PlayIT: Game Based Learning Approach for Teaching Programming Concepts

Abstract

This study demonstrates a game-based learning (GBL) approach to engage students in learning and enhance their programming skills. The paper gives a detailed narrative of how an educational game was mapped with the curriculum of a prescribed programming course in a computing diploma study programme. Two separate student cohorts were invited to participate in the GBL experiment. One student cohort had not yet started study of the programming module, while the second student cohort had recently completed the module on programming. Findings reveal that educational games add to the fun element in learning, and students rated the game as an effective way to learn programming. Students could easily relate gaming elements to difficult programming constructs. Animated game scenarios showed high levels of engagement among students. Some students found the use of gaming elements as a better way to express their program's logic when giving oral presentations for the final assessment. Results indicate that a majority of study participants passed the programming module in the first attempt. The study contributes to the use of gaming elements for ongoing development of innovative pedagogies in teaching and learning.

Full text

Mathrani, A., Christian, S., & Ponder-Sutton, A. (2016). PlayIT: Game Based Learning Approach for Teaching Programming
Concepts. Educational Technology & Society, 19 (2), 5–17.
5
ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). This article of the Journal of Educational Technology & Society is available under Creative Commons CC-BY-ND-NC
3.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). For further queries, please contact Journal Editors at ets-editors@ifets.info.
PlayIT: Game Based Learning Approach for Teaching Programming Concepts
Anuradha Mathrani*, Shelly Christian and Agate Ponder-Sutton
School of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand //
a.s.mathrani@massey.ac.nz // shelly.christian@outlook.com // a.m.ponder-sutton@massey.ac.nz
*Corresponding author
ABSTRACT
This study demonstrates a game-based learning (GBL) approach to engage students in learning and enhance
their programming skills. The paper gives a detailed narrative of how an educational game was mapped with the
curriculum of a prescribed programming course in a computing diploma study programme. Two separate
student cohorts were invited to participate in the GBL experiment. One student cohort had not yet started study
of the programming module, while the second student cohort had recently completed the module on
programming. Findings reveal that educational games add to the fun element in learning, and students rated the
game as an effective way to learn programming. Students could easily relate gaming elements to difficult
programming constructs. Animated game scenarios showed high levels of engagement among students. Some
students found the use of gaming elements as a better way to express their program’s logic when giving oral
presentations for the final assessment. Results indicate that a majority of study participants passed the
programming module in the first attempt. The study contributes to the use of gaming elements for ongoing
development of innovative pedagogies in teaching and learning.
Keywords
Game based learning, ICT education, Programming, Educational games, Teaching and learning pedagogies
Introduction
The application of technology-enabled solutions in everyday activities has a pervasive effect on information and
communications technology (ICT) education. There is an increasing demand for the analytical, technical and
programming abilities of information technology (IT) graduates by the computing industry. To build the problem
solving capabilities in students, ICT courses are designed with many practical elements. However, after entering into
ICT related courses (e.g., programming, networks and databases); many students find it difficult to transmit taught
concepts to real world applications. These students may find courses to be dry and boring, which lowers their
motivation and interest in learning (Prensky, 2003; Sarkar, 2006). If students are not interested or motivated, it is
difficult to keep them engaged in classrooms. To enhance student learning for achieving required IT based skill sets,
innovative pedagogical approaches are applied to teaching and learning (T&L) practices. Behavioural scientists
suggest utilising fun based interventions to engage active learning as an effective pedagogical approach (Dicheva et
al., 2015; Oblinger, 2006). One such approach for adding engaging elements to classrooms is use of game-based
learning (GBL) or serious games, whereby people of all ages and genders can play games for many hours without
realising they are potentially in a T&L environment (Soflano, 2011). Gaming activities are a good source of
engagement and bring fun into learning by providing instant gratification to players when tasks are completed
successfully, allowing them to reach higher stages in the gameplay. Many workplaces use gamification strategies to
empower employees, with one German automotive company Volkswagen labelling gameplay strategy as “the fun
theory” (Huang & Soman, 2013).
Directed instruction is a venerable part of the classroom environment; lectures are designed to explain theoretical
concepts, which are complemented with practical experiments. Teachers evaluate student learning with a set of
formal assignments, oral presentations and written exams. Nevertheless, T&L environments could be made more fun
if critical skills are taught both through directed teaching and game-mediated interventions. This would make
students more engaged and motivated, and could change the student’s mindset that the journey of learning is not dry
or boring, but can be fun. This study attempts to address this gap by utilising a GBL approach to T&L context using a
case involved in ICT education.
The paper first gives some highlights of current literature in pedagogical approaches to ICT education, and how
educational games have been used in previous studies. The case study of PlayIT (a pseudonym) is introduced next,
followed by an explanation of how the chosen educational game has been mapped with the subject module for
programming in an ICT course curriculum. The design of a GBL experiment with two different student cohorts is
presented. The paper then discusses experiment findings using quantitative and qualitative methods to identify any

