THOMPSON RIVERS UNIVERSITY
EAL Instructors’ Attitudes towards Game-based Learning Adoption in Education:
Obstacles and Opportunities

By

Muhammad Yasir Babar

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
Master of Education
BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA

Supervisor: Dr. Karen Densky
Co-Supervisor: Dr. Michelle Harrison
Internal Examiner: Dr. Hilda Freimuth
External Examiner: Dr. Ken Beatty

i

ABSTRACT
Due to the importance of game-based learning (GBL) for teaching and language
learning, numerous studies (Hamzah, et al., 2015; Sánchez-Mena et al., 2016; Teo et al.,
2019) have looked at students’ acceptance of GBL for language acquisition. However, little
research has been conducted on teachers’ attitudes towards GBL in English as Additional
Language (EAL) and English as a Second Language (ESL) contexts. Qualitative study on the

obstacles and opportunities of GBL from the perspective of teachers is underreported in the
literature. Hence, the objective of the current study is to explore teachers’ attitudes towards
GBL as well as opportunities and obstacles in an EAL context.
The study used a survey and interview to collect data. The survey data was gathered
from eight university EAP teachers. Four of the survey respondents participated in
interviews to explore the opportunities and obstacles of GBL. The quantitative data was
analyzed using descriptive statistics and the qualitative data was analyzed through thematic
analysis and description. The findings of the survey data revealed that the factors of
usefulness, attitude, and social influence contribute to the use of GBL. The analysis of the
interview data highlighted some themes associated with opportunities of GBL such as
student-centeredness, self-discovery, improvement of different language components, fun
learning, and motivation, while three themes, namely preparation time, reluctance to use,
and learning style, were highlighted as the obstacles of using GBL. The implication of the
study is that teachers acknowledge the benefits of GBL but they need support and further
professional development to help overcome the obstacles of GBL.

Keywords: game-based learning, English as Additional Language/ English as a Second
Language teachers, opportunities, obstacles, unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank both my thesis supervisors, Dr. Karen Densky and Dr. Michelle
Harrison for their persistent support and guidance. They provided encouragement and were
always willing and enthusiastic to assist in any way they could throughout the research
project.
I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to my parents for their
immeasurable love and support. They have helped me to reach this stage in life. In addition,
i am thankful to my friends who have always supported me with their thought-provoking
discussions and suggestions.

i

DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my parents who have always been a source of inspiration
for me. Without their endless support, I would never have been able to complete my
graduate studies. I appreciate everything that they have done for me throughout the process.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... i
DEDICATION ....................................................................................................................... i
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. i
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... i
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND INITIALISMS ..................................................................... ii
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 3
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature .................................................................................... 7
2.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Defining Gamification ...................................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Designing Gamification .............................................................................................. 8
2.2 Differences between Games, Gamification, and Game Based Learning (GBL) .................10
2.3 Gamifying in the Educational Context .............................................................................10
2.4 Use of Gamification .........................................................................................................11
2.4.1 Attitude .....................................................................................................................12
2.4.2 Opportunities .............................................................................................................15
2.4.2.1 Increased Motivation ..............................................................................................15
2.4.2.2 Perceived Usefulness ..............................................................................................17
2.4.2.3 Perceived Social Influence ......................................................................................18
2.4.3 Obstacles ...................................................................................................................19
2.4.3.1 Resources ...............................................................................................................19
2.4.3.2 Time .......................................................................................................................20
2.4.3.3 Teachers and Learner Preferences ...........................................................................21
2.5 Gamifying in Language Learning .....................................................................................22
2.6 Gamyfying and Affective Filter .......................................................................................23
2.7 Student-centered versus Teacher-centered Approaches ...................................................24
2.8 Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................25
2.8.1 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) .............................25
2.8.2 Technology Acceptance Model..................................................................................27
2.8.3 The UTAUT & TAM Framework ..............................................................................28
Chapter 3: Methods .............................................................................................................30
i

3.1 Research Design ..............................................................................................................30
3.1.1 Justification of Method Selection ...............................................................................30
3.2 Researcher Statement .......................................................................................................32
3.3 Data Collection Methods..................................................................................................34
3.3.1 Survey .......................................................................................................................34
3.3.2 Interview ...................................................................................................................34
3.4 Participant Selection ........................................................................................................35
3.5 Data collection .................................................................................................................35
3.6 Analysis ...........................................................................................................................36
3.6.1 Emergent Coding Structure........................................................................................36
3.7 Trustworthiness ...............................................................................................................36
Chapter 4: Results ...............................................................................................................39
4.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................39
4.1 Background of Participants ..............................................................................................39
4.2 Opportunities for Using GBL ...........................................................................................40
4.2.1 Usefulness .................................................................................................................40
4.2.2 Control over Teaching ...............................................................................................41
4.2.3 Improving the Quality of Work..................................................................................42
4.2.4 Communication and Interaction .................................................................................44
4.2.5 Increasing Motivation ................................................................................................44
4.3 Attitudes towards GBL ....................................................................................................45
4.3.1 Fun and Enjoyment in GBL .......................................................................................47
4.3.2 Comfort Level in Using GBL ....................................................................................48
4.4 Social Influence ...............................................................................................................49
4.4.1 Encouragment from Respected People .......................................................................50
4.4.2 Peer/coworker Influence ............................................................................................51
4.4.3 Effect of Influential People ........................................................................................53
4.4.4. Sharing with Colleagues ...........................................................................................54
4.5 Use of GBL .....................................................................................................................55
4.5.1 Frequency of Use ......................................................................................................55
4.5.2 Future Use of GBL ....................................................................................................57
4.6 Obstacles of Using GBL ..................................................................................................59
4.6.1 Lack of Time .............................................................................................................59
4.6.2. Lack of Resources ....................................................................................................60
ii

4.6.3. Student Preference ....................................................................................................61
Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations ...................................................................64
5.1 Opportunities ...................................................................................................................64
5.2 Obstacles .........................................................................................................................66
5.3 Implications .....................................................................................................................68
5.3.1 Teachers ....................................................................................................................68
5.3.2 Students.....................................................................................................................70
5.3.3 Administrators ...........................................................................................................71
5.4 Limitations of the Study ...................................................................................................73
5.5 Future Work ....................................................................................................................74
Chapter 6: Conclusion .........................................................................................................75
APPENDICES .....................................................................................................................88
Appendix A - EAL teachers' attitudes towards game-based learning technology ....................88
Appendix B - Survey Consent ................................................................................................90
Appendix C - Survey Questionnaire .......................................................................................95
Appendix D - Interview Consent ............................................................................................99
Appendix E - Interview Protocol.......................................................................................... 102
Appendix F - Ethics Approval ............................................................................................. 103

iii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1...................................................................................................................................... 9
TABLE 2.....................................................................................................................................40

i

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1…….……………………………………………………………………………………..5
FIGURE 2……………………………………………………………………………………….....25
FIGURE 3……………………………………………………………………………………….....27
FIGURE 4……………………………………………………………………………………….....31
FIGURE 5……………………………………………………………………………………….....40
FIGURE 6……………………………………………………………………………………….....41
FIGURE 7……………………………………………………………………………………….....42
FIGURE 8……………………………………………………………………………………….....45
FIGURE 9……………………………………………………………………………………….....46
FIGURE 10…………………………………………………………………………………….......48
FIGURE 11…………………………………………………………………………………….......49
FIGURE 12…………………………………………………………………………………….......51
FIGURE 13…………………………………………………………………………………….......52
FIGURE 14…………………………………………………………………………………….......53
FIGURE 15…………………………………………………………………………………….......55
FIGURE 16…………………………………………………………………………………….......57

i

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND INITIALISMS

BI

Behavioral Intentions

EAL

English as Additional Language

ELLT

English Language Learning and Teaching

ESL

English as a Second Language

GBL

Game-based Learning

IDT

Innovation Diffusion Theory

IS

Information System

MM

Motivational Model

MPCU

Model of PC Utilization

PI

Principal Investigator

PU

Perceived Usefulness

SCT

Social Cognitive Theory

TAM

Technology Acceptance Model

TPM

Theory of Planned Behavior

TRA

Theory of Reasoned Action

TRU

Thompson Rivers University

UTAUT

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

ii

Chapter 1: Introduction

Before the world was changed by COVID-19 in 2020, I was volunteer teaching
English to English as an Additional Language (EAL) learners (18+ years) in an English
language classroom at Kamloops Immigrant Services in Kamloops, British Columbia,
Canada. Most of the students were from Asian and Arab countries. I was supposed to teach
my students with traditional lesson plans. One day, I chose to use an online game platform
called Kahoot. Kahoot is a game-based learning platform used in educational institutes for
enhancing learning. It covers user-generated multiple-choice quizzes which can be accessed
through the web browser of the Kahoot application.
I noticed that my students immediately became engaged, and they were excited about
getting into teams and participating in the competition. This experience led me to undertake
the study of game-based learning (GBL) in English language teaching.
In 2007, with the increase in online games for entertainment, there has been a wider
use of online games in education (Sobocinski, 2018; Zarzycka-Piskorz, 2016). Games act as
a catalyst in educational contexts in that they enhance students’ motivation to engage in
different learning and task completion activities. Consequently, the concept of gamification
emerged and game-based learning (GBL) in education expanded. Gamification is defined as,
“the use of game design elements in non-game contexts and it is gaining momentum in a
wide range of areas including education” (Sanchez-Mena et al., 2017, p.434). In GBL
students engage in active learning within a game framework to reinforce specific learning
objectives as well as measurable outcomes connected to the curriculum. In GBL, the game is
used as the learning experience, while in gamification, the game elements are added to the
conventional method of teaching (Brude, 2014: TürkDilKurumu, 2017). In this study, the
focus was originally on gamification; however, during the data collection phase it was clear
that the participating teachers use GBL rather than gamification to teach students. A further
definition of both terms follows.

3

GBL is not a new concept, but the term gamification has been implemented in
education for teaching and learning different subjects since 2000 (Barab & Dede, 2007;
Zarzycka-Piskorz, 2016). Santos-Villalba et al. (2020) argue that the aim of gamification is
“to encourage curiosity towards learning new content; to adapt to the learning pace of the
students; to motivate and generate a good climate in the classroom” (Santos-Villalba et al.,
2020, p.14). An in-depth definition of GBL will be provided in the following chapter.
After exploring the literature on education and GBL, various factors related to the
use of GBL by teachers emerged. These include factors such as usefulness (Sánchez-Mena
et al., 2016; Teo et al., 2019 ; Yoo et al., 2017; attitude (Alabbasi, 2018; Sánchez-Mena et
al., 2017; Yüksel & Durmaz, 2016), and social influence (Ssekibaamu, 2015; Yüksel &
Durmaz, 2016). These will be fully discussed in the literature review section in Chapter two.
Teachers are classroom leaders with a crucial role in using innovative methods of
teaching such as gamification (Alabbasi, 2018). In this vein, Martí-Parreño et al. (2016)
acknowledge, “Teachers will play a key role in adopting the use of gamification in their
courses based on their attitude towards gamification” (p.683).While studies indicate that
students have positive attitudes towards gamification, little evidence is available regarding
teachers’ perspectives of gamification (Sánchez-Mena et al. 2016). Martí-Parreño et al.
(2016) agree, “despite an increasing academic interest in gamification over the last years,
teachers’ attitude towards gamification and actual use of gamification remains a neglected
research area” (p. 682).
Games are used not only for entertainment but also for academic purposes. GBL and
gamification have attracted the attention of scholars in the field of language teaching and
learning through the adoption of game design elements and principles that are used to
enhance language learning. This happens by providing an encouraging environment where
students are motivated and engaged in GBL activities with enjoyment (Asiri, 2017; Yang et
al., 2016). For English language teachers, GBL is used to motivate students and engage
them in different fun language learning activities.
According to Alfulaih, (2018) and Asiri (2019), a large number of English teachers
are struggling to motivate and engage students in language learning tasks and activities.
4

GBL and gamification not only enhance the learning of writing, reading, speaking,
vocabulary, grammar, but also encourage collaboration. Gamifying helps improve language
skills and components in a fun way (Escudero Mancebo, 2015). We need to be “gamifying
the L2 classroom and interaction” (Flores, 2015). Shatz (2015) explores that how risk-taking
through GBL leads to language learning, particularly vocabulary enhancement. Rawendy et
al. (2017) conducted an experimental study to look at the effects of GBL on learning the
Chinese language and found that it positively impacts language learning. Franciosi (2017)
discussed how computer-based GBL can help improve vocabulary. However, Šlibar et al.
(2018) reported that teachers were not aware of the significance of GBL in education.
Further details on these studies will be presented in the Literature Review.
There are very few studies on teachers’ perspectives of GBL, particularly in the
language learning context. Sánchez-Mena et al. (2017), for example, in a previous study on
language learning and GBL, highlight the paucity of studies on GBL use among language
teachers (Asiri, 2019). Hence, we need more studies to explore teachers’ perceptions of
GBL in the English language learning classroom (Alabbasi, 2018). This is a gap in the
literature this study hopes to fill.
Thus, the present study was undertaken to bridge the gap in the literature and address the
following research questions:
1. What are the opportunities for using GBL in EAL classrooms?
2. What are the obstacles for using GBL in EAL classrooms?
This study aims at exploring (EAL) teachers’ attitudes towards GBL in terms of
opportunities and challenges in language teaching and learning. To develop a deeper
understanding of the complex nature of GBL in an EAL context, a mixed method study that
involved multiple sources of evidence, quantitative and qualitative data from a survey and
qualitative data from interviews with EAL instructors, was undertaken.
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al.,
2003) is applied to the study as a theoretical framework from the perspectives of English
teachers to assist in understanding, conceptualizing, and interpreting the information of GBL
5

opportunities and obstacles. This theory has been instrumental in exploring and analyzing
attitudes of teachers towards GBL opportunities and obstacles in EAL (Asiri, 2019).
UTAUT provides a concrete structure without the elimination of the possibilities of dynamic
changes and interactions taking place among the constructs connected with GBL. The theory
focuses on the use of GBL by EAL teachers without losing the individual perspectives of
participants as persons creating, leading, and experiencing the phenomenon. The theoretical
framework will be fully described in the next chapter.
An outline of methodology will be followed by the analysis and discussion of data
gathered through surveys and interviews from English teachers at Thompson Rivers
University (TRU), a mid-size, comprehensive university located in Kamloops, British
Columbia, Canada. The final chapter proposes implications and recommendations for
stakeholders: teachers, students, curriculum developers, and policy makers.
This project focuses on teachers’ attitudes towards GBL and deepens our
understanding and provides insights into opportunities and obstacles of GBL in education,
particularly in EAL contexts – consequently aiding in supporting the use of GBL while at
the same time addressing the barriers. It opens conversations on the use of a new approach
to language learning. Furthermore, the study may ameliorate the issues of GBL and foster
integration of GBL into language learning. However, a great amount of literature review in
this study refers to gamification. This is because initially the current study focused on
gamification use in EAL language teaching and learning context, nevertheless, it turned out
that most of the study participants were highlighting the term GBL and a great bulk of
obtained data was representing use of GBL. Consequently, this study uses gamifying as an
umbrella term covering both GBL and gamification.

6

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature

2.0 Introduction
With technology being ubiquitous, students need to be able to use it effectively.
Digital literacy should, therefore, be a part of any curriculum which can lend support to
learning catering to the needs of students with learning preferences. Teachers must find
solutions to critical issues associated with learners’ different learning styles and interests
(Kiryakova et al., 2014). Teachers should employ different teaching approaches and
methods that enable students to actively participate in class activities with strong motivation
to engage in their learning. This is where gamifying as an educational approach and
technique can play an important role by enhancing learners’ motivation and engagement.
This chapter presents the literature review on gamification and GBL as well as presents an
overview of the theoretical framework which underpins the study design. I will first define
gamification and GBL and how they are used in educational contexts and specifically in
EAL contexts. Subsequently, I will look at the literature related to opportunities and
obstacles connected with the adoption of GBL in general educational contexts, and finally
outline the theoretical framework that I will use to ground my study. Figure 1 demonstrates
the components of gamifying, as an umbrella term, covering gamification and GBL.
Figure 1
Gamifying: gamification and game-based learning

Gamifying

Game Based
Learning (GBL)

Gamification

2.1 Defining Gamification
A wide array of definitions for gamification has been proposed. Deterding et al.
(2011) defined gamification as, “an informal umbrella term for the use of video game
elements in non-gaming systems to improve user experience and user engagement”
(p.2425). Mena et al. (2017) define gamification as, “the use of game design elements in
7

non-game contexts, and it is gaining momentum in a wide range of areas including
education” (p. 434). According to Kim and Lee (2015), “the main goal of gamification is to
encourage greater engagement in people and aiding in creating richer experiences in
everyday life events through game mechanics and most importantly, with more enjoyment”
(p.8484). Some principles such as play, challenge, control, rewards, and curiosity are
commonly embedded in games which make the participation of learners in gamification
more engaging and meaningful (Barab et al., 2005). Werbach and Hunter (2012) described
gamification as the technique of using game design and game elements in non-game
contexts. Korkealehto and Siklander (2018) note that gamification helps to address the issue
of students’ engagement in traditional learning settings where students’ engagement has
been on the decline, resulting in less learning taking place. It is believed that gamification
triggers interest and enhances engagement in learning activities (Su & Cheng, 2015).
Similarly, Su and Cheng (2015, p. 269, as cited in Martí-Parreño et al., 2016) include
engagement in their definition, stating gamification is “the use of game design elements and
game mechanics in non-game contexts in order to engage people and solve problems” (p.
683). It is associated with the processes and activities that lead to problem solving using
game elements (Deterding et al., 2011).Gamification employs elements from theories and
game design which eventually suit it to be applied to educational contexts where the
elements of engagement, motivation, enjoyment, positive attitudes, knowledge, and skill
learning facilitation are highlighted (Hanus & Fox, 2015; Sobocinski, 2018).
In the current study, gamification is defined as an approach which adopts game
elements from both traditional and web-based games to create a motivating, engaging, and
interesting classroom atmosphere where language learning takes place.
2.1.1 Designing Gamification
Designing games involves the selection of different game elements. Game elements
refer to the regular pattern designs that are used to design games. Game elements include
points, leaderboards, badges, progression charts or progress bars, levels, quests, performance
graphs, rewards, social elements, and avatars (see Table 1). Each of these game elements has
different purposes and can be adapted to different contexts such as business, work, or
education.
8

Table 1
Game elements and definitions
Game element

Definition

Points

Refer to numeric accumulation according to certain activities

Badges

Refer to the visual representations of achievement shown online

Leaderboards

Refer to ranking the players based on successes

Progress bars/Progression

Used to show a player’s status

Performance graph

Used to show the performance of player

Quests

Refer to the tasks that players must fulfill in a given game

Levels

Refer to a part or section of the game

Avatars

Refer to the visual representations of a player

Social elements

Refer to the associations with other users through the games

Rewards/reward system

Refer to a system that motivates players that complete a quest

Source: adopted from Flores (2015, p.39)
In educational contexts, each game element has the potential to improve language
teaching and learning (Cahyani, 2016). Most games have these elements embedded and
follow a systematic plan. According to Flores (2015), three basic elements are integrated in
every game, namely rewards, progression, and meta-centered activities. Notably, all game
activities appear to be meta-centered as they focus on specific objectives in which the
players need to defeat obstacles and conditions to accomplish a quest and win.
Correspondingly, in each context, the game uses a mechanism to help the players get a
reward system (Bicen & Kocakoyun, 2018). Pho and Dinscore (2015) contend that
gamification incorporates different game elements such as points, levels, leaderboard, time
restrictions, challenges, incentives, competitions, and feedback loops that encourage
students to achieve educational goals. The main emphasis is to increase participation and
engagement by motivating the users. Various research studies have explored the advantages
of using gamification. (AlMarshedi et al., 2017; Bovermann et al., 2018; Hamzah, et al.,
9

2015; Korkealehto & Siklander, 2018) and obstacles (Sánchez-Mena & Martí-Parreño,
2017; Šćepanović, Žarić, & Matijević, 2015) towards using gamification.
2.2 Differences between Games, Gamification, and Game Based Learning (GBL)
A game is defined as an entertainment which has certain rules that users need to follow
which enhances the intelligence and talent of users while enjoying playing the games
(TürkDilKurumu, 2017). In gamification, a game is used as an element or tool added to

education process to achieve specific targets in education where it is not game-oriented
(Bruder, 2014). In GBL, learners play games to arrive at educational targets which play a
key role in the process of learning (Kim, Park & Bae, 2009). In using gamification, games
do not replace the learning process, but help make learning more interesting and motivate
students to participate in learning activities (Codish & Ravid, 2014). Teachers use
gamification in a non-game-oriented environment to change it into a game environment
through utilizing game elements and principles, while in GBL, they enhance the teaching of
any subject in part by making use of games. Hence, the current study refers to GBL to
explore how and why teachers use games to teach subjects.

