education
sciences
Article
Enhancing English Acquisition: Effects of among us
Game-Based Gamification on Language Competence,
Motivation, Attention, and Attitude towards the
English Subject
Irene Casanova-Mata
Citation: Casanova-Mata, I.
Enhancing English Acquisition:
Effects of among us Game-Based
Gamification on Language
Competence, Motivation, Attention,
and Attitude towards the English
Subject. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci13111094
Academic Editors: Rosabel Roig-Vila,
Miguel Angel Cazorla and
Víctor González-Calatayud
Received: 7 June 2023
Revised: 16 July 2023
Accepted: 24 October 2023
Published: 30 October 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111094
Faculty of Education, Department of Modern Languages, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha (UCLM),
13071 Ciudad Real, Spain; irene.casanova1@alu.uclm.es
Abstract: This study aimed to ascertain if there was a significant impact on the acquisition of English
language competence, motivation, attention, and emotions towards English as a Second Language
(ESL) after the development of gamification based on the famous Among us game with primary
education students aged 7–8 years (n = 24) from a state school in Ciudad Real (Castilla-La Mancha).
An experimental method with a pretest–post-test design was considered, in which the control group
followed a transmission instructional model, and the experimental group underwent an eight-session
gamified experience using Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Four ad hoc tests
were designed and implemented to assess writing, reading, speaking, and listening skills, while
various test adaptations were used to measure attention and motivation variables. The results show
that gamification helped to improve the variables analyzed, showing significant enhancements in
reading from the experimental group, as well as a more positive attitude towards the English subject,
increased active participation, and fewer negative inclinations towards mistakes. The study suggests
that incorporating gamification can have a positive impact on learning outcomes and may serve
as a means of bridging linguistic inequalities and promoting equitable access to language learning
opportunities. However, further research is necessary to explore the potential of gamification in
this regard.
Keywords: gamification; linguistic competence; experimental research; affective factors; motivation;
attention; English as a Second Language; ICT
1. Introduction
Transmission instructional models have long been the most common teaching and
learning process in schools. This model looks for students to obtain greater cognitive
learning acquisition through teachers’ directions while they passively receive knowledge [1]
through different problems [2], like the lack of cooperation among classmates or the
difficulty of developing critical thinking, among other circumstances. Fortunately, this
fact is changing, partially thanks to the new technologies that guide the learning process
into a meaningful and constructivist interactive approach. As Sarramona defends, “one
characteristic of the present and future times is the velocity and depth in which technical
and social changes occur” [3] (p. 39). Thus, a change should be made to provide students
with motivation for learning using active methodologies and approaches based on their
personal interests.
The way that children interact and socialize with others and the world is through
games [4]. Therefore, playing games helps students to challenge themselves while following
rules in a motivational course of action [5]. This motivation partially appears since mistakes
encountered during the game count as part of it, which implies that there is meaningful
learning development [6]. However, traditional teaching methodologies tend to punish
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 2 of 21

students for mistakes, increasing the stress and pressure on students. Hence, using games or
game mechanisms in an educational context can provide a normalized view of experiencing
errors. In this vein, gamification, which uses game mechanisms in non-ludic contexts, when
used as a didactic methodology, allows attention and motivation to be enhanced, as well as
developing positive feelings and providing students with performance improvements and
meaningful learning [7,8]. Thus, research assumption 1 can be considered: gamification
leads to performance improvements.
Continuing with this approach, the use of gamification in education “is a gradual
developed tendency that enables students to enjoy while acquiring new knowledge, as
well as, evaluating their learning process” [9] (p. 387). Therefore, gamification as a didactic
methodology influences students’ participation by encouraging curiosity, strengthening
the cognitive process, developing meaningful learning, improving attentional processes,
maintaining students’ interest in the subject, obtaining immediate feedback and learning
progression, and enhancing motivational attitudes [10–16]. Hence, research assumption 2,
that gamification improves students’ attentional processes, as well as research assumption 3,
that gamification enhances students’ interest towards the English subject, and research
assumption 4, that gamification leads to motivational attitude enhancement, are borne
in mind.
Specifically, in Spain, different projects that highlighted successful results in students’
performance using gamification [17–20]. In this regard, García, García, and Martín [17]
carried out an investigation in a public school in Madrid using the gamification method-
ology to increase motivation and written production in students. This investigation used
two groups of fifth grade primary education students (23 and 24 students) as the exper-
imental group, and another group of students from the same grade (22 students) as the
control group. A motivation questionnaire and a rubric evaluation were conducted to
analyze the variables desired to be studied. The statistical analysis concluded with signif-
icant growth in the experimental group, enhancing motivation and written production.
González [18] used the gamification methodology to study second grade students’ mo-
tivation in a school in Burgos. To do so, this author used a simple rubric filled up by
24 students from the class to determine what they learnt, enjoyed, and liked about the ses-
sion. This investigation deduced that participation, interest, and academic results improved
positively with the use of gamification. In light of the results considered in this project, re-
search assumption 5 is considered: gamification improves students’ linguistic competence.
Gargallo [19] used the gamification methodology in third grade kindergarten students
(31 in total) to motivate them while learning the English language. To do so, Gargallo
used a direct observation approach through an estimation scale and an interview with
an action–investigation methodology. The investigation concluded that motivation and
English use in class improved considerably, as well as attention focus and concentration
on the tasks conducted. Cejudo, Losado, Pena, and Feltrero [20] used the gamification
methodology to promote social and emotional learning in students. This intervention was
aimed at young Dominican and Spanish people (145 and 187 adolescents, respectively)
through a perception questionnaire. The results concluded that there were significant
improvements in socioemotional competence in both groups of people.
With this scenario as a backdrop, the use of gamification in the classroom has become
a powerful and effective alternative to traditional methodologies in order for students to
undergo significant learning. In this sense, the aim of the present design study is to ascer-
tain if there were significant impacts on the acquisition of English language competence,
motivation, attention, and emotions towards ESL after the development of an eight-session
gamified experience based on the famous Among us game. Thus, the research questions
developed to pursue the main objective of the project, as well as to give responses to the
research assumptions contemplated, are considered as follows:
1. Are there any improvements in students’ performance from the pretest to the post-test
after the gamification implementation?
2. Can gamification improve students’ attention?
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 3 of 21

