Original Research

SAGE Open
April-June 2023: 1–14
Ó The Author(s) 2023
Learning Outcomes, Motivation, and DOI: 10.1177/21582440231158332
journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo
Satisfaction in Gamified English
Vocabulary Learning

Zhonggen Yu1

Abstract
The past several years have been witnessing the fast development of information and communication technology, with which
an increasing number of serious games are being designed and developed. Randomly selected participants were divided into
the treatment and control cohorts. Two experiments, as well as a semi-structured interview, were administered to both
cohorts. It was concluded that: (1) Learning outcomes in gamified English vocabulary learning are significantly better than in
non-gamified English vocabulary learning; (2) The motivation in gamified English vocabulary learning is significantly stronger
than in non-gamified English vocabulary learning; (3) The satisfaction in gamified English vocabulary learning is significantly
higher than in non-gamified English vocabulary learning. Future research could include various serious games with interdisci-
plinary cooperation to testify the effect of gamification on English vocabulary learning.

Keywords
learning outcomes, motivation, satisfaction, gamified English vocabulary learning

Introduction games (Lai & Chen, 2021). Educators have attempted to

The period ranging from the 1960s and the 1970s saw
the increasing popularity of gamified learning, but gami-
fied learning was dwarfed under the influence of Back to
Basics teaching movement (Rice, 2007). The Back to
Basics teaching movement began in the 1970s, aimed to
turn the innovative pedagogy back to the non-gamified
style due to the phenomenon that students performed
poorly on standardized tests. The movement suggested
that teaching be focused on non-gamified reading, writ-
ing, arithmetic, and other basic skills training.
The twentieth century has been witnessing the fast
development of information and communication tech-
nology, with which an increasing number of serious
games are being designed and developed. Serious games
(Abt, 1970) indicated the games designed for education
and other serious purposes such as industrial develop-
ment, training, or stimulation (Alsawaier, 2018).
Recently, numerous gamified English vocabulary learn-
ing mobile apps have been developed and applied to
English vocabulary education. Examples are Baicizhan,
Kingsoft, Hujiang Fun Vocabulary, New Oriental Fun
Vocabulary, Kingsoft Powerword, Shanbei Vocabulary,
Momo Vocabulary, Zhimi Vocabulary, Immersion
Vocabulary, and virtual reality vocabulary learning
integrate elements of serious gaming most of these
mobile applications (Govender & Arnedo-Moreno,
2021), and installed them on mobile devices such as
smartphones, PDAs, and iPods. Of them, the most pop-
ular one is Kingsoft Powerword.
Different from traditionally perceived games for
entertainment, serious games aim to meet educational
needs rather than entertaining aims (Nazry & Romano,
2017). The adjective ‘‘serious’’ is an umbrella term refer-
ring to video games designed for primary use in military
defense, education, academic research, medical science,
urban designing, international communication, cultural
understanding, and political exchange. Serious games are
deemed as gaming tools used for educational purposes,
where game players are expected to obtain knowledge
during the gameplay process. Through computer pro-
grams, players’ performances could automatically be
1
Beijing Language and Culture University, Haidian District, China
Corresponding Author:
Zhonggen Yu, Department of English Studies, Faculty of Foreign Languages,
Beijing Language and Culture University, 15 Xueyuan Road, Haidian
District, Beijing 100083, China.
Email: 401373742@qq.com

