Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of students' motivation, cognitive load and learning anxiety in gamification software engineering education: a structural equation modeling study

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Past research has proven the significant effects of game-based learning on learning motivation and academic performance, and described the key factors in game-based design. Nonetheless, research on the correlations among learning motivation, cognitive load, learning anxiety and academic performance in gamified learning environments has been minimal. This study, therefore, aims to develop a Gamification Software Engineering Education Learning System (GSEELS) and evaluate the effects of gamification, learning motivation, cognitive load and learning anxiety on academic performance. By applying Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to the empirical research, the questionnaire contains: 1. a Gamification Learning Scale; 2. a Learning Motivation Scale; 3. a Cognitive Load Scale; 4. a Learning Anxiety Scale; and 5. an Academic Performance Scale. A total of 107 undergraduates in two classes participated in this study. The Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis includes the path directions and relationship between descriptive statistics, measurement model, structural model evaluation and five variables. The research results support all nine hypotheses, and the research findings also show the effects of cognitive load on learning anxiety, with strong learning motivation resulting from a low learning anxiety. As a result, it is further proven in this study that a well-designed GSEELS would affect student learning motivation and academic performance. Finally, the relationship model between gamification learning, learning motivation, cognitive load, learning anxiety and academic performance is elucidated, and four suggestions are proffered for instructors of software engineering education courses and for further research, so as to assist instructors in the application of favorable gamification teaching strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alavi M (1994) Computer-mediated collaborative learning: an empirical evaluation. MIS Q 18(2):150–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ang CS, Zaphiris P, Mahmood S (2007) A model of cognitive loads in massively multiplayer online role playing games. Interact Comput 19:167–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Asgari M (2005) A three-factor model of motivation and game design. Digital Games Research Conference (DIGRA), Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ashcraft MH, Faust MW (1994) Mathematics anxiety and mental arithmetic performance: an exploratory investigation. Cogn Emot 8:97–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci 16(1):74–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bekdemir M (2010) The pre-service teachers’ mathematics anxiety related to depth of negative experiences in mathematics classroom while they were students. Educ Stud Math 75:311–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Belanich J, Daragh ES, Kara LO (2004) Instructional characteristics and motivational features of a PC-based game. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Ft Belvoir

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Bollen KA, Long JS (1993) Testing structural equations models. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bontis N (1998) Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models. Manag Decis 36(2):63–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bontis N, Serenko A (2009) A causal model of human capital antecedents and consequents in the financial services industry. J Intellect Cap 10(1):53–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bruggen JMV, Kirschner PA, Jochems WMG (2002) External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load. Learn Instr 12(1):121–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brünken R, Plass JL, Leutner D (2003) Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ Psychol 38(1):53–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Caine RN, Caine G (1994) Making connections: teaching and the human brain. The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Chang SL, Ley K (2006) A learning strategy to compensate forcognitive overload in online learning: learner use of printed online materials. J Interact Online Learn 5(1):104–117

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chang W-C, Wang T-H, Lin FH, Yang H-C (2009) Game-based learning with ubiquitous technologies. IEEE Internet Comput 13(4):26–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chin WW (2010) How to write up and report PLS analyses. In: Esposito Vinzi V, Chin WW, Henseler J, Wang H (eds) Handbook of partial least squares: concepts, methods and application. Springer, Germany, pp 645–689

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chin WW, Newsted PR (1999) Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In: Hoyle R (ed) Statistical strategies for small sample research. Sage Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chin WW, Peterson RA, Brown SP (2008) Structural equation modeling: some practical reminders. J Mark Theory Pract 16(4):287–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chinn S (2009) Mathematics anxiety in secondary students in England. Dyslexia 15:61–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cool KO, Schendel D (1988) Performance differences among strategic group members. Strateg Manag J 9:207–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Credé M, Phillips LA (2011) A meta-analytic review of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Learn Individ Differ 21(4):337–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Csikszentmihalyi M (1990) Finding flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper Perennial, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. DeLeeuw KE, Mayer RE (2008) A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. J Educ Psychol 100(1):223–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Deterding S (2011b) Situated motivational affordances of game elements: a conceptual model. Presented at gamification: using game design elements in non-gaming contexts, a workshop at CHI 2011. Retrieved from http://gamification-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/09-Deterding.pdf

