meaning cues for morphologically
complex words, which in turn improve reading comprehension. Thus, reading-­related skills
represent cognitive outcomes, including a near transfer effect on MA and a far transfer effect
on word reading and comprehension. Second, motivational outcomes indicate the extent to
which the students are intrinsically motivated to learn, and finally, affective outcomes refer
to students' perceptions of their learning, including satisfaction with the programme and
emotional engagement.

TH E PR ESENT STUDY

In this study, we explore the effects of a 16-­session gamified morphology intervention on key
literacy skills (ie, MA, word reading, reading comprehension) and psychological outcomes
 |
6       QIAO et al.

(ie, intrinsic motivation, affective engagement) when compared to face-­to-­face morphology

instruction. The following research questions are addressed through a sequential mixed-­
method design (Creswell & Clark, 2018):

1. To what extent does the gamified morphology programme influence students' cognitive
learning outcomes (MA, word reading and reading comprehension) in comparison to
the face-­to-­face programme?
2. To what extent does the gamified morphology programme influence students' motivational
outcomes in comparison to the face-­to-­face programme?
3. To what extent does the gamified morphology programme influence students' affective
outcomes in comparison to the face-­to-­face programme?
4. What are students' experiences and perceptions of gamified learning?

We propose the following hypotheses:

H 1  Students in the gamified morphology programme demonstrate greater cognitive im-

provements than those in the face-­to-­face programme.
H 2  Students in the gamified morphology programme demonstrate greater motivational
improvements than those in the face-­to-­face programme.
H 3  Students in the gamified morphology programme demonstrate greater affective im-
provements than those in the face-­to-­face programme.

D ESI G N O F GA M I FI CATI O N

We designed the gamified learning environment ‘Morphology Battle’ by focusing on instruc-

tional activities and game design elements. We applied the FPI in instructional design and
drew upon SDT in the deliberate use of game design elements.

First principles of instruction

Gamified learning should be based on a theory-­driven pedagogy to guide the development

of the learning modules. However, the existing design theories have not been fully con-
ceptualized or situated within a gamified environment. In this study, we applied the FPI
(Merrill, 2002) as the basis of our revised pedagogical strategy. This meta design theory
suggests that learning is developed when knowledge is activated and that new knowledge is
demonstrated to the learner, applied by the learner and integrated into the learner's knowl-
edge (Merrill, 2002). It includes a sequence of interconnected learning phases, including
activation, demonstration, application and integration.
We extended the FPI by adding reflection as a novel phase (ie, activation, demonstra-
tion, application, integration and reflection). The phases are shown in Figure 1. After stu-
dents construct and apply knowledge, they should reflect on and evaluate the quality of the

$FWLYDWLRQ 'HPRQVWUDWLRQ $SSOLFDWLRQ ,QWHJUDWLRQ 5HIOHFWLRQ

F I G U R E 1   Phases of the revised FPI (revised from Merrill, 2002)

EFFECTS OF A GAMIFIED MORPHOLOGY INTERVENTION |
     7

knowledge gained and their learning performance. The reflection phase provides students
opportunities to independently reflect on their learning and then seek help from teachers or
peers.

Self-­determination theory

Although gamification has been found to have positive effects, its implementation does
not necessarily facilitate learning. Rather, its instructional design can help determine its
effectiveness. Thus, we argue that the use of game design elements should be aligned
with established learning theories. SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2012) is the most frequently used
theory to describe the link between gamification and motivational effects (Nacke &
Deterding, 2017). Drawing on it, the gamified environment should address three innate
psychological needs (ie, a sense of autonomy, competency, relatedness). Therefore, the
game design elements utilized in this study were matched to these psychological needs:
(a) a leaderboard, a progress bar, badges, levels and points were used to display the
students' achievements (competence); (b) students were given the freedom to choose
optional activities and their own profile images (autonomy); and (c) a help-­seeking dis-
cussion forum for knowledge exchange was offered to the students and ‘Reply Warrior’
badges could be given as rewards for their peer learning efforts (relatedness). The ability
of the gamified platform to satisfy these basic psychological needs can facilitate intrinsic
motivation and enable students to attain a high level of engagement and actualise high-­
quality learning (Deci & Ryan, 2012).

M ETHO DS

An exploratory sequential mixed method (Creswell & Clark, 2018) was applied in this study,
in which the quantitative data (ie, literacy tests, questionnaires) were explained and sup-
ported by the qualitative data (ie, semi-­structured interviews). Specifically, the first phase
collected quantitative data, which investigated the impacts of the gamified morphology inter-
vention on students' cognitive, motivational and affective learning outcomes.
In the second phase, the students in the gamified morphology group were invited to
participate in an interview, so we could derive more in-­depth data about their experiences
and perceptions of gamified learning. The qualitative data provided a descriptive account
of students' views, feelings and attitudes about the game design elements and learning
pedagogy.

Participants and context

The participants consisted of 82 junior secondary school students aged around 13 years old
from a private school in mainland China. The school's academic performance was around
the local average. This school is a typical school where Chinese is the medium of instruction
and English is learned as a subject. The students start to learn English in primary grade 3.
They have limited exposure to the English language outside of the school. The intervention
group (N = 33) received the instruction programme in the computer lab, whereas the control
group (N = 49) received theirs in their classroom.
 |
8       QIAO et al.

Interventions

The two programmes were run in the whole-­class manner as supplemental classes. One
session was conducted every 3 days for both. The programmes consisted of 16 sessions in
total and each lasted for 30 minutes.

Face-­to-­face morphology instruction

Face-­to-­face morphology instruction was delivered by a trained experimenter. The pro-

gramme was researcher-­designed and 18 of the most frequently used affixes (see Appendix A
for the frequency table; Blevins, 2001) were introduced in order of decreasing frequency.
The FPI was applied to the design of the programme. The teaching involved six steps: (1)
reviewing the affixes taught in the previous sessions (activation); (2) introducing the ‘affix of
the day’ and the target-­derived words (demonstration); (3) applying morphological knowl-
edge to playing games (application); (4) completing incomplete sentences by changing the
form of target words (application); (5) reading texts with a high density of target affixes and
answering comprehension questions (integration); and (6) sharing and discussing students'
learning approaches as well as reflecting on their performance (reflection).
The programme was similar to traditional classroom instruction, as the students received
direct instruction on morphological knowledge and practised writing and reading using work-
sheets. The teacher provided corrective feedback (Li, 2010) and explanations to the stu-
dents. However, unlike a pure traditional classroom instruction, literacy games (eg, dice
game, snakes and ladders, puzzle games) were used and the students were awarded non-­
digital points for their performance. Our games were designed specifically for promoting
students' interest in learning MA, such as the dice game included affixes on each face of a
die and the word sorting game involved dividing words into categories based on their affix.

