CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
4.5 Results of Semi-Structured Interview
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
94
significantly positive correlations among game-related functions of MVLA-GF and learning performance indeed exist. Restated, this study demonstrates that the more time a learner invests in game-related functions of a given MVLA-GF, the better learning performance a learner can achieve.
Additionally, a significant negative correlation between vocabulary learning performance and traditional assessment is confirmed, whereas vocabulary learning performance and gamified assessment showed a significant positive correlation. Moreover, no significant correlations among vocabulary learning performance and the two word lists—both of which are unrelated , or less-related, to gamification—were found.
In conclusion , this study demonstrates that learners with better learning outcomes tend to (1) actively engage themselves in learning activities; (2) invest more time in gam e-related functions of a given MVLA-GF; and (3) spend less time on traditional learning activities, such as traditional assessment.
4.5 Results of Semi -Structured Interview
A semi-structured interview was conducted to collect qualitative data from the learners in the experimental group. All of the ten learners
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
95
of the experimental group were invited, but onl y eight of them participated in the interview. Prior to the interview, the interviewees‘
permissions were obtained in order to record the interviewing process for further anal ysis. The semi-structured intervie w consisted of eight open-ended questions , and the interview time of each interviewee lasted approximately thirty minutes. Excerpts and anal yses are presented as follows.
Question 1: Describe how you used to learn English vocabulary.
All of the eight inter viewees expressed that they often used word lists organized either by different publishing companies or by themselves to expand their vocabulary size. However, half of them mentioned that such word lists were hardl y effective since they frequentl y forgot what they had learned in no time.
This result is consistent with several studies (Liao, 2004; Li e t al., 2010) concluding that repetition is still the most -used vocabulary learning strategies among Taiwanese EFL learners . In addition, it also
confirmed the graduated interval recall hypothesis (Pimsleur, 1967), which denotes that ―those acquired words would inevitably fade from learners‘ memory if there are without effective reviewing processes.‖
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
96
“…Well, I use vocabulary lists a lot, but I usually forget what I have learned when reaching section M! It’s quite frustrating.” (Participant 1)
“…I just try to remember them. Sometimes, I would write down words on my note book or even made some highlights, but I didn’t find it useful.” (Participant 5)
“…I use vocabulary lists often. Also, I usually read English articles online and use oxford dictionary to learn words.” (Participant 7)
“…I bought some vocabulary lists for different purposes, but it’s not that helpful as it ha d claimed to be.” (Participant 8)
“…I usually use vocabulary lists with some blanket papers. Well, it usually turns out to be a waste of time.” (Participant 4)
Question 2: Describe how you learn ed words with the assigned MVLA-GF.
Most of the interviewees indicated that they had heavil y relied on the 30-day learning schedule offered by pre-established learning path . Some of them declared that they, once in a while, used word list for referring to example sentences and word pronunciation. In addition, some of them utilized customized word list for reviewing purposes. Most
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
97
importantly, interviewees‘ time was also massivel y invested in using gamified assessment to evaluate their own learning pro gress.
“…For me, I used the vocabulary li st for the pronunciation of each
word, and I used pre-established learning path a lot. Well, if I got some
time, I tended to use gamified assessment.” (Participant 4)
“…I simply followed the schedule offered by pre-established learning path, and I used gamified assessment a lot - simply because I wanted to know whether I had learned well.” (Participant 2)
“…I mostly used pre-established learning path and then shifted onto the vocabulary list for pronunciation or example sentences. At last,I used
gamified assessment to test myself ” (Participant 7)
“…Well, I tend to use pre-established learning path, and then I prefer to use gamified assessment for reviewing.” (Participant 5)
“…I love skimming the vocabulary list first, adding words with which I’m not familiar to my own word bank. So, I can use pre-established learning path and gamified assessment for active use.”
(Participant 1)
Question 3: What’s your using priority among the six major functions
provided by the assigned MVLA-GF? Why?
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
98
Interviewees‘ responses were tallied in a scale from one (the least
important) to six (the most important). As shown in Table 4.11, pre-established learning path was favored by most of the interviewees (M=5.2), followed by gamified assessment (M=4.9). In addition, the interviewees rated ranking among friends (M=3.5), customized word list (M=3.3), and word list (M=3.1) at a close level . Lastly, all of the eight interviewees marked traditional assessment (M=1.0) as the least
important.
