BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO

TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC KINH TẾ TP. HỒ CHÍ MINH

CÔNG TRÌNH DỰ THI

GIẢI THƯỞNG
ĐỀ TÀI MÔN HỌC XUẤT SẮC UEH500 NĂM 2022

TÊN CÔNG TRÌNH: THE FACTORS AFFECTING UEH

STUDENTS’ ENGAGEMENT IN LEARNING WHEN
APPLYING GAMIFICATION IN EDUCATION

ĐỀ TÀI THUỘC KHOA/VIỆN: TOÁN - THỐNG KÊ

MSĐT (Do BTC ghi):

TP. Hồ Chí Minh - 2022

 I

ABSTRACT
In higher education, the teaching and learning process has evolved, and numerous
strategies have been created to support student-centered learning. Gamification, often
known as game-based learning, is one of the most widely used strategies to improve
students' classroom experiences. However, there is a dearth of understanding among
educators, and there is a lot of concern about whether gamification improves the learning
process and student’s engagement. Therefore, in order to clearly understand that the
application of gamification in education can help instill students’ engagement, the
authors have conducted a study on the topic “The factors affecting UEH students’
engagement in learning when applying gamification in education”. From there,
understand those causes and suggest remedial measures to the university to bring
maximum quality for the course in the next semester.

The topic is based on the theoretical bases given by the authors with key
influencing factors such as Perceived Usefulness and Attitude, Perceived Ease of Use,
Skill Engagement and Interaction Engagement. With the data obtained from a sample
of 180 students from courses 44, 45, 46 and of UEH University, the research results
showed that Perceived Usefulness and Attitude, Skill Engagement, and Interaction
Engagement are strongly correlated with students' engagement. The remaining factors
are not considered to have a significant impact on students' engagement. Based on that
result, our research team has proposed some measures to improve the quality of the
course applied gamification to enhance the engagement of students from all over the
country.
 II

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Reason (Problem Statement)
Higher education in Vietnam is undergoing a tremendous shift, with content,
teaching techniques, and learning methods all changing. Information technology has
significantly impacted all aspects of life in the industrial age 4.0. Education has
progressed due to advances in current computer and network technologies (L. Li, 2014).
Using information technology in the classroom to improve the quality and effectiveness
of teaching and learning is inevitable. In which the application of Gamification in
education is increasingly popular as game culture spreads among a large percentage of
the world's population.

With the growing attention surrounding the use of video game elements in non-
game contexts, Gamification has been defined as the use of game-based mechanics,
aesthetics, and introspection of games to engage people, drive action, promote learning,
and solve problems” (Kapp, 2013, p. 125). Pedagogical application of Gamification to
promote learning with digital game mechanics, including but not limited to avatars,
badges, points, levels, leaderboards, and virtual rewards.

In a typical classroom environment, learners will need to maintain at least three

core interactions: interacting with the teacher, interacting with classmates, and
interacting with the lesson content. These multi-dimensional interactions are the key to
maintaining students' interest and initiative in acquiring knowledge. Meanwhile, with
the traditional learning method, the lessons now no longer bring much interest to the
students because of the purely theoretical nature, and more importantly, this leads to a
lack of interaction among the students. Most of the students passively absorb knowledge
from the teacher, thus leading to a serious problem of not understanding the lesson and
not remembering what they have been taught. The lack of competitive interaction does
not motivate students because they are not much aware of their level compared to their
peers, and therefore lack motivation to accomplish common goals. As traditional
learning began to show cracks in the surface, alternative forms of education began to
become more present. This is essentially a development as a response to the lack of
information and diversity in traditional methods.
 III

As a result, the effectiveness of learning and students’ engagement in learning

becomes a matter of concern for universities in particular and society in general. With
the learner-centered principle, Gamification helps learners to overcome all the above
difficulties since it personalizes the journey – a feature commonly found in role-playing
game genres has now been creatively incorporated into the 4.0 classroom model.
Although the purpose is the same as the traditional classroom, the learning programs are
innovatively improved through Gamification, creating a common playground for
students to connect and compete for rankings and prizes. The above factor is expected
to increase interaction between classmates, even on online platforms. Gamification is an
enjoyable teaching strategy that allows for repetition in a pleasurable atmosphere for
pupils (Bayat, Klçaslan, & entürk, 2014; Güler, 2011). Its most significant aspect is the
ability to turn abstract experiences into tangible ones, which can help to bridge the gap
between theoretical learning and applications (Varışoğlu et al., 2013; Öztemiz & Önal,
2013). According to Canbay (2012), gamification allows students to collaborate,
compete, and actively participate in the learning process. However, gamification, like
other teaching approaches, may have significant drawbacks. For the above reasons, we
have chosen to delve into the topic: The effectiveness of applying gamification in
education on UEH students' engagement.

1.2. Aim of research

- Identify factors affecting UEH students' engagement in learning when
Gamification is applied in education.
- Measure the degree of these factors on students' engagement in learning.
- Proposing solutions to help develop Gamification to improve learning efficiency
and students’ engagement in learning.
1.3. Research question:
1. Which factors affect the effectiveness of Gamification in UEH students'
learning?
2. How much do these factors affect the engagement in learning of UEH
students?
3. What suggestions can we suggest to improve Gamification in learning to
increase UEH students’ engagement?
 IV

1.4. Research sample and scope:

1.4.1. Research sample:
Students of UEH University (whose lessons are gamified).
1.4.2. Research scope:
Time: Our group carries out the project after the final exam in the first semester
of 2022 to study the thoughts of UEH students on applying gamification in studying.
From there, give the levels of impact and suggestions to increase the effectiveness level
of applying gamification in UEH University education.
Space: Conduct surveys with students of UEH University by filling out survey
forms.
 V

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................I
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. II
1.1. Reason (Problem Statement)................................................................................ II
1.2. Aim of research ...................................................................................................III
1.3. Research question: ..............................................................................................III
1.4. Research sample and scope:............................................................................... IV
1.4.1. Research sample: ......................................................................................... IV
1.4.2. Research scope: ........................................................................................... IV
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... V
List of Figures ........................................................................................................... VIII
List of Acronyms .......................................................................................................... IX
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. X
CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL BASIS ........................................................................ 1
2.1. Related research ....................................................................................................1
2.2. Literature ...............................................................................................................3
2.2.1. Gamification ...................................................................................................3
2.2.2. Gamification and learning ..............................................................................5
2.2.3. Students’ engagement .....................................................................................6
2.3. Hypothesis.............................................................................................................7
2.4. Proposed research model ....................................................................................11
CHAPTER III: THE METHODOLOGY ..................................................................... 12
3.1. Research methods of the topic ............................................................................12
3.1.1. Methods of analysis and synthesis ...............................................................12
3.1.2. The method of data collection ......................................................................12
3.2. Research process .................................................................................................12
3.3. Quantitative research ..........................................................................................13
3.3.1. Research subject ...........................................................................................13
3.3.2. Sample size ...................................................................................................13
3.3.3. Choose a research sample .............................................................................14
3.3.4. Data collection method .................................................................................14
3.4. Data analysis method ..........................................................................................14
 VI

3.4.1. Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test ...............................................................14

3.4.2. EFA - Exploratory Factor Analysis ..............................................................15
3.4.3. Pearson Correlation Analysis .......................................................................15
3.4.4. Multi-variable Regression Analysis .............................................................16
CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH RESULT ....................................................................... 17
4.1. Descriptive statistics of the survey sample .........................................................17
4.1.1 Batch of students ...........................................................................................17
4.1.2 Student's major ..............................................................................................18
4.1.3 The application of gamification in class ........................................................19
4.1.4 Percentage of class applying gamification ....................................................20
4.1.5 Which game are used in class ........................................................................21
4.2. Analytical data from key questions.....................................................................21
4.2.1. Reliability test: Cronbach Alpha ..................................................................21
4.2.2. EFA - exploratory factor analysis.................................................................27
4.2.2.1. Factor Analysis Results for Independent Variable Scales .....................27
4.2.2.2. Factor Analysis Results for Dependent Variable Scales ........................33
4.3. Pearson Correlation .............................................................................................34
4.3.1. The correlation between Perceived Usefulness and Attitude and Students’
Engagement ............................................................................................................34
4.3.2. The correlation between Skills Engagement and Students’ Engagement ....35
4.3.3. The correlation between Perceived Ease of Use and Students’ Engagement
................................................................................................................................35
4.3.4. The correlation between Interaction Engagement and Students’ Engagement
................................................................................................................................35
4.4. Regression Analysis ............................................................................................35
4.4.1. Check the model fit ......................................................................................35
4.4.2. Normality testing for residuals .....................................................................38
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................................... 42
5.1. Conclusion ..........................................................................................................42
5.2. Recommendation ................................................................................................42
5.3. Limitation and Development ..............................................................................43
5.3.1. Limitation .....................................................................................................43
5.3.2. Development.................................................................................................43
 VII

