Heliyon 8 (2022) e11811

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: www.cell.com/heliyon

Research article

The effects of implementing gamified instruction on vocabulary gain and

motivation among language learners

lık b, Enisa Mede a, Yavuz Samur a, Zeynep Comert a
Karim Sadeghi a, *, Ece Sag
a
Bahçeşehir University, Turkey
b
Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study aimed to examine and compare the impact of gamified and non-gamified instruction on the vocabulary
Gamified instruction development and motivation of students enrolled in an English language preparatory program at a Turkish
Gamification university. The perceptions of the participants about learning vocabulary through gamification were further
Vocabulary development
explored in the study. A sample of 32 (16 control group, 16 experimental group) intermediate (B1 level) students
Motivation
Language preparatory programs
participated in the study. Data were collected quantitatively using pre- and post-vocabulary tests and pre- and
post-motivation questionnaires as well as qualitatively through semi-structured interviews. The findings revealed
that the implementation of gamified instruction positively influenced student motivation. However, no significant
difference was found between the two groups in their vocabulary development apart from a slight increase in the
experimental group. Finally, the students perceived gamified instruction as an efficient way to learn and practice
vocabulary. The gathered findings provide pedagogical implications and suggestions for implementing gamified
instruction in language classrooms.

1. Introduction
The process of language development in learning English highlights
the importance of vocabulary teaching in language classrooms (Guil-
herme, 2007). While contextualized or traditional methods are mainly
used in vocabulary teaching, motivation is generally underestimated.
Scholars have determined many influential factors including the impor-
tance of the word in context (Brown, 1993), the variety of contextual
hints, the learner's curiosity, and the vocabulary they already have
(Laufer and Hadar, 1997; Nation and Kyongho, 1995).
Considering language education in Turkey, despite eight uninter-
rupted years of English compulsory education, the students' proficiency
level is quite low (Coskun, 2016). The primary parameters which are
effective for the formation of this problem are the inaccurate approaches
in the curriculum and the teacher training programs (Çelik and Kasap,
2019). Another influential factor is the motivational problem during the
English learning process (Apriliyanti et al., 2018; Ertu

g ve Canan, 2014).
To address this issue, various instructional designs have been introduced
to boost motivation in language classrooms; however, these have
changed due to the changing expectations of the 21st-century generation.
Specifically, these changes have influenced various motivational
strategies and approaches which have given a rise to the emergence of
gamification for learners who use technology effectively in all areas of
life (Prensky, 2001). Gamification is primarily described as the usage of
game elements in a non-game context (Deterding, 2012) and can be
described from the behavioral perspective (Morford et al., 2014). The
main goal of gamification is to change the usage habits or behaviors of
the individual (Asigigan and Samur, 2021). Implementing gamification
as an instructional tool in classrooms is effective not only to make stu-
dents part of activities but also to motivate them at the same time
(Muntean, 2011). Since gamification is the use of game elements, it is
relevant to the usage of game dynamics, mechanics, and components in
educational contexts to increase the effectiveness of learning and support
the target behaviors of learners (Deterding et al., 2011; Glover, 2013;
Kapp, 2012). Therefore, games are commonly used in the classroom
(Kapp, 2012).
Although gamification has been gaining importance in education,
various studies examined the impact of different game elements on
learners addressing outcomes such as engagement, motivation, enjoy-
ment, performance, and achievement (Brewer et al., 2013; Boyinbode,
2018; Goehle, 2013; Kumar and Khurana, 2012; Raymer, 2011; Sanchez
et al., 2020; Villagrasa and Duran, 2013). Recent research on

