Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 382

5th International Conference on Education and Technology (ICET 2019)

Impact of Game-Based Learning on Learning

Motivation High School Students
Rizka Apriani Arif Prastiawan
Department of Guidance and Counseling Faculty of Education
Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
[email protected] [email protected]

Abstract: The goal of this research to determine differences in learning motivation between classroom using
Game-Based Learning with classrooms using the conventional method at high school students. Quasi-experiment
used in this research design with a pre-test post-test control group. The samples divide into an experimental
group, which uses Game-Based Learning and control group using conventional methods. Using learning design
instruments and test questions. Based on field data, the mean value of the pre-test experimental group 51.87and
the control group 51.57. Once treated, the average value of the experimental group 83.80 and the control group
74.33. The results of the significance of the t-test 0.000 < 0.05.

Keywords: impact, game-based learning, learning motivation

I. INTRODUCTION (Chen & Law, 2016; Ebner & Holzinger, 2007; Jong et
Teachers an essential role in the improvement of al., 2012), the researchers have applied Game-Based
human resources. One of the aims of education is so that Learning in various levels of education and learning
people can develop their potential. This is in line with materials at Game-Based Learning using as an attempt to
Republic Act No. national education system 20 of 2003 create a pleasant atmosphere and increase the learning
which states education is an effort to make the learners motivation of learners to learn. Media is a tool or non-
can actively develop her potential as self-control, personal form of communication that functions as a lesson
religious, intelligence, personality, and skills needed in information to be presented to the learners (Allen, Otto, &
the community, the nation, and the State (Indonesia, Hoffman, 1996; Mayer & Mayer, 2005; Setyosari, 2005),
2003), Based on the educational goals, then the Learning media as a bridge to attract the interest and
conclusion obtained is the purpose of the implementation attention of learners to achieve the learning objectives are
of education creates human resources which classified well (Allen et al., 1996; Arends & Castle, 1991), An
and competitive. To achieve these objectives, we need assortment of media that can be used by teachers, both
innovation in learning effective and engaging in order to media made by the teachers themselves and the media
motivate learners to learn. provided by the campaigners education. Explain some
Results of interviews with some learners puffed characteristics of learning using Game-Based Learning as
up, get the facts about the many teachers who are follows: (1) By participating in the game, motivation of
dominant in using the lecture method. The method used learners to revisit the knowledge they had just gained; (2)
by teachers lecture less according to the characteristics of easy to understand feedback from Game-Based Learning
learners in the 21st century (Kim & Bateman, 2007; environment allows teachers to check the progress of each
Longworth, 2003; Praherdhiono, Adi, & Prihatmoko, learner and provide appropriate advice at the right time;
2018), Entering the 21st century, a very different learner (3) Through the game, learners can exchange knowledge
characteristics (Bell, 2010), traditional learning approach with each other; (4) The game allows learners to learn
to make learners passively consume content (Jovanovic, informally, so they do not feel tired; (5) At the time of
Chiong, & Weise, 2012). Therefore, there must be a playing games often accompanied by discussions and
change, or at least complements the learning process more social activities (Nelson, 2007).
interactive and creative". Based on the above statement Generation of learners is currently growing by
can be said that teachers should be able to adjust the information and communication technologies (ICTs) are
characteristics of 21st-century learners to make embedded in their daily lives. Present learners receive
innovations in the learning process. digital information every day, relationships with each
One form of such innovation is the Game-Based other through mobile technology, interactive work, often
Learning (GBL). Game-Based Learning strategy is do some tasks more or less simultaneously and play the
presented to learners when they are involved in play the game to a greater extent than previous generations (Beck
game. The underlying of this strategy is to increase & Wade, 2006; Bell, 2010; Chen & Law, 2016; Hampton
learner learning motivation (Chen & Law, 2016; Jong, & Keys, 2017), Night game along with ongoing research
Lai, Hsia, Lin, & Lu, 2012). The game isn’t the primary on the ability of Game-Based Learning in increasing
focus in the learning process, but the game only part of learning motivation learners (Van Eck, 2006). It is thus
the strategy in the learning process. For example, very possible that Game-Based Learning may be
integrating educational games with cooperative learning. inadequate to cope with the way children learn today.
When learners are shown many display with full-color Direct involvement will add a success ratio in meaningful
design combine with sound effects and learning resources, learning than traditional learning methods (Chen & Law,
learners are motivated to learn, and they learn better 2016; Ebner & Holzinger, 2007).

