Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 2024, 9(1), 61-79

https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/joltida
ISSN: 2458-8350 (online)

Research Paper
Role of the Students’ Learning Styles on Motivation and Perception towards Gamified
Learning Process

Fatma Burcu Topu*a

a
(ORCID ID: 0000-0002-2130-8579), Atatürk University, Turkey, burcutopu@hotmail.com

*Corresponding author

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Received: 08 May 2023 The characteristic differences of participants affect their reactions to various gamification elements.
Revised: 22 August 2023 Thus, it is critical to reveal the impact different type of students on gamified interventions, and the
Accepted: 22 August 2023 relation of personality features and gamified learning process. In this study, it is compered the
motivation and perception of participants with different learning styles towards gamified learning
process, and determined the correlation between motivation and perception. It is also figured out the
Keywords:
Gamified learning process enabler and barrier factors of students’ motivation and perception by learning styles in the 7-week
Learning styles gamified learning process. Participants consist of 95 prospective teachers with different learning
Motivation styles. This study is based on the triangulation as a mixed reserch method. As data collection tools,
Perception the instructional materials motivation survey, course evaluation questionnaire, learning styles
inventory of Felder and Soloman, and interview form are used. It is conducted the non-parametric
doi: 10.53850/joltida.1293970 tests, Mann-Whitney U and Spearman's rank correlation for quantitative data analysis, and the content
analysis for in-detail qualitative data analysis. Results point out that there is not any significant
differences between categories of each learning style dimension in terms of motivation and perception.
Students have the high level motivation and perception by each category of four learning style
dimensions. There are positive and medium correlations between motivation and perception of
students by learning styles. It is also determined the various enabler and barrier factors of students’
motivation and perception in gamified learning process. Frequencies and percentages of enablers are
the higher than barriers considering students’ learning styles. These results prove that the gamified
activities-tasks considering the learning styles have a power to motivate students with different
characteristics to the learning process and provide the positive perception towards the gamified
process. It is also discussed the quantitative and qualitative directions for the further researches.

INTRODUCTION

Gamification has come out to increase the engagement of customers on digital platforms in order to achieve especially commercial
goals (Deterding et al., 2011). It is utilized the motivating game elements to ensure the participants' interaction with the activities
for a long time (Ghaban & Hendley, 2019; Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011). The use of gamification has become widespread
among educators who realize this powerful feature. Studies using various game elements have attempted to reveal whether gamified
activities have positive affective, behavioral, and cognitive pedagogical outcomes (Dicheva et al., 2015; Krath et al., 2021; Luo,
2022). However, it is important to be careful with the selection of gamification elements, as each elements could not be adjusted to
each context (Pakinee & Puritat, 2021).

The gamified learning process gave an opportunity not only to reduce the negative feeling of students but also to improve their
learning outcomes (Yildiz, 2021). In this line, it has a critical role to reach large target audiences with different personality traits by
embedding various game elements such as competition, challenge, rewards, progress, collaboration, fun into the gamified activities
(Werbach & Hunter, 2012). Although extrinsic motivators have been criticized, a well-designed reward system used in gamification
has a higher potential as a strong extrinsic motivator in achieving goal (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011). The various gamification
elements and gamified tools motivate and engaged students in a competitive and entertaining learning process (Yildiz, 2021; Fiş
Erümit & Karakuş Yılmaz, 2022, 2021). Based on the mentioned positive results, it is used various gamification elements and
gamified tools in this study, and examined the motivation and perception of the students with different learning styles towards
gamified learning process.

Motivation and Perception in Gamified Learning Process

To motivate students throughout the learning process, sense of curiosity should be aroused, teaching goals and individual values
should be compatible with each other, they should be confident of their own competence for success, and learning outcomes should
be similar to their expectations (Keller, 2008). In this line, gamification is a guiding approach to using game elements to motivate
61 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79
F.B. Topu
participants towards targeted acquisitions in any context (Deterding, 2012). The fundamental function of gamified process is to
improve participants’ motivation by triggering their positive emotions (Buckley & Doyle, 2017). Kapp et al. (2014) argues that
gamification is an excellent solution to motivate students to progress in teaching and achieve goals. Gamification also provides an
opportunity to increase students’ learning experiences as well as their interaction with educational materials. Thus, it helps to
increase the motivation of students for the improvement of their learning (Ghaban & Hendley, 2019; Glover, 2013; Ong et al. 2013;
Sailer et al., 2017).

The relationship of gamification with challenge and entertaining makes it necessary to consider the emotional and motivational
aspects of the learning process. Although few of studies had negative results (Hanus & Fox, 2015; Kwon & Özpolat, 2021; Kyewski
& Krämer, 2018), majority of studies put forward the potential of gamified activities to boost students’ motivation and perception
towards the learning process. Fitz-Walter et al. (2017) figured out that various game elements such as feedback, goals, competition,
and getting coins ensured the more enjoyable and motivated learning process than non-gamified environment. However, it was not
observed significantly behavioral change between groups. Fiş Erümit and Karakuş Yılmaz (2022, 2021) revealed that the intriguing
and competitive gamified activities helped students to be successful by motivating them. Yildiz et al. (2021) figured out that
motivation of teacher candidates in gamified group used Edmodo, and Kahoot apps increased significantly higher than the other
group.

According to Buckley and Doyle (2017), gamification encourages the students acting with extrinsic motivation such as rewards to
participate in the process and ensures that they have a positive perception toward the process. Ghaban and Hendley (2019) confirmed
that students, motivating by game elements, engaged in the learning process longer than non-gamified group. Bai et al. (2021)
determined to have different effects of leaderboard types on students’ motivation, engagement, and attitude. Denden et al. (2021)
found out that strong correlation between the majority of gamification elements and perceived enjoyment.

On the other hand, researchers emphasize that individual differences can be considered to avoid the demotivation effect of various
game elements (Ghaban & Hendley, 2019; Hanus & Fox, 2015; Hassan et al., 2022; Kwon & Özpolat, 2021; Kyewski & Krämer,
2018). For this reason, this study aims to keep the motivation and perception of students with different learning styles at the high
level by using various gamification elements and gamified tools.