6
significant/insignificant correlations with diverse student cohort datasets. Student results are further investigated to
inform how study participants progressed in their subject knowledge. Finally, the paper concludes with an overview
of our findings, leading to further contributions in the ongoing quest for innovative, useful pedagogies in T&L
environments.
Pedagogical approaches to ICT education
Computing is interwoven in almost all facets of managing and running a business. Furthermore, it is expected that
technological applications will get more efficient and advanced over time, requiring more skilled and collaborative
workforce (Stantchev, Prieto-González, & Tamm, 2015). A study investigating critical information
systems/information technology (IS/IT) skills from the perspectives of seventy managers shows that web
applications, online services, networking protocols, wireless communications and wireless applications are the skills
of the future (Lee & Mirchandani, 2010). Moreover, growing use of technology in our daily lives has added to the
myriad of technology courses offered by education providers to prepare upcoming students. ICT education as such
provides “an effective link between purpose, people and pedagogy inside the institutions” (Stensaker et al., 2007, p.
431). Students enrol in ICT courses to learn new technologies and to comprehend the bigger picture of how IT
solutions are being developed for businesses. However, these students face many challenges in grasping conceptual
understanding and logical reasoning of how classroom topics in hardware, programming, databases or networks are
related with real world applications. “Students could not transfer knowledge gained from either lectures or
theoretical exercises to practical exercises. Without having direct hardware interaction, students learning becomes
abstract, which leads to their displeasure and to the main question: Why we are learning this, and how and where
shall I use it?” (Stolikj, Ristov & Ackovska, 2011, p. 340). Students’ acceptance of technology has been shown to be
a critical factor in understanding by Stantchev et al. (2014). To help students relate course contents to real world
examples, a blended learning approach has been used. This approach consists of a mix of teaching deliveries, namely
(1) Classroom: traditional teaching, (2) Website: web based self-paced learning, (3) Actual lab: real experiments, and
(4) Virtual lab: visualization/animation techniques (Xie, Li & Geng, 2008).
Studies in ICT education suggest that students find it challenging to apply taught concepts to a problem when there is
no single, simple or well-known solution. “Students can also display an inability to translate classroom examples to
other domains with analogous scenarios, betraying a lack of analytical problem-solving skills. For the students, these
problems can lead to confusion, a lack of self-confidence and a lack of motivation to continue” (Connolly &
Stansfield, 2006, p. 462). To overcome these challenges, it is suggested that classroom teaching be scaffolded with
interactive computer games to simulate problem-based scenarios, since games provide more opportunities for
collaboration and reflection, which in turn will lead to increased motivation (Connolly, Stansfield, & McLellan,
2006). Papastergiou (2009) evaluated the learning effectiveness and motivational appeal of a computer game targeted
at the learning of computer memory concepts for high school students. Results showed the gaming approach to be
very effective in gaining students’ understanding of computer memory concepts. Papastergiou concludes not only the
learning effectiveness, but, also provides solution to the students “feeling bored.” One participant in Papastergiou’s
study responded: “It’s more enjoyable and active. You never get bored as in traditional teaching because you
concentrate on a goal.” Ebner and Holzinger (2007) used an educational game IFM (Internal Force Master) in a
mechanical engineering study programme. Their findings demonstrated high levels of user empowerment and fun
elements for students who played IFM. The feedback in the Ebner and Holzinger study showed students’ readiness to
play the game a second time in the event of a failure. However, the study did not find noticeable difference in
students’ results between those students whose learning involved IFM game play, and those students who had learned
in a traditional classroom environment.
Another study has described design of an educational framework through an iterative development process resulting
in a game that can improve student engagement, satisfaction and skills transfer (Barnes et al., 2007). Researchers
used students who had completed at least one computer science course and were moderately familiar with
programming concepts. Each participant was given two games to play, that is, “Saving Princess Sera” and “The
Catacombs.” Participants gave pre-test prior to the game play and post-test after the game play. Both the tests
contained problems where students had to determine the outcome of programming components such as “if-then-else”
statements and “while” loops. Study found that despite poor test results students were able to understand most of the
programming quests and feedback of students was extremely positive. Computer games are thus transformed into

