Skip to main content

Effects of gamified interactive e-books on students’ flipped learning performance, motivation, and meta-cognition tendency in a mathematics course

Abstract

It is widely recognized that flipped learning has great potential for enhancing students’ conceptual understanding through the reversed arrangement of before-class learning activities and in-class settings. However, this approach also raises the challenge of students having to obtain the learning content by themselves, especially for abstract concepts such as fractions, where students frequently encounter problems in mathematics education. In this study, we proposed a gamified interactive e-book approach to supporting a flipped mathematics classroom. To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, a quasi-experimental study was implemented in an elementary school mathematics course. There were three groups: the students who adopted the gamified interactive e-book in the mathematical flipped classroom (the GIEBFL group), the students who learned with conventional flipped learning (the CFL group), and those who learned with traditional instruction (the TI group). The results from a paper-and-pencil test indicated that the GIEBFL students significantly outperformed the CFL and TI students. In addition, the questionnaire of students’ learning motivation showed that the GIEBFL students had better motivation than the CFL and TI students. Also, the GIEBFL students achieved significantly higher meta-cognition tendency than the TI students.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

References

  1. Ayinde, O. M. (2014). Impact of instructional object based card game on learning mathematics: instructional design nettle. Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research (MAJER), 8, 4–18.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baxter, R. J., Holderness, D. K., Jr., & Wood, D. A. (2015). Applying basic gamification techniques to IT compliance training: Evidence from the lab and field. Journal of Information Systems, 30(3), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-51341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology. in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2017). Technology usage in mathematics education research–A systematic review of recent trends. Computers & Education, 114, 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2016). Gamification and student motivation. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1162–1175. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.964263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cilli-Turner, E. (2015). Measuring learning outcomes and attitudes in a flipped introductory statistics course. Primus, 25(9–10), 833–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2015.1046004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cronk, M. 2012 Using gamification to increase student engagement and participation in class discussion. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 311–315). CA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

  10. Dehghanzadeh, S., & Jafaraghaee, F. (2018). Comparing the effects of traditional lecture and flipped classroom on nursing students’ critical thinking disposition: a quasi-experimental study. Nurse Education Today, 71, 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.09.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. De-Marcos, L., Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., & Pagés, C. (2014). An empirical study comparing gamification and social networking on e-learning. Computers & Education, 75, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.01.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. 2011 From game design elements to gamefulness: defining „gamification”. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments (MindTrek ’11). New York, NY, USA: ACM

  13. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. E. 2011 From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. Mindtrek 2011 Proceedings. Tampere, Finland: ACM Press

  14. Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: a systematic mapping study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.18.3.75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ding, L., Er, E., & Orey, M. (2018). An exploratory study of student engagement in gamified online discussions. Computers & Education, 120, 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. El Tantawi, M., Sadaf, S., & AlHumaid, J. (2018). Using gamification to develop academic writing skills in dental undergraduate students. European Journal of Dental Education, 22(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. The nature of intelligence, 48(2), 13–21. https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10021876052/

  18. Ford, P. (2015). Flipping a math content course for pre-service elementary school teachers. Primus, 25(4), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2014.981902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Forsey, M., Low, M., & Glance, D. (2013). Flipping the sociology classroom: Towards a practice of online pedagogy. Journal of Sociology, 49(4), 471–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783313504059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gatti, L., Ulrich, M., & Seele, P. (2019). Education for sustainable development through business simulation games: an exploratory study of sustainability gamification and its effects on students’ learning outcomes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 207, 667–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ge, Z. G. (2018). The impact of a forfeit-or-prize gamified teaching on e-learners’ learning performance. Computers & Education, 126, 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Geiger, V., Faragher, R., & Goos, M. (2010). CAS-enabled technologies as ‘agents provocateurs’ in teaching and learning mathematical modelling in secondary school classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(2), 48–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gowers, W.T. 2000 The two cultures of mathematics. In V.I., Atiyah, M., & Mazur, B.W. (Eds.), Mathematics: Frontiers and Perspectives (pp. 65–78). Providence, RI:American Mathematical Society

  24. Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: a longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education, 80, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Herreid, C. F., & Schiller, N. A. (2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62– 66. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43631584