3. Can gamification enhance students’ attitudes towards the English subject?

4. Can gamification benefit students’ motivation?
5. Can gamification positively impact students’ linguistic competence?
6. Are there any significant differences between the control group’s results and the
experimental group’s results within the post-test?
All things considered, in spite of the initial low levels of linguistic competence and
motivation demonstrated by the sample considered, the implementation of gamification
in the English primary school classroom had a markedly positive impact on learning
outcomes when using the ICT. Specifically, it led to improvements in attention, participation,
and motivation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Methodology
A manipulative and empirical study was conducted in the current project as an analy-
sis of the causal relations among the different variables [21]. The independent variable was
the utilization of gamification in class, while the dependent variables were the improve-
ments in linguistic competence, motivation, and the attentional and emotional factors. An
experimental research method with a pretest–post-test design applied to a group of study
participants (n = 24) was effectuated. Thus, different types of tests related to the depen-
dent variables were applied to the study group before and after the didactic intervention.
Consequently, this group was divided into two small groups: the experimental group, in
which the didactic intervention was employed, and the control group, which followed a
transmission instructional model.

2.2. Participants and Context

The study was conducted in a state school in Ciudad Real (Castilla-La Mancha, Spain),
whose sociological foundation is related to a medium–high socio-economic context, in
which there are positive communicative relationships among students, teachers, and fami-
lies according to the Educative Project of the school. The participants were 7–8-year-old
students (n = 24; 50% males; 50% females) who were attending second grade of primary
education. These students were divided into two groups according to systematic sampling:
after choosing one student randomly for the experimental group, the other members of the
very same group were considered every two positions in the school list until half of the
original sample was reached. Then, the rest of the students from the school list belonged
to the control group. Hence, the experimental group (n = 12; 50% males; 50% females) un-
dertook the gamified experience, while the control group (n = 12; 50% males; 50% females)
followed a traditional methodology. From the latter, one student was discarded within the
control group analysis, since he was a native speaker; thus, the sample within the control
group was n = 11 (45.5% males; 54.5% females).

2.3. Didactic Intervention Programme

Amonglish us is an eight-session didactic intervention programme which aims to
improve English language competence, motivation, and attention towards this subject and
how emotions are influenced. This didactic intervention is related to a specific unit from
the Oxford Rooftops: Farm animals, due to the English teacher syllabus temporalization
established at the time of its implementation. Amonglish us comes from the popular game
Among us, as the same map is used, as well as some characters. The reason for this comes
from the interest of the students from the sample towards this game. Additionally, the role
of the impostor is changed slightly, as this specific student must randomly make mistakes in
some sessions. Therefore, other students must work harder in order not to make mistakes
to guess who the impostor is. Table 1 shows the functioning of the didactic intervention
programme created.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 4 of 21

Table 1. Specific and detailed functioning of the didactic intervention program created, Amonglish us.

Considerations Description
- Obtaining points is the only way that the group can pass to the next level.
Precisely, 50 points are needed to pass the next levels until obtaining the total
amount in the last level: 400 points
- Points can be obtained by completing different games correctly for each session as
well as doing extra work (homework)
Objectives of - Cooperating and following the rules is essential to earn badges and points:
Amonglish us speaking in English, helping each other, working hard, and improving every day.
However, deducting points is considered when someone is not following the rules
- Prizes are achieved every two levels accomplished: at levels 2, 4, 6, and 8
- When achieving the final level (level 8), a code has to be guessed to open a
strongbox. A description of the impostor is in it. Therefore, the group needs to
guess who that person is to obtain the final prize and win Amonglish us
Sessions’
45 min
duration
- Pretest: from 22 March 2021 until 26 March 2021

- Didactic intervention: eight sessions (see Appendix A) in which session zero is

Temporalization only used to explain the game and its characteristics. Each session follows the
same layout: (1) explaining games, (2) playing them, (3) giving badges and points
for extra work and the session, and (4) explaining the new extra work (homework)

- Post-test: 19/04/2021
- Hula hoops provided by the school
- Prizes: medals, dinosaur eggs, origami bookmarkers, and diplomas
- Sound buttons provided by the school
- Strongbox
- Among us map and its red character
- Amonglish us presentation for the students (see QR code (a) of Figure A1)
- Animal masks
- Album of badges and badges based on Superzings
- ClassDojo application to keep track of students’ points
Sources and - Extra worksheets (see QR code (b) of Figure A1)
materials - Old McDonald had a farm video from YouTube
- Pretest and post-test (see QR code (c) of Figure A1)
- Right or wrong? game (see QR code (d) of Figure A1)
- Small whiteboards for students provided by the school
- Teacher’s flashcards and students’ flashcards of farm animals from the Oxford
book Rooftops
- Wheel of names website

- Wordwall online games: game 1 (see QR code (e) of Figure A1) and game 2 (see
QR code (f) of Figure A1)

2.4. Instruments of Evaluation

A pretest and post-test were used to clarify the improvements of students in linguistic
competence, attention, motivation, and emotions towards the English subject. The pretest
was taken before the didactic intervention to evaluate students’ linguistic competence and
their perceptions towards the English subject. After carrying out the didactic intervention,
the post-test was taken by the experimental group and the control group to evaluate
students’ linguistic competence and their perceptions towards gamification (experimental
group) and the traditional methodology (control group). Thus, these tests were based on
the adaptation of different standardized tests, as shown in Table 2.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 5 of 21

Table 2. Pretest and post-test instruments.