Copyright © 2019, the Authors. Published by Atlantis Press.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). 602
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 382

Researchers of Game-Based Learning found in the useful for motivation in educational games. The objective
learning games motivate learners to learn (Hwang, Chiu, of this study was to determine whether there is a
& Chen, 2015; Jong et al., 2012; Van Eck, 2006), difference between classroom learning motivation using
Empirical evidence suggests that the motivating game. As Game-Based Learning with classroom learning with
an example, find that the game leads to a better attitude conventional methods.
towards mathematics for grades 4 and 5 learners (Hwang
et al., 2015). There are different game features, such as II. METHODS
the structure of the game, the involvement of the game, A quasi-experimental design is a method used.
and the attractiveness of the game, leading to a stronger Researchers chose a quasi-experimental design because
learning motivation (Huang, Jeng, & Huang, 2009). In a the sample no takes at random, but predetermined. This
systematic comment of Game-Based Learning, the results study has one independent variable and one dependent
of research that learners find a game that motivates variable. The independent variable /independent is the use
(Connolly, Stansfield, & Hainey, 2007). However, not all of Game-Based Learning in learning strategies, while the
researchers agree that the game Game-Based Learning dependent variable or dependent variable is the learning
leads to stronger motivation. motivation of learners from high school. The study design
For example, learners found that in an environment is dividing the study group into two groups, and the
Game-Based Learning have higher intrinsic learning experimental group will be using with the use of Game-
motivation but lower than the extrinsic learning Based Learning, and control groups were studied using
motivation of learners in a conventional learning conventional methods. The study design can describe in
environment (Huang et al., 2009). Investigated the Table 1.
influence of games strategy on interest, competence and
effort of learners and found that the learning motivation Table 1
Codification Value of Principles
of learners who play games declined, but the learning
motivation of learners who made the game increases (Van Group Pre-test Treatment Post-test
Eck, 2006). The results confirm about the relationship
between game-based learning design and learning Experiment O1 X1 O2
motivation are not always good. Possible depends on Control O3 O4
learning processes involving learners.
The learning process that does not involve or too
hard will make the learners are not motivated. Game- Information:
Based Learning to grow enjoyment and engagement of O1: Pre-test (experimental group)
learners. Adding an external scaffold to the environment X1: Use GAME-BASED LEARNING
of Game-Based Learning (Barzilai & Blau, 2014). They O2: Post-test (experimental group)
looking for an external scaffold had a significant negative O3: Pre-test (control group)
impact on the learning motivation of learners. However, O4: Post-test (control group)
learners in certain circumstances have a better
performance than those without scaffolding. The result is There are two instruments used by researchers,
in favor of the idea of learning in the Game-Based learning design and test questions. In this study, two
Learning. Motivation is multidimensional construction different study designs used in two different classes, the
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Ryan experimental class, and the control class. As for the test,
& Deci, 2000). The need for increasing satisfaction, there are two problems, namely the pre-test to ensure that
which aims to better results. both classes are at equal ability and post-test to measure
Empirical evidence suggests that intrinsic learning the ability of the end of the learners. The second question
motivation in Game-Based Learning environment direct in the form of an objective test (multiple choice).
to better learning outcomes for learners, for example as To measure the validity of t instrument validity test. Test
learning in the subjects of business, history, economics, validity testing in class XII who has obtained the material
and geography (Barzilai & Blau, 2014; Huang et al., used, the chapter of the Japanese occupation. Item matter
2009), Granting autonomy broadly refers to learners to can be considered valid if rcount > rtable. Based on N = 30,
regulate behavior, their own experiences, initiation, and then obtained r table at 0.3610. Validity significance level
direction of learning (Ryan & Deci, 2000), The game presented in Table 2.
provides meaningful choices in learning for Player (Salen
Table 2
& Zimmerman, 2005), It is towards the autonomy of The Level of Significance Validity
learning on learners. Through the decision of the player, df = (N-2) Significant Taraf (0.05)
they are learning. In addition to autonomy, learners also
need to feel competent to be grow up in their learning 26 .3739
experience. 27 .3673
In an environment of Game-Based Learning, 28 .3610
learners should have the sense to complete the assignment
29 .3550
of the learning process with Game-Based Learning. When
the task is too difficult for learners' games, they may not 30 .3494
be inclined to engage in learning activities
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Therefore, the scaffolding that The results of the data analysis have been carried
supports the activities of the learning process can be out are presented in Table 3.