2.3 Gamifying in the Educational Context
Gamifying in education is not a new concept; however, the terms GBL and
gamification have only been around since the early 21st century (Sobocinski, 2018;
Ssekibaamu, 2015). There are numerous reasons for spending significant amounts of time
playing games. Whether games are played for relaxation or sheer enjoyment or to satisfy our
needs to compete, they are a part of our daily lives. Game concepts are being increasingly
incorporated into areas other than just standard playing environments. GBL is utilized as a
tool to inspire behavioral change and stimulate desired attitudes in many fields including
education (AlMarshedi et al., 2017). It is widely agreed that GBL is gaining popularity in
educational contexts. Galbis-Córdoba et al. (2017) concur that gamification is currently
gaining momentum in educational contexts as it positively contributes to motivation and
engagement of students in the learning process. Specifically, gamification is also popular in
the context of language teaching and learning.

10

Flores (2015) discussed the second language learning methodology approaches,
integration of technology towards L2 instruction, gamification as a concept, motivational
theory, and educational implications for integrating the gamification strategy effectively. His
research study found that the use of gamification in L2 learning contributes positively to the
language learning experience; however, the use of gamification needs to be done with
precaution. The reason is that sometimes gamification can lead to negative competition or be
taxing for some students – which consequently could be counterproductive (Flores, 2015).
Similarly, Cahyani (2016) carried out a research study involving 30 primary school students
(18 males and 12 females) to build a better understanding of how gamification can
efficiently be used in education. This was done through an experiment and survey. The
study findings reveal that games are engaging when used in a pedagogical context through
enhancing students’ motivation and providing enjoyment and fun in the learning
environment.
2.4 Use of Gamification
Actual use of gamification provides good insights into the role of gamification
related to teaching methods in higher education particularly in second language learning.
The use of gamification is determined by different factors. Factors such as positive attitude
(Chen, 2018; Martí-Parreño et al., 2016), usefulness and ease of use of gamification
(Sánchez-Mena et al., 2016), and motivation (Chen, 2018) feature dominantly here. MartíParreño et al. (2016) examined university teachers’ perspectives of gamification use. Their
study adopted a survey approach involving 98 teachers. The findings of the study revealed
that teachers overall had positive attitudes towards gamification use although only 11.3% of
them used gamification regularly. Similarly, Sánchez-Mena et al. (2016) investigated
teachers’ intentions to use gamification through examining a model developed based on the
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). They used a survey with a questionnaire to examine
the model. The findings of the study indicated that the usefulness and ease of use of
gamification had a strong positive effect on the intention to use gamification. In a relevant
study, Chen (2018) carried out a survey study to explore students’ intention to use
gamification by examining the theory of planned behavior. The study found that attitudes
along with other factors (perceived mobility, user experience, perceived benefits, perceived
value, utilitarian and hedonic features and brand equity) affect students’ use of gamification.
11

Chen (2018) recommended that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of students should be
addressed purposefully to fully benefit from gamification. He further suggested that the flow
of the gamification experience and cognitive load be considered in designing games.
Sanchez-Mena et al. (2016) analyzed the role of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use in student teachers’ intentions to use gamification. Student teachers completed a tenhour seminar on gamification in which they were asked to design a gamified learning
activity as part of their learning program and data was collected through a questionnaire.
The study revealed that student teachers’ perceived usefulness and ease of use correlates
with their intention to use gamification in their courses. Rahman et al. (2018) studied the use
of gamification among college students who were studying database design. The study
involved 50 students and examined the usefulness, ease of use, attitudes towards
gamification, and the use of gamification. Overall, their findings indicated that usefulness,
ease of use, and attitude have positive associations with the use of gamification.
Studies show the impact of gamification use on language learning (Franciosi, 2017;
Rawendy et al., 2017). Rawendy et al. (2017) conducted an experimental study to look at the
effect of gamification on learning the Chinese language. Based on pretest and post-test
results, it was indicated that gamification provides a positive learning environment for
language learning and helps students to improve themselves in learning the Chinese
language. Franciosi (2017) discussed how computer game-based learning can help to
improve vocabulary. The study consisted of an experiment on the use of this type of GBL by
involving university students who were learning English as a second language. It was found
that GBL assists students to improve their vocabulary knowledge as well as transfer the
acquired words to a different context such as a writing task. After considering the many
benefits that have been found for using GBL, one of the significant factors influencing the
use of gamification is the user’s attitude toward gamification.
2.4.1 Attitude
One of the important factors that impacts the use of gamification is the attitude of
teachers towards gamification. The attitude of teachers is actually a deciding factor to
successful implementation of any new approach in education, including technology in a
learning environment (Zain et al., 2005). Attitude is a basic element which assesses users’
12

thinking and belief about the use of a system. It is measured through self-report scales such
as cognition, behavior, and affectivity (Bohner & Dickel, 2011; Yüksel & Durmaz, 2016).
The positive attitude of the users encourages them to use education technology (AbdelMaksoud, 2018). Hamari and Koivisto (2013) acknowledged that the attitude of a user can
help to predict the use of gamification. Kao and Tsai (2009) discussed that the negative or
positive attitudes of teachers towards technology can easily predict their intention to use it.
Likewise, Teo et al. (2019) contended that the attitude of users had an essential role in their
willingness to use technology for educational purposes. Another study showed that teachers’
attitudes evidently help to determine their intention towards adopting educational
technology (Abdel-Maksoud, 2018). Therefore, teachers are inclined to use technology in
the classroom if they have a positive attitude towards gamification.
Yüksel and Durmaz (2016) examined the effect of social influence on students’
attitudes towards gamification use. They collected data through a survey involving 325
students who were selected through convenience sampling. Data analysis indicated that
social influence significantly affects attitudes towards gamification, and there was a strong
relationship between attitudes towards the purchase of gamification and the use of
gamification. De-Marcos et al (2017) discussed a social gamification approach along with a
tool designed to deal with students’ motivational affordance such as competence,
relatedness, and autonomy. Students’ perspective of the new tool was examined involving a
sample of 374 students who answered the test. The results revealed that social gamification
contributed to improvement in academic performance and promoted social interaction. The
researchers recommended that teachers need to be cautious in designing gamification as it
requires deep knowledge of the motivational affordance of students. Galbis-Córdoba et al.
(2017) attempted to explore the main drivers of students’ perspectives of using gamification
through adopting a survey approach using questionnaires completed by 128 university
students. The study indicated that students’ attention, relevance, and confidence positively
impacted their use of gamification.
Boyinbode and Tiamiyu (2020) carried out a survey study to investigate students’
attitudes towards mobile gamification for language learning. The study sample comprised 71
secondary school students. It was found that students’ vocabulary knowledge notably
13

increased and that their interest in learning interest was fostered through the use of
gamification. Cahyani (2016) carried out a review study on the role of gamification in
raising motivation and language learning. The study surveyed a sample of 30 students to
explore their views of the effects of gamification on language learning regarding the factors
of enjoyment, engagement, and motivation. The study found that 70% of students believed
that gamification brought happiness; 73.33% agreed that gamification was very interesting;
and 83.33% were of the opinion that gamification is challenging but motivating. The
researcher suggests that gamification should be used to try new things without the fear of
making mistakes. The researcher also emphasizes that students need to deliberately
participate in gamification to effectively benefit from it.
Alabbasi (2018) investigated teachers’ perceptions of gamification in online
learning. The study used a sample of 47 in-service and pre-service teachers in a survey
study. Overall, the study revealed that teachers had positive perspectives towards
gamification. They also acknowledged that gamification enhanced students’ motivation
from the teachers’ perspectives; however, a few teachers were concerned about the negative
impact of gamification on students. About 22% of teachers believed that incorporating game
elements such as badges, points, and leaderboards could negatively impact students’
learning.
Sánchez-Mena et al. (2017) investigate teachers’ attitudes towards gamification
using a survey approach. The study involved a sample of 312 university lecturers. It was
found that a positive attitude was a factor that significantly affected teachers’ intentions to
use gamification. Likewise, Martí-Parreño et al. (2016) conducted a survey study involving
98 teachers serving universities. Teachers found gamification is a good idea (mean=4.42/5)
and perceived it as something positive (mean=4.28). The study reported that 38.10% of
participants had never used gamification in teaching, while 61.90% had utilized in their
courses while only 11.3% used gamification regularly. In another study, Aleksic-Maslac et
al. (2017) found that lecturers had positive attitudes towards gamification.
In summary, the review of the literature demonstrates that some studies are not
conclusive with mixed findings which lead to a further exploration of the research on
opportunities and obstacles of gamification.
14

2.4.2 Opportunities
According to the literature, gamification provides a number of opportunities for
learners such as increasing motivation and engagement, increasing enjoyment, and
increasing learning.
2.4.2.1 Increased Motivation
Motivation is an important factor driving human behaviors, one that should be taken
into account in relation to gamification (AlMarshedi et al., 2017). Motivation is defined as a
desire to carry out something. This manifests in two ways, namely intrinsic and extrinsic.
Intrinsic motivation is associated with internal desire and longing to do things out of love or
enjoyment (Ryan & Deci 2000 as cited in AlMarshedi, et al., 2017), while extrinsic
motivation refers to carrying out things merely for their outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000 as
cited in AlMarshedi et al., 2017).Gamification is gaining ever-growing popularity and is
regarded as an effective way to enhance student’s motivation and engagement in learning
activities (Hamzah, et al., 2015; Bovermann et al., 2018). Korkealehto and Siklander (2018)
agree that “(g)amification offers one option to trigger interest and enhance engagement in
learning activities” (p.13). Playing games in the classroom enhances motivation which is
stressed by Zarzycka-Piskorz (2016) who acknowledged that “there is strong evidence that
shows the relationship between game playing and increased motivation” (p.17).
The literature indicates that gamification increases motivation. Santos-Villalba et al.
(2020) conducted a survey involving 187 university students and found that the students had
a positive attitude towards gamification and reported that gamification motivates both
students and instructors. Hamzah, et al. (2015) conducted an experimental study involving
24 students to examine the effect of gamification on learners’ motivation in utilizing elearning apps adopting motivational design. The findings showed that gamification strongly
influenced students’ motivation. In a mixed method study involving the surveying of 32
students and interviewing eight students, Bovermann et al. (2018) found that students had
positive attitudes towards gamification in online learning where 80% of them had intrinsic
motivation towards the use of gamification.
According to Flores (2015), gamification “empowers and engages the learner with
motivational skills towards a learning approach and sustaining a relaxed atmosphere” (p.32).
15

Similarly, Iaremenko (2017) attempted to explore the potentials of gamification in the EAL
classroom and how gamification increased students’ motivation. The study involved a
sample of the 120 students who filled out questionnaires. They found that gamification
strongly contributed to fun, motivation, and language learning.
Korkealehto and Siklander (2018) carried out a study to inspect the potential of
gamification for language learning from the perspective of students through investigating
students’ engagement, language learning and enjoyment. Involving 23 students, the study
collected data through students’ learning diaries and questionnaires. Three gaming
applications, namely Seppo, Kahoot, and Padlet were used. The results revealed that
gamification led to engagement, enhancing language learning, and positive, enjoyable
learning experiences. In another study, Iten and Petko (2016) conducted a quantitative study
involving 74 students that explored self-reported cognitive and motivational learning gains.
The findings also indicated that anticipated enjoyment played a role, though minor, in the
willingness to use games.
Zarzycka-Piskorz (2016) discussed how and why Kahoot increased students’
motivation to learn grammar. The sample study was composed of 112 students who
answered a survey questionnaire. The findings showed that 68% of students considered
gamification as fun and 90% acknowledged that they learned different grammar components
through gamification. It was also found that gamification increases motivation and causes
enjoyment. Nevertheless, 32% held opposing views and around 30% were indifferent.
Hanus and Fox (2015) conducted a longitudinal experimental study using psychological,
motivational, and behavioral measures, in which 80 students divided into two groups
(experimental and control) participated. Out of the 80 participants, 71 answered the four
surveys that were administered during the 16-week semester. The experimental group was
required, as part of the class grade, to complete the badge system, while the control group
was only given the same lectures, exams, and assignments. The findings showed that
students from the experimental group showed less motivation, empowerment and
satisfaction compared to the control group. Additionally, the students in the gamified course
had lower final marks which had an association with low motivation. They recommended
that care should be taken when planning to use gamification since it might be
16

counterproductive. So though many studies have found that gamification enhanced
motivation and learning, there have also been conflicting and inconclusive results with some
research posting opposite findings. Overall, it is believed that gamification improves and
enhances language learning, which is associated with its usefulness, but some cautions about
implementation and use should be considered.
2.4.2.2 Perceived Usefulness
Perceived usefulness is a person’s belief about a specific system that could help them
to improve their performance (Davis, 1985; Ventakesh et al., 2003). Moreover, a user who
uses technology such as gamified applications, will enhance their personal interaction, save
time, have control over the process, and improve their performance (Gallego et al., 2008).
One of the significant factors that affects the use of gamification is its perceived usefulness.
Yoo et al. (2017) found that the perceived usefulness of gamified applications unveiled
users’ willingness to use it. They found that usefulness and perceived enjoyment had a
positive impact on the users’ use of gamified in the tourism industry.
In an educational context, Sánchez-Mena et al. (2016) investigated teachers’
intention to use gamification through examining a model based on the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM). Teachers filled out a questionnaire, and the findings of the study
indicated that usefulness and ease of use of gamification had a strong positive effect on the
intention to use gamification. On the other hand, Wong (2016) examined primary teachers’
technology acceptance and use by involving 185 teachers. The study used questionnaires to
collect data. However, contrary to the common belief, this study found that usefulness and
ease of use were not the predictors of technology use.
The literature indicates that in general, the findings of the previous studies on the
impact of usefulness are mixed and inconclusive. Speaking about the effects of perceptions
of usefulness on gamification it was found that very few studies examined this area,
particularly teachers’ perceptions in an EAL context; however, social influence has been
found to be a more significant factor in determining teacher’s willingness to use
gamification.

17

2.4.2.3 Perceived Social Influence
Social influence causes people to perform specific actions. Social factors have an
important role in determining the implementation of gamification. AlMarshedi et al. (2017)
believed that social factors compared to technological factors have a stronger influence on
the use of gamification. Therefore, a user’s opinion towards gamification could be affected
by social behavior as well as their performance specifically in a collectivist culture. Findings
of several studies concur that social influence has an important role in affecting people’s
attitude towards using technology (Gallego et al., 2008; Hamari & Koivisto, 2013; Yüksel &
Durmaz, 2016). Moreover, social influence will directly influence the behavioral intentions
regarding a person's willingness to use technology (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Wang &
Wang, 2010). Hao (2017) stated that the combination of social influences, specifically
subjective norms and social image, act as the determinants for technology adoption, and
numerous studies on different social influence factors have considered social influence as a
fundamental factor for using technology (Hamari & Koivisto, 2013; Yüksel & Durmaz,
2016). Yüksel and Durmaz (2016) found that there is a strong relationship between social
influence and attitudes towards gamification and its use. Ssekibaamu (2015) adopted a
survey approach to explore teachers’ perspectives of gaming through examining UTAUT.
The findings showed that there were significant relationships between core constructs of
UTAUT theory such as social influence along with performance expectancy, effort
expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions and the use of gaming.
In another relevant study, Asiri (2019) adopted a descriptive and correlational
research design in which he investigated three essential variables that may influence
language teachers’ behavioral intentions (BI) to use gamification. He collected data through
a questionnaire involving the responses of 157 teachers. He discovered that there was a
positive relationship between behavioral intentions to use gamification and affective and
cognitive attitudes, perceived usefulness, and perceived social influences. Likewise, Hamari
and Koivisto (2013) examined the effect of social factors on gamification use. They
collected data from a sample of 107 participants through a questionnaire. The findings
revealed that social influences and attitudes towards gamification positively influenced the
use of gamification. Abu-Dawood (2016) conducted a review on studies on gamification in
an educational context. They attempted to test the impact of specific game design elements
18

on some psychological outputs such as attitude, enjoyment, motivation, and behavioral
outcomes. They found that different game elements upheld different cognitive and social
motivational affordances considering the aim of usage as well as the context. Therefore, a
review of the extant academic literature showed that the factors of teachers’ attitudes,
perceived usefulness, and social influence might affect their intention to use gamification
and in turn their actual use of this approach. However, some studies have come up with
contending findings. The literature review shows the findings of past studies are not
consistent; hence, studies are needed to examine the effects of social influence factors on
gamification in a different context. There is a paucity of empirical exploratory studies on
teachers’ attitudes on gamification, and a further lack of studies that specifically relate to
EAL teachers. There is also a lack of studies on the relationship between social influence,
perceived usefulness, behavioral intention, and gamification use in the context of EAL
teaching and learning. Additionally, little research has been conducted on the “why” of
using or not using gamification even though gamification is believed to boost learning in
different subjects including language learning.
2.4.3 Obstacles
Although gamification represents new opportunities in education, including language
teaching, and learning, it also poses challenges to teachers. Teachers must decide whether to
implement gamification or not in the view of expected challenges (Sánchez-Mena et al.,
2017). There are some obstacles to the use of gamification such as time for preparation and
implementation of new materials, finding new equipment, lack of resources, and students’
preferences. According to Sánchez-Mena et al. (2017), “Despite increasing academic
research exploring the use of gamification in education, little is known about teachers’ main
drivers and barriers to using gamification in their courses” (p.434). This means that there
might be different barriers to the adoption and implementation of gamification. In the
following sections, three obstacles of using gamification are discussed: resources, time, and
preferences.
2.4.3.1 Resources
Suitable resources are needed for problem-based language learning through
gamification (Cornillie et al., 2012). Sánchez-Mena et al. (2017) adopted a
19