Learning Styles in Gamified Learning Process

The learning styles are strong indicators of individual preferences of students for processing and learning the information, as well
as their interaction with learning materials, environment, and other students (Felder & Silverman, 1988). Many studies based on
various learning style classifications report that learning differences are due to characteristic preferences (Hassan et al., 2021;
Khenissi et al., 2016). The characteristic differences of participants affect their reactions to gamification elements as well (Buckley
& Doyle, 2017; Oliveira et al., 2022). Since different participants enjoy different gamification elements, it is important to design a
gamification experience that suits various types of participants (Fitz-Walter et al., 2017). Some students can get more benefit from
gamified course, whereas others can be affected negatively. They may be in favor of different gamification elements by their
personality types (Ghaban & Hendley, 2019). For this reason, it is important to consider the learning styles of students participating
in gamified learning process (Fan et al., 2015).

In recent years, it is available studies focusing on different learning style models, personality traits, and students’ characteristics in
gamified learning process. Denden et al. (2021) revealed that personality traits and gender affected the undergraduate students’
perception toward the majority of gamification elements such as leaderboard, progress bar, feedback, badges, and points. Hassan et
al. (2021) determined that students’ motivation increased by a quarter in the gamification process which was carried out considering
the learning styles. Ghaban and Hendley (2019) determined that gamification elements (leaderboard, points, and badges) more
motivated the extroverted students and these students engaged in gamified websites the longer time than others. Buckley and Doyle
(2017) found out that participants with global or active learning styles had a positive perception toward gamified process. In addition,
extraverted participants liked gamification, while conscientious participants less motivated in gamified process. Nevertheless, they
highlighted that participants perceived positively toward gamified process even if they had the lower conscientiousness personality
trait. Smiderle et al. (2020) found that gamification affected students with different personality traits in distinct way. Fan et al.
(2015) determined the notable differences between achievements of students with different learning styles.

Oliveira et al. (2022) revealed that although both gamification versions (personalized and non-personalized gamification) ensured
the high flow experience for students, personalization the learning process based on personality traits had not any significant effect
on students’ motivation, perception, enjoyment, and flow experience. Pakinee and Puritat (2021) proved that the selection of
gamification elements by considering the personality traits ensured positive perception and more engagement in the learning process
whereas could not guarantee to get increasing the learning performance for every personality types. Ong et al. (2013) determined
that students’ academic and intrinsic motivation and perceptions were largely independent of personality type. Accordingly, majority
of the studies considering various learning style models such as the five factor model have achieved positive results. However,
learning styles have a controversial as well as important role in the learning process (Khenissi et al., 2016). For this reason, this
study examines the role of the students’ learning styles in a gamified learning process.

62 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79

 Role of the Students’ Learning Styles on Motivation and Perception
This study is based on the learning styles model of Felder and Silverman (1988). The reason for choosing this learning style model
is that it provides the detailed definition for various learning styles, inclusive of different personality types of students participating
in gamified learning process using many multimedia materials and gamified activities-tasks with various features. It has also a
mature state of validity and reliability scoring system. In this way, it helps to distinguish among strong, moderate, and mild ranking
of the students’ learning styles. Furthermore, these dimensions are similar to the indicators of sub-dimensions of most learning style
models (Buckley & Doyle, 2017; Felder & Spurlin, 2005; Hassan et al., 2021; Khenissi et al., 2016).

This learning styles model consists of several dimensions. The scope of each category in the four learning style dimensions is as
follows:

Active / Reflective Learners: It shows how the student prefers to process the information. The active learners learn by physically
participating in an activity, learning material, or discussion while the reflective learners learn by reflecting on learning material
through individual reasoning.

Sensing / Intuitive Learners: It shows the student’s tendency to perceive information. The sensing learners tend to focus on facts,
concrete information on content, details, and numbers while the intuitive learners tend to focus on possibilities, abstraction,
underlying meaning, and hunches.

Visual / Verbal Learners: It shows the students receive the information through which channel most effectively. The visual learners
get information better with pictures, diagrams, graphs, demonstrations, while the verbal learners get better with written or verbal
explanations.

Sequential / Global Learners: It shows the student follows which way in the process of understanding the information. The
sequential learners follow the linear thinking process and solve problems step by step by dividing problems into the sub-problems
while the global learners follow the holistic thinking process, and develop their own problem solving methods quickly by
understanding the abstract picture under the problem.

Accordingly, in this study, it is compared the motivation and perception of students with different learning styles towards gamified
learning process.

Research Gap and Purpose of the Study

Many studies have assumed that students have similar positive feedback about using of gamification elements and have not taken
into account the individual differences of them (Denden et al., 2021). Despite the positive results in many studies, the point of
psychological perspective, the external motivating factors such as reward lead to reward addiction and compulsory behavior among
students with different personality types (Glover, 2013). Moreover, gamification elements such as competing and rewarding may
negatively affect the motivation and perception of some students (Dominguez et al., 2013; Hanus & Fox, 2015; Kyewski & Krämer,
2018; Kwon & Özpolat, 2021; Pakinee & Puritat, 2021). In order to minimize these possible negative effects, it is significant to
keep the game elements in the optimum line by adjusting them according to the learning context and student characteristics (Glover,
2013). In other words, it is critical to reveal the relation of personality features and gamification in order to enable students to
overcome the difficulties in gamified learning process (Ghaban & Hendley, 2019).