7
social experiences within classroom settings, to offer a constructivist approach that are interactive in nature and help
to generate meaning in learning (Hämäläinen, 2011).
The case study design
The case study described here as PlayIT is a non-university education provider offering ICT related subject courses
at different study levels designed by New Zealand Qualification Authority (NZQA). NZQA is a government
organisation responsible for managing the New Zealand Qualifications Framework (NZQF), and is the source for
accurate and current information on quality assured qualifications in New Zealand. NZQA administers secondary
school assessment system, provides independent quality assurance of non-university education providers, and
recognizes qualifications by setting specific achievement and unit standards for approved courses
(http://www.nzqa.govt.nz). PlayIT runs three computing courses, namely, National Diploma in Computing (level 5),
Diploma in Computer Networking and Security (level 6), and Diploma in Networks and Security (level 7).
Figure 1. Course structure at PlayIT
Only one of these courses includes programming; which is the “National Diploma in Computing” (NDC) at level 5.
The NDC contains five curriculum modules: databases, hardware, networking, software engineering and
programming. Each module within NDC contains one or more unit standards (US). The programming module
consists of two US, namely US-6774 (a basic level of programming using a procedural or event driven approach)
which is a prerequisite of US-6776 (an advanced level of programming using an object-oriented approach). Figure 1
shows the detail of the course structure at PlayIT for NDC curriculum.
In March 2014, interviews were conducted with experienced IT tutors at PlayIT to identify learning challenges faced
by students pursuing ICT curriculum. Interview findings revealed tutor’s perceptions of issues faced by students and
suggestions to mitigate those issues. The identified issues are: difficulty in transferring theoretical knowledge to
practical exercise, difficulty in relating course contents to industry use, lack of interest in course contents, and
difficulty in understanding conceptual topics due to lack of analytical and logical skills. Tutors suggestions likewise
affirmed the use of GBL strategy to encourage participation and bring about active learning through simulations of
problem based scenarios using some animated environment. Furthermore, tutors said topics related to programming
constructs were challenging for students. Accordingly, US-6774 from the subject module for programming from the
NDC course was selected as the module where the GBL experiment would be applied. Programming is broad topic

8
and contains many sub-topics, however, the fundamental components; such as sequential logic flow, if-then-else,
loops, functions and recursions; were selected for the GBL experiment.
PlayIT runs many courses in parallel with different student cohorts. For this study, two student cohorts were selected
who were at different stages in their level 5 study programme. Cohort 1 comprised of 20 students who had not yet
started study of the US-6774 module, while cohort 2 students had 24 students who had recently completed the US-
6774 module, but had not yet been assessed. An educational game (LightBot 2.0) was selected for investigating the
effectiveness of GBL in T&L environments. An experiment utilising this game was conducted in May 2014 with
both student cohorts in two separate classroom settings. Student feedback was collected in two stages, first
immediately after the gameplay, and second time in September 2014 after all students had completed final
assessments of the programming module.
Figure 2. Case study design
Figure 2 shows the research design for the case study. The design consists of six processes: (1) establish criteria, (2)
selection of study participants, (3) problem definition, (4) treatment or intervention strategy, (5) techniques and
methods, and (6) analysis and results.
Mapping of educational game with programming module
Two considerations in selecting the educational game were its relevance to curriculum topics and coverage of
minimum number of topics. Many games were investigated to confirm alignment of game elements with learning
activities outlined in the programming course module of the NDC. After detailed search of ICT educational games,
the game Light Bot 2.0 was selected. The game mechanics of LightBot have a one to one relationship with
programming concepts but without using a typed language code (Yaroslavski, 2014). The developer of LightBot
explains relevance of the game to programming by splitting the concepts into two groups: (1) programming practices
and (2) control-flow. Programming Practices group is subdivided into planning, programming, testing and debugging
stages to explain the order in which programmers solve the problem using instruction icons without actual coding
being involved. The Control Flow group is made of sequencing instruction (conditional statements), procedures
(functions), and loops (including recursion) to deal with the step-by-step sequence of program execution. Figure 3
shows the two concept groups used in LightBot.
Figure 3. LightBot 2.0

9
The game utilizes a fictional scenario, where players control a robot, whose task is to light all blue tiles in a given
walking area. This is done through a set of commands representing basic programming concepts such as sequential
execution, functions, recursion and conditional flows. The game was next mapped with the US-6774 curriculum
(Figure 4). LightBot contains four stages: Basic, Recursion, Conditionals and Experts. The Basic stage includes
program design basics: sequential flow of execution, debug and testing the program as well as functions and
procedure. The next stage is Recursion which covers the different types of loops in programming. Conditional is the
third stage containing different kinds of complex conditions: if-then-else, when, for and where. The last stage Expert
is combination of all previous contents. Each of the stages has six levels with gradually increasing complexity.
Figure 4. Mapping programming module to LightBot stages
Experimental design
The LightBot game was played by both student cohorts in two separate settings in a classroom lab environment.
Cohort 1 comprised of 20 students, who had not studied the US-6774 programming module, but had done some basic
entry level computing courses. The second cohort had 24 students. Cohort 2 students had completed the US-6774
programming module, so they had some knowledge in programming.
Figure 5 illustrates the experimental design of game play used in this study. The students were told to play the
LightBot levels in a specific order to achieve gradual understanding of programming constructs. The order of the
game and time set for tasks differed between student cohorts. This was because the game tasks were aligned with
basic and advanced concepts of the subject modules for the two groups. The game play design for cohort 1 had steps
designed to gradually introduce the complexity of the programming constructs. These students were asked to play
Basic level first, because activities defined in the game mechanics are used in subsequent stages. After achieving
basic level, cohort 1 students were asked to play the first level of Recursion and Conditional. The reason behind this
game order was to capture the complete programming curricula defined in the game. There was also a subject-related
question in the feedback form to assess their learning after playing the game, since these students had yet not
attended programming classes. In Cohort 2, students were explicitly asked to play the game in same order as has
been designed by the game manufacturer. This was because these students were already familiar with the
programming constructs, so could relate to the game mechanics. However, the Expert stage was optional to play for
both student cohorts although students were allowed to play this stage only after completing the game play order.
Feedback was collected in two different ways: immediately after the game play and after completion of the diploma.
In the first stage, both groups were asked to fill an online feedback form immediately after the game play. Since the
game was conducted in a classroom environment, the whole population sample of 44 responses were obtained in