Test Items Based on Characteristics

Multiple choice questions rated
An adaptation of the ADHD from 1 to 5 are filled in by the
Attention test 1–12
Rating Scale-IV [22] teacher after an student observation
process
Emotions Open-ended questions are asked
An adaptation of Achievement
experienced 1–11 by the teacher to students
Emotions Questionnaire [23]
interview individually to fill in this document
1–4 An adaptation of the M.A.P.E.-II questionnaire [24]
Closed-ended questions (1–20) are
5–12 An adaptation of the M.A.P.E.-I questionnaire [25]
Motivational filled in by students who answer
13 An adaptation of M.A.P.E.-III questionnaire [26]
assessment test “yes” or “no” according to
14–15 An adaptation of the Self-regulation questionnaire [27]
each question
16–20 An adaptation of the EMAPI questionnaire [28]
Closed-ended questions and
Contents and objectives considered
open-ended questions are filled in by
Linguistic from Decree 54/2014 * related to the
- students according to different skills
competence test unit in consideration by the teacher
(reading and listening, speaking,
(farm animals)
grammar and vocabulary)
* Law followed according to the curriculum in force in Spain at the time of the didactic intervention program
implementation (year 2021).

In the present research, qualitative and quantitative techniques were used for the
treatment of data. A total of 192 questionnaires (motivational assessment test and linguistic
competence tests) were filled in by students, while a total of 96 questionnaires (emotions
towards the subject interview and attention test) were filled in by the English teacher
and me.
On the one hand, quantitative research conducted to evaluate the data obtained in the
motivational assessment test, linguistic competence tests, and attention test was compiled
in an Excel spreadsheet. Thus, these data obtained in the pretest and post-test could be
compared using a descriptive statistics analysis. On the other hand, a semi-structured
interview to analyze emotions towards the English subject was carried out using qualitative
research to understand the influence of the didactic intervention on students’ emotions.
Thus, Table 3 gathers the specific information to assess each test.

Table 3. Assessment of each test used, which corresponds to the dependent variables to be analyzed.

Test Assessment of the Instrument Used

Each statement on the test was rated on a five-point scale using always, very often,
Attention test sometimes, hardly ever, and never. The highest punctuation represents inattention,
while the lowest punctuation represents high attention.
Emotions
Each statement reflects the emotions experienced towards the English subject in
experienced
class and during the learning process related to joy, anxiety, and boredom.
interview
The highest punctuation represents high motivation, while the lowest punctuation
Motivational represents a lack of motivation. The highest punctuation is scored by summing the
assessment test responses on the questions answered yes (4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
and the questions answered no (1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14).
Each test has its own total score according to the number of gaps for each answer:
Linguistic
reading (26 items), grammar and vocabulary (58 items), listening (16 items), and
competence test
reading (17 items). The highest result was given for each gap completed correctly.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 6 of 21

3. Results
A data analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS). In this sense, the Shapiro–Wilk normality test was first applied to determine
whether quantitative data were normally distributed for the following dependent variables:
(1) linguistic competence, in terms of writing, reading, speaking, and listening; (2) attention;
and (3) motivation. As considered in Table 4, all variables obtained p > 0.05, indicating a
normal distribution; thus, parametric statistics needed to be applied.

Table 4. Normality tests.

Kolmogorov–Smirnov Shapiro–Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Pretest_Motivation 0.133 23 0.200 0.959 23 0.440
Pretest_Attention 0.112 23 0.200 0.929 23 0.105
Pretest_Linguistic
0.106 23 0.200 0.962 23 0.500
Competence

The student’s t-test was applied for independent samples (control group and the
experimental group) within the pretest to ascertain the mean differences between groups.
In this sense, the p-value was higher than 0.05 for all variables: linguistic competence
(p = 0.407), motivation (p = 0.061), and attention (p = 0.444). Thus, there were no signifi-
cant mean differences, indicating that both groups possessed the same levels of linguistic
competence, motivation, and attention before the didactic intervention application. The
student’s t-test was also applied within the post-test to observe the possible mean differ-
ences between the control group and the experimental group after the implementation of
the didactic intervention. In this sense, the p-value was higher than 0.05 for motivation
(p = 0.288) and attention (p = 0.281). However, the p-value was below 0.05 within the
linguistic competence variable (p = 0.045). Hence, no significant mean differences were
observed for the motivation and attention variables, while significant mean differences
were considered for the linguistic competence variable within the post-test, in which the
experimental group obtained better mean results than the control group, as observed in
Table 5.

Table 5. Group statistics within the post-test.

Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Control group 11 0.7545 0.09342 0.02817
Post-test_Motivation
Experimental group 12 0.7292 0.11766 0.03397
Post-test_Linguistic Control group 11 20.2727 5.89751 1.77817
competence Experimental group 12 24.1042 4.40359 1.27121
Control group 11 1.5950 0.48848 0.14728
Post-test_Attention
Experimental group 12 1.7652 0.85409 0.24655

In this vein, the following sections describe a specific overview of the variables consid-
ered, along with their corresponding graphs.

3.1. Attention Test

Regarding students’ attention, the results indicate that both groups’ inattention slightly
lessened, noting a clear improvement in the comparison of the pretest and post-test (see
Figure 1). Although there was no significant change between the experimental group and
the control group (p > 0.05), the results show that the control group’s inattention decreased
slightly more than the experimental group’s. However, the Paired Samples test shows how
both groups improved considerably from the pretest to the post-test. The control group
and experimental group means were significantly different from the pretest to the post-test
PEER REVIEW 7 of 2
the post-test (p < 0.001 for both of them, while t = −5.560 and t = −4.849, respectively). Thus,
gamification and the traditional methodology improved students´ attention significa-
tively.
Educ.the post-test
Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 (p < 0.001 for both of them, while t = −5.560 and t = −4.849, respectively). 7 of 21 Thus

gamification and the traditional methodology improved students´ attention significa

tively. (p < 0.001 for both of them, while t = −5.560 and t = −4.849, respectively). Thus, gamification
and the traditional methodology improved students’ attention significatively.