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kerimsadeghi@gmail.com (K. Sadeghi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11811
Received 18 May 2022; Received in revised form 16 August 2022; Accepted 15 November 2022
2405-8440/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
K. Sadeghi et al.
gamification highlights the benefits of improving the students' overall
language proficiency (Calafato, 2021; Chiu et al., 2012; Thompson and
von Gillern, 2020; Yang et al., 2020; York and deHaan, 2018). Because
games present the words to be learned by trial and error in a context (Gris
and Bengton, 2021; Squire et al., 2005), gamification stands out in vo-
cabulary teaching due to its motivational contributions (Abrams and
Walsh, 2014; Lui, 2014; Hasegawa et al., 2015). Although game-based
learning and gamification are two closely related fields, they are gener-
ally discussed as two separate concepts that meet in different fields. For
example, if football and football leagues are examined, football is a game.
Football leagues, on the other hand, are a system in which teams win/-
lose points according to match results and are ranked on a leaderboard.
When viewed in this way, while the point and leaderboard are game
elements, no game mechanic is belonging to the football league. There-
fore, the football league is a design in which football is gamified. In other
words, football is a game while football league is a gamified game.
As billions of people around the world support the motivating nature
of playing games both in and outside the classroom, it can be inferred
that gamified activities are influential to overcome the limitations that
gamification might bring to the learning environment (Birsen, 2017). In
line with this argument, this study aimed to examine and compare the
impact of gamified vs. traditional instruction on vocabulary development
and motivation among Turkish learners studying at an English Language
Preparatory School at a private university in Istanbul. The study also
explored the perceptions of the participants about learning and prac-
ticing vocabulary after being exposed to gamified instruction. The
following research questions were addressed in this study:
1. Does gamified instruction have any impact on the vocabulary devel-
opment of English learners compared to non-gamified (traditional)
instruction?
2. Does gamified instruction have any impact on the motivation of the
participants?
3. What are the students' perceptions about gamified vocabulary
learning?
2. Literature review
2.1. Gamification
One of the major ideas of gamification is taking the advantage of
game elements in a non-game context (Deterding et al., 2011; Kapp,
2012; Werbach and Hunter, 2012; Zicherman and Cunningham, 2011).
One of the most common definitions of gamification was shared by
Zicherman and Cunningham (2011) as the use of game thinking in
non-game contexts to attract the interest of users in solving problems.
Werbach and Hunter (2012) describe gamification as the implementation
of game elements in non-gamified contexts. Considering education,
gamification is a process of using some elements of the game to improve
the individual's problem-solving skills, achievement, engagement, and
motivation (Kapp, 2012). According to Squire (2003), gamification
should not be misused with the idea of using computer games in edu-
cation. Games are interactive problem-solving activities that progress
within the framework of certain rules and struggle to reach a common
goal (McGonigal, 2011; Salen and Zimmerman, 2004; Wouters et al.,
2013). For this reason, games provide a natural learning environment.
The games are also used in the classroom environment to reinforce
knowledge, practice, and support skill development. In this context, ed-
ucators can redesign an existing game to the learning goal or prepare a
game suitable for their teaching content (van Eck, 2006).
2.2. Game elements
It is possible to define a game in its simplest form as the combination
of game elements and game mechanics. Game mechanics are fun actions
that the player can do in the game for achieving a goal. Therefore, it can
2
Heliyon 8 (2022) e11811
be said that game mechanics are only part of game design. However,
game elements are the other parts that make up the game such as goals,
feedback, avatar, point, and rules (Samur, 2016, 2018). Game elements
are also used both in-game and in gamification. Notwithstanding, there is
no agreed list or framework in the literature yet regarding which factors
are game elements. Primarily, there are three elements addressed by
gamification research: points, leaderboards, and achievements/badges
(Hamari et al., 2014). First, points are used to give informal feedback and
quantify the progress. The leaderboard is a list to show the places of
players to provide immediate feedback (Werbach and Hunter, 2012).
Lastly, badges are the symbols of expected outcomes for individuals
(Abramovich et al., 2013). They are used for various purposes such as
creating goals, and explanations, describing players with the same ex-
periences, and giving them the status to declare their rights (Antin&
Churchill, 2011). According to Lee and Hammer (2011) gamification
influences three different areas such as cognitive, emotional, and social
areas. From the cognitive perspective, gamification allows students to
find their way out using immediate and clear effects. As for the emotional
aspect, gamification is expected to cause negative and positive impacts,
and feedback speed and intensity are effective ways to create a more
positive environment. Finally, the social aspect is relevant to identifying
different roles in gamification contexts and finding an identity on in the
environment where learners feel safe. However, this situation may cause
players to focus on the quantity rather than the quality of their perfor-
mance to rank in a better place on the leaderboard. Thus, game elements
serve different functions and can be used in different contexts.
2.3. Gamification in language teaching
Recent research investigated the impact of gamification on student
achievement and motivation in language classrooms (Bal, 2019; Ling,
2018; Rachels and Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2018; Wichadee and Pattana-
pichet, 2018). In some of these studies, web 2.0 tools (Castillo-Cuesta,
2020; Osipov et al., 2015; Perry, 2015), or game elements integrated into
the instructional design (Bal 2019; Ling, 2018) were used for gamifica-
tion. However, feedback (Castillo-Cuesta, 2020; Perry, 2015), leader
board and point (Rachels and Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2018), competition
(Wichadee and Pattanapichet, 2018) and interaction (Castillo-Cuesta,
2020) stand out among the game elements used in the research studies
examined within the scope of the study. When gamification and tradi-
tional education methods were compared, gamification had a positive
effect on academic achievement (Rachels and Rockinson-Szapkiw,
2018), the development of language skills (Ling, 2018; Osipov et al.,
2015), motivation (Perry, 2015), and interest (Castillo-Cuesta, 2020).
2.4. Using gamification to promote vocabulary development and
motivation
Previous research explored gamification and vocabulary develop-
ment among language learners (Abrams and Walsh, 2014; Hasegawa
et al., 2015; Korkealehto and Siklander, 2018; Medina and Hurtado,
2017). Web pages and web 2.0 tools such as Seppo, Kahoot, Padlet, and
Quizlet were effective to enhance student motivation and vocabulary
learning by providing them with immediate feedback. Gamification
comprises several benefits as well. First, students can feel in control of
their learning. Student motivation can be kept high by offering them
goals to reach. Finally, gamification gives a sense of growth to students
where they can check their improvement using numbers.
To attain the goal of gamification, the right game elements should be
used to increase the application and motivate the users (Werbach and
Hunter, 2012). Niman (2014) stated that gamification is related to the
intrinsic motivation of students because it lets them feel fulfillment and
enjoyment while learning. Playing game also supports student autonomy.
The reward system is used in the game world including both experiments
and failure (Decker and Lawley, 2013). Fleischman and Ariel (2016)
emphasize the importance of gamification in higher education stating
K. Sadeghi et al.
that gamification motivates within high engagement periods and failure.
In brief, gamification stands out as an effective method when used for
this purpose (Ozkan and Samur, 2017; Bogost, 2014).
On the contrary, it should be noted that the school system is based on
elements similar to game elements like badges and grades. However,
although the school system includes game elements, it does not provide
the same motivation for all students (Lee and Hammer, 2012). Motivation
is the interaction between individuals and their actions over time and
situations (Werbach and Hunter, 2012). In addition, the motivational
sources and their motivational states against situations are different for
each individual (Ryan and Deci, 2000). According to the
Self-Determination Theory (SDT), two major types of motivation are
emphasized: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is the ability of
individuals to act voluntarily in line with their interest and curiosity to
satisfy themselves while extrinsic motivation is the ability of individuals to
act by connecting directly with the outcome of the process, such as con-
crete or verbal rewards, to participate in an activity (Gagne and Deci,
2005). From this point of view, steps can be taken to make individuals'
sources of motivation a part of the process. Supporting feelings of auton-
omy and commitment will positively affect intrinsic motivation (Deci
et al., 2001). Due dates, awards, and verbal congratulations are elements
that support extrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 2001; Ryan and Deci, 2000).
For intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in gamification, integrating
game elements to motivate learners using extrinsic rewards such as game
element levels, points, and badges as well as intrinsic motivation con-
cepts such as achievement, sense of belonging, and autonomy is crucial
(Muntean, 2011). Kotob and Ibrahim (2019) emphasized that students'
internal and external motivation sources should be considered in gami-
fication design in language education. Kapp (2012) added that gamified
activities should be designed step by step referring to the challenges
under the right conditions. Similarly, Glover (2013) argued that certain
points should be considered when gamification is applied in education.
Each individual is motivated by monitoring his development (Ryan and
Deci, 2000; Werbach and Hunter, 2012). Therefore, the game elements
such as leader board and badges should be used to give feedback to in-