10
stage one. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected from the online survey. Qualitative data included
open-ended questions to capture student opinion in their own words. Quantitative data was collected using a 5 point
Likert scale questionnaire. Questions were mostly aimed at understanding student perceptions of fun elements in the
game, and whether they found the game difficult, or whether concepts on loops, conditionals or recursion were clear
after the game had been played. Only students in cohort 1 were asked a technical question pertaining to learning of
programming constructs based on the contents of the game.
Cohort 1 - (20 students : Played game before
attending programming classes)
Cohort 2 - (24 students: Played game after
attending programming classes)
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Figure 5. Game play design
The second stage of data collection involved a paper based survey, which was given to students after completion of
their level 5 diploma in computing. In this paper based survey, one third of the sample population size, which is 15
students, responded. This response rate of more than 30% is comparatively high for a digital survey according to the
statistical survey literature (Kaplowitz, Hadlock & Levine, 2004). The survey questionnaire had both quantitative
and open-ended qualitative questions to gauge overall student experiences. Questions were aimed toward
understanding how students’ perceived game based learning now that they had completed their study. Students were
asked: whether or not they had downloaded the game on their personal devices after the classroom activity, if they
had discussed any of the gaming elements amongst their peers, and if the gaming constructs had assisted them in any
manner for their final exam preparation.
Programming Practice
Basics
Recursion
Control Flow
Conditionals
Play order
Play order
Basics Level 1
Basics Level 2
Basics Level 3
Basics Level 4
Basics Level 5
Basics Level 6
Play order
30 Minutes
Recursion Level 1
Conditional Level 1
Play order
20 Minutes
40 Minutes
Basics Level 2
Basics Level 1
Basics Level 5
Basics Level 4
Basics Level 3
Basics Level 6
Play order
Conditional Level 1
Conditional Level 2
Conditional Level 3
Conditional Level 4
Conditional Level 5
Conditional Level 6
Maximum time 60 Minutes
Recursion Level 5
Recursion Level 6
Recursion Level 1
Recursion Level 2
Recursion Level 3
Recursion Level 4
Recursion Level 2
Recursion Level 3
Recursion Level 5
Recursion Level 4
Recursion Level 6
Conditional Level 5
Conditional Level 4
Conditional Level 3
Conditional Level 2

11
Discussion of the experimental data gathered post game play
Data in stage one was collected immediately after the classroom game activity, so student responses were not blurred
with recollections from some past event. Accordingly, survey responses noted the present-day and present-time
nuances of students who had just experienced a break-away from the traditional classroom teaching methods.
Feedback of all 44 participants was collected through a survey. Responses indicate that overall, both cohorts
considered game based learning approach effective and helpful to learn programming concepts. Raw data related to
the two student cohort findings are briefly discussed next to give the reader a brief outline of the student feedback.
Cohort 1
Of the 20 students in this cohort, 12 students had prior experience of playing educational games, though none had
played LightBot. The game modes related to puzzle and adventure were considered more interesting than other
modes (i.e., role play and sports). In terms of programming constructs, sequential logic flow involving functions (or
basic stage) was rated as easy, while recursion logic was rated as moderately difficult, and conditional (or advanced
stage) as very difficult. For the question related to the fun element in the game, half of the class rated the game as
“good fun.” With regard to the technical question assessing their learning through game play, 13 of the 20 students
could answer the question correctly. Overall, the students perceived programming to be interesting, and ranked the
game effective in their understanding of concepts to programming (functions, recursion and conditionals).
In the open-ended question where students were asked to describe their experience in programming, student
responses varied from “boring” to “interesting.” Positive feedback included comments such as “I was fearful of
programing, but now it does not seem so bad,” “I enjoyed recursion part – it was so brain storming” and “When I
started, it was boring, but once I achieved levels, I wanted to go ahead, and now I understand what recursion is.”
Other positive terms such as “amazing,” “interesting” and “fun” were sprinkled across the feedback form. However
20% of the class response was not positive about the experience and educational games in general. The open-ended
text answers from these students included responses such as: “I don’t like such games,” “Programming is horrible,”
“I would prefer to play this game after I have learnt programming” and “It was too boring.”
Cohort 2
The first question we asked was in regard to the levels they had achieved in different stages. Overall, the whole class
had completed higher levels in Basic and Recursion, but had achieved lower levels in Conditionals. Largely, the
group agreed that the game was effective in learning programming concepts and playing the game had brought
clarity to some of the earlier taught concepts. There was also much agreement on including gaming elements in the
curriculum, as these elements were considered relevant to what students had learnt in their previously taught
modules. However, a small percentage of the students (17%) found the game to be confusing. In the open-ended
question for cohort 2, the positive feedback contained such gems as: “It helped me refresh my programming skills,”
“I liked the logic,” “The game was pretty enjoyable,” “Very relevant,” “Makes me more confident” and “Good
leisure time.” The negative comments included: “Did not help me,” “bit confusing” and “I don’t know if I liked it or
not.”
Over both cohorts the general consensus about the impact of game based learning for understanding of programming
constructs was overwhelmingly positive.
Discussion of the experimental data gathered after diploma completion
The purpose of data collection after diploma completion was to capture student reflections on the game based
learning strategy after completion of the study. At this stage, some time had passed since the game based learning
experiment was conducted, so the students could reflect more dispassionately over the alignment of the game
elements with subject content. All students had completed the programming study module, so the data collection in
stage two was retrospective. Further, the two cohorts were no longer separate since they had all gone through the
programming module and some had even completed the NDC study programme. A few students had left PlayIT after