Figure 1. Attention test results for the pretest and post-test.

3.2. Motivational Assessment Test

Although
Figure no significant
1. Attention test resultsmean differences
for the pretest andexist between the experimental group and
Figure 1. Attention test results for the pretest and post-test.
post-test.
the control group (p >3.2.0.05), the Paired
Motivational Samples
Assessment Test test signals how the experimental group’s
motivation significantly
3.2. Motivational increased
Although
Assessment (p = 0.007,
no significant
Test meant differences
= −2.927)exist
from the the
between pretest to thegroup
experimental post-test
and
the control group (p > 0.05), the Paired Samples test signals how the experimental group’s
thanks to gamification. However, even though the control group’s motivation also grew
Although no significant mean differences
motivation significantly existt =between
increased (p = 0.007, thetheexperimental
−2.927) from group and
pretest to the post-test
from the pretest to the post-test,
thanks its improvement
to gamification. However, evenwas notthesignificant
though (p motivation
control group’s = 0.148, talso
= −1.102),
grew
the control group (p > 0.05), the Paired Samples test signals how the experimental group’
as shown in Figure 2.from the pretest to the post-test, its improvement was not significant (p = 0.148, t = −1.102),
motivation significantly
as shownincreased
in Figure 2. (p = 0.007, t = −2.927) from the pretest to the post-tes
thanks to gamification. However, even though the control group’s motivation also grew
from the pretest to the post-test, its improvement was not significant (p = 0.148, t = −1.102)
as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Motivational assessment test results from the pretest and post-test.
Figure 2. Motivational assessment test results from the pretest and post-test.
3.3. Linguistic Competence
Regarding the linguistic competence differentiation between both groups, it can be
3.3. Linguistic Competence
said that the experimental group’s mean was significantly different than the control group’s
(p = 0.045, thus,
Regarding the linguistic p < 0.05) within
competence the post-test due between
differentiation to gamification,
both as observed
groups,initTable
can5 be
statistically and in Figure 3 graphically.
said that2. the
Figure experimental
Motivational group´s
assessment test mean
results was
fromsignificantly
the pretest and different
post-test.than the control
group´s (p = 0.045, thus, p < 0.05) within the post-test due to gamification, as observed in
Table 5 statistically
3.3. Linguistic and in Figure 3 graphically.
Competence
Regarding the linguistic competence differentiation between both groups, it can b
said that the experimental group´s mean was significantly different than the contro
group´s (p = 0.045, thus, p < 0.05) within the post-test due to gamification, as observed in
13, x FOREduc.
PEERSci.
REVIEW
2023, 13, 1094 8 of 21 8 of 21

Figure 3. LinguisticFigure
competence test results
3. Linguistic for the
competence pretest
test resultsand post-test.
for the pretest and post-test.

When disbandingWhen eachdisbanding

linguistic each linguistic(reading,
competence competence (reading,
writing, writing, and
listening listening and speaking)
speak-
within the post-test to determine which one was significantly
ing) within the post-test to determine which one was significantly different, the writing different, the writing skill
presented a significant level (p = 0.040, thus p < 0.05), in which the experimental group
skill presented a significant level (p = 0.040, thus p < 0.05), in which the experimental group
obtained better mean results than the control group, as observed in Table 6, while the rest
obtained better mean
of theresults than the control
skills presented group,mean
no significant as observed
differencesin between
Table 6, the
while the rest
control group and the
of the skills presented no significant
experimental group (pmean differences between the control group and the
< 0.05).
experimental group (p < 0.05).
Table 6. Group statistics within the linguistic competence skills post-test.
Table 6. Group statistics within the linguistic competence skills post-test.
Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Group N
Control group Mean
11 Std. Deviation 3.09251
22.8182 Std. Error Mean0.93243
Post-test_Reading
Control group 11group
Experimental 22.8182
12 3.09251
24.4167 2.67848 0.93243 0.77321
ading
Experimental group
Post-test_Writing
12
Control group 24.4167
11 2.67848
30.2727 16.062940.77321 4.84316
Experimental group 12 41.6667 13.51991 3.90286
Control group 11 30.2727 16.06294 4.84316
riting Control group 11 14.8182 2.63887 0.79565
Experimental group
Post-test_Listening 12 41.6667 13.51991 3.90286
Experimental group 12 15.0833 1.92865 0.55675
Control group 11 14.8182 2.63887 0.79565
tening Post-test_Speaking
Control group 11 13.1818 4.14290 1.24913
Experimental group 12group
Experimental 15.0833
12 1.92865
15.2500 2.22077 0.55675 0.64108
Control group 11 13.1818 4.14290 1.24913
eaking
Experimental group 12 considering
When 15.2500 2.22077
the comparison within each group from 0.64108
the pretest to the post-test,
both groups improved considerably from the pretest to the post-test. In this sense, the
Paired Samples
When considering test showswithin
the comparison how the control
each group
group and the
from the experimental
pretest to thegroup
post-means were
significantly different from the pretest to the post-test (p < 0.001 for
test, both groups improved considerably from the pretest to the post-test. In this sense, both of them, while
the Paired Samples −6.931
t =test shows = −8.948,
and thow respectively).
the control groupThus,
and gamification and thegroup
the experimental traditional
meansmethodology
improved students’ linguistic competence significantly.
were significantly different from the pretest to the post-test (p < 0.001 for both of them,
while t = −6.931 and
3.4.t Emotions
= −8.948,towards
respectively). Thus,
the English gamification and the traditional meth-
Subject
odology improved students´
Concerning qualitative data, the significantly.
linguistic competence emotions towards the English subject interview had
some common answers in the pretest for the experimental group and the control group (that
3.4. Emotions towards the those
is why English Subject are combined), having differences after the didactic intervention
responses
from the control
Concerning qualitative data,group’s answers
the emotions for some
towards of English
the the questions.
subjectIninterview
this sense,had
a few answer
examples given in the pretest can be observed:
some common answers in the pretest for the experimental group and the control group
(that is why those -responses
For question 1: Do you like
are combined), beingdifferences
having in English class? What
after the do youinterven-
didactic like the most?
tion from the control group’s answers for some of the questions. In this sense, a few an-
swer examples given in the pretest can be observed:
- For question 1: Do you like being in English class? What do you like the most?
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 9 of 21

