computers

Article
Gamification as a Strategy to Increase Motivation and Engagement
in Higher Education Chemistry Students
Guillermo M. Chans 1 and May Portuguez Castro 2, *

1 School of Engineering and Sciences, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Av. Carlos Lazo 100,
Mexico City 01389, Mexico; [email protected]
2 Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey 64849, Mexico
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: In the last year, educational experiences have become increasingly challenging due to
teaching classes remotely. For this reason, it has been necessary to develop educational strategies that
accompany the use of new technologies to maintain student interest. One of these methodologies
is gamification, implemented in school environments more frequently due to the pandemic and
whose impact on student motivation and engagement needs to be explored. The literature shows
that student participation in these contexts should be increased when applying this methodology,
where teachers can also provide greater support. This research proposes improving these aspects
by developing a gamification strategy that can be easily replicated in other environments. This
study was carried out for a chemistry course at a university in central Mexico. This proposal
details the short-, medium-, and long-term bonuses which stimulated and motivated students and
achieved specific objectives. We also present the quantitative results of a questionnaire applied to





 48 engineering students to identify their perceptions of how gamification could increase motivation
and engagement in learning the subject of chemistry. In addition, pre- and post-knowledge tests were
Citation: Chans, G.M.; Portuguez
Castro, M. Gamification as a Strategy
applied to determine whether there were changes in the learning outcomes. The results indicated that
to Increase Motivation and gamification increased student motivation and engagement, improved attitudes, promoted actions
Engagement in Higher Education such as keeping the camera on during lectures and regular attendance, and improved student grades.
Chemistry Students. Computers 2021, This study fills the need for planning strategies to help improve student motivation in online classes
10, 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/ and proposes an instrument to measure the results. It can be helpful to those interested in applying
computers10100132 or adapting it in other disciplines.

Academic Editors: Ioana Keywords: gamification; motivation; engagement; higher education; educational innovation;
Andreea Stefan and Samir Garbaya professional education

Received: 31 July 2021

Accepted: 11 October 2021
Published: 16 October 2021
1. Introduction

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

The training of science students is increasingly challenging, complicated by the recent
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
pandemic which forced educational institutions to resort to distance learning to continue
published maps and institutional affil- student education [1]. This situation was difficult for students to understand, so virtual
iations. environments had to be adequately prepared to maintain their attention and commitment.
In many cases, the students were not ready to face this new reality. Thus, teaching strategies
during the pandemic included tools for better understanding the topics presented within a
wholly digital environment.
Digital pedagogies aim for personalized and adaptive learning in a virtual context;
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
their new designs must create innovative teaching–learning environments which improve
This article is an open access article
students’ experiences and results [2,3]. These pedagogies include strategies which promote
distributed under the terms and active learning, involving students in solving real-life problems [4].
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
1.1. Gamification
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ One of the learning strategies used in online learning is gamification, which has
4.0/). attracted a great deal of interest in recent decades due to its potential influence on improving

Computers 2021, 10, 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10100132 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/computers

Computers 2021, 10, 132 2 of 24

user engagement and enjoyment [5]. Gamification is a method where different game
strategies and mechanics are employed in non-game contexts to promote user engagement
and motivation [6]. This methodology seeks to engage users in an interactive system that
motivates them to participate in the process of a given activity [7,8]. The central idea is to
take elements from games and implement them in real-world situations, often to motivate
specific behaviors [9,10], aiming to support and encourage the user toward the targeted
behavior, such as a participation in learning activities [11].
Gamification is considered to be innovative and can be applied in a variety of contexts.
According to the literature, there are different ways in which this tool can be adapted
in the educational environment. One of the main fields that gamification can positively
impact is online learning [12], where one of its benefits is to address problems such as the
lack of student motivation. In the educational environment, there are different techniques
associated with game design to improve interactions with students. These strategies allow
students to develop curricular, social, and cognitive competencies [13] due to their potential
to generate a feeling of empowerment to achieve tasks and work collaboratively, among
other values related to games [14].
Previous studies viewed gamification as a didactic technique favoring students’ pro-
fessional skills, increasing the sense of community, improving how content is learned, and
increasing engagement [15].
This finding was essential due to the need to create virtual learning spaces, so the
contribution of this strategy was to foster interactions among users and improve motiva-
tion [16]. Gamification activities incentivized the user toward specific actions or behav-
iors [11]. They helped the learners’ long-term engagement and persistence to attain the
results of the learning activities. Although there are many studies on this topic, gamification
still has excellent potential for further research, especially its impact on learner motivation.
Among the main gaming elements are points, badges, leaderboards (PBL) [13], awards,
recognitions, achievement levels and respective feedback, which must be strategically used
to achieve the intended interactivity and engagement with the problem, the content, and
the target audience [17]. However, the game elements alone do not make people more mo-
tivated [18]. Principles must be applied to be successful in implementing gamification, [19]
such as:
• Relatedness: refers to the need to be connected to others.
• Competence: the need to be effective and master a problem in a given environment.
• Autonomy: the need to be in control of one’s own life.
We used these design principles in the proposal we developed, aiming to increase
students’ motivation toward the course in this study.

1.2. Gamification in Science

Gamification seeks to promote student participation and involvement in science teach-
ing, resulting in students’ more significant commitment and better learning, especially for
subjects requiring abstract concepts such as chemistry. A study conducted with chemistry
students [20] sought to increase motivation since students generally consider the contents
of the chemistry curriculum to be abstract and challenging to learn, mainly due to the
difficulty in relating chemistry to the world in which they live. Therefore, the authors
used a hybrid game (combining a board game with an app) to study organic acids and
bases, where students advanced in the game by practicing their knowledge acquired in
the game classroom [21]. The research showed that the game promoted the interaction
among students and improved the results obtained in tests with minimal supervision from
their teacher.
Another experience was conducted in XMOOC courses in Mexico on the topic of
clean energies and technologies [22]. In this educational experience, the authors included
gamification and assessed the results in three dimensions: cognitive, social, and emotional.
In this course, activities that promoted the self-regulation of learning were included, using
elements such as immediate feedback, multiple attempts, boards, and badges [23]. The
Computers 2021, 10, 132 3 of 24

results showed that 90% of the participants agreed that they felt more motivated and
challenged than traditional methods. The authors considered that this methodology could
improve the participants’ experiences of these courses in online teaching.
Finally, another study conducted in an ocean science course used game-based learning
to develop scientific competencies in students based on the Program for International Stu-
dent Assessment (PISA). After applying the methodology in an experimental group, they
obtained better skills than those who did not perform these activities. This model positively
affected participants’ learning and inquiry competencies. The authors suggested further
research on the positive impact of gamification activities on these skills [24]. Although
these studies reported positive results, measuring the impact on motivation and interest,
we also needed to analyze whether the motivation was caused by extrinsic stimuli such as
rewards (where learners may see their engagement decrease when they no longer receive
them) [25], or if motivation was intrinsic and kept the students interested in learning.
Therefore, the following section reviews the concepts and the dimensions assessed by the
instrument used in this study to measure motivation and engagement.

1.3. Motivation and Engagement

Several studies report student motivation and engagement as essential factors in
achieving higher levels of success in the completion of their courses. Motivation is the
internal process that provides a person with the energy to direct his or her efforts toward
satisfying a need [26]. On the other hand, engagement refers to the manifestation of
that motivation; an action contributes toward attaining a goal [27]. Both attitudes are
necessary to achieve better results; however, they are challenging, especially in online
educational environments.
In gamification, a commonly used framework for understanding the potential of
games in motivation is Self-Determination Theory (SDT). SDT states that students have
an innate tendency to engage in the classroom and that this motivation is augmented
by the previously mentioned needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness [28,29].
Autonomy refers to the freedom to choose which challenges to undertake; competence
refers to the feelings of mastering the challenge in question, and relatedness refers to
the experiences of recognition and acceptance that develop within these activities [13].
Games aim to integrate these principles to achieve an intrinsic motivation in students.
Gamification optimizes the way for students and teachers to remain connected to each
other [30]. This interconnectedness is generated by balancing extrinsic and intrinsic factors
to promote real education.
One model used to identify the level of motivation in education and technology is
Keller’s ARCS (attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction) model [31,32]. This model
focuses on stimulating and maintaining student motivation, so it is required that each of
the categories be present in the motivational strategies used in the teaching processes [33].
The categories defined in the ARCS model [32] are:
• Attention: consists of capturing students’ interest and stimulating their curiosity
to learn. It implies that strategies such as variability, inquiry, and engagement
are included.
• Relevance: consists of considering the students’ personal needs or goals to generate
a positive attitude. These strategies include the need for play, future usefulness,
modeling, and choice.
• Confidence: helps students believe they will succeed, and that they know how to
control this success. This attitude requires strategies which improve self-confidence,
identify learning requirements, and raise expectations, among others.
• Satisfaction: refers to reinforcing achievements with internal or external rewards.
These strategies consider unexpected rewards, positive outcomes, negative influences,
and scheduling.
An engagement in education makes the learner more connected to the learning pro-
cess. According to Haruna et al. [34], engagement can be assessed in students in different
Computers 2021, 10, 132 4 of 24

ways, with observable behaviors such as body language, participation, confidence, and
enthusiasm, as well as unobservable behaviors such as individual attention, clarity of
learning, and orientation. These characteristics cause the learner to develop a sense of
engagement and ownership in their learning process. They are organized into three main
categories: enjoyment, interest, and challenge [35]. A systematic literature review con-
ducted by Loureiro et al. [36] found that, to improve engagement in participants, designers
must provide realistic environments with tools which are easy to use for both teachers and
students. In addition, teaching must be more practice-oriented, where the student learns
by practical means. Recent studies have found that gamification contributes to a friendlier
environment which positively impacts engagement, especially in the short term.
In this study, engagement is analyzed in two dimensions: emotional and cognitive.
Emotional engagement refers to positive reactions to school, such as enjoyment and the
experience of belonging [37]. On the other hand, cognitive engagement refers to strategic
learning skills, motivation, and problem-solving [38,39]. Both types of engagement are
correlated with gamification strategies to drive students’ motivation and academic success.
Some studies have been developed during the current COVID-19 pandemic, analyzing
how gamification can improve students’ motivation and commitment. Nieto-Escamez et al. [40]
conducted a study to review the results by applying gamification during the health contin-
gency period. The authors searched different databases such as Scopus, ERIC and Semantic
Scholar and identified 11 papers from chemistry, business, computer science, biology, and
medicine. The results showed that gamification was innovative and attractive for all cases
and was perceived as a fun activity. Nevertheless, some students did not engage in the
activities due to having a poor psychological state due to isolation. In the reported study
on chemistry [21], a game initially designed for the classroom was conducted online due to
remote learning. The students rated it satisfactory as an educational tool; however, there
were no differences between the grades of students experiencing the gamified system and
those who took the traditional course.
One of the research findings by [40] is that the literature is more oriented toward
gamification in STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). This
is potentially caused by the difficulties in carrying out laboratory practices at home after
face-to-face classes were suspended. Although these studies sought to improve student
motivation and engagement, these efforts were improvised, and thus the gamified environ-
ment was poorly planned. Therefore, some of them had little or no student participation,
failing to increase intrinsic motivation to perform the activities. The authors suggested
detailing the objective of the gamified activity and providing continuous support from
the teacher. Finally, they considered that gamification could become an excellent form of
learning support, combined with traditional learning activities. The studies suggested that
it could provide an alternative, technology-supported, post-COVID-19 learning initiative
through its incorporation into academic programs.
Another study in recent literature sought to identify the different elements in online
education to measure the results obtained for student motivation when using strategies
such as gamification. The authors found that online activities required more engagement,
self-regulation, and interest to participate in the activities, so technology played a vital
role in improving learning methodologies, motivation, and engagement to increase par-
ticipation in the assigned tasks [41]. To conduct this study, the authors applied a survey
to students and parents, where they determined that online education required students
to be more involved and had better pull factors. In addition, respondents indicated that
the use of smartphones to access virtual platforms increased, which in turn increased the
number of technical problems. The authors mentioned that eye contact did not exist in
this format if students did not turn on the camera, making it difficult to know whether
they understood the concepts which were taught. Finally, they indicated that although
gamification activities were incorporated, few students were involved in these processes,
so they recommended creating gamified environments which improved student–teacher
interaction and collaborative learning in group activities. As in the previous studies, gami-
Computers 2021, 10, 132 5 of 24

fication is seen as an alternative, even after schools reopen, to continue using technologies
(such as mobile applications) that allow for interactions and improve learning.
Raju et al. [42] sought to identify the results of gamification activities in engineering
courses during the pandemic. The authors mentioned that in virtual environments, it was
difficult for teachers to observe students’ attention and to be able to take actions to improve
motivation, measures which were more easily achieved in in-person classes. Therefore,
they proposed using different technological tools with gamification activities to maintain
students’ motivation. To measure the result, they conducted surveys and observed as the
course progressed, students increased their participation, attaining 100% engagement with
the proposed activities. The authors concluded that student engagement became vital to
achieving better participation and learning results in these virtual environments with no
face-to-face interaction with the teacher.
According to the literature reviewed, although gamification activities are being carried
out to improve student motivation and engagement in distance learning environments,
greater student participation and better teacher preparation are still required. Studies show
that integrating gamification in distance courses was accelerated and with little planning
on the part of teachers so that planning activities and teacher involvement were necessary
to increase the intrinsic motivation of the students [40]. In addition, it was identified that a
greater student involvement and the formulation of other proposals for technology-based
gamified environments were needed, which were maintained even after the pandemic [41].
Therefore, our study seeks to fill this gap by presenting a gamification proposal that is
simple to use and seeks to increase student participation in online classes, with teachers
monitoring their progress at all times. We believe that the benefits of these strategies
can improve student learning, motivation, and participation in online courses. It can be
helpful to continue using technology in gamified environments to support education in the
post-COVID-19 era.
This study aimed to present the results of implementing a gamification strategy in two
chemistry courses to improve student motivation and engagement. The proposed activities
were mediated by gamification to increase the interest of the participants.
The importance of this study lies in the fact that the innovative proposal developed
in this research is not exclusive to chemistry or science in general but is fully adaptable
to other disciplines. In addition, this format can be used in different contexts (blended or
face-to-face) which require improving student learning outcomes. As a contribution, this
study will be helpful for teachers, instructional designers, curriculum designers, and others
interested in gamification and measuring its impact on student motivation and engagement.
The instruments and pedagogical strategies used may be helpful in other disciplines as
well. This study is innovative due to the simplicity of the adaptation. It proposes easy-to-
implement gamification strategies that teachers can use by facing challenges such as the
lack of time and lack of knowledge of proposals which help improve student motivation
and engagement.

2. Materials and Methods

This section describes the methodology followed in this study, first explaining the
general details of both subjects, how the students interacted with the technology, the
organization of Q1028 and Q1029, and the definition of gamification. Then, the sample
description, instruments, and how the data analysis was performed. The contextual focus
of this study was a completely online environment caused by the pandemic. The research
sought to measure the effects of the proposed gamification activities on student motivation
and engagement in this context. It was expected that it could also be used in blended or
face-to-face environments with technology support.
In this research, a quasi-experimental study was conducted to collect data to evaluate a
studied phenomenon and identify the intervention’s effects [43]. The study was conducted
at a university in central Mexico through two undergraduate chemistry courses: Funda-
mentals of the Structure and Transformation of Matter (Q1028) and Analysis of the Structure and
Computers 2021, 10, 132 6 of 24

Transformation of Matter (Q1029) in the 2020–2021 academic year. These were consecutive
subjects in the first-year curriculum of the engineering majors studying under the new
Tec21 educational model at Tecnologico de Monterrey [44]. The courses were implemented
in an online format known as the Digital Flexible Model. The 100-point grading scale
had a passing score of 70. The study had 48 students from various engineering majors
(22 students studying Q1028 and 26 studying Q1029) comprising the sample to know the
students’ assessment of the gamification strategy.

2.1. General Details of Courses Q1028 and Q1029

Among the thematic contents in these courses are the properties and transformations
of matter, how they occur, and the speed of changes; they describe the atomic structure
and reactivity of substances. These theory subjects each consist of ten two-hour sessions.
For this study, an assistant professor was essential for counting points and the continuous
communication with the students. Both subjects consisted of several sections with different
weightings, as Figure 1 explains below.

Figure 1. Diagram with the different sections and their respective weightings of courses Q1028
and Q1029.

2.2. Use of Technology

In this study, several gamification activities were carried out, some in class and others
with computer support, including tasks and evaluations in the Canvas learning manage-
ment system, multiple-choice quizzes, and, finally, previous activities and assignments
in the Mastering Chemistry (MC) platform from Pearson. All calculations to score the
achievements were completed in an Excel spreadsheet and then published in Canvas so
that each student could track their grades and bonuses privately.

2.3. Organization of Q1028 and Q1029

2.3.1. Previous Activities and Assignments
The previous activities (PA) and assignments (A) were planned using the Mastering
Chemistry platform, as explained below:
• Three previous activities were planned, which consisted of a pre-class reading of the
book Chemistry: A Molecular Approach by Tro et al. [45]. Students had to solve
ten straightforward exercises to demonstrate a basic knowledge at the beginning of
the class.
• Five assignments were scheduled (usually 1 per week), with 15 exercises on average,
more complex than the previous activities, including all the content seen in the week.
Each exercise could be repeated three times.
Some exercises, usually solving numerical problems, were automatically modified
when performed again to learn how to perform them effectively. Once the previous activity
Computers 2021, 10, 132 7 of 24

or assignment was finished, students could repeat it three times for more practice and
improve the grade they obtained.

2.3.2. Problem Situation

The problem situation (challenge) is the central axis of the subjects in the Tec21
model [44], where the challenge-based learning (CBL) strategy [46] is applied. Through
CBL, the student is actively involved in an actual situation connected with the real-world
environment. CBL involves analyzing, proposing, and implementing a solution based on
the knowledge obtained during classes. Students were randomly divided into teams of
four to six people to work on the challenge.
The topic covered in Q1028 was an oil spill in a northern Mexican city. The learning
objective was to link concepts of solubility of polar and non-polar compounds through
chemical bonding. Q1029 dealt with the functioning of automobile airbags from a chemical
perspective, studying the chemical reactions in an airbag and their stoichiometry and
thermodynamics.
Both Q1028 and Q1029 required two scheduled advances (quizzes) and a final paper.
The first advance consisted of a questionnaire with ten multiple-choice questions that each
student had to solve outside of class. They could answer twice. The advances’ intentions
were to involve them in the situation they had to solve. Subsequently, the students had
a week to deliver a group report that elaborated on a series of tables directed to the end
of the course. They then made a creative video as evidence of their final work. The video
integrated all the content and proposed a solution to the problem studied and reflected on
the possible environmental and social impact.

2.3.3. Short Exams and Final Exams

Two short exams with fifteen multiple choice questions were given in sessions 5 and 8,
respectively, in both courses. At the end of the course, a final exam in session 10 provided
a summative evaluation, which contained between 8 and 10 multiple options and three
problems with several questions to be answered. Great care was taken to elaborate the
exams, preferably from the third level of Bloom’s taxonomy, although there were some at
the comprehension level.
Each question had 2 or 3 different versions (always taking care that the same content
was evaluated); thus, all the students’ exams were different, although as similar as possible
in difficulty. Each exam had a maximum grade of 100 points. The exams were taken
during class time with the help of the LockDown Browser program to block other computer
applications. In addition, before the start of each assessment, students had to show their
workstations one by one. They were allowed only a sheet of paper, pencil and eraser, a
calculator, and a form provided by the teacher. After each short, out-of-class exam, students
could solve a short mini-test with six additional multiple-choice questions (each question
worth 3 points) only once. This mini-test was intended to improve the grade obtained in
the corresponding short exam, with a maximum possible grade of 100 points. The schedule
of the subjects is shown in Figure 2.

2.4. Gamification System

Our project intended to provide an entertaining and enjoyable experience. At the
same time, students learned chemistry, and we determined whether gamification could
improve students’ motivation and engagement with conventional activities conducted
in the classroom. The basic design had to adhere to the three principles of gamification:
relatedness, competence, and autonomy [18,19]. Relatedness became very relevant be-
cause classroom interactions in small group teaching were a conducive environment for
interactions among students and even more necessary in an online format. Table 1 below
summarizes all the possible achievements that could be obtained, the conditions necessary
to obtain them, and the respective rewards.
Computers 2021, 10, 132 8 of 24

Figure 2. Calendar of subjects Q1028 and Q1029 with due dates for all assigned activities.

Gamification activities can be divided into long-term, medium-term, and short-term

activities.

2.4.1. Long-Term Activities

Since class attendance is optional at Tecnologico de Monterrey, students could obtain
0.5 points that would be added to the final average if they achieved perfect attendance
(only one excused absence with prior notice was allowed) (Figure 3a). Additionally, due to
the difficulty that teachers had with students not turning on the cameras during classes [47],
they were incentivized with 0.5 points toward the overall grade if they kept the camera on at
all times, having to notify the teacher if they were absent for a moment (Figure 3b). Finally,
they were offered one extra point for participating in this research study if they completed
a questionnaire at the beginning and end of the course to measure academic performance
(pre-test and post-test) and completed the perception survey on the gamification technique
(Figure 3c).

2.4.2. Medium-Term Activities

To help students retain knowledge in each of the three required readings correspond-
ing to the previous activities, we urged students to create mind maps (MM) (Figure 4).
A mind map is a didactic strategy that facilitates organizing ideas and thoughts and
hierarchizes information intuitively [48]. For their correct evaluation, students had a check-
list. For each MM correctly performed, they could obtain 0.5 extra points in the final
integrative exam.
As mentioned earlier, science subjects and chemistry generally had a certain degree of
difficulty for students [49]. In addition, due to the tight time to develop the curriculum,
platforms such as Mastering Chemistry (MC) helped students practice at home with more
exercises. To motivate them to practice more and improve learning, we offered students
an achievement which, depending on the average they obtained in the homework grades,
could benefit extra points in the final integrative exam (Figure 5). The first possible achieve-
ment was to complete all the MC assignments with an average between 70 and 89.9 points,
thus being awarded one extra point in the final exam. The next step would be to achieve
an average between 90 and 96.9, or to obtain 2 points. Finally, achieving an average of 97
Computers 2021, 10, 132 9 of 24

or higher, the student was awarded 3 points on the final exam. It should be noted that
obtaining one of these achievements automatically excluded the others.

Table 1. Conditions to obtain all possible achievements, together with their respective awards.

Achievement Condition Reward

Praise the Sun! 1 Have perfect attendance. 0.5 extra points in the final grade.

1 Leave your camera on during the entire

Knock, knock . . . are you still there? 0.5 extra points in the final grade.
session (stay in frame).
Complete the survey and answer the
Legendary Research 1 1 extra point in the final grade.
pre-test and post-test.
Create mind maps (MM) of selected 0.5 extra points in the final exam’s grade
Season passes 2
readings. for each MM.

2 Complete all MC Assignments (average

Are You Not Entertained? 1 extra point in the final exam’s grade.
score from 70 to 89.9).
Complete all MC Assignments with an
Now That’s an Achievement! 2 average score equal to or greater than 90 up 2 extra points in the final exam’s grade.
to 96.9.
Complete all MC Assignments with an
Head Case 2 3 extra points in the final exam’s grade.
average score equal to or higher than 97.
Supportive, willing to help, showing
2 extra points in the problem situation’s
Upright Citizens 2 interest in others, respectful, positive
grade (1 person per team).
attitude in the problem situation.
Solving exercises on the
whiteboard/Answering classmates’
1 token for each participation. Every
A Bit of This, A Bit of That 3 questions in class/Solving quiz
3 tokens earn 1 ticket. Cumulative.
problems/Answer the teacher’s questions
correctly.
1 Long-term achievements. 2 Medium-term achievements. 3 Short-term achievements.

Figure 3. Long-term achievement based on (a) attending class, (b); keeping the camera on, and
(c) collaborating with the research study conducted.
Computers 2021, 10, 132 10 of 24

Figure 4. Mid-term achievement creating mind maps to earn points on the final exam.

Figure 5. Medium-term achievement based on the grades of the MC assignments.

Students in group settings collaboratively achieved much greater conceptual un-

derstanding than students in courses in an individual setting [50]. Likewise, individual
responsibility was an essential aspect of positive interdependence theory. Because students
recognized differences in contributions when working collaboratively [51], an achievement
was designed that rewarded the students within each team who maintained a positive
attitude, were respectful to others throughout the project, showed interest in others, and
were always willing to help his or her group (Figure 6). Each student had to vote for one
of his or her teammates (self-voting was not valid). The achievement was effective when
the student received at least two votes. If there were two or more winners with the same
number of votes, they all won the achievement.

Figure 6. Medium-term achievement for the problem situation section.

2.4.3. Short-Term Activities

Students could obtain tokens, which were converted into tickets once three tokens
were collected. These were cumulative and could be used whenever they wanted until
the end of the course. At the end of each class, with the help of the assistant teacher, the
students were notified of how many tickets they had accumulated. These tickets could be
used in two ways (Figure 7):
Computers 2021, 10, 132 11 of 24

• Lifeline: they could request to open a previous activity or assignment extemporane-

ously for 24 h without any penalty.
• Narrow it down: in the short exam or final exam, they could ask if one of the multiple-
choice items was correct or not, where they would get a short answer privately from
the teacher or teaching assistant: YES or NO. Each multiple-choice question had five
possible items (A through E). The student was allowed to use several tickets on the
same question, so if they asked that the correct item was option B and it was incorrect,
they could use another ticket for the same question.

Figure 7. (a) Short-term achievement: How to obtain tickets through participation. (b) Two different
ways to use tickets.

The Lifeline achievement was conceived because the subjects in this educational model
usually contained a lot of content, and thus some work was likely to be forgotten. Thus,
requests to reopen an assignment changed from being a favor asked to the teacher to a
right that students had if they participated in class.
Additionally, Narrow it down was included for those who completed all the assign-
ments and could benefit from using these tickets during any exam.
Students had several ways in which they could earn the tokens. During class, students
who wanted to solve the proposed exercises were rewarded with a token. There were times
when all students who wanted to solve the exercises were asked. At other times, some
students were selected, usually the shyest, those who were afraid of making mistakes, or
those who had fewer tokens, so that there would be a better balance of points among all
students, and not just the same people who always participated. In addition, depending
on the number of exercises, one or two supervising students were chosen to check that they
were correctly solved. They helped their assigned classmates if they could not complete the
proposed exercise. Additionally, a weekly test was assigned, either in class or after class,
which included three to five multiple-choice questions through a multiple-choice question
application (Wordwall). Students could solve it only once and each correct answer was
equivalent to a token.
The design aimed for students to obtain points and permissions (see Figure 8), which
had long-term benefits (extra points for the final grade), medium-term benefits (activities
that benefit the final exam or problem situation), and short-term benefits (tokens could
be obtained for each participation and were later converted into tickets). For this rea-
son, a solid and transparent approach was required to avoid any problems affecting the
points awarded.
Computers 2021, 10, 132 12 of 24

Figure 8. Diagram with achievements in the short, medium, and long term.

2.5. Sample
The sample was selected intentionally and was composed of 48 students from Tecno-
logico de Monterrey. Of these students, 34 were male, and 14 were female, divided into
two groups in total. The students belonged to different engineering majors and had to take
both courses as a requirement during the first semester of their studies.

2.6. Instruments
We administered two instruments: an assessment survey and a knowledge test before
and after the gamification activity (pre-test and a post-test) to conduct this study. Partici-
pants received credit for completing the three activities as an extra assignment; however,
the data were kept anonymous so that responses to the survey items could not be linked to
individual course participants.

2.7. Perception Survey

To contribute to studies which sought to improve student motivation and engagement
through gamification, we applied a survey to identify the impact of these factors on
chemistry students. The objective was to discover the students’ impressions of gamification
as a didactic tool in science subjects such as chemistry. The survey was applied at the end
of the course. It consisted of 24 multiple-choice items and one open-ended question that
was added to Q1028 students to know how they perceived the application of this strategy
in their own words: “Using a short sentence, what was your experience regarding the use of
gamification in class?”
The study was based on a validated questionnaire adapted from [34] and translated
into Spanish. The 16 items of the ARCS model (with some modifications) on motivation
assess learning effectiveness per four components of motivation: attention, relevance,
confidence, and satisfaction. Four questions in each group [32] were taken into account. In
addition, eight questions corresponding to engagement, both emotional and cognitive, were
adapted, again with four questions each. All items used a 5-point Likert scale describing
1 (Strongly disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Neutral), 4 (Agree), and 5 (Strongly Agree). The items
of the instrument are presented in Table 2.
Computers 2021, 10, 132 13 of 24

Table 2. Students’ assessment of gamified chemistry courses.

MOTIVATION
Attention
MA1. Something was interesting at the beginning of this subject that caught my attention.
MA2. The teaching approach used (gamification) was eye-catching.
MA3. The activities designed using this teaching method seemed more attractive to me.
MA4. The teaching method used makes chemistry more interesting.
Relevance
MR1. I could relate the content taught through this method to things I have thought about in my future life.
MR2. The content taught me that this approach would be useful during my time at university.
MR3. The instructional style gives the impression that the course is worth learning.
MR4. The content of the teaching approach will be useful to me.
Confidence
MC1. I was able to understand quite easily the material taught through this teaching method.
MC2. The exercises were too easy when using this teaching method.
MC3. The excellent organization of the content helped me to be confident that I would learn better with this approach.
MC4. The teaching approach was simpler to understand than I would have thought.
Satisfaction
MS1. I very much enjoyed learning with this teaching method.
MS2. It was a pleasure to learn chemistry through this pedagogy.
MS3. Taking the subject through this teaching method gave me a satisfying sense of accomplishment.
MS4. I learned surprising or unexpected things with this teaching method.
ENGAGEMENT
Emotional engagement
EE1. The gamification strategy made it easy to understand the learning content.
EE2. I learned effectively in this course as the method of instruction was engaging.
EE3. The teaching method used facilitated my active participation in the subject matter.
EE4. The instructional approach used during the course interested me.
Cognitive engagement
CE1. I demonstrated my interest and enthusiasm and had a positive attitude during the course.
CE2. This teaching method was relevant to engage students in chemistry courses.
CE3. The teaching strategy enhanced my participation in the course.
CE4. I focused on learning activities that had bonuses.
Q1. Using a short sentence, what was your experience of using gamification in the classroom?

2.8. Pre-Test and Post-Test

For each subject, a different pre-test and post-test with 12 multiple-choice questions,
based on the corresponding syllabus, was conducted to evaluate the learning obtained
by the students. The pre-test was applied between classes 1 and 2, while the post-test
was administered between classes 9 and 10. The exams were placed in Canvas, and the
students had 40 min to solve them outside class. At the end of the pre-test, the system
only showed the student the grade they attained, while in the post-test, it also showed the
correct answers and the respective feedback. In this way, the student used this post-test as
practice before the final exam.
The Q1028 questionnaire inquired about the nature of matter and its properties (atom,
chemical bonding, periodicity in the periodic table, geometry and polarity in molecules,
intermolecular interactions, solubility), the behavior of gases (ideal and real) and phase
diagrams. In Q1029, questions were developed on solutions and their colligative prop-
erties, chemical energy (thermodynamic laws, enthalpy and entropy of reaction, and
free energy), chemical energy, and electrical energy (oxidation–reduction reactions and
electrochemical cells).

2.9. Data Analysis

The quantitative data collected were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26.
First, to corroborate the reliability of the items included in this survey study, Cronbach’s
Computers 2021, 10, 132 14 of 24

alpha reliability test was applied, whose result (α = 0.95) confirmed that these questions
were sufficiently reliable to be used as a research instrument, surpassing the values of
previous research [34]. Subsequently, descriptive statistics were calculated for the students’
responses, and percentages were compared to determine if differences existed and which
responses had the highest and lowest values for analysis. The responses to the pre-test and
post-test were compared to analyze the score differences after the gamification activity to
determine if the students improved their test performances.

3. Results
Of the 48 participants, 71% were male (34), and 29% were female (14). Seventy-five
percent were between 18 and 19 years old, and the other 25% were between 20 and 21.
Regarding the students’ majors, most were Sustainable Development Engineering (SDE)
and Industrial and Systems Engineering (ISE), with 12 participants for each major, followed
by Mechatronics Engineering (8 participants). The distribution of students by major is
shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Distribution of students by major.

Major N Percentage
Sustainable Development Engineer (SDE) 12 25
Industrial and Systems Engineer (ISE) 12 25
Mechatronics Engineer (ME) 8 16.7
Biotechnology Engineer (BTE) 3 6.3
Civil Engineer (CE) 3 6.3
Innovation and Development Engineer (IDE) 3 6.3
Chemical Engineer (CE) 2 4.2
Mechanical Engineer (ME) 2 4.2
Data Science Engineer (DSE) 2 4.2
Biomedical Engineer (BME) 1 2.1
Total 48 100

To compare the results and determine if there were differences among the students
due to the relevance of chemistry within their majors, we divided them into two groups.
One group had majors where the primary focus was chemistry (henceforth called “chemical
majors”) and the others had majors where chemistry was not the main focus (“non-chemical
majors”). The chemistry majors were BTE, SDE and CE, where 17 students participated,
while 31 participated in the remaining ones.

3.1. Achievements
Regarding long-term achievements, beyond the optional nature of the classes, students
usually chose to attend them, with 94% attendance among both groups, because they felt
much content was covered in each session. They had the possibility of justifying only one
absence and usually used it in situations of significant cause, such as going to the doctor.
The achievement of the camera was even more successful, as 98% of the students decided
to leave the camera on.
As for the mid-term activities, in Q1028, the mind maps were not very effective, as
only 2 of the 24 students performed the mind maps, representing only 9% participation. In
Q1029, 16 of the 26 students performed some or all the optional mind maps for bonuses on
the final exam, achieving 49% participation. Two reasons could explain this: the first was
that Q1028 was one of the four subjects that students must take as soon as they start college,
significantly changing students from different high schools. The second reason may be that
Computers 2021, 10, 132 15 of 24

the Q1029 group was quite peculiar since a large percentage were very participative with
excellent grades; thus, they may have been more intrinsically motivated.
The homework bonuses attained a greater acceptance. In both groups, about 56% of
the students had an average greater than or equal to 97, which awarded a bonus of three
points for the final exam. Of the total number of students, 19% obtained two bonus points,
15% earned 1 point, and only 10% received no bonus for this achievement.
The Upright Citizen achievement corresponds to the problem situation. Although it
does not have the same function as peer evaluation, it is an incentive for students to see
their efforts reflected in their collaborative work.
In terms of participation (short-term achievements), the students who participated the
most had a total of eight tickets. We took extreme caution in scoring the exam questions so
that using a ticket in an exam did not substantially impact the final exam grade.

3.2. Final Grades Results

Figures 9 and 10 show the grades obtained without any achievement in blue (nominal
points), and the additional points that could be obtained through all the possible achieve-
ments are shown in orange. The average number of extra points obtained through the
achievements in Q1028 was 2.83, where the range of values represented between 1.4% and
4.1% of their final grade. In Q1029, the average number of points earned was 2.38, and the
range of values was between 0.4% and 4.5% of the student’s overall grade.

Figure 9. Final Q1028 grades excluding achievements (nominal points, blue) along with additional
points earned through achievements (additional points, orange).

It should be clarified that, of the total extra points obtained, two represented the
achievement of attendance, keeping the camera on, and performing the diagnostic tests
along with the survey. Therefore, the points affecting the final test and the problem situation
did not represent more than 2 points of the maximum possible grade.

3.3. Pre-Test and Post-Test Results

The interval scores for the pre-test and post-test application in Q1028 and Q1029 are
presented below (Figure 11). The overall results (Q1028 + Q1029) show that the average
score for both groups in the pre-test was 57%. In the post-test, it was 79%, with an initial
pass rate of 24% (grades higher than 70) and a final pass rate of 76%.
Computers 2021, 10, 132 16 of 24

Figure 10. Final Q1029 grades excluding achievements (nominal points, blue) along with additional
points earned through achievements (additional points, orange).

Figure 11. Difference between the overall pre-test and post-test results (Q1028 + Q1029).

3.4. Assessment Survey Results: Analysis of the Open-Ended Question (Q1028)

Regarding the results of the open-ended question Q1 to Q1028 (“What was your experi-
ence with gamification in class?”), most students’ responses mentioned that the gamification
activities allowed them to stay focused and motivated and helped them participate more
in class (seven responses). Other students indicated that the activities helped them under-
stand chemistry and content better (four responses). They also commented that the activity
was enriching, equitable, useful, and interesting (three responses). On the other hand, two
students responded that the process was slow and that they received a lot of information.
Figure 12 shows the word cloud with the most frequent responses.
Computers 2021, 10, 132 17 of 24

Figure 12. Word cloud of Q1028 students’ experience with gamification.

3.5. Assessment Survey Results: Analysis of Questions (Q1028 + Q1029)

According to the overall data obtained (Q1028 + Q1029), analyzing the Motivation
construct, the MA2 item, “The teaching approach used (gamification) is eye-catching,” had the
highest value of all, with 96% positive responses (Strongly Agree + Agree, SA/A) and a
mean of 4.58. For Engagement, CE2 “This teaching method is relevant to engage students in
chemistry courses” led the way with 94% positive ratings (mean 4.54), followed closely by
CE3, “The teaching strategy used enhanced my participation in the course”, with 92% (4.54).
The Motivation items with the lowest approval percentage were those of the confi-
dence construct, MC2, “The exercises were too easy when this teaching method was used,” with
42% positive ratings and a mean of 3.23. Three items from the relevance construct, MR1,
“I could relate the content taught through this method to things I have thought about in my own
future life”, MR2, “The content taught through this approach will be useful during my time at
university,” and MR4, “The content of the teaching approach will be useful to me” attained 56%,
69%, and 65% positive values and means of 3.54, 3.69, and 3.69, respectively. On the other
hand, the item with the lowest value corresponding to Engagement was CE4, “I focused on
learning activities that had bonuses” with a 75% approval (SA/A) and a mean of 4.04, followed
closely by EE2, “I have been effective in this course as the method of instruction was engaging,”
with 77% positive responses and a mean of 4.27. The results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Responses with students’ most and least positive values in the motivation and engagement
constructs.

STATISTICS PER QUESTION Q1028 + Q1029 (ITEM)

Construct Item N Component Mean Std. Dev. SA/A
MA2 2 Attention 4.58 0.577 96%
MR2 6 Relevance 3.69 0.803 69%
Motivation MR4 8 Relevance 3.69 0.879 65%
MR1 5 Relevance 3.54 0.922 56%
MC2 10 Confidence 3.23 1.036 42%
CE2 22 Cognitive 4.54 0.617 94%
CE3 23 Cognitive 4.54 0.651 92%
Engagement
EE2 18 Emotional 4.27 0.962 77%
CE4 24 Cognitive 4.04 1.148 75%

3.6. Analysis of the Questions for Chemical and Non-Chemical Majors (Q1028 + Q1029)
When comparing chemical vs. non-chemical majors, the MA2 item remains the
highest, as do the overall values. In the Engagement construct, items CE2 and CE3 remain
significant, with slight differences between both groups; observed in the CE2 values of
94% and 100% for chemistry majors, compared to values for CE3 of 94% and 87% for
non-chemistry majors, respectively.
Computers 2021, 10, 132 18 of 24

The largest difference is observed in MR1, “I could relate the content taught through
this method to things I have thought about in my future life,” with 76% positive responses for
chemistry majors, compared to only 45% for non-chemistry majors.
A significant difference is also observed in items MS2, “It was a pleasure to learn
chemistry through this pedagogy,” and MS4, “I learned surprising or unexpected things with
this teaching method.” The chemistry majors had 94% positive responses in both items, in
contrast to non-chemistry majors, with only 74% and 68%, respectively. Something similar
occurs with the engagement construct items, EE3, “The teaching method used facilitated my
active participation in the subject matter taught,” and EE4, “The instructional approach used
during the course interested me,” again with 94% positive responses in chemistry majors
versus 77% in non-chemistry majors.
In the components of attention, MA3, “The activities designed using this teaching
method seem more attractive to me” and emotional engagement, CE1, “I demonstrated
my interest and enthusiasm, as well as the use of a positive attitude during the course” a
striking inversion of values is observed, with a higher positive percentage in non-chemistry
majors (90% and 94%, respectively) compared to chemistry majors (82% in both cases). The
results of the responses are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Comparison of the highest and lowest item values for chemical and non-chemical majors.

Statistics Chemistry and Non-Chemistry Majors

SA/A SA/A
Item N Component Mean Std. Dev.
Chemical Non-Chemical
MA2 2 Attention 4.58 0.58 100% 94%
Cognitive
CE3 23 4.54 0.65 100% 87%
Engagement
Cognitive
CE2 22 4.54 0.62 94% 94%
Engagement
MR1 5 Relevance 3.54 0.92 76% 45%
MR2 6 Relevance 3.69 0.80 76% 65%
MR4 8 Relevance 3.69 0.88 65% 65%
MC2 10 Confidence 3.23 1.04 41% 42%

Among the items that obtained lower scores, MC2, “The exercises were too easy when
using this teaching method,” was the lowest of all with 41% positive values for chemistry
majors and 42% for non-chemistry majors, followed by MR4, “The content of the teaching
approach will be useful to me,” with 65% in both cases. Regarding item MR1, “I could relate the
content taught through this method to things I have thought about in my future life,” a marked
difference was observed, with 76% positive values for chemical majors in contrast to only
45% for non-chemical majors. The results are shown in Table 6.

3.7. Analysis by Component (Q1028 + Q1029)

Within the Motivation construct for Q1028 and Q1029, the Attention component has
the highest average (4.41), followed closely by Satisfaction, with 4.32. A more marked
difference is observed with the construct that obtained the lowest average of all, Relevance,
with 3.73. The cognitive component was slightly higher in engagement, with a mean of
4.36, compared to the emotional component, whose mean was 4.31.

3.8. Component Analysis for Chemical and Non-Chemical Majors (Q1028 + Q1029)
In a more specific analysis, the same trend is observed in students pursuing non-
chemistry majors in global analysis, both in motivation and engagement. In students
whose majors are focused on chemistry, this tendency is maintained in motivation; how-
Computers 2021, 10, 132 19 of 24

ever, a higher average is observed in emotional engagement (4.47) concerning cognitive

engagement (4.46). The results are shown in Table 7.

Table 6. Results of the largest response differences between chemical and non-chemical majors.

Statistical Difference between Chemistry and Non-Chemistry Majors

SA/A SA/A Difference
Item N Component Mean Std. Dev. Chemical Non-Chemical (Chemical−Non-Chemical)
MR1 5 Relevance 3.54 0.92 76% 45% 31%
MS4 16 Satisfaction 4.25 1.08 94% 68% 26%

MS2 14 Satisfaction 4.35 0.91 94% 74% 20%

Emotional
EE3 19 4.35 0.81 94% 77% 17%
Engagement
Emotional
EE4 20 4.35 0.76 94% 77% 17%
Engagement
MA3 3 Attention 4.42 0.71 82% 90% −8%
Cognitive
CE1 21 Engagement 4.31 0.78 82% 94% −11%

Table 7. Component results of the motivation and engagement constructs for chemistry and non-chemistry majors.

Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.

Construct Component Mean Std. Dev. α
Chemical Chemical Non-Chemical Non-Chemical
Relevance 4.41 0.57 0.78 4.51 0.14 4.35 0.10
Satisfaction 3.73 0.69 0.86 3.74 0.14 3.73 0.13
Motivation Satisfaction 3.95 0.79 0.82 3.94 0.18 3.96 0.15
Emotional
4.32 0.73 0.77 4.47 0.15 4.23 0.14
Engagement
Emotional 4.31 0.70 0.85 4.47 0.16 4.23 0.13
Engagement
Cognitive 4.36 0.61 0.73 4.46 0.16 4.31 0.11

3.9. Analysis by Course (Q1028 and Q1029)

In general, a slightly higher average was observed in Q1029, with 4.28, compared to
Q1028, with 4.06. The item MA2, “The teaching approach used (gamification) is eye-catching”,
had the highest positive values (95% in Q1028 and 100% in Q1029). MC2 had the lowest
(50% for Q1028 and 50% for Q1029), respectively (see Table 8).

Table 8. Differences between Q1028 and Q1029 groups of items with highest and lowest scores.

Statistics Q1028 and Q1029

Item N Component Mean Std. Dev. SA/A Q1028 SA/A Q1029
MA2 2 Attention 4.45 0.596 95% 100%
MC2 10 Confidence 3.27 1.12 50% 50%

The largest difference was observed in item MS4, “I learned surprising or unexpected
things with this teaching method,” with 93% positive responses in Q1029, in contrast to only
55% positive responses in Q1028. A difference of 20% was observed for items MS2, “It was
a pleasure to learn chemistry through this pedagogy,” and EE4, “The instructional approach used
during the course interested me,” with 93% positive responses in Q1029 and 73% in Q1028. In
contrast, the largest difference observed (Q1028 having the highest value) was item CE1,
“I demonstrated my interest and enthusiasm, as well as the use of a positive attitude during the
Computers 2021, 10, 132 20 of 24

course,” with 95% positive values in Q1028 in contrast to 79% in Q1029. The results of the
items are presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Results of the largest differences between responses for the Q1028 and Q1029 classes.

SA/A SA/A Difference

Item N Component Mean Std. Dev.
Q1028 Q1029 (SA/AQ1028−SA/AQ1029)
Cognitive
CE1 21 4.32 0.716 95% 79% 17%
Engagement
MS2 14 Satisfaction 4.05 1.046 73% 93% −20%
MS4 16 Satisfaction 3.73 1.241 55% 93% −38%

4. Discussion
It is known that the chemical concepts studied are abstract and challenging to learn for
students in general, making it more complex to relate what they have seen to the real world
in which they live [20]. This is further complicated when classes are developed in virtual
environments, necessitated by the contingency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic [1].
Through this research, we presented the proposal we implemented with our students. We
considered this proposal as innovative because it aimed to motivate student participation
through short-, medium-, and long-term actions. To the best of our knowledge, although
students’ responses to these experiences were analyzed, there was little research found
detailing how these activities could be developed and implemented in other environments.
Although the application of gamification activities has recently increased, driven
predominantly by the need to promote online education, student participation is still
low [41]. Moreover, these proposals were poorly planned due to the need to move from face-
to-face to virtual environments in a short time. Therefore, this study aimed to contribute
to the literature by providing an easy-to-implement gamification methodology for partial
or fully remote environments. The novelty of this research is that it can be replicated
without much effort by other teachers in other environments and the achievements serve
as a basis for new possible designs. We also hope that the instrument used in this study
will contribute to more research to measure the results of gamification activities on student
motivation and engagement.
In this experience, we found that the students notably accepted the achievements. The
three most motivating game elements were points for assignments, tickets earned through
tokens, and bonuses for keeping the camera on. These game elements were related to
autonomy, performance feedback, and competition, which were associated with intrinsic
motivation and were valuable for determining whether the design used motivated the
learner [18,28]. Nevertheless, it should be remarked that it was essential to remind students
in several classes of the different ways to obtain achievements due to the short time of
the subject, which meant that they did not get to earn all the possible bonuses. The main
findings are discussed below:
• First, gamifying the homework activities placed on platforms, such as Mastering
Chemistry, directly contributed to the students’ learning effectiveness. It facilitated the
completion of the exercises at home, immediate feedback, and, when necessary, the
repetition of these activities. These findings coincided with what Trigueros et al. [14]
stated, in that these types of activities made the tasks more attractive by empowering
students to achieve their learning.
• Second, tickets obtained through participation could allow two very different and
easily accessible achievements: decriminalizing and opening out-of-time assignments
on the one hand and getting hints on exams on the other, so the predisposition of
students who had to answer questions during class to get tokens was remarkable. A
change that could be made regarding these permissions was to increase to four tokens
per ticket; another was that in the multiple-choice question application (Wordwall),
two questions equaled one token. In this way, students would not be able to collect as
Computers 2021, 10, 132 21 of 24

many tickets throughout the course, so they would value the feeling of having earned
them even more and would think twice before using them.
• Third, at the beginning of the contingency, one of the first observations was that
students preferred not to turn on their cameras during classes, which significantly
minimized the possibility of reading their body language and facial expressions [52].
These non-verbal cues provided essential information for teachers to assess their
performance in real-time and adjust on the spot if needed. Students themselves also
benefit from seeing their peers and working collaboratively [47]. For this reason,
professors encouraged students to turn on their video cameras, although the expected
results were not always obtained. Adding the achievement of keeping the camera on
wholly changed the dynamics because it meant that students had to tell the teacher
privately if they needed to turn the camera off for a moment. At the end of the course,
some mentioned that they were grateful for this format, as the class became more
dynamic and interactive. This achievement showed us that gamification engaged
students in the teaching process by motivating them to participate in the learning
activities [7,8,11].
• Finally, a critical element favoring gamification was continuous interaction. In this
study, the students and teachers immediately knew of the progress made due to the
continuous feedback provided through this technique. These results coincided with
Oliva [53], in which this interaction encouraged the desired behavior. In this case, the
students’ achievements included, in addition to knowing their progress, collaborative
attitudes and the recognition of others.
Concerning how much the achievements affected the final grades, we observed that
the maximum score represented 4.5% of the student’s grade, thus showing that the achieve-
ments generated incentives to redo the tasks and review the contents. Thus, they promoted
delving into the subject, a small remuneration (in the form of a grade) that had a good
payoff in learning due to the effort made.
From the survey, in order to know the students’ perception of gamified classes, we
observed that gamification as a teaching approach impressed them. They considered it
relevant for the engagement in chemistry courses, possibly due to the difficulty of the
subject. Additionally, we noted a greater class participation because of gamification. When
students were consulted about their class experience, most commented that gamification
increased their motivation and interest to participate in class. This finding was consistent
with the results of consultees, where most participants indicated that the gamified course
was more motivating and improved student engagement and participation [34]. On the
other hand, we found that incorporating this teaching approach in a course did not affect
the difficulty level of the exercises, nor does imparting content through this strategy make
it more valuable and relevant. In addition, students mentioned that they did not necessarily
focus on bonus activities, demonstrating their intrinsic motivation to study.
Slight differences were observed between the chemical majors and non-chemical
majors. The most significant discrepancies were that students majoring in chemistry
found it easier to relate the content taught through this method to their future professions;
feeling more engaged and interested facilitated their active participation. Surprisingly,
non-chemistry majors found that the activities designed through this teaching approach
were more attractive, thus demonstrating their interest and positive attitude in the course.
As for the distinction by groups, a higher percentage of positive responses was ob-
served in students from Q1029, in answer to the question that they learned more surprising
things with gamification and found it pleasant and exciting to learn with this methodology.
Q1028 students mainly highlighted their interest and enthusiasm during the course.
Finally, when comparing the pre-test and post-test results, there was an increase in
the passing rate in the post-test once the students completed the gamified course, where
students, especially from Q1029, obtained a higher percentage of passes. This result
was consistent with other studies in which student grades improved with gamification
Computers 2021, 10, 132 22 of 24

activities [15]. However, further exploration of the impact of gamification on student

learning outcomes is suggested.

5. Conclusions
This study tested a gamification experience with first-semester engineering students
and reinforced their autonomy and engagement. Designing a gamification approach to
work properly required a focused attention and empathy toward how students felt. There
must be a balance between the amount of work and enjoyment and the system must be fair
in rewarding points and permissions to students for achievements. This approach may not
suit all learning styles; however, it can be enjoyable and educational for many.
Through this work, we proved that for this sample, the use of gamification strategies
in class which recognized short-, medium-, and long-term achievements with bonuses
stimulated the students, thus improving their motivation. The main findings in this
proposal were:
• The students’ comments from this first test were very positive and particularly recep-
tive to achievements that had intended objectives, for example, keeping the camera on.
The recognitions stimulated the students and generated a much more dynamic class.
• Another great success was the tokens, which encouraged student participation at
all times. It was highly recommended to ask leading questions to make sure that
everyone engaged with them. The most studious students were the first to raise their
hands, so the best option was to select them as supervisors of the exercises to be solved
in class.
• The least successful achievements were the mind maps, likely due to the students’
heavy workload in these and other subjects. Thus, adding extra activities for bonuses
was not the best option in this educational model.
The results of this study are primarily contextual to our research. However, the
simplicity of this gamified learning system merits further research, applying the method in
other disciplines and verifying its effectiveness. It is recommended for future studies to
apply this methodology in larger groups and other subjects, conducting this methodology
online to continue improving students’ performance in distance or blended courses. This
is the time to continue leveraging and improving these strategies, even when returning
to face-to-face classes. Soon, we intend to test this format in other disciplines and design
specific software with this gamification system to examine students’ perceptions using
this technology.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.M.C.; methodology, G.M.C. and M.P.C.; software,

G.M.C. and M.P.C.; validation, G.M.C.; formal analysis, G.M.C. and M.P.C.; investigation, G.M.C.;
resources, G.M.C.; writing—original draft preparation, G.M.C. and M.P.C.; writing—review and edit-
ing, G.M.C. and M.P.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of NOVUS (Grant number:
N20-161), Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico, in the production
of this work.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the financial and technical support of
the Writing Lab, Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico, in the
production of this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Computers 2021, 10, 132 23 of 24

References
1. Nariman, D. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. In Impact of the Interactive e-Learning Instructions on Effectiveness
of a Programming Course, Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems; CISIS, 2020; Barolli, L., Poniszewska-Maranda, A.,
Enokido, T., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 588–597.
2. Ramírez Montoya, M.S.; Valenzuela González, J.R. Innovación Educativa: Tendencias Globales de Investigación e Implicaciones Prácticas;
Octaedro, S.L.: Barcelona, Spain, 2019.
3. Gómez-Zermeño, M.G.; Alemán de la Garza, L.; Portuguez-Castro, M.; Medina-Labrador, M. Innovación Educativa en Estudios
Sobre el Desarrollo y uso de la Tecnología: Una Revisión Sistemática de Literatura. In Innovación EDUCATIVA: Tendencias Globales
de Investigación e Implicaciones Prácticas; Ramírez Montoya, M.S., Valenzuela González, J.R., Eds.; Octaedro, S.L.: Barcelona, Spain,
2019; pp. 197–222.
4. Lozano-Rodríguez, A.; García-Vázquez, F.I.; Zubieta-Ramírez, C.; Lopez-Cruz, C.S. Competencies associated with Semestre i and
its relationship to academic performance. High. Educ. Ski. Work-Based Learn 2020, 10, 387–399. [CrossRef]
5. Zahedi, L.; Batten, J.; Ross, M.; Potvin, G.; Damas, S.; Clarke, P.; Davis, D. Gamification in education: A mixed-methods study of
gender on computer science students’ academic performance and identity development. J. Comput. High. Educ. 2021, 33, 441–474.
[CrossRef]
6. Attali, Y.; Arieli-Attali, M. Gamification in assessment: Do points affect test performance? Comput. Educ. 2015, 83, 57–63.
[CrossRef]
7. Seaborn, K.; Fels, D.I. Gamification in theory and action: A survey. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2015, 74, 14–31. [CrossRef]
8. Rodríguez Simon, A.I.; Regina López, S. Strategies of teaching in the mediated environments: Results of the experience of the
virtual educational performance. Rev. Educ. Distancia 2017, 17, 55. [CrossRef]
9. Sailer, M.; Hense, J.U.; Mayr, S.K.; Mandl, H. How gamification motivates: An experimental study of the effects of specific game
design elements on psychological need satisfaction. Comput. Human Behav. 2017, 69, 371–380. [CrossRef]
10. Alsawaier, R.S. The effect of gamification on motivation and engagement. Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol. 2018, 35, 56–79. [CrossRef]
11. Koivisto, J.; Hamari, J. The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019,
45, 191–210. [CrossRef]
12. Domínguez, A.; Saenz-de-Navarrete, J.; de Marcos, L.; Fernández-Sanz, L.; Pagés, C.; Martínez-Herráiz, J.-J. Gamifying learning
experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Comput. Educ. 2013, 63, 380–392. [CrossRef]
13. Manzano-León, A.; Camacho-Lazarraga, P.; Guerrero, M.A.; Guerrero-Puerta, L.; Aguilar-Parra, J.M.; Trigueros, R.; Alias, A.
Between Level Up and Game Over: A Systematic Literature Review of Gamification in Education. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2247.
[CrossRef]
14. Trigueros, R.; Aguilar-Parra, J.M.; Lopez-Liria, R.; Cangas, A.J.; González, J.J.; Álvarez, J.F. The Role of Perception of Support in
the Classroom on the Students’ Motivation and Emotions: The Impact on Metacognition Strategies and Academic Performance in
Math and English Classes. Front. Psychol. 2020, 10, 2794. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Jurgelaitis, M.; Čeponienė, L.; Čeponis, J.; Drungilas, V. Implementing gamification in a university-level UML modeling course: A
case study. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2019, 27, 332–343. [CrossRef]
16. Fontana, M.T. Gamification of ChemDraw during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Investigating How a Serious, Educational-Game
Tournament (Molecule Madness) Impacts Student Wellness and Organic Chemistry Skills while Distance Learning. J. Chem. Educ.
2020, 97, 3358–3368. [CrossRef]
17. Ramírez Montoya, M.S.; Romero Rodríguez, L.M.; Castillo Abdul, B. Gamificación en MOOCS: Resultados de su Aplicación en la
Innovación Universitaria; Octaedro, S.L.: Barcelona, Spain, 2021.
18. Hitchens, M.; Tulloch, R. A gamification design for the classroom. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 2018, 15, 28–45. [CrossRef]
19. Groh, F. Gamification: State of the Art Definition and Utilization. In Proceedings of the 4th Seminar on Research Trends in Media
Informatics, Ulm, Germany; Ulm University: Ulm, Germany, 2012; pp. 39–46.
20. Osman, K.; Sukor, N.S. Conceptual Understanding in Secondary School Chemistry: A Discussion of the Difficulties Experienced
by Students. Am. J. Appl. Sci. 2013, 10, 433–441. [CrossRef]
21. da Silva Júnior, J.N.; Zampieri, D.; de Mattos, M.C.; Duque, B.R.; Melo Leite Júnior, A.J.; Silva de Sousa, U.; do Nascimento, D.M.;
Sousa Lima, M.A.; Monteiro, A.J. A Hybrid Board Game to Engage Students in Reviewing Organic Acids and Bases Concepts. J.
Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 3720–3726. [CrossRef]
22. Rincón Flores, E.G. Gamificación en ambientes masivos de innovación abierta en el área de sustentabilidad energética. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain, 2018.
23. Rincón-Flores, E.G.; Mena, J.; Montoya, M.S.R. Gamification: A new key for enhancing engagement in MOOCs on energy? Int. J.
Interact. Des. Manuf. 2020, 14, 1379–1393. [CrossRef]
24. Tsai, C.-Y.; Lin, H.-s.; Liu, S.-C. The effect of pedagogical GAME model on students’ PISA scientific competencies. J. Comput.
Assisted Learn. 2020, 36, 359–369. [CrossRef]
25. Kyewski, E.; Krämer, N.C. To gamify or not to gamify? An experimental field study of the influence of badges on motivation,
activity, and performance in an online learning course. Comput. Educ. 2018, 118, 25–37. [CrossRef]
26. Bandura, A. Going Global With Social Cognitive Theory: From Prospect to Paydirt. In The Rise of Applied Psychology: New Frontiers
and Rewarding Careers; Donaldson, S., Berger, D., Pezdek, K., Eds.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 53–79.
Computers 2021, 10, 132 24 of 24

27. Guajardo-Leal, B.E.; Gallardo Córdova, K.E. Engagement, motivation and persistence of xMOOC participants. Rev. Educ.
Distancia 2021, 21, 440241. [CrossRef]
28. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Self-Determination. In The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA,
2010; pp. 1–2. [CrossRef]
29. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Optimizing Students’ Motivation in the Era of Testing and Pressure: A Self-Determination Theory
Perspective. In Building Autonomous Learners: Perspectives from Research and Practice Using Self-Determination Theory; Liu, W.C.,
Wang, J.C.K., Ryan, R.M., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 9–29. [CrossRef]
30. Landers, R.; Callan, R. Casual Social Games as Serious Games: The Psychology of Gamification in Undergraduate Education and
Employee Training. In Serious Games and Edutainment Applications; Springer: London, UK, 2011; pp. 399–423. [CrossRef]
31. Keller, J.M. Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. J. Instr. Dev. 1987, 10, 2–10. [CrossRef]
32. Keller, J.M. Motivational Design for Learning and Performance: The ARCS Model Approach; Springer: Tallahassee, Florida, USA, 2010.
[CrossRef]
33. Esquivel Gámez, I. Los Modelos Tecno-Educativos, Revolucionando el Aprendizaje del Siglo XXI; Universidad Veracruzana: Veracruz,
México, 2014.
34. Haruna, H.; Hu, X.; Chu, S.K.W.; Mellecker, R.R. Initial Validation of the MAKE Framework: A Comprehensive Instrument for
Evaluating the Efficacy of Game-Based Learning and Gamification in Adolescent Sexual Health Literacy. Ann. Glob. Health 2019,
85, 1–7. [CrossRef]
35. Greene, K.M.; Lee, B.; Constance, N.; Hynes, K. Examining Youth and Program Predictors of Engagement in Out-of-School Time
Programs. J. Youth Adolesc. 2013, 42, 1557–1572. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Loureiro, S.M.C.; Bilro, R.G.; Angelino, F.J.d.A. Virtual reality and gamification in marketing higher education: A review and
research agenda. Span. J. Mark.—ESIC 2020. ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
37. Hartikainen, J.; Poikkeus, A.-M.; Haapala, E.A.; Sääkslahti, A.; Finni, T. Associations of Classroom Design and Classroom-Based
Physical Activity with Behavioral and Emotional Engagement among Primary School Students. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8116.
[CrossRef]
38. Fredricks, J.A.; Blumenfeld, P.C.; Paris, A.H. School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Rev. Educ. Res.
2004, 74, 59–109. [CrossRef]
39. Özhan, Ş.Ç.; Kocadere, S.A. The Effects of Flow, Emotional Engagement, and Motivation on Success in a Gamified Online
Learning Environment. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2020, 57, 2006–2031. [CrossRef]
40. Nieto-Escamez, F.A.; Roldán-Tapia, M.D. Gamification as Online Teaching Strategy During COVID-19: A Mini-Review. Front.
Psychol. 2021, 12, 1–9. [CrossRef]
41. Singh, P.; Duggal, K.; Gupta, L. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation for Online Teaching in COVID-19: Applications, Issues, and
Solution. In Emerging Technologies for Battling Covid-19. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control; Al-Turjman, F., Devi, A., Nayyar,
A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 324, pp. 327–349. [CrossRef]
42. Raju, R.; Bhat, S.; Bhat, S.; D’Souza, R.; Singh, A. Effective Usage of Gamification Techniques to Boost Student Engagement. J. Eng.
Educ. Transform. 2021, 34, 713–717. [CrossRef]
43. Hernández-Sampieri, R.; Mendoza Torres, C.P. Metodología de la Investigación: Las Rutas Cuantitativa, Cualitativa y Mixta, 1st ed.;
McGraw-Hill: Ciudad de México, México, 2018.
44. Modelo Educativo Tec21; Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey: Monterrey, Mexico, 2018.
45. Tro, N.J. Chemistry: A Molecular Approach; Pearson: Boston, MA, USA, 2017.
46. Johnson, L.F.; Smith, R.S.; Smythe, J.T.; Varon, R.K. Challenge-Based Learning: An Approach for Our Time; The New Media
Consortium: Austin, Texas, USA, 2009.
47. Castelli, F.R.; Sarvary, M.A. Why students do not turn on their video cameras during online classes and an equitable and inclusive
plan to encourage them to do so. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 11, 3565–3576. [CrossRef]
48. Aguilera Reyes, D. El Mapa Mental: Una Estrategia Cognitiva de Aprendizaje; Editorial Digital UNID: Estado de México, México, 2017.
49. Sivagami, V.G.; Balamurugan, M. Attitude towards learning difficulty in chemistry and academic achievement in chemistry
among school students. Int. J. Modn. Res. Revs. 2019, 7, 26–32.
50. Linton, D.L.; Farmer, J.K.; Peterson, E. Is Peer Interaction Necessary for Optimal Active Learning? CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2014, 13,
243–252. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Scager, K.; Boonstra, J.; Peeters, T.; Vulperhorst, J.; Wiegant, F. Collaborative Learning in Higher Education: Evoking Positive
Interdependence. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2016, 15, ar69. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Tarc, P. Education post-‘Covid-190 : Re-visioning the face-to-face classroom. Curr. Issues Comp. Educ. 2020, 22, 121–124.
53. Oliva, H.A. La gamificación como estrategia metodológica en el contexto educativo universitario. Real. Reflex. 2017, 44, 29–47.
[CrossRef]