dividuals (Caglar and Arkun Kocadere, 2015; Glover, 2013; Nicholson,
2013,; Werbach and Hunter, 2012).
3. Methodology
3.1. Research design
One of the main quantitative research designs is a quasi-experimental
design which aims to examine the effect of an intervention (the imple-
mentation of gamification in this study) on performance (O'Dwyer and
Bernauer, 2013). Creswell (2013) explains that in this design the treat-
ment is applied only in the experimental group(s), and the control group
Quantitative Data
Collection (Vocabulary
Test and Motivation
Questionnaire
& Analysis
Results
Quantitative Data
Collection (Vocabulary
Test and Motivation
Questionnaire
& Analysis
Figure 1. Research design of the study.
3
Heliyon 8 (2022) e11811
undergoes traditional instruction. After the treatment, the researcher
compares the performances of the groups to learn about the effect of the
treatment.
This study, therefore, employed a convergent mixed methods design
where both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and
analyzed, then compared to find out if the data confirms or disconfirms
each other. In other words, statistical and content analyses were done to
triangulate the data. The control group design was applied to enable
comparing differences in motivation and vocabulary gain, and the
qualitative phase was added to find out the students’ thoughts about
gamified vocabulary instruction (See Figure 1).
Additionally, the present study aimed to gain insight into the effects
of a particular instructional approach (gamification) on motivation and
vocabulary gain in English language classrooms. To answer the qualita-
tive research question, the researchers collected a substantial amount of
data, looked for relevant patterns in the data, and tried to induce results
that could explain those patterns. Therefore, an inductive approach was
used in this research which moves from the specific to the general. The
researchers followed an inductive approach starting with a set of obser-
vations and then, moving from those experiences to a more general set of
propositions about them.
3.2. Setting and participants
The present study was conducted at an English Preparatory School
offered at a private university (foundation, non-profit) in Istanbul,
Turkey. The goal of this program is to provide students with language
skills and strategies and prepare them for their respective departments.
The participants were 32 B1 (intermediate level) students (16 control and
16 experimental groups). They were 13 males and 19 females with an age
range between 18 and 20 years old. Apart from the students, a teacher
who was also one of the researchers participated in this study. She was 29
years old, with 6 years of teaching experience, and had a BA and MA
degree in English Language Teaching. She was teaching the two classes
(gamified vs non-gamified) in this study.
3.3. Implementation
A vocabulary pre-test and a pre-motivation questionnaire were first
administered to the two groups of participants. As for the qualitative
aspect, interviews were carried out with the experimental group to find
out their perceptions about students learning vocabulary. Then, gamifi-
cation was introduced to the experimental group as an instructional tool
starting with a sample game during the second week. On the contrary, the
control group was exposed to traditional instruction. To exemplify, the
students played the taboo game to learn and practice vocabulary. In this
context, the words to be told on the word cards were determined as a first
Interpretation
K. Sadeghi et al.
step. For this, the words that students are expected to learn every week
are listed. As a second step, the synonyms and antonyms of these words
were determined. For each word to be explained in the last step, banned
words were selected among the synonyms and antonyms. At the end of
this whole process, 210 playing cards were prepared. A sample taboo
card is illustrated as follows:
Considering the control group, they were exposed to traditional in-
struction. In other words, the students learned and practiced vocabulary
by completing a worksheet. Finally, a post-semi structured interview was
conducted at the end of the implementation to support the quantitative
data and find out the effectiveness of vocabulary instruction. The
following section summarizes the implementation process of the two
groups.
3.4. Instruction in the experimental group
This group was exposed to gamified instruction for a total of seven
weeks. In this context, the taboo game designed for 50-minute vocabu-
lary teaching was played six times. Before the implementation, teams
were determined to play the game and a team leader was chosen for each
team. When starting the gameplay, all the rules were shared with the
students as a first step. Considering the rules, the main task for the
players to do is to explain the word on the card to their teammate in 1
min without using the forbidden words. 1 point is added to the points
section of the student, and the team who completes this task. Leader-
boards and awards were used for teams to gamify the learning experi-
ence. The leaderboard was included only as a game element where teams
were ranked according to their scores. While determining the awards,
different options were chosen to motivate the students. The whole team
members were able to benefit from the rewards. For example, at the end
of the first three weeks, the leadership team got the right to do the extra
speaking lesson, while the leadership team in the next three-week period
got special study tips for the final exam. Finally, the team members who
completed the entire game and left the game as winners won a book. The
students had the opportunity to compete both individually and as a team.
During the game, the teacher was responsible for introducing the rules,
managing the in-game conflicts, and recording the scores. Specifically,
the game was played following these steps:
Step 1. Each team was entitled to play the game in turn.
Step 2. A player from the team tried to explain the words on the cards
to his/her teammates in 1 min.
Step 3. While the team and the students earned points for each word
they knew if they answered incorrectly, the game's turn was passed to
another team.
Step 4. The status of the teams on the leaderboard was evaluated every
three weeks and the award winners were determined.
Step 5. At the end of the sixth week, the implementation was
completed, and the post-test step started.
On the other hand, the control group, who was responsible to learn
and practice the same words as the experimental group, was exposed to
non-gamified (traditional) instruction which included handouts/work-
sheets including matching activities. The answers were checked by the
teacher during the lesson orally. In a nutshell, both groups were exposed
to the same number of hours. While gamified instruction was used in the
4
Heliyon 8 (2022) e11811
experimental group, the control group was exposed to traditional in-
struction to examine and compare their vocabulary development and
motivation.
3.5. Data collection instruments
In this study, data were collected both quantitatively and qualita-
tively using pre- and post-vocabulary tests, pre- and post-motivation
questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews. The pre- and post-tests
included 20 vocabulary items that were related to the content covered
in English classes. The test was prepared by the Curriculum and Materials
Development Department of the University which was an official unit
responsible for preparing materials and tests in the preparatory program.
The test was made of sentence completion tasks as it was the most
common exercise the students were exposed to in their classroom prac-
tices. The reason behind this was to make sure that the students were
familiar with the vocabulary strategy and that they would focus only on
the use of the target vocabulary. As for student motivation, the ques-
tionnaire developed by Lin and Cortina (2014) was adapted. The original
questionnaire comprised 16 items categorized as interest-value (5 items),
utility value (6 items), and expectancy for success (5 items). The test and
the questionnaire were administered to the two groups before and after
the instructions: gamified vs. non-gamified (traditional).
Considering the qualitative part of the study, semi-structured in-
terviews were conducted with 6 volunteer students from the experi-
mental group. The interview questions attempted to find out the
perceptions of students about the role of vocabulary in learning English,
identify how students considered the role of vocabulary in language
education as well as explore whether gamified instruction was moti-
vating or not during the vocabulary learning and practicing process. It
should be noted that this research was approved for ethics by the Ethics
Committee of the University and that informed consent forms were ob-
tained from all the participants.
3.6. Data analysis
In this study, both quantitative and qualitative data were gathered
and analyzed respectively. To decide on the quantitative tests, the
normality of score distribution was examined using the Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test. The results indicated that the data showed a non-normal
distribution (z ¼ 0.87; p ¼ 0.04), so nonparametric tests were to be
used. The data were collected using a pre- and post-test and a pre- and
post-questionnaire analyzed through SPSS (Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences) version 28. Descriptive statistics and the Mann-Whitney
U test were reported to investigate if there was a significant difference
between these two groups’ motivation level and vocabulary development
before and after the implementation of gamified game-based and tradi-
tional vocabulary teaching.
To complement the quantitative data, semi-structured interviews
were used before and after the implementation of gamification. The
gathered data were analyzed using content analysis (Miles and Huber-
man, 1994). First, labels were constructed by the research questions via
open coding. Then, categories were organized under labels as themes
related to the aspects of vocabulary learning and gamified vocabulary. To
achieve inter-rater reliability, coding and categorization of the themes
were carried out by two experts in the field of English Language Teaching
(ELT) and the interrater reliability was found to be .90, which signified a
close agreement on the main themes (Creswell, 2012).
3.7. Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness plays an important role regardless of the type of
research as qualitative and quantitative research. Guba and Lincoln (1994)
identified four effective criteria to be addressed in research: credibility,
transferability, dependability, and confirmability related to internal val-
idity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity, respectively. First,
K. Sadeghi et al. Heliyon 8 (2022) e11811