The characteristic differences of participants affect their reactions to various gamification elements (Buckley & Doyle, 2017; Fan
et al., 2015; Ghaban & Hendley, 2019). According to Smiderle et al. (2020), the efficiency of gamification depends on the
characteristic features of students. Many researchers admitting the benefits of learning styles point out that it is a significant factor
in education. The gamified process suited of student characteristics can increase their motivation and provide the more engagement
of them (Khenissi et al., 2016). Thus, it is critical to figure out the impact different type of students on gamified learning interventions
(Denden et al., 2021; Luo, 2022). However, gamification studies regarding learning styles are based on adaptation of the online
gamified learning environments (Buckley & Doyle, 2017; Denden et al., 2021; Fan et al., 2015; Ghaban & Hendley, 2019; Hassan
et al., 2021; Oliveira et al., 2022; Pakinee & Puritat, 2021; Smiderle et al., 2020). As to this study focuses on the role of learning
styles in gamified learning process, which includes face-to-face and in-class activities-tasks as well as various multimedia materials.

Although the importance of the effect of learning styles on motivation and perception in gamification is emphasized, it is available
few studies which deal with these two variables together (Oliveira et al., 2022; Ong et al., 2013). While some of the studies
investigated the effect of learning style on motivation (Ghaban & Hendley, 2019; Hassan et al., 2021), others examined the effect
of perception (Buckley & Doyle, 2017; Denden et al., 2021; Pakinee & Puritat, 2021). Moreover, the mentioned studies is mostly
based on the five factor learning style model depending on its suitability for online gamified course. As for this study, it is preferred
the inventory of Felder and Soloman (1994) based on learning styles model of Felder and Silverman (1988). In this model, it can be
defined in detail of learning style sub-dimensions of students with different personality types who participate in gamified learning
process including various in-class activities-tasks and many multimedia materials. Thanks to the strong validity and reliability
scoring system of this model, the learning styles of each student can be also ranked as strong, moderate, and mild levels (Buckley
& Doyle, 2017; Felder & Spurlin, 2005; Hassan et al., 2021; Khenissi et al., 2016). For this reason, this study will be a reference
for new research on face-to-face gamified learning process that will be based on this learning style model.

63 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79

F.B. Topu
Using various game elements in the learning process may not always produce positive results. At this point, it is critical how gamified
process is implemented (Dominguez et al., 2013; Kapp et al., 2014; Sailer et al., 2017; Werbach, & Hunter, 2012). Applied correctly
of gamification throughout the learning process enables students to enrich their experiences (Deterding, 2012; Dicheva et al., 2015).
Therefore, it should be careful with the selection of gamification elements which get time and effort to implement and cannot be
adjusted to each context (Kwon & Özpolat, 2021; Pakinee & Puritat, 2021). In this line, it is aimed to keep the motivation and
perception of students with different learning styles at the high level by using various gamification elements and tools in this study.

On the other hand, most of the studies have applied to the quantitative research methods. This current study will quantitatively
compare the motivation and perception of students with different learning styles as well as qualitatively reveal the enabler and
barrier factors of students’ motivation and perception by learning styles in the 7-week gamified learning process in detail.
Accordingly, it is addressed the following research questions.

What are the learning styles scores and levels of students participating in gamified learning process?
What are the motivation levels and averages of students towards gamified learning process by learning styles?
Do learning styles have an effect on students’ motivation towards gamified learning process?
What are the perception levels and averages of students towards gamified learning process by learning styles?
Do learning styles have an effect on students’ perception towards gamified learning process?
Is there any correlation between motivation and perception of students by learning styles?
What are the enabler and barrier factors of students’ motivation and perception by learning styles in the 7-week gamified
learning process?
METHOD

Research Design

It was used the triangulation as a mixed research method to strengthen the results by obtaining comprehensive data (Creswell, 2014).
In this line, it was compered the motivation and perception of participants with different learning styles towards gamified learning
process with Mann-Whitney U test, and determined the correlation between motivation and perception with Spearman's rank
correlation test. It was also figured out the enabler and barrier factors of students’ motivation and perception by learning styles in
the 7-week gamified learning process with contents analysis. The research design of this study is summarized in Figure 1 and
explained in-detail in the following sections.

Applying the learning styles

Before the Inventory
Implementation

Determining the learning

styles of the participants

During the
Implementation Conducting the gamified Descriptive statistics of participants by
learning process learning styles

Applying the motivation Mann-Whitney U test for comparison the

Quantitative data collection
questionnaire and motivation and perception of participants by
and analysis (SPSS 18)
perception scale learning styles

Spearman's rank correlation test for

After the
correlation between motivation and
Implementation
perception of participants by learning styles

Qualitative data collection Fullfilling the interview Contents analysis for the enabler and barrier
and analysis (NVIVO 12) form factor to the process

Figure 1. Summary of the research design

Participants

The participants consist of 95 prospective teachers with different learning styles by inventory of Felder and Soloman (1994). In
addition, 78 of the participants voluntarily fulfill the interview form. Distribution of participants by learning styles and gender is
summarized in Figure 2.

64 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79

 Role of the Students’ Learning Styles on Motivation and Perception
Learning Female Male Total
Bar-Chart Pie-Chart
Styles (n=44) (n=51) (n=95)
Female Male Active Reflective
Active 31 34 65
31 34
30;
17 32%
13
65;
Reflective 13 17 30 68%
Active Reflective

Female Male Sensing Intuitive

Sensing 39 43 82
39 43 13;
14%

5 8
Intuitive 5 8 13 82;
86%
Sensing Intuitive

Female Male Visual Verbal

Visual 41 44 85
41 44 10;
11%

3 7
Verbal 3 7 10 85;
Visual Verbal 89%

Female Male Sequential Global

Sequential 33 38 38 71
33
24;
25%
11 13
71;
Global 11 13 24 75%
Sequential Global

Figure 2. Distribution of participants by learning styles and gender

Data Collection Instruments

Instructional Materials Motivation Survey of Keller (1987) was five-point likert survey and was ranged from strongly disagree (1)
to strongly agree (5). The original survey with 36 items consisted of attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction factors and
the reliability coefficient of the survey calculated as 0.96 whereas the adaptation of survey to Turkish by Kutu and Sozbilir (2011)
with 24 items applied to the undergraduate students consisted of attention-relevance and confidence-satisfaction factors. The
reliability coefficient of the survey calculated as 0.83.