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 45
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. 49
Appendix 1: The content of the survey ......................................................................49
Appendix 2: Result of Cronbach Alpha .....................................................................55
Appendix 3: Result of EFA........................................................................................57
Appendix 4: Result of Pearson Correlation and Regression Analysis .......................60
 VIII

List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Proposed research model 11
Figure 3.1: Research process 13
Figure 4.1. Batch of students 17
Figure 4.2. UEH students’ major 18
Figure 4.3. The application of gamification in class 19
Figure 4.4. Percentage of class applying gamification 20
Figure 4.5. Games used in class 21
Figure 4.6. Normalized Residual Frequency chart Histogram 38
Figure 4.7. Normalized Residual Frequency chart Normal P-P Plot 39
Figure 4.8. Normalized Residual Frequency chart Scatterplot 40
 IX

List of Acronyms
SE Students' Engagement
PUA Perceived Usefulness and Attitude
PEU Perceived Ease of Use
S Skill Engagement
IE Interaction Engagement
 X

List of Tables

Table 2.1. Table of previous researches ..........................................................................1

Table 4.1. Table of results to evaluate the reliability of the scale “Perceived Usefulness
and Attitude” .................................................................................................................21
Table 4.2. Table of results to evaluate the reliability of the scale “Perceived Ease of use”
.......................................................................................................................................23
Table 4.3. Table of results to evaluate the reliability of the scale “Skill Engagement”
.......................................................................................................................................24
Table 4.4. Table of results to evaluate the reliability of the scale “Interaction
Engagement” .................................................................................................................25
Table 4.5. Table of results to evaluate the reliability of the scale “Students’ Engagement”
.......................................................................................................................................26
Table 4.6. Results of KMO and Bartlett tests of independent variables (1) ................28
Table 4.7. Result of EFA (1) .........................................................................................28
Table 4.8. Results of KMO and Bartlett tests of independent variables (2) .................30
Table 4.9. Result of EFA (2) .........................................................................................31
Table 4.10. Results of KMO and Bartlett tests of dependent variables ........................33
Table 4.11. Result of EFA .............................................................................................33
Table 4.12. Pearson Correlation Table ..........................................................................34
Table 4.13. Model Fit Table ..........................................................................................35
Table 4.14. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) table ........................................................37
Table 4.15. Regression Table ........................................................................................40

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL BASIS
2.1. Related research
Table 2.1. Table of previous researches1
No Name of Research
1 Raed S Alsawaier, "The
Effect of Gamification on
Motivation and
Engagement", The
International Journal of
Information and Learning
Technology
2 The effectiveness of
gamification technique
for higher education
students engagement
in polytechnic Muadzam
Shah Pahang,
Malaysia (Ab. Rahman et
al, 2018)
3 The development of
gamified learning activities
to
increase student
engagement in learning
(Chanut Poondej and
1
Method/Scale of Content of Research
research
Literature review - A proposed
summarizing the methodology in the
literature review of study of gamification
the relationship effect on motivation and
among in addition to an
gamification, empirical study
motivation, and
engagement
Survey on 50 The research shows the
students, guided by factors of gamification
the researchers techniques that affect
the engagement of
students in higher
education: Perceived
Ease of Use (PEOU) is
a better indicator for
students’ attitude
towards gamification
Empirical The aim of this study
experiment - The was to explore the
quasi-experimental influence of applying
nonequivalent- gamification techniques
control group to increase student
design was used engagement in learning

Thanita Lerdpornkulrat,
2016)
4 Gamification for engaging
computer science students
in learning activities: A
case study. Learning
Technologies, IEEE
Transactions (Ibanex et al,
2014)
5 Leaning, M. (2015). A
study of the use of games
and gamification to
enhance student
engagement, experience,
and achievement on a
theory-based course of an
undergraduate media
degree
6 Imed Bouchrika, Nouzha
2
with 577 They provide empirical
undergraduate support for gamification
students of education and
conclude that students
clearly valued the
engagement of gamified
learning activities.
Empirical Evaluated the impact of
experiment - They gamified learning
designed the activities on student
gamified learning engagement. According
platform by to their experiment, it is
combining game indicated that a
elements of this gamified learning
platform and then environment can engage
used it with students to learn
students
Empirical He examined the use of
experiments games and gamification
to enhance student
engagement in a theory-
based course of an
undergraduate media
degree. The results of
this study did not find
evidence that gamified
learning enhanced the
students’ attainment.
Empirical The obtained results
 3

Harrati, Vanissa Wanick & experiment - The have revealed that

Gary Wills (2019):
Exploring the impact of
gamification on student
engagement and
involvement with e-
learning systems,
Interactive Learning
Environments
gamified platform gamification can be
was integrated considered as a valuable
with the online e- tool to entice users the
learning portal of a uptake of educational
university where systems and increase
the adoption of e- their interactivity and
learning is engagement.
considered
extremely poor,
lasting in 10
months

7 Gamification Applications Qualitative The results show that

in E‑learning: A Literature
Review (Awaz Naaman
Saleem et al, 2021)
approach for gamification has
collected data and increasingly been
literature review accepted as a useful
method to learning tool to generate
determine the more engaging
advantages and educational
challenges of environments.
gamification Additionally, elements
applications in e- support and motivate
learning students to participate in
a gamification system

2.2. Literature
2.2.1. Gamification
The term “Gamification'' has attracted considerable attention in recent years
(McGonigal 2011). The term is first thought to have been used by computer scientist
Nick Pelling in 2002 appearing on his company’s website in late 2002 or early 2003
(Pelling 2011). Since it has been increasingly deployed in literature but became
 4

widespread only in the latter half of 2010 (Deterding et al. 2011). It primarily refers to
an approach to enhancing people’s experience of a service or system through
incorporating game-like experiences into the service or practice. Though Deterding et
al. (2011) note there has not been much attention paid to a coherent definition of
Gamification, a number of attempts have been made. Marczewski (2012, 4) contends
that it consists of ‘The application of gaming metaphors to real-life tasks to influence
behavior, improve motivation and enhance engagement’. Huotari and Hamari (2011, 3)
go further and proffer that Gamification may be defined as ‘a form of service packaging
where a core service is enhanced by a rules-based service system that provides feedback
and interaction mechanisms to the user with an aim to facilitate and support the user’s
overall value creation. Deterding et al. (2011, 1) note that Gamification is ‘the use of
game design elements in non-game contexts. Kapp (2012, 10) defines it as ‘using game-
based mechanics, aesthetics and game thinking to engage people, motivate action,
promote learning and solve problems. Central to these definitions is the understanding
that Gamification is a process applied to an existing service or experience which will
result in a different (and hopefully enhanced) experience for users. Moreover, the
transformations will involve the use of various aspects of games. Typically, these
aspects are understood to involve either game design – the redesign of the entire process
so that it becomes a game or the incorporation of game elements or mechanics so that it
becomes a game in appearance if not the essence. Kapp (2012, 10) contends that true
Gamification only refers to the former category, activities that have been redesigned to
be games while game mechanics deployed to an existing activity are not truly gamified
activities.
Gamification entails adding a new layer to an existing process that integrates a
new level of symbolic or ludic significance above and beyond the task's purely
instrumental activity. The added layer of meaning enhances the user's experience and
motivates them to participate in the altered activity.
Hamari, Koivisto, and Sarsa (2014) note that gamified activities can be
understood to have three main parts: the motivational ‘affordances’ (the opportunities
the actual activities give the subject or the mechanics of the game), the psychological
outcome (the resultant change in feeling about activity during and after the activity) and
the behavioral outcome (the change in behavior following the gamified activity).
 5

2.2.2. Gamification and learning

In terms of Gamification in education, much research has focused on the use of

games to enhance engagement (Paisley 2013; Simões, Redondo, and Vilas 2013) – of
finding ways to motivate students to engage more with the core subject matter that is
“wrapped up” in a gamified activity. Attention has focused on increasing participation
in training, education, and instruction in general (Kapp 2012), various classroom
activities (Charles, Bustard, and Black 2011; Cronk 2012; Kapp 2012; Sheth, Bell, and
Kaiser 2012), and e-learning platforms (Denny 2013).

This focus matches the first category noted by Hamari, Koivisto, and Sarsa
(2014) of motivational affordances; games are used to engage and encourage
participation in an educational activity (Kapp 2012). However, the two other categories:
psychological outcomes and behavioral outcomes tend to be less well served by the
literature on Gamification in education.