credibility is one of the crucial factors to attain trustworthiness in research.

To ensure credibility, triangulation, and analysis of recent research were Table 2. Dependent samples t-test pf pre- and post-vocabulary scores.
conducted in this study. The qualitative data from the semi-structured in- Group N M S SD t df p
terviews were analyzed to enrich the quantitative data collected from pre- G1 Pre-test 16 63.44 19.03 4.75 -3.13 15 .007
and post-tests and vocabulary learning motivation. The findings of previous Post-test 16 78.44 19.29 4.82
research were also examined to ensure the plausibility of the research. G2 Pre-test 16 56.56 17.19 4.29 -4.85 15 .000
Transferability which is the degree to which the study is applicable in other
Post-test 16 77.50 20.73 5.18
contexts was another criterion addressed in the study (Merriam, 1998). To
ensure transferability, a thick description of the setting and participants was
provided in detail. Dependability is achieved when the study provides 4.2. Qualitative findings
enough details for it to be replicated in a similar context via the same
methods, an aim we hope to have achieved by providing a full account of the As previously stated, semi-structured interviews were carried out
study steps, procedures, and analyses. Lastly, to establish confirmability, with the gamified group to explore their perceptions about learning and
triangulation was used with two types of quantitative and qualitative data practicing vocabulary before and after the implementation. The partici-
collection tools. pants were first asked about the importance of vocabulary in English
learning. The following excerpts express their viewpoints:
4. Findings
[...] If I don't know the necessary words, no matter how easy the
activity is, it becomes impossible to do it. Therefore, vocabulary is
4.1. Quantitative findings
very important while learning a language and it is important for our
education as well. (S1, Interview data)
To examine the equivalence between the experimental and control
groups, first, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was conducted to examine [...] When there are too many unknown words in a text, it gets harder
whether the data showed a normal distribution. The results reported that to understand them. That's why vocabulary is important for our
the pre-test scores of the two groups were normally distributed (p > .05). overall education. (S3, Interview data)
As shown in Table 1, an independent t-test was run and the results re-
Additionally, the respondents stated that vocabulary is the key to
ported no statistically significant difference between the pre-test scores
success. They focused on the connection between vocabulary and lan-
of the experimental (M ¼ 63.44, SD ¼ 4.75 and control (M ¼ 56.56, SD ¼
guage skills during the English language learning process as shown
4.29) groups.
below:
Further, according to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the vocabulary
scores of the groups after the implementation were normally distributed [...] Vocabulary is the heart of learning English because without it,
(p > .05). Therefore, a dependent sample t-test was conducted to students cannot understand or use the language. (S2, Interview data)
compare the pre- and post-test vocabulary scores of the two groups.
Although there was an increase in post-test in the experimental group, [...] Learning English becomes faster if you put vocabulary into first
there was no significant difference between the groups (p > .05) (See place. Everything you will learn in a language includes vocabulary.
Table 2). (S6, Interview data)
Finally, to compare the vocabulary gain scores, the normality
For the perceptions of students about gamified vocabulary and
assumption was checked which reported showed normal distribution (p
motivation, the responses were motivating. When the participants were
> .05). For this reason, independent samples t-test was run. As shown in
asked why they felt more motivated, the reasons they provided were
Table 3, the mean increasing point of the experimental group was 15.00
related to the competitive atmosphere, having fun, and being interesting.
(SD ¼ 4.78), and the mean increasing point of the control group was
However, the fear of failure and the difficulty of certain words were
20.93 (SD ¼ 4.31). In other words, the use of gamification did not create
expressed by the less motivated students. These comments were sup-
a statistically significant difference in the gain scores (p > .05).
ported in the following excerpts:
Additionally, the motivation scores of the two groups were compared
before the implementation process. The data of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov [...] I was more motivated because it felt like a competition and
revealed that the pre-test scores of both samples were normally distrib- working in teams made me study vocabulary more. (S1, Interview
uted (p > .05). According to the independent sample t-test results, there data)
was no statistically significant difference between the pre-test scores of
[...] It was different from our usual lessons. It was very interesting,
the experimental (M ¼ 29.43, SD ¼ .56) and control (M ¼ 28.18, SD ¼
competitive, and also fun. (S2, Interview data)
.54) groups (p > .05) (See Table 4).
Furthermore, based on the statistical analyses, it was found that the [...] I sometimes got excited because it was teamwork and it was
motivation scores of the groups after the application were normally going to affect my/our success, too. Some words were difficult, but we
distributed as well (p > .05). The results reported a statistical difference managed it and I felt more interested and motivated (S4, Interview
between the motivation scores before and after the application for both data)
the experimental and control groups (p < .05) (See Table 5).
Finally, the implementation of gamification created a statistically 5. Discussion
significant difference in increasing scores (p < .05). The mean increasing
point of the experimental group was 4.87 (SD ¼ 2.01), and the mean The present study aimed to investigate and compare the effects of
increasing point of the control group was 1.68 (SD ¼ 1.85) (See Table 6). gamified vs non-gamified (traditional) instruction on vocabulary develop-
ment and motivation among English preparatory students. The obtained