12
completion of their diploma course, while others had progressed to the next level of study. The survey at this stage
was paper-based; a total of 15 student responses were collected.
Participants were invited to give feedback on whether GBL played any part during the course of their study. Of the
15 students who answered the survey, 6 students had downloaded the LightBot game on their personal devices. All
students said they had discussed the game constructs with someone, for instance, with other classmates, family,
teachers or friends. Some other students had used excerpts of the LightBot game in their oral presentation
assignment. Some comments in the feedback form: “I went over the game again and again, which put my confidence
up for assignment presentation” and “I included this game to slides, teacher asked me to explain some words, which
I did. Am feeling awesome.” Eleven students said that they understood the basics about programming constructs
better after playing the game. Comments in response to a related open-ended question were: “It helped me think
logically,” “Ya, it explains the concept of programming,” and “I feel more relaxed about programming.” Comments
relating to the element of fun included: “Yes, it’s entertaining and I enjoyed a lot” and “it’s very interesting.” One
student remarked on how the learning activity helped in explaining the gaming elements to others: “I have [an]
online account for [this] game. I teach game to [other] members to get points and free passes.”
Analysis of the data
This section gives a detailed analysis of data collected. Raw data collected in the survey post game play was
analysed statistically to understand if any relationship exists between nominal or ordinal variables. Nominal variables
are based on fixed categorical values like nationality which can be American, Chinese, and Indian etc. This study
included only two sets of nominal/dichotomous variables where students were asked if they had played any
educational game before our experiment or not and if they found the game confusing or not.
Table 1. Cohort 1 – Data analysis using s and rb
Variable 1
Variable 2
Relationship
Degree of fun while playing the
game
 Degree of agreement for the
statement : “This game is
helpful/effective to learn
programming”
 Degree of agreement for the
statement : “I think programming
would be interesting”
 + strong (s = 0.761)
 + strong (s = 0.700)
Degree of agreement for the
statement : “This game is
helpful/effective to learn
programming”
 Degree of agreement for the
statement : “I think programming
would be interesting”
 + substantial (s = 0.665)
Degree of overall understanding
 Degree of fun while playing the
game
 Degree of agreement for the
statement : “I think programming
would be interesting”
 Degree of overall difficulty
 Degree of agreement for the
statement : “This game is
helpful/effective to learn
programming”
 + substantial (s = 0.525)
 + substantial (s = 0.597)
 – moderate (s = – 0.329)
 + moderate (s = 0.406)
Degree of overall difficulty of
game
 Degree of agreement for the
statement : “This game is
helpful/effective to learn
programming”
 Degree of agreement for the
statement : “I think programming
would be interesting”
 weak (s = – 0.151)
 none (s = – 0.069)
 none (s = – 0.072)