This is unfortunate as a significant strand of contemporary research on teaching

in higher education concerns approaches to learning and in particular the differences
between surface and deep learning. While concerned with engagement and motivation
to engage, research on the approaches to learning goes further and considers the lasting
impact upon the student of education in terms of psychological, and intellectual
developmental changes resulting from learning (Cowan 1998; Ramsden 2003).

These are issues that relate directly to the psychological and behavioral outcome
of a gamified activity. In essence, surface learning relates to students gaining only a
superficial understanding of a topic, specific facts, and figures which will serve them in
assessment. Deep learning relates to a more profound, critically aware form of learning
in which students become aware of the structures, main ideas, principles, and forms of
successful application of their knowledge (Biggs and Tang 2007). While these
descriptions of learning were initially understood to relate to the context of student work
– the structured activity in which a student engages (Marton and Säljö 1976) they later
became associated with a particular perspective or even personal learning style the
student would adopt (Schmeck 1988). Biggs and Tang (2007) note that the best approach
lies between these two positions in a combination of both; students may have
 6

predilections for a style but the situation needs to facilitate this. Gamified education may
be understood as providing these facilitations and so in turn the second-stage
psychological outcomes noted by Hamari, Koivisto, and Sarsa (2014) and possibly even
the third-stage behavioral outcomes – future patterns of learning – may be afforded.
That is, the second and third aspects of a successfully gamified activity according
to Hamari, Koivisto, and Sarsa (2014) can be understood to relate explicitly to key
determinants of successful higher education teaching. With a few exceptions only
limited research has been conducted to explore the impact on the psychological and
behavioral outcomes. For the most part, this literature reports positive impacts (Barata
et al. 2013; Denny 2013) though some (Domínguez et al. 2013) raise notes of caution
about the impact on other non-gamified areas of student practice.
2.2.3. Students’ engagement
There are many definitions that arose from numerous studies regarding the term
of students’ engagement. Most literature defined students’ engagement as activities
performed either physically or mentally by the students in their pursuit to gain
knowledge. In a different perspective, a study by Hu et al. defines them as engagement
that occurred when the students used the online learning platform in their lessons, as in
this context; the learning materials can only be accessed by the students themselves.
There are studies that identify the factors contributing to the students’
engagement. According to Mohd et al. and Hu et al., students’ engagement comprises
three dimensions; cognitive, behavioral, and emotional engagement. However, other
studies by Handelsman et al., Dixson , and Marx et al. categorized the students’
engagement into four factors which are skill engagement (represented by students'
skills), emotional engagement (represented by the students' feelings), participation
(represented by students' activities during lessons) and performance engagement
(represented by the result of assessments conducted on the students).In addition, Marx
et al. also listed another engagement which is the total engagement to assess students'
overall participation in one of the college courses.
Several notable influences were recognized based on the literature. The
relationship between the students and educators plays an important factor in students’
engagement. Furthermore, Marx et al. claimed that educators' expectations for student
 7

engagement during lessons can be realized if educators reciprocate this expectation

toward students.
Engagement indicates the passion and emotional involvement in participating in
and completing learning activities (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Kuh (2009) tracked the
evolution of the engagement construct throughout history from meaning the number of
time students spend on a task to the outcome and achievement of learning, the quality
of students' effort, student interaction and immersion in the learning experience, and
finally, his own definition, the amount of quality and effort students invest in the
authentic activity. Notice that the common theme among all definitions Kuh (2009)
discussed is the visible aspect of engagement as it is manifested in the learners’ behavior
and the quality and time they invest in the learning task. However, equal engagement to
time on task is unfair in capturing the full scope of this term. Schlechty (2001) argued
that engagement is not simply synonymous with time on task, but it is “the enthusiasm
and diligence” in doing the task that makes the engagement a reality. Csikszentmihalyi
(1997) emphasized this connection between engagement in a task and the overwhelming
deep involvement of the learners that transcends time and space.
2.3. Hypothesis
- Target: Defining the proposition of the factors that lead to the student's
engagement in gamification.
+ SE1. Makes me feel excited: sometimes receiving a large amount of
knowledge can make learners get bored and gamification can make the
sessions in class a little less boring.
+ SE2. Motivates me to join activities in class: Gamification can improve
the sense of achievement in learning. Completing achievements and
earning points and change them to rewards can motivate learners to keep
joining activities in class
+ SE3. Makes me feel more focused: when learners join class applied
gamification, teachers often have a game at the end of lesson to create a
chance for learners to get bonus points. Therefore, students will be more
focused to the lessons to catch this opportunity to improve their learning
result.
 8

+ SE4. Makes me feel more involved in the lesson: the gaming platform
is a very familiar format, students will easily get lost in the lesson and
enjoy the learning process because they are so engaged.

- H1: The Perceived Usefulness of applying gamification in education and

Students’ Attitude towards gamification has a positive (+) impact on the
engagement of UEH students
+ PUA1. Applying gamification in education helps me absorb
knowledge more quickly: Absorbing knowledge is very important during
joining sessions because it is assimilating that information and having the
capacity to recall and use it as needed. And applying gamification during
the course by answer the questions in games can help absorb knowledge
more quickly.
+ PUA2. Using the online gamification system increases my learning
outcome: Learning outcomes are indispensable when you finish a course
because it measures your ability throughout your course. Therefore,
applying gamification on learning can create good learning outcome
because it creates excitement for learners throughout the learning process.
+ PUA3. Knowing that there is a game at the end of the lesson to
summarize the lesson, helps me to be more motivated to focus: Most
of the games held at the end of the lesson have prizes such as bonus
points... for the winners. Therefore, it motivates students to focus more
on the learning process.
+ PUA4. Using the online gamification system is useful in my learning:
If the students enjoy and have fun during sessions, they will definitely be
motivated to learn more.
+ PUA5. I think it's a good idea to apply gamification in teaching: The
application of gamification has proved its usefulness in teaching. The
students approve it.
+ PUA6. I enjoy learning and playing at the same time: The main feature
of gamification is combining learning and playing in the same package.
The students enjoy experiencing it in their courses.
 9

+ PUA7. I look forward to experiencing the application of this game in

the following subjects and in many other aspects: The experience of
gamification in the past encourages students to have an open mind and
excitement toward gamification in the future.

- H2: The Perceived Ease of Use of applying gamification in education has a

positive (+) impact on the engagement of UEH students
+ PEU1. The games applied in the lesson are quite flexible and easy to
use for me: The purpose of these games is not for mere entertainment but
requires the integration of knowledge to support learners' learning.
Meanwhile, the application of games to the learning process is not really
popular. Therefore, the game needs to be designed to be easy to play so
that students can access it more easily and acquire knowledge without
many obstacles.
+ PEU2. The game's functions and interface are designed to be clear
and intuitive: For many people, using software and applications with
complex interfaces interferes with accessing and learning the necessary
operations. Therefore, the functions and interface of the game are
designed to be intuitive and clear, which will help users easily use, get
used to, and master the operations.
+ PEU3. The interaction in the game is easy to understand and does not
take much time to think: To effectively serve to learn, games are
designed to help players interact with each other. This interaction must be
made accessible so that learners can focus on knowledge and help each
other without spending much time thinking.
+ PEU4. In general, I find the games used are easy to play: When they
have access to these games and learners have a good experience with their
ease of use, learners will tend to be motivated and enjoy more because
there is a new but simple learning method.
- H3: The contribution of applying gamification in education to students’ Skill
Engagement has a positive (+) impact on the engagement of UEH students
 10

+ S1. Gamification helps me take better notes during the lesson: Games
are designed to compress a huge amount of lecture information into small
parts. That encourages students to take notes cleverly for the sake of
information acquisition.
+ S2. Gamification applied in class helps me focus more on listening to
lectures: The duration of a lecture usually takes quite a lot of time. The
gamification’s application plays the role of a little final test. It encourages
them to pay more attention to the lecture.
+ S3. Gamification applied in class helps me regularly review lessons to
master the knowledge: One of the biggest applications of gamification
in teaching is to design a small review quiz at the end or the beginning of
the lecture. In order to fulfill the quiz, they have to review the lessons
regularly.
- H4: The contribution of applying gamification in education to students’
Interaction Engagement has a positive (+) impact on the engagement of UEH
students
+ IE1. Gamification makes me happy in class: Game elements in class
will help students feel happier than just sitting and learning passively.
+ IE2. I actively discuss group questions when there is a game in class:
Questions asked in games will encourage students to discuss with each
other to solve the problems.
+ IE3. Gamification applied in class increases my interaction with
classmates: Games applied in class, especially games that need students
to work together will definitely increase students’ interaction with their
group.
+ IE4. Gamification applied in class increases my interaction with
lecturers: Lecturers are the hosts of most gamification activities in class,
therefore they will create interaction with their students by setting
achievements or giving out rewards after the activities.
 11

2.4. Proposed research model

Figure 2.1 Proposed research model0.1

 12

CHAPTER III: THE METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research methods of the topic

3.1.1. Methods of analysis and synthesis

To analyze the effectiveness of the application of gamification in teaching for

UEH students, the authors have separated each smaller factor to understand the research
object more including the following elements: The Perceived Usefulness of applying
gamification in education, The Perceived Ease of Use of applying gamification,
Students' Attitude towards gamification, Students' Skill Engagement, Students'
Interaction Engagement. In each element, the author's team also divided it into questions
so that the characteristics and nature can be clearly seen.
The synthetic method is the opposite of the analytical method. After having the
judgments and understanding of the nature of the factors, the group conducted a
synthesis to test the influence of the factors on the effectiveness of the application of
gamification in teaching students. UEH students.