Gamified morphology instruction

The gamified morphology instruction was implemented using the Moodle learning management
system (https://moodle.org/; Appendix B). This was matched with the face-­to-­face morphology
instruction in terms of duration, teaching materials and the sequence and purpose of activities.
It was delivered online and used gamification to engage learners, such as through the inclusion
of points, badges, progress bars, levels and leaderboards. We applied a point-­based reward
framework (Çakıroglu et al., 2017; Simoes et al., 2013), in which points were awarded for par-
ticipating in activities and according to the accuracy of the students' answers. The leaderboard
ranked the students according to their accumulated points. Students advanced to the next lev-
els as points were accumulated. A progress bar enabled the students to monitor their progress
by showing completed and uncompleted activities using different colours. Badges were earned
by completing all of the challenges for every three sessions (the participation badge) and from
being ranked in the top 10 on the leaderboard (skill-­based badge). In addition, ‘Reply Warrior’
badges could be awarded to students who posted questions or replies in the discussion forum.
All badges were assigned by the instructor for every three sessions. Students could earn a total
of 16 types of badges, including 6 participation badges (ie, Bronze Medal, Silver Medal, Golden
Medal, Bronze Trophy Cup, Silver Trophy Cup and Gold Trophy Cup), 5 skill-­based badges
(Bronze, Silver, Platinum, Gold and Diamond) and 5 ‘Reply Warrior’ badges (ie, Reply Warrior I,
II, III, IV and V). A Gold Trophy Cup was awarded to students who completed all of the activities
in the Moodle system. Appendix C provides a brief description of the instructional objectives,
activities and game design elements.
EFFECTS OF A GAMIFIED MORPHOLOGY INTERVENTION      9 |

Instruments

Pre and posttests were conducted immediately before and after the intervention. We meas-
ured cognitive, motivational and affective learning outcomes. Table 1 provides the indicators
and data sources used in this study. The assessment for each student lasted for approxi-
mately one hour and was conducted in a quiet classroom in the school. The assessment
instructions were given in students' first language Chinese and the test content was provided
in English.

Morphological awareness

MA was evaluated with two widely used measures, namely the Test of Morphological
Structure (TMS; Carlisle, 2000) and the Word Analogy (Kirby et al., 2012). In the TMS, the
students were given a target word and asked to write the correct form of the word to com-
plete a sentence (eg, Wash. Put the laundry in the _________ [washer]). In the word anal-
ogy task, students were provided with two pairs of words with a word missing (eg, warmth:
warm; strength: ______ [strong]). They were asked to produce the missing word based on
the structure of the first word pair. A point was given for each correct response and the maxi-
mum score was 66. Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's alphas, which
were 0.80 and 0.90 for pre and posttest reliability, respectively. George and Mallery (2003)
suggested that Cronbach's alpha values of 0.90 or higher indicate excellent internal consist-
ency and of ≥0.80 indicate good internal consistency.

Word reading

Word reading was measured using the Wide Range Achievement Test-­4 (Wilkinson &
Robertson, 2006) and another reading test used in a previous study (Choi et al., 2017). The
students were required to read words that steadily increased in difficulty. The stopping rule
was at 10 consecutive wrong answers. The maximum possible score was 115. Cronbach's
alphas for pre and posttest reliability were 0.93 and 0.96, respectively.

T A B L E 1   Measures related to students' cognitive, motivational and affective learning outcomes

Learning
outcomes Definition Indicator Data source
Cognitive Cognitive outcomes refer to the • Knowledge acquisition: Literacy tests;
outcome acquisition of reading-­related Near transfer tests: Interview
skills, including the near transfer -­ Morphological awareness
effect on morphological awareness Far transfer tests:
and the far transfer effect on -­ Word reading
word reading and reading -­ Reading comprehension
comprehension
Motivational Motivational outcomes indicate the • Perceived intrinsic Questionnaire;
outcome extent to which students are motivation Interview
intrinsically motivated
Affective Affective outcomes relate to students' • Perceived affective Questionnaire;
outcome perception of their learning engagement Interview
 |
10       QIAO et al.

Reading comprehension

Reading comprehension was measured using the task developed by Tong et al. (2017).
The students were asked to read two English passages and then to answer correspond-
ing multiple-­choice and open-­ended questions within 30 minutes. We followed the coding
scheme developed by Tong et al. (2017) to rate the students' responses to the open-­ended
questions. The maximum possible score was 30. Cronbach's alphas for pre and posttest
reliability were 0.81 and 0.84, respectively.

Intrinsic motivation

Intrinsic motivation was evaluated using the scale developed by Ryan et al. (1983). This
included 17 items that evaluated perceived competence (eg, ‘I think I did pretty well at this
activity, compared to other students’), perceived autonomy (eg, ‘In the class, I have the free-
dom to share my viewpoints’) and perceived relatedness (eg, ‘In the class, I like the class-
mates who interact with me’). The items were rated on a 5-­point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree; 3 = neutral; 5 = strongly agree). Cronbach's alphas for pre and posttest reliability
were 0.90 and 0.86, respectively.

Affective engagement

Affective engagement was measured using School Engagement Scale (Fredricks

et al., 2005). Examples included ‘I feel happy in the class’ and ‘I am interested in the work
in the class’. The items were also rated on a 5-­point Likert scale. Cronbach's alphas for pre
and posttest reliability were 0.85 and 0.88, respectively.

Interview

We obtained qualitative data from the subsample of students who attended the group inter-
views (9 out of 33). The nine interviewees (three per group) were selected randomly from the
full sample, based on their preferences and availability. Our interview protocol was based
on other studies (Orhan Göksün & Gürsoy, 2019; Zainuddin et al., 2020b) and was revised
to suit the study context. The interviewees were asked about their perceptions and experi-
ences in the gamified programme (eg, ‘How did you like your learning in this course?’, ‘What
do you think are the positive and negative effects of gamified platforms on your learning?’).
Each group interview lasted approximately 30 minutes and was recorded.