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
scored in the game (Juan et al., 2017). Task completion
could render awards, such as scores, advancement, and
power gain, to players.
Serious games have the features such as gamified
mobility and flexibility through installation on mobile
devices. Players can learn English vocabulary through
gamified methods whenever or wherever they feel conve-
nient. Gamified vocabulary learning tends to possess the
attributes of competition, storytelling, achievements,
curiosity, collaboration, fun, and entertainment. The
attributes of gamified learning could influence English
vocabulary acquisition. Relationships between gaming
attributes and mechanics exerted a great influence on
academic achievements and learning experiences
(Lameras et al., 2017).
Serious games could promote the engagement of stu-
dents in learning activities via their gamified features.
The elements of entertainment and fun of gamification
also attract game players to engage in learning through
interesting gameplay (Yu, 2018). The ‘‘serious’’ concep-
tion explicitly sheds light on the extra pedagogical value
except for fun and competition of games (Yu, 2019).
Stimulated to play games, learners tend to be able to sub-
consciously acquire English linguistic knowledge through
watching, reading, listening, and even speaking.
With the swift development of gaming designs, gami-
fied learning also seems promising to play an important
role in English vocabulary learning. However, the research
into the effectiveness of gamified learning cannot keep
pace with information technology development, especially
in the field of English vocabulary acquisition (Yu, 2018).
To promote the development of gamified vocabulary
learning, related convincing studies are in need to strike a
balance between the rapid development of information
technology and gamified vocabulary learning.
Although an increasing number of gamified apps have
been used in English vocabulary acquisition, scanty stud-
ies have been committed to their effect on vocabulary
learning. One of the major trends in English vocabulary
acquisition studies focuses on the effect of digital games
on vocabulary acquisition (H. J. H. Chen & Hsu, 2020).
This study, aiming to determine their effect on English
vocabulary learning, is therefore meaningful and neces-
sary. Precious studies have hardly identified the effect of
gamification on learning outcomes, motivation, and
satisfaction in gamified English vocabulary. This study
will fill this research gap by both quantitatively and qua-
litatively examining its effects on English vocabulary
learning outcomes, motivation, and satisfaction.
Theoretical Framework
Researchers defined a serious game, also referred to as
learning games, games for learning, educational games,
and training games (Landers, 2014), as ‘‘a game in which
education (in its various forms) is the primary goal,
rather than entertainment’’ (Michael & Chen, 2005, p.
17). It is hard to arrive at a consensus on the definition
of a serious game (Klabbers, 2009). A solution lies in the
exploration of attributes of gamified learning or a model
to construct attributes of gamified learning. Wilson et al.
(2009) synthesized nineteen attributes (Bedwell et al.,
2012), which was then classified into nine categories, that
is, action language, assessment, conflict/challenge, con-
trol, environment, game fiction, human interaction,
immersion, and rules/goals (see Table 1).
Based on the nine attributes of gamified learning,
Kingsoft Powerword assisted learning is considered
gamified learning. Its use in English vocabulary learning
is thus deemed as gamified English vocabulary learning
since it consists of action language, assessment or evalua-
tion, conflicts or challenge in learning process, control of
learning steps, environment designed for learning, game
fictions as learning materials, human interactions with
the program, immersion environments, and rules or goals
for learning and scoring. However, scanty studies have
been committed to the effect of Kingsoft Powerword on
learning outcomes, motivation, and satisfaction in gami-
fied English vocabulary learning. This study is meaning-
ful and worthwhile because it aims to fill this research
gap.
Literature Review
This review of literature will be chronologically devel-
oped with a view to presenting a clear picture to readers.
Various kinds of serious games, especially those designed
for youngsters, surged up in the early 2000s, many of
which were not used on the fixed desktops but installed
on mobile devices. In the year 1999, LeapFrog
Enterprises developed a serious game named LeapPad,
which integrated an interactive book into a cartridge and
allowed kids to play games. The company also developed
a hand-held game in 2003, referred to as Leapster, aim-
ing to meet educational needs by integrating cartridges
into arcades (Gray et al., 2009). Gamified learning was
connected to sustainable development in the 2000s, in
association with subjects including Learning Sustainable
Development in 2000, as well as Climate Challenge in
2006 (Katsaliaki & Mustafee, 2012).
The use of a serious game named ‘‘Bingo’’ was evi-
denced effective in sight word learning and reading
(Kirby et al., 1981). A patented board serious game
could meet participants’ individual needs and improve
the effectiveness of vocabulary acquisition (Burrowes,
2003). Another serious game referred to as ‘‘The SIMS’’
could also significantly improve English vocabulary
learning although the sample was relatively small (Miller
Yu
Table 1. Nine Attributes of Gamified Learning (Bedwell et al., 2012).
Attribute category Definition
Action language The method and interface by which communication
occurs between a player and the game itself
Assessment The method by which accomplishment and game
progress are tracked
Conflict/challenge The problems faced by players, including both the
nature and difficulty of those problems
Control The degree to which players are able to alter the game,
and the degree to which the game alters itself in
response
Environment The representation of the physical surroundings of the
player
Game fiction The fictional game world and story
Human interaction The degree to which players interact with other
players in both space and time
Immersion The affective and perceptual experience of a game
Rules/goals Clearly defined rules, goals, and information on
progress toward those goals, provided to the player
& Hegelheimer, 2006). The plentiful contexts, cognitive
engagements, and virtual language learning situations in
the gamified learning could also act as a stimulus to
improve language learning effectiveness (Ranalli, 2008).
Several studies reported gamified English vocabulary
learning effectiveness. Observers of gamified learning
outperformed players in a computer science class in
terms of vocabulary learning (Dehaan et al., 2010). The
serious game observers could also recall significantly
more English words than the players. Players held that
gameplay was significantly more difficult than observa-
tion (Dehaan et al., 2010). Both game players and
observers performed significantly better than those who
learned English vocabulary through the non-gamified
approach. Gamification could also positively influence
English vocabulary learning of students at different lev-
els of English proficiency (Peterson, 2010). Researchers
explored the design of gaming elements (Deterding et al.,
2011), psychological influence on gamified learning out-
comes (Boyle et al., 2011), and learning outcomes in seri-
ous virtual environments (Wrzesien & Alcaniz Raya,
2010).
In 2012, the research interest of scholars was shifted
to gamification at the workplace out of campus. A study
also explored the factors that influenced gamification in
the business settings, including instructional contents,
3
Examples of gamification
To participate in an online learning activity, students are
now required to use game console controllers (e.g., a
PlayStation controller).
In a learning activity, points are used to track the
number of correct answers obtained by each learner
as each learner completes the activity.
A small group discussion activity is augmented such
that each small group competes for the ‘‘best’’
answer.
A small group discussion activity is restructured such
that each decision made by each small group
influences the next topic that the group will discuss.
A class meeting is moved from a physical classroom to
a 3D virtual world.
Lectures, tests, and discussions are renamed
adventures, monsters, and councils, respectively.
Learners participate in an online system that reports
on their assignment progress to other students as
they work.
When learning about oceanography, the walls of the
classroom are replaced with monitors displaying real-
time images captured from the seafloor.
When completing worksheet assignments on tablet
computers, a progress bar is displayed to indicate
how much of the assignment has been completed.
game dimensions, game cycle, debriefing, perceived edu-