phenomenological approach in their study and interviewed 16 university teachers online to
get their insights into the opportunities and obstacles of gamification. The findings of the
interview data analysis showed that four factors such as attention-motivation, interactivity,
entertainment, and ease were the driving forces for using gamification. However, lack of
resources was one of several obstacles and barriers identified related to the implementation
of gamification. Lack of resources in terms of training, classroom setting, time, and
economic support were highlighted by respondents.
In terms of training, Sánchez-Mena et al. (2017) found that teachers lacked
appropriate training on using online gamification applications such as Kahoot. In terms of
time, they complained that much more time was needed to design and plan gamification. It
was also argued that the classroom setting was a barrier to gamification activities.
Classroom settings with fixed lecture-style seating that is conducive to listening to a lecture
cannot be conducive for using gamification. Another issue was a lack of economic support
which was highlighted by teachers as an obstacle to gamification use. Some teachers may
assume that gamification involves the application of expensive hardware and software which
might not be affordable by all institutes.
In another example, Lifanova et al. (2016) carried out a qualitative study through
interviewing refugees who were learning the German language in Germany but had issues in
terms of communication and integration. The researcher developed a mobile app with
gamified learning and tested its usability. They found that a gamified digital communication
application posed challenging issues to the non-native users in terms of usability. Some
students did not have the technology required to run the app. They concluded that variations
in usability of an app for communication need to be taken into account.
2.4.3.2 Time
Regarding the use of gamification by students, Sánchez-Mena et al. (2017) found
that a lack of time and perceived wastage of time were the barriers to gamifiaction use
among university teachers. In a review study, Šćepanović et al. (2015) found that a lack of
time causes pressure on students and consequently they will not be able to perform
effectively. Garland (2015) found that gamification use should encourage students to spend
extra time to have more interaction and better learning. However, spending more time on
20

gamification from the perspective of the teachers might be an enormous challenge. This is
because teachers need to plan, design, or select the right game, with the implementation of
each stage possibly time consuming.
Concerning the adoption of gamification by teachers, Ucus (2015) discussed
elementary school teachers’ views of GBL for learning. The study involved a sample of 24
teachers in a qualitative study (semi-structured interview). The findings showed that
teachers were satisfied with the content of the course for GBL; however, teachers faced
obstacles in terms of the time required to plan and design games. To add to the findings of
these studies, further study is needed to explore the obstacle of time in the use of GBL in the
context of EAL teaching.
2.4.3.3 Teachers and Learner Preferences
Learning preferences refers to the learner’s tendency and preference to use certain
educational modalities over others. For example, some students are interested in
gamification in education, while others are reluctant to use a gamification method. Fan et al.
(2015) examined the relationship between learning styles, learning achievement, and
meaningful learning involving 46 junior high school students using mobile games. The study
indicated that students who had convergent styles mainly associated the well-designed
curriculum to meaningful learning, while different learning styles indicated notable
discrepancies in learning. It is believed that the effectiveness of gamification is associated
with individual attributes. Buckley and Doyle (2017) examined the effect of different
learning styles and personality characteristics on students’ engagement with, perceptions of,
and performance in gamification in a marketing context. It was found that individuals with
active or global learning styles held positive impressions of gamification. It was also
indicated that extraverted persons were more interested in gamification, whereas
conscientious individuals had less motivation to engage in gamification.
Although most of the previous studies have reported a strong positive relationship
between motivation and engagement in gamification, some research studies came up with
contradictory results. Hanus and Fox (2015), as previously mentioned, conducted a study
with experimental and control groups for evaluating the effect of gamification in the
classroom. The study examined different factors including motivation. However, after a 1621

week semester, the researchers found that students’ motivation decreased, and their final
exam score was lower than the control group. They recommend that care should be taken
when planning and implementing gamification since it might be counterproductive. Hence,
gamification should be investigated and arranged in a nuanced manner, and it should be
carefully integrated into the context of learning (Buckley & Doyle, 2017).
In summary, several obstacles such as a lack of resources, a lack of time, and
students’ preferences may hinder gamification use among teachers. However, since there is
a paucity of studies on the obstacles to gamification particularly in an EAL context, a study
in this vein is in need. Given the importance of the determinant factors of adoption and
usage of gamification, in the following sections, gamification use and the factors influencing
its use are discussed.
2.5 Gamifying in Language Learning
Gamifying plays a vital role in language learning as it can change the class
atmosphere from passive to active. In language learning contexts, gamification promises to
assist in language learning (Zarzycka-Piskorz, 2016). Perry (2015) found that students had a
good perception of gamifying and only 17% of his participants showed negative attitudes
toward GBL for language learning. Similarly, Iaremenko (2017) reported that only 2% of his
students had negative attitudes towards online games. Therefore, gamifying may increase
students’ motivation, enjoyment, interest, and engagement; however, the use of gamifying is
under-reported and students and teachers’ views of gamifying are inconsistent with both
negative and positive perceptions.
Shatz (2015) explored the relationship between risk taking associated with
gamification and other pertinent factors in the second language acquisition process. He
examined the use of gamification and gaming as educational tools and tested the
participants’ memory through different tasks. He eventually found that high levels of risk
taking were more strongly correlated with a positive change in these factors. However,
moderate levels of language risk taking had no significant relations with positive change.
Similarly, Iaremenko (2017) carried out a research study through theoretical and empirical
methods to find out the reasons which led language learners to play a learning game. He
employed a questionnaire and Kahoot web resource to collect the data. The findings
22

revealed that online learning games can foster intrinsic motivation and help to engage
students in learning activities. Another relevant study was conducted by Rawendy et al.
(2017) to help children learn the Chinese language using gamification and mnemonic
methods integrated into game content. He employed experimental design through using a
pre-test and post-test together with a survey to collect the data. His research study showed
that to make learning interesting for children, we must build an attractive learning tool such
as gamification that can motivate them to learn the language. Likewise, Korkealehto and
Siklander (2018) investigated the potential of a gamified course design in language learning
from the students’ perspectives. They found that a gamified course design and related
applications can enhance students’ engagement, foster language learning, and offer positive
learning experiences. Similarly, Boyinbode and Tiamiyu (2020) conducted an experimental
study in which they implemented a mobile gamification learning system to motivate learners
to continue learning English vocabulary effectively. The findings indicated that the
developed system significantly improves learner’s English vocabulary abilities and learning
interests.
Although the findings of some studies are in support of gamifying use, the results of
a study by Perry (2015) indicated that a small number of students had a negative attitude
toward GBL. Besides, very few studies have investigated teachers’ attitudes towards
gamfying in terms of opportunities and obstacles and only a small amount of research has
been concerned with factors contributing to obstacles and opportunities of gamifying. There
is limited research demonstrating the teachers’ attitudes towards gamifying adoption in EAL
contexts. One of the factors that impact the use of gamifying is the affective filter hypothesis
proposed by Krashen (1982).
2.6 Gamyfying and Affective Filter
It is argued that stress and anxiety negatively impact learning, particularly language
learning. When learning a second language, student’s stress and anxiety must be lowered.
The term ‘affective filter’ as coined by Krashen (1982) and refers to a multitude of factors
that may hinder students’ language learning.The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics
defines affective as “having to do with a speaker's feelings.” According to Krashen (1982),
motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety comprise three elements in the Affective Filter
23

hypothesis as they play an important role in second language acquisition. Basically, when
emotions and feelings such as fear, anxiety, or embarrassment are raised, it will be difficult
for language learners to acquire the language. Based on the affective filter theory, if a
language learner feels anxious during language acquisition, they are more likely to be
unsuccessful in language learning (Krashen, 1982). One way to lower stress and anxiety is
to make it clear for the learner that mistakes are part of the language learning process. It is
therefore crucial that the classroom environment should be friendly with fun activities where
students enjoy language learning. This is where gamifying, using either traditional games
(board games) or online games (Kahoot, Wordwall) can be helpful. Using gamification
enables students to use critical thinking and problem-solving skills to complete a task
(Buckley & Doyle, 2016). Shatz (2015) explored how risk-taking through gamification led
to language learning, particularly vocabulary enhancement. The study involved a sample of
526 students who answered a questionnaire after completing a vocabulary learning task. It
was found that a willingness to take risks connected with using gamification contributed to
improved performance in task, reduced anxiety, and boosted confidence level. Since they
control the game and come up with winning strategies or tackle a problem, their stress and
anxiety level are lowered and consequently their motivation is increased (Alsawaier, 2018).
2.7 Student-centered versus Teacher-centered Approaches
Conscientious educators have always been in search of the ideal method to teach and
deliver classroom materials. Initially, classrooms would operate on teacher-centered
methods and subsequently, student-centered approaches were introduced (Serin, 2018). A
teacher-centered method refers to the delivery of content and knowledge in a learning
environment to students where the teacher has the primary role and responsibility (Mascolo,
2009; Serin, 2018). Teachers are solely regarded as the source and mean of disseminating
knowledge to students in which teachers are active while students are passive. Conversely,
in a student-centered approach, teachers provide a learning setting where students can build
skills and understanding. In this approach, teachers act as facilitator, coach, and mentor to
help students construct knowledge. Since control is a priority in a teacher-centered
approach, it has received criticism for keeping students passive in the classroom (Freiberg,
1999). The primary goal of teaching in the classroom is to empower students to actively
participate in learning. In a student-centered classroom, teachers do not transmit knowledge
24

directly. Instead, students take an active role in the process of learning to make sense of
what they are learning through connecting to prior knowledge or through discussion with
others (Brophy, 1999). Teachers provide the students with the opportunity to learn
independently through involvement in the activities, content and materials. Student-centered
approaches lend support to cooperative and collaborative learning where students work in
teams while working on a task or solving a problem (Condelli & Wrigley, 2009). Studentcentered methods are also applicable to language teaching and learning. Teachers can leave
the classroom control to the students by empowering them to actively participate in
classroom learning activities that improve their language skills and knowledge. One
approach that supports a student-centered approach is gamifying. Gamifying in language
learning is congruent with student centered learning (Camilleri & Camilleri, 2019).
2.8 Theoretical Framework
To conduct the current study and address the research objectives and questions, the
study needs a solid theoretical framework to lay the study foundation and guide the process
of data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
2.8.1 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)
The purpose of the current study is to investigate English teachers’ attitudes towards
gamifying in the process of teaching and learning EAL. Thus, the study adopts some
elements of the UTAUT and TAM (Technology acceptance model) models in the process of
data collection and interpretation. Much research has been done on the use of UTAUT and
TAM. The following section will explore the development of UTAUT and TAM and the
relevant research.
The UTAUT model was formulated by Venkatesh et al. (2003) after an extensive
review that empirically compared previous models including Theory of Planned Behavior
(TPB), Technology Acceptance Model TAM, combined TAM and TPB (C TAM-TPB),
theory of reasoned action (TRA), motivational model (MM), innovation diffusion theory
(IDT), social cognitive theory (SCT), and model of PC utilization (MPCU). This rigorous
combination and comparison of acceptance models resulted in the formulation of the
UTAUT model that combined almost every aspect of Information System (IS) acceptance
from a system’s characteristics (how a system will help users in doing their tasks and how
25

easy it is to use the system) and users’ characteristics (attitude, social influence, anxiety, and
facilitating conditions) in predicting user acceptance. An assessment study reported that
UTAUT has the capability to explain about 70% of variance, and thus provides a useful tool
for managers to assess the likelihood of success for the introduction of new technology.
Venkatesh et al. (2003) further encouraged others to continue validating and testing their
model using different technologies and contexts, also identifying new constructs that might
add to the prediction of IS intention.
UTAUT consists of four determinants of user behavior and behavior intention: social
influence, performance expectancy, facilitating conditions, and effort expectancy. UTAUT
also has four moderators that are found to mediate the effects of the four key determinants
on usage intention and behavior as illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2

UTAUT studies originated from the use of information systems in organizations to
improve work performance. The popularity of UTAUT has extended into other contexts of
studies including mobile services, e-government, internet banking, and medicine. However,
literature on usage of UTAUT in the educational game context is relatively limited. In a

26

study on game-based learning, Ibrahim and Jaafar (2011) adopted UTAUT to examine
gamifying factors in learning. Another relevant technology adoption model is TAM.
2.8.2 Technology Acceptance Model
Another theory which was used with UTAUT is TAM that was originally introduced
by Davis (1989) to examine students’ acceptance of technology. TAM is an information
system theory which models how users come to accept and utilize technology. Accordingly,
the actual system use is regarded as the end-point in which people use the technology.
Essential factors of perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) are the
main components of TAM. (PU) reflects “the level at which individuals consider the use of
a specific scheme to improve their efficiency” and PEOU indicates “the extent to which
people believe it is simple to use a particular system” (Lanlan et al., 2019, p.324) attitude
and behavioral intention lead individuals to use the technology. Thereafter, Venkatesh et al.
(2003) added more constructs to the UTAUT and the original theory to expand the theory.
Although several studies have been done on game acceptance factors, those studies used
TAM or other theories/models on entertainment games. There are a few studies done on
educational game acceptance, but with a different focus and model such as Bourgonjon et al.
(2010) which extended the TAM model to investigate preferences of school students in
using educational games.
UTAUT has emerged as a widely used theory to lay the foundations of the studies
that investigate students’ or teachers’ use of educational technology such as: the continuous
use of e-learning system (Bellaaj, Zekri & Albugami, 2015), exploring factors affecting
students’ continued Wiki use for individual and collaborative learning (Yueh, Huang, &
Chang, 2015), the impact of UTAUT model and ICT theoretical framework on university
academic staff (David & Rahim, 2012), explaining mobile learning adoption in higher
education (Thomas, Singh, & Gaffar, 2013), the adoption of a social learning system
(Khechine, Raymond, & Augier, 2020), factors determining the behavioral intention to use
mobile learning (Chao, 2019), and assessing user acceptance towards blog technology
(Pardamean, & Susanto, 2012). However, very few studies adopted UTAUT to assess
educational game contexts (Ibrahim & Jaafar, 2011; Ssekibaamu, 2015). Hence, the current

27

study combines elements of UTAUT and TAM to build the theoretical framework of the
study which is discussed below.
2.8.3 The UTAUT & TAM Framework
As illustrated in Figure 3, the current research adapted variables of UTAUT and
TAM to build a theoretical framework of data collection, analysis, and interpretation. The
present study adopts UTAUT model elements (social influence) with TAM elements
(Attitude and Usefulness) to investigate the factors that determine teachers’ use of GBL
including opportunities and obstacles in their EAL classes as illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3
The research theoretical framework based on TAM and UTAUT (adapted from Venkatesh et
al., 2003).

The theoretical framework contains the variables of attitude, perceived usefulness,
social influence, behavioral intention, and use of GBL. As a result of the literature review,
there appears to be a lack of understanding of educational games use from the perspective of
teachers, particularly in a language teaching and learning context. Combining UTAUT and
TAM elements regarding GBL use has resulted in the current study to investigate users’
factors regarding the acceptance of GBL including online educational games such as Kahoot
and Jeopardy. Few studies have examined the combination of UTAUT and TAM models
28

and reported that they explain the use of technology including online gamification (Abbasi,
2018; Asiri, 2019). Hence, the UTAUT model, extended with elements of TAM, was
adopted by the current study to dig out the factors which directly influence teachers’ use of
GBL.
Although the literature evidences that usefulness, attitude, and social influences
(UTAUT & TAM factors) impact the use of gamifying, such studies in the context of EAL
is almost absent from the literature (Abbasi, 2018; Asiri, 2019; Ssekibaamu, 2015). Hence,
the current study used the usefulness (from TAM), attitudes (from TAM), and social
influence (from UTAUT) to explore the opportunities for the use of GBL. The justification
for the selection of usefulness is to explore what opportunities GBL provides for EAL
classes from the teachers’ perspectives. The study also examined the attitudes of teachers
towards the use of GBL. This is because their attitude plays an important role in the
implementation of a new approach to teaching language. Another adopted factor is social
influence, which explores how peers, colleagues, and leaders influence the use of gamifying
by teachers (Abbasi, 2018; Asiri, 2019). In past studies social influence has been shown to
impact practice of gamifying (Abbasi, 2018; Asiri, 2019).
This chapter provided the definition of GBL and discussed the use of GBL in an
educational context. It elucidated the opportunities of GBL use, the factors contributing to
GBL use namely, usefulness, attitude, social influence, motivation, and fun. The review also
underlined some factors that are regarded as the obstacles of GBL such as lack of time, lack
of resources and students’ preferences. The theoretical framework of the study was also
presented. It was found that there is a paucity of study on teachers’ use of GBL, particularly
in an EAL context.