# Most of the answers from the experimental group and the control group were
“Yes. I like English class. What I like the most is the activities”. Nevertheless,
only a few people answered, “Not much, but I like the activities”.
- For question 2: When the teacher speaks English, do you understand her? How does
it make you feel?
# Most of the answers from the experimental group and the control group were
“I understand her sometimes. That makes me feel a bit nervous”. Nevertheless,
only a few people answered, “Yes, I understand her properly and that makes
me feel good”.
- For question 3: What do you think of the activities in English class? Is there
something boring?
# Most of the answers from the experimental group and the control group were
“I really enjoy the games, but the book is very boring”. Nevertheless, only a few
people answered, “As the activities are good, there is nothing boring for me”.
- For question 4: Do you like participating in class? Why?
# Most of the answers from the experimental group and the control group were
“Yes, I do because the activities are enjoyable”. Nevertheless, only one student
answered, “Not really because they are boring”.
- For question 5: Do you understand all the activities? Why?
# Most of the answers from the experimental group and the control group were:
“I understand most of them because I find them easy”. Nevertheless, only a
few people answered, “I do not really understand them because they are a
bit difficult”.
- For question 6: What do you use when you study English at home? Is it boring
for you?
# Most of the answers from the experimental group and the control group were
“I use the book to study, and I find it very boring”. Nevertheless, only a few
people answered, “I use the book and some sheets to study and it does not
make me feel bored”.
The emotions towards the English subject interview had some interesting answers in
the post-test with some different results for the experimental group and the control group,
as shown in the next answer examples:
- For question 1: Do you like being in English class? What do you like the most?
# All answers from the experimental group had a common result: “Yes. I love
being in class. What I have liked the most is the games, the badges and
the points”.
# Most of the answers from the control group were “Yes. I like English class.
What I have liked the most is the games”. Nevertheless, only one student
answered, “More or less, but I liked playing games”.
- For question 2: When the teacher speaks English, do you understand her? How does
it make you feel?
# Most of the answers from the experimental group were “I understand her some-
times and it made me feel good”. Nevertheless, only one student answered, “I
do not understand some things and it makes me feel nervous because I can see
other people understand her but me”.
# Most of the answers from the control group were “I understand her sometimes
and it has made me feel normal”. Nevertheless, only a few people answered,
“More or less and that makes me feel so-so”.
- For question 3: What do you think of the activities in English class? Is there
something boring?
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 10 of 21

# All of the answers from the experimental group had a common result: “The
activities were very cool and I have not felt bored at any moment”.
# Most of the answers from the control group were “The activities were kind of
good, but the book was a bit boring”. Nevertheless, a few students answered
“The activities were good, so I did not feel bored”.
- For question 4: Do you like participating in class? Why?
# All the answers from the experimental group had a common result: “Yes, I do
because they are super cool”.
# Most of the answers from the control group were: “Yes, I do because the activi-
ties were fun”. Nevertheless, one student answered, “I have only participated
sometimes because I did not like the games on some occasions”.
- For question 5: Do you understand all the activities? Why?
# All the answers from the experimental group had a common result: “Yes, I do
because they are very cool and easy to understand”.
# Most of the answers from the control group were “I understand the activities
sometimes because they are easy to understand”. Nevertheless, only a few
people answered, “More or less because they are a bit difficult to understand”.
- For question 6: What do you use when you study English at home? Is it boring
for you?
# All the answers from the experimental group had a common result: “I have
used the online games and they were very cool, so I did not feel bored
with them”.
# Most of the answers from the control group were: “I did not study that much
at home these days”. Nevertheless, only a few people answered, “I used the
book at home and it made me feel very bored”.
Table 7 shows a brief summary of the most common answers given in both the pretest
and the post-test, so that a comparison can be conducted at a glance.

Table 7. The most common answers in regard to the qualitative data in the pretest and post-test.

Pretest Post-Test
Questions Control Experimental Control
Experimental Group
Group Group Group
Yes, I love being in class.
Do you like being in Yes, I like English class.
What I have liked the most
English class? What do Yes. I like English class What I have liked the most
is the games, the badges
you like the most? is the games
and the points
When the teacher speaks
I understand her I understand her
English, do you I understand her sometimes. That makes me feel a bit
sometimes and it made me sometimes and it has
understand her? How nervous
feel good made me feel normal
does it make you feel?
What do you think of the The activities were very The activities were kind of
activities in English class? I really enjoy the games, but the book is very boring cool and I have not felt good, but the book was a
Is there something boring? bored at any moment bit boring
Do you like participating Yes, I do because they are Yes, I do because the
Yes, I do because the activities are enjoyable
in class? Why? super cool activities were fun
Yes, I do because they are I understand the activities
Do you understand all the
I understand most of them because I find them easy very cool and easy to sometimes because they
activities? Why?
understand are easy to understand
What do you use when I have used the online
you study English at games and they were very I did not study that much
I use the book to study, and I find it very boring
home? Is it boring cool, so I did not feel at home these days
for you? bored with them
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 11 of 21

Thus, a variety of answers were given by both groups. However, in the pretest, most of
the students of both groups had similar answers, but they changed slightly in the posttest
after the didactic intervention application. Nevertheless, there was no significant contrast
in the answers after the application of gamification due to the methodology employed by
the current English teacher, since she is a teacher who normally combines some games with
traditional methodology in her classes.