Course Evaluation Questionnaire with three-factor was developed by Earley (2012) to examine the perception of participants in
public health training toward course lecture, the exercise activity, and the overall training effectiveness. The six-point likert
questionnaire consisted of 11 items was ranked from strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), disagree more than agree (3), agree more
than disagree (4), agree (5), and strongly agree (6). Turkish items were checked by a language expert. The reliability coefficient of
the questionnaire calculated as 0.92.

Learning Styles Inventory of Felder and Soloman (1994) was based on learning styles model of Felder and Silverman (1988)
including four dimensions. These dimensions of inventory called active/reflective, sensing/intuitive, visual/verbal, and
sequential/global. The inventory which had 11 items for each dimension consisted of 44 items. Each item had two choices, a and b.
“a” options in the inventory represented the active, sensing, visual, or sequential part of the each dimension, and “b” options
represented the reflective, intuitive, verbal, and global parts of the each dimension. According to the number of choice of a and b
options, it was determined the level of learning style of the participant as mild, moderate, or strong. According to the given answer
to each 11-item dimension, 1 point was assigned to options a and b. It was calculated the total score of each of a and b options. It
was determined the learning style of the participant for each dimension based on the difference between a and b option scores. The
65 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79
F.B. Topu
levels of the learning styles were as (+-) 1_(+-) 3 mild, (+-) 5_(+-) 7 moderate, (+-) 9_(+-) 11 strong (Felder & Spurlin, 2005). The
inventory was adapted to Turkish by Samancı and Keskin (2007) applied to the undergraduate students. There was not any change
in the number of items and dimensions after the Turkish adaptation. Cronbach’s alpha calculated as 0.64.

Interview Form was created by researcher to reveal the enabler and barrier factors of students’ motivation and perception in the 7-
week gamified learning process by the researcher. Accordingly, they were asked to explain their feelings and thoughts about the
gamified learning process, the situations that motivate or demotivate them to learn with reasons. The draft form was checked by an
instructional technology expert specialized in gamification. At the end of the course, the researcher who was the lecturer of the
learning process sent online the structured Google form to all participants in order to ensure freely fulfilling the open-ended
questions. However, just volunteers responded to the form.

The Gamified Learning Process

Werbach and Hunter (2015) suggest D6 design model for effective gamified process. The gamified learning process in current study
is based on D6. The gamified learning process which in total 28 lessons for 7-weeks (four lessons per week) is conducted by the
researcher who is the course instructor. The details of D6-process outlined in Figure 3 are explained below.

• Determining the course topics based on curriculum schedule

D1 • Preparing the 7-week gamified course syllabus

• Determining rules of gamified learning process and gamifiation elements

• Introducing gamified learning process to participants
D2 • Determining measurement tools (motivation questionnaire, perception scale, interview form)

• Assigning the participants to groups for gamified learning activities-tasks

D3 • Applying learning style inventory to participants

• Applying engagement loops and progression stairs using various gamification elements and
D4 tools

• Applying the competitive gamified activities-tasks between groups

• Setting time limits for intergroup competitions
D5 • Determining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd groups at end of the competitions

• Using ClassDojo for point and badges of group members

• Using Edmodo badges for individual success
D6 • Applying various web 2.0 tools for gamified learning activities-tasks

End of the 7-week gamified learning process

Figure 3. Details of gamified learning process

Define objectives (D1)

It is important to clarify the expectations from the participants. Therefore, first of all, it was determined the course topics about the
learning and teaching approaches to be taught with weekly gamified learning activities based on curriculum schedule in this study.
These course topics are as follows: Situated learning, blended learning, social cognitive learning, problem based learning, inquiry
learning, gamification, flipped classroom, educational game, and mobile learning. Then, it was prepared the 7-week gamified course
syllabus.

Delineate target behaviors (D2)

It was determined rules of gamified learning process and gamification elements. In this line, it was expected from participants to
perform various in-class activities-tasks by using web 2.0 tools and multimedia materials related to weekly topics. According to
completion time the assigned task, each group members got ClassDojo positive points and badges considering that ranks (three
points for the first group= Snowy Peak badge, two points for the second group= Take Flight badge, one point for the third group=
Mission Completed badge). In addition, three students who gave the more correct answers to the questions asked by the instructor

66 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79

 Role of the Students’ Learning Styles on Motivation and Perception
about the weekly topics than others got various ClassDojo badges (three points for the first student=Gold Cup badge, two points for
the second student=Gold Medal badge, one point for the third student=Gold Star badge).

On the other hand, it were given various ClassDojo negative points and badges to students who exhibited negative behavior in
weekly lessons (minus one point for the student who not care about giving the correct answer to the question=Inadequate Answer
badge, minus one point for the unwilling student to participate in group activities=Inadequate Participation badge). In this way, it
was tried to prevent students engaging with something other than gamified learning activities-tasks. The participants should follow
these rules in order to be at the top ranking of the ClassDojo leaderboard.

Furthermore, according to instructor’s in-class observations, the participants who had the best positive behaviors throughout
gamified learning process got various Edmodo badges with one-point at the end of the process. The screenshots of ClassDojo
positive/negative points and badges, and Edmodo badges are presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4. The positive/negative points and badges in gamified learning process

Moreover, at the beginning of the course, it was introduced the gamified learning process to participants. At the end of the process,
it was determined the quantitative and qualitative measurement instruments to examine the motivation and perception of participants
with different learning styles towards gamified learning process (motivation questionnaire, perception scale, and interview form).

Describe players (D3)

The participants was randomly assigned to groups for gamified learning activities-tasks. It was also applied the inventory of Felder
and Soloman (1994) to determine the participants’ learning styles. In addition, Felder and Silverman (1988) defined the
corresponding teaching styles to the preferred learning styles in order to ensure active participation of students with different learning
styles in gamified learning process. Considering this definition, examples of gamified learning activities-tasks in this study by
student characteristics are presented as in Table 1.