29

Chapter 3: Methods
This chapter details the research design including matters related to epistemology,
researcher statement, data collection methods, participant information, data collection, data
analysis, and trustworthiness.
3.1 Research Design
The goal of the research was to investigate the opportunities and obstacles of using
GBL from the perspectives of EAL teachers in the English Language Learning and Teaching
(ELLT) Department at Thompson Rivers University a mid-size comprehensive university
located in the interior of British Columbia, Canada. The methods adopted permitted an
exploration of the factors contributing to opportunities and obstacles of using GBL by
teachers in the context of classroom teaching.
The specific research questions investigated were:
What are the opportunities for using GBL in the EAL classroom?
What are the obstacles for using GBL in the EAL classroom?
3.1.1 Justification of Method Selection
As the research questions involved deep exploration of GBL use among teachers, an
exploratory design adopting both qualitative and quantitative approaches as the methods of
data collection and data analysis (Creswell, 1999; Creswell, & Plano Clark, 2011) was used.
This study attempted to find out ‘the why’ (the opportunities) or ‘why not’ (obstacles) of
GBL use including the main factors of using GBL in an EAL classroom. According to
Creswell (2012), “The basic assumptions that the uses of both quantitative and qualitative
methods, in combination, provide a better understanding of the research problem and
question than either method by itself” (p. 535). Creswell (2012) maintains:
In mixed method, “qualitative data, such as open-ended interviews that provide
actual words of people in the study, offer many different perspectives on the study
topic and provide a complex picture of the situation. When one combines
quantitative and qualitative data, “we have a very powerful mix”. For example, by
30

assessing both outcomes of a study (i.e., quantitative) as well as the process (i.e.,
qualitative), we can develop “a complex” picture of social phenomenon. (p.535)
A combination of research outcomes and research processes deepens our
understanding of the phenomenon (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Adopting a mixed
method design helped me to keep abreast of a wide range of perspectives and views on the
use of GBL. For example, the survey outcome indicated that some factors encourage
teachers to use GBL, and the qualitative data from the open-ended questions and interviews
helped me to develop a more comprehensive picture of opportunities and obstacles of GBL
use.
The survey was used to examine the effect of some factors associated with the
opportunities of GBL, namely attitude, usefulness, and social influence on GBL use.
However, the data obtained from a small number of teachers may not provide deep insights
into GBL use. Furthermore, the survey data does not indicate the obstacles of GBL use. To
address these issues, open-ended questions were added to the survey to obtain more
comprehensive information on GBL use in order to reflect the respondents’ real thoughts.
Some teachers were interviewed to build a deeper understanding of advantages and barriers
to GBL use. The respondents were encouraged to share their opinions and experiences freely
concerning the benefits of using GBL as well as hindrances. As a result, the qualitative
component of the study added more factors to the opportunities of GBL and helped some
factors connected to the obstacles of GBL emerge which was not feasible to understand
through the survey alone. Therefore, a combination of data obtained from both modes of
study helped to build a clear picture of opportunities and obstacles of GBL use in the context
of a Canadian university.
The study collected quantitative data from eight EAL teachers serving in an English
language department to explore the determinant factors of GBL use. Qualitative data was
gathered through structured interviews involving four teachers and open-ended questions
from eight teachers. The participants were invited to complete an online survey administered
through SurveyMonkey including background information related to their teaching
experience and the factors affecting their adoption of GBL. The survey data sought teachers’
perceptions of GBL including both close-ended and open-ended questions to provide both
31

quantitative and qualitative data. Interview participants were invited by email to take part in
a detailed interview about the opportunities and obstacles of using GBL. The interview data
offers more qualitative details providing deeper insights into opportunities and obstacles of
using GBL.
The surveys and interviews were conducted separately, and the data from both
sources were collected and analyzed independently. Afterwards, data from both sources
were integrated for interpretation of results in the discussion (see Figure 4). The quantitative
data was collected and analyzed descriptively (through tabulation of Likert-scale questions)
within the SurveyMonkey platform, while the qualitative data was analyzed through
thematic analysis (emergent coding) manually, which will be discussed in the following
section.
Figure 4
Research Design

Survey +openended questions

Interview

Survey & openended
question data
analyses
Interview data
analysis

Quantitative &
qualitative
results

Integration and
interpretation of results

Qualitative
results

The surveys and interviews are strongly interconnected and significantly contribute
to answering the research questions on how EAL teachers use GBL and identifying the
factors contributing to their decision to use a GBL approach.
3.2 Researcher Statement
To support my research transparency, I am providing a summary of my experiences,
assumptions, and biases in relation to this research. I am currently a student in the Master of
Education program at Thompson Rivers University and have previously completed masters
degree in ESL back home in my country, Pakistan, where the education did not include
GBL, and I experienced a more teacher-centered learning environment. However, prior to
32

master’s study in Canada, I served as a full-time lecturer at University College Yayasan
Pahang, Malaysia for two years. In this capacity, I personally used GBL in my EAL classes
and found it to be a positive experience for both myself and my students. The rich
experiences and perspectives of using GBL as a new approach to language teaching and
learning laid the foundation for me to undertake the current research. As a language teacher,
I am a proponent of a social constructivism approach. It is stated that “Social constructivism
provides a psycholinguistic explanation for how learning can be fostered effectively through
interactive pedagogical practices. It emphasizes that learning takes place in a sociocultural
environment and views learners as active constructors of their own learning environment”
(Mitchell & Myles, 1988, cited in Yang & Wilson, 2006, p. 365). Polin (2018) agrees that
teachers realize the compatibility of social constructionist pedagogy and GBL in learning.
Hence, this approach helps me to employ GBL and get my students to work together
through meaningful discussions, teamwork, and collaborative activities whereby the
classroom setting becomes a motivating and engaging environment where language learning
through applied learning takes place.
It is essential to hear the EAL teachers’ voices and perspectives when they are
adopting GBL as they are serving in a language center where students from around the
world are taking language courses. Additionally, I studied instructional design and
conducted action research about an instructor’s roles at different times in my career, leading
me to appreciate the strong value of this method of teaching. When I reflected on my
teaching experiences, with further investigation through reviews of literature on GBL in
education contexts, particularly language learning, I found that teachers may find
opportunities in GBL as well as face obstacles and challenges while adopting this method.
My own experiences in my Masters’ degree program through Thompson Rivers University
as a student and part time teacher has reinforced my deep belief that the use of GBL by
teachers is a great idea; however, it was not clear what opportunities and obstacles are
experienced by teachers in using GBL. Therefore, I was motivated to conduct this study to
analyze these experiences through a critical lens. My underlying goal was to support the
incorporation of GBL into EAL teaching and learning in Canada.

33

3.3 Data Collection Methods
Prior to data collection, the university research ethics board granted the study
approval (see Appendix F). As highlighted earlier, the research design included a
combination of survey and interview methods to explore the opportunities and obstacles of
GBL use from EAL teachers’ perspectives. The survey and all of the interviews were
conducted by the principal investigator (PI).
3.3.1 Survey
The survey comprised a 33-item questionnaire which was adopted from previous
studies (Albirini, 2006; Asiri, 2019; Gallego et al., 2008; Gardner & Amoroso, 2004). The
constructs were adopted from UTUAT theory which is widely used in technology
acceptance studies including GBL use. The survey questions were adapted and adopted from
previous studies connected with the theoretical framework constructed based on UTAUT
and TAM elements (Abbasi, 2018; Asiri, 2019). Each question was based on a Likert Scale
(strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree), and was also accompanied
by an open-ended question to elicit qualitative information to deepen the understanding of
participants’ attitudes and thoughts regarding the opportunities and obstacles of using GBL.
The questionnaire was comprised of two parts: demographics and behavioral intention. The
demographics contained the teaching experiences of the teachers. The behavioral intention
comprised of usefulness with four items (Gallego et al., 2008), attitudes with four items
(Albirini, 2006), social influence with three items (Gardner & Amoroso, 2004), and actual
use of GBL with three items (Gardner & Amoroso, 2004). See Appendix B for a copy of the
survey.
3.3.2 Interview
The study used a structured interview to deepen understanding of the opportunities
and obstacles of using GBL. Together with open-ended survey questions, the interview data
provides rich information to answer the research questions.
The interviewer (PI) utilized a list of questions (See Appendix E) and a guided
approach to begin each interview topic and the interviewees were encouraged to express
their views freely (Gall et al., 2007). I also asked for elaboration, when necessary, to gain indepth responses. The interviews were recorded digitally to capture the complete information
34

during interviews with consent of the participants, and subsequently were transcribed
verbatim for analysis using transcription symbols adapted from the symbols developed by
Jefferson (Atkinson & Heritage, 1984; see Appendix D) with changes to particular symbols
as the interviews are one-on-one conversations without meaningful surrounding sounds.
3.4 Participant Selection
To select the research participants, the current study adopted purposive sampling. A
researcher chooses a purposive sampling technique based on the qualities that participants’
possess (Creswell, 2011). In purposive sampling, the researcher attempts to identify and
select the information-rich cases to properly use the available resources (Bernard, 2002 cited
in Tongco, 2007; Patton, 2002). This involves identification and selection of individuals or
groups of individuals that are proficient and well-informed with a phenomenon of interest
(Creswell, & Plano Clark, 2011). Furthermore, the other crucial factors of research
participant selection included the availability, willingness, and the ability to communicate
and express their opinions articulately, and reflectively (Bernard, 2002 cited in Tongco,
2007). Hence, this study adopted purposive sampling to select EAL teachers who were
available to me and willing to answer the questions for the purpose of data collection.
Consent for using the information from the surveys and interviews for the purpose of this
study was received electronically or by hard copy prior to the collection of data (See
Appendix B & D).
3.5 Data collection
The study involved eight English language teachers who answered both close-ended
and open-ended questions of the online survey. All of the participants are employees of TRU
and work in the area of English language education. Five of the participants are member of
the ELLT department (English Language Learning & Teaching Department). These
tenured/tenure-track instructors work in English for Academic Purposes program that
supports MLL (multi-lingual language learners) with their transition to degree programs.
The other three participants work for the TRU International Training Centre (ITC). These
instructors work in short-term ESP (English for Specific Purposes) programs. There were
four interview participants who were contacted via their TRU email addresses for
interviews. The interview respondents participated in the interview voluntarily. Interviews
35

were tailored to further determine the participants’ attitudes towards GBL and integration
into their EAL classroom teaching.
3.6 Analysis
In this study, I collected two types of data: quantitative and qualitative. The
quantitative information was analyzed and presented in the form of percentage and
frequency measures. The qualitative data obtained from open-ended questions and
interviews were analyzed through thematic analysis and emergent coding
According to Creswell (2012), qualitative data analysis includes organizing and
preparing the data. Initially, the researcher reads through the information, codes the data,
and develops themes from the codes. Themes are categorized ideas emerging from coded
data. Codes entail the process of attributing labels to text lines in order to categorize and
compare similar and relevant pieces of information. Likewise, the present study adopted the
descriptive and thematic analysis and emergent coding to analyze the interview data.
3.6.1 Emergent Coding Structure
Emergent coding refers to the categorization of data. In this coding, codes are drawn
from the text (Stemler, 2000) as opposed to undertaking the data analysis with predetermined themes. Emergent theme coding is an approach to qualitative data analysis
where the text/transcript is perused several times to identify the codes and themes emerging
from data (Blair, 2015). This process is commonly used when the research question is broad
and exploratory. The transcribed qualitative data was coded into themes through emergent
coding (Creswell, 2013) and represented in the following chapter as a complement to the
survey data with details from each unique case. To validate the findings of the qualitative
data analysis, one of the most common methods is addressing the trustworthiness of findings
(Creswell, 2012), which is discussed below.
3.7 Trustworthiness
According to Creswell (2012), accuracy or credibility of research findings is crucial.
Various terms are used to elaborate on accuracy or credibility namely, authenticity and
trustworthiness. Also, there are several strategies used to validate qualitative data findings.
In this study, trustworthiness was addressed in four ways, namely rich description of data,
36

transparency, grounding in validated framework and coding structure, and member
checking:
• Rich description of the data: I provided a rich description of the data through the use of
quotes and description of the context which were used in order to support the identified
trends and external validity (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
• Transparency: I have provided a ‘researcher statement’ including my experiences,
assumptions, and biases to allow the reader to understand how they might have impacted the
data interpretation. In addition, the procedures, decisions, and study data collection will be
well documented in order that they can be used as an audit trial, supporting validation and
evaluation criteria proposed by Creswell (2007).
• Grounding in validated framework and coding structure: This research was built on a
previously validated theoretical framework, i.e., UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) and
adopted the method of emergent coding as the basis for data analysis (Blair, 2015; Creswell,
2013; Stemler, 2000.
• Member checking: Researchers check the findings of their study to determine the accuracy
of findings. According to Creswell (2012):
Member checking is a process in which the researcher asks one or more
participants in the study to check the accuracy of the account. This check involves
taking the findings back to participants and asking them (in writing or in an
interview) about the accuracy of the report. You ask participants about many
aspects of the study, such as whether the description is complete and realistic, if the
themes are accurate to include, and if the interpretations are fair and representative.
(p. 259)
Accordingly, I adopted member checking in the current study by presenting a
summary of findings to the interviewees face to face and one online (following up with a
video meeting) and asking them if they see their personal views represented in the reported
findings. The participants were also asked to comment on the accuracy of the verbatim

37

quotes and gained their approval to make use of their direct personal quotes in the study
reports.
This chapter provided the details on the research design covering justification of
method selection, researcher statement, data collection methods, participants’ information,
data collection procedure, data analysis technique, and trustworthiness of qualitative data
findings. The next chapter will present the findings of the quantitative and qualitative data
analysis.

38

Chapter 4: Results

4.0 Introduction
In this chapter the findings of the study will be presented in three sections: the
participants’ background, the opportunities for GBL, and the obstacles to GBL. Following
the background of the participants, the results of the quantitative and qualitative data will be
presented.
The data gathered through a survey and interviews are presented subsequently to
answer the questions on the opportunities and obstacles of using GBL. In the next chapter,
further interpretation, discussion and implications are provided.
The survey data was analyzed through descriptive statistics (ie. percentages) and was
supplemented with qualitative data when applicable in order to address the research
questions:
1. What are the opportunities for using GBL in EAL classrooms?
2. What are the obstacles for using GBL in EAL classrooms?
4.1 Background of Participants
This section provides the personal information data on the participants. All of the
participants are English language teachers with teaching experience that varies from 6 to 30
years as illustrated in Table 2.

39

Table 2
Number of Years of Teaching Experience
No

Pseudonyms in Survey

Years of Experiences

Participant: 1

James

6-10 years

Participant: 2

Glitchy

26-30 years

Participant: 3

BlueButterfly

26-30 years

Participant: 4

Susan

26-30 years

Participant: 5

Taylor

26-30 years

Participant: 6

Spyder

21-25 years

Participant: 7

Sofie

6-10 years

Participant: 8

Rose

6-10 years

Table 1 shows the participants’ number of years of teaching experience. The data
indicates that four out of eight participants (50%) had 26 to 30 years of work experience. It
is seen that three teachers (37.5%) had been teaching 6-10 years while only one (12.5%) had
over 20 years of teaching experience. However, it should be mentioned that the effect or
correlation of years of teaching experience on GBL use was not discussed while analyzing
and interpreting data.
4.2 Opportunities for Using GBL
The survey required participants to indicate their perceptions of opportunities of
GBL use in terms of usefulness, positive attitude, and social influence. Their responses were
directly related to research question number 1 about the opportunities for using GBL.
4.2.1 Usefulness
One of the important factors of using GBL is usefulness. Figure 5 demonstrates the
percentage of teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness of GBL. Among the eight participants
who reported their views of the usefulness of GBL, 87% percent acknowledged that GBL is

40

useful, while one teacher (12.7%) disagreed. This is consistent with Yoo et al. (2017) who
found perceived usefulness affects users’ intentions to use GBL.
Figure 5
Usefulness Percentage

The study examined usefulness of GBL including the sub-factors such as control over
teaching, reducing the time for task, improving the quality of work, and increasing
motivation which is discussed subsequently. However, motivation factor emerged from the
qualitative data which will be discussed subsequently.
4.2.2 Control over Teaching
Control over teaching means that GBL aids teachers in determining the best
sequence to teach something to students (Sánchez-Mena et al., 2016). GBL helps diversify
lesson activities and increase students’ interest. GBL creates novel ways to have the students
interact with and respond to the content. According to the survey, three teachers (37.5%)
agreed that GBL helps with control over teaching while three (37.5%) held neutral views,
one (12.5%) disagreed and one (12.5%) completely disagreed as demonstrated in Figure 6.

41

Figure 6
Control over Teaching

The qualitative comments from survey participants show that GBL helps in control
over teaching in terms of sequencing in teaching. James describes “It aids me in determining
the best sequence to teach something to students”. GBL allows teachers to control the
environment of the situation in order to allow students to complete a specific task. Sofia
contends, “I can choose a game or an activity that allows the students to focus on a
particular skill we have been practicing like pronunciation”. GBL lends support to creative
ways of teaching by bringing to life the teaching content. Rose agrees “it inspires me to
come up with new, interesting, and creative ways to present and play with dry topics. It adds
life and color to things like grammar.” However, one participant holds an opposite view and
believes that GBL does not help her control the teaching sequence but adds variety to the
activities. Tina describes “GBL helps diversify my lesson activities. GBL does not give me
greater control over my teaching”.
The findings of the survey data complemented by comments indicate that some
teachers accept that GBL is useful in helping control the teaching sequence though others
have neutral or opposing views.
4.2.3 Improving the Quality of Work
GBL improves the quality of the work of teachers by enhancing students’
engagement and involvement in different activities. Figure 7 demonstrates the teachers’
42

perceptions of GBL use to improve the quality of work. According to the survey, seven
respondents (87.5%) agreed that GBL improves the quality of teaching work while one
participant (12.5%) disagreed.
Figure 7
Improving the Quality of Work

According to comments under this question, GBL enhances the quality of teaching
for several reasons such as students’ involvement, enhancing lesson activities, adding
energy, improving skills, improving students’ satisfaction, engagement, and retention.
Glitchy acknowledges “GBL helps to enhance a lesson's activities. It shows that I am not the
kind of teacher who will just lecture to students”. Rose describes “I have increased student
engagement and retention. Students want to do the task and remember when you refer back
to the material if you make it memorable”. James appreciates “overall improving the
student's satisfaction in their learning experience”.
The interview data revealed that GBL helps students, and as James shares, students
“discover the answers by themselves. It stays in their mind longer” Susan concurs with
James when she says “it enlivens, enriches education and the learning process”. In these
43

cases the participants felt that GBL helps the students to discover the answers for themselves
and enlivens learning. However, one participant felt that GBL does not necessarily improve
the quality of teaching but acknowledges that it can improve a teacher’s engagement in her
own practice. Susan believes “I am not sure that it is about quality so much as it improves
my own engagement in the topic and therefore, I think I am even more 'present' in the
classroom and in the planning of the course”.
Overall, the data show that most of the participants in this study felt GBL can
enhance the quality of teaching through increasing student involvement, enhancing lesson
activities, improving class dynamism, increasing student satisfaction, engagement, and
retention.
4.2.4 Communication and Interaction
GBL enhances communication and interactions among students. Though this theme
was not explicitly covered in the survey questions, many participants indicated that GBL
gets students to communicate and interact as they are positively competing to win in a fun
way in which the affective filter is lowered and the classroom environment becomes stress
free. This is consistent with the literature (De-Marcos et al., 2017; Gallego et al., 2008;
Garland, 2015) who found GBL enhances personal interaction (Gallego et al., 2008), social
interaction (De-Marcos et al., 2017; Garland, 2015). River directly states that:
So you're tricking them into communicating by making them have fun to interact.
And I think any barriers in someone's, um, willingness to communicate with other
people will be lowered extremely when they're doing some type of games that are
fun, that they're enjoying themselves.
Hence, GBL lends support to communication and interaction through having fun which
lowers the affective filter barriers and consequently enhances their willingness to
communicate.
4.2.5 Increasing Motivation
Another relevant factor is ‘motivation’. Motivation can be a driving force to engage
students in language learning activities through GBL (Alabbasi, 2018; Hamzah, et al., 2015;
Sobocinski, 2018). While the survey results indicated an uncertain attitude towards the
44

importance of motivation, the interview results along with qualitative survey comments
happen to show that motivation is actually an influential factor in using GBL by teachers.
Teachers highlight the importance of GBL use in increasing students’ motivation. Learning
through GBL strengthens students’ motivation and contributes to information retention.
Taylor acknowledges, “GBL which is done through pair work and group work activities
increase motivation in students to take part in activities”. GBL also enlivens the class and
vibe and “GBL adds some energy to the class” (Taylor). She adds that GBL adds to the class
dynamism which in turn increases students’ motivation. Bringing about changes in the
classroom enhances motivation. Glitchy describes “I use games in my classroom just to
change and make things interesting for students”. Students are motivated and interested
when “it is a change than a usual lecture or more serious assignments we have to do”
(Glitchy). Glitchy asserts that changing the classroom atmospheres by shifting from the
traditional and conventional way of teaching positively contributes to students’ motivation.
GBL is a ‘stimulating practice” that adds to students’ motivation, James acknowledges.
According to James, when students know that teachers are embedding GBL “they are really
excited” and motivated to learn. Inserting motivating activities like online GBL platforms
contribute to motivation through fun and competition as suggested by Taylor “These
activities, like a competitive "Kahoot" can help my students to review material in a fun way
through an online competition”.
While Hanus and Fox (2015) found that GBL decreased the students’ motivation and
had a negative impact on their achievement, this study found that overall, the participants
felt that GBL can increase students’ motivation and engagement through introducing fun
activities, adding energy, positive competition, pair work, group work, enriching and
enlivening learning process, through the use of online GBL platforms.
4.3 Attitudes towards GBL
The attitude of teachers towards GBL has an important role in using it (Alabbasi,
2018; Sánchez-Mena et al., 2017; Yüksel & Durmaz, 2016). Figure 8 demonstrates teachers’
attitude towards using GBL and shows that they are in favor of using GBL in the language
classroom.