3.1.2. The method of data collection

This is the method most people apply and implement in scientific research papers
and the authors have used this method of data collection by referencing and synthesizing
data from relevant research articles that have content related to the influence of
gamification on student's engagement in learning. In addition to collecting from
previous research articles, the authors created a questionnaire and collected directly
from the opinions and evaluation levels of UEH students.
3.2. Research process
 13

Figure 3.1: Research process0.1

3.3. Quantitative research

3.3.1. Research subject

All UEH students from batch 44 to batch 46 who join sessions applied gamification in
education.

3.3.2. Sample size

The authors' group took a survey sample of 180 students.

 14

3.3.3. Choose a research sample

In this study, two methods of non-probability sampling will be applied:

- Convenience sampling method: The authors create a questionnaire about “The
factors affecting the effectiveness of applying gamification in education on UEH
students' engagement” and post it on Facebook groups, classes and fan pages with
a large number of UEH students such as UEH Study Group, UEH K46 Official...
- Snowball method: The authors shared the questionnaire for the friends at UEH
and asked them to survey and share with their friends at UEH.

3.3.4. Data collection method

To ensure the sample size of N = 180 students, the authors used Internet survey
tools, shared on social networking sites, and survey groups with a large number of UEH
students, group class, and friends.

3.4. Data analysis method

Since we have the result from the Google Form, we recheck the data and upload
it to the SPSS.26 for further processing and data analysis. Specifically, as follow:

3.4.1. Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test

Cronbach’s Alpha: The coefficient used to check the reliability of the scale and
remove the observed variables that do not ensure reliability based on the following
criteria:

- Using Cronbach’s alpha to test the variability of each measurement scale.

- Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of the scale greater than 0.6 is accepted.
- In case the Cronbach’s Alpha is less than 0.6, then we need to remove the
variables. In order to help the Cronbach's Alpha or Cronbach's Alpha If Item
Deleted coefficient of the variable to be the largest and continue to run until the
Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of the scale is qualified from 0.6
- Remove the variables with the total correlation coefficient or Corrected Item -
Total Correlation less than 0.3.
 15

3.4.2. EFA - Exploratory Factor Analysis

After testing reliability and removing unqualified variables, the authors continue
to do the EFA to check the variability of measurement scales. EFA will reduce the
number of observed variables and group observed variables into factors based on the
following criteria:

- KMO coefficient (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) is used to consider the suitability of the

factor. The KMO coefficient must have a value of 0.5 or more.
- Bartlett's test of sphericity is used to examine the correlation between the
observed variables in a factor and has Bartlett's Test sig coefficient < 0.05
(statistically significant).
- Eigenvalue is used to determine the number of factors in EFA analysis. With this
criterion, only factors with Eigenvalue ≥ 1 are kept in the model.
- Total Variance Explained ≥ 50% shows that the EFA model is suitable.
Considering the variation is 100%, this value shows how much % of the extracted
factors are condensed and how many % of the observed variables are lost.
- Factor Loading, also known as the factor weight, represents the correlation
relationship between the observed variable and the factor. The higher the factor
loading coefficient, the greater the correlation between that observed variable and
the factor and vice versa. And the authors take the load factor 0.4 as the standard
level (with N = 180) so that the observed variable has good statistical
significance.

3.4.3. Pearson Correlation Analysis

When completing the EFA test, the authors create representative factors of each
group of observed variables and use data of representative factors to continue doing
Pearson Correlation analysis to consider the correlation between independent variables
and dependent variable, and identify some cases where dynamic collinearity may occur
based on the following criteria:
 16

- The Sig value is less than 0.05 and the absolute value of the Pearson correlation
coefficient is greater than 0, the authors will conclude that there is a correlation
between the independent variable and the dependent variable and vice versa.
- In addition, question the phenomenon of multicollinearity between independent
variables if the Sig value is less than 0.05 and high Pearson correlation
coefficient.

3.4.4. Multi-variable Regression Analysis

After concluding the correlation between the independent variables and the group
dependent variable, the authors continue to do a multivariable regression analysis to
clarify this correlation. Testing the hypothesis of the model proposed by the authors, and
making a conclusion about the multicollinearity question includes the following steps:

- Testing the appropriation of the model through the adjusted R-squared coefficient
(taking 0.5 as a landmark to distinguish between the good model and the bad
model). At the same time, the sig value in the ANOVA table is less than 0.05
(with statistical significance).
- Residual normal distribution test based on Histogram, Normal P-P Plot.
- The conclusion of the multicollinearity question is based on the VIF coefficient
(less than 10).
- Provide the regression equations (standardized and unstandardized) based on the
obtained results to evaluate the influence of the factors on the dependent variable.
 17

CHAPTER IV: RESEARCH RESULT

4.1. Descriptive statistics of the survey sample
We have conducted a survey asking 180 UEH students… through Google Forms
questionnaire survey. At the end of the survey, the research team checked and eliminated
unsatisfactory or duplicate answer samples, finally we obtained 180 complete answer
samples of 180 UEH students. Our team's statistical results are displayed in charts with
the following details:
4.1.1 Batch of students
Figure 4.1. Batch of students0.1

(Source: Authors’ compilation)

Figure 4.1 details information about the batch of UEH students who have
answered our survey. K46 accounted for the highest proportion with 56.67% of the total
180 answers. The percentage of K44 is only 0.56%, equivalent to 1 student. K45 and
K47 accounted for 14.44% (26 subjects) and 28.33% (51 subjects), respectively.
 18

4.1.2 Student's major

Figure 4.2. UEH students’ major0.1

(Source: Authors’ compilation)

Figure 4.2 represents different majors of the respondents in UEH University.

International Business achieves the highest proportion with 72 subjects (accounting for
40%). The percentage of Marketing is 11.1%, which means it is in the second place.
Commercial Business and Business Administration percentage are 7.2% and 8.3%,
respectively. Finance - Banking and Investment Economics account for almost equal
proportions (5.6% and 5% accordingly) and the percentage of other majors is 22.8%
equivalent to 41 students.
 19

4.1.3 The application of gamification in class

Figure 4.3. The application of gamification in class0.1

(Source: Authors’ compilation)

Figure 4.3 shows if the respondent's class applies the gamification element or
not. The answer “Yes” accounts for an extremely high percentage of 92.78% of 180
answers samples (167 subjects). Only 13 students don’t seem to have their lecturers
apply gamification elements in their classes.
 20

4.1.4 Percentage of class applying gamification

Figure 4.4. Percentage of class applying gamification0.1

(Source: Authors’ compilation)

This figure demonstrates the percentage of UEH student classes that apply
gamification. In general, the percentage of answers are not so different. Only 23.89%
(43 subjects) of 180 answers is below 20%. 20% to 40% Percentage of class applying
gamification accounts for 33.33% of the total answers. The highest proportion is “60%
to 80%” of 42.78%.
 21

4.1.5 Which game are used in class

Figure 4.5. Games used in class0.1

(Source: Authors’ compilation)

Figure 3.10 provides information about what games are used in UEH students’
class. Overall, the proportion of Kahoot accounts for more than half of 180 answers
which is 54.22%. Quizizz and Quizlet percentage are 30.19% and 15.6% respectively.

4.2. Analytical data from key questions

4.2.1. Reliability test: Cronbach Alpha

Table 4.1. Table of results to evaluate the reliability of the scale “Perceived
Usefulness and Attitude”2

Variables Scale Mean Scale Corrected Cronbach’s Conclusion

if Item Variance if Item-Total Alpha if
Deleted Item Correlation item
Deleted Deleted

Perceived Usefulness and Attitude Scale: Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.823

 22

PUA1 Helps me 25.14 8.969 0.600 0.794 Suitable

absorb variable
knowledge
quickly

PUA2 Increases 25.36 9.437 0.399 0.826 Suitable

my learning variable
outcome

PUA3 25.23 8.333 0.594 0.794 Suitable

Motivates me to variable
focus on the
lecture

PUA4 25.09 9.013 0.545 0.802 Suitable

Gamification is variable
useful in my
learning

PUA5 I think 24.97 8.815 0.618 0.791 Suitable

it’s a good idea variable
to apply
gamification in
teaching

PUA6 I enjoy 25.21 8.622 0.597 0.793 Suitable

learning and variable
playing at the
same time

PUA7 I look 25.08 8.653 0.618 0.790 Suitable

forward to variable
gamification

(Source: The results of the data analysis of the research group)

 23

The result of Cronbach's Alpha of the scale is 0.823 > 0.6; The corrected item-
total correlation coefficients of the observable variables in the scale are all greater than
0.3. Therefore, all observable variables are accepted and will be used in the next factor
analysis.