Table 1. Examples of gamified learning activities-tasks by student characteristics

Learning Styles Teaching Styles Gamified Learning Activities-Tasks

Active / Reflective It was carried out the activities-/tasks-based intergroup
Participation
(Processing) competitions using web 2.0 tools (e.g. qr code, puzzle).
Sensing / Intuitive It was given information and asked questions on weekly topics
Content
(Perceiving) using web 2.0 multimedia materials (e.g. infographic, kahoot).
It was presented the detailed information on the weekly topics with
Visual / Verbal
Presentation multimedia materials created by using various web 2.0 tools (e.g.
(Receiving-input)
animated video, micro-teaching video).
The activities-tasks are presented in a certain order considering the
weekly topic scope, and various activities-tasks using web 2.0 tools
Sequential / Global
Perspective were carried out to cover all aspects of the topic (e.g. giving
(Understanding)
information, making presentations, asking questions, and doing
activities-tasks about topics).

67 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79

F.B. Topu
Devise activity cycles (D4)

It was applied the engagement loops and progression stairs by using various gamification elements and tools. Engagement Loops is
the process of activating the participant using motivators in the learning process and giving feedback such as points and badges in
response to their actions. This feedback is expected to trigger the motivation of participant to continue the activity. This process
continues in a loop. In this study, it was applied various gamified learning activities to motivate the participants. It was given points
and badges as feedback to them depending on their performance in completing tasks in these activities. It was intended that these
awards re-motivate and encourage them to participate in the further activities.

Progression Stairs are tasks with variety of difficulty levels which assigned to participants in order to make them progress towards
the learning goals. In this study, it was preferred the rewarding system (points and badges) based on tasks-completion performance
instead of the level-up strategy in order to ensure to keep participating in gamified learning process. However, students had to attend
weekly lessons and get points and badges by participating in gamified activities-tasks in order to high ranking on the leaderboard.
The activity cycles of this study are summarized in Figure 5.

Keeping on participating in the Applying the various gamified

further activities based on feedback Motivation
learning activities-tasks

Rewarding based on tasks-

Feedback Action Performing the assigned tasks
completion performance

Figure 5. The activity cycles of this study

Don’t forget the fun (D5)

The various gamified components was inserted into the in-class activities for enjoyable learning process. Accordingly, the groups
performed the task-based activities by competing with each other. It was also set limited time for intergroup competitions. It was
determined the 1st, 2nd, 3rd groups at end of the competitions depending on completion time the assigned tasks and given points
and badges to each member of these groups considering these ranks. The participants who had the best positive behaviors throughout
gamified learning process by in-class observation of instructor was rewarded with the various badges. The task-based activity photos
in gamified learning process are laid out in Figure 6.

68 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79

 Role of the Students’ Learning Styles on Motivation and Perception

Figure 6. The task-based activity photos in gamified learning process

Deploy the appropriate tools (D6)

It is important to include appropriate gamification elements and web 2.0 tools in order to increase the efficiency of the learning
process. The purpose of choosing the gamification elements and tools used in this study are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. The purpose of using gamification elements and web 2.0 tools

Gamification Elements Purpose of Using

Providing the challenge, cooperation, relationship, and fun in competitive group activities-
Competition
tasks
Points and Badges Rewarding and feedback considering the task completion performance

Leaderboard Determining how status the participants are progressing towards course goals

Web 2.0 Tools Purpose of Using

Giving points and badges to group members considering the task completion performance
ClassDojo
and displaying the status of participants in leaderboard
Edmodo Giving badges considering the individual success

Puzzle and QR Code Apps Finding the cryptic questions on weekly topics in intergroup competitions
Piktochart, Captivate, and Providing the detailed information on weekly topics with infographics, micro-teaching
Pawtoon videos, and animated videos
Explaining the critical features of weekly topics (learning and teaching approaches) and
Padlet
ordering correctly the implementation steps on the topic
Kahoot, Socrative, and Google
Asking questions on weekly topics
Form

69 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79

F.B. Topu
Data Analysis

It is determined that the dataset by learning styles is not a normal distribution, and conducted non-parametric tests for quantitative
data analysis (Field, 2009) by using SPSS 18. The descriptive statistics, mean, and standard deviation are calculated. It is compared
the motivation and perception of participants with different learning styles towards gamified learning process by carried out Mann-
Whitney U test. It is used Spearman’s rank correlation test to figure out correlation between motivation and perception of participants
with different learning styles.

It is conducted the content analysis for in-detail qualitative data analysis by using NVIVO 12. In this way, it is revealed the enabler
and barrier factors of motivation and perception of students with different learning styles in the 7-week gamified learning process.
The qualitative data analysis is based on the interactive model (Miles et al., 2014) and three concurrent flows of activity were
followed: data condensation (coding of data), data display (code matrix by learning styles), and conclusion drawing/verification
(quotations by each code). Accordingly, the interview forms answered by each student are transferred to Nvivo as cases. All cases
are examined and a code pool is created up to saturation limit. By reviewing the codes, similar codes are combined and factors are
formed. Factors are classified under the categories of enablers and barriers. Code matrix is created according to the learning styles
of the factors in each category. The frequencies and percentages of these factors are calculated. The factors classified under the
categories of enablers and barriers by learning styles are presented in tables and strengthened by using the quotations of students
with ID no (SX).

Validity and Reliability of the Study

The following validity and reliability strategies were applied in the study. The triangulation as a mixed research method was used
to increase the validity and reliability of the results by completing the limitations or deficiencies of one research method with the
other method (Creswell, 2014). In order to carry out the study in a systematic way, the gamified learning process was explained
based on the D6 design in detail suggested by Werbach and Hunter (2015). The role of the researcher in this study was emphasized.
In order to prevent loss of data and to present evidence, it was taken photos and video recordings throughout the implementation
process. Data diversification was provided by using quantitative and qualitative data collection tools determined validity and
reliability measurements. The volunteer students responded to the interview form. It was applied the non-parametric data analysis
conditions to quantitative data (Field, 2009) and the interactive model flow for content analysis to qualitative data (Miles et al.,
2014). The quotations of student statements were used to strengthen the qualitative findings. The trustworthiness of the content
analysis (factors and quotations) is checked by an instructional technology expert specialized in gamification. In order to increase
the clarity of the quantitative and qualitative findings, it was used suitable tables and graphics. It was also emphasized the limitations
and ethical standards of the study.
RESULTS

Students’ Learning Style Scores and Levels

The students’ learning style scores and levels are presented in Figure 7.