45

Figure 8
Attitude Towards Using GBL

According to the survey data, it was found that seven participants (87.5%) agreed
with using GBL in teaching language, while one (12.5%) disagreed.
According to the interviews and qualitative comments on the survey, the teachers
express their attitudes towards GBL by highlighting its function in bringing change,
supporting collaboration, pair work and group work, motivating, students’ positive attitudes,
reducing teacher talk, facilitating learning, enhancing engagement, creating community,
curiosity, creativity, and enlivening classroom. Glitchy acknowledges that “most students
enjoy playing games or activities that seems like games”. This indicates that students’
positive perceptions of GBL and game-like activities encourage teachers to use it. GBL
lends support to student-centered learning where the teacher takes a less prominent role.
Sofia states “GBL is more student-centered and it reduces teacher talk”. GBL supports
engagement, community, curiosity, which is supported by Susan’s comment “It engages
learners, creates community Susan goes on to say that GBL builds upon a “natural curiosity”
towards the course content, and “enlivens the classroom”. GBL contributes to the creativity
and innovation of teachers which is exemplified by Rose who states that “(GBL) allows me
to be more creative and stretch my abilities”.

46

Overall, some attributes of GBL such as enlivening and changing the class
atmosphere, fun, facilitation, teachers’ creativity, less teacher talk, diverse lesson activities,
curiosity, collaboration, and group work cause teachers to have positive perceptions of using
this approach. Attitudes towards GBL include three sub-factors: enjoyment in GBL, and
lack of comfort in using GBL. These sub-factors will be deliberated in the following section.
4.3.1 Fun and Enjoyment in GBL
Enjoyment and fun in using GBL encourages teachers to use it (Asiri, 2019;
Escudero-Mancebo, 2015; Zarzycka-Piskorz, 2016). Figure 9 illustrates teachers’ attitudes
towards fun and enjoyment in GBL use.
According to the survey data, 87.5% of teachers agreed that GBL increases fun and
engagement. This is consistent with Asiri (2019) who found that teachers had positive
attitudes towards the use of GBL in terms of fun and enjoyment. Only one participant
(12.5%) disagreed.
Figure 9
Teachers’ Attitudes Towards GBL as Fun and Enjoyment

The interview data show that the participants felt that GBL results in fun and
enjoyment for students by bringing life and happiness to the classroom while reviewing and
practicing materials. Glitchy explains that students were “interested and sometimes even
laughing and fun”. Glitchy further adds that “(GBL) allows students to have fun while
47

practicing and reviewing the materials” which can be interesting and relaxing. James
compares a traditional class setting with the GBL embedded classroom context and
acknowledges “it also makes time goes faster. It is not like sitting only in one spot at the
desk for three hours”. He emphasizes that he feels that GBL helps students to have a happy
and fun time in the classroom, which is supported by River who adds “they're learning a
language and they're trying to win and they're trying to have fun and they're shouting out
things and they're all laughing”. She further explains that it makes the class stress-free
because “being successful at that fun activity, their affective filter comes down”.
In the qualitative comments on the survey, Susan states that “games add life to the
classroom”. She also adds that “I just love to see the students smiling and talking to each
other while they explore course content”. Taylor also appreciates “the increase in
engagement in the class”, and River claims that online GBL tools create a fun environment
for language learning through stimulating positive competition and providing immediate
feedback. River states “Using tools like real-time electronic polling apps can make learning
fun for students and give immediate responses”. And the idea that games contribute to
enjoyment were echoed by Taylor who comments that “these activities, like a competitive
"Kahoot" can help my students to review material in a fun way through an online
competition”. River recommends GBL use as “it is a strategy that teachers can use to help
the students learn while having fun at the same time”.
Overall, the participants felt that GBL can bring fun and enjoyment to classrooms by
improving class dynamism, laughter, relaxation, happiness and reducing stress. GBL leads
to positive competition through GBL apps and provides immediate feedback while students
are exploring the content and learning the language.
4.3.2 Comfort Level in Using GBL
The comfort level of using new approaches in class is an essential factor that can
affect teachers’ use of GBL (Asiri, 2019; Flores, 2015). According to the survey, teachers
indicated that they did not experience a lack of comfort in using GBL. The findings of the
survey data show that four teachers (50%) strongly disagreed and four (50%) disagreed that
GBL causes a lack of comfort. This indicates that all teachers acknowledged that GBL use
leads to comfort. This is because GBL by nature is fun and motivates teachers to use the
48

activities more comfortably and eagerly in a “sustaining relaxed atmosphere” (Flores, 2015,
p.32).
Figure 10
Comfort Level in Using GBL

According to qualitative comments on the survey, GBL is connected with comfort
and familiarity. Tina verifies this when she shared that “it doesn't make me feel
uncomfortable”, which is supported by Taylor’s comment, “I enjoy using GBL because it
connects to the comfort and familiarity”.
According to the interview data, the fun and interesting qualities of GBL encourages
teachers and students to use GBL comfortably. In this line, Glitchy describes GBL as “more
fun and interesting”. James agrees with Glitchy who shares that “It makes the lesson more
fun not only for the student but also for the teachers as well”. James maintains “I often see
my students laughing and having a great time and that also makes me happy”.
To sum up, data shows that all teachers agreed that using GBL is comfortable for
both teachers and students in the context of the classroom. This is because GBL changes the
classroom atmosphere and creates a fun, interesting, and pleasant environment.
4.4 Social Influence
The survey data indicates that social influence impacts the use of GBL which is
consistent with the findings of Asiri (2019) and Ssekibaamu (2015) who found a strong
49

relationship between social influence and teachers’ use of GBL. The study examined social
influence as an overall factor with four sub-factors: respectful people encouragement,
peer/coworker influence, effect of influential people, and sharing with colleagues. The
factors that were explored in the study through the survey produced results similar to those
reported in the literature.
4.4.1 Encouragment from Respected People
One of the sub-factors of social influence which affects GBL use is respectful people
encouragement (Asiri, 2019). This means that when EAL teachers are encouraged by the
people whom they respect like a dean, head of department or high-profile professors, they
may follow them in using GBL. Figure 11 demonstrates the influence of respectful people
on GBL use.
The survey data indicates that five participants (62.5%) followed respected people in
using GBL, while one (12.5%) held a neutral view and two (25%) disagreed with the
influence of reverential people in their implementation of GBL. The finding is partially
consistent with Asiri (2019) who found that respected people significantly affect the use of
GBL by teachers. It is noted that one person in the study is not sure about the influence of
people who they think of as respected, and two teachers are not affected by reverential
people.
Figure 11

Encouragement from Respected People

50

According to the qualitative comments on the survey, Taylor admits that she benefits
from respected people in the faculty in terms of innovation and creativity. She states that
“The faculty at the teaching and learning center has a lot of great ideas about how to
innovate my teaching practice”. However, James disagreed that respected people have
influence over his use of GBL but to him “They don't really. I am interested in applying
GBL out of my own and stems from my desire to become a better teacher”. Therefore, he
uses GBL when he believes it will be effective for teaching the language.
To sum up, teachers are influenced by the respected people surrounding them on
their use of GBL especially when they admire their work. However, some oppose this idea
and believe that they examine the objectives of the lesson, and accordingly decide whether
to implement GBL or not, regardless of the views of others.
4.4.2 Peer/coworker Influence
Studies have argued that peer/coworkers influence the use of GBL (Asiri, 2019; Hao,
2017; Ssekibaamu, 2015). Figure 12 illustrates the influence of peer/coworker on GBL use
in this study.
The results of the survey data indicate that five teachers (62.5%) agreed that their
peers or colleagues influence them in using GBL while 37.5% had a neutral point of view.
The finding is partially consistent with the data in the literature (Asiri, 2019; Ssekibaamu,
2015) which indicates that peers and colleagues have a significant role in using GBL by
teachers.

51

Figure 12
Peer/coworker Influence

According to qualitative comments on the survey, James accepts influence from
peers “When they share their successful applications in the classroom”, and when he sees his
“colleagues succeeding in achieving learning objectives” through GBL it encourages him to
try out their ideas or to create similar ones. Along with this line, Glitchy admits that
colleagues “share ideas with each other that are interesting, fun and help students learn”.
Taylor tends to try new things that she learns from her colleagues and shares that “I’m
happy to hear about how my colleagues are using new GBL applications which I may
choose to use in the future”. She admits that the colleagues who use GBL “share their
experiences because they are excited, and I have a lot of respect for colleagues who are
engaged in their own learning and innovating their teaching practice”. This means that she
admires professional development and innovative way of teaching through GBL. However,
Rose is reluctant to follow her colleagues as she acknowledges that they do not influence
her. She says “It's my preference” and goes on to say “when it fits the learning objectives”.
This indicates that she is not interested in merely following her coworkers in using GBL but
decides on its use purposefully when it helps achieve the lesson objectives.
Overall, teachers have shared their success stories of GBL, emulation, professional
development, use of different approaches, respecting others, and innovation in teaching with
their colleagues. However, two out of eight survey respondents were not encouraged to
emulate others in terms of using GBL.
52

4.4.3 Effect of Influential People
Influential people encourage the use of GBL by teachers (Asiri, 2019; Hamari and
Koivisto, 2013). Figure 13 demonstrates the effect of influential people on the use of GBL
by teachers. The findings of the survey data shows that five participants (62.5%) agreed that
influential people can impact their application of GBL, 25% were not sure if they have an
important role or not, while one (12.5%) disagreed with this idea. The findings of the survey
partially confirms the findings of Asiri (2019) and Hamari and Koivisto (2013) who found
that influential and powerful people strongly impact the use of GBL by teachers. It means
that although most teachers agree that influential people influence their use of GBL, there
are some who are not sure or disagree about the effect of influential people.
Figure 13
Effect of Influential People

According to the qualitative comments on the survey, Spyder acknowledges that she
follows “leaders in teaching” in terms of using GBL. Sofia admits that GBL is a trendy topic
“at professional conferences” and she appreciates “GBL is one of the most popular aspects
of our programs and makes us stand out from our competitors”. She enjoys the advocacy for
using GBL in her classroom and believes that it makes it stand out from the crowd.
However, Rose disagreed that influential people can affect her use of GBL as she directly
states, “I plan my use of games based on the learning objectives”. She argues that she makes
use of GBL according to her language learning aims regardless of the attitudes of others.

53

In sum, it was found that overall respected people, colleagues, peers, and influential
people influence teachers’ use of GBL; however, some respondents held opposite views and
claimed that they decide on the use of GBL purposefully regardless of the opinions of
others.
4.4.4. Sharing with Colleagues
Sharing with colleagues can encourage teachers’ use of GBL (Asiri, 2019; Hamari &
Koivisto, 2013). Figure 14 illustrates teachers’ sharing GBL with colleagues.
The findings of the survey indicate that 87.5% of participants agreed that they will
share the application of GBL for language teaching and learning with colleagues while one
(12.5%) disagreed with this idea. This finding is consistent with the Asiri, (2019) and
Hamari and Koivisto (2013) who indicate that sharing GBL with others can significantly
influence their use.
Figure 14
Sharing with Colleagues

According to the qualitative comments on the survey, there is a wide range of
diversity in terms of sharing GBL ideas with colleagues from trying games developed by
others, to sharing success stories, and developing professionalism through conferences and
workshops. James accepts “We share ideas about what works and what doesn't”. In this way,
he adds “we contribute to each other's professional development”, which is supported by
Glitchy who agrees that they talk together especially when they have “tried a game and we
54

see the value for students”. On the same note, Susan highlights professional development by
sharing ideas with colleagues through conferences “By sharing ideas, we are always learning
from each other –conferences, etc.” which is supported by Taylor who claims that she shares
her success stories through workshops. Taylor admits “I have done workshops with faculty
from across the university that involves an example of GBL”.
In summary, teachers share their ideas about GBL and exchange ideas, success
stories, and games through different modes of communication, such as conferences and
workshops.
4.5 Use of GBL
To further understand how GBL is used by EAL teachers, “frequency of use” and
“future use” are explored (Asiri, 2019).
4.5.1 Frequency of Use
Frequency of GBL use is crucially important in its effectiveness (Asiri, 2019).
According to Asiri (2019), frequency is referred to as the number of situations in which
teachers use GBL for teaching English in a lesson or course. Figure 15 demonstrates the
frequency of GBL use.
According to the survey data, one participant (12.5%) agreed that they use GBL
frequently, while 37.5% were not sure whether they frequently use it or not. 50% disagreed
that they use it frequently. The quantitative data shows that only one teacher uses GBL
regularly despite the considerable advantages. The findings are partially consistent with
Asiri (2019) who reported that the teachers frequently used GBL for language teaching.

55

Figure 15
Frequency of GBL Use

According to the interview data and the qualitative comments on the survey, teachers
use GBL purposefully, relevant to the lesson topics, and embed it in lesson plans. James
uses GBL every other day and appreciates the use of GBL “it’s rewarding and it is up to
them if they use again and again”. Spyder implements it periodically, and River uses it
rarely. Rose uses it when it is suitable for her teaching topic and she directly states, “When it
fits the topic I'm teaching”, which is supported by Glitchy’s comments “I only use games
when it will work within a lesson plan and it's topic.” She uses GBL “in a lesson very
carefully and planned”. Some teachers openly stated that they use GBL purposefully
depending on the teaching and learning situation.
Susan begins every class with “some sort of review and using games” which helps
her achieve that notion of a warm up creating energy towards the course content while also
supporting learners who may have missed the last class. She also uses “games to reinforce
content or to apply content” during the lesson and again this “adds energy to the class” while
at the same time offers her some feedback as to how the students are managing or
understanding the content.

56

On the other hand, Taylor questions the idea of using GBL on a regular basis. She
states “if a teacher uses the same type of GBL, for example, Kahoot”, students will become
bored. She suggests that teachers use GBL once in a while rather than every class in order to
keep it exciting.
James argues that the reasons why teachers are not using GBL satisfactorily are
attributed to the fact that “gamified activities often take much longer to develop than regular
classroom activities”, and teachers have a heavy workload such as classroom preparation,
marking, and personal commitments. This will be fully discussed in the section related to the
obstacles of using GBL.
Overall, the findings of both the quantitative and qualitative data indicate that
although the participants felt that GBL can have an impressive impact on language learning,
very few teachers are using GBL frequently or regularly. In fact, they are mostly
highlighting the importance of GBL, rather than actually implementing it in their classes.
This issue might partly attribute to their professional and personal workloads.
4.5.2 Future Use of GBL
Future use of GBL by teachers is important to consider in order to see the effect on
language learning (Asiri, 2019). Figure 16 demonstrates the future use of GBL by teachers.
According to the survey data, 87.5% of participants agreed that they will use GBL
for language teaching in the future while one (12.5%) disagreed with this idea. It is seen that
seven out of eight teachers will use GBL in the future. This finding is consistent with Asiri
(2019) who indicated that all teachers indicated that they would use GBL in the future.

57

Figure 16
Future Use of GBL

According to the interview data and the qualitative comments on the survey, several
factors will encourage teachers to use GBL in the future. Most of the comments refer to
feedback from students such as enjoyment, effective learning, impressive results, active
participation, and interest while other factors related to suitability, and methodology. James
admits that the students enjoy playing games, and most of the time, they are not even aware
of the amount of learning that is taking place at the same time, which “makes class
enjoyable for students, and it helps to achieve the learning objectives in an actively
participating fashion”. James enjoys using it and is “happy with the results he sees from
students and the students seem to enjoy it”. In this line, Glitchy agrees that students
generally like GBL and “if the game suits the lesson I will include a game”. Susan is
“searching for new ways to present, review, and reinforce information and course content
and games support those three aims”. Taylor appreciates receiving “positive feedback from
students”, and she feels that GBL gives her feedback about the learning of her students”.
Such factors encourage teachers to use GBL in future. However, Taylor shows that she is
reluctant to use GBL since it takes a lot of time “to create the material for the GBL” and she
complains “it can be time consuming for a few minutes of play”. This indicates that she is
not satisfied with the GBL that is supposed to be played in a few minutes but taking a lot of
time to be prepared. In the following section, the obstacles of using GBL are discussed.
58

4.6 Obstacles of Using GBL
As discussed in the previous section, GBL offers several opportunities for language
learning; however, there are some obstacles which hinder the use of GBL by teachers. The
interview data has resulted in themes that were not explicitly covered in the survey data but
served as barriers to using GBL, namely: lack of time, lack of resources, and student
preferences.
4.6.1 Lack of Time
The interviews highlight that the ‘lack of time’ for GBL is an issue and for the
teachers which could be a hindrance to the use of GBL in teaching language. This is
consistent with data from the literature (Šćepanović et al., 2015; Sánchez-Mena et al., 2017;
Ucus, 2015), that found that time was a big barrier to the use of GBL. Considering games
which are appropriate for the given lesson and target student demographics could take a
significant amount of time. Additional challenges that are associated with time include types
of courses, time for lesson plan, professional development, teaching workload, marking, and
online teaching. James acknowledges “It takes a lot more planning and effort to set up
before the actual class time”. Different aspects of GBL such as thinking about games,
planning, preparation, incorporation, teacher professional development, and learning GBL
technology could be time-consuming. It takes a lot of time not to just think about the game,
but to create the tools that the students need to play. James explains that preparing a
conventional chopstick game, for example, needs a lot of printing and cutting, or the teacher
has to buy it. James, however, admits “It takes more time to prepare work, but in the
classroom, it leads to me doing less work”, which is supported by River’s comments “It’s a
matter of having enough time to prepare all those games”. She also believes “it depends
what type of courses you teach as well”. Taylor complains that a short game takes a lot of
time and effort to produce, “If I have to create the material for the GBL it can be time
consuming for a few minutes of play”, which is supported by Susan’s comments “time is the
biggest challenge”. Susan explains that she has “less and less time to plan your lessons to be,
do the professional development”. She gives an example of using games in upper-level
writing courses and highlights the issue of time to implement games on a continual basis.
She directly states:

59

So those type of games I've used in those writing classes, but sometimes I find it
difficult, uh, to incorporate on a continual basis at the upper levels, more of those
games, because if I had more time to do professional development and think and
plan a lot of time for that, I would use a lot more games than I'm currently using. I
think it's an excellent technique. I just wish I had more time to plan and to
incorporate that.
Regarding using online GBL, Susan highlights “the issue of time to plan your lessons
and incorporate and learn the latest technology”. She underlines that she needs to learn about
the technology in relation to GBL “What is the latest software that's out there and interactive
and how, you know”. To her, time is “the biggest obstacle”. However, she suggests that
teachers use GBL “I would highly recommend it. I just wish I had more time to actually
implement it in the real world”. Other things that take teachers’ time are teaching workload,
marking, and online teaching challenge, as Susan complains “other committee work,
marking, and now trying to figure out how to teach in this online environment” occupy
much of her time outside of classroom teaching.
To sum up, it was found that figuring out the right games for the right students in the
right context, types of lesson, teacher workload, planning, preparation, incorporation,
teacher professional development, and learning GBL technology could take a lot of time,
which is regarded as barriers to the implementation of GBL thus discouraging the use of
GBL.
4.6.2. Lack of Resources
Another obstacle of using GBL which was not explicitly covered in the survey data
is lack of resources. This finding is consistent with the findings of the literature (Lifanova et
al., 2016; Sánchez-Mena et al., 2017).The findings of the interview data and qualitative
comments from the survey indicate that teachers find it difficult to explore, plan, create,
adapt, and prepare relevant content and materials for GBL as they already have a heavy
workload of marking, personal commitments, and administrative duties. As a result, if
teachers do not have access to ready-made resources for GBL, the activities often take much
longer. James explains “It takes a lot more planning and effort to set up before the actual
class time”. Teachers may not be aware of the resources that are available which is
60

supported by River’s comments “I'm not up to speed on a wide variety of tools that are easy
to use and would make my job easier while providing better tools for student learning”.
Susan admits “I have to explore, create and administer the 'game'”. James complains that
creating the original GBL of an activity “takes longer to create than a traditional lecture”,
which is supported by Rose’s comments, “Because it takes longer to prepare and plan
lessons that include games”, as games are often more labor intensive to prepare. Taylor
indicates that adaption of resources to different classes is an issue “Once I have created
these, they still need to be adapted for each different class.” James explains “using them is
preferable, but not always realistic when I consider my classroom preparation, marking load
and personal commitments”.
There can be a lot of the hurdles regarding “professional development and having
access to these resources” according to Susan. Teachers may need to search for resources to
reach classroom aims by using GBL. Susan says “in a book or a kind of a paper resource,
then I would be looking for one that meets more of the content”. She finds it a big challenge
to look for GBL resources that support different content:
So I'm looking then for a game that's going to help me review APA citations, or
I'm looking for a game that's going to help students really understand the difference
between present perfect and past tense. So I'm looking more for the content.
Therefore, there are issues related to a lack of resources and professional
development related to using GBL that include exploring, planning, creating, finding,
adapting, administering, and implementing GBL materials and technology.
4.6.3. Student Preference
The interview and qualitative comments from the survey highlight another barrier to
the use of GBL which was not explicitly covered in the survey data of student preference.
Studies show that students have different preferences for learning which could impact their
participation in some class activities such as GBL (Buckley and Doyle, 2017; Fan et al.,
2015; Kiryakova et al., 2014). Some GBL activities require fast decision-making skills
which may not be compatible with slow learners. Some students are introverted and
appreciate learning by themselves more efficiently, effectively (Fan et al., 2015).
61

The findings of the interview data and qualitative comments from the survey indicate
that the teachers underlined some issues attributed to student reluctance to use GBL such as
lack of clear purpose, point of view, culture, ego, competition, and noise level. Furthermore,
some students behold conventional and traditional views to GBL and believe that games are
solely for the purpose of entertainment, and consequently they do not take them seriously as
an approach to teaching and learning the language. In terms of purpose, some students
believe that GBL is not relevant to classroom activity for language learning and they prefer
the traditional classroom context. Glitchy agrees that “most students enjoy participating in
games”, but here is the odd student who does not like GBL “because he doesn't see the
purpose of having them in class”. She explains “these are the students who prefer more
traditional class settings or they just don't enjoy games”. Glitchy concludes that “…all
students are different types of learners and all learners learn differently”. Consequently,
games may not help them to remember or review materials or prefer not to continue using it
(Fan et al., 2015).
Adult learners may not have positive views towards GBL or be egoistic and hard to
participate in GBL activities. They may think that losing in a competition could be
humiliating. Another interviewee Susan states this fact:
I think from a student's point of view, particularly adult learners, it can be seen as
trivializing. So for some students, uh, or cultures, it can be, I came here to learn. I
don’t just want them to play. So they, without really explicit clarification of, uh,
why this is being used and how it fits into the learning and teaching process. I
think adult learners sometimes can have a kind of ego, I don't want to play a
game. I want to just learn. Some learners believe that’s not health.
According to Susan, some learners do not want competition in a class. They do not
want a class to be loud and rambunctious. Therefore, it would be challenging to “provide
games that are quieter, more reflective, a little bit more silence in a classroom”.
Overall, it was found that some factors such as lack of clear purpose for GBL, point
of view, culture, student ego, competition, different learning styles and preferences, and the

62

noisy nature of games are the challenging issues associated with students’ lack of
participation in GBL.

63

Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations

Traditionally, GBL use has been looked at from the perspectives of students with
few studies investigating teachers’ attitudes. Few studies have explored the opportunities
and obstacles of GBL from the point of view of EAL teachers. The current study is an
attempt to fill this gap. The theoretical foundation of the study was a combination of
elements of UTAUT and TAM, which were used to help construct the survey questions and
underpin the development of the interview questions. Additionally, this framework (see
Figure 1) from the literature review was used to conduct the data analysis, which helped
surface some opportunities and obstacles for using GBL in the context of EAL in Canada.
The findings of the study have been brought to attention the elements of GBL which would
be beneficial for teachers, students, and administrators.
5.1 Opportunities
EAL language courses offered by Thompson Rivers University target international
students with different backgrounds. To address the language proficiency needs of students,
EAL teachers need to take advantage of the latest findings and approaches to language
teaching and learning among which GBL is advocated by many scholars (Asiri, 2019). The
current study looked at GBL for language teaching and learning and found several
advantages of this approach to language teaching. One of the important aspects of adopting
and using any new way of teaching is the teachers’ (who are teaching in higher education)
attitudes towards it. Concerning GBL, teachers held positive attitudes towards its use and
accepted that GBL helps teachers to deepen students’ understanding of the content by
specifically focusing on a particular language skill (listening, speaking, reading, and writing)
and components (pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary), which happens through presenting
and reviewing the materials creatively. It allows the teachers to decide on the best teaching
sequence in teaching the content (Sánchez-Mena et al., 2016). This can happen in a stressfree environment where the affective filter is low. The instructors in this study also indicated
that GBL helps them in determining efficient teaching sequences. For students living in the
era of technology, adhering to a traditional and conventional way of language teaching and
64

learning could be boring and consequently their attention would be distracted from the
classroom learning (Dixit et al., 2018). This is where GBL use as an instructional strategy
comes to help to increase students’ engagement and attention span (Dixit et al., 2018). In
traditional and conventional methods, the classroom is teacher-centered and the students are
passive. This is where both teachers and students can appreciate the liveliness and energy
brought into the classroom through GBL.
Teachers acknowledged that GBL enhances the quality of teaching which happens
through engaging students in diverse activities which happens in a dynamic classroom
setting and leads to the remembering and retention of language content in a relaxed
collaborative environment.
One of the aspects of language learning which might be missing in many EAL
classes is a lack of attention to the communication and interaction that take place among
students in group and teamwork. When students need to find a solution to a problem in
language learning, they are required to be able to negotiate and express themselves freely to
share their solution to the problem. The teachers in the study indicated that GBL can be a
drive for boosting communication among students in a stress-free environment.
One of the drawbacks of traditional methods of teaching is that they may not
motivate students to learn the language or participate in classroom activities. GBL helps
teachers to address this issue by offering fun activities, positive competitions, where
students can participate in pair work and group work activities in an enlivening learning
process while using conventional or online GBL in a pleasant environment. To boost
motivation, teachers should set goals and let students achieve them through GBL activities
with rewarding systems where performance is enhanced and satisfaction is increased
(Bovermann et al., 2018, Cahyani 2016, Hamzah, et al., 2015).
In addition to increasing students’ motivation, the results of this study emphasized
that GBL brings fun and enjoyment to the classroom by improving class dynamism,
laughter, relaxation, happiness, reducing stress and engagement and sense of belonging to a
team and identification with team’s goal (Asiri, 2019; Yang et al., 2016). Teachers should
benefit from this feature of GBL and provide a stress-free environment for students where
65

each student takes an active role in learning while exploring the language content
collaboratively and cooperatively (Alfulaih, 2018; Asiri, 2019).
One of the factors that impacts teachers’ use of GBL is social influence from
respected people, colleagues and influential people in an institute. Teachers should look to
these people in order to get support in using GBL as far as this approach helps them achieve
the objectives of lessons or course goals more effectively. Using GBL, particularly the
adoption of online applications is regarded as professional development among teachers. To
successfully use GBL, teachers must increase their knowledge of GBL use as well as how to
keep abreast of the latest technologies in this area. This can happen informally through
exchanging ideas and success stories, and formally by participating in workshops and
conferences.
In addition, teachers can benefit from GBL to make the performance of students
transparent by providing an ongoing source of assessment through scores, leaderboards,
levels, and badges. These scores can be used for formative and summative assessment and
will help to show student’s achievement, accomplishments and improvement in some areas
where it is challenging to measure the performance and provide frequent feedback for
learning. Furthermore, as discussed by one of the research participants, GBL can transmit
the university/institute image and make it stand out from the crowd where the center would
be recognized as innovative, forward-thinking, and inclusive. This way GBL portrays the
image of the university inside and outside. Universities where innovative ways of language
teaching such as GBL are employed might attract more international students.
Although the teachers in this study unanimously agreed that GBL is a game
changer in teaching language, and they will use it in future, very few of them were using it
on a regular basis. The reason behind this issue is the obstacles which were highlighted by
teachers in the qualitative data.
5.2 Obstacles
Teachers may face challenges in terms of time, resources, and the preferences of
students while implementing GBL, which need to be addressed to foster GBL use.
Sometimes it takes a considerable amount of time to prepare a GBL activity which could
66

make teachers reluctant to use it. Measures should be taken to lessen teachers’ workloads
such as marking, keying in marks, paperwork, meetings, and administrative tasks. By
providing teachers with more time to focus on teaching, they would be able to work on
innovative ways of teaching the language like GBL. Findings of past studies (Fernandez-Rio
et al., 2020; Siemon & Eckardt, 2017) indicated that one of the factors that negatively
impacts GBL use is teacher’s workload.
Regarding the conventional games through which teachers can create various
contexts where students are provided with an opportunity to use English language for
communication, express opinion and exchange information (Wright et al., 1984), teachers
should be provided with the necessary materials in the departmental resource room and not
have to look for or develop basic materials such as gameboards or card decks. Language
centers should prepare games suitable for different students with different proficiency levels.
Concerning online games for GBL, instructors should select the relevant games catering to
the needs of students of different backgrounds and language levels. In addition, instructors
should participate in forums, workshops, and conferences for sharing GBL ideas and success
stories. In order to successfully implement GBL, teachers need to be encouraged and
provided with time and resources to participate in workshops, seminars, and conferences to
get updated regarding the latest GBL approaches as well as the required technology to
implement them.
Another issue that was raised is that some adult students were reluctant to use GBL.
Some adult EAL students are reluctant to fully engage in activities like GBL because they
think the games are not appropriate for their ages or even worthless (Landers et al., 2019).
To address the issue of students’ lack of participation, teachers should make it clear that
GBL is at the service of language learning (Galbis-Córdoba et al., 2017). They may change
adult learners’ attitudes towards GBL by alleviating the issue of students’ discomfort and
highlighting the benefits of GBL for language learning. They should hold the competition in
a very friendly environment that is not intimidating to the language learners’ personality. In
addition, the GBL activities should have a serious aim that is communicated to students and
use the game mechanics to make the journey toward that objective more compelling.
However, overexploitation of GBL may lead to student fatigue; bored or stressed students
67

may even prove to be counterproductive (Andrade et al., 2016). Teachers should not
overestimate the effect of GBL but use it as a positive change to the classroom atmosphere.
5.3 Implications
GBL is undoubtedly helping those involved in the process of education and learning.
It is high time for teachers to be familiar with GBL in this digital era where the attention of
students is lower than ever (Dixit et al., 2018). There are a number of implications from this
study for those who are involved in the education sector. There are specific implications for
teachers, students, and administrators pertaining to the use of GBL that I have discovered
throughout this study.
5.3.1 Teachers
Overall, the teachers involved in this study are excited about GBL. Though they are
excited about the benefits and possibilities it offers, they may be reluctant to implement as
they are unfamiliar with the mechanics, and find it time-consuming to plan. Hence, teachers
are still in need of help to get more practice and professional development to use GBL with
ease. Moreover, they also face time constraints when trying to implement educational games
in the classroom. In this regard, they need to get help from those colleagues who are already
experts in this method or use the institutional resource room materials. Additionally, they
also need to join professional training programs, workshops, seminars, and conferences. For
example, at Thompson Rivers University, the Centre for Excellence in Teaching & Learning
(CELT) (www.tru.ca/celt) provides support for proferssional development. The University
of Waterloo organizes a workshop namely ‘Enhancing Learning Through Gamification’
(https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-for-teaching-excellence/workshop-resources/enhancinglearning-through-GBL).Education World also holds an online course for professional
development namely ‘GBL in the Classroom
(https://www.educationworld.com/teachers/online-pd-gamification-classroom-k-12).
Another example of resrouces for EAL teachers comes from the BCTEAL blog entitled
“Practical Gamification in the Classroom”
(https://bcteal.wordpress.com/2020/02/29/cdneltchat-summary-for-february-25-2020practical-gamification-in-the-classroom/).

68

TESOL's Computer Assisted Language Learning Interest Section and their annual
"ElectronicVillage"(https://my.tesol.org/communities/communityhome?CommunityKey=06
0d8cce-83b4-41da-9227-8d36ac69f8e1) component for the international conference
contribute to language learning. This is the main place for professional development for
EAL teachers that relates to technology. The Computer-Assisted Language Learning Interest
Section (CALL-IS) aims at facilitating interaction among members of TESOL with the
desire to further the teaching of EFL, ESL, and languages in general through the medium of
CALL. Their latest discussions revolved around networking for educators, TESOL
webinars, 2021 CALL-IS Call for Nominations, and Integrated Digital English Acceleration
and CALL Research. Teachers need to explore more free tools including mentioned above
which align with the students’ needs, interests and preferences.
In addition, one option for teachers may be to explore the GBL implementation
advantages or take opportunities to be a co-designer of a GBL activity with another
colleague. Additionally, they can let students be co-designers and create Kahoot gamified
activities. Using online GBL programs like Kahoot allows for the creation of multiplechoice questions (for grammar or vocabulary tests) that students can answer individually or
collaboratively.
In GBL selection, teachers should consider different elements such as challenge,
feedback, point, leaderboard, reward, level, curiosity, medal, warning signal, avatars,
chunking, and virtual credits to be effective and attractive to students (Flores, 2015).
Teachers can get students to participate in positive competition through GBL in which they
are challenged to find the answer or solve a problem (reading, vocabulary, grammar) and
award the winners with points, rewards or medals. Kahoot (www.kahoot.com) integrates the
abovementioned element to provide a fun, interesting learning environment for students
where students feel that they belong to a team and identify themselves with its goal. There is
another way to make it more attractive to students by making students co-designers of the
games. By using a co-creation approach, teachers can explore as to what really motivates
students and engage them towards learning. Teachers may create games using Kahoot and
present them to the students to review in order to increase their motivation and engagement.
Teachers can also use online templates from Wordwall (https://wordwall.net/en69

us/community/games) and ask students to help create different types of games for teaching
different language skills and components.
Another aspect that could be considered is the cultural values and educational
background of the learners. In the Canadian EAL learning environment, students come from
all over the world with diverse cultural background that includes different education
systems. Students from some countries, for example Japan, are more reserved and
conservative in expressing themselves. Hence, students with these traits may find it
uncomfortable to be involved in GBL activities where students are required to openly
express themselves. In addition, teachers should define the purpose of GBL for adults in
order to avoid their anxiety or the feeling of discomfort while participating in GBL
competitions.
Teachers should be aware that GBL is a supplement to language learning activities
which should be at the right time and right situation. Their use is not compulsory. Teachers
should do research in the area of GBL (e.g., action research) for language learning to deepen
their theoretical as well as practical knowledge of using GBL.
Furthermore, alternative assessment and pacing are also key strategies which should
be taken into account when it comes to a gamified approach. GBL could significantly reduce
stress of exams and improve scores among students. In this way, instructors can make
learning fun and interesting. I used question testing (vocabulary, grammar) in Kahoot and
ask students to answer individually or collaboratively.
Overall, teachers need support from stakeholders to integrate GBL into classrooms
effectively. For example, in order to use Kahoot or Wordwall for creating GBL, they need to
be supported through training on how to use these websites. They also need to be assisted
with suitable computer systems with good internet connections.
5.3.2 Students
Some of the data from this study indicated that students also encounter obstacles to
their learning when participating in gamified lesson; for example, some of them found GBL
irrelevant, inconsistent with their educational background, or inconsistent with their sense of
identity or ego. While students can use GBL to improve language skills (speaking, listening,
70

reading, and writing) and components (vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation) and GBL
can positively contribute to students’ motivation, engagement, and satisfaction there may be
some drawbacks to consider. Care should be taken when designing activities as students
may prefer to learn at their own pace and many have anxiety in collaborative GBL learning.
GBL should not cause negative competition since it may be counterproductive. As an
example, some adult learners feel anxious or humiliated if they lose a game which is
consistent with finding of a study by Charles et al. (2011). Overuse of GBL in teaching
language could possibly result in a stressful environment and consequently students’
motivation and engagement could be decreased and the objectives of lesson or course might
not be achieved. Drawing on social constructivist approaches, students can participate in
student-centered learning through GBL by also contributing to game design.
5.3.3 Administrators
The role of administrators is crucial in the success of any institution (Richardson,
2003). They should provide technical support to the teaching staff in terms of providing
essential tools like smart boards, which are helpful to implement GLP. They should also
provide funding for required resources such as: materials for developing games, high speed
internet, required software, and online educational games (Tsourma et al., 2019).
Moreover, administrators need to support the organization by providing or helping to
organize workshops, seminars, webinars, conferences, or other training programs in schools
to train their teaching staff. These opportunities can help them learn how to create games
using templates from gamifying sites (Richardson, 2003) and Stieler-Hunt and Jones (2019)
found that using games, while being mentored and assisted, supported teaching professional
development. Furthermore, they should invite experts in the field of GBL to help their
teachers to overcome their challenges such as lack of time and students’ preferences when
implementing GBL. In terms of time, they should recruit experts to share their experiences
in effectively planning, designing, and implementing GBL. Concerning, students’
preference, experienced experts in the fields of GBL development and use should be invited
to share their ideas in addressing issues associated with students’ preferences. GBL success
stories should be taken into account; for example, the Duolingo language learning app which
uses daily goals, streaks, and a finite number of lives in order to motivate the users to log in
71

daily and continue learning as in a study, Ajisoko (2020), indicated that Duolingo
significantly improved students’ vocabulary learning.
In regard to teachers’ professional development, one way administrators could
promote GBL would be in the use of badges for those teachers who complete GBL courses
to help model and cultivate GBL use. An example of this comes from the Deloitte
Leadership Academy (2021). Deloitte awards teachers with badges which can be shared in
their LinkedIn profiles for global views through the internet. Administrators could also
encourage teachers to join professional associations or relevant international bodies and
facilitate their participations in national or international seminars, webinars, and conferences
on GBL use for language teaching and learning such as TESOL International
(www.tesol.org), TESL Canada (www.tesl.org), and/or BCTEAL (bcteal.org).
Although in the Asian context administrators and program heads play an important
role in teacher professional development, but in the western context teachers are more
autonomous thus enjoying more freedom and authority over their professional development.
Teacher-to-teacher professional development could occur with some teachers taking on
leading roles to mentor or teachers. This study showed that social influence is an important
factor that can impact teachers’ professional development and consequently their use of
GBL. The study findings imply that teachers can create a community of practice around
GBL, participate in GBL workshops, seminars, webinars, and trainings and share with their
counterparts through mentoring. This way the culture of GBL could be promoted and the
obstacles will surface and be tackled.
To conclude, the findings of this study have implications for EAL students, teachers
and administrators. Students will be informed regarding benefits of GBL use and their
preferences in using GBL and the potential barriers that might hinder their participation. The
findings will be awareness-raising for teachers concerning advantages as well as the barriers
of implementing GBL. The study can also be informative for the administrators to tackle the
barriers, contribute to teacher professional development and facilitate the use of GBL by
students and teachers.