Table 4.2. Table of results to evaluate the reliability of the scale “Perceived Ease
of use”3

Variables Scale Mean Scale Corrected Cronbach’s Conclusion

if Item Variance if Item-total Alpha if
Deleted Item Correlation item
Deleted Deleted

Perceived Ease of use Scale: Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.763

PEU1 The game 12.41 2.947 0.535 0.722 Suitable

is flexible and variable
easy to use

PEU2 The 12.56 2.896 0.533 0.723 Suitable

game’s variable
functions and
interface are
clear and
intuitive

PEU3 The 12.53 2.731 0.577 0.700 Suitable

interaction in variable
the game is easy
to understand

PEU4 I find the 12.51 2.731 0.605 0.684 Suitable

games used are variable
easy to play
 24

(Source: The results of the data analysis of the research group)

Cronbach's Alpha results of the scale are 0.763 > 0.6; The corrected item-total
correlation coefficients of the total variables of the observable variables in the scale are
all greater than 0.3. There is no case of eliminating any observable variables that can
make Cronbach's Alpha coefficient greater than 0.763. Therefore, all observable
variables are accepted and will be used in further factor analysis.

Table 4.3. Table of results to evaluate the reliability of the scale “Skill
Engagement”4

Variables Scale Scale Corrected Cronbach’s Conclusion

Mean if Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Item Deleted Correlation Deleted
Deleted

Skills Engagement Scale: Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.701

S1 Take 7.98 1.681 0.536 0.586 Suitable

better variable
notes
during the
lesson

S2 Focus 7.82 1.812 0.498 0.634 Suitable

and listen variable
better

S3 7.73 1.914 0.521 0.608 Suitable

Review variable
lessons
regularly

(Source: The results of the data analysis of the research group)

 25

Cronbach's Alpha results of the scale are 0.701 > 0.6; The corrected item-total
correlation coefficients of the total variables of the observable variables in the scale are
all greater than 0.3. There is no case of eliminating any observable variables that can
make Cronbach's Alpha coefficient greater than 0.701. Therefore, all observable
variables are accepted and will be used in further factor analysis.

Table 4.4. Table of results to evaluate the reliability of the scale “Interaction
Engagement”5

Variables Scale Scale Corrected Cronbach’s Conclusion

Mean if Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item
Item Item Correlation Deleted
Deleted Deleted

Interaction Engagement Scale: Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.792

IE1 Makes 11.99 3.966 0.495 0.791 Suitable

me happy variable
in class

IE2 12.13 3.788 0.575 0.754 Suitable

Motivates variable
me to
discuss
more

IE3 11.97 3.279 0.718 0.679 Suitable

Increases variable
my
interaction
with
classmates

IE4 12.06 3.410 0.627 0.728 Suitable

Increases variable
 26

my
interaction
with
lectures

(Source: The results of the data analysis of the research group)

Cronbach's Alpha results of the scale are 0.792 > 0.6; The corrected item-total
correlation coefficients of the total variables of the observable variables in the scale are
all greater than 0.3. There is no case of eliminating any observable variables that can
make Cronbach's Alpha coefficient greater than 0.792. Therefore, all observable
variables are accepted and will be used in further factor analysis.

Table 4.5. Table of results to evaluate the reliability of the scale “Students’
Engagement”6

Variables Scale Scale Corrected Cronbach’s Conclusion

Mean if Variance if Item-Total Alpha if
Item Item Deleted Correlation Item
Deleted Deleted

Students’ Engagement Scale: Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.793

SE1 Makes 12.42 2.781 0.650 0.722 Suitable

me feel variable
excited

SE2 12.49 2.788 0.579 0.754 Suitable

Motivates variable
me to join
activities in
class
 27

SE3 Makes 12.57 2.560 0.573 0.762 Suitable

me feel variable
more
focused

SE4 Makes 12.54 2.607 0.626 0.730 Suitable

me feel variable
more
involved in
the lesson

(Source: The results of the data analysis of the research group)

Cronbach's Alpha results of the scale are 0.793 > 0.6; the corrected item-total
correlation coefficients of the total variables of the observable variables in the scale are
all greater than 0.3. There is no case of eliminating any observable variables that can
make Cronbach's Alpha coefficient greater than 0.793. Therefore, all observable
variables are accepted and will be used in further factor analysis.

4.2.2. EFA - exploratory factor analysis

4.2.2.1. Factor Analysis Results for Independent Variable Scales

After analyzing the Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient, the scales were next
evaluated by the method of exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The results of Cronbach's
Alpha show that there are 18 observable variables of 4 components measuring the level
of students' interest in learning, meeting the requirements of reliability. Therefore, 18
observable variables of this scale continue to be evaluated by EFA.

Using the method of factor extraction Principal Component Analysis with Varimax
rotation when analyzing factors for 18 observed variables.

The standard of the factor analysis method is that the KMO index must be greater than
0.5 (Garson, 2003) and Bartlett's test has sig. < 0.05 to show that the data used for factor
analysis is appropriate and are correlated with each other. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
 28

Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) value = 0.862. The results of factor

analysis show that the KMO index is 0.862 > 0.5, which proves that the data used for
factor analysis is completely appropriate. Bartlett's test result is 1111.729 with Sig. =
0.000 < 0.05. Thus, the variables are correlated with each other and satisfy the conditions
of factor analysis.

Table 4.6. Results of KMO and Bartlett tests of independent variables (1)7

KMO coefficient 0.862

(Kaiser - Meyer -
Olkin)

Bartlett's test of the Approx. Chi Square 1111.729

scale
df 153

Sig. 0.000

(Source: The results of the data analysis of the research group)

Table 4.7. Result of EFA (1)8

Observable variables Components

1 2 3 4

PUA7 I look forward to 0.754

gamification

PUA1 Helps me absorb 0.714

knowledge quickly

PUA6 I enjoy learning 0.703

and playing at the same
time

PUA3 Motivates me to 0.690

 29

focus on the lecture

PUA5 I think it is a good 0.639

idea to apply gamification
in teaching

PUA4 Gamification is 0.558

useful in my learning

PUA2 Increases my 0.411

learning outcome

PEU3 The interaction in 0.768

the game is easy to
understand

PEU4 I find the games 0.751

used are easy to play

PEU2 The game’s 0.714

functions and interface are
clear and intuitive

PEU1 The game is 0.629

flexible and easy to use

IE3 Increases my 0.851

interaction with
classmates

IE2 Motivates me to 0.757

discuss more

IE4 Increases my 0.753

interaction with lectures

IE1 Makes me happy in 0.401 0.596

 30

class

S1 Take better notes 0.788

during the lesson

S3 Review lessons 0.765

regularly

S2 Focus and listen better 0.664

(Source: The results of the data analysis of the research group)

Perform factor analysis according to Principal components with Varimax

rotation. The results show that: There is one observable variable that is considered
inappropriate. That is IE1. IE1 is eliminated due to the fact that it is not highly
discriminant. The proof is that IE1 has 2 different values, belonging to both columns 1
and 3. The authors decided to remove the observable variable IE1 and then rerun the
EFA analysis with 17 observable variables. The results of testing KMO, Bartlett, and
the Factor loadings of 17 observable variables are presented in the following tables:

Table 4.8. Results of KMO and Bartlett tests of independent variables (2)9

KMO coefficient (Kaiser - Meyer - Olkin) 0.853

Bartlett's test of the Approx. Chi Square 1033.729

scale
df 136

Sig. 0.000

(Source: The results of the data analysis of the research group)

 31

Table 4.9. Result of EFA (2)10

Observable variables Components

1 2 3 4

PUA7 I look forward to 0.766

gamification

PUA1 Helps me absorb 0.720

knowledge quickly

PUA6 I enjoy learning and 0.708

playing at the same time

PUA3 Motivates me to 0.690

focus on the lecture

PUA5 I think it’s a good 0.651

idea to apply gamification
in teaching

PUA4 Gamification is 0.572

useful in my learning

PUA2 Increases my 0.429

learning outcome

PEU3 The interaction in 0.766

the game is easy to
understand

PEU4 I find the games 0.757

used are easy to play

PEU2 The game’s 0.707

functions and interface are
 32

clear and intuitive

PEU1 The game is flexible 0.636

and easy to use

IE3 Increases my 0.861

interaction with classmates

IE2 Motivates me to 0.792

discuss more

IE4 Increases my 0.745

interaction with lectures

S1 Take better notes 0.781

during the lesson

S3 Review lessons 0.778

regularly

S2 Focus and listen better 0.657

(Source: The results of the data analysis of the research group)

The results of the second EFA exploratory factor analysis after removing the
observed variable IE1. We have the KMO = 0.853 > 0.5; which proves that the data used
for factor analysis is completely appropriate. Bartlett's test result is 1033.729 with Sig.
= 0.000 < 0.05. Thus, the variables are correlated with each other and satisfy the
conditions of factor analysis.