2,07 3,78
Total Total
(mild-active) (mild-sensing)
-2,53 -3,00
Reflective Intuitive
(mild-reflective) (mild-intuitive)
4,20 4,85
Active (moderate-active) Sensing
(moderate-sensing)
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

5,61 2,49
Total Total
(moderate-visual) (mild-sequential)
-1,80 -1,83
Verbal Global
(mild-verbal) (mild-global)
6,48 3,96
Visual Sequential
(moderate-visual) (moderate-sequential)
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Figure 7. Students’ learning style scores and levels

According to descriptive findings, the visual/verbal dimension is the highest score and moderate level (M= 5.61) whereas
active/reflective dimension is the lowest score and mild level (M= 2.07). For each category of all four dimensions, participants have

70 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79

 Role of the Students’ Learning Styles on Motivation and Perception
the learning style scores at mild or moderate level. However, the active, sensing, visual, and sequential students have the higher
score and level than the reflective, intuitive, verbal, and global students.

Students’ Motivation Levels and Averages by Learning Styles

The descriptive results regarding students’ motivation levels and averages by learning styles are presented in Figure 8.

Sequential/Global; 3,83

Visual/Verbal; 3,75
Levels

Likert Rating= "Agree"

Sensing/Intuitive; 3,77

Active/Reflective; 3,82

4,00
3,95
3,90
3,85
3,80
Averages

3,75
3,70
3,65
3,60
Active Reflective Sensing Intuitive Visual Verbal Sequential Global
Attention-Relevance 3,7497 3,9091 3,8060 3,7622 3,8214 3,6182 3,7465 3,9583
Confidence-Satisfaction 3,7243 3,9128 3,7927 3,7278 3,7873 3,7538 3,7638 3,8429
Total Motivation 3,7359 3,9111 3,7988 3,7436 3,8029 3,6917 3,7559 3,8958

Figure 8. Students’ motivation levels and averages by learning styles

As seen in Figure 8, the sequential/global dimension has the highest averages (M= 3.83) whereas the visual/verbal dimension has
the lowest averages (M= 3.75). However, likert rating level is “Agree” for each category of all four dimensions. In addition, the
reflective, sensing, visual, and global students have the higher averages in terms of attention-relevance and confidence-satisfaction
sub-dimensions of motivation than the active, intuitive, verbal, and sequential students.
Effects of Learning Styles on Students’ Motivation towards Gamified Learning Process

Mann-Whitney U test is carried out to examine the difference between motivations of students with different learning styles. The
results are laid out in Table 3.

Table 3. The motivation results of students with different learning styles

Learning Mean Sum of

n M SD Rating U Z p η2
Styles rank ranks
Active 65 3.7359 .67041 Agree 45.95 2986.50
841.500 -1.070 .285 -0.11
Reflective 30 3.9111 .58719 Agree 52.45 1573.50
Sensing 82 3.7988 .65974 Agree 48.87 4007.50
461.500 -.775 .438 -.08
Intuitive 13 3.7436 .58478 Agree 42.50 552.50
Visual 85 3.8029 .62647 Agree 48.24 4100.50
404.500 -.249 .804 -.03
Verbal 10 3.6917 .83777 Agree 45.95 459.50
Sequential 71 3.7559 .70698 Agree 46.80 3323.00
767.000 -.729 .466 -.07
Global 24 3.8958 .41991 Agree 51.54 1237.00
Table 3 indicates not any significant differences between categories of each learning style dimension in terms of motivation.
However, the reflective, sensing, visual, and global students have the higher motivation averages than the active, intuitive, verbal,
and sequential students.

71 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79

F.B. Topu
Students’ Perception Levels and Averages by Learning Styles

The descriptive results regarding students’ perception levels and averages by learning styles are laid out in Figure 9.

Likert Rating= "Agree"

Active/Reflective; 4,67
Sensing/Intuitive; 4,64 Sequential/Global; 4,66
Levels

Visual/Verbal; 4,57

4,90
4,85
4,80
4,75
4,70
Averages

4,65
4,60
4,55
4,50
4,45
4,40
Active Reflective Sensing Intuitive Visual Verbal Sequential Global
Course Lecture 4,6115 4,7500 4,6494 4,6923 4,6794 4,4500 4,6338 4,7188
Exercise Activity 4,6115 4,8500 4,6799 4,7308 4,7000 4,5750 4,6620 4,7604
Overall Training Effectiveness 4,4308 4,7444 4,5325 4,5128 4,5412 4,4333 4,5070 4,5972
Total Perception 4,5622 4,7848 4,6286 4,6573 4,6492 4,4909 4,6095 4,7008

Figure 9. Students’ perception levels and averages by learning styles

As seen in Figure 9, the active/reflective dimension is the highest score (M= 4.67) whereas the visual/verbal dimension is the lowest
score (M= 4.57). However, likert rating level is “Agree” for each category of all four dimensions. In addition, the reflective, intuitive,
visual, and global students have the higher averages in terms of course lecture, exercise activity, and overall training effectiveness
sub-dimensions of perception than the active, sensing, verbal, and sequential students.
Effects of Learning Styles on Students’ Perception towards Gamified Learning Process

The Mann-Whitney U test is carried out to examine the difference between perceptions of students with different learning styles.
The results are laid out in Table 4.