72

5.4 Limitations of the Study
The current research has several limitations. First, one of the limitations of the study
is the challenge of finding participants. Initially, this study aimed to survey and interview 12
teachers to get sufficient data to address the research objectives and questions; however, due
to COVID-19, it was not feasible for me to access that number of participants, and
consequently the number of the sample is smaller than expected. Hence, i involved eight
EAL teachers in the survey and invited four teachers to respond to the interview questions.
Although the response rate is low for the online survey, the obtained data helped answer the
research questions. Moreover, given such a low response rate, validity may be questioned,
where selection bias can play a role in the study limitation as all willing participants were
interviewed. The findings might not be generalized as the study only explored the
phenomenon of using GBL involving a limited number of teachers.
Taking into account the local context and the research design, the current study was
carried out in the context of Thomson Rivers University. The findings are not generalizable
to the global context though the questions might be global in nature. Due to the small and
imbalanced sample, the study did not run correlative analysis.
In this study, a context-specific interpretation of the results was carried out. The
study contributions and findings are consistent with its theoretical underpinnings. The study
found that the elements of the technology acceptance model, namely usefulness, attitude,
and social influence positively contribute to the use of GBL of EAL teachers. This study has
opened some avenues for further research. The findings of the study should be supported by
other studies in other contexts. Teachers’ gender, teaching experience, and age may impact
their use of GBL. A substantially larger sample is needed to test the variables including
those emerged as the theme of the study. The study was limited to EAL context, study on
EFL, or ESL contexts might be of interest. Future lines of research may continue to
investigate the use of GBL through experimental design.
Despite the limitations of the study, the survey data and the interview data provide
adequate information to address the research objectives and research questions, and the
findings contributed to interpretations which were consistent or partially consistent with the
literature. The study helped to develop a deep understanding of teachers’ attitudes towards
73

GBL as well as the opportunities and barriers of using GBL. The findings of the study also
support the key elements of technology acceptance theory, namely usefulness, attitude, and
social influence.
5.5 Future Work
The next step will be to continue research in this area. It would be useful to repeat
this study with a larger sample group or with teachers from another institution or country.
Another direction is that the factors associated with opportunities (usefulness, attitude, social
influence, motivation, and fun and enjoyment) and obstacles (time, resources, and students’
preferences) explored in this study be examined in a large-scale survey study. A further
study using mixed method design involving more teachers as well as students may be
recommended to explore both teachers and students’ perspectives of GBL in a single study.
It will be of interest to develop training, workshops, seminars, webinars, and conferences
that promotes GBL use among EAL teachers (pre-service and in-service teachers).

74

Chapter 6: Conclusion

This is one of the first studies to explore the opportunities and obstacles of GBL
use in an EAL context from the perspective of teachers serving in a Canadian institution.
The findings show that the teachers have mixed perspectives of GBL use in their classes,
though overall the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. All teachers acknowledged the
usefulness of GBL (e.g., control over teaching, reducing the time for task, and improving the
quality of work), the role of social influence(e.g., respectful people encouragement,
peer/coworker influence, and effect of influential people), and had positive attitudes towards
its effectiveness (e.g., positive perception of using GBL in teaching, sharing with colleagues,
enjoyment in GBL, lack of comfort in using GBL), and positively contribute to GBL use (in
terms of frequency of use, devoting sufficient time, and using GBL in future). Additionally,
many felt that GBL creates a fun environment where engagement, communication,
interaction, positive competition, motivation, pair work, and group work take place in a
stress-free atmosphere. Finally, they felt that GBL can increase students’ motivation and
engagement.
Although the teachers accepted that GBL is a trending methodology with impressive
results, it is underused by teachers. This is consistent with the literature (Martí-Parreño et
al., 2016). As has been found in other studies (Hanus & Fox, 2015), some participants in this
study were cautious in using GBL as they believed that the result might be
counterproductive in terms of the teaching and learning environment. This unsatisfactory
usage of GBL might be rooted in obstacles such as lack of time, lack of resources, and
student preferences.
In terms of time, it was found that figuring out the right games for the right students
in the right context, planning, preparation, incorporation, teacher professional development,
and learning GBL technology could take a lot of time, which are regarded as barriers to the
implementation of GBL, thus discouraging the use of GBL. Regarding resources, the issues
of GBL are exploration, planning, effort, creation, finding relevant materials, adaption,
administration, and implementation of GBL technology. Concerning preferences, it was
75

found that some factors such as lack of clear purpose for GBL, point of view, culture, ego,
and competition are the challenging issues associated with students’ lack of participation in
GBL. Some students are more traditional, and they might think that games are irrelevant and
do not belong in the classroom (Galbis-Córdoba et al., 2017). Hence, a lack of
understanding the purpose of GBL, and traditional viewpoints to GBL might make students
reluctant to participate in GBL for language learning.
Nevertheless, teachers should be encouraged to use GBL to stimulate students to take
more active roles in language learning (Asiri, 2019). Teachers should use GBL purposefully
otherwise it may backfire. It is prudent for teachers to evaluate the existing findings of
empirical studies and evidence behind GBL trends before applying such approaches to the
classroom context. Incorporation of digital GBL in the hopes of making materials more
motivating and engaging is encouraged.
To conclude, this study was an attempt to address many of the drawbacks and
limitations in the other empirical studies, particularly from the point of view of EAL
teachers. It is important to note that our findings are limited to the data obtained from eight
EAL teachers serving at Thompson Rivers University, Canada. Hence, the interpretation of
the findings of this study should be done in the light of the limitations of the study.
The next step will be to continue research in this area. It would be useful to repeat
this study with a larger sample group or with teachers from another institution. Another
direction is that the factors associated with opportunities and obstacles explored in this study
be examined in a large-scale survey study. It will be of interest to develop training that
promotes GBL use among EAL teachers (pre-service and in-service teachers). I will attempt
to support the use of GBL among my colleagues in the current institution where I am
teaching English. I am also planning to develop a website for my EAL classes with different
games and games templates adopted from websites offering free games from sites such as
Wordwall, TESOL International Association, and TEFL Net.
To contribute to the conversations in EAL teaching and learning through GBL, I will
present the findings of the current study at the coming EAL conference in Canada and share
the findings with EAL and TESL program faculty members, students, and administrators at
76

Thompson Rivers University. Furthermore, I hope to potentially publish the findings in the
BCTEAL or TESL Canada journals to reach a wider audience and readership. This will keep
me busy while contemplating the possibilities for future research and pursuing my
education.

77

References
Abdel-Maksoud, N. F. (2018). "The Relationship between Students’ Satisfaction in the
LMS" Acadox" and Their Perceptions of Its Usefulness, and Ease of Use". Journal of
Education and Learning, 7(2), 184–190.
Abu-Dawood, S. (2016). The cognitive and social motivational affordances of gamification
in e-learning environment. 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Advanced
Learning Technologies (ICALT), 373–375.
Ajisoko, P. (2020). The use of Duolingo apps to improve English vocabulary learning.
International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(7), 149-155.
Alabbasi, D. (2018). Exploring Teachers’ Perspectives towards Using Gamification
Techniques in Online Learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational TechnologyTOJET, 17(2), 34–45.
Albirini, A. (2006a). Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication
technologies: The case of Syrian EFL teachers. Computers and Education, 47(4),
373–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.013
Albirini, A. (2006b). Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication
technologies: The case of Syrian EFL teachers [Pergamon]. In Computers and
Education (Vol. 47, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.013
Aleksic-Maslac, K., Sinkovic, B., & Vranesic, P. (2017). Influence of gamification on
student engagement in education. International Journal of Education and Learning
Systems, 2(1), 76–82. www.zsem.hr
Alfulaih, W. K. (2018). The impact of using games on developing Saudi female EFL
students’ speaking skills. British Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 19(2),
14–23.
AlMarshedi, A., Wanick, V., Wills, G. B., & Ranchhod, A. (2017). Gamification and
behaviour. In Gamification (pp. 19–29). Springer.
Alsawaier, R. S. (2018). The effect of gamification on motivation and engagement. The
International Journal of Information and Learning Technology.
Andrade, F. R., Mizoguchi, R., &Isotani, S. (2016). The bright and dark sides of
gamification.In International conference on intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 176186).Springer, Cham.

78

Asiri, M. J. (2019). Do teachers’ attitudes, perception of usefulness, and perceived social
influences predict their behavioral intentions to use gamification in EFL classrooms?
Evidence from the middle east. International Journal of Education and Practice, 7(3),
112–122.https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2019.73.112.122
Atkinson, J. M., Heritage, J., & Oatley, K. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action.
Cambridge University Press.
Barab, S., & Dede, C. (2007). Games and immersive participatory simulations for science
education: An emerging type of curricula. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 16(1), 1–3.
Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun:
Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 53(1), 86–107.
Bellaaj, M., Zekri, I., & Albugami, M. (2015). The continued use of e-learning system: An
empirical investigation using UTAUT model at the University of Tabuk. Journal of
Theoretical & Applied Information Technology, 72(3).
Bernard, H. R. (2002). Research Methods in Anthropology. 3rd edition. AltaMira Press.
Bicen, H., & Kocakoyun, S. (2018). Perceptions of students for gamification approach:
Kahoot as a case study. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning,
13(2), 72–93. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i02.7467
Blair, E. (2015). A reflexive exploration of two qualitative data coding techniques. Journal
of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 6(1), 14.
https://doi.org/10.2458/v6i1.18772
Bohner, G., & Dickel, N. (2011). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of
Psychology, 62, 391–417.
Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., & Schellens, T. (2010). Students’ perceptions
about the use of video games in the classroom. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1145–
1156.
Bovermann, K., Weidlich, J., & Bastiaens, T. (2018). Online learning readiness and attitudes
towards gaming in gamified online learning – a mixed methods case study.
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0107-0
Boyinbode, O., & Tiamiyu, A. (2020). A Mobile Gamification English Vocabulary Learning
System for Motivating English Learning.
79

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education:
Developing appreciation for.. Educational psychologist, 34(2), 75-85.
Bruder, P. (2014). Game on: gamification in the classroom. Retrieved January 15, 2017,
fromhttps://www.njea.org/news-and-publications/njea-review/may-2014/gamificationin-the-classroom
Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2017). Individualising gamification: An investigation of the
impact of learning styles and personality traits on the efficacy of gamification using a
prediction market. Computers & Education, 106, 43–55.
Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2016).Gamification and student motivation. Interactive learning
environments, 24(6), 1162-1175.
Cahyani, A. D. (2016). Gamification approach to enhance students engagement in studying
language course. MATEC Web of Conferences, 58, 3006.
Camilleri, M. A., & Camilleri, A. (2019). Student centred learning through serious games.
13th Annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference.
Valencia, Spain (March 2019). International Academy of Technology, Education and
Development (IATED).
Charles, D., Charles, T., McNeill, M., Bustard, D., & Black, M. (2011). Game‐based
feedback for educational multi‐user virtual environments. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 42(4), 638-654.
Chen, Y. (2018). Understanding how educational gamification impacts users’ behavior: a
theoretical analysis. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Information
and Education Technology, 154–159.
Chao, C. M. (2019). Factors determining the behavioral intention to use mobile learning: An
application and extension of the UTAUT model. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 1652.
Condelli, L., & Wrigley, H. S. (2009). What works for adult literacy students of English as a
second language? In S. Reder & J. Bynner (Eds.), Tracking adult literacy numeracy
skills: Findings from longitudinal research. New York and London: Routledge. 13-19
Codish, D., and Ravid, G. (2014).Personality based gamification –educational gamification
for extroverts and introverts. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 9th Chais
Conference for the Study of Innovation and Learning Technologies: Learning in the
Technological Era, Israel.
80

Cornillie, F., Thorne, S. L., & Desmet, P. (2012). Digital games for language learning: from
hype to insight?
Creswell, J. W. (1999). Mixed-method research: Introduction and application. In Handbook
of educational policy (pp. 455–472). Elsevier.
Cresswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method
research. 2nd Sage.
Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative
research designs: Selection and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2),
236–264.
Cresswell, J. W. (2012). Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative
research. Educational Research. https://Doi. Org/10.4135/9781483349435, 10
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Steps in conducting a scholarly mixed methods study.DBER Speaker
Series.
David, O. N., & Rahim, N. Z. A. (2012). The Impact of UTAUT Model and ICT Theoretical
Framework on University Academic Staff: Focus on Adamawa State University,
Nigeria. International Journal of Computers & Technology, 2(2b), 102-111.
Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user
information systems: Theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer
Technology, journal of Management Science. Vol35 (8), 982–1003.
Deloitte Leadership Academy. (2020). Retrieved 2021, from The Gamifiers:
http://www.thegamifiers.com/customers-list/case-studies/35/deloitte-leadershipacademy/
De-Marcos, L., Garcia-Cabot, A., & Garcia-Lopez, E. (2017). Towards the social
gamification of e-learning: A practical experiment. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 33(1), 66–73.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to
gamefulness: defining" gamification". Proceedings of the 15th International Academic
MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, 9–15.
Dixit, R. K., Nirgude, M. A., & Yalagi, P. S. (2018).Gamification: an instructional strategy
to engage learner. In 2018 IEEE Tenth International Conference on Technology for
Education (T4E) (pp. 138-141). IEEE.
81

Escudero Mancebo, D., Cámara Arenas, E., Tejedor García, C., González Ferreras, C., &
Cardeñoso Payo, V. (2015). Implementation and test of a serious game based on
minimal pairs for pronunciation training. ISCA Workshop on Speech and Language
Technology in Education.
Fan, K. K., Xiao, P. wei, & Su, C. H. (2015). The effects of learning styles and meaningful
learning on the learning achievement of gamification health education curriculum.
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(5), 1211–
1229. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1413a
Fernandez-Rio, J., de las Heras, E., González, T., Trillo, V., & Palomares, J. (2020).
Gamification and physical education.Viability and preliminary views from students
and teachers. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 25(5), 509-524.
Franciosi, S. J. (2017). The effect of computer game-based learning on FL vocabulary
transferability. Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 123–133.
Flores, J. F. F. (2015). Using gamification to enhance second language learning. Digital
Education Review, 27, 32–54.
Freiberg, H. J. (Ed.). (1999). Beyond behaviorism: Changing the classroom management
paradigm:Allyn and Bacon.
Galbis-Córdoba, A., Martí-Parreño, J., & Currás-Pérez, R. (2017). Education Students’
Attitude towards the Use of Gamification for Competencies Development. Journal of
E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 13(1).
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., Borg, W. R., & Mendel, P. C. (2007). A guide for preparing a thesis
or dissertation proposal in education, for Gall, Gall, and Borg’Educational research:
an introduction’and’Applying Educational Research’. Pearson Education.
Gallego, M. D., Luna, P., & Bueno, S. (2008). User acceptance model of open source
software. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2199–2216.
Gardner, C., & Amoroso, D. L. (2004). Development of an instrument to measure the
acceptance of internet technology by consumers. In 37th Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the (pp. 10-pp). IEEE.
Garland, C. M. (2015). Gamification and implications for second language education: A
meta analysis.[Unpublished Master dissertation]. St. Cloud State University.
Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2013). Social motivations to use gamification: An empirical
study of gamifying exercise. ECIS 2013 - Proceedings of the 21st European
Conference on Information Systems.
82

Hamzah, W. M. A. F. W., Ali, N. H., Saman, M. Y. M., Yusoff, M. H., & Yacob, A. (2015).
Influence of gamification on students’ motivation in using E-learning applications
based on the motivational design model. International Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Learning, 10(2), 30–34. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v10i1.4355
Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A
longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and
academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152–161.
Hao, S., Dennen, V. P., & Mei, L. (2017). Influential factors for mobile learning acceptance
among Chinese users. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(1),
101–123.
Iaremenko, N. V. (2017). Enhancing English language learners’ motivation through online
games. Information Technologies And Information, (59( 3), 126-133.
Ibrahim, R., & Jaafar, A. (2011). User acceptance of educational games: A revised unified
theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology, 77, 551–557.
Iten, N., & Petko, D. (2016). Learning with serious games: Is fun playing the game a
predictor of learning success? British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 151–
163. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12226.
Kao, C.-P., & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes toward web-based professional
development, with relation to Internet self-efficacy and beliefs about web-based
learning. Computers & Education, 53(1), 66–73.
Khechine, H., Raymond, B., & Augier, M. (2020). The adoption of a social learning system:
Intrinsic value in the UTAUT model. British Journal of Educational Technology,
51(6), 2306-2325.
Kim, J. T., & Lee, W. H. (2015). Dynamical model for gamification of learning (DMGL).
Multimedia Tools and Applications, 74(19), 8483–8493.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-013-1612-8
Kim, B., Park, H., & Baek, Y. (2009).Not just fun, but serious strategies: Using metacognitive strategies in game-based learning. Computers & Education, 52(4), 800-810.
Kiryakova, G., Angelova, N., & Yordanova, L. (2014). Gamification in
education.Proceedings of 9th International Balkan Education and Science Conference.

83

Korkealehto, K., & Siklander, P. (2018). Enhancing engagement, enjoyment and learning
experiences through gamification on an English course for health care students. In
Seminar. net (Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 13-30)
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition: Pergamon
Press.
Landers, R. N., Auer, E. M., Helms, A. B., Marin, S., & Armstrong, M. B. (2019).
Gamification of adult learning: Gamifying employee training and development. The
Cambridge Handbook of Technology and Employee Behavior, 271-295.
Lanlan, Zhang, Aidi Ahmi, and Oluwatoyin Muse Johnson Popoola. "Perceived ease of use,
perceived usefulness and the usage of computerized accounting systems: A
performance of micro and small enterprises (mses) in china." International Journal of
Recent Technology and Engineering 8.2 (2019): 324-331.
Lifanova, A., Ngan, H. Y., Okunewitsch, A., Rahman, S., Guzmán, S., Desai, N., Özsari,
M., Rosemeyer, J., Pleshkanovska, R., & Fehler, A. (2016). New locals: Overcoming
integration barriers with mobile informal and gamified learning. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Information Communication Technologies in Education
(ICICTE), Rhodes, Greece, 7–9.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Establishing trustworthiness. Naturalistic Inquiry,
289(331), 289–327.
Martí-Parreño, J., Seguí-Mas, D., & Seguí-Mas, E. (2016). Teachers’ Attitude towards and
Actual Use of Gamification. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228(June),
682–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.104
Mascolo, M. (2009). Beyond student-centered and teacher-centered pedagogy: Teaching and
learning as guided participation. Pedagogy and the Human Sciences, 1(1), 3-27.
Pardamean, B., & Susanto, M. (2012). Assessing user acceptance toward blog technology
using the UTAUT model. International journal of mathematics and computers in
simulation, 1(6), 203-212.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods.Sage Publications.
Perry, B. (2015). Gamifying French Language Learning: A Case Study Examining a Questbased, Augmented Reality Mobile Learning-tool. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 174, 2308–2315.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.892
Pho, A., & Dinscore, A. (2015). Game-based learning. Tips and Trends.