The 17 observable variables are grouped into 4 groups. Value of total variance
explained = 59.123% > 50%: satisfactory; then it can be said that these four factors
explain 59.123% of the variation in the data. The Eigenvalues of the factors are all high
(>1), the fourth factor has the lowest Eigenvalues of 1.296 > 1. The factor loading
coefficients of the observable variables are all greater than 0.3.
 33

Finally, the 17 observable variables obtained after analysis all met the
requirements for convergence and discriminant. They were used in running correlation
and regression analysis.

4.2.2.2. Factor Analysis Results for Dependent Variable Scales

Table 4.10. Results of KMO and Bartlett tests of dependent variables11

KMO coefficient (Kaiser - Meyer - Olkin) 0.794

Bartlett's test of the Approx. Chi-Square 205.321

scale
df 6

Sig. 0.000

(Source: The results of the data analysis of the research group)

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) value = 0.794.

The results of factor analysis show that the KMO index is 0.794 > 0.5, which proves
that the data used for factor analysis is completely appropriate. Bartlett's test result is
205.321 with Sig. = 0.000 < 0.05. This result indicates that the observed variables in the
population are correlated with each other and the EFA factor analysis is appropriate.

Table 4.11. Result of EFA12

Observable variables Components

SE1 Makes me feel excited 0.820

SE4 Makes me feel more involved in the lesson 0.805

SE2 Motivates me to join activities in class 0.767

SE3 Makes me feel more focused 0.761

(Source: The results of the data analysis of the research group)

 34

The results of EFA analysis show that with the method of factor extraction
Principal Component Analysis and Varimax rotation, when analyzing factors there are
4 observable variables and the cumulative variance is 62.208% > 50%, the Eigenvalue
coefficient is 2.488 > 1 and the factor loading coefficients of the observable variables
are all greater than 0.3. Therefore, the scale is satisfactory and the measurement
variables "Students' interest in learning" are used for the next analysis.

4.3. Pearson Correlation

Table 4.12. Pearson Correlation Table 13

Correlations

Students’ Perceived Skill Perceive Interactio

Engageme Usefulness Engagem d Ease of n
nt and ent Use Engagem
Attitude ent

Students’ Pearson 1 0.621** 0.505** 0.362** 0.424**

Engagem Correlation
ent
Sig. (2- 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
tailed)

N 180 180 180 180 180

(Source: The results of the data analysis of the research group)

4.3.1. The correlation between Perceived Usefulness and Attitude and Students’
Engagement

By observing the results of analyzing Pearson correlation: the Pearson correlation

coefficient r = 0.621 and sig = 0.000 (having statistical meaning). The authors, hence,
conclude that there is a positive correlation between Perceived Usefulness and Attitude,
and Students’ Engagement.
 35

4.3.2. The correlation between Skills Engagement and Students’ Engagement

By observing the results of analyzing Pearson correlation: the Pearson correlation

coefficient r = 0.505 and sig = 0.000 (having statistical meaning). The authors, hence,
conclude that there is a correlation between Skills Engagement and Students’
Engagement.

4.3.3. The correlation between Perceived Ease of Use and Students’ Engagement

By observing the results of analyzing Pearson correlation: the Pearson correlation

coefficient r = 0.362 and sig = 0.000 (having statistical meaning). The authors, hence,
conclude that there is a positive correlation between the Perceived Ease of Use and
Students’ Engagement.

4.3.4. The correlation between Interaction Engagement and Students’ Engagement

By observing the results of analyzing Pearson correlation: the Pearson correlation

coefficient r = 0.424 and sig = 0.000 (having statistical meaning). The authors, hence,
conclude that there is a positive correlation between the Perceived Ease of Use and
Students’ Engagement.

4.4. Regression Analysis

After considering the linear correlation between the 4 independent variables and
the dependent variable Students’ engagement, the authors continues to perform a
regression analysis to draw conclusions about the influence of 5 independent variables
on the dependent variable Students’ Engagement.

To test the suitability of the regression model, we ran multivariate regression

analysis data on SPSS between the independent variables: Perceived Ease of Use (PEU),
Skills Engagement (S), Interaction Engagement (IE), Perceived Usefulness and Attitude
(PUA), and the dependent variable: Students’ Engagement (SE).

4.4.1. Check the model fit

Table 4.13. Model Fit Table14

 36

Model Summaryb

Model R R square Adjusted R Std. Error of Durbin-

Square the Estimate Watson

1 0.697a 0.485 0.473 0.38388 1.924

a. Predictors: (Constant), Perceived Ease of Use, Skills, Interaction

Engagement, Perceived Usefulness and Attitude

b. Dependent Variable: Students’ Engagement

(Source: The results of the data analysis of the research group)

The data processing results are in the model summary table above. The table
shows that the R square is 0.485 and the adjusted R square is 0.473. The adjusted R-
squared value of 0.473 shows that the independent variables included in the regression
analysis affect 47.3% of the variation of the dependent variable, the remaining 52.7%
are due to out-of-model variables and random errors. The conclusion counts much more
on the adjusted R square as it reflects the fit of the model more accurately than the
coefficient R2.

On the other hand, the results of this table also give Durbin–Watson values to
evaluate the phenomenon of first-order series autocorrelation. The value DW = 1.924,
is in the range of 1.5 to 2.5. Therefore, the results do not violate the assumption of first-
order series autocorrelation (Yahua Qiao, 2011).
 37

Table 4.14. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) table15

ANOVAa

Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.

Squares

1 Regression 24.431 4 6.108 41.232 0.000b

Residual 25.923 175 0.148

Total 50.354 179

a. Dependent Variable: Students’ Engagement

b. Predictors: (Constant), Perceived Ease of Use, Skills, Interaction

Engagement, Perceived Usefulness and Attitude

(Source: The results of the data analysis of the research group)

From the ANOVA table, we get the result that the Sig value of the F-test is 0.00
< 0.05, so the regression model is built with statistical significance.
 38

4.4.2. Normality testing for residuals

Figure 4.6. Normalized Residual Frequency chart Histogram0.1

(Source: The results of the data analysis of the research group)

From the histogram, we can see that the Mean is -2.09E-15. The standard
deviation is 0.989 - which is close to 1. From a general perspective, the columns of
residuals have a bell-shaped distribution. We can say that the distribution is
approximately normal, assuming the normal distribution of the residuals is not
violated.
 39

Figure 4.7. Normalized Residual Frequency chart Normal P-P Plot0.2

(Source: The results of the data analysis of the research group)

Most of the residual data points are concentrated quite close to the diagonal.
Thus, the residuals have an approximately normal distribution, assuming the normal
distribution of the residuals is not violated.
 40

Figure 4.8. Normalized Residual Frequency chart Scatterplot0.3

(Source: The results of the data analysis of the research group)

The scatter plot shows that: The distributed normalized residuals are centered
on the zero line. In addition, they tend to form parallel lines. Thus, the assumption of a
linear relationship is not violated.