cational worth, acquired learning skills, and intrinsic
motivation (Guillén-Nieto & Aleson-Carbonell, 2012).
Cognitive loads and academic achievements were consid-
ered important factors in gamification, where heavier
cognitive loads could render poorer academic achieve-
ments, and vice versa (Cowley, Heikura, & Ravaja, 2013;
Cowley, Ravaja, & Heikura, 2013). Gamification could
significantly enlarge the range of vocabulary compared
with non-gamified vocabulary learning methods such as
hardcopy texts, lists of words, and multiple-choice ques-
tions (Smith et al., 2013).
The year 2014 witnessed some positive results of the
use of gamification in learning. Gamification could
improve learning outcomes in construction education in
terms of theories and practice, where gamification proved
useful and engaging. Compared with students who did
not learn construction aided with gamification, those
aided with gamification acquired significantly more pro-
cedural and declarative knowledge in the discipline (Dib
& Adamo-Villani, 2014). The less time-consuming gami-
fied vocabulary learning was significantly more effective
than non-gamified English vocabulary learning approach
without gamification (Sandberg et al., 2014). Satisfied
with the gamified English vocabulary learning approach,
they practiced English vocabulary learning adaptively
4 SAGE Open
and independently, and believed they could extend the
range of vocabulary and improve their language percep-
tions (Schamroth & Sara, 2014).
Similarly, in 2015, gamification was also reported ben-
eficial to education. Students held positive attitudes
towards, and positive cognitive and affective perceptions
of gamified education. Compared with quizzes and
adventures, simulations significantly improved the com-
prehension and application of knowledge. Females pos-
sessed significantly higher understandings of negative
feelings of gamification and also held significantly more
positive attitudes toward gamification than males
(Riemer & Schrader, 2015). A real-time analytical serious
game was also positively assessed in terms of teaching
goals and progress (Minovic et al., 2015). Gamification
could facilitate reading comprehension, by which English
vocabulary acquisition could be greatly improved
(Sundqvist & Wikström, 2015). Gamification could also
enhance the retention of English vocabulary so that the
effectiveness of vocabulary learning was improved
(Alshaiji, 2015).
The year 2016 also saw several studies in support of
gamification in education. Gaming easiness and instruc-
tion played a significantly more important role than
gaming enjoyment and motivation in the effect of gamifi-
cation on learning outcomes (Iten & Petko, 2016). In
case that the learning goals were clear and the serious
game was easy to play, learners would concentrate on
the gameplay to complete the task (Y. Wang et al.,
2017). The vocabulary review game-assisted learning
could facilitate English vocabulary learning significantly
more than non-gamified English vocabulary learning
approach without the assistance of gamification
(Hassinger-Das et al., 2016).
Surprises in gaming could lead to learning effective-
ness in terms of proportional reasoning skills (Wouters
et al., 2016). Gamification could render significantly bet-
ter academic achievements and encourage students to
participate in academic activities because gamified peda-
gogy could provide flexible learning without limitations
of time and space (Garneli et al., 2016). Gamified learn-
ing could improve effectiveness in social learning, which
was especially favored by team opinions (Van der Wal
et al., 2016). Therefore, social engagement in the class-
room should be seriously considered in the future gami-
fied design (Bossavit & Parsons, 2018).
A recent study (Cheng et al., 2016) argued that serious
game designers and educators should take into account
several factors to achieve success in gamification. The
factors included backstory and production, realism, arti-
ficial intelligence and adaptivity, interaction, and feed-
back and debriefing. The perceived usefulness of the
game and the interactions also played important roles in
the effective gamification (Malaquias et al., 2018).
Gamification could also increase players’ cognitive abil-
ities and enhance their positive learning effect (Lamb
et al., 2018).
Gamification could improve recollection of vocabu-
lary, and promote vocabulary transferability in authentic
contexts, by which English vocabulary acquisition could
be enhanced (Franciosi, 2017). Serious game players
could facilitate vocabulary learning by using learning
strategies, including repetitions of vocabulary, contextual
inferences, convenient communication, and animated
visualization in authentic situations (Ebrahimzadeh,
2017). The recollection and transferability could be indis-
pensable abilities to enhance the range of vocabulary.
Students who possess these abilities could organize the
structures of vocabulary and practice them frequently,
leading to improved vocabulary skills in different
contexts.
Additionally, the interactivity of serious games could
influence the vocabulary learning effectiveness to a large
extent (Ebrahimzadeh & Alavi, 2016), as well as design
features of gamification such as age and linguistic back-
grounds (M. Chen et al., 2018). The interactivity-oriented
serious game could significantly improve English vocabu-
lary acquisition than the less interactive one and the lat-
ter could significantly facilitate English vocabulary
acquisition than the non-gamified vocabulary acquisition
(Yu, 2018). A reasonable amount of, rather than exces-
sive or inadequate, player anxiety and mental effort
could also improve the vocabulary learning effectiveness
(Hsu, 2017; Khowaja & Salim, 2018).
Furthermore, another serious game, referred to as
Vocabulary.com, could promisingly extend the range of
vocabulary knowledge, although it did not lead to gains
in highly risky test results (McGregor et al., 2019).
Assisted with Persian-language word exercise games,
phonological mistakes correction training could improve
the spelling skills of students with dyslexia (Zare et al.,
2020). Language and structural features, and featuring
word games of Lewis Carroll were directly correlated
with the cell/cell and cell/matrix recognition processes
(Faria, 2020). The game features could improve the rec-
ognition of vocabulary, coupled with vocabulary
acquisition.
However, there are still inconsistent findings of the
effect of gamification on English vocabulary learning. It
was found that students in the treatment group learned
significantly less gaming knowledge than the control
group when the latter experienced active learning
(Sitzmann, 2011), while the opposite findings were
revealed by Wouters et al. (2016) who concluded that
gamification improved learning effectiveness significantly
more than the passive instruction. Single-game player
conditions failed to demonstrate significantly superior to
non-game control conditions in terms of learning
Yu
outcomes. Furthermore, no significant and consistent
correlation between gameplay duration and learning
effect was found although a proper, rather than a long,
duration of gameplay might be effective in learning. It
was argued that a single-player game might be more
effective than collaborative gameplay. However, it was
also concluded that the competitive single-player game
was reported most ineffective (Clark et al., 2014).
Gamification reportedly enhanced student motivation,
instead of knowledge gain (Connolly et al., 2012), which
was echoed by Boyle et al. (2016). Although the above
findings are out of date, they still provide evidences
against the effect of gamification on learning outcomes.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Considering the inconsistent findings in the past research
into gamification, learning outcomes, levels of motiva-
tion, and satisfaction of use of gamification remain con-
troversial. The research questions in this study were
therefore raised as: (1) Are learning outcomes in gami-
fied English vocabulary learning significantly better than
in non-gamified English vocabulary learning? (2) Is the
motivation in gamified English vocabulary learning sig-
nificantly stronger than in non-gamified English vocabu-
lary learning? (3) Is the satisfaction in gamified English
vocabulary learning significantly higher than in non-
gamified English vocabulary learning?
We raised three null hypotheses: (1) Learning out-
comes in gamified English vocabulary learning are not
significantly better than in non-gamified English vocabu-
lary learning; (2) The motivation in gamified English
vocabulary learning is not significantly stronger than in
non-gamified English vocabulary learning; (3) The satis-
faction in gamified English vocabulary learning is not
significantly higher than in non-gamified English voca-
bulary learning.
The three alternative hypotheses are put forward as:
(1) Learning outcomes in gamified English vocabulary
learning are significantly better than in non-gamified
English vocabulary learning; (2) The motivation in gami-