Table 4. The perception results of students with different learning styles

Learning Mean Sum of

n M SD Rating U Z p η2
Styles rank ranks
Active 65 4,5622 1,05955 Agree 46.33 3011.50
866.500 -.870 .384 -.09
Reflective 30 4,7848 ,77782 Agree 51.62 1548.50
Sensing 82 4,6286 1,02287 Agree 48.55 3981.00
488.000 -.488 .626 -.05
Intuitive 13 4,6573 ,68650 Agree 44.54 579.00
Visual 85 4,6492 ,93209 Agree 47.91 4072.00
417.000 -.097 .923 -.01
Verbal 10 4,4909 1,38283 Agree 48.80 488.00
Sequential 71 4,6095 1,06400 Agree 47.90 3401.00
845.000 -.060 .952 -.01
Global 24 4,7008 ,69207 Agree 48.29 1159.00
Table 4 indicates not any significant differences between categories of each learning style dimension in terms of perception.
However, the reflective, intuitive, visual, and global students have the higher perception averages than the active, sensing, verbal,
and sequential students.
The Correlations between Motivation and Perception by Learning Styles

It is carried out the Spearman’s rank correlation test to reveal the correlations between motivation and perception of students by
learning styles. The results are laid out in Figure 10.
72 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79
 Role of the Students’ Learning Styles on Motivation and Perception
.744** (Active)
.686** (Reflecive)
.732** (Sensing)
.807** (Intuitive)
Motivation Perception
.714** (Visual)
.939** (Verbal)
.781** (Sequential)
.478* (Global)
*p<.05. **p<.01.

Figure 10. The correlations between motivation and perception of students by learning styles
Figure 10 indicates a positive and above medium or high level correlations between motivation and perception of students by
learning styles (p<.05, p<.01, r>0.40) (Field, 2009).

The Enabler and Barrier Factors of Motivation and Perception by Learning Styles in Gamified Learning Process

82% of the participants (78 of 95 prospective teachers) voluntarily fulfilled the interview form at the end of the gamified learning
process. The distribution of these participants by learning style and gender is presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Distribution of participants fulfilled the interview form by learning styles and gender

Learning Styles Female Male Total

Active 26 28 54
Reflective 10 14 24
Total 36 42 78
Sensing 32 35 67
Intuitive 4 7 11
Total 36 42 78
Visual 34 36 70
Verbal 2 6 8
Total 36 42 78
Sequential 26 29 55
Global 10 13 23
Total 36 42 78
It was determined the enabler and barrier factors of students’ motivation and perception in gamified learning process. The
frequencies and percentages of results by learning styles as well as quotations of the students (SX) are presented in Table 6 and
Table 7.

According to Table 6, even if participants had different learning styles, the more than three-fourth of them stated that using web 2.0
tools in gamified learning process was knowledge reinforcing. Especially, almost all of reflective and verbal learners agree with this
opinion. According to almost three-fourth of intuitive learners, participating in-class activities increased retention and recall of
knowledge. The majority of students also stated that performing in-class activities ensured the active participation. In addition, the
more than half of students stated that getting badges and points was motivating, and engaging in gamified tasks made the learning
process fun. They also stated that the competitions increased interaction between peers and triggered the desire to be at the top of
leaderboard.

As seen in Table 7, time-consuming and intensive workload activities negatively affected the perception of the less than one-third
of the participants. Moreover, excessive noise and confusion were factors that negatively affect the motivation. According to one-
fourth of students, long duration activities and negative badges and points caused the negative emotions in them. Especially, global
learners was bored the more than others in long duration activities. As for competitive tasks were one of the factors which disrupted
the peer relationship. Even if it was at the lowest percentages, the time limitation for competitive tasks caused to worry about failing
to complete tasks and stress in students.

In summary, the frequencies of students with different learning styles are close to each other in terms of enablers. So is it in terms
of barriers. Therefore, it can be said that is available common factors as enablers and barriers affecting motivation and perception
of participants with different learning styles.

73 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79

F.B. Topu
Table 6. Enablers
Total Active Reflective Sensing Intuitive Visual Verbal Sequential Global
(n=78) (n=54) (n=24) (n=67) (n=11) (n=70) (n=8) (n=55) (n=23) Quotations
f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f %

“Thanks to these interesting web 2.0 tools, I think that I

Using web 2.0 tools as reinforcing
61 78% 39 72% 22 92% 55 82% 6 55% 54 77% 7 88% 42 76% 19 83% have reinforced my knowledge about the subjects of this
knowledge
course.” (S17)

Performing in-class activities as “This course has very good activities in terms of activating
49 63% 32 59% 17 71% 42 63% 7 64% 44 63% 5 63% 32 58% 17 74%
ensuring the active participation the student and learning by doing.” (S21)
“I think that Class Dojo, badges, points and reward system
Getting badges and points as
46 59% 33 61% 13 54% 40 60% 6 55% 42 60% 4 50% 31 56% 15 65% indirectly motivate students and increase their interest in the
motivation-booster
lesson.” (S8)
“The course process was quite immersive. We attended the
Engaging in tasks as ensuring the lessons with surprise activities and without getting bored.
42 54% 26 48% 16 67% 36 54% 6 55% 38 54% 4 50% 31 56% 11 48%
enjoyable learning process Since the activities in the lessons were fun, better learning
was achieved.” (S5)
“At first, even if I could not remember of the theoretical
Participating in-class activities as
knowledge about the subject and then, thanks to the activity
increasing the retention and recall 41 53% 25 46% 16 67% 33 49% 8 73% 37 53% 4 50% 25 45% 16 70%
we performed, I was able to recall of knowledge and
of knowledge
answered the questions in the exam.” (S42)
“The competition-based activities excited me a lot and I was
Participating in competitions as
40 51% 26 48% 14 58% 34 51% 6 55% 37 53% 3 38% 27 49% 13 57% very motivated because it provided a sweet competitive
excitement-booster
environment.” (S39)
“I wanted my name to be at the top of the leaderboard, and
Being on the leaderboard as the
39 50% 26 48% 13 54% 32 48% 7 64% 36 51% 3 38% 25 45% 14 61% this triggered me to work harder. In this way, my intrinsic
desire-booster to the top rank
motivation increased.” (S47)