4.4.4. Hypothesis Testing

Table 4.15. Regression Table16

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity

Coefficients Coefficients Statistics

B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF

Error
 41

1 (Constant) 0.853 0.281 3.039 0.003

Perceived 0.221 0.034 0.427 6.429 0.000 0.666 1.501

Usefulness
and Attitude

Skills 0.208 0.047 0.271 4.447 0.000 0.789 1.267

Interaction 0.150 0.049 0.188 3.088 0.002 0.794 1.259

Engagement

Perceived 0.008 0.062 0.008 0.132 0.895 0.730 1.370

Ease of Use

a. Dependent Variable: Students’ Engagement

(Source: The results of the data analysis of the research group)

The variable Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) has sig test sig value equal to 0.895 >
0.05, so this variable is not significant in the regression model. In other words, this
variable has no impact on the dependent variable Students’ Engagement (SE). The
remaining variables including Perceived Usefulness and Attitude (PUA), Skills (S), and
Interaction Engagement (IE) all have sig test t less than 0.05, so these variables are all
statistically significant and all affect the dependent variable Students’ Engagement (SE).
From the table above, we can conclude that Perceived Usefulness and Attitude
(PUA) is the independent variable that has the most impact on the dependent variable
Students’ Engagement (SE).
On the other hand, we also recognize the attendance of the VIF value. The
variance exaggeration factor (VIF) is an indicator of collinearity in a regression model.
The smaller the VIF, the less likely there is to be multicollinearity - which may skew the
regression estimates. Hair et al. (2009) suggested that a VIF threshold of 10 or more
would result in strong multicollinearity. The VIF value of the model is smaller than 10.
They are even smaller than 2. Therefore, we can conclude that there will no
scenario of multicollinearity in this case.
 42

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. Conclusion
From the result of the data analysis, the research team has come to the conclusion:
There are 3 factors that affect the engagement of UEH’s students in the lectures when
gamification is applied. Particularly, those factors include: Perceived Usefulness and
Attitude (1); Skill Engagement (2); and Interaction Engagement (3). That means UEH’s
students get fonder of lectures as they perceive the general usefulness of gamification
and enjoy using it. Moreover, they seem to enjoy the benefit of getting more skills and
chances for interaction from gamification.
The research also found that the engagement of UEH’s students toward
gamification in university is quite high. Among the three factors that affect the students’
engagement, “Perceived Usefulness and Attitude” is the most positively-affecting
factor. The second factor is “Skill Engagement”. Last but not least is “Interaction
Engagement”.
Based on the conclusion, our group proposed some recommendations.
5.2. Recommendation
- In order to improve the engagement of UEH’s students toward lectures through
gamification, lecturers should be more prone to apply gamification to teaching.
A wide variety of students perceive the usefulness of gamification, and their
attitude of them toward it is quite good. Therefore, the frequency growth would
be highly likely to positively affect the engagement of students generally.
- The number of gamification applications is still limited. A recommendation of
increasing the number of applications being used, and diversifying the type of
activities, should be brought into consideration. The more kinds of activities and
games are brought into the application, the higher chance that more people will
experience the usefulness of gamification - which means the more likely it will
be that more students would be engaged.
- Gamification can be applied to not only normal lectures but also can be used for
many other purposes in the university. Such as Skill enhancement; Team
building; Meetings; … This recommendation aims at increasing the benefits
delivered to the students and the chances for them to interact with the lecturers
and their classmates.
 43

- The lecturers could periodically check their student's results and use them as an
indicator that assesses the effectiveness of the gamification application.

5.3. Limitation and Development

5.3.1. Limitation
In the process of conducting surveys to obtain research results, access to
audience segments is still limited. Geographic distance makes it difficult to reach a wide
audience, so survey respondents are often familiar with and tend to be in the same
environment (for example, in the same class or with the same teacher). Therefore, the
possibility that these people share the same experience is very large and survey samples
tend to be duplicated in the way they respond. In addition, the income sample from K46
students is mainly, so it is not possible to cover all students of UEH. Therefore, these
samples do not reflect the population leading to limitations in the study known as
"sampling bias". In this case, the respondents to the survey questions may not actually
be a random sample.
Besides, there are cases where students who responded to the survey did not
answer honestly, instead they just randomly selected the answer without carefully
considering before answering, leading to the errors that affect the objectivity of the
research results.
In the process of constructing the questionnaire and selecting variables, our team
encountered difficulties in selecting the appropriate sub variable for the scale, leading
to the removal of unsatisfactory or non-discriminatory variables.
Finally, the research paper is only within the scope of UEH, so there is no
comprehensive coverage of the application of gamification in education by other
universities and the practical level is not high enough to be widely applied. But other
schools can also consult and develop further research to apply appropriate solutions in
applying gamification to their education in order to bring efficiency to the teaching and
learning process.
5.3.2. Development
With the desire to inherit and develop the topic more, we propose the following
development directions:
 44

- Directly survey UEH students and survey in large numbers instead of conducting
through online channels so that the results obtained are more accurate. Besides, the
survey of a variety of courses is also essential to obtain more objective and in-depth
results instead of favoring a small group.
- Exploiting and researching more with a larger scale to discover the observed variables
that our research has not mentioned in the research paper. From that base, inherit and
develop to create new more complete models and cover all the factors affecting students'
engagement in learning when applying gamification in education.
- Expanding scale not only within UEH University but also universities, colleges,...
nationwide to explore more deeply about the application of gamification in education
and how it affects the engagement of students in learning today in our country. From
there, propose the best measures to improve the quality of teaching and learning.
 45

REFERENCES

1. Barata, Gabriel, Sandra Gama, Joaquim Jorge, and Daniel Goncalves. 2013.
“Engaging Engineering Students with Gamification.” Paper presented at the
Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications 5th International
Conference, Bournemouth, and September 11–13.

2. Biggs, John, and Catherine Tang. 2007. Teaching for Quality Learning.
Buckingham: Open University Press.

3. Charles, Therese, David Bustard, and Michaela Black. 2011. “Experiences of

Promoting Student Engagement through Game-enhanced Learning.” In Serious
Games and Edutainment Applications, edited by Minhua Ma, Andreas
Oikonomou, and Lakhmi Jain, 425–445. London: Springer.

4. Cowan, John. 1998. On Becoming an Innovative University Teacher: Reflection

in Action. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open
University Press.

5. Cronk, Marguerite. 2012. “Using Gamification to Increase Student Engagement

and Participation in Class Discussion.” Paper presented at the World Conference
on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Chesapeake,
VA, June 26–29.

6. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New

York, NY: Harper & Row.

7. Denny, Paul. 2013. “The Effect of Virtual Achievements on Student

Engagement.” Paper presented at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing, Paris, April 27–May 2.

8. Denny, Paul. 2013. “The Effect of Virtual Achievements on Student

Engagement.” Paper presented at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing, Paris, April 27–May 2.
 46

9. Deterding, Sebastian, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart Nacke. 2011. “From
Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining ‘Gamification.’” Paper
presented at the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning
Future Media Environments, Tampere, September 28–30.

10. Deterding, Sebastian, Dan Dixon, Rilla Khaled, and Lennart Nacke. 2011. “From
Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining ‘Gamification.’” Paper
presented at the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning
Future Media Environments, Tampere, September 28–30.

11. Dixson MD (2015) Measuring Student Engagement in the online course : the
online student engagement scale (OSE). Online Learn J 19

12. Domínguez, Adrián, Joseba Saenz-de-Navarrete, Luis de-Marcos, Luis

Fernández-Sanz, Carmen Pagés, and José-Javier Martínez-Herráiz. 2013.
“Gamifying Learning Experiences: Practical Implications and Outcomes.”
Computers & Education 63: 380–392. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2012.12.020.

13. Hamari, Juho, Jonna Koivisto, and Harri Sarsa. 2014. “Does Gamification Work?
– A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification.” Paper presented
at the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii,
January 6–9.

14. Hamari, Juho, Jonna Koivisto, and Harri Sarsa. 2014. “Does Gamification Work?
– A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification.” Paper presented
at the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii,
January 6–9.

15. Handelsman MM, Briggs WL, Sullivan N, Towler A (2005) A measure of college
student course engagement. J Educ Res 98:184–192.
https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192

16. Hu M, Li H, Deng W, Guan H (2016) Student engagement: one of the necessary

conditions for online learning. In: Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) (ed) 2016 international conference on educational innovation
 47

through technology (EITT). Red Hook, NY, Curran Associates, Inc., Tainan,
Taiwan, 22–24 September 2016, pp 122–126

17. Huotari, Kai, and Juho Hamari. 2011. “‘Gamification’ from the Perspective of
Service Marketing.” Paper presented at the Computer Human Interactivity
Workshop, Vancouver, May 7–12.

18. Kapp, Karl M. 2012. The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-based
Methods and Strategies for Training and Education. New York: Wiley.

19. Kapp, Karl M. 2012. The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-based
Methods and Strategies for Training and Education. New York: Wiley.

20. Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and
empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 5–
20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.283

21. Marczewski, Andrzej. 2012. Gamification: A Simple Introduction and a Bit

More. Seattle, WA: Amazon Digital Services.

22. Marton, F., and R. Säljö. 1976. “On Qualitative Differences in Learning: I-
outcome and Process.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 46 (1): 4–11.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x.

23. MarxAA,SimonsenJC,KitchelT(2016)Undergraduate Student Course

Engagement And The influence of student, contextual, and teacher variables. J
Agric Educ 57:212–228. https://doi. org/10.5032/jae.2016.01212

24. McGonigal, Jane. 2011. Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How
They Can Change the World. London: Jonathan Cape.