603
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 382

Table 3 Table 7
Problem Test Validity Test Results Test Results in The Level of Difficulty
Grain Problem r count r table Information No.
B JS P Information
Question 1 0,407 .3610 valid Question
Question 2 .528 .3610 valid 1. 25 30 0.83 Easy
Question 3 .473 .3610 valid 2. 21 30 0.70 moderate
Question 4 0,482 .3610 valid 3. 26 30 0.87 Easy
Question 5 0,700 .3610 valid 4. 14 30 0.47 moderate
Question 6 .677 .3610 valid 5. 14 30 0.47 moderate
Question 7 0.755 .3610 valid 6. 23 30 0.77 Easy
Question 8 0.647 .3610 valid 7. 24 30 0.80 Easy
Question 9 0.511 .3610 valid 8. 25 30 0.83 Easy
Question 10 0.739 .3610 valid 9. 26 30 0.87 Easy
Question 11 0.659 .3610 valid 10. 24 30 0.80 Easy
Question 12 0.586 .3610 valid 11. 24 30 0.80 Easy
Question 13 0.461 .3610 valid 12. 26 30 0.87 Easy
Question 14 .453 .3610 valid 13. 27 30 0.90 Easy
Question 15 0.626 .3610 valid 14. 20 30 0.67 moderate
Question 16 0.755 .3610 valid 15. 21 30 0.70 moderate
Question 17 0.492 .3610 valid 16. 24 30 0.80 Easy
Question 18 .528 .3610 valid 17. 26 30 0.87 Easy
Question 19 .451 .3610 valid 18. 21 30 0.70 moderate
Question 20 .664 .3610 valid 19. 24 30 0.80 Easy
Question 21 .473 .3610 valid 20. 5 30 0.17 Hard
Question 22 0.454 .3610 valid 21. 26 30 0.87 Easy
Question 23 0.411 .3610 valid 22. 26 30 0.87 Easy
Question 24 0,482 .3610 valid 23. 29 30 0.97 Easy
Question 25 .473 .3610 valid 24. 27 30 0.90 Easy
Question 26 0.372 .3610 valid 25. 26 30 0.87 Easy
Question 27 .787 .3610 valid 26. 25 30 0.83 Easy
Question 28 0.411 .3610 valid 27. 24 30 0.80 Easy
Question 29 .713 .3610 valid 28. 29 30 0.97 Easy
Question 30 0.586 .3610 valid 29. 22 30 0.73 Easy
30. 26 30 0.87 Easy
To measure the reliability coefficient of the test
Table 8
instrument carried out the reliability test. Reliability
Analysis of Different Power Problem
coefficient index criteria presented in Table 4. Reliability No. PA = PB =
test results of test items present in Table 5. BA BB D Criteria
Question BA / J A BB / J B
1. 17 8 1 0.61 0.38 moderate
Table 4 2. 16 5 0.94 0.38 0.55 Well
Criteria For The Reliability Coefficient Index 3. 17 9 1 0.69 0.30 moderate
Interval reliability index Interpretation 4. 12 2 0.70 0.15 0.55 Well
<0.200 Very low
5. 12 2 0.70 0.15 0.55; Well
0.200 to 0.399 Low
6. 16 7 0.94 0.53 0.40 moderate
0.400 to 0.599 Enough
7. 17 7 1 0.53 0.46 Well
0.600 to 0.799 High
0.800 to 1.000 Very high 8. 16 9 0.94 0.69 0.24 moderate
9. 16 10 0.94 0.76 0.17 Ugly
Table 5 10. 17 7 1 0.53 0.46 Well
Results of Reliability Test 11. 16 8 0.94 0.61 0.32 moderate
Cronbach's r 12. 17 9 1 0.69 0.30 moderate
Information
Alpha (R count) table 13. 16 11 0.94 0.84 0.09 Ugly
Question Post-test 0.909 .3610 realibel 14. 14 6 0.82 0.46 0.36 moderate
15. 16 5 0.94 0.38 0.55 Well
From the above data, and following the criteria of 16. 17 7 1 0.53 0.46 Well
reliability coefficient index, it can describe that the items 17. 17 9 1 0.69 0.30 moderate
using as a matter of its instrument of accession has very 18. 16 5 0.94 0.38 0.55 Well
high reliability. Level of difficulty of the instrument 19. 16 8 0.94 0.61 0.32 moderate
tested with the level of difficulty. This test to find a matter 20. 5 0 0.29 0 0.29 moderate
21. 17 9 1 0.69 0.30 moderate
category level easy, medium or difficult, it can be
22. 17 9 1 0.69 0.30 moderate
classified in Table 6. Results of analysis field data 23. 17 12 1 0.92 0.07 Ugly
presented in Table 7. To distinguish between the learners 24. 17 10 1 0.76 0.23 moderate
in the upper class and the lower class do different power 25. 17 9 1 0.69 0.30 moderate
test items. The results of the analysis of the data presented 26. 16 9 0.94 0.69 0.24 moderate
in Table 8. 27. 17 7 1 0.53 0.46 Well
28. 17 12 1 0.92 0.07 Ugly
Table 6 29. 17 5 1 0.38 0.61 Well
Classification of Difficulty Index 30. 17 9 1 0.69 0.30 moderate
The difficulty index Information
0.00 to 0.30 Difficult Problem
0.31 to 0.70 Problem Medium
0.71 to 1.00 Problem Easily