Data analysis

Quantitative phase

We first examined the normality of data distribution using the Kolmogorov-­Smirnov test and
Shapiro-­Wilk test (Field, 2009). If the data were normally distributed, we would run repeated
measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine whether groups differed for the im-
provement of each variable. When a significant time × group interaction was found, we
would conduct a follow-­up analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to examine if there were sig-
nificant differences in posttest scores between the two groups, with pre-­test scores entered
EFFECTS OF A GAMIFIED MORPHOLOGY INTERVENTION |
     11

as a covariate. If the data deviated from a normal distribution, we would perform Mann–­
Whitney U test (a non-­parametric test) to determine groups' differences in posttest scores.
For effect size, we used the following formula (Field, 2009) to calculate it.

Z
r=√
N

Qualitative phase

Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was adopted to analyse the qualitative data.
Thematic analysis refers to a ‘qualitative research method for identifying, analysing and
reporting patterns (themes) within the data’, and is the most common technique for this
analysis (p. 79). The guidelines are as follows: (1) gain a full picture of the data by read-
ing the interview transcripts at least three times; (2) conduct open coding on the data by
labelling segments of texts; (3) cluster common codes, identity patterns and form themes;
(4) review and refine themes based on the research questions; and (5) organise themes
into a coherent pattern and fit into a relationship model that can explain the phenomenon
under investigation. The interview data were coded by the first author and 30% of data were
coded by another independent coder. The inter-­rater reliability of the coding was 86%. Any
disagreements between the two coders were addressed through discussions. Appendix D
shows a summary of the themes, sub-­themes and codes for the qualitative data.

R ESULTS

Quantitative phase

Preliminary data analyses

Before performing the main analyses, all of the data were screened for skewness and kurto-
sis. Three variables (at pretest only: word reading, reading comprehension; at posttest only:
word reading, reading comprehension and affective engagement) were found to significantly
deviate from normality. We then checked the initial equivalence between groups at pretest.
The analyses with one-­way ANOVAs or non-­parametric tests of the pretest scores indicated
no significant differences between groups on all measures, confirming that students across
conditions were comparable before receiving the intervention. The internal consistency of
the measures was found to be good to excellent (the alphas ranged from 0.80 to 0.96).

Intervention effects

A repeated-­measures ANOVA revealed a significant time × group effects for MA, F (1, 80) = 9.86,
p = 0.002 < 0.01, 𝜂 2p = 0.11, suggesting that two groups improved differently on MA over time
(see Table 2). We then conducted a one-­way ANCOVA to determine whether the students' per-
formance differed after receiving the intervention while controlling their baseline performance.
As shown in Table 3, the adjusted mean and standard error were 26.53 and 1.08 for the gami-
fied morphology group and 21.95 and 0.89 for the face-­to-­face morphology group. It was found
that the posttest scores of the two groups were significantly different, F (1, 79) = 10.73,
p = 0.002 < 0.01, 𝜂 2p = 0.12. These findings suggest that gamified morphology programme can
lead to greater improvements in students' MA than face-­to-­face morphology programme.
 |
12       QIAO et al.

T A B L E 2   Results of repeated measures ANOVA of morphological awareness and intrinsic motivation

Time × group interaction Time effect on each

effect group

Observed variables Groups N F Effect size F Effect size

Morphological GMI 33 9.86** 0.11 186.99*** 0.85
awareness FMI 49 150.91*** 0.76
Intrinsic motivation GMI 33 5.61* 0.07 365.04*** 0.92
FMI 49 236.33*** 0.84
Abbreviations: FMI, face-­to-­face morphology instruction; GMI, gamified morphology instruction.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

T A B L E 3   Results of one-­way ANCOVA of morphological awareness and intrinsic motivation

Adjusted std Effect

Variable Groups N mean error F value size (η 2)
Morphological awareness GMI 33 26.53 1.08 10.73** 0.12
FMI 49 21.95 0.89
Intrinsic motivation GMI 31 84.51 1.83 5.72* 0.07
FMI 47 78.88 1.48
Sense of competence GMI 31 15.51 0.56 4.24* 0.06
FMI 47 13.98 0.46
Sense of autonomy GMI 31 21.87 0.60 6.46* 0.08
FMI 47 19.89 0.49
Sense of relatedness GMI 31 22.58 0.59 1.26 0.02
FMI 47 21.72 0.48
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

In terms of intrinsic motivation, the repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant time
× group effect, F (1, 76) = 5.61, p = 0.02 < 0.05, 𝜂 2p = 0.07 (see Table 2). The results suggest
students of both groups improved differently on intrinsic motivation. A follow-­up ANCOVA on
posttest scores showed a main group effect on intrinsic motivation, F (1, 75) = 5.72,
p = 0.02 < 0.05, 𝜂 2p = 0.07 (see Table 3). The adjusted mean and standard error of the postin-
trinsic motivation measure for the gamified morphology group were 84.51 and 1.83, and
those of the face-­to-­face morphology group were 78.88 and 1.48. The results indicate that
students who learned with the gamified morphology instruction had significantly higher in-
trinsic motivation than students who learned with face-­to-­face morphology instruction.
A 17-­item questionnaire was adopted to measure the students' perceived levels of com-
petence, autonomy and relatedness in both the gamified morphology instruction and face-­
to-­face morphology instruction. Table 3 depicts that the adjusted mean score and standard
error of the gamified morphology group in sense of competence were 15.51 and 0.56, and
those of the face-­to-­face gamified instruction were 13.98 and 0.46. The results of one-­way
ANCOVA suggest there was a significant difference between the groups on students' per-
ceived competence, F = 4.24, p = 0.04 < 0.05, η2 = 0.06. For a sense of autonomy, the
results implied students of the gamified morphology group (adjusted mean = 21.87, std
error = 0.60) perceived higher autonomy than those in the face-­to-­face morphology group
(adjusted mean = 19.89, std error = 0.49). The one-­way ANCOVA also indicated a signifi-
cant difference between the two groups, F = 6.46, p = 0.01 < 0.05, η2 = 0.08. For a sense
EFFECTS OF A GAMIFIED MORPHOLOGY INTERVENTION |
     13

T A B L E 4   Mann–­Whitney U test of the posttest scores for word reading, reading comprehension and
affective engagement