4. Discussion
The objective of this didactic intervention programme, called Amonglish us, was to
investigate the impact of gamification on students’ linguistic competence, motivation,
attentional focusing, and emotions towards the English subject. Thus, an eight-session
didactic intervention programme, which was based on the characteristics of gamifica-
tion, was conducted in the experimental group, while the control group followed a
traditional methodology.
In this sense, the pretest showed general but low knowledge about the concepts to
be acquired (linguistic competence) in both groups, as well as the motivation, inattention,
and emotions towards the English subject. Nevertheless, after the implementation of
the didactic intervention programme, the post-test showed interesting results for the
experimental group’s linguistic competence, indicating significant mean differences in
the posttest, thus answering research question 5, that gamification can positively impact
students’ linguistic competence. Specifically, the writing skill improved significatively as
the gamified experience portrayed online activities and follow-up tasks to complete at
home, thus allowing them to practise this skill intensively. Furthermore, both the control
and the experimental group showed improvements from the pretest to the post-test for
linguistic competence. Henceforth, research question number 1 can be answered, since
improvements in students’ performance from the pretest to the post-test occurred after the
gamification implementation.
Although no significant mean differences can be observed between the control group
and the experimental group in terms of attention, it is relevant to remark how both groups’
means are significantly different from the pretest to the post-test, indicating significant
improvements in students’ attention. In this sense, research question 2 is answered: gamifi-
cation can improve students’ attention significantly.
In qualitative terms, gamification had a positive impact on students’ emotions towards
English, since students from the experimental group showed more positive encouragement
towards the subject, increasing their active participation in class and lessening the negative
inclination about the mistakes encountered, as they were solved immediately through
feedback. In this vein, research question 3 is taken into account: gamification can enhance
students’ attitudes towards the English subject.
Regarding motivation, no significant mean differences existed between the experimen-
tal group and the control group after the didactic intervention program implementation.
Notwithstanding, the experimental group’s motivation significantly increased from the
pretest to the post-test thanks to gamification, probably due to the badges employed, the co-
operative work used, the tasks considered within students’ interests, and the online games
employed for the follow-up content practice. However, these considerations were not taken
into account within the control group’s methodology, showing no significant improvement
from the pretest to the post-test. Henceforth, research question 4 is answered: gamification
can benefit students’ motivation significantly, as observed in the present project.
All in all, significant differences between the control group’s results and the experi-
mental group’s results after the didactic intervention programme implementation were
observed, specifically in terms of linguistic competence, thus answering research question
number 6. Notwithstanding, it has been portrayed that gamification, particularly the
present proposal, improves students’ performance (research assumption 1), attentional
processes (research assumption 2), interest towards the English subject (research assump-
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 12 of 21

tion 3), motivational attitudes (research assumption 4), and linguistic competence (research
assumption 5).

5. Conclusions
It is beyond dispute that “educative opportunities and succeeding chances in life are
reflected by the pedagogic system” [29] (p. 5) In this vein, the educative context should
aim at the development of methodological approaches and practices that make students
develop an interest in learning languages in an interactive, dynamic, and enjoyable manner.
Within these considerations, the present project allows students to develop an interest and
positive attitudes towards the English subject but, more importantly, towards the English
language, when planning activities and tasks based on their personal interests, so that
emotions are engaged, thus providing favourable outcomes.
This project aimed to investigate the effects of Among us game-based gamification on
language competence, motivation, attention, and attitudes towards the English subject. In
this process, the proposal designed involved conducting different tasks to obtain points
set in ClassDojo through badges related to specific items to be achieved (spoken English,
helping others, completing tasks, day-to-day improvements, and points obtained). In this
vein, students’ motivation was always kept high when designing materials related to their
own interests: Among us.
Even though this proposal has copious potential due to the impactful benefits un-
dertaken within a short period of time, some difficulties were encountered, which need
to be considered for future studies. Thus, future research focusing on a long-term two-
methodology combination, in which one of them is gamification, should be considered.
This approach would allow students to practise the writing and listening skills more, as
they were two of the main skills that had less practise in the didactic intervention im-
plementation. Thus, students would develop high motivation, attention, and positive
emotions towards the English subject using this methodology through the practise of some
of the main English skills with a more traditional methodology with the help of the book
(if required).
Another approach to consider is the selection of specific games according to students’
feelings. In other words, we should determine how certain games, which depend on the stu-
dents’ groupings, could influence specific emotions. Along these lines, competition is one of
the main factors involved in this didactic intervention shown in the ClassDojo interface and
some of the online games’ leaderboards. Thus, would emotions and motivation decrease
during competition between students? Would the anger feeling and disappointment of
not winning take over in some students? These lines of future investigation should be
considered, so that the foundation of the games created can improve students’ emotions,
instead of obtaining the opposite effect.
Furthermore, students were asked about their extra-curricular education in English.
Hence, a future study comparing students who attend an academy and those who do
not may present interesting new results. In fact, an after-intervention statistical study
was conducted considered this variable using SPSS software. In the pretest, a significant
difference was observed between students who were attending extra-curricular English
classes (obtaining better results) and those who were not. However, in the post-test, this
significant difference decreased considerably. Thus, it can be said that this didactic inter-
vention program helped balance us the inequalities between these two groups. Therefore, a
future approach should be considered to study the maximum balance between these two
groups in a long-term program. Would gamification be able to stop these inequalities and
help students who might not be able to afford extra-curricular classes?
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 13 of 21