  26. Hew, K. F., Huang, B., Chu, K. W. S., & Chiu, D. K. (2016). Engaging Asian students through game mechanics: findings from two experiment studies. Computers & Education, 92, 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hwang, G. J., & Lai, C. L. (2017). Facilitating and bridging out-of-class and in-class learning: An interactive e-book-based flipped learning approach for math courses. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 184–197. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.20.1.184

  28. Hwang, G. J., Lai, C. L., & Wang, S. Y. (2015). Seamless flipped learning: a mobile technology-enhanced flipped classroom with effective learning strategies. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(4), 449–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0043-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hwang, G. J., Yang, T. C., Tsai, C. C., & Yang, S. J. (2009). A context-aware ubiquitous learning environment for conducting complex science experiments. Computers & Education, 53(2), 402–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ichinose, C., & Clinkenbeard, J. (2016). Flipping college algebra: effects on student engagement and achievement. Learning Assistance Review, 21(1), 115–129.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jagušt, T., Botički, I., & So, H. J. (2018). Examining competitive, collaborative and adaptive gamification in young learners’ math learning. Computers & Education, 125, 444–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Johnston, B. M. (2017). Implementing a flipped classroom approach in a university numerical methods mathematics course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(4), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2016.1259516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Computers as Mindtools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking. Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jou, M., Tennyson, R. D., Wang, J., & Huang, S. Y. (2016). A study on the usability of E-books and APP in engineering courses: a case study on mechanical drawing. Computers & Education, 92, 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kim, M. K., Kim, S. M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The Experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: an Exploration of design principles. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kuo, F. R., Hwang, G. J., & Lee, C. C. (2012). A hybrid approach to promoting students’ web-based problem-solving competence and learning attitude. Computers & Education, 58(1), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). Effects of mobile learning time on students’ conception of collaboration, communication, complex problem–solving, meta–cognitive awareness and creativity. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 8(3–4), 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2014.067029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lin, Y. N., Hsia, L. H., & Hwang, G. J. (2021). Promoting pre-class guidance and in-class reflection: a SQIRC-based mobile flipped learning approach to promoting students’ billiards skills, strategies, motivation and self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 160, 104035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2018). A comparison of flipped learning with gamification, traditional learning, and online independent study: the effects on students’ mathematics achievement and cognitive engagement. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1541910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Love, B., Hodge, A., Grandgenett, N., & Swift, A. W. (2014). Student learning and perceptions in a flipped linear algebra course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45(3), 317–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2013.822582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Maaß, K., & Artigue, M. (2013). Implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching: a synthesis. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(6), 779–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0528-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mattis, K. V. (2015). Flipped classroom versus traditional textbook instruction: assessing accuracy and mental effort at different levels of mathematical complexity. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20(2), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9238-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Maynard, S. (2010). The impact of e-books on young children’s reading habits. Publishing Research Quarterly, 26(4), 236–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-010-9180-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. McLaughlin, J. E., Griffin, L. M., Esserman, D. A., Davidson, C. A., Glatt, D. M., Roth, M. T., & Mumper, R. J. (2013). Pharmacy student engagement, performance, and perception in a flipped satellite classroom. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 77(9), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe779196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Opwis, K., & Tuch, A. N. (2013) Disassembling gamification: the effects of points and meaning on user motivation and performance. In CHI'13 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1137–1142).

  47. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Mutlu, Y. (2019). Math anxiety in students with and without math learning difficulties. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 11(5), 471–475. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2019553343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Olive, J., Makar, K., Hoyos, V., Kor, L. K., Kosheleva, O., & Sträßer, R. 2009 Mathematical knowledge and practices resulting from access to digital technologies. In Mathematics education and technology-rethinking the terrain (pp. 133–177). Springer, Boston, MA.