Mean Mann-­Whitney Effect

Observed variables Groups N rank U test z- ­score p-­value size (r)
Word reading GMI 33 39.94 757 −0.487 0.63 0.01
FMI 49 42.55
Reading GMI 33 46.27 651 −1.49 0.14 0.02
comprehension FMI 49 38.29
Affective engagement GMI 30 43.74 597 −1.35 0.18 0.02
FMI 46 36.70

of relatedness, the results suggested students receiving gamified morphology instruction

had higher perceived relatedness than those receiving face-­to-­face morphology instruction.
However, the difference did not reach significance level, F = 1.26, p = 0.27 > 0.05.
As the normality test indicated the data were not normally distributed for word reading,
reading comprehension and affective engagement, we conducted a non-­parametric Mann–­
Whitney U test to determine whether the two groups differ in terms of these measures at
posttest. No significant differences were found between the two groups for word reading
(U = 757, z = −0.487, p = 0.63), reading comprehension (U = 651, z = −1.49, p = 0.14), or
affective engagement (U = 597, z = −1.35, p = 0.18). The results are shown in Table 4.

Qualitative phase

Intervention effects on the cognitive aspect

In terms of promoting reading outcomes, the interviewees shared a consistent viewpoint

that they felt their reading abilities had improved after receiving this out-­of-­class programme.
For example, Student D said, ‘I had never heard about prefixes and suffixes before. In this
Morphology Battle, I learned affix knowledge and how to segment and blend words, which
helped me guess the meaning of unfamiliar words in reading English passages’. Student
B noted, ‘After learning morphological awareness, I know the suffix not only carries mean-
ing but also indicates its grammatical category. It helps me to remember the grammatical
category of target vocabulary in my textbook’. Student A remarked, ‘My English grade in ex-
aminations has improved because this gamified course expanded my vocabulary’. Student
C added that the morphological knowledge enabled her to acquire many related words,
such as the word's synonym or antonym. The interview results suggested that gamified MA
instruction had various positive effects on students' reading development.
The interview analysis revealed that gamification influenced the students' cognitive en-
gagement in terms of motivating them to work harder and self-­regulate their learning. The
majority of students reported having invested extra effort in the gamified class (7 out of 9
students). For example, Student A said, ‘Compared with a traditional class that is teacher-­
oriented, the gamified class is fun and not that serious, which does not make me sleepy and
motivates me to do more work’. Student F remarked, ‘The leaderboard motivates me to work
harder and faster because I aim to exceed my peers’. Being ranked top on the leaderboard
motivated the students to work on the Morphology Battle in out-­of-­school hours. Student B
mentioned, ‘Being top student in the examination is difficult but seems easier in the gamified
 |
14       QIAO et al.

class. I even do the reading activities when I am at home’. Completing all of the tasks on
the progress bar was another game element motivating students to spend more effort. For
example, Student C said, ‘I want to make the progress bar all green’.
The gamified environment appeared to encourage self-­regulated learning, although it
was not explicitly taught. The progress bar was perceived to effectively enable students
to monitor their own learning progress and to help them adjust their efforts. For example,
Student H said, ‘The progress bar vividly reflects the tasks that I completed as well as those
I did not complete. When I completed the tasks of a session, I would focus more on the
tasks in previous sessions that I did not complete’. All of the students reported that they used
the leaderboard to monitor their peers' progress and set their learning goals. For example,
Student A said, ‘I monitored my peers’ status in the leaderboard and would set catching up
with my target competitors as my learning goal. I studied hard and achieved my goal’. Two
students mentioned that if they appeared lower on the leaderboard, they would assess their
learning strategies to come up with solutions. For example, Student F said, ‘The leaderboard
is very useful. It lets me know how many ranks I have gone up or down. This enables me
to reflect and figure out possible plans to learn better’. Thus, gamified learning appeared to
motivate the students to work harder and more strategically (eg, setting goals and applying
learning strategies).

Intervention effects on the motivational aspect

Consistent with the quantitative data, the students said that the gamification feature of the
programme greatly increased their motivation to learn. They also felt more competent in
their English reading due to the interesting game design elements involved. For example,
Student D, who generally performed well, said, ‘I ranked top on the leaderboard, which
makes me more and more interested in learning English. I like the competition caused by
the leaderboard. Although it gives me some pressure, it allows me to demonstrate com-
petence’. Student E mentioned that obtaining points motivated her to complete the subse-
quent activity and gave her a sense of accomplishment. Student D noted, ‘I can see my
points added immediately after I do the activity, which provides positive feedback to my
learning’. The students' competence was also acknowledged by the badges. Student D
described receiving badges as being like an award or a certificate. She said, ‘It's positive
feedback to my efforts. I feel excited when I receive it’. Student E remarked, ‘When I have
many badges, I am confident. I'd like to compare the number of badges with others, which
gives me a sense of pride’.
Most of the students stated that the gamified class gave them a sense of autonomy. They
could select their favourite pictures as their profile images and decide whether to take part
in the optional activities. For example, Student G said, ‘I like having my favourite idol as
my profile image. It shows my personality and allows my friends to easily identify me in the
leaderboard’. Student H noted, ‘There are some optional activities. For example, I have the
freedom of not posting anything in the discussion forum when I do not want to’. Some of the
students mentioned that the discussion forum made them feel closer to their classmates in
the gamified class. For example, Student D said, ‘I feel close to my peers due to discussion
forum. In the discussion forum, I can see other students' questions and I will reply to them
if I know the answer.’ Notably, two students expressed that they had rarely interacted with
their peers and felt they had been ignored (Student E and F), possibly due to the lack of
collaborative work.
EFFECTS OF A GAMIFIED MORPHOLOGY INTERVENTION |
     15

Intervention effects on the affective aspect

The qualitative data indicated that all of the students enjoyed their learning experiences
when using gamification. All of the students said they preferred the gamified class when
asked ‘Do you like the gamified class or traditional class?’. Many students compared the
gamified class to their regular traditional classroom and reported that the gamified class
was more fun, enjoyable and less serious because it added a motivational layer to learning
English and created a gaming experience. For example, Student B said, ‘In my traditional
classroom, I sometimes feel very sleepy. In gamified class, I feel alert to my performance
and interested in learning’. Student A remarked, ‘It's like playing games. You tackle the chal-
lenges and move up the levels’. Student C also said, ‘It's not that easy to move up one level. I
feel proud of myself when I see my levels are higher than others after my hard work’. Positive
emotion states are commonly reported by students. For example, Student F reported, ‘I feel
happy and excited when obtaining badges. It's a reward for my efforts’. Student D said, ‘I
like gamified class more. It is fun, relaxed and meaningful. It motivates me to learn better’.
Thus, the qualitative data suggest gamification can positively influence students' affective
engagement by creating course satisfaction and positive emotional states (eg, joy, pride and
excitement).