Table 1. Independent samples t-test results of the pre-test vocabulary scores.

Group N M S SD t df p Table 3. Inter-group statistics of gain vocabulary scores.

G1 16 63.44 19.03 4.75 1.07 30 0.292 Group N M S SD t df p
G2 16 56.56 17.19 4.29 G1 16 15.00 19.14 4.78 -.92 30 .364
G1: Experimental group; G2: Control Group. G2 16 20.93 17.24 4.31

5
K. Sadeghi et al. Heliyon 8 (2022) e11811

and Pattanapichet, 2018). Therefore, for gamification to make a differ-

Table 4. Independent samples t-test of pre-test motivation scores. ence in the motivation and success of the learners there is a need for a
Group N M S SD t df p well-planned instructional design. Besides, gamification is a system in
G1 16 29.43 2.25 .56 .71 30 .479 which the person who performs a task or gives the correct answer is
€
rewarded (Kwon and Ozpolat, 2021). Therefore, it can be said that
G2 16 28.18 2.18 .54
gamification brings with it a system that rewards only the student who
knows. In other words, the student can learn by trial and error without
being afraid of giving wrong answers (Gris and Bengton, 2021). For this
Table 5. Dependent samples t-test results of motivation. reason, not only the knowledge but also the unknowing student is
Group N M S SD t df p appreciated. Considering this situation, in this study, an instructional
G1 Pre-test 16 35.93 2.48 .62 -6.68 15 .000 design was based on the strengths of gamification and game-based
Post-test 16 40.81 2.48 .62 learning which were brought together in the English classroom. There-
G2 Pre-test 16 37.25 3.13 .78 -3.64 15 .002 fore, it can be said that gamified instruction can be implemented to
Post-test 16 38.93 3.56 .89
promote learning and increase motivation in language classrooms.