13
 Degree of fun while playing the
game
Experience in playing an
educational game
 Degree of overall difficulty
 Degree of overall understanding
 Degree of fun while playing the
game
 none (rb = – 0.052)
 none (rb = 0.025)
 none (rb = –0.025)
Other aspects of GBL experiment were ranked using the Likert scale from largest to smallest: degree of fun, degree
of difficulty, and degree of overall understanding. The data thus collected from Likert scale is ordinal, as it refers to
ranked data. Spearman’s correlation coefficient method (s) and rank biserial correlation coefficient (rb) method
have been employed to analyse any sort of relationship between the two diverse data sets for the two student cohorts
in stage one. Relations are first described as positive or negative, and then can be ranked in the following order:
perfect ( = 1), strong ( >= 0.7), substantial ( >= 0.5), moderate ( >= 0.3), weak ( >= 0.1) or none ( >= 0.0)
(Jackson 2011; Miller 1998). Statistical analysis of the feedback data indicates magnitude of relationship for the
following variables as shown in the Table 1 (for cohort 1) and Table 2 (for cohort 2).
Table 1 shows statistical figures for cohort 1 students. Spearman’s correlation coefficient method (s) is used for
ordinal values in which students ranked their perceptions of the GBL experience using Likert scale, and rank biserial
correlation coefficient (rb) is used for nominal values in which students were asked whether they had previously
played any educational games to which they could answer either “yes” or “no.”
Table 2. Cohort 1 – Data analysis using s and rb
Variable 1
Variable 2
Relationship
The degree of game relevance to
programming
 Degree of agreement for the
statement : “This game is
helpful/effective to learn
programming”
 Degree of agreement for the
statement : “Such games should be
included in course curriculum as
learning activity/method”
 +substantial (s = 0.543)
 + substantial (s = 0.429)
Degree of agreement for the
statement : “This game is
helpful/effective to learn
programming”
 Average success level of all stages
 Degree of agreement for the
statement : “Such games should be
included in course curriculum as
learning activity/method”
 – weak (s = -0.202)
 none (s = 0.062)
Student found the game confusing
 Average success level of all stages
 Degree of agreement for the
statement : “This game is
helpful/effective to learn
programming”
 Degree of agreement for the
statement : “Such games should be
included in course curriculum as
learning activity/method”
 The degree of game relevance to the
programming
 none (rb = 0.072)
 none (rb = 0.0416)
 none (rb = – 0.0833)
 none(rb = 0.0)
Table 2 shows statistical figures for cohort 2 students. Spearman’s correlation coefficient method (s) is used for
ordinal values in which students ranked their perceptions of the GBL experience using Likert scale, and rank biserial
correlation coefficient (rb) is used for nominal values in which students were asked whether they found the game
confusing or not to which they could answer either “yes” or “no.” The implications of these statistical data values are
further discussed in the next section.

14
After completion of the programming study module at PlayIT within the NDC course structure, the overall student
performance was evaluated. To put this in perspective, the examination process for each module within the NDC
study programme is explained. Students are allowed at most three attempts to pass any module. If a student is not
successful in the first attempt, then the student can re-sit the exam in a second and third attempt. However, if all three
attempts are unsuccessful, then the student is not allowed a fourth attempt and is considered failed. Table 3 gives an
overview of the how the students from the experiment fared in the final exam held in August 2014.
Table 3. Summary of results for programming module (US-6774)
All Students
Non-Participants
Cohort 1
Cohort 2
Passed in 1st attempt
50
12
18
20
Passed in 2nd attempt
11
6
1
4
Passed in 3rd attempt
4
4
-
-
Failed
6
5
1
0
Total
71
27
20
24
A total of 71 students were examined in the US-6774 programming module. Of these, 65 students successfully
completed the programming module. Further, from the two cohorts who participated in this study, 43 students
successfully completed their study in the programming module (US-6774), of which 38 students had passed in the
first attempt. Table 3 data are further discussed in the next section.
Discussion
This study has used game based learning approach alongside current teaching methods to engage students and bring
about active learning for one subject module in an introductory ICT course. The study identified an educational game
(Light Bot 2.0) which covered the core subject areas of a level 5 programming module. This was to encourage
student interest by making the learning experience fun. In the game, an animated robot utilizes logical skills
associated with programming constructs to light up blue tiles as the robot moves from one place to another. When
the player applies correct programming logic rules, the robot can move on tiles which light up with each correct
move. In this way, the game gives instant feedback to the player for each correct move, which in turn motivates the
player, who tries to light more tiles while the game slowly increases in complexity. Two student cohorts were
selected in stage one of this study. The first cohort had limited knowledge of programming and had not completed
the level 5 programming module. The second cohort had recently completed this programming module and was at a
later stage of study in this same level 5 curriculum.
The findings indicate that students from both cohorts enjoyed playing the game and indicated that games are
effective in learning of some programming constructs (e.g., functions, procedures, conditionals and recursions). The
feedback from cohort 1 shows that after playing the game, students perceived programming to be interesting. The
game created a positive attitude towards studying programming for students who had yet not started the
programming module. The more students found the game enjoyable, the more they considered it an effective way to
learn programming (s = 0.761). Data showed that students’ perceptions on how interesting they consider
programming to be was strongly related to the proportion of their enjoyment in the game (s = 0.700). After playing
the game, students felt gaming elements to be effective way to learn the programming concepts (s = 0.665).
Substantially positive moderate relationships were also found between degree of overall understanding to the fun
element (s = 0.525), and also between degree of overall understanding to perception of “programming would be
interesting” (s = 0.597). Overall 65% of the students answered the assessment question related to programming
constructs correctly. However, the data showed no significant relationships between enjoyment and in the level of
difficulty or in the level of understanding. Findings suggest the more students understand a topic the more they think
the game is effective and the topics are interesting. This finding supports using games which introduce course topics
in an easy manner so that students are motivated to learn further. Answers to the open ended question also support
this i.e., one student said that he was fearful of programming, but after playing the game he felt more positive
towards programming. However, few students from cohort 1 found the game boring, and said that they would have
preferred to play the game after completing the programming module.