Challenges and barriers to using gamification

Although the respondents described many positive aspects of gamification, they also men-
tioned some negative aspects. Two students mentioned that they had encountered technical
problems when using the Moodle system, such as a slow network or problems submitting
answers or logging in. For example, Student F said, ‘Sometimes after I submit my answers,
the answers are gone so I have to redo the whole thing, which makes me sad’. Three stu-
dents reported that the design of the system could be improved. Student A commented that
she would prefer to have two attempts at each challenge so that she could correct any mis-
takes and collect more badges. Student F said that he would prefer more optional activities.
He remarked, ‘When I ranked lower on the leaderboard, I liked to find the exercises that I did
not finish in the progress bar and obtain more points by completing them. However, some-
times I had completed all of the activities and there were no more extra challenges. I could
only outpace others in later sessions when the new challenges were released’. Student C
said, ‘When the distance between me and my target goals in the leaderboard is not far, I am
motivated to catch up with them. However, when the distance is far and I cannot catch up
with them, I feel a bit frustrated’.

D I SCUSS I O N

In this study, we investigated whether gamified morphology instruction is more effective than
face-­to-­face morphology instruction in terms of cognitive, motivational and affective learning
outcomes among Chinese EFL secondary grade students. The two programmes were of
equal duration and used similar teaching materials and structures, and only differed in terms
of the delivery format. The FPI was applied to the design of the activities in both conditions.
A combination of game design elements (points, levels, badges, a leaderboard and a pro-
gress bar) were used in the gamified morphology instruction to engage the students in each
activity. We hypothesised that gamified morphology instruction would be more effective than
face-­to-­face morphology instruction in enhancing the three learning outcomes. The findings
largely support our hypothesis: statistically significant time × group interaction effects were
 |
16       QIAO et al.

found in MA and intrinsic motivation with medium effect sizes, confirming that there were
greater gains in cognitive and motivational outcomes in online gamified settings. However,
we observed no significant time × group effect between the two conditions for word reading,
reading comprehension or affective engagement.

Cognitive learning outcomes

In terms of the interventions on cognitive outcomes, the gamified morphology group made
greater gains on the near transfer task (ie, MA) than the face-­to-­face morphology group.
This supports previous findings that academic performance can be improved to a greater
extent in a gamified rather than a non-­gamified condition (Jagušt et al., 2018; Yildirim, 2017).
As indicated from our qualitative data, students felt their reading abilities improved in terms
of guessing the meaning of unfamiliar words, figuring out the grammatical categories and
expanding vocabulary size (eg, by acquiring words' synonym and antonym). Gamification
appeared to lead to these improvements because it encouraged (a) harder work and more
effort and (b) self-­regulated learning, including setting goals, monitoring personal progress
and those of others, and self-­reflection.
EFL requires not only remembering and understanding facts but also the application of
acquired knowledge. We applied the FPI (Merrill, 2002) to guide the design of the online
activities. After their prior knowledge was activated and direct instruction, the students
applied their morphological knowledge to playing literacy games (eg, snakes and ladders,
puzzles), writing and reading. In the gamified learning context, the students earned points,
badges and ranks on the leaderboard by applying this knowledge. This enabled them to
be more aware of their performance and that of their peers, and thus they invested more
effort. For example, one student reported that he put in the additional cognitive effort to
complete the activities when he realised that he had dropped down the leaderboard. This
echoes the findings of Çakıroglu et  al.  (2017) that suggested gamification affects the
cognitive domain in terms of effort. Furthermore, our study is consistent with the findings
of Ding et al. (2018) which showed gamification approach, consisting of a progress bar
and leaderboard, supported self-­regulated learning. Our participants were aware of how
they could move up the leaderboard from the very beginning of the course, so they could
set goals to aim for. Besides, they could monitor their progress through the progress bar
and leaderboard and even adjusted their learning strategies, which emerged as a type of
self-­regulated learning.
Contrary to our prediction that the gamified group would outperform the control group in
terms of word reading and reading comprehension, the two groups performed similarly. One
plausible interpretation is that MA is helpful for word reading and reading comprehension
(Deacon & Kirby, 2004; Kirby et al., 2012; Qiao et al., 2021) and when students acquire the
affixes, no matter in gamified morphology group or face-­to-­face morphology group, it helps
their word reading and reading comprehension to the same extent. In terms of cognitive out-
comes, we found that gamified learning can improve the near transfer effects for MA, which
is a strong predictor of word reading (Deacon & Kirby, 2004; Kirby et al., 2012) and reading
comprehension (Qiao et al., 2021). In addition, as the Reading Systems Framework sug-
gests, reading comprehension is influenced by many skills, including syntax and phonology
(Perfetti et al., 2005), but testing these factors was outside the scope of this study. Future
studies can explore gamifying syntax and phonology and examine their effects on students'
improvement of reading outcomes.
EFFECTS OF A GAMIFIED MORPHOLOGY INTERVENTION |
     17