Table 4.13 Results of Participants’ Using Priority among the Six Major Functions Provided by the Assigned MVLA-GF
Mean Ranking Pre-established learning path 5.2 #1
Gamified assessment 4.9 #2
Ranking among friends 3.5 #3
Customized word list 3.3 #4
Word list 3.1 #5
Traditional assessment 1.0 #6
As revealed in excerpt s of the interview, most of the interviewees favored pre-established learning path and gamified assessment since
these two functions provided incentives including ―stage-clearing‖ and
―gamification.‖ Such merits not only effectively motivated the
interviewees in the learning processes but also led to effect of edutainment, a benefit brought by MVLA -GF.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
99
Some of the interviewees favored customized word list because it was the question pool of gamified assessment and traditional assessment.
Word list, which provided example sentences and pronunciation of words, was also championed by some learners for referring purposes. On the other hand, ranking among friends was regarded as an effective incentive for promoting lea rning motivation, which generates from a sense of competition—an attribute of MVLA-GF. Unanimously, traditional assessment was considered to be the least important by all interviewees since it was considered an unfavorable approach to accomplishing assessments.
“…I think pre-established learning path and gamified assessment
are the most important . It helped me review what I had learned. Word list
was a bit messy for me, so I don’t like it.” (Participant 2)
“…I favored pre-established learning path and gamified assessment but also needed customized word list to review. I don’t actually care
about the rest, except for the useless traditional assessment. ”
(Participant 8)
“…pre-established learning path and gamified assessment are my favorite, of course , but I somehow like to add and review some words that
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
100
I’m not familiar with through customized word list as well. Ranking among friends is motivating. You know. You’d like to compete with others.”
(Participant 5)
“…pre-established learning path and gamified assessment provided an easy way of learning. Two word lists were both fairly important, since
I want to refer to a dictionary-like tool.” (Participant 4)
“…Gamified assessment is the best! Otherwise, it’d be quite boring
to learn words. But the learning schedule is quite useful as well. It saved
a lot of time for me. ” (Participant 6)
Question 4: What’s the difference between MVLA-GF and
MVLA-NGF?
Most of the interviewees agreed that MVLA-GF and MVLA -NGF can both (1) accomplish ubiquitous learning and fragmented learning ; (2) provide convenient, diversified learning methods; and (3) offer authentic learning materials and instant assessments.
Eight interviewees further expressed that attributes brought by MVLA-GF—a sense of competition , challenge, gamification, and stage-clearing elements , for example—were expected to (1) offer better interaction; (2) reduce boredom and repetitions; (3) facilitate their
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
101
motivation effectively; and (4) conduce to active involvements. Thus, all of them preferred MVLA-GF over MVLA -NGF.
These findings respond to several previous studies indicating that the a sense of competition allows undertakers to achieve ego-gratification (Prensky, 2001); that games, compared with traditional teaching methods, can promote learners‘ learning motivation (McFarlane et al., 2002); that games are engaging and seductive (Mitchell &
Saville-Smith, 2004); that games assist learners in fostering habits and understanding (Klopfer et al., 2009); and that the fantasy and challenge attributes of games can immerse learners in the learning process (Kang, 2012).
“…Either way works for me. I can learn anytime and anywhere,
unlike traditional learning tools. But it’d better if I can play games and
learn words at the same time! That’s so much fun!” (Participant 1)
“…Well, for me, either way provides various learning methods. I can use them even when I’m commuting, so convenient! But I think games can motivate me more, compared to other learning APPs, I think.”
(Participant 4)
“…Learning with games is an effortless way of learning, I got to say.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
102
Learning vocabulary used to be quite boring, so it’s great to have it supported by games.” (Participant 5)
“…Either way is fine! You can learn with real materials and engage in assessments. But I prefer game -related apps, for stage-clearing and competition really motivates me a lot!” (Participant 2)
“…Both looks fine to me, compared with traditional word lists. But I have to say that I still prefer those with games, actually. I can interact with it. It’s fun! And I also like to compete with my friends , so I kind of like the challenge part. ” (Participant 8)
Question 5: What are your explanations to the research finding s that the vocabulary learning performance of experimental group learners was significantly higher than those of control group learners ?
In terms of vocabulary acquisition, the interviewees responded that gamification -related functions embedded in the employed MVLA -GF not onl y provided a favorable learning approach but also brought about additional motivation and active involvements , thus effectively facilitating vocabulary acquisition. This result is consistent with the study of Huang et al. (2010) asserting that incorporating game attributes in learning systems can encourage learners to sustain their motivation.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
103
Their research also revealed that learners reacted conspicuousl y to extrinsic motives such as witnessing other learners‘ scores.