  26. Dickey MD (2005) Engaging by design: how engagement strategies in popular computer and video games can inform instructional design. Educ Technol Res Dev 53:67–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dickey MD (2007) Game design and learning: a conjectural analysis of how massively multiple online role-playing games (MMORPGs) foster intrinsic motivation. Educ Technol Res Dev 55:253–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Duncan TG, McKeachie W (2005) The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educ Psychol 40(2):117–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fornell C, Bookstein FL (1982) Two structural equations models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. J Mark Res 19(4):440–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fornell C, Lorange P, Roos J (1990) The cooperative venture formation process: a latent variable structural modeling approach. Manag Sci 36(10):1246–1255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Frederickson K (1989) Anxiety transmission in the patient with myocardial infarction. Heart Lung J Crit Care 18(6):617–622

    Google Scholar 

  33. Garris R, Ahlers R, Driskell JE (2002) Games, motivation, and learning: a research and practice model. Simul Gaming 33(4):441–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gee JP (2005) Learning by design: good video games as learning machines. E-Learning 2:5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gerjets P, Scheiter K (2003) Goal configurations and processing strategies as moderators between instructional design and cognitive load: evidence from hypertext-based instruction. Educ Psychol 38(1):33–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hair JF, Black B, Babin B, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (1992) Multivariate data analysis, 6th edn. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hair J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2011) PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract 19(2):139–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hays RT (2005) The effectiveness of instructional games: a literature review and discussion. Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hembree R (1990) The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. J Res Math Educ 21:33–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ho H-Z, Senturk D, Lam AG, Zimmer JM, Hong S, Okamoto Y et al (2000) The affective and cognitive dimensions ofmath anxiety: a cross-national study. J Res Math Educ 31:362–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Huang Y-M, Jeng Y-L, Huang T-C (2009) An educational mobile blogging system for supporting collaborative learning. Educ Technol Soc 12(2):163–175

    Google Scholar 

  42. Huang YM, Lin YT, Cheng SC (2010) Effectiveness of a mobile plant learning system in a science curriculum in Taiwanese elementary education. Comput Educ 54(1):47–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hulland J (1999) Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strateg Manag J 20(2):195–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Jansson B, Najstrom M (2009) Is pre-attentive bias predictive of auto-nomicreactivity in response to a stressor? J Anxiety Disord 23(3):374–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kasvi JJJ (2000) Not just fun and games—internet games as a training medium. In: Kymäläinen P, Seppänen L (eds) Cosiga - Learning with computerised simulation games. HUT, Espoo, pp 23–34

    Google Scholar 

  46. Keller JM (1983) Motivational design of instruction. In: Reigeluth CM (ed) Instructional design theories and models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 386–434

  47. Kelly MM, Tyrka AR, Anderson GM, Price LH, Carpenter LL (2008) Sex differences in emotional and physiological responses to the Trier SocialStress Test. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 39(1):87–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Krinzinger H, Kaufmann L, Willmes K (2009) Math anxiety and math ability in early primary school years. J Psychoeduc Assess 27:206–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Laidra K, Pullmann H, Allik J (2007) Personality and intelligence as predictors of academic achievement: a cross-sectional study from elementary to secondary school. Personal Individ Differ 42(3):441–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Land SM, Hannafin MJ (1996) A conceptual framework for the development of theories-in-action with open-ended learning environments. Educ Technol Res Dev 44(3):37–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lee JJ, Hammer J (2011) Gamification in education: what, how, why bother? Acad Exch Q 15(2)

  52. Liu H‐C, Su I (2011) Learning residential electrical wiring through computer simulation: the impact of computer‐based learning environments on student achievement and cognitive load. Br J Educ Technol 42(4):598–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ma X (1999) A meta-analysis of the relationship between anxiety toward mathematics and achievement in mathematics. J Res Math Educ 30:520–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Mahmood S, Khatoon T (2011) Development and validation of the mathematics anxiety scale for secondary and senior secondary. Br J Arts Soc Sci 2(2):169–179

    Google Scholar 

  55. McGrenere JL (1996) Design: educational electronic multi-player games, a literature review. University of the British Columbia, British Columbia

    Google Scholar 

  56. Mead NR (2009) Software engineering education: how far we’ve come and how far we have to go. J Syst Softw 82(4):571–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Medalie JH, Goldbourt U (1976) Angina pectoris among 10,000 men: psychosocial and other risk factors as evidenced by multivariate analysis of a five-year incidence study. Am J Med 60:910–921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Medina MQ, Chaparro JP (2007) The impact of the human element in the information systems quality for decision making and user satisfaction. J Comput Inf Syst 48(2):44–52