Funding: This investigation has been developed thanks to the funding and support received
by UCLM.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the acceptance
of the school members, along with the parental tutors and the students considered at13the
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
school to
of 21
participate in the project, bearing in mind students’ data protection and confidentiality.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study, along Consent
Informed with their parental Informed
Statement: tutors. consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study, along with their parental tutors.
Data Availability Statement: Research data are unavailable due to privacy restrictions from
Data Availability
students’ tutors. Statement: Research data are unavailable due to privacy restrictions from stu-
dents’ tutors.
Acknowledgments: This investigation is a part of the applied research project “Mejora de los procesos
Acknowledgments: This investigation is a part of the applied research project ʺMejora de los pro-
de cesos
enseñanza de lenguas: protocolos de actuación y experimentación para la enseñanza bilingüe
de enseñanza de lenguas: protocolos de actuación y experimentación para la enseñanza bilin-
familiar (PLF), escolar
güe familiar (PLF), (AICLE)
escolar y universitaria
(AICLE) (EMI)
y universitaria y para
(EMI) la innovación
y para la innovacióndidáctica”
didácticaʺ (2022-GRIN-
(2022-
34455 reference)
GRIN-34455 subsided
reference) by UCLM
subsided by UCLMandand
FEDER.
FEDER.II would
would like liketo to express
express my sincere
my sincere gratitude
gratitude
to Professor
to ProfessorEsther NietoMoreno
Esther Nieto Moreno dede Diezmas
Diezmas forthoughtful
for the the thoughtful recommendations,
recommendations, comments comments
and
andguidance
guidanceon this investigation.
on this Besides,
investigation. I would Ilike
Besides, to also
would extend
like my sincere
to also extendthanks to the Depart-
my sincere thanks to the
ment of Modern Languages of the UCLM. Lastly, I would like to thank
Department of Modern Languages of the UCLM. Lastly, I would like to thank the the state school in consider-
state school in
ation and its and
consideration educative members,members,
its educative who were very
whokind wereandverywilling
kindtoand helpwilling
to maketothis educative
help to make this
intervention research possible.
educative intervention research possible.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Appendix A

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure
Figure QR QR
A1.A1. codes for sources
codes and and
for sources materials used:used:
materials (a) QR(a)code
QR forcode Amonglish
thefor us presentation
the Amonglish us
for presentation
students, (b) for
QRstudents, (b) extra
code for the QR code for the for
worksheet extra worksheet
students, for code
(c) QR students, (c)pretest–post-test
for the QR code
forfor
tests thethe
pretest–post-test tests forintervention,
Amonglish us didactic the Amonglish
(d)us
QR didactic
code forintervention,
the Right or(d) QR code
wrong? for (e) QR
game,
the Right or wrong? game, (e) QR
code for Game 1, (f) QR code for Game 2. code for Game 1, (f) QR code for Game 2.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 14 of 21
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21

Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21

Figure A2.
Figure A2.Session 0 explanation
Session and connection
0 explanation with the curriculum
and connection with thein curriculum
force. in force.

FigureA3.
Figure Session
A3.Session 1 explanation
1 explanation and and connection
connection with
with the the curriculum
curriculum in force.in force.
R PEER REVIEW 16 of
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 15 of 21

Figure A4. Session 2Figure

explanation
A4. Session 2and connection
explanation with the
and connection with curriculum
the curriculum ininforce.
force.
PEER REVIEW 17 of 21
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 16 of 21

Figure A5. Session 3 explanation and

Figure A5. Session connection
3 explanation with the
and connection curriculum
with the curriculumin
in force.
force.
PEER REVIEW
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 17 of 21

Figure
Figure A6. Session A6. Session 4 explanation
4 explanation and connection with
and connection with the the
curriculum in force.
curriculum in force.
 Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 18 of 21

Figure A6. Session 4 explanation and connection with the curriculum in force.

Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 2

A7.Session
FigureA7.
Figure Session5 explanation andand
5 explanation connection with the
connection withcurriculum in force.in force.
the curriculum

FigureA8.
Figure A8.Session
Session 6 explanation
6 explanation andand connection
connection with
with the the curriculum
curriculum in force.in force.
 Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 19 of 21

Figure A8. Session 6 explanation and connection with the curriculum in force.

Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 2

FigureA9.
Figure A9.Session
Session 7 explanation
7 explanation andand connection
connection with
with the the curriculum
curriculum in force.in force.

Figure A10.Session
FigureA10. Session8 explanation andand
8 explanation connection with the
connection withcurriculum in force.in force.
the curriculum

References
1. Toro, A.; Arguis, M. Metodologías activas. A Tres Bandas 2015, 38, 69–77.
2. Méndez, Z. Aprendizaje y Cognición, 9th ed.; EUNED: San José, Costa Rica, 2005.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 20 of 21