results reported no significant difference between the two groups. Although
the post-test scores of the experimental group were higher than the control
group, there was no difference between their gain scores. In other words,
gamified instruction did not make any change in the vocabulary gained
among the participants. Domínguez et al. (2013), Hanus and Fox (2015),
Rachels and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2018), and O'Connor and Cardona (2019)
shared similar results showing that gamification does not have a significant
effect on students' achievement while recent studies by Genç Ersoy and
Boyacı (2021) as well as Waluyo and Bucol (2021) gamified instruction was
found to a positive impact on the vocabulary achievement of language
learners. A possible reason behind this finding might be the differences in
the previous learning experiences of learners (Cromley and Azevedo, 2007).
As there was an increase in both groups, the effect of gamified vocabulary
instruction cannot be denied. Therefore, it can be concluded that gamified
instruction is perceived as an effective channel for learning. However, it
should also be noted that since there was no significant difference between
the two groups, the effect of the game mechanics used as points and lead-
erboards might not have much positive influence on vocabulary develop-
ment. As mentioned by Werbach and Hunter (2012), points are accepted as a
sign of poor knowledge when it comes to leaderboards.
Further, no significant difference was found in the interest-value
scores between the groups. However, the gamified group was more
motivated in terms of utility and expectancy for success compared to the
control group. In other words, while both groups were interested in
learning vocabulary, the experimental group gave more importance to
learning vocabulary and its usage in the future. They were also more
positive about learning words. These findings were parallel with research
conducted by Akpolat and Slany (2014), Landers, 2014, and Hew et al.
(2016) stating that student motivation was positively influenced in a
gamified course compared to the traditional classroom.
Additionally, the interviews showed that the gamified group
perceived vocabulary as an essential part of language learning. While
competition, fun, and teamwork motivated the students, they experi-
enced some difficulty with certain words. The reason behind this might
be the fact that they chose the words randomly and they might be
confused. This finding supports the nature of playing games which in-
volves all these processes namely, competition, teamwork, and fun
(Fotaris et al., 2016).
In brief, while various studies have introduced gamification as a key
method (Glover, 2013; Lee and Hammer, 2011), others have shown that
gamification does not make a statistical difference in learning or moti-
vation when compared to traditional methods (Akpolat and Slany, 2014;
Bal, 2019; Castillo-Cuesta, 2020; Landers, 2014; Ling, 2018; Wichadee
5.1. Limitations
In this study, there are some limitations to be addressed in further
research. Firstly, the study was conducted only at one proficiency level.
Adding different proficiency groups could yield broader and more
comparative findings. Secondly, the sample size in this study was small.
The results could vary if the study was conducted with a larger sample.
The last limitation could be related to the limited size of the vocabulary.
Extending the number of target words would lead to different results.
Therefore, this study should be considered suggestive rather than
definitive.
5.2. Pedagogical implications and conclusion
As discussed previously, the number of studies on gamified vocabu-
lary teaching, including particular game elements is scarce. This study
aimed to fill this gap by providing numeric and verbal data. Therefore,
the findings provide pedagogical implications for using gamified vo-
cabulary instruction in language classrooms. First, activities such as role-
playing, storytelling, and simulation are influential to increase student
motivation and should be implemented more often in EFL classrooms.
Instead of using games only as a teaching tool, game elements can be
implemented to make the activity more fun and appealing. For example,
badges and game cards can be used to give feedback to students during
courses. Thus, students can monitor their progress during the learning
process. The interest and curiosity of the students in the course can also
be kept alive by using such game elements actively in classroom prac-
tices. Lastly, the importance of vocabulary learning should be highlighted
when games are included with their elements. The games should promote
learning apart from only being fun. Overall, this study highlighted the
implementation of gamified instruction to boost motivation and vocab-
ulary learning in language classrooms. We hope this study contributes to
the current literature on gamification and vocabulary teaching and
learning, and ultimately helps teachers and students to boost their
gaming repertoire.
Declarations
Author contribution statement
Karim Sadeghi, PhD; Ece Sa
glık; Enisa Mede, PhD; Yavuz Samur, PhD;
Zeynep Comert: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the
experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents,
materials,analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Table 6. Inter-group statistics of gain motivation.

Funding statement
Group N Mean (X) S SD t df p
G1 16 4.87 2.91 .72 3.68 30 .001
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies
G2 16 1.68 1.85 .46
in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