15
The findings from cohort 2 also indicate that students consider educational games a very effective way for applying
programming concepts. These students had completed their programming module, and enjoyed applying these skills
to a gaming environment. Positive substantial relationships exist between relevance of the gaming elements to
programming module (S = 0.543) and it being included as a learning activity in the curriculum (S = 0.429). The
students in cohort 2 had achieved higher stages during game play than cohort 1, although 17% of students found the
game to be rather confusing. Most of the students in this cohort said they enjoyed playing the game more than
relating it to programming concepts. However, the game also helped them revise their taught concepts in an
enjoyable way. We asked students to voluntarily share their game scores with their peers in the classroom, however
only 67% shared their scores.
Most of the students preferred puzzle and adventure type of games, as this stimulated them to think along constrained
gaming boundaries. Educational games thus encourage players to apply their logic and reasoning to challenging
situations. Students in cohort 2 were more likely to want to try out new thought-provoking moves in stricter game
settings, which they may not have tried in a directed teaching and learning environment. Tham and Tham’s (2012)
study supports these findings, as they showed dramatic increase in students interest in the course when game based
learning was implemented. Overall responses show cohort 1 students’ to be more enthusiastic than cohort 2 students,
as we get higher degree of positive correlation for gaming experience with the fun element for cohort 1. This may be
because the cohort 1 students were at an earlier phase of study in the course, while the cohort 2 students were nearing
completion of the course. The cohort 2 students were busy in preparations for their final assessments for all course
modules including programming module at the time of this experiment. The cohort 2 students were also trying to
relate the game to programming concepts, rather than simply enjoy the game play with learning as a side product.
This could be a topic for further research.
After completion of the diploma, we obtained two datasets. One dataset from the paper based survey, a retrospective
view of how students perceived the game based learning approach for their programming module. The second
dataset comprised all student results for their final assessment. While only one third of the students participated in
the post completion paper survey, the open-ended nature of the questionnaire gives an insightful picture of how those
students felt about having gaming elements in classroom teaching. Students rated the game as useful and fun-filled
learning strategy. They could visualize programming constructs with animated movements made by the robot on a
tiled walking area. Some of the responding students had used examples from the game for the oral presentation
assessment component of their final exam. This form of participation where students interact by giving verbal
explanations to demonstrate their knowledge, further illustrates enhancement of students’ cognitive learning abilities
(Tao, Yeh & Hung, 2015). Students said they felt “awesome” when discussing programming. They related topics
with animated movements of the robot in the game, revealing their involvement and engagement during the learning
process. The positive respondents to this survey show a high level of emotional engagement.
Research in this area has focussed on understanding student emotions, since emotions are closely related to student
learning and represent a key factor affecting student results (Cabada et al., 2012). Results indicate that 86% of study
participants passed the programming module in the first attempt compared with 44% of non-participants. The
passing results from student final assessments do not show a significant difference between study participants and
rest of the class. Other factors related to student’s attributes such as self-study, attendance and interest may have
contributed to higher success levels. Nonetheless, the overall findings indicate that GBL is a useful pedagogical
approach, which may contribute to learning difficult concepts.
Conclusion and future scope
We have applied an innovative way to bring about active learning in classrooms through use of educational games.
Suggestions from tutors helped in identifying a subject module considered to be difficult by students. This provided
us with an opportunity to apply gaming elements to introductory programming within a classroom environment.
Students pursuing a diploma computing course were selected for this study. We applied the game based strategy to
one group of students who had no prior knowledge of programming, and to another group who had recently
completed the programming module. In this manner, we did not set boundaries to when game based learning should
be initiated. Our findings indicate that GBL is a useful learning strategy both before subject is taught and after
subject has been taught, but with a slight bias toward after subject has been taught. The GBL experiment showed us
that students could be actively engaged in applying programming principles with defined gaming steps. The majority