fied English vocabulary learning is significantly stronger
than in non-gamified English vocabulary learning; (3)
The satisfaction in gamified English vocabulary learning
is significantly higher than in non-gamified English voca-
bulary learning.
Research Methods
A quasi-experimental mixed design was adopted to deter-
mine the variables of motivation, satisfaction, and learn-
ing outcomes in both the gamified and non-gamified
English vocabulary learning approaches. Two experi-
ments were involved in the study, as well as a semi-
5
structured interview. The former aims to collect quantita-
tive data, while the latter aims to collect qualitative data.
In an experiment, an extraneous variable is any vari-
able that researchers are not investigating that can poten-
tially affect the outcomes of the research study. If left
uncontrolled, extraneous variables can lead to inaccurate
conclusions about the relationship between independent
and dependent variables. Therefore, the same researchers
conducted both experiments in the same classrooms to
minimize the effect of extraneous variables.
Participants
In both experiments, all the participants, normal in lit-
eracy and psychology, agreed to participate in the experi-
ments by signing the consent form. They were all
informed that the obtained data would be merely used in
this study and their personal information would remain
confidential. All of them received proper rewards after
they completed the corresponding tasks.
In the first experiment, participants were randomly
selected from a public university located in Beijing,
China, who were divided into two cohorts: Cohorts A
and B. Cohort A (N = 35), where there were 6 males and
29 females, learned English vocabulary assisted with a
gamified app—Kingsoft Powerword, while Cohort B
(N = 36), where there were 5 males and 31 females,
learned English vocabulary through non-gamified voca-
bulary learning approach. The age in both cohorts ran-
ged from 18 to 21 (M = 20.10, SD = 0.943). The
learning process endured for one semester. All the parti-
cipants’ ranges of English vocabulary were tested
through pre-and post-vocabulary tests.
In the second experiment, the same participants as in
the first experiment were all required to finish filling pre-
and post-questionnaires aiming to determine levels of
satisfaction and motivation of gamified English vocabu-
lary learning. They were all informed that the obtained
data would merely be used in the study and their per-
sonal information would remain confidential. They all
agreed to participate in the study by signing the consent
form.
Research Instruments
The research instruments used in this study include an
English vocabulary test, a scale to identify the motiva-
tion level, and a scale to determine the satisfaction level.
The English Vocabulary Test. CET 4 has been evidenced
reliable and valid to determine test-takers’ vocabulary
range since her birth in the year 1987 (B. A. Wang,
2004). The English vocabulary test, composed of thirty
multiple-choice test items, was adapted from College
6 SAGE Open
English Test Band Four (CET4). Each test item was
made of a statement with one or more blanks, followed
by four options. Test-takers were required to select an
option to complete the statement. An example is ‘‘The
early pioneers had to ____ many hardships to settle on
the new land. A. go into B. go through C. go back on D.
go along with (June, 2000).’’ The correct answer is B. In
case test-takers choose B, they will obtain 1 point.
Otherwise, they will obtain 0 point.
The Scale to Identify the Motivation Level. The level of
motivation will be identified based on self-efficacy and
intrinsic value. The scale of self-efficacy, made of nine
items, was revised on the basis of the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich
et al., 1991), followed by a 5-point Likert scale scoping
from strongly disagree, disagree, unknown, agree, to
strongly agree. Participants will obtain 1 point for choos-
ing strongly disagree, 2 points for disagree, 3 points for
unknown, 4 points for agree, and 5 points for strongly
agree. MSLQ was evidenced internally reliable (.89 \ a
\ .93; e.g., Pintrich et al., 1991). The intrinsic value scale
was also revised based on MSLQ, which contained nine
items, followed by a 5-point Likert Scale, ranging from
strongly disagree, disagree, unknown, agree, to strongly
agree. Participants will be scored based on the same
method as in the scale of self-efficacy.
The Scale to Determine the Satisfaction Level. Levels of
satisfaction are positively correlated with levels of inter-
action and self-regulation (Yu, 2015). This study, there-
fore, determines the level of satisfaction by integrating it
into interaction and self-regulation. Three dimensions,
that is, satisfaction, interaction, and self-regulation (Yu,
2015) were used to determine the level of satisfaction of
gamified English vocabulary learning in this study. The
satisfaction, interaction, and self-regulation scales are
composed of seven, five, and four questions respectively.
All the questions are followed by a 5-Likert scale, that is,
strongly disagree, disagree, unknown, agree, and strongly
agree. Participants will be scored based on the same
method as in the scale of self-efficacy.
The Kingsoft Powerword. The Kingsoft Powerword,
designed and produced by Kingsoft Software Company,
supports mutual translation between many languages
such as Chinese, English, French, Korean, Japanese,
Spanish, and German. It has been frequently consulted
by approximately 20 million users and 50,000 organiza-
tions. It can be installed on most electronic devices
including mobile or handheld devices such as smart-
phones (both Android and iPhone versions), and iPods.
It can also be installed on personal computers. It can
help learners acquire foreign language words by
providing vivid pictures, fun stories, dynamic and native
listening materials, interesting videos, and bookstores
where varieties of e-books are accessible (Hu & Lei,
2022).
Learners can also learn words by simply clicking
‘‘word learning.’’ Then learners can access vast word
banks. They can match words in different languages by
connecting them, doing multiple choices, listening to
radios and standard pronunciation, or doing dictations.
They can also access various kinds of words for playing
games such as Hero Union. When learning the gaming
words, they can also use various methods such as radio
listening, word matching, and word recollection through
listening (Figure 1).
They can play games after learning related words, by
which the acquired words may be stored in the mind for
longer. They can also play games by joining the vocabu-
lary test games, which contributes to rankings of final
scores. The range of vocabulary can be obtained through
vocabulary games, whose results are revealed to partici-
pants via rankings. In the match, game learners could
match the words, pictures, explanations, or definitions to
check if they are familiar with the meanings of the
words. All of their learning behaviors will automatically
be saved as references or reminders for their further
learning. If they attempt to skip over a unit, an alert will
instantly arrive for them to confirm the operation.
Whenever they log in to the Kingsoft Powerword, they
will receive a reward such as increased points, or heigh-
tened user level. Once they fail to log in, they will be
warned. Learners can also select the favored system
response by revising the settings.
A Semi-Structured Interview. The semi-structured inter-
view is composed of three sections. The first section aims
to collect demographic information including gender,
age, and educational level. The second section, the major
part, aims to collect data regarding the levels of motiva-
tion and satisfaction using questions from the question-
naires. The third section is the acknowledgment part,
aiming to extend gratitude to interviewees.
Procedure
The procedure of the study flowed from the first experi-
ment, the second experiment to the semi-structured inter-
view (see Figure 2).
In the first experiment, both Cohorts A and B experi-
enced pre-and post-vocabulary tests, with a period of a
four-month semester. The pre-vocabulary test was admi-
nistered in the first week of the semester, and the post-
vocabulary test was administered in the final week of the
semester. During the semester, Cohort A learned English
vocabulary aided with the Kingsoft Powerword, while
Yu
Figure 1. The interface of Kingsoft Powerword.
Figure 2. Research procedure.
Cohort B learned English vocabulary aided with printed
dictionaries and paper materials instead of the Kingsoft
Powerword.
In the second experiment, both Cohorts A and B were
required to fill in pre-and post-questionnaires including
7
scales to determine levels of both motivation and satis-
faction. The pre-questionnaire was administered at the
beginning of the semester, while the post-questionnaire
was administered at the end of the semester. After both
experiments, randomly selected voluntary participants
8 SAGE Open