References
1. Toro, A.; Arguis, M. Metodologías activas. A Tres Bandas 2015, 38, 69–77.
2. Méndez, Z. Aprendizaje y Cognición, 9th ed.; EUNED: San José, Costa Rica, 2005.
3. Sarramona, J. Teoría de la Educación, 2nd ed.; Planeta: Barcelona, Spain, 2008.
4. Hidalgo-Bonilla, R. Los Juegos de Integración en el Desarrollo Social de la Escuela Básica General Juan Lavalle. Final Year Project—
Educación Parvularia e Inicial, Carrera Educación Parvularia e Inicial-Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo, Chimborazo, 6th
March 2017. Available online: http://dspace.unach.edu.ec/handle/51000/3549 (accessed on 6 May 2022).
5. Casado, M. La Gamificación en la Enseñanza de Inglés en Educación Primaria. Final Year Project—Didáctica del Inglés, Grado en
Educación Primaria—Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid, 2016. Available online: http://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/18538
(accessed on 6 May 2022).
6. Sevilla-Vallejo, S.; García-Moreno, A. El método IBI en la enseñanza de ELE. Aplicación de la gamificación en el Camino de
Santiago. Foro Profesores E/LE 2019, 243–265. [CrossRef]
7. Martín Cruz, N.; Martín Pérez, V.; Trevilla Cantero, C. Influencia de la motivación intrínseca y extrínseca sobre la transmisión de
conocimiento. El caso de una organización sin fines de lucro. CIRIEC-España Rev. Econ. Pública Soc. Coop. 2009, 66, 187–211.
8. Meneses, M.; Mongue, M.A. El juego en los niños: Enfoque teórico. Rev. Educ. 2001, 25, 113–124.
9. Azevedo, P.M. La plataforma de aprendizaje Kahoot en las clases de ELE. In Investigación e Innovación en la Enseñanza de ELE:
Avances y Desafíos; Cea, A.M., Pazos-Justo, C., Otero, H., Lloret, J., Moreda, M., Dono, P., Eds.; Húmus: Famalicäo, Portugal, 2018;
pp. 385–395.
10. García-Casaus, F.; Cara-Muñoz, J.F.; Martínez-Sánchez, J.A.; Cara-Muñoz, M.M. La gamificación en el aula como herramienta
motivadora en el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje. Logía Educ. Física Deporte: Rev. Digit. Investig. Cienc. Act. Física Deporte 2021,
1, 43–52.
11. García, F.; Doménech, F. Motivación, aprendizaje y rendimiento escolar. Rev. Española Motiv. Emoción 1997, 1, 55–65. Available
online: http://hdl.handle.net/10234/158952 (accessed on 7 April 2022).
12. Mayer, R. Rote Versus Meaningful Learning. Theory Pract. 2002, 41, 226–232. [CrossRef]
13. Chaiyo, Y.; Nokham, R. The effect of Kahoot, Quizizz and Google Forms on the student’s perception in the classrooms response
system. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 1–4
March 2017; pp. 178–182. [CrossRef]
14. Yunyongying, P. Gamification: Implications for curricular design. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2014, 6, 410–412. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Scott, A.; School of Interactive Arts and Technology, Simon Fraser University, Surrey, BC, Canada; Neustaedter, C.; School of
Interactive Arts and Technology, Simon Fraser University, Surrey, BC, Canada. Personal communication, 2013.
16. Garris, R.; Ahlers, R.; Driskell, J. Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simul. Gaming 2002,
33, 441–467. [CrossRef]
17. García, F.; García, O.; Martín, M. La Gamificación Como Recurso Para la Mejora del Aprendizaje del Inglés en Educación Primaria.
Red Investig. Sobre Liderazgo Mejor. Educ. 2018, 466–468. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10486/682944 (accessed on 3
March 2022).
18. González, A. La Gamificación Como Elemento Motivador en la Enseñanza de una Segunda Lengua en Educación Primaria.
Master’s Thesis, Universidad de Burgos, Burgos, Spain, 2017.
19. Gargallo, P. Una experiencia de gamificación con tablets para potenciar el inglés en el aula de infantil. Master’s Thesis, Universitat
Jaume I, Castellón de la Plana, Spain, 2017.
20. Cejudo, J.; Losada, L.; Pena, M.; Feltrero, R. Programa “aislados”: La gamificación como estrategia para promover el aprendizaje
social y emocional. Voces Educ. 2019, 155–168. Available online: https://www.revista.vocesdelaeducacion.com.mx/index.php/
voces/article/view/218 (accessed on 12 April 2022).
21. Ato, M.; López, J.J.; Benavente, A. Un Sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. An. Psicol. 2013,
29, 1038–1059. [CrossRef]
22. DuPaul, G.J.; Power, T.J.; Anastopoulos, A.D.; Reid, R. ADHD Rating Scale—IV: Checklists, Norms, and Clinical Interpretation;
Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998.
23. Pekrun, R.; Goetz, T.; Perry, R.P. Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of
quantitative and qualitative research. Educ. Psychol. 2002, 37, 91–106. [CrossRef]
24. Montero, L.; Alonso Tapia, J. El cuestionario MAPE-II. In Motivar en la Adolescencia: Teoría, Evaluación e Intervención; Alonso, J., Ed.;
Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Autónoma: Madrid, Spain, 1992; pp. 205–232.
25. Alonso Tapia, J.; Sánchez, J. El cuestionario MAPE-I: Motivación hacia el aprendizaje. In Motivar en la Adolescencia: Teoría,
Evaluación e Intervención; Alonso, J., Ed.; Publicaciones de la Universidad Autónoma: Madrid, Spain, 1992; pp. 53–91.
26. Alonso Tapia, J.; Montero, I.; Huertas, J.A. Evaluación de la Motivación en Sujetos Adultos. El Cuestionario MAPE-3; Facultad de
Psicología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 2000.
27. Ryan, R.M.; Connell, J.P. Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. J. Personal.
Soc. Psychol. 1989, 57, 749–761. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1094 21 of 21

28. Blanco, J. Evaluación de la Motivación Académica en Niños de Primer Ciclo de Educación Infantil. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de
León, León, Spain, 2017.
29. Vélez-Miranda, M.J.; San Andrés-Laz, E.M.; Pazmiño-Campuzano, M.F. Inclusión y su importancia en las instituciones educativas
desde los mecanismos de integración del alumnado. Rev. Arbitr. Interdiscip. Koinonía 2020, 5, 5–27. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.