With regard to vocabulary retention, the interviewees expressed that MVLA-GF, compared with traditional learning methods, offers a challenging, favorable, engaging, interesting, interactive, authentic, and exciting learning environment. Such learning experience can assist learners in effectively acquiring vocabulary. Most importa ntly, MVLA-GF can help learners firml y retain vocabulary they have learned—as evidenced by the results that learners utilizing MVLA-GF retained vocabulary conspicuousl y better than those in control group did. This viewpoint casted by the interviewees corresponds to several game attributes mentioned by previous studies, including challenge, goals (Prensky, 2001); interest cultivation, flow (Garris et al., 2002);
excitement, fun (Schwabe & Goth, 2005); sensory stimuli (Wilson et al., 2009); interaction (Kang, 2012); and encouragement (Huang et al.,
2012).
“…When playing vocabulary games, I found myself more easily to acquire and retain vocabulary, probably because it’s fun and it got some interactive and engaging elements ” (Participant 8)
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
104
“…As for me, I used game-related functions a lot because I wanted to top the ranking list. It’s interesting and fun , and we were even more motivated. It might be the reason why we outperformed the other group, I
guess.” (Participant 3)
“…I was motivated by game-related functions and the interaction functions, so I did remembered words firmly, I supposed.” (Participant 6)
“…It’s interesting, and I know I can learn something even when I’m
playing games. That’s great! So, it should be the reason why we did well.
Well, I hope I was right.” (Participant 1)
“…It’s about the competition brought by games, I guess. It provided additional motivation , so we might actually involve in the learning
activities more actively. ” (Participant 4)
Question 6: What are your explanations to the research findings that the learning effectiveness and satisfaction of experimental group were significantly higher than those of control group?
Most of the interviewees expressed that MVLA-GF conduce to higher effectiveness and higher satisfaction due to (1) offering novel, appealing, and motivating learning approaches; (2) corresponding to
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
105
learners‘ needs and expectations; and (3) improving limitations —such as
boredom and repetition —brought by traditional vocabulary learning approaches.
This result is in line with assertions from several previous research indicating that games can lead to enjoyment (Ryan, 2006); that game-based learning is a promising learning approach that may work better, for the traditional approaches fail to foster knowledge rete ntion and transfer rates (David et al., 2009); that attributes of games can encourage learners to be full y-motivated, thus leading to positive perceptions (Huang et al., 2010); that games are highly motivating (Franciosi, 2011); and that learners favor vocabulary learning through playing vocabulary games on mobile devices (Sukstrienwong &
Vongsumedh, 2013).
“…It totally makes sense to me, for it improved limitations brought by traditional vocabulary learning ways. You know, it’s quite boring to learn words. If there were no game -related function s, I’d rather not use it, for it’d not be either effective or satisf actory.” (Participant 5)
“…Games suits my expectation, so it’d be more effective. As a result, I’d be more satisfied because of it. Otherwise, I’d just use traditional
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
106
ones.” (Participant 1)
“…It makes sense to me. I think, Game -related functions were much more effective than whatever learning approaches exist in this planet, in
my opinion!” (Participant 4)
“…Well, I think varied and interesting way s of learning can usually lead to better outcomes and satisfaction.” (Participant 7)
“…It’s fun, interesting, and appealing, so it’d also be effective and satisfactory in return —well, at least for me.” (Participant 2)
Question 7: What are your explanations to the research finding s that significant positive correlations between gam e-related functions of MVLA-GF and learning performance were confirmed?
Most of the interviewees expressed that it takes time and efforts to acquire and retain vocabulary; however, effect of edutainment, an attribute brought by MVLA-GF, can effectivel y lead to better learning outcomes by providing an appealing learning environment and by improving limitations of traditional learning approaches. Thus, the interviewees believed that statistically significant correlations between game-related functions of MVLA-GF and learning performance are reasonably connected.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
107
In addition, some of them mentioned that learners‘ involvements
might be unintentionally facilitated because of addiction, an ultimate feature of gamification . Furthermore, some of the interviewees specificall y expressed that (1) pre-established learning path enables learners to follow up on their own learning progress; that (2) gamified assessment assists learners in effective ly reviewing what they have learned; and that (3) ranking among friends fosters peer competition.