6
K. Sadeghi et al. Heliyon 8 (2022) e11811

Data availability statement Fotaris, P., Mastoras, T., Leinfellner, R., Rosunally, Y., 2016. Climbing up the leaderboard:
an empirical study of applying gamification techniques to a computer programming
class. Electron. J. e Learn. 14 (2), 94–110.
Data included in article/supp. material/referenced in article. Gagne, M., Deci, E.L., 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. J. Organ.
Behav. 26 (4), 331–362.
Declaration of interests statement Genç Ersoy, B., Belet Boyacı, Ş.D., 2021. Devising gamification for vocabulary
development and motivation: an experimental, mixed-model study. Int. Technol.
Educ. J. 5 (1), 32–49.
The authors declare the following conflict of interests: The first author Glover, I., 2013. Play as you learn: gamification as a technique for motivating learners. In:
is member of editorial board of Heliyon Education. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and
Telecommunications 2013. AACE, pp. 1999–2008.
Goehle, G., 2013. Gamification and web-based homework. Primus 23 (3), 234–246.
Additional information Gris, G., Bengtson, C., 2021. Assessment measures in game-based learning research: a
systematic review. Int. J. Serious Games 8 (1), 3–26.
Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.S., 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. N. K.
No additional information is available for this paper. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln. In: Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 105–117.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
References Guilherme, M., 2007. English as a global language and education for cosmopolitan
citizenship. Lang. Intercult. Commun. 7 (1), 72–90.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., Sarsa, H., 2014. Does gamification work? –a literature review of
Abramovich, S., Schunn, C., Higashi, R.M., 2013. Are badges useful in education?: it
empirical studies on gamification. In: 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on
depends upon the type of badge and expertise of the learner. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev.
System Sciences. IEEE, pp. 3025–3034.
61, 217–232.
Hanus, M.D., Fox, J., 2015. Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: a
Abrams, S.S., Walsh, S., 2014. Gamified vocabulary. J. Adolesc. Adult Literacy 58 (1),
longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and
49–58.
academic performance. Comput. Educ. 80, 152–161.
Akpolat, B.S., Slany, W., 2014. Enhancing Software Engineering Student Team,
Hasegawa, T., Koshino, M., Ban, H., 2015. An English vocabulary learning support system
Engagement in a High-Intensity Extreme Programming Course Using gamification.
for the learner’s sustainable motivation. SpringerPlus 4 (1), 1–5.
Paper Presented in IEEE 27th Conference on Software Engineering Education and
Hew, K.F., Huang, B., Chu, K.W.S., Chiu, D.K., 2016. Engaging Asian students through game
Training (Csee&t). IEEE, pp. 149–153.
mechanics: findings from two experimental studies. Comput. Educ. 92, 221–236.
Antin, J., Churchill, E.F., 2011. Badges in Social media: A Social Psychological
Kapp, K.M., 2012. The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods
Perspective. Paper Presented at the CHI 2011 Gamification Workshop Proceedings.
and Strategies for Training and Education. John Wiley & Sons.
BC, Vancouver. Canada.
Korkealehto, K., Siklander, P., 2018. Enhancing engagement, enjoyment, and learning
Apriliyanti, R., Warsono, W., Mujiyanto, J., 2018. The correlation between interest,
experiences through gamification on an English course for health care students.
motivation, English self-concept, and English-speaking performance in nursing
Seminar.net 14 (1), 13–30.
students. Engl. Educ. J. 8 (2), 138–147.
_ Samur, Y., 2021. The effect of gamified STEM practices on students’ Kotob, M.M., Ibrahim, A., 2019. Gamification: the effect on students’ motivation and
Asigigan, S.I.,
achievement in language learning. J. Appl. Linguist. Lang. Res. 6 (1), 177–198.
intrinsic motivation, critical thinking disposition levels, and perception of problem-
Kumar, B., Khurana, P., 2012. Gamification in education-learn computer programming
solving skills. Int. J. Educ. Math. Sci. Technol. 9 (2), 332–352.
with fun. Int. J. Comp. Distrib. Syst. 2 (1), 46–53.
Bal, M., 2019. Use of digital games in writing education: an action research on €
Kwon, H.Y., Ozpolat, K., 2021. The dark side of narrow gamification: negative impact of
gamification. Contem. Educ. Technol. 10 (3), 246–271.
assessment gamification on student perceptions and content knowledge. Inf. Trans.
Birsen, P., 2017. Effect of Gamified Game-Based Learning on L2 Vocabulary Retention by
Educ. 21 (2), 67–81.
Young Learners Development. Publication No. 475459) [Master thesis, Bahcesehir
Landers, R.N., 2014. Developing a theory of gamified learning: linking serious games and
University] Ulusal Tez Merkezi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezDetay.js
gamification of learning. Simulat. Gaming 45 (6), 752–768.
p?id¼XVZM7zSM3G_Psk8GZM0ApQ&amp;no¼ecCq5kIPg0bjLSLnS7ci_w.
Laufer, B., Hadar, L., 1997. Assessing the effectiveness of monolingual, bilingual, and
Bogost, I., 2014. Why gamification is bullshit. In: Walz, S.P., Deterding, S. (Eds.), In the
“bilingualized” dictionaries in the comprehension and production of new words.
Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 65–79.
Mod. Lang. J. 81 (2), 189–196.
Boyinbode, O., 2018. Development of a gamification-based English vocabulary mobile
Lee, J.J., Hammer, J., 2011. Gamification in education: what, how, why bother? Acad.
learning system. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Mobile Comput. 7 (8), 183–191.
Exchange Q. 15 (2), 146–150.
Brewer, R., Anthony, L., Brown, Q., Irwin, G., Nias, J., Tate, B., 2013. Using gamification
Ling, L.T.Y., 2018. Meaningful gamification and students' motivation: a strategy for
to motivate children to complete empirical studies in lab environments. In:
scaffolding reading material. Online Learn. 22 (2), 141–155.
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children,
Lui, S., 2014. Use of Gamification in Vocabulary Learning: A Case Study in Macau. In:
pp. 388–391. ACM.
Reading at 4th CELC Symposium Proceedings. ACM, pp. 90–97.
Brown, C., 1993. Factors Affecting the Acquisition of Vocabulary: Frequency and Saliency
McGonigal, J., 2011. Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can
of Words, 2. Second Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning, pp. 263–286.
Change the World. Penguin.
Caglar, S., Arkun Kocadere, S., 2015. Gamification in online learning environments.
Medina, E.G.L., Hurtado, C.P.R., 2017. Kahoot! a digital tool for learning vocabulary in a
J. Educ. Sci. Prac. 14 (27), 83–102.
language classroom. Revista Publicando 12 (1), 441–449.
Calafato, R., 2021. Teachers reported implementation of multilingual teaching practices
Morford, Z.H., Witts, B.N., Killingsworth, K.J., Alavosius, M.P., 2014. Gamification: the
in foreign language classrooms in Norway and Russia. Teach. Teach. Educ. 105
intersection between behavior analysis and game design technologies. Behav. Analyst
(2021), 103401.
37 (1), 25–40.
Castillo-Cuesta, L., 2020. Using digital games for enhancing EFL grammar and vocabulary
Muntean, C.I., 2011. Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. In: Proc. 6th
in higher education. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (iJET) 15 (20), 116–129.
International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL, pp. 323–329.
Çelik, Ş.N., Kasap, S., 2019. Türkiye’de uygulanan ingilizce o €g