25. Mohd IH, Aluwi AH, Hussein N, Omar MK (2016) Enhancing students
engagement through
blended learning satisfaction and lecturer support. In: Engineers Institute of
Electrical and Electronics (IEEE) (ed) 2016 IEEE 8th international conference
on engineering education (ICEED2016): “Enhancing engineering education
 48

through academia-industry collaboration.” Red Hook, NY, Curran Associates,

Inc., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 7–8 December 2016, pp 175–180

26. Paisley, Varina. 2013. “Gamification of Tertiary Courses: An Exploratory Study

of Learning and Engagement.” Paper presented at the Electric Dreams 30th
Asclite Conference, Sydney,

27. Pelling, Nick. 2011. “The (Short) Prehistory of ‘Gamification.’” Funding

Startups (& other impossibilities). Accessed June 26, 2014.
https://nanodome.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/the-short-prehistory-of-
gamification/.

28. Ramsden, Paul. 2003. Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London:

Routledge Falmer.

29. Schlechty, P. C. (2001). Shaking up the schoolhouse: How to support and sustain
educational innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.(p. 64)

30. Schmeck, Ronald R. 1988. Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. New York:
Plenum.

31. Sheth, Swapneel, Jonathan Bell, and Gail Kaiser. 2012. Increasing Student
Engagement in Software Engineering with Gamification. New York: New York
Department of Computer Science, Columbia University.

32. Simões, Jorge, Rebeca Díaz Redondo, and Ana Fernández Vilas. 2013. “A Social
Gamification Framework for a K-6 Learning Platform.” Computers in Human
Behavior 29 (2): 345– 353. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.007.

33. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal
effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571.
 49

APPENDIX

Appendix 1: The content of the survey

Xin chào mọi người!!

Chúng mình là nhóm sinh viên đến từ lớp IBC01, khoá 46, thuộc Khoa Kinh doanh
Quốc tế - Marketing của Trường Đại học Kinh tế TP.HCM. Hiện nay nhóm chúng mình
đang thực hiện nghiên cứu khảo sát về đề tài "MỨC ĐỘ HIỆU QUẢ CỦA VIỆC ÁP
DỤNG GAME HÓA VÀO GIÁO DỤC ĐỐI VỚI SINH VIÊN UEH".

Một trong những vấn đề quan trọng nhất mà các nhà giáo dục phải đối mặt ngày nay là
làm thế nào để thu hút học sinh sinh viên tham gia vào quá trình dạy và học. Dựa trên
làn sóng sáng tạo đang tồn tại sẵn có, liệu "Game hóa" có phải là giải pháp cho vấn đề
này? Nhóm chúng mình muốn tìm hiểu xem liệu đây có phải là phương pháp hiệu quả
hay không và cách thức mà nó có thể ảnh hưởng đến sự tham gia của sinh viên UEH
vào các bài giảng và các môn học.

Để thực hiện được mục đích đó, rất mong các anh/chị và các bạn dành ít thời gian hỗ
trợ chúng mình hoàn thành phiếu khảo sát này.

Xin chân thành cảm ơn!

ĐẶC ĐIỂM ĐỐI TƯỢNG NGHIÊN CỨU

1. Bạn là sinh viên khóa?

◻ K44 ◻ K45 ◻ K46 ◻ K47
2. Ngành học của bạn là:
◻ Bảo hiểm
◻ Bất động sản
◻ Hệ thống thông tin quản lí
◻ Kế toán
◻ Kiểm toán
◻ Kinh tế
◻ Kinh tế đầu tư
 50

◻ Kinh doanh quốc tế

◻ Kinh doanh thương mại
◻ Kiến trúc đô thị
◻ Luật
◻ Logistics và Quản lí chuỗi cung ứng
◻ Marketing
◻ Ngôn ngữ anh
◻ Quản lí công
◻ Quản trị nhân lực
◻ Quản trị bệnh viện
◻ Quản trị kinh doanh
◻ Quản trị dịch vụ du lịch và lữ hành
◻ Quản trị khách sạn
◻ Tài chính quốc tế
◻ Tài chính - ngân hàng
◻ Thống kê kinh tế
◻ Thương mại điện tử
3. Các buổi học bạn tham gia có được áp dụng yếu tố game không?
◻ Có ◻ Không
4. Trong một tuần, tỉ lệ tham gia vào các buổi học (theo thời khóa biểu) có áp dụng yếu
tố game của bạn là?
◻ dưới 20%
◻ 20 - 40%
◻ 40 - 60%
◻ 60 - 80%
 51

5. Các game mà giảng viên của bạn thường sử dụng là gì?

◻ Kahoot
◻ Quizizz
◻ Quizlet
MỨC ĐỘ HIỆU QUẢ CỦA VIỆC ÁP DỤNG GAME HOÁ VÀO GIẢNG DẠY ĐỐI
VỚI SINH VIÊN UEH
Bạn vui lòng đánh dấu “X” vào ô tương ứng thể hiện mức độ đồng ý của bạn đối với
mỗi phát biểu theo quy ước sau:
1 2 3 4 5
Rất không Hoàn toàn
Không đồng ý Bình thường Đồng ý
đồng ý đồng ý

Lưu ý: Mỗi hàng duy nhất, chỉ chọn duy nhất một mức độ đồng ý trong 5 mức độ
1. Mức độ hữu ích của game

Rất Không Bình Đồng ý Hoàn

không đồng ý thường toàn
đồng ý đồng ý

Vận dụng game trong các

buổi học khiến mình tiếp thu
kiến thức dễ dàng hơn

Việc vận dụng game trong

giảng dạy giúp mình có kết
quả tốt hơn

Khi biết cuối buổi học có

game để tổng kết bài, điều đó
giúp mình có động lực tập
trung hơn
 52

Nhìn chung, mình thấy việc

ứng dụng game vào giảng
dạy là hữu ích

2. Mức độ dễ tiếp cận

Rất Không Bình Đồng ý Hoàn

không đồng ý thường toàn
đồng ý đồng ý

Mình thấy các game được

ứng dụng trong buổi học khá
linh hoạt và dễ dùng

Các chức năng và giao diện

của game được thiết kế rõ
ràng và trực quan

Việc tương tác trong game dễ

hiểu và không tốn nhiều thời
gian suy nghĩ

Nhìn chung, mình thấy các

game được sử dụng đều dễ
chơi

3. Thái độ sinh viên đối với việc áp dụng game vào các buổi học

Rất Không Bình Đồng ý Hoàn

không đồng ý thường toàn
đồng ý đồng ý
 53

Tôi nghĩ rằng việc ứng dụng

game vào giảng dạy là một ý
tưởng hay

Tôi thấy hứng thú trong quá

trình vừa học vừa chơi này

Tôi mong được trải nghiệm

việc ứng dụng game này
trong các môn học sau và
trong nhiều khía cạnh khác
nữa

4. Khả năng bổ trợ kỹ năng (Việc ứng dụng game tạo động lực cho mình)

Rất Không Bình Đồng ý Hoàn

không đồng ý thường toàn
đồng ý đồng ý

Ghi chú tốt hơn trong buổi

học

Tập trung nghe giảng hơn

Thường xuyên ôn lại bài để

nắm vững kiến thức

5. Mức độ tương tác (Việc chơi những game như thế này giúp mình)

Rất Không Bình Đồng ý Hoàn

không đồng ý thường toàn
 54

đồng ý đồng ý

Cảm thấy vui trong buổi học

đó

Chủ động thảo luận hơn

trong các câu hỏi theo nhóm
(group discussion)

Tăng khả năng tương tác với

bạn cùng lớp

Tăng khả năng tương tác với

giảng viên

6. Mức độ hứng thú của sinh viên đối với việc học

Rất Không Bình Đồng ý Hoàn

không đồng ý thường toàn
đồng ý đồng ý

Áp dụng game hoá trong lớp

học làm tôi cảm thấy hào
hứng hơn với các hoạt động
học tập trong lớp

Áp dụng game hoá trong lớp

học làm tôi tích cực tham gia
vào các hoạt động học tập
trong lớp

Áp dụng game hoá trong lớp

 55

học làm tôi cảm thấy tập

trung hơn vào việc học

Áp dụng game hoá trong lớp

học làm tôi trở nên hứng thú
hơn với môn học

Appendix 2: Result of Cronbach Alpha

Scale: Perceived Usefulness and Attitude

Scale: Perceived Ease of Use

 56

Scale: Skill Engagement

Scale: Interaction Engagement

 57

Scale: Students’ Engagement

Appendix 3: Result of EFA

Results of KMO and Bartlett tests of independent variables (1)

 58

Results of KMO and Bartlett tests of independent variables (2)

 59

Factor Analysis Results for Dependent Variable Scales

 60

Appendix 4: Result of Pearson Correlation and Regression Analysis

Result of Pearson Correlation

61
62
63