Such game-related functions salientl y assist learners in the process of vocabulary learning; thus, it is fairly reasonable that significant positive
correlations were discovered.
“…Well, it makes perfect sense to me. It takes time to learn vocabulary, and games, which are rather interesting, indeed motivated
me to learn. That being said, the more often I use it to learn, the better
learning outcomes I shall get . And I can even use it to follow up on my
own learning progress .” (Participant 1)
“…Well, games improve boredom of learning words, and they slightly get you addicted. With more time and efforts, we naturally
learned well .” (Participant 2)
“…we have been learning and forgetting words for so many years; it
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
108
means that we haven’t found a right way. But I think games perfectly improve the drawbacks. So, I think it’s the reason w hy positive correlation exists.” (Participant 6)
“…It’s reasonable. Games make me want to use it to learn more often, so I turned out learning well —with more efforts spent. Moreover, I
can even effectively review what I have learned with playing games.
That’s great!” (Participant 8)
“…Games are fun and easy to use, so the result makes sense to me.
In addition, I love the ranking thing because you can see other people’s progresses, and it motivated me a lot!” (Participant 3)
Question 8: What may exert as a decisive factor influencing your perception toward MVLA-GF?
1. Interface Design
Several interviewees claimed that the limited screen size of mobile devices should be efficientl y employed, and the interface design should conduce to high interaction, satisfactory stability, and intuitive operation.
This statement is in line with Stockwell‘s (2010) assertion pointing out that technical constraints may be learners‘ top concerns, and that a
simplified, mobile -oriented version of the learning tool will be needed .
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
109
Thus, it was further advocated that MVLA-GF developers, aspiring to overcome the technical constraints and to satisfy their target users , must invest sufficient time and efforts in dealing with the interface design.
2. Gamification Design
Most of the interviewees expressed that the gamification design should be carried out thoughtfully, and should also be interesting, challenging, engaging, and frequentl y-updated. In addition, it was expected that the gamification design should provide learners with incentives, such as credits , level-ups, or stage-clearing rewards. Such statements echoed the intricacy of edutainment design ( Rosas et al, 2003) advocating that edutainment design tends to lack attractive game attributes, given that the pedagogical purpose customaril y outweighs the entertaining purpose. Moreover, it can also be connec ted with the practical issues, mention ed by Richard (2006), suggesting that the costs of developing serious games may deter game developers, for the present market fails to make the investment financiall y -appealing. Hence, this study concludes that onl y a thoughtfull y-devised design scheme can lay a solid foundation for successful gamification design.
3. Content Design
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
110
Some interviewees proposed that the content design should (1) correspond to the needs coming from learners either at different levels or with different purposes ; and (2) offer authentic materials, well -organized learning plans, varied learning methods, and expandability. Such statements, to certain extent, correspond to the assertion of Uzun et al.
(2013) indicating that learning a fore ign language through games is never an easy matter, for learner ‘s expectations and needs vary with time.
Hence, with regard to content design, this study suggests that learners‘
actual needs, material -choosing criteria, learning -facilitating mechanism, and expandability ought to be taken into account.
4. Health Concerns
Several interviewees asserted that heavy dependence on mobile devices with small screen sizes may be detrimental to learners‘ eye health.
Thus, health concerns may affect their long -term usage intention. This result echoes the concern, indicated by Valk et al. (2010), arguing that mobile devices‘ limited screen size is not only a barrier to effective learning but may also, more or less, exerts negative influence on users‘
eye health.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
111
5. Costs
Some interviewees claimed that, if the price of a given MVLA -GF is not prominently affordable, they might prefer to choose traditional vocabulary books . Moreover, extra time required for fitting into new learning tools may also impede learners ‘ willingness to use them . This result is consistent with Wang and Higgins‘s (2006) study indicating that it may be time-consuming for some learners to fit into new technologies;
and that some learners may feel uncomfortable when adopting new
technologies.
“…As for me, I do care about the interface design. It should be carefully designed because the screen is way too small. In addition,
Authentic files and learning plans helped a lot, and it should be updated
often. Besides, games should be fun and should provide us wit h various learning ways and different challenges.” (Participant 1)
“…I think, the design of APPs should be simple but elegant. Besides, a varied learning way is important, and I even want to add my own words
“…I think, the design of APPs should be simple but elegant. Besides, a varied learning way is important, and I even want to add my own words