  59. Michael Pressley CM (1995) Advanced educational psychology for educators, researchers, and policymakers. HarperCollins Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  60. Moreno-Ger P, Burgos D, Sierra JL, Fernández-Manjón B (2008) Educational game design for online education. Comput Hum Behav 24:2530–2540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Munn NL, Fernald DL, Fernald PS (1969) Introduction to psychology. Hougmton Miffin Co., Boston

    Google Scholar 

  62. Pavlou PA, Fygenson M (2006) Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Q 30(1):115–143

    Google Scholar 

  63. Peterson ER, Brown GTL, Irving SE (2010) Secondary school students’ conceptions of learning and their relationship to achievement. Learn Individ Differ 20(3):167–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Piccoli G, Ahmad R, Lves B (2001) Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training. MIS Q 25:401–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Prensky M (2001) Fun, play, and games: what makes games engaging. In: Digital Game-Based Learning. McGraw Hill, New York, pp 11–16

  66. Prensky M (2003) Digital game-based learning: exploring the digital generation. Educational technology, US Department of Education. Washington, DC

  67. Reigeluth CM (ed) (1983) Instructional-design theories and models: an overview of their current status. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  68. Rieber L, Noah D (2008) Games, simulations, and visual metaphors in education: antagonism between enjoyment and learning. Educ Med Int 45:77–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Ringle CM, Wende S, Will A (2005) SmartPLS-version 2.0. University at Hamburg, Germany, Available http://www.smartpls.de

    Google Scholar 

  70. Rooji SW (2009) Scaffold project-based learning with the project management body of knowledge. Comput Educ 52(1):210–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Rubinsten O, Tannock R (2010) Mathematics anxiety in children with developmental dyscalculia. Behav Brain Funct 6:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Sandberg J, Maris M, de Geus K (2011) Mobile English learning: an evidence-based study with fifth graders. Comput Educ 57(1):1334–1347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Sandberg K, Timmermans B, Overgaard M, Cleeremans A (2010) Measuring consciousness: is one measure better than the other? Conscious Cogn 19:1069–1078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Schnotz W (2010) Reanalyzing the expertise reversal effect. Instr Sci 38(3):315–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Schutte JG (1997) Virtual teaching in higher education: the new intellectual superhighway or just another traffic jam. California State Univerity, CA

    Google Scholar 

  76. Shapiro A M, Niederhauser DS (2004) Learning from hypertext: research issues and findings. In: Handbook of research on educational technology research and development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 605–620

  77. Snaith RP, Baugh SJ et al (1982) The clinical anxiety scale: an instrument derived from the Hamilton anxiety scale. Br J Psychiatry 141:518–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Spielberger CD (1989) State-trait anxiety inventory: bibliography, 2nd edn. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  79. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RC, Lushene RE, Vagg PR, Jacobs GA (1983) Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  80. Su C-H, Cheng C-H (2015) A mobile gamification learning system for improving the learning motivation and achievements. J Comput Assist Learn 31:268–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Sweller J, van Merrienboer J, Paas F (1998) Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev 10:251–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. van der Duim L, Andersson J, Sinnema M (2007) Good practices for educational software engineering projects. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering

  83. Van der Heijden H (2004) User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Q 28:695–704

    Google Scholar 

  84. van Vliet H (2006) Reflections on software engineering education. IEEE Softw 23(3):55–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Venkatesh V (2000) Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf Syst Res 11(4):342–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. von Wangenheim CG, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Shull F (2009) To game or not to game? IEEE Softw 26(2):92–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Webster J, Martocchio JJ (1992) Microcomputer playfulness: development of a measure with workplace implications. MIS Q 16(2):201–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Wixom BH, Watson HJ (2001) An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data warehousing success. MIS Q 25(1):17–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Wu W-H, Chen W-F, Wang T-L, Su C-H (2008) Developing and evaluating a game-based software engineering educational system. Int J Eng Educ 24(4):681–688

    Google Scholar 

  90. Young DJ (1991) Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: what does language anxiety research suggest? Mod Lang J 75:423–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Zichermann G, Cunningham C (2011) Gamification by design: implementing game mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is supported in part by the National Science Council of the Republic of China under contract numbers NSC 104-2410-H-366 -003 - and NSC 104-2622-H-366 -001 -CC3.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Animation and Game Design, Shu-Te University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

    Chung-Ho Su

Authors
  1. Chung-Ho Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chung-Ho Su.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Su, CH. The effects of students' motivation, cognitive load and learning anxiety in gamification software engineering education: a structural equation modeling study. Multimed Tools Appl 75, 10013–10036 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-015-2799-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-015-2799-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation