To answer the research questions, the following data were collected. First, collocation pretest scores and collocation test post-test scores of both groups were examined. To determine the significance of the difference between pretest and post-test scores of the gaming group, a pair sample t-test was employed and conducted by IBM SPSS version 20.
To understand the relationships between degrees of participation and
51
improvements from pretest to post-test of the gaming group, the total amount of time spent on playing the collocation game and the total numbers of game levels played were collected. Pearson correlation coefficient r was obtained to examine the degree of association. The study also aims at understanding the participants’ perception of and feedbacks on using the portable smart phone game for learning. This information was collected via the evaluation questionnaire. The responses to the 6-ponited Likert-scale questions were analyzed by using descriptive statistics. The responses to the open-ended questions were categorized and summarized by the researcher.
52
Chapter Four Results
Thirty four senior high second-grade students formed the gaming group for this study. As noted in Chapter three, six students withdrew from the study because of technical difficulties. Five students failed to complete the game; therefore their data was not included for analysis. This reduced the final number of participates for the gaming group to 23.
The first research question asks if the gaming group’s pretest scores and post-test scores differ significantly. The gaming group’s pretest mean score was 12.09 and their post-test mean score was 17.13. A paired-sample t test was conducted to determine whether the difference is significant. The results are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. The results of a paired-sample t test for the gaming group’s pretest scores and post-test scores
*p < .05 ***p< .001
As shown in Table 6, the difference between the pretest mean score and the post-test mean score is significant, indicating that the gaming group gained significant improvement.
The second research question asks about if the gaming group’s degree of participation correlates to the degree of improvement. First, the total amounts of time spent by the students with different improvement scores are shown in Figure 7. The numbers on the horizontal axis refer to the learning gains. The numbers over each bar indicate the average of the total minutes spent by the students with particular learning gains.
N
Pretest Post-test
t Sig.
Mean SD Mean SD
23 12.09 5.13 17.13 5.13 -6.584 .000***
53
Figure 7. The average amount of time (minutes) spent by the students achieving different learning gains.
It seems that students achieving greater improvement scores tend to spent more time on playing SpinPenguin. The degree of correlation, as measured by Pearson's correlation coefficient, was significant. (r=0.478, p < .05)
Second, the numbers of levels played by students attaining different improvement scores were investigated. Figure 8 presents the distribution of different numbers of levels played by the students.
Figure 8. The distribution of different numbers of levels played by the students.
51
42 44
65 60
78
86
74
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 10
Average amounts of time spent by minutes
<100 39%
100~150 48%
150~200 9%
>200 4%
54
The total number of levels of the collocation game is 50. If the players can successfully complete each level, their total numbers of levels played would be 50.
A total number over 50 would indicate two situations. First, a player fails a level and attempts the same level again until he passes. Second, a player replays a level which has already been completed. Figure 7 shows that 39% of the students played no more than 100 attempts. Forty-eight percent of them played around 100 to 150 levels. Only a small amount of participants played more than 150 levels. The average numbers of levels played by the students with different improvement scores are presented in Figure 9. The numbers on the horizontal axis refer to the learning gains. The numbers over each bar indicate the average of the total levels played by the students with particular learning gains.
Figure 9. The average numbers of levels played by the students with particular learning gains.
The amount of levels played was not associated with the improvement scores in this study (r= 0.315, p=.154 >.05).
The third research question asks if the gaming group outperformed the traditional group. The traditional group’s pretest mean score was 10.50 and their
106
87 89
125 119 122
155
123
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 10
Average numbers of levels played by the students with particular learning gains.
55
post-test mean score was 14.03. A paired-sample t test shows that the difference between was significant. The results are presented in Table 7.
Table 7. The results of a paired-sample t test for the traditional group’s pretest scores and post-test scores
*p < .05 ***p< .001
To answer the second research question, an independent t test was conducted to determine the two groups are comparable. The results show that there is no significant difference between the two groups in terms of their pretest scores; therefore it can be assumed that the two groups are comparable. The results are presented in Table 8.
Table 8. The results of the independent t test for the gaming group and the traditional group’s pretest scores.
*p < .05
The results of a comparison between the two groups’ post-test scores are shown in Table 9. As can be seen from Table 9, the post-test scores of the two groups were not significantly different.
N
Pretest Post-test
t Sig.
Mean SD Mean SD
32 10.50 4.70 14.03 5.71 -6.443 .000***
Levene’s test t test
Mean SD Sig. t Sig.
pretest
traditional (N=32) 10.50 4.70 .517 1.188. .240 gaming (N=23) 12.09 5.13
56
Table 9. The results of the independent t test for the gaming group and the traditional group’s post-test scores.
*p < .05
The fourth research question asks about the gaming group’s perception of the learning experiences. The questionnaire consisted of 23 six-point Likert Scale questions. A score of one refers to response of strongly disagree, and a score of six indicates strongly agree. Three open-ended questions were used to understand the advantages and disadvantages of playing SpinPenguin to learn collocations, and directions for improvement. The results are presented as follows. Question one to five asked about overall satisfaction at playing SpinPenguin to learn collocations via smart phones. The results are presented in Table 10.
Table 10. The gaming group’s overall satisfaction at playing SpinPenguin to learn collocations.
I’m happy to learn collocations by playing SpinPenguin.
57 5 Playing SpinPenguin to learn
collocations easily fit into my
The mean score for these five items was 3.94. When compared to mean score of 3.5, the score indicates a positive perception of playing SpinPengin to learn collocations. The lowest scores (3.47) was given to item five asking if playing SpinPenguin to learn collocations easily fit into their everyday routines. But the lowest score was only slightly lower than the mean.
Question six to nine asks about the gaming group’s satisfaction at the physical condition for playing SpinPenguin on smart phones. The results are shown in Table 11.
Table 11. The gaming group’s satisfaction at the physical condition for playing the game on smart phones.
Frequency/percentage Statement
1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean
8 The font size is big enough when presented on smarphone screens.
0 9 The design of interface is suitable
for smarphone screens.
58 the overall display of the game on smart phones. The highest scores fall on item eight (The font size is big enough when presented on smarphone screens.) and item nine (The design of interface is suitable for smarphone screens.), indicating that the font size and the game interface provide a suitable condition for playing/ learning. Item six received the lowest score of 3.26. All the six points were assigned by the students, suggesting a great difference in their perception of the game being easy to use.
Table 12 presents the results of the items asking about the gaming group’s perception while playing SpinPenguin to learn collocations.
Table 12. The gaming group’s perception while playing SpinPenguin to learn collocations. 10 I feel concentrated when I play
SpinPenguin.
59
(Table12. continues)
Frequency/percentage Statement
1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean
13 I feel frustrated when I presume wrong collocates. 12 I feel frustrated when my gaming
technique too poor to complete a level. level successfully.) received a remarkably highest mean score of 5.34. It suggests that success in the game arouse the students’ strong sense of achievement. The second highest mean score falls on item 15(I want to perform better than other players on the rank.). Gaming rank seems to motivate the students to outperform other players. The table showed that the students experienced a sense of achievement and heightened motivation while playing the game.
The table also shows that the gaming group feel concentrated while playing SpinPenguin to learn collocations (mean=4.0). Results on items 11, 12 and 13 show that the students also feel frustrated while they are playing the game. They reported a higher level of frustration caused by time limitation (mean=4.00) and a lack of collocation knowledge (mean=3.95), followed by a lack of gaming skill assigned a slightly lower score of 3.52. Table 13 displays the results of items concerning collocation learning.
60
Table13. The gaming group’s perception of learning content and collocation learning.
Frequency/percentage Statement
1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean
16 Playing SpinPenguin help me learn collocations. 18 The hints given at the beginning
of each level is helpful for
learning collocations in the game.
each level is helpful for learning collocations in the game. 21 I now believe learning collocation
is an important part of vocabulary learning. 23 I expect more gaming applications
for learning English.
words encountered in the game.
0 20 I always use reference materials to
help myself complete a level. game (Mean=4.52). In addition to usefulness of the game, the students also expressed a change in attitude at collocation learning. Item 21 received a remarkably highest
61
score of 4.73. It shows that most of the students show a positive attitude toward collocation learning after playing the game. What’ more, they expected more gaming application to be introduced to them (mean for item 23= 4.65).
The gaming group’s responses to the open-ended questions were analyzed by the researcher and then categorized into themes. Question 24 asks about the advantages of using SpinPenguin to learn collocations. The results are presented below.
(1) Integration of playing and learning. (19 tokens)
The participants reported that they like the idea of learning through playing.
They thought the learning taking place while playing the game can retain longer than drills.
(2) Engagement in learning. (20 tokens)
The participants indicated that they feel concentrated and focused while playing SpinPenguin.
(3) Do informal learning at leisure time. (12 tokens)
The participants pointed out that they play SpinPenguin when they are waiting or have nothing to do. They can use the fragment time to learn English.
(4) Repeated attempts. (6 tokens)
The participants said that when they fail to complete a level, they are forced to try again till they make right decisions within the time limit. They believe the repeated trial helps learning.
Question 25 asks about the disadvantages of using SpinPenguin to learn collocations. The results are categorized into four categories.
(1) Too much focus on gaming skills. (18 tokens)
The participants pointed out that the game requires players having high gaming technique and patience to complete a level. Sometimes they stuck over a level
62
and felt annoying.
(2) Not an efficient way of learning. (9 tokens)
The participants reported that though the game helps them learn collocations, it is not an efficient way of learning.
(3) No review system. (5 tokens)
The participants mentioned that when they want to refer back to previous collocation items, they have to search for the right level where the item appears and replay the level. In other words, the game does not help them review what they have learned.
(4) Spend too much time on it. (2 tokens)
Some participants said they get addicted to the game when they can successfully finish one level after another.
Question 26 asks about their suggestions for how can the game be improved.
The results are categorized into three categories.
(1) Redesigning the control method. (16 tokens)
The participants suggested that the game can adopt an easier way to control the character. They thought players should control the moving direction of the penguin in a more direct way, such as right and left/ up and down control.
(2) Adding varieties between the game levels. (9 tokens)
The participants thought the game can be more appealing if more varieties can be added between different game levels. They suggested changing background music, and more vivid sound effects.
(3) Adding an index for users to review the collocation items they have completed.
(4 tokens)
63
Chapter Five Discussion and Conclusion