16
of participating students agreed that gaming approaches to learning can make classroom environments more fun and
also make an effective way to grasp some of the difficult concepts.
This study has demonstrated the effective use of GBL as a teaching and learning activity. Students felt confident
about practicing the use of programming constructs in a game scenario and were eager to help others in
understanding the game strategy. In applied fields of study such as ICT, the inclusion of gaming elements with
traditional teaching practices will bring about more active learning. This will be beneficial for tutors as well as
students because games could enable students to grasp technology based applications quickly in a more enjoyable
learning environment. This study adds to ongoing teaching and learning pedagogies. This could lead to further
research in designing of ICT education curriculum, where learning outcomes of different subject modules could be
mapped to related gaming elements, to bring about gradual learning, as games moved from basic (easy) to advanced
(complicated) levels.
This study has several limitations. It cannot be said with certainty the effect of GBL with other variables such as the
success level, social interactions and self-assessments (Huang & Soman, 2013). Another limitation of this study is
that the game (LightBot) covered only an introductory course. Advanced programming would require a more
complicated and intensive game. The other limitation is the low response rate in the final paper survey.
The authors believe that traditional classroom teaching cannot be replaced since teachers play both an educator and a
mentoring role; the addition of GBL to development of pedagogical activities will enhance the teaching and learning
experience. To this end further research could include examination of enthusiasm and emotional engagement in
teaching and learning in ICT.
References
Barnes, T., Richter, H., Chaffin, A., Godwin, A., Powell, E., Ralph, T., Matthews, P., & Jordan, H. (2007). Game2learn: A Study
of games as tools for learning introductory programming concepts. In Proceedings of the ACM Special Interest Group on
Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (Paper No. 7). New York, NY: ACM.
Cabada, R. Z., Estrada, M. L. B., Beltr’n, J. A., Cibrian R. F. L., Garcia, C. A. R., & Perez, Y. H. (2012). Fermat: Merging
affective tutoring systems with learning social networks. In IEEE 12th International Conference on Advanced Learning
Technologies (ICALT) (pp. 337-339). doi:10.1109/ICALT.2012.140
Connolly, T., & Stansfield, M. (2006). Using games-based elearning technologies in overcoming difficulties in teaching
information systems. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 5(1), 459-476.
Connolly, T., Stansfield, M., & McLellan, E. (2006). Using an online games-based learning approach to teach database design
concepts. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 4(1), 103-110.
Dicheva, D., Dicheva C., Agre G., & Angelova G. (2015). Gamification in education: A Systematic mapping study. Educational
Technology & Society, 18(3), 75–88.
Ebner, M., & Holzinger, A. (2007). Successful implementation of user-centered game based learning in higher education: An
example from civil engineering. Computers & education, 49(3), 873-890.
Hämäläinen, R. (2011). Using a game environment to foster collaborative learning: A Design-based study. Technology, Pedagogy
& Education, 20(1), 61-78.
Huang, W. H. Y., & Soman, D. (2013). Gamification of education-Research Report Series: Behavioural Economics in Action.
Toronto, Canada: Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.
Jackson, S. L. (2011). Research methods: A Modular approach. Belmont, CA: Linda Schreiber-Ganster.
Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004). A Comparison of web and mail survey response rates. The Public
Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 94-101.
Lee, K., & Mirchandani, D. (2010). Dynamics of the importance of IS/IT skills. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 50(4),
67-78.
Miller, L. E. (1998). Appropriate analysis. Journal of Agricultural Education, 39(2), 1-10.
Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Games and learning. Educause Quarterly, 3, 5-7

17
Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational
effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1-12.
Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 21-21.
Sarkar, N. I. (2006). Teaching computer networking fundamentals using practical laboratory exercise. IEEE Transactions on
education, 49(2), 285-291.
Soflano, M. (2011). Modding in serious games: Teaching Structured Query Language (SQL) using NeverWinter Nights. In M.
Ma, A. Oikonomou & L. C. Jain (Eds.), Serious Games & Edutainment Applications (pp. 347-368). doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-
2161-9_18
Stantchev, V., Colomo-Palacios, R., Soto-Acosta, P., & Misra, S. (2014). Learning management systems and cloud file hosting
services: A Study on students’ acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 612-619.
Stantchev, V., Prieto-González, L., & Tamm, G. (2015). Cloud computing service for knowledge assessment and studies
recommendation in crowdsourcing and collaborative learning environments based on social network analysis. Computers in
Human Behavior, 51, 762-770.
Stensaker, B., Maassen, P., Borgan, M., Oftebro, O., & Karseth, B. (2007). Use, updating and integration of ICT in higher
education: Linking purpose, people and pedagogy. Higher Education, 54(3), 417-433.
Stolikj, M., Ristov, S., & Ackovska, N. (2011). Challenging students software skills to learn hardware based courses. In
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces (ITI) (pp. 339-344). Piscataway, NJ:
IEEE.
Tao, Y. H., Yeh, C. R., & Hung, K. C. (2015). Validating the learning cycle models of business simulation games via student
perceived gains in skills and knowledge. Educational Technology and Society, 18(1), 77–90.
Tham L., & Tham R. (2012). Blended learning: Is game-based learning an effective instructional strategy to engage students in
higher education in Singapore? A Pilot study. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 8(1), 2-10.
Xie, J., Li, J., & Geng, Y. (2008). Blended learning in computer hardware course education. In International Conference on
Computer Science and Software Engineering (Vol. 5, pp. 905-908). doi:10.1109/CSSE.2008.194
Yaroslavski, D. (2014). Light bot. Retrieved from http://light-bot.com/Lightbot_HowDoesLightbotTeachProgramming.pdf