Table 2. Tests of Normality.

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Test Cohort Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

Pre-vocabulary Cohort A 0.196 35 .002 0.850 35 .000

Cohort B 0.196 36 .001 0.868 36 .001
Post-vocabulary Cohort A 0.159 35 .026 0.938 35 .049
Cohort B 0.252 36 .000 0.852 36 .000
Pre-motivation Cohort A 0.200 35 .001 0.935 35 .038
Cohort B 0.148 36 .044 0.938 36 .045
Post-motivation Cohort A 0.123 35 .200 0.959 35 .209
Cohort B 0.166 36 .014 0.946 36 .079
Pre-satisfaction Cohort A 0.150 35 .044 0.935 35 .039
Cohort B 0.138 36 .082 0.929 36 .024
Post-satisfaction Cohort A 0.151 35 .043 0.931 35 .030
Cohort B 0.140 36 .071 0.928 36 .022

a
Lilliefors significance correction.

received interviews in a quiet room, which was recorded
and transcribed for further analysis.
Two experienced researchers independently conducted
and analyzed the interviews. The interview questions
were adapted from the scales measuring learning out-
comes, motivation, and satisfaction in gamified English
vocabulary learning. Themes emerge from the interview
data included the learning outcomes, satisfaction, and
motivation in English vocabulary assisted with gamifica-
tion methods.
Results
The results will be presented according to the sequence of
research hypotheses put forward in this study.
Tests of Assumptions
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests can
be used to test whether the data are normally distributed.
The results are shown in Table 2.
Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests indicate
that most data on vocabulary ranges, motivation, and
satisfaction levels are not normally distributed at the sig-
nificance level p = .05. Specifically, data from pre-and
post-vocabulary tests, pre-motivation, pre-satisfaction in
Cohort A, post-satisfaction in Cohort A are not normally
distributed at the significance level p = .05. Other data
are not consistently distributed, which is determined by
both Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests.
Results of Mann-Whitney U tests
Since the quantitative data obtained from pre-and post-
vocabulary tests and scales to determine both motivation
and satisfaction levels are not normally distributed, a
Mann-Whitney U test, which does not need a normal
distribution of data, was thus conducted to test the null
hypotheses. Another reason for use of the non-
parametric test is that the collected data in this study
also meet the assumptions: (1) The data are continuously
distributed among the population; (2) The participants
were randomly sampled from the populations, and the
obtained data were mutually independent. Running a
Mann-Whitney U test contributes to the data summar-
ized in Table 3.
A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to determine
whether there were significant differences in pre-
vocabulary tests, pre-motivation, and pre-satisfaction
levels between both cohorts. Results (See Table 3) of the
analysis indicated that there were no significant differ-
ences between the treatment (Cohort A) and control
groups (Cohort A) in terms of pre vocabulary tests
(p = .690, Z = 20.399), pre motivation levels (p = .737,
Z = 20.336), and pre satisfaction levels (p = .838,
Z = 20.205) at the significance level p = .05. It is thus
evidenced that there are no significant differences in the
range of vocabulary, motivation, and satisfaction levels
at the beginning of the semester between the treatment
and control groups, which established a baseline for fur-
ther comparative analysis after the treatment.
The Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to deter-
mine whether there were significant differences in post-
vocabulary tests, post-motivation, and post-satisfaction
levels between both cohorts at the significance level
p = .05. Results (see Table 3) of the analysis indicated
that there were significant differences between the treat-
ment (Cohort A) and control groups (Cohort A) in terms
of post-vocabulary tests (p = .003, Z = 22.946), post-
motivation levels (p = .004, Z = 22.918), and post-
satisfaction levels (p = .012, Z = 22.500) at the
Yu 9

Table 3. Results of a Mann-Whitney U Test.

Test Cohort N Mean rank Sum of ranks Z Asymp. Sig. (two-tailed)

Pre-vocabulary Cohort A 35 35.04 1,226.50 20.399 .690

Cohort B 36 36.93 1,329.50
post-vocabulary Cohort A 35 43.09 1,508.00 22.946 .003
Cohort B 36 29.11 1,048.00
Pre-motivation Cohort A 35 36.81 1,288.50 20.336 .737
Cohort B 36 35.21 1,267.50
post-motivation Cohort A 35 43.19 1,511.50 22.918 .004
Cohort B 36 29.01 1,044.50
Pre-satisfaction Cohort A 35 36.50 1,277.50 20.205 .838
Cohort B 36 35.51 1,278.50
post-satisfaction Cohort A 35 42.16 1,475.50 22.500 .012
Cohort B 36 30.01 1,080.50