84

Polin, L. G. (2018). A constructivist perspective on games in education. In Constructivist
education in an age of accountability (pp. 163–188). Springer.
Rahman, R. A., Ahmad, S., & Hashim, U. R. (2018). The effectiveness of gamification
technique for higher education students engagement in polytechnic Muadzam Shah
Pahang, Malaysia. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education, 15(1), 41.
Rawendy, D., Ying, Y., Arifin, Y., & Rosalin, K. (2017). Design and development game
Chinese language learning with gamification and using mnemonic method. Procedia
Computer Science, 116, 61–67.
Richardson, V. (2003). The dilemmas of professional development. Phi delta kappan, 84(5),
401-406.
Sánchez-Mena, A. A., & Martí-arreño, J. (2017). Drivers and barriers to adopting
gamification: Teachers’ perspectives.The Electronic Journal of e-Learning , 15 (5),
pp434-443.
Sánchez-Mena, A., Queiro-Ameijeiras, C., Galbis-Córdova, A., Martí-Parreño, J., &
Álvarez-Jareño, J. (2016). Student teachers’ intention to use gamification.
Proceedings of ICERI2016 Conference, Seville, Spain.
Santos-Villalba, M. J., Leiva Olivencia, J. J., Navas-Parejo, M. R., & Benítez-Márquez, M.
D. (2020). Higher Education Students’ Assessments towards Gamification and
Sustainability: A Case Study. Sustainability, 12(20), 8513.
Šćepanović, S., Žarić, N., & Matijević, T. (2015). Gamification in higher education
learning–state of the art, challenges and opportunities. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. e-Learn.,
128–134.
Serin, H. (2018).A comparison of teacher-centered and student-centered approaches in
educational settings. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational
Studies, 5(1), 164-167.
Shatz, I. (2015). Using gamification and gaming in order to promote risk taking in the
language learning process. Proceedings of the 13th Annual MEITAL National
Conference. Haifa, Israel: Technion, 227–232.
Siemon, D., & Eckardt, L. (2017).Gamification of teaching in higher education. In
Gamification(pp. 153-164). Springer.

85

Šlibar, B., Vukovac, D. P., Lovrenčić, S., Šestak, M., & Andročec, D. (2018). Gamification
in a business context: Theoretical background. In Central European Conference on
Information and Intelligent Systems (pp. 123-131). Faculty of Organization and
Informatics Varazdin.
Sobocinski, M. (2018). Necessary definitions for understanding gamification in education a
short guide for teachers and educators. Working paper. https://www. researchgate.
net/publication/319646230.
Ssekibaamu, J. B. (2015). Technology and education: A quantitative study of the acceptance
of gaming as a teaching tool using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology (UTAUT). Capella University.
Stemler, S. (2000). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and
Evaluation, 7(1), 17.
Stieler‐Hunt, C., & Jones, C. (2019). A professional development model to facilitate teacher
adoption of interactive, immersive digital games for classroom learning. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 264-279.
Su, C., & Cheng, C. (2015). A mobile gamification learning system for improving the
learning motivation and achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3),
268–286.
Teo, T., Zhou, M., Fan, A. C. W., & Huang, F. (2019). Factors that influence university
students’ intention to use Moodle: A study in Macau. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 67(3), 749–766.
Thomas, T., Singh, L., & Gaffar, K. (2013). The utility of the UTAUT model in explaining
mobile learning adoption in higher education in Guyana. International Journal of
Education and Development using ICT, 9(3).
Tsourma, M., Zikos, S., Albanis, G., Apostolakis, K. C., Lithoxoidou, E. E., Drosou, A., &
Tzovaras, D. (2019). Gamification concepts for leveraging knowledge sharing in
Industry 4.0. International Journal of Serious Games, 6(2), 75-87.
TürkDilKurumu, 2017–TürkDilKurumu (2017). Oyun. Retrieved March 20, 2017, from
http://www.tdk.gov.tr
Ucus, S. (2015). Elementary school teachers’ views on game-based learning as a teaching
method. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 401–409.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
86

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 425–478.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Harvard University Press.
Wang, H.-Y., & Wang, S.-H. (2010). User acceptance of mobile internet based on the
unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: Investigating the determinants and
gender differences. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 38(3),
415–426.
Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your
business. Wharton Digital Press.
Wong, G. K. W. (2016). The behavioral intentions of Hong Kong primary teachers in
adopting educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development,
64(2), 313–338.
Wright, A., Betteridge, D., & Buckby, M. (1984). Games for Language Learning.Cambridge
University Press.
Yang, J. C., Quadir, B., & Chen, N.-S. (2016). Effects of the badge mechanism on selfefficacy and learning performance in a game-based English learning environment.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(3), 371–394.
Yang, L., & Wilson, K. (2006). Second language classroom reading: A social constructivist
approach. The Reading Matrix, 6(3).
Yoo, C., Kwon, S., Na, H., & Chang, B. (2017). Factors affecting the adoption of gamified
smart tourism applications: An integrative approach. Sustainability, 9(12), 2162.
Yueh, H. P., Huang, J. Y., & Chang, C. (2015). Exploring factors affecting students’
continued Wiki use for individual and collaborative learning: An extended UTAUT
perspective. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1).
Yüksel, M., & Durmaz, A. (2016). The Effect of Perceived Socially Motivated Gamification
on Purchase Intention: Does It Really Work? Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2(3), 15–25.
Zain, M., Rose, R. C., Abdullah, I., & Masrom, M. (2005). The relationship between
information technology acceptance and organizational agility in Malaysia. Information
& Management, 42(6), 829–839.
Zarzycka-Piskorz, E. (2016). Kahoot it or not? Can games be motivating in learning
grammar? Teaching English with Technology, 16(3), 17–36.
87

APPENDICES

Appendix A - EAL teachers' attitudes towards game-based learning technology

Statement

Scale

Total

Strongly Agree

Neither

agree

agree

Disagree Strongly
disagree

nor
disagree
Use of GBL can reduce the 0.00%

0.00%

50.00% 37.5%

12.5%

8

time for task

Using of GBL improves the 0.00%

87.5.00% 0.00%

12.5%

0.00%

8

87.5%

0.00%

12.5%

0.00%

8

37.5%

37.5%

12.5%

12.5%

8

in 12.5%

75.00%

0.00%

12.5%

0.00%

8

Using GBL applications is 12.5%

75.00%

0.00%

12.5%

0.00%

8

12.5%

37.5%

50.00%

0.00%

8

quality of my work.
Overall, GBL is useful for 0.00%
my work
Using of GBL gives me 0.00%
greater control over my
teaching

I

like

using

GBL

teaching

enjoyable
I always try to use the GBL 0.00%
application on

as many

88

occasions as possible
If I had enough time, I 0.00%
would

use

the

25.00%

50.00%

12.5%

12.5%

8

50.00%

0.00%

12.5%

0.00%

8

50.00%

12.5%

25.00%

0.00%

8

62.5%

37.5%

0.00%

0.00%

8

62.5%

25.00%

12.5%

0.00%

8

00.00%

00.00%

50.00%

50.00%

8

50.00%

0.00%

12.5%

00.00%

8

GBL

application
I intend to continue using 37.5%
the GBL application in the
future
People whom I respect 12.5%
would encourage me to use
GBL
My

friends/co-workers 0.00%

would think using GBL is a
good idea
People who influence my 0.00%
behavior think that I should
use GBL
Using

GBL

make

me

applications 0.00%
feel

uncomfortable
I talk with my colleagues 37.5%
about GBL

89

Appendix B - Survey Consent

Thompson Rivers University
EAL Instructors’ Attitudes towards Game-based Learning Adoption in Education:
Obstacles and Opportunities

Supervisor: Dr. Karen Densky (Associate Teaching Professor at TRU)
Contact:

kdensky@tru.ca

Supervisor: Dr. Michelle Harrison (Assistant Professor at TRU)
Contact:

mharrison@tru.ca

Researcher: Muhammad Yasir Babar (M.ED Student at TRU)
Contact:

babarm18@tru.ca

Definition of gamification: GBL is commonly defined as using game design elements in
non-game education
What is the study and purpose?
The primary goal of the current research study is to explore the factors affecting the
adoption of GBL and game-based learning by teachers in English as an Additional Language
(EAL) classroom. In this research project qualitative data will be gathered from interviews
and surveys. Several game-based applications for educational purposes are available and
readily accessible, such as Youtopia, Duolingo, and Class Dojoto name a few; however, this
does not mean that the majority of EAL teachers are actually making use of and
incorporating them into teaching practice. Whether these applications are adopted depends
partly on the BI of teachers, which are also influenced by a combination of external and
internal factors.

90

Further investigation is necessary, however, in order to analyze the factors specifically
influencing EAL teachers in terms of their BI to adopt GBL, and this study intends to fill
that gap in the existing body of research.
The following research questions will be explored:


What are the EAL teachers' attitudes towards gamification and game-based learning
technology?



What is the relationship between teaching experience, education, and using game-based
learning?



Are there relationships between teachers’ behavioral intentions to adopt GBL and the
independent variables between intentions andactions?
Who is conducting the study?
The study is being led by Muhammad Yasir Babar, student of Master in Education
programme, at Thompson Rivers University.
Voluntary participation
Your participation is entirely voluntary. You are being invited to take part in this research
study because it intends to explore the factors affecting the adoption of game-based learning
by teachers in EAL teachers. You can withdraw at any time during the study. Your related
data (recordings, notes) will be destroyed and all reference will be removed as soon as you
withdraw from the study.
Contact the investigator by email or telephone (contact information below), or state your
intention to withdraw directly before or during the survey or interview by saying something
similar to “I wish to withdraw from this study at this time” to the investigator. Again no data
obtained from you will be used in the study if you withdraw at any time.
What will I have to do?

91

There are two parts to your participation. First i would like your permission to collect your
response for the survey. This would include collecting data related to exploring ‘why’ or
‘why not’ the teachers use gamification in their classrooms.
The second part would be to participate in a semi-structured online interview.
After reading this Consent Form, you will indicate your consent to each of the parts
separately. The interview will be conducted online and will take a maximum of 20minutes;
it will be scheduled at a time convenient to you and will be recorded.
The Survey will be conducted through survey monkey. It will take maximum 45 minutes. If
you do consent, you will be asked to share an email address for help in scheduling.
Confidentiality
The participants’ identity in the research report and any identifying information will be
removed from the report. I will hold any personally identifying information confidential and
destroyed. I will ensure the protection, access, control, and security of your data and
personal information during the recruitment, data collection, reporting of findings,
dissemination of data, and after the study is completed. The data will be protected by
keeping it stored on an encrypted hard drive and any transcripts will be anonymized to
ensure confidentiality. I will ask for permission to share any quotes or artefacts created
during the research process. Member checking is a qualitative technique used to establish
the tenet of creditability in trustworthiness. Credibility involves establishing the truth of the
research study’s findings; in laymen’s terms, it means showing that the findings are accurate
and honest. Traditionally, member checking is defined as sharing either a brief summary of
the finds or sharing the whole findings with the research participants. This is its classical
definition based on the work of Lincoln and Guba (1985) who are seminal authors on all
areas of trustworthiness in qualitative research.
What are the risks to this study?
I do not believe there are any foreseeable risks to you by participating in this study. If any of
the questions make you uncomfortable, you do not have to answer them and there is no
negative consequence to this.
92

Potential benefits of the study
The potential benefits of your participation in this research include a better understanding of
the obstacles in the way of teachers to use gamification in their classroom. This study aims
to explore and document your experiences as an EAL teacher within these types of courses
is an identified gap in the research literature.

Is there payment for this study?
There is no payment for participating in this study.
Organizational permission
Permission to conduct research for this study has been obtained from the Office of Research
and Graduate Studies, Thompson Rivers University and the Research Ethics Board who can
be contacted at TRU-REB@tru.ca or at 1-250-828-5000.
Study results
Study results will be disseminated in the thesis which is a partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the degree of Master in Education.

Contacts
For any further information about the study, or if you require clarification of any details,
please contact:
● Muhammad Yasir Babar babarm18@tru.ca 1 778-694-4524

If you have any concerns about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences
while participating in this study, you may contact the Chair of TRU Research Ethics Board
at 1-250-828-5000.

93

Consent
By clicking on the “agree” button below, you indicate that you have retained a copy of this
consent form for your own records and that you consent to participate in this study. Please
also fill out the following question to indicate how you would like to be acknowledged in
the study outputs.
Option 1: survey
I consent to the collection of data for the purpose of survey
_____________ Participant to provide initials
Option 2: semi-structured interview
I would like to participate in a semi-structured interview
_____________ Participant to provide initial
Email contact: ______________________

94

Appendix C - Survey Questionnaire

Questionnaire
A. Demographic information
Age: 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60 above
Experience: 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26-30
Gender: male or female
B. The main factors
A. Social Influence
No

Item

1

People
who
influence
my
behavior think
that I should use
GBL. (SI1)

2

People whom I
respect
would
encourage me to
use GBL. (SI2)

3

My friends/coworkers would
think using GBL
is a good idea.
(SI3)

Strongly Disagree Neutral
disagree

Agree

Strongly
agree

95

B. Perceived Usefulness
No

Item

1

Using GBL
gives me
greater
control
over
my
work.
(PU1)
Use of GBL
can
reduce
the
time
needed
for
my
work
tasks. (PU2)

2

3

Using GBL
improves the
quality of my
work. (PU3)

4

Overall, GBL
is useful for
my
work.
(PU4)

Strongly
disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly
agree

Strongly
disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly
agree

C. Attitude
No

Item

1

I like using GBL
in
teaching.
(AA1)

96

2

I hate to talk
with
my
colleagues
about
GBL.
(AA2)

3

Using gamified
applications is
enjoyable.
(AA3)

4

Using gamified
applications
makes me feel
uncomfortable.*
(AA4)

D. Behavioral Intention
No

Item

1

I always try to
use
the
gamified
application
in/on as many
cases/occasions
as
possible.
(BI1)

2

If I had enough
time, I would
use
the
gamified
application.
(BI2)

Strongly
disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly
agree

97

3

I intend to
continue using
the
gamified
application in
the
future.
(BI3)

98

Appendix D - Interview Consent
EAL Instructors’ Attitudes towards Game-based Learning Adoption in Education:
Obstacles and Opportunities
Consent to Participate in a Research Project (Interview)

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview on A EAL Instructors’ Attitudes
towards Game-based Learning Adoption in Education: Obstacles and Opportunities. The
interview will involve four questions and should take approximately 20 minutes. The
interview is being recorded. If you would like to withdraw from the interview at any time,
please kindly let me know.

Preferred pseudonym:

Instructions

Confidentiality:
The participants’ identity in the research report and any identifying information will be
removed from the report. I will hold any personally identifying information confidential and
destroyed. I will ensure the protection, access, control, and security of your data and
personal information during the recruitment, data collection, reporting of findings,
dissemination of data, and after the study is completed. The data will be protected by
keeping it stored on an encrypted hard drive and any transcripts will be anonymized to
ensure confidentiality. I will ask for permission to share any quotes or artefacts created
during the research process. Member checking is a qualitative technique used to establish
the tenet of creditability in trustworthiness. Credibility involves establishing the truth of the
research study’s findings; in laymen’s terms, it means showing that the findings are accurate
and honest. Traditionally, member checking is defined as sharing either a brief summary of
the finds or sharing the whole findings with the research participants. This is its classical
99

definition based on the work of Lincoln and Guba (1985) who are seminal authors on all
areas of trustworthiness in qualitative research.

Voluntary participation
Your participation is entirely voluntary. You are being invited to take part in this research
study because it intends to explore the factors affecting the adoption of game-based learning
by teachers in EAL teachers. You can withdraw at any time during the study.
Your related data (recordings, notes) will be destroyed and all reference will be removed as
soon as you withdraw from the study.
Contact the investigator by email or telephone (contact information below), or state your
intention to withdraw directly before or during the survey or interview by saying something
similar to “I wish to withdraw from this study at this time” to the investigator. Again no data
obtained from you will be used in the study if you withdraw at any time.
What are the risks to this study?
I do not believe there are any foreseeable risks to you by participating in this study. If any of
the questions make you uncomfortable, you do not have to answer them and there is no
negative consequence to this.
Potential benefits of the study
The potential benefits of your participation in this research include a better understanding of
the obstacles in the way of teachers to use gamification in their classroom. This study aims
to explore and document your experiences as an EAL teacher within these types of courses
is an identified gap in the research literature.
Organizational permission
Permission to conduct research for this study has been obtained from the Office of Research
and Graduate Studies, Thompson Rivers University and the Research Ethics Board who can
be contacted at TRU-REB@tru.ca or at 1-250-828-5000.
100

Study results
Study results will be disseminated in the thesis which is a partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the degree of Master in Education.
Contacts
For any further information about the study, or if you require clarification of any details,
please contact:
● Muhammad Yasir Babar babarm18@tru.ca 1 778-694-4524

If you have any concerns about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences
while participating in this study, you may contact the Chair of TRU Research Ethics Board
at 1-250-828-5000.

101

Appendix E - Interview Protocol

Interview Questions

1. Do you use game in your EAL (English as an Additional Language class? Why yes/why
no, can you explain more?
2. Why do you/don’t you use GBL approach in your EAL? Can you explain more?
3. What are the obstacles of using GBL in language teaching? Can you please tell me more
about that barrier?
4. What is the advantage of using game-based learning approach? Can you please explain to
me more?

102

Appendix F - Ethics Approval

June 04, 2020
Mr. Muhammad Babar
Faculty of Education and Social Work\Education
Thompson Rivers University
File Number: 102440
Approval Date: June 06, 2020
Expiry Date: June 06, 2021
Dear Mr. Muhammad Babar,
The Research Ethics Board has reviewed your application titled 'EAL Instructors’ Attitudes
towards Game-based Learning Adoption in Education: Obstacles and Opportunities'. Your
application has been approved. You may begin the proposed research. This REB approval,
dated June 06, 2020, is valid for one year less a day: June 06, 2021.
Throughout the duration of this REB approval, all requests for modifications, renewals and
serious adverse event reports are submitted via the Research Portal. To continue your
proposed research beyond June 06, 2021, you must submit a Renewal Form before June 06,
2021. If your research ends before June 06, 2021, please submit a Final Report Form to
close out REB approval monitoring efforts.
If you have any questions about the REB review & approval process, please contact the
Research Ethics Office via 250.852.7122. If you encounter any issues when working in the
Research Portal, please contact the Research Office at 250.371.5586.
Sincerely,
Joyce O'Mahony
Chair, Research Ethics Board
103