  51. Pierce, R., & Fox, J. (2012). Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a “flipped classroom” model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7610196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T. and McKeachie, W.J. (1991) A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, Tech. Rep. No. 91-B-004, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

  53. Prensky, M. (2007) Digital Game-Based Learning. Saint Paul, MN: Paragon House.

  54. Re, A. M., Benavides-Varela, S., Pedron, M., De Gennaro, M. A., & Lucangeli, D. (2020). Response to a specific and digitally supported training at home for students with mathematical difficulties. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2039. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Reeves, B., & Read, L. (2009). Total engagement. Using Games and Virtual Worlds to change the way people work and businesses compete, 132–133

  56. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sahin, A., Cavlazoglu, B., & Zeytuncu, Y. E. (2015). Flipping a college calculus course: a case study. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.18.3.142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sailer, M., & Sailer, M. (2021). Gamification of in-class activities in flipped classroom lectures. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Schultz, D., Duffield, S., Rasmussen, S. C., & Wageman, J. (2014). Effects of the flipped classroom model on student performance for advanced placement high school chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(9), 1334–1339. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400868x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: a survey. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Shi, L., & Cristea, A. I. 2016 Motivational gamification strategies rooted in self-determination theory for social adaptive e-learning. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 294-300). Springer, Cham

  62. Skemp, R. (1993). Sail Through Mathematics : Structured activities for intelligent learning. Calgary, Canada: EEC Ltd.

  63. Smeets, D. J., & Bus, A. G. (2012). Interactive electronic storybooks for kindergartners to promote vocabulary growth. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 112(1), 36–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Smeets, D. J., & Bus, A. G. (2015). The interactive animated e-book as a word learning device for kindergartners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(4), 899. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716413000556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Song, Y., Jong, M. S., Chang, M., & Chen, W. (2017). Guest Editorial: “HOW” to Design, Implement and Evaluate the Flipped Classroom?–A Synthesis. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 180–183. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.20.1.180

  66. Star, J. R., Chen, J. A., Taylor, M. W., Durkin, K., Dede, C., & Chao, T. (2014). Studying technology-based strategies for enhancing motivation in mathematics. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-7822-1-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Strelan, P., Osborn, A., & Palmer, E. (2020). The flipped classroom: a meta-analysis of effects on student performance across disciplines and education levels. Educational Research Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Sun, J. C. Y., Wu, Y. T., & Lee, W. I. (2017). The effect of the flipped classroom approach to OpenCourseWare instruction on students’ self-regulation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 713–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Tsai, C. C. (2005). Preferences toward Internet-based learning environments: High school students' perspectives for science learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 203–213. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.8.2.203

  71. Van Vliet, E. A., Winnips, J. C., & Brouwer, N. (2015). Flipped-class pedagogy enhances student metacognition and collaborative-learning strategies in higher education but effect does not persist. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-09-0141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Villagrasa, S., Fonseca, D., Redondo, E., & Duran, J. (2014). Teaching case of gamification and visual technologies for education. Journal of Cases on Information Technology (JCIT), 16(4), 38–57. https://doi.org/10.4018/jcit.2014100104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Wang, L. C., & Chen, M. P. (2010). The effects of game strategy and preference-matching on flow experience and programming performance in game-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290903525838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Yang, Q. F., Chang, S. C., Hwang, G. J., & Zou, D. (2020). Balancing cognitive complexity and gaming level: Effects of a cognitive complexity-based competition game on EFL students’ English vocabulary learning performance, anxiety and behaviors. Computers & Education, 148, 103808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Yang, Q. F., Lin, C. J., & Hwang, G. J. (2019). Research focuses and findings of flipping mathematics classes: a review of journal publications based on the technology-enhanced learning model. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1637351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Zainuddin, Z. (2018). Students’ learning performance and perceived motivation in gamified flipped-class instruction. Computers & Education, 126, 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is supported in part by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China under Contract Numbers MOST-109-2511-H-011-002-MY3 and MOST-108-2511-H-011-005-MY3.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gwo-Jen Hwang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors would like to declare that there is no conflict of interest in this study. The participants were protected by hiding their personal information during the research process. They knew that the participation was voluntary and they could withdraw from the study at any time.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, J., Hwang, GJ., Chang, SC. et al. Effects of gamified interactive e-books on students’ flipped learning performance, motivation, and meta-cognition tendency in a mathematics course. Education Tech Research Dev 69, 3255–3280 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10053-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Flipped learning
  • Gamification
  • Technology-enhanced learning
  • Mathematics education
  • Interactive e-book
  • Self-determination theory