significance level p = .05. It is thus evidenced that there
are significant differences in the range of vocabulary,
motivation, and satisfaction levels at the end of the seme-
ster between the treatment and control groups.
Therefore, we rejected the null hypotheses at the signifi-
cance level p = .05 that: (1) Learning outcomes in gami-
fied English vocabulary learning are not significantly
better than in non-gamified English vocabulary learning;
(2) The motivation in gamified English vocabulary learn-
ing is not significantly stronger than in non-gamified
English vocabulary learning; and (3) The satisfaction in
gamified English vocabulary learning is not significantly
higher than in non-gamified English vocabulary learning.
Results of the Semi-Structured Interview
Results of the semi-structured interview are generally in
line with previous studies on the vocabulary tests, mea-
surements of motivation (Hong et al., 2022; Qiao et al.,
2022), and satisfaction levels. The majority (.80%) of
interviewees believed that they could gain significantly
better English vocabulary learning outcomes through
Kingsoft Powerword than through non-gamified English
vocabulary learning method. A larger proportion of
interviewees (55%) believed learning English vocabulary
through Kingsoft Powerword was more motivating than
through non-gamified English vocabulary learning
method. Most of them (.90%) prefer Kingsoft
Powerword to non-gamified English vocabulary learning
method in English vocabulary learning because they
believed the former is much more convenient and thus
satisfactory than the latter. Consequently, the results of
the interview also rejected the three null hypotheses.
Discussion
This part will explore rationales for the research results.
It will be discussed based on the sequence of research
hypotheses raised in this study. Learners with gamifica-
tion could outperform their counterparts without gamifi-
cation in terms of learning outcomes, motivation, and
satisfaction. Generally, the results revealed align with the
results of previous research (e.g., Connolly et al., 2012;
Dib & Adamo-Villani, 2014; Riemer & Schrader, 2015).
Rationales for Different Learning Outcomes
English vocabulary learning is a long process of accumu-
lation of knowledge. English vocabulary acquisition is a
fundamental part of English language learning. Merely
knowing the conception of a word does not mean mas-
tery of it. Mastery of a new word does not mean merely
knowing its meaning. Rather, the real mastery of a word
indicates that the learner is able to use it in daily commu-
nication, speaking, and writing and to correctly under-
stand it when listening and reading. Frequent access to
target words is essential for mastery of words. The gami-
fied Kingsoft Powerword, via storytelling, vivid sounds,
animated pictures, interesting games, and native speak-
ers’ recordings, tends to attract students to vocabulary
contacts and learning, which undoubtedly increases the
learning frequency and prolongs the retention of words.
By contrast, under non-gamified English vocabulary
learning model, learners have to carry heavy dictionaries
or paper materials and look for the words when they
would like to decide the meaning of words. This has pos-
sibly decreased the frequency of and shortened the con-
tact period of English vocabulary. Learning outcomes
assisted with gamification are thus reasonably and signif-
icantly better than non-gamified English vocabulary
learning approach. In addition, through vocabulary
games, students could have the opportunity of contact-
ing words that they are familiar with or unfamiliar with,
which could ultimately facilitate the processing of words
in their brains. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude
that learning outcomes in gamified English vocabulary
10
learning are significantly better than in non-gamified
English vocabulary learning.
Rationales for Different Motivation Levels
Motivation often acts as a stimulus that can evoke human
actions, enthusiasm, voluntarism, and goals. The word
‘‘motivation’’ originates from the word ‘‘motive’’ which is
referred to as a sort of need that motivates people to act.
The needs could be cultivated during the interactions with
people, culture, lifestyle, society, and language acquisi-
tion. Motivation could play an important role in the culti-
vation process of needs. Needs could also exert a great
influence on motivation. Positive motivation could facili-
tate the process of satisfying needs. In case that students
hold positive motivation, they will engage in English
vocabulary learning voluntarily, which will be helpful to
enlargement of the range of English vocabulary. On the
contrary, if students negatively assess the situation, they
will be poorly motivated to engage in English vocabulary
learning, which will lead to poor performance in learning
outcomes and lower scores in vocabulary tests.
The gamified Kingsoft Powerword provides students
with opportunities of learning English vocabulary with
convenience, interest, fun, and enjoyment, which ultimately
improves the learning outcomes. Non-gamified English
vocabulary learning, however, requires students to carry
heavy dictionaries and printed books. This led to less inter-
est, lower desire, and inconvenience to learn English voca-
bulary, which unquestionably causes lower scores in the
vocabulary tests. This in turn gives rise to the dampened
motivation of English vocabulary learning. Consequently,
it is normal to conclude that the motivation in gamified
English vocabulary learning is significantly stronger than
in non-gamified English vocabulary learning.
Motivation can be divided into both intrinsic and
extrinsic motivations (Wouters et al., 2013). The intrinsic
motivation refers to the self-desire to explore innovative
things, to meet new challenges, to analyze learning compe-
tence, and to acquire new knowledge. It is driven by satis-
faction, needs, desire, or enjoyment, which is hidden in an
individual entity instead of external factors. The extrinsic
motivation, however, is subject to external factors such as
learning tools, materials, pedagogy, and learning settings.
Gamification can firstly positively influence extrinsic
motivation by reasonable teaching designs and flexible
learning models, and secondly, enhance intrinsic motiva-
tion through enhancing learners’ satisfaction.
Rationales for Different Satisfaction Levels
Satisfaction was evidenced positively correlated with
interaction, self-efficacy, and self-regulation. Interaction,
SAGE Open
self-efficacy (Chang et al., 2022), and self-regulation, as
important indicators of satisfaction, proved mutually
and significantly correlated (Yu, 2015). The gamified
vocabulary learning tool could improve three factors.
With Kingsoft Powerword, students could interact with
others by playing the contest game with other learners.
They could compete with each other by taking part in the
vocabulary game, from which rankings of game scores
will be presented as game results. Ranking of the range
of vocabulary can also render interactions with learners.
Rankings could facilitate players’ engagement in the
gameplay process. Strong engagement could certainly
improve learning outcomes, which would enhance stu-
dents’ satisfaction with gamified English vocabulary
acquisition.
With gamification, players can improve their self-
efficacy by actively joining the game-like learning activi-
ties. The games avoid the intense competition and the
psychological nervousness by integrating the elements of
enjoyment and entertainment. This relaxing situation can
release the burden of vocabulary acquisition on learners.
The self-efficacy can then be subconsciously increased
and augmented with the progress of game-like learning
and playing. With enhanced self-efficacy, students can
naturally obtain relatively satisfactory learning outcomes
and academic achievements, in turn improving self-effi-
cacy. In this way, a benign cycle is formed, which is bene-
ficial to the improvements in satisfaction.
During the gameplay process, players’ self-regulation
can also be enhanced. Immersed in the gameplay, very
few distractions can disturb students’ learning. They tend
to possess strong self-regulation when playing games,
especially when they are competing with other peers. In
non-gamified English vocabulary learning, they tend to
complain about the boring and dull vocabulary recitation
and feel easily distracted. Their self-regulation will thus
be weak, followed by dissatisfaction with the learning
experience. The game-like learning process is attractive
due to its variety of programs such as word matching,
word contest, rich pictures, and vivid recordings.
There are still many other factors that possibly exert a
great influence on the satisfaction of English vocabulary
acquisition, such as game design, the difficulty of voca-
bulary, learning environment, and instructional
approach. Interaction, self-efficacy, and self-regulation
have, however, been demonstrated reliable and valid fac-
tors that determine the level of satisfaction (Yu, 2015).
With the improved interaction, self-efficacy, and self-reg-
ulation, students’ satisfaction will be enhanced with
English vocabulary learning process. It is, therefore, rea-
sonable to find that the satisfaction in gamified English
vocabulary learning is significantly stronger than in non-
gamified English vocabulary learning.
Yu
Challenges in Gamified English Vocabulary Learning
Despite benefits of gamified vocabulary learning, chal-
lenges such as handwriting sense and spelling difficulties
may draw researchers’ attention. Although spelling and
handwriting are different steps, they are closely related
(Martinez-Garcia et al., 2021). With Kingsoft
Powerword, students do not need to spell an exact word
since the system can automatically complete the whole
word if a proper reminder is provided. In this way, stu-
dents’ spelling abilities may be reduced. Their handwrit-
ing skills may also be weakened since they do not need
to handwrite any word in the gamification-assisted con-
texts. Researchers could make every effort to overcome
these obvious challenges facing gamified English vocabu-
lary learning.
Conclusion
This part includes major findings, limitations of this
study, and future research directions.
Major Findings
Two experiments, as well as a semi-structured interview,
were administered to the randomly selected participants.
The major findings of this study are that learning out-
comes, levels of motivation, and satisfaction in gamified
English vocabulary learning are significantly higher than
in non-gamified English vocabulary learning.
Limitations
Serious games are of many kinds. Gamification in this
study is limited to Kingsoft Powerword, which may lead
to random errors in the result. The disproportion of
males and females may also be a negative factor influen-
cing the reliability of results.
Future Research Directions
Future research could include various serious games to
testify the effect of gamification on English vocabulary
learning. Interdisciplinary cooperation (Yu et al., 2020)
between linguistics, statistics, education, and computer
technology could also be implemented to study the effect
of gamification.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
11
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
This work is supported by 2019 MOOC of Beijing Language
and Culture University (MOOC201902) (Important)
‘‘Introduction to Linguistics’’; ‘‘Introduction to Linguistics’’ of
online and offline mixed courses in Beijing Language and
Culture University in 2020; Special fund of Beijing Co-con-
struction Project-Research and reform of the ‘‘Undergraduate
Teaching Reform and Innovation Project’’ of Beijing higher
education in 2020-innovative ‘‘multilingual + ’’ excellent talent
training system (202010032003); The research project of
Graduate Students of Beijing Language and Culture University
‘‘Xi Jinping: The Governance of China’’ (SJTS202108).
ORCID iD
Zhonggen Yu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3873-980X
References
Abt, C. C. (1970). Serious games. The Viking Press.
Alsawaier, R. S. (2018). The effect of gamification on motiva-
tion and engagement. International Journal of Information
and Learning Technology, 35(1), 56–79. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJILT-02-2017-0009
Alshaiji, O. A. (2015). Video games promote Saudi children’s
English vocabulary retention. Education, 136(2), 123–132.
Bedwell, W. L., Pavlas, D., Heyne, K., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas,
E. (2012). Toward a taxonomy linking game attributes to
learning: An empirical study. Simulation & Gaming: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 43, 729–760. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1046878112439444
Bossavit, B., & Parsons, S. (2018). Outcomes for design and
learning when teenagers with autism codesign a serious
game: A pilot study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
34(3), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12242
Boyle, E. A., Connolly, T. M., & Hainey, T. (2011). The role of
psychology in understanding the impact of computer games.
Entertainment Computing, 2(2), 69–74. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.entcom.2010.12.002
Boyle, E. A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Gray, G., Earp, J.,
Ott, M., Lim, T., Ninaus, M., Ribeiro, C., & Pereira, J.
(2016). An update to the systematic literature review of
empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of com-
puter games and serious games. Computers & Education, 94,
178–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.003.
Burrowes, S. D. (2003). Method and board game for teaching
vocabulary (US, US6598878).
Chang, C. Y., Chung, M. H., & Yang, J. C. (2022). Facilitating
nursing students’ skill training in distance education via
online game-based learning with the watch-summarize-
question approach during the COVID-19 pandemic: A
quasi-experimental study. Nurse Education Today, 109,
105256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105256
Chen, H. J. H., & Hsu, H. L. (2020). The impact of a serious
game on vocabulary and content learning. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 33(7), 811–832. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09588221.2019.1593197
12
Chen, M., Tseng, W., & Hsiao, T. (2018). The effectiveness of
digital game-based vocabulary learning: A framework-based
view of meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Tech-
nology, 49(1), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12526
Cheng, M. T., Lin, Y. W., She, H. C., & Kuo, P. C. (2016). Is
immersion of any value? Whether, and to what extent, game
immersion experience during serious gaming affects science
learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2),
246–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12386
Clark, D., Tanner-Smith, E., & Killingsworth, S. (2014). Digi-
tal games, design and learning: A systematic review and meta-
analysis (executive summary). SRI International. https://
doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582065
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., &
Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empiri-
cal evidence on computer games and serious games. Com-
puters & Education, 59(2), 661–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2012.03.004.
Cowley, B., Heikura, T., & Ravaja, N. (2013). Learning loops-
interactions between guided reflection and experience-based
learning in a serious game activity. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 29(4), 348–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jcal.12013
Cowley, B., Ravaja, N., & Heikura, T. (2013). Cardiovascular
physiology predicts learning effects in a serious game activ-
ity. Computers & Education, 60(1), 299–309. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.014
Dehaan, J. W., Reed, W. M., & Kuwada, K. (2010). The effect
of interactivity with a music video game on second language
vocabulary recall. Language Learning and Technology,
14(2), 74–94. https://doaj.org/article/35e1082a0281418b956
8ab7f7d8c95bf
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, Sep-
tember 28–30). From game design elements to gamefulness:
Defining ‘‘gamification’’ [Conference session]. 15th interna-
tional academic MindTrek conference on envisioning future
media environments-MindTrek ’11, Tampere, Finland
(pp. 9–15). https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
Dib, H., & Adamo-Villani, N. (2014). Serious sustainability
challenge game to promote teaching and learning of build-
ing sustainability. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering,
28(5), A4014007. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-
5487.0000357
Ebrahimzadeh, M. (2017). Readers, players, and watchers:
EFL students’ vocabulary acquisition through digital video
games. English Language Teaching, 10(2), 1–18. https://doi.
org/10.5539/elt.v10n2p1
Ebrahimzadeh, M., & Alavi, S. (2016). Motivating EFL stu-
dents: E-learning enjoyment as a predictor of vocabulary
learning through digital video games. Cogent Education, 3,
1255400. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1255400
Faria, M. (2020). Word games and molecular recognition: The
creative control of endothelial cell function. Biosystems, 187,
104041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2019.104041
Franciosi, S. J. (2017). The effect of computer game-based
learning on FL vocabulary transferability. Educational Tech-
nology & Society, 20(1), 123–133.
Garneli, V., Giannakos, M., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2016).
Serious games as a malleable learning medium: The effects
SAGE Open
of narrative, gameplay, and making on students’ perfor-
mance and attitudes. British Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy, 48(3), 842–859. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12455
Govender, T., & Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2021). An analysis of
game design elements used in digital game-based language
learning. Sustainability, 13(12), 6679. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su13126679
Gray, J. H., Bulat, J., Jaynes, C., & Cunningham, S. A. A.
(2009). LeapFrog learning design: Playful approaches to lit-
eracy, from LeapPad to the tag reading system. In D. Allison
(Ed.), Mobile technology for children (pp. 171–194). Elsevier
Inc.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374900-0.00009-0
Guillén-Nieto, V., & Aleson-Carbonell, M. (2012). Serious
games and learning effectiveness: The case of it’s a deal!
Computers & Education, 58(1), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compedu.2011.07.015
Hassinger-Das, B., Ridge, K., Parker, A., Golinkoff, R. M.,
Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Dickinson, D. K. (2016). Building voca-
bulary knowledge in preschoolers through shared book
reading and gameplay. Mind Brain & Education, 10(2),
71–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12103
Hong, Z. W., Shen, W. W., Chin, K. Y., & Chen, Y. L. (2022).
The impact of a hidden object game on english vocabulary
learning and motivation. Journal of Internet Technology, 23(1),
73–78. https://doi.org/10.53106/160792642022012301007
Hsu, T. C. (2017). Learning English with augmented reality:
Do learning styles matter? Computers & Education, 106,
137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.007
Hu, D., & Lei, H. (2022). Research on the design scheme of
industrial English vocabulary App based on smart phone.
Modern English, 4, 119–122.
Iten, N., & Petko, D. (2016). Learning with serious games: Is
fun playing the game a predictor of learning success? British
Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 151–163. https://
doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12226
Juan, A. C. H., Manuel, P. D., & Juan, M. D. (2017). Skill
assessment in learning experiences based on serious games:
A systematic mapping study. Computers & Education, 113,
42–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.008
Katsaliaki, K., & Mustafee, N. (2012, December 9–12). A sur-
vey of serious games on sustainable development. In C. Lar-
oque, J. Himmelspach, R. Pasupathy, O. Rose, & A. M.
Uhrmacher (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simula-
tion Conference, Berlin, Germany (pp. 1–13). https://doi.
org/10.1109/WSC.2012.6465182
Khowaja, K., & Salim, S. S. (2018). Serious game for children
with autism to learn vocabulary: An experimental evalua-
tion. International Journal of Human-computer Interaction,
3, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2017.1420006
Kirby, K. C., Holborn, S. W., & Bushby, H. T. (1981). Word
game bingo: A behavioral treatment package for improving
textual responding to sight words. Journal of Applied Beha-
vior Analysis, 14(3), 317. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1981.
14-317
Klabbers, J. H. G. (2009). Terminological ambiguity: Game and
simulation. Simulation & Gaming: An Interdisciplinary Jour-
nal, 40, 446–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878108325500
Lai, K. W. K., & Chen, H. J. H. (2021). A comparative study
on the effects of a VR and PC visual novel game on
Yu
vocabulary learning. Computer assisted language learning.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09588221.2021.1928226
Lamb, R. L., Annetta, L., & Firestone, J. (2018). A meta-
analysis with examination of moderators of student cogni-
tion, affect, and learning outcomes while using serious edu-
cational games, serious games, and simulations. Computers
in Human Behavior, 80, 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2017.10.040
Lameras, P., Arnab, S., Dunwell, I., Stewart, C., Clarke, S., &
Petridis, P. (2017). Essential features of serious games design
in higher education: Linking learning attributes to game
mechanics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4),
972–994. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12467
Landers, R. N. (2014). Developing a theory of gamified learn-
ing. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 752–768. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1046878114563660
Malaquias, R. F., Malaquias, F. F. O., & Hwang, Y. (2018).
Understanding technology acceptance features in learning
through a serious game. Computers in Human Behavior, 87,
395–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.008
Martinez-Garcia, C., Afonso, O., Cuetos, F., & Suarez-
Coalla, P. (2021). Handwriting production in Spanish chil-
dren with dyslexia: Spelling or motor difficulties? Reading
and Writing, 34(3), 565–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11145-020-10082-w
McGregor, K. K., Marshall, B. A., Julian, S. K., & Oleson, J.
(2019). Learning while playing: A randomized trial of seri-
ous games as a tool for word mastery. Language Speech and
Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 596–608. https://doi.org/
10.1044/2019_LSHSS-VOIA-18-0121
Michael, D., & Chen, S. (2005). Serious games: Games that edu-
cate, train, and inform. Thomson Course Technology.
Miller, M., & Hegelheimer, V. (2006). The SIMS meet ESL:
Incorporating authentic computer simulation games into
the language classroom. International Journal of Interactive
Technology and Smart Education, 3(4), 311–328. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17415650680000070
Minovic, M., Milovanovic, M., & Sosevic, U. (2015). Visualisa-
tion of student learning model in serious games. Computers
in Human Behavior, 47, 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2014.09.005
Nazry, N. N. M., & Romano, D. M. (2017). Mood and learning
in navigation-based serious games. Computers in Human Beha-
vior, 73, 596–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.040
Peterson, M. (2010). Massively multiplayer online role-playing
games as arenas for second language learning. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 23(5), 429–439. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09588221.2010.520673
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.
J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies
for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). National Center for
Research to Improve Post-secondary Teaching and Learn-
ing, The University of Michigan.
Qiao, S., Yeung, S. S. S., Shen, X. A., & Chu, S. K. W. (2022).
The effects of a gamified morphological awareness interven-
tion on students’ cognitive, motivational and affective out-
comes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53,
952–976. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13178
13
Ranalli, J. (2008). Learning English with The Sims: Exploiting
authentic computer simulation games for L2 learning. Com-
puter Assisted Language Learning, 21(5), 441–455. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09588220802447859
Rice, J. W. (2007). Assessing higher order thinking in video games.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 87.
Riemer, V., & Schrader, C. (2015). Learning with quizzes, simu-
lations, and adventures: Students’ attitudes, perceptions and
intentions to learn with different types of serious games.
Computers & Education, 88, 160–168. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compedu.2015.05.003
Sandberg, J., Maris, M., & Hoogendoorn, P. (2014). The added
value of a gaming context and intelligent adaptation for a
mobile learning application for vocabulary learning. Com-
puters & Education, 76(3), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2014.03.006
Schamroth, A. S., & Sara, W. (2014). Gamified vocabulary:
Online resources and enriched language learning. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/
10.1002/jaal.315
Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the
instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation
games. Personnel Psychology, 64, 489–528. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x
Smith, G. G., Li, M., Drobisz, J., Park, H. R., Kim, D., &
Smith, S. D. (2013). Play games or study? computer games
in eBooks to learn English vocabulary. Computers & Educa-
tion, 69(4), 274–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.
2013.07.015
Sundqvist, P., & Wikström, P. (2015). Out-of-school digital game-
play and in-school L2 English vocabulary outcomes. System,
51, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.001
Van der Wal, M. M., de Kraker, J., & Kroeze, C. (2016). Can
computer models be used for social learning? A serious game
in water management. Environmental Modeling & Software,
75, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.10.008
Wang, B. A. (2004). Classic structure and vocabulary test items.
College English, 2, 30–32.
Wang, Y., Rajan, P., Sankar, C. S., & Raju, P. K. (2017). Let
them play: The impact of mechanics and dynamics of a seri-
ous game on student perceptions of learning engagement.
IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(4),
514–525. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2016.2639019
Wilson, K. A., Bedwell, W. L., Lazzara, E. H., Salas, E., Burke,
C. S., Estock, J., Orvis, K. L., & Conkey, C. (2009). Rela-
tionships between game attributes and learning outcomes:
Review and research proposals. Simulation & Gaming: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 40, 217–266. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1046878108321866
Wouters, P., Oostendorp, H. V., Vrugte, J. T., Vandercruysse,
S., Jong, T. D., & Elen, J. (2016). The effect of surprising
events in a serious game on learning mathematics. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 860–877. https://
doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12458
Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van
der Spek, E. D. (2013, February 4). A meta-analysis of the
cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 249–265. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0031311
14
Wrzesien, M., & Alcaniz Raya, M. (2010). Learning in serious
virtual worlds: Evaluation of learning effectiveness and
appeal to students in the E-Junior project. Computers &
Education, 55(1), 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.com-
pedu.2010.01.003
Yu, Z. (2015). Indicators of satisfaction in clickers-aided EFL
class. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 587. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11528-017-0169-1
Yu, Z. (2018). Differences in serious game-aided and traditional
English vocabulary acquisition. Computers & Education, 127,
214–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.014.
Yu, Z. (2019). A meta-analysis of use of serious games in edu-
cation over a decade. International Journal of Computer
SAGE Open
Games Technology, 1, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/
4797032.
Yu, Z., Gao, M., & Wang, L. (2020). The effect of educational
games on learning outcomes, student motivation, engage-
ment and satisfaction. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 59(3), 522–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/073563312
969214
Zare, M., Amani, M., & Sadooghi, M. (2020). The role of Per-
sian-language word exercise games in improving spelling of
students with dyslexia: Word exercise games in improving
spelling. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(3),
315–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12400.