604
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 382

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION H0 is rejected so that the results of t-test showed that
there were significant differences in learning outcomes
Here is the result of the analysis of the pre-test
between classes using GAME-BASED LEARNING with
value in the research presented in Table 9.
classes using conventional methods on learners senior
Table 9
high school. The results of research data that has been
Data Description Pre-test Results done about the effect of the use of Game-Based Learning
Pre-
Data
Group Group media on the learning outcomes of students in high school
test Experiment Control that have increased rapidly. The findings of this study are
N 30 30
supported by the findings of previous studies that have
lowest Rated 30 30
The highest score 67 77 been conducted. One study mentioned that there was a
mean 51.57 51.87 significant positive increase in several subfactors of
standard
9.779 9.641
attitudes and students' self-efficacy scores in the
Deviation experimental group compared to the average scores of
variance 95.633 92.947 students in the control group (Yukselturk, Altıok, &
Başer, 2018). Other studies have shown positive effects,
From the table 9, the average value obtained pre- but the results of this activity are still lacking (Huizenga,
test of 51.57 experimental group and the control group Admiraal, ten Dam, & Voogt, 2019). In addition, further
51.87 so that the two groups together are in the same analysis shows that Game Based Learning can be useful
capacity. In the experimental group, the pre-test obtained for the mastery of the player's language, affective /
the lowest score was 30, and the highest pre-test score is psychological states, contemporary competencies, and
67. While the lowest pre-test scores obtained by the participatory behavior (Acquah & Katz, 2020). These
control group were 30, and the highest pre-test score is studies indicate that the use of game-based learning can
77. In Table 10 presented the results of the data analysis affect the final assessment of learning in students.
of the post-test values presented in Table 10.
IV. CONCLUSION
Table 10
Data Description Post-Test results Based on the results of research data that has been
Post- Experiment Control
test
Data
group group
done on the effect of the use of learning media GAME-
N 30 30 BASED LEARNING to the learning outcomes of learners
lowest Rated 70 60 in senior high school, lead to the conclusion that the
The highest score 97 87 learning outcomes experimental group using instructional
mean 83.80 74.33 GAME-BASED LEARNING has increased rapidly. At
standard
7.063 6.687 the initial capability test, the average value of the
Deviation
variance 49.890 44.713 experimental group is 51.57. Once treated and tests the
average value rose to 83.80. Based on the pre-test, the
From the above table, the data obtained by the results of the learners learn the control group had an
average value of the post-test experimental group 83.80 average score of 51.87. After the learning process and
and the control group 74.33. So, it can be said that the tests, the average value of the control group increased to
average value of the experimental group was higher than 74.33. On the results of hypothesis testing using
the average value of the control group as a whole. In the independent sample t-test obtained t value of 5.259 and t
experimental group obtained the lowest post-test score table amounted to 2.048 and 0.000 significance value.
was 70, and the highest post-test score is 97. While the Therefore, the value of t > t table and the significance
post-test scores lowest in the control group were 60 and value <0.05, then there are significant differences in
the lowest post-test scores, the highest is 87. To examine learning outcomes between classes using GAME-BASED
differences in learning outcomes of both classes, then LEARNING with classes using the conventional method
tested the hypothesis that the t-test. Hypothesis testing in senior high school students.
formula is as follows: H0: There is no significant
difference in learning motivation between classes using REFERENCES
GAME-BASED LEARNING with classes using [1] Acquah, E. O., & Katz, H. T. (2020). Digital game-based
conventional methods. H1: There is a significant L2 learning outcomes for primary through high-school
difference between the learning motivation class that uses students: A systematic literature review. Computers &
GAME-BASED LEARNING class using the Education, 143, 103667.
conventional method. The results of the t-test study https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103
results presented in Table 11. 667
[2] Allen, B. S., Otto, R. G., & Hoffman, B. (1996). Media as
Table 11 lived environments: The ecological psychology of
Test-T Value Post-test educational technology. Handbook of Research for
Group T table t Sig. (2-tailed) Educational Communications and Technology: A Project
Learning
outcomes
Experi
2.048 5.259 0,000
of the Association for Educational Communications and
ment Technology, 199–225.
[3] Arends, R., & Castle, S. (1991). Learning to teach (Vol. 2).
Table 11 shows the number meaning significance McGraw-Hill New York.
of 0.000, which is smaller than 0.05 (0.000 < 0.05) or [4] Barzilai, S., & Blau, I. (2014). Scaffolding game-based
number t is more significant than t table (5.259 > 2.048) learning: Impact on learning achievements, perceived