Motivational learning outcomes

The quantitative data indicate that the students in the gamified morphology condition were
more intrinsically motivated towards learning than those in the face-­to-­face condition. The
qualitative data reveal how the game design elements could address the students' basic psy-
chological needs. The combination of elements made students feel capable and competent.
The gamification environment had a points-­based reward framework (Çakıroglu et al., 2017;
Simoes et al., 2013) and the points were calculated rapidly and accurately. The badges,
levels and ranks on the leaderboard were based on the points obtained. This package of
game design elements provided both immediate and sustained feedback on student learn-
ing and work, enabling them to frequently experience a sense of modest success (Sailer
et al., 2017). The positive feedback also made them more confident. The self-­confidence of
students in Asian cultures such as Korea, Japan and Hong Kong is relatively lower than for
those in the West (Ho, 2003), perhaps because teachers tend to focus more on negative
feedback. However, learning should be enjoyable rather than unpleasant and the goal of ed-
ucation should not only be to produce winners at the end of the semester. Gamification can
provide an engaging and entertaining environment that encourages confidence, in which
every committed student can be a winner.
As a new method implemented in the field of education, gamification has attracted con-
troversy and criticism (Bai et al., 2020). Several scholars view gamification as ‘pointification’
and have argued that it is shallow and superficial (eg, Gurjanow et al., 2019), while others
have warned that its effects are non-­significant or short-­lived (Sanchez et al., 2020). For
example, Mekler et al. (2017) found that students in the gamified condition lacked intrinsic
motivation and suggested that game design elements may function as merely extrinsic in-
centives. However, they provided no information about the theoretical framework of gamifi-
cation designs. In contrast, we applied the SDT in our design of the elements and used the
FPI to design the modules, assuming that effective learning was triggered in each activity by
these elements. We argue it is important to build such elements in activities that meet stu-
dents’ basic psychological needs, which would enable students to engage more in learning.
Our findings further support the effectiveness of gamification in addressing student moti-
vational problems in educational contexts, as long as they are designed appropriately and
built according to well-­established theories (eg, Sailer et al., 2017). The improved intrinsic
motivation might also be a reason contributing to students' improved performance in MA.
However, although we offered ‘Reply Warrior’ badges to motivate students to participate
in the discussion forum and create social bonding, both groups had a similar level of per-
ceived relatedness at posttest. Two respondents said that they felt distant from their peers,
and thus developing cooperative or collaborative gamification, in which students compete
in teams and address challenges with others, could be a meaningful direction for future
research (Sailer & Homner, 2020). Furthermore, low achievers should also be supported
in gamification designs, as one student in our study said that performing below the level of
others made her frustrated. Future gamification design can include high-­, medium-­and low-­
achiever leaderboards and assign students into different bands so that they only compete
with each other within their ranks.

Affective learning outcomes

Our quantitative data show that students in the gamified group scored higher in affective
learning outcomes than those in the face-­to-­face instruction group, although the difference
was not significant. However, all of the interviewees in the gamified group said that they pre-
ferred gamified to face-­to-­face teaching. They were satisfied with the learning approach and
 |
18       QIAO et al.

expressed positive emotions such as joy, pride and excitement. The instruction in the control
condition consisted of literacy games and non-­digital points, which may also have been per-
ceived as pleasurable and interesting, thus resulting in this lack of effect. It should be noted
that the approach in the control group was researcher-­developed rather than business-­as-­
usual. An interesting future research avenue would be to examine students' learning out-
comes from the three approaches, namely business-­as-­usual, non-­digital gamified learning
and digital gamified learning.

CO NCLUSI O N A N D LI M ITATI O NS

This study provides solid empirical evidence about the positive impacts of gamification
approach on students' cognitive, motivational and affective learning outcomes and its
advantages over face-­to-­face instruction. Through the novel implementation of a gami-
fication approach to teaching morphology, we extend gamification research to a new
disciplinary context and provide a strong theoretical basis for the pedagogical design.
To our knowledge, this is the first study to situate the meta design theory FPI in a gami-
fied learning environment to design online learning modules. The SDT is also applied as
a framework for using game design elements. We, therefore, support the argument of
Zainuddin et al. (2020a) that effective gamified learning involves both the appropriate use
of game design elements and theory-­driven instructional design. Our findings can thus
inform curriculum designers and instructors applying evidence-­based gamified learning
approaches.
This study had several limitations. First, we were not able to test the long-­term effects
of gamification as the study period was only two months. Delayed posttests could be in-
cluded and/or the instruction period could be extended to examine the sustained effects
of gamification. Second, we only assessed grade 8 Chinese EFL students, and thus
generalising the findings to other populations may prove difficult. Third, we did not take
a purely traditional approach in the control group as we used literacy games and non-­
digital points, so we were not able to compare the training effect to traditional teaching.
Finally, our qualitative data did not include any interviews with the face-­to-­face morphol-
ogy group, and so we did not establish how the participants in this group perceived their
learning experiences.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors extend their sincere appreciation to all of the students who participated in this
study and the teachers who helped collect the data.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

E T H I C S S TAT E M E N T
Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Hong Kong.

D ATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corre-
sponding author.

ORCID
Shen Qiao  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8268-4802
EFFECTS OF A GAMIFIED MORPHOLOGY INTERVENTION |
     19