retmen yetiştirme
Nation, P., Kyongho, H., 1995. Where would general service vocabulary stop and special
programları üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir de
gerlendirme. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi
purposes vocabulary begin? System 23 (1), 35–41.
E
gitim Fakültesi Dergisi 16 (1), 1010–1031.
Nicholson, S., 2013. Exploring gamification techniques for classroom management. t
Chiu, Y.H., Kao, C.W., Reynolds, B.L., 2012. The relative effectiveness of digital game-
GamesþLearningþSociety 9.0 [Conference presentation]. Madison, WI. http://sco
based learning types in English as a foreign language setting: a meta-analysis. Br. J.
ttnicholson.com/pubs/gamificationtechniquesclassroom.pdf.
Educ. Technol. 43 (4), E104–E107.
Niman, N., 2014. The Gamification of Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, New York,
Coskun, A., 2016. Causes of the "I can understand English but I can't speak" syndrome in
NY.
Turkey. J. English Lang. Teach. 6 (3), 1–12.
O'Dwyer, L.M., Bernauer, J.A., 2013. Quantitative Research for the Qualitative Researcher.
Creswell, J.W., 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Sage Publications.
Approach. Sage Publications.
Osipov, I.V., Nikulchev, E., Volinsky, A.A., Prasikova, A.Y., 2015. Study of gamification
Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., Ryan, R.M., 2001. Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in
effectiveness in online e-learning systems. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 6 (2), 71–77.
education: reconsidered once again. Rev. Educ. Res. 71 (1), 1–27.
O’Connor, P., Cardona, J., 2019. Gamification: a pilot study in a community college
Decker, A., Lawley, E.L., 2013. Life's a game and the game of life: how making a game out
setting. J. Educ. 199 (2), 83–88.
of it can change student behavior. March. In: Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical
Ozkan, Z., Samur, Y., 2017. The effect of using gamification on students’ motivation. Ege
Symposium on Computer Science Education, pp. 233–238. ACM.
E
gitim Dergisi 18 (2), 857–886.
Deterding, S., 2012. Gamification: designing for motivation. Interactions 19 (4), 14–17.
Perry, B., 2015. Gamifying French language learning: a case study examining a quest-
Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O'Hara, K., Dixon, D., 2011. Gamification: using game-
based, Augmented Reality mobile learning tool. Proc. Social Behav. Sci. 174,
design elements in non-gaming contexts. In: CHI'11 Extended Abstracts on Human
2308–2315.
Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2425–2428. ACM.
Prensky, M., 2001. Digital natives, digital immigrants. Horizon 9 (5), 1–6.
Domínguez, A., Saenz-De-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., Fernandez-Sanz, L., Pages, C.,
Rachels, J.R., Rockinson-Szapkiw, A.J., 2018. The effects of a mobile gamification app on
Martínez-Herr aIz, J.J., 2013. Gamifying learning experiences: practical implications
elementary students’ Spanish achievement and self-efficacy. Comput. Assist. Lang.
and outcomes. Comput. Educ. 63, 380–392.
Learn. 31 (1-2), 72–89.
Ertu
g, C.A.N., Canan, C.A.N., 2014. Türkiye’de ikinci yabancı dil o €g
retiminde karşılaşılan
Raymer, R., 2011. Gamification: using game mechanics to enhance elearning. eLearn (9), 3.
sorunlar. Trakya Üniversitesi E
gitim Fakültesi Dergisi 4 (2), 43–63.
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and
Fleischman, K., Ariel, E., 2016. Gamification in science education: gamifying learning of
new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25 (1), 54–67.
microscopic processes in the laboratory. Contem. Educ. Technol. 7 (2).

7
K. Sadeghi et al.
Salen, K., Zimmerman, E., 2004. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT Press.
_
Samur, Y., 2016. Dijital oyun tasarımı. Pusula, Istanbul.
Sanchez, D.R., Langer, M., Kaur, R., 2020. Gamification in the classroom: examining the
impact of gamified quizzes on student learning. Comput. Educ. 144, 103666.
Squire, K., 2003. Video games in education. Int. J. Intell. Games Simul. 2 (1), 49–62.
Squire, K., Giovanetto, L., Devane, B., Durga, S., 2005. From users to designers: building a
self-organizing game-based learning environment. TechTrends 49 (5), 34–42.
Thompson, C.G., von Gillern, S., 2020. Video-game based instruction for vocabulary acquisition
with English language learners: a Bayesian meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 30, 100332.
van Eck, R., 2006. Digital game-based learning: it's not just the digital natives who are
restless. Educ. Rev. 41 (2), 16.
Villagrasa, S., Duran, J., 2013. Gamification for learning 3D computer graphics arts. Proc.
First Int. Conf. Technol. Ecosyst. Enhan. Multicult. 429–433 [Conference
presentation]. ACM.
Waluyo, B., Bucol, J.L., 2021. The impact of gamified vocabulary learning using Quizlet
on low-proficiency students. Comp. Assist. Lang. Learn. Electron. J. (CALL-EJ) 22 (1),
158–179. https://www.callej.org/journal/22-1/Waluyo-Bucol2021.pdf.
Heliyon 8 (2022) e11811
Werbach, K., Hunter, D., 2012. For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your
Business. Wharton Digital Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Wichadee, S., Pattanapichet, F., 2018. Enhancement of performance and motivation
through the application of digital games in an English language class. Teach. Eng.
Technol. 18 (1), 77–92.
Wouters, P., Van Nimwegen, C., Van Oostendorp, H., Van Der Spek, E.D., 2013. A meta-
analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. J. Educ. Psychol.
105 (2), 249.
Yang, Q.F., Chang, S.C., Hwang, G.J., Zou, D., 2020. Balancing cognitive complexity and
gaming level: effects of a cognitive complexity-based competition game on EFL
students' English vocabulary learning performance, anxiety, and behaviors. Comput.
Educ. 148, 103808.
York, J., deHaan, J.W., 2018. A constructivist approach to game-based language learning:
student perceptions in a beginner-level EFL context. Int. J. Game Base. Learn. 8 (1),
19–40.
Zichermann, G., Cunningham, C., 2011. Gamification by design: Implementing game
mechanics in web and mobile apps. O’Reilly Media, Inc.