605
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 382

learning, and game experiences. Computers & Education, improve learning motivation: A study of online game use in
70, 65–79. an operating systems course. IEEE Transactions on
[5] Beck, J. C., & Wade, M. (2006). The kids are alright: How Education, 56(2), 183–190.
the gamer generation is changing the workplace. Harvard [18] Jovanovic, J., Chiong, R., & Weise, T. (2012). Social
Business Press. networking, teaching, and learning. Interdisciplinary
[6] Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 7,
Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39–43. 38–43.
[7] Chen, C.-H., & Law, V. (2016). Scaffolding individual and [19] Kim, H. K., & Bateman, B. (2007). Student characteristics
collaborative game-based learning in learning performance and participation patterns in online discussion. Society for
and intrinsic motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, Information Technology & Teacher Education International
55, 1201–1212. Conference, 2381–2387. Association for the Advancement
[8] Connolly, T. M., Stansfield, M., & Hainey, T. (2007). An of Computing in Education (AACE).
application of games‐based learning within software [20] Longworth, N. (2003). Lifelong learning in action:
engineering. British Journal of Educational Technology, Transforming education in the 21st century. Routledge.
38(3), 416–428. [21] Mayer, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge
[9] Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domain of creativity. handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge university
[10] Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2007). Successful press.
implementation of user-centered game based learning in [22] Nelson, B. C. (2007). Exploring the use of individualized,
higher education: An example from civil engineering. reflective guidance in an educational multi-user virtual
Computers & Education, 49(3), 873–890. environment. Journal of Science Education and
[11] Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2× 2 Technology, 16(1), 83–97.
achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and [23] Praherdhiono, H., Adi, E. P., & Prihatmoko, Y. (2018).
Social Psychology, 80(3), 501. KONSTRUKSI DEMOKRASI BELAJAR BERBASIS
[12] Hampton, D. C., & Keys, Y. (2017). Generation Z students: KEHIDUPAN PADA IMPLEMENTASI LMS DAN
Will they change our nursing classrooms. Journal of MOOC. Edcomtech Jurnal Kajian Teknologi Pendidikan,
Nursing Education and Practice, 7(4), 111–115. 3(1), 21–28.
[13] Huang, Y.-M., Jeng, Y.-L., & Huang, T.-C. (2009). An [24] Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination
educational mobile blogging system for supporting theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Technology development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
& Society, 12(2). 55(1), 68.
[14] Huizenga, J., Admiraal, W., ten Dam, G., & Voogt, J. [25] Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2005). Game design and
(2019). Mobile game-based learning in secondary meaningful play. Handbook of Computer Game Studies,
education: Students’ immersion, game activities, team 59, 79.
performance and learning outcomes. Computers in Human [26] Setyosari, P. (2005). Media Pembelajaran. Malang: Elang
Behavior, 99, 137–143. Mas.
[15] Hwang, G.-J., Chiu, L.-Y., & Chen, C.-H. (2015). A [27] Van Eck, R. (2006). Digital game-based learning: It’s not
contextual game-based learning approach to improving just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE
students’ inquiry-based learning performance in social Review, 41(2), 16.
studies courses. Computers & Education, 81, 13–25. [28] Yukselturk, E., Altıok, S., & Başer, Z. (2018). Using
[16] Indonesia, R. (2003). Undang-undang Republik Indonesia Game-Based Learning with Kinect Technology in Foreign
nomor 20 tahun 2003 tentang sistem pendidikan nasional. Language Education Course. Journal of Educational
Jakarta: Pemerintah Republik Indonesia. Technology & Society, 21(3), 159–173.
[17] Jong, B.-S., Lai, C.-H., Hsia, Y.-T., Lin, T.-W., & Lu, C.-
Y. (2012). Using game-based cooperative learning to

606