REFERENCES
Bai, S. R., Hew, K. F., & Huang, B. Y. (2020). Does gamification improve student learning outcome? Evidence
from a meta-­analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in education contexts. Educational Research Review,
30, 100322.
Blevins, W. (2001). Teaching phonics and word study in the intermediate grades: A complete sourcebook.
Scholastic.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook: The cognitive domain. David McKay.
Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills:
A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 144–­ 179. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00346​5 4309​359353
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2),
77–­101. https://doi.org/10.1191/14780​88706​qp063oa
Breadmore, H. L., Levesque, K., & Deacon, S. H. (2021). Advances in understanding the role of morphemes in
literacy development. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(1), 1–­9.
Çakıroglu, U., Başıbuyuk, B., Guler, M., Atabay, M., & Memiş, B. Y. (2017). Gamifying an ICT course: Influences
on engagement and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 98–­ 107. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.018
Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on
reading. Reading & Writing, 12(3), 169–­190.
Carlisle, J. F., McBride-­Chang, C., Nagy, W., & Nunes, T. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological aware-
ness on literacy achievement: An integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 464–­487. https://doi.
org/10.1598/RRQ.45.4.5
Choi, W., Tong, X. L., & Deacon, S. H. (2017). Double dissociations in reading comprehension difficulties among
Chinese -­English bilinguals and their association with tone awareness. Journal of Research in Reading, 40,
184–­198.
Chu, S. K. W., Chan, H. L., Wong, J., Tavernier, M., Wintermeyer, A., Shen, Z. Z., Wang, Q. Y., Wang, X. M., Wu,
W. W. Y.. (2015, May). Gamifying the reading process with ‘Reading Battle’ [Paper presentation]. 2015 CITE
Research Symposium 2015, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Crosson, A. C., McKeown, M. G., Lei, P. W., Zhao, H., Li, X. Y., Patrick, K., Brown, K., & Shen, Y. Q. (2021).
Morphological analysis skill and academic vocabulary knowledge are malleable through intervention and
may contribute to reading comprehension for multilingual adolescents. Journal of Research in Reading,
44(1), 154–­174. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­9817.12323
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
Deacon, S. H., Kieffer, M., & Laroche, A. (2014). The relation between morphological awareness and reading
comprehension: Evidence from mediation and longitudinal models. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 432–­
451. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888​438.2014.926907
Deacon, S. H., & Kirby, J. R. (2004). Morphological awareness: Just ‘more phonological’? The roles of morpholog-
ical and phonological awareness in reading development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(2), 223–­238. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S0142​71640​4001110
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-­determination theory. In Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp.
416–­436). Sage.
Dehghanzadeh, H., Fardanesh, H., Hatami, J., Talaee, E., & Noroozi, O.. (2019). Using gamification to support
learning English as a second language: A systematic review. Computer Assisted Language Learning, pub-
lished online.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining
gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future
Media Environments. ACM Press.
Ding, L. (2019). Applying gamifications to asynchronous online discussions: A mixed methods study. Computers
in Human Behaviour, 91, 1–­11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.022
Ding, L., Er, E., & Orey, M. (2018). An exploratory study of student engagement in gamified online discussions.
Computers & Education, 120, 213–­226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2018.02.007
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Sage.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P., Friedel, J., & Paris, A. (2005). School engagement. In K. A. Moore & L. H.
Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive
development (Vol. 3, pp. 305–­321). Springer Science+Business Media LLC.
Gellert, A. S., Arnbak, E., Wischmann, S., & Elbro, S. W. C. (2021). Morphological intervention for students with
limited vocabulary knowledge: Short-­and long-­term transfer effects. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(3),
583– ­601. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.325
 |
20       QIAO et al.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Allyn &.
Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. (2010). A meta-­analysis of morphological interventions: Effects on literacy achieve-
ment of children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60(2), 183–­208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1188​
1-­010-­0 041-­x
Gurjanow, I., Oliveira, M., Zender, J., Santos, P. A., & Ludwig, M. (2019). Mathematics trails: Shallow and deep
gamification. International Journal of Serious Games, 6, 65–­79. https://doi.org/10.17083/​ijsg.v6i3.306
Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study
on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort and academic performance. Computers &
Education, 80, 152–­161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2014.08.019
Haruna, H., Hu, X., Chu, S. K. W., Mellecker, R., Gabriel, G., & Patrick, S. N. (2018). Improving sexual health
education programs for adolescent students through game-­based learning and gamification. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(9), 1–­26. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerp​h1509​2027
Ho, S. C. (2003). Students’ self-­esteem in an Asian educational system: Contribution of parental involvement and
parental investment. School Community Journal, 13(1), 65–­8 4.
Jagušt, T., Botički, I., & So, H. J. (2018). Examining competitive, collaborative and adaptive gamification in
young learner’s math learning. Computers & Education, 125, 444–­ 457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​
du.2018.06.022
Jamshidifarsani, H., Garbaya, S., Lim, T., Blazevic, P., & Ritchie, J. M. (2019). Technology-­based reading interven-
tion programs for elementary grades: An analytical review. Computers & Education, 128, 427–­451. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2018.10.003
Jong, M. S. Y. (2019). Sustaining the adoption of gamified outdoor social enquiry learning in high schools through
addressing teachers' emerging concerns: A 3-­year study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3),
1275–­1293. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12767
Kieffer, M. J., Biancarosa, G., & Mancilla-­Martinez, J. (2013). Roles of morphological awareness in English read-
ing comprehension for Spanish-­speaking language minority learners: Exploring partial mediation by vocab-
ulary and reading fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 697–­725.
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2012). Direct and indirect roles of morphological awareness in the English read-
ing comprehension of native English, Spanish, Filipino, and Vietnamese speakers. Language Learning, 62,
1170–­1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­9922.2012.00722.x
Kirby, J. R., Deacon, S. H., Bowers, P. N., Izenberg, L., Wade-­Woolley, L., & Parrila, R. (2012). Children's morpho-
logical awareness and reading ability. Reading & Writing, 25, 389–­410.
Kuo, L., & Anderson, R. (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-­language perspective.
Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 161–­180.
Landers, R. N., Auer, E. M., Collmus, A. B., & Armstrong, M. B. (2018). Gamification science, its history and future.
Definitions and a research agenda. Simulation & Gaming, 49(3), 315–­337.
Landers, R. N., Bauer, K. N., & Callan, R. C. (2017). Gamification of task performance with leaderboards: A goal
setting experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 508–­515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.008
Levesque, K. C., Kieffer, M. J., & Deacon, S. H. (2017). Morphological awareness and reading comprehension:
Examining mediating factors. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 160, 1–­20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jecp.2017.02.015
Li, S. F. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-­analysis. Language Learning, 60,
309–­365.
Li, X. H., & Chu, S. K. W. (2021). Exploring the effects of gamification pedagogy on children's reading: A mixed-­
method study on academic performance, reading-­related mentality and behaviors, and sustainability. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1), 160–­178.
Li, X. H., Mok, S. W., Cheng, Y. Y. J., & Chu, S. K. W.. (2018). An examination of a gamified e-­quiz system in
fostering students’ reading habit, interest and ability [Paper presentation]. ASIS&T 2018 Annual Meeting,
Vancouver, Canada.
Lo, C. K., Lie, C. W., & Hew, K. F. (2018). Applying ‘First Principles of Instruction’ as a design theory of the flipped
classroom: Findings from a collective study of four secondary school subjects. Computers & Education, 118,
150–­165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2017.12.003
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-­
year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-­0 66X.57.9.705
Mekler, E. D., Bruhlmann, F., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K. (2017). Towards understanding the effects of individual
gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 525–­
534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.048
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First Principles of Instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(3),
43– ­59.
Nacke, L. E., & Deterding, S. (2017). The maturing of gamification research. Computers in Human Behavior, 71,
450–­454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.062
EFFECTS OF A GAMIFIED MORPHOLOGY INTERVENTION |
     21

Orhan Göksün, D., & Gürsoy, 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.compe​du.2019.02.015
Park, S., & Kim, S. (2019). A badge design framework for a gamified learning environment: Cases analysis and
literature review for badge design. JMIR Serious Games, 7(2), 1–­12. https://doi.org/10.2196/14342
Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In M. J. Snowling &
C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–­247). Blackwell Publishing.
Qiao, S., Liu, Y. Y., & Yeung, S. S. (2021). Mechanisms by which morphological awareness contributes to
Chinese and English reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(1), 189–­209. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1467-­9817.12345
Ryan, R., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic
motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
45, 736–­750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­3514.45.4.736
Sailer, M., Hence, 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
Behaviour, 69, 371–­380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033
Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-­analysis. Educational Psychology Review,
32, 77–­112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1064​8 -­019-­09498​-­w
Sanchez, D. R., Langer, M., & Kaur, R. (2020). Gamification in the classroom: Examining the impact of gam-
ified quizzes on student learning. Computers & Education, 144, 103666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​
du.2019.103666
Simoes, J., Redondo, R. D., & Vilas, A. F. (2013). A social gamification framework for a K-­6 learning platform.
Computers in Human Behaviour, 29, 345–­353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.007
Thompson, C., & Gillern, S. V. (2020). Video-­game based instruction for vocabulary acquisition with English
language learners: A Bayesian meta-­ analysis. Educational Research Review, 30, 100332. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100332
Tong, X., McBride, C., Shu, H., & Ho, C.-­S.-­K. (2017). Reading comprehension difficulties in Chinese-­English
bilingual children. Dyslexia, 24, 59–­83. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1566
Verhoeven, L., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Morphological processing in reading acquisition: A cross-­linguistic per-
spective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 457–­466. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142​71641​1000154
Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2006). Wide range achievement test 4. PAR.
Yang, W. D., & Dai, W. P. (2011). Rote memorization of vocabulary and vocabulary development. English Language
Teaching, 4(4), 61–­6 4. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n4p61
Yildirim, I. (2017). The effects of gamification-­based teaching practices on student achievement and stu-
dents' attitudes toward lessons. Internet and Higher Education, 33, 86–­ 9 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
iheduc.2017.02.002
Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K. W., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. J. (2020a). The impact of gamification on learning and
instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Educational Research Review, 30, 100326. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100326
Zainuddin, Z., Shujahat, M., Haruna, H., & Chu, S. K. W. (2020b). The role of gamified e-­quizzes on student learn-
ing and engagement: An interactive gamification solution for a formative assessment system. Computers &
Education, 145, 103729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2019.103729

How to cite this article: Qiao, S., Yeung, S. S.-­S., Shen, X., & Chu, S. K. W. (2022).
The effects of a gamified morphological awareness intervention on students'
cognitive, motivational and affective outcomes. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 00, 1–­25. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13178
 |
22       QIAO et al.

APPENDIX A

FREQUENCY TABLE (Blevins, 2001)

Highest frequency High frequency Medium frequency
Prefixes
un-­(not, opposite of) over-­(too much) trans-­ (across)
re-­ (again) mis-­ (wrongly) super-­ (above)
in-­im-­ir-­il (not): sub-­ (under) semi-­ (half)
dis-­(not, opposite of) pre-­ (before) anti-­ (against)
en-­em-­(cause to) inter-­(between, among) mid-­ (middle)
non-­ (not)
under-­(too little)
in-­im-­(in or into)
Suffixes
-­s -­ly (characteristic of) -­al -­ial
-­ed -­er - ­or (person) -­y
-­ing -­ion -­tion (act, process) -­ness
-­ible -­able (can be done) -­ity -­t y
-­ment
-­ic
- ­ous
-­en
-­ive
-­ful
-­less
EFFECTS OF A GAMIFIED MORPHOLOGY INTERVENTION |
     23

APPENDIX B

SCREENSHOTS OF THE ONLINE LEARNING MODULES ON MOODLE

 |
24       QIAO et al.
APPENDIX C
LEARNING ACTIVITIES AND GAME DESIGN ELEMENTS
Instructional objectives
Compounding MA
• To understand the compounding rule
(modifier +head; right-­head rule)
• To apply the compounding rule to
segment, understand and produce
compound words
Derivational MA
• To understand the meaning and
form of affixes as well as the
grammatical category of suffix
• To clearly and explicitly draw
students' attention to affixes
Game design
Learning activities elements
• Activation (2 min) • Award points for
Activating students' prior domain participating in
knowledge, which can then serve activities and for
as the foundations for learning new each correct answer
morphological knowledge. Teachers • Reward students
prompted students to think about with badges for their
what they knew about the affix participation and
being taught performance
• Demonstration (5 min) • Rank students on
Introducing target vocabulary to the leaderboard
demonstrate the ‘affix of the according to the
day’. Students received direct accumulated points
instructions on the meaning, form • Automatically level
and grammatical role of affixes up with sufficient
• Application and integration (20 min) points
Applying morphological knowledge • Indicate the
when playing digital literacy games, completed and
writing and authentic reading. uncompleted
Interesting stories were selected as activities using the
reading materials to enhance the progress bar
students' reading motivation • Allow a choice of
• Reflection (3 min)Reflecting and picture for their
clarifying in the discussion forum. profile photo and
Students sharing and discussing the freedom to do
their feelings, thoughts and ideas on optional activities
their learned knowledge • Peer learning in the
discussion forum
EFFECTS OF A GAMIFIED MORPHOLOGY INTERVENTION |
     25

APPENDIX D

SUMMARY OF THE THEMES, SUB-­THEMES AND CODES FOR THE QUALITATIVE

DATA
Themes Sub-­themes Codes
Cognitive Useful instructional content • Guessing the meaning of unfamiliar
outcomes words
• Figuring out the grammatical category of
words
• Expanding vocabulary size (eg, acquiring
similar words such as synonym and
antonym)
Encouraging more hard work and effort • Not sleepy
• Exceeding peers
• Working out of class hours
• Completing all of the activities
Prompting self-­regulated learning • Monitoring students' own learning
progress
• Monitoring other students' progress
• Setting goals
• Reflection and figuring out possible plans
to learn better
Motivational Sense of competence • Demonstrating competence
outcomes • Providing positive feedback to efforts and
learning performance
• Promoting confidence
Sense of autonomy • Freedom to do optional activities
• Freedom to choose their profile picture
Sense of relatedness • Posting and replying to questions in the
discussion forum
Affective Course satisfaction • Preferring the gamified course over the
outcomes traditional course
Positive emotions • Joy, pride and excitement

View publication stats