Participating collaborative and “I think that collaborative and competitive activities

competitive activities as contributed to increase interaction within group and to
37 47% 24 44% 13 54% 31 46% 6 55% 34 49% 3 38% 25 45% 12 52%
interaction-booster within and utilize each other’s experience, and to communicate more
between groups with other groups we competed with them.” (S26)

“Painting paper-cups was nice. It both increased the

Getting painted paper-cups as
34 44% 23 43% 11 46% 30 45% 4 36% 30 43% 4 50% 23 42% 11 48% competition and we were able to see what we did and how
competitive-booster
much. This has been a motivation factor for us.” (S7)
“I did my best in the task completing process to be
Tasks completing as enhancing
28 36% 21 39% 7 29% 25 37% 3 27% 26 37% 2 25% 21 38% 7 30% successful. Absolutely, this increased my participation and
drive for successful
motivation in the course.” (S76)
Performing in-class activities as “Activities in this gamified process facilitated as well as
17 22% 9 17% 8 33% 15 22% 2 18% 16 23% 1 13% 10 18% 7 30%
facilitator the learning accelerated the learning.” (S54)

74 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79

 Role of the Students’ Learning Styles on Motivation and Perception
Table 7. Barriers

Total Active Reflective Sensing Intuitive Visual Verbal Sequential Global

(n=78) (n=54) (n=24) (n=67) (n=11) (n=70) (n=8) (n=55) (n=23) Quotations
f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f %
Time-consuming and much “In this course, there was a lot of responsibility on the
workload in-class activities/tasks student compared to other courses. We spent a lot of
27 35% 22 41% 5 21% 21 31% 6 55% 24 34% 3 38% 22 40% 5 22%
as the cause of negative time on various tasks and activities. So, I was not
perception satisfied with this situation.” (S41)
“The active participation of all students in group
Excessive noise and confusion
activities sometimes led to loss of control and noise in
during activities as the cause of 25 32% 19 35% 6 25% 19 28% 6 55% 24 34% 1 13% 19 35% 6 26%
the classroom, or even deviation from the target
de-motivation
subject.” (S7)
Long duration activities and
“Sometimes the long lesson time could be boring due
lessons as the cause of feeling 21 27% 11 20% 10 42% 17 25% 4 36% 21 30% 0 0% 11 20% 10 43%
to the long duration of the activities.” (S17)
boredom
“I think that the students who get a negative badges in
Negative badges and points as
the Class Dojo panics and it creates a sense of
the cause of stress and lack of 20 26% 15 28% 5 21% 17 25% 3 27% 17 24% 3 38% 14 25% 6 26%
humiliation for the students get the lower scores in the
self-confidence
leaderboard.” (S90)
Competitive tasks as the cause of
“Sometimes, when the dose of competition is too much,
negative peer interaction and
18 23% 13 24% 5 21% 14 21% 4 36% 17 24% 1 13% 14 25% 4 17% small arguments can arise. This situation negatively
discussions within and inter
affects my motivation towards the course.” (S49)
groups
Excessive winning ambition of “It bothered me that some of my friends were overly
some classmates as the cause of 17 22% 11 20% 6 25% 17 25% 0 0% 15 21% 2 25% 14 25% 3 13% ambitious and competitive, and after a while, it
the other students’ de-motivation reduced my motivation.” (S48)
“I do not have a positive attitude towards group
Disliking group activities as the
activities, as failure may occur due to people who do not
cause of low motivation and 12 15% 9 17% 3 13% 10 15% 2 18% 10 14% 2 25% 8 15% 4 17%
adequately fulfill their duties. This reduces my
negative perception
motivation.” (S8)
Time limitation for competitive
“Worry about not being able to complete the tasks in a
tasks as a cause of worry about
10 13% 6 11% 4 17% 7 10% 3 27% 9 13% 1 13% 6 11% 4 17% limited time was making me nervous. I didn't like this
failing to complete the tasks and
situation.” (S27)
stress

75 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79

F.B. Topu
DISCUSSION

Effects of Learning Styles on Motivation and Perception

In this study, all students, regardless of their learning style, participating in gamified learning process had high and close motivation
level to each other and had the high positive perception level toward gamified learning process. In parallel, Ong et al. (2013)
determined that students’ motivation and perception in gamification were largely independent of personality type. These results
proves that gamified activities-tasks have the power to motivate students with different characteristics and positively contribute to
the perceptions of them to the learning process. Hassan et al. (2021) determined that gamification elements and activities chosen by
considering learning styles significantly increase students’ motivation. On the contrary, Pakinee and Puritat (2021) observed that
gamified e-learning environment had a negative effect on perception of extroverted students. Kwon and Özpolat (2021) found that
students had significantly the lower satisfaction in narrow gamifying process. According to Deterding (2012) and Dicheva et al.
(2015), gamification enables students to enrich their experiences only if applied correctly throughout the learning process. As for
this study, the various gamification elements and gamified activities-tasks have been inserted into the learning process by
considering different student characteristics (as seen Table 1). This situation may have increased the motivation of students with
different learning styles as well as helped to have the positive perceptions of them towards this gamified process.

On the other hand, Buckley and Doyle (2017) determined that active or global participants had a positive perception toward
gamification. They also stressed that gamification helped to have positive perception of students acting with extrinsic motivation
by encouraging them to participate in learning process. However, they revealed that conscientious participants had the less
motivation in gamified process. Ghaban and Hendley (2019) stressed that gamification elements using in the application enhanced
students’ motivation and thus the more motivated students engaged in gamified learning process the longer time. They also revealed
that gamification elements motivated the extroverted learners and reduced their dropout rates. It demotivated the neurotic students
whereas it did not affect the conscientious students. Oliveira et al. (2022) revealed that personalization gamification based on
personality traits had not any significant effect on students’ motivation, perception and enjoyment. The reason for these contrasting
results in the literature may be emerged the using of different models on personality traits and learning styles in the studies and
integrating gamification into learning environments in different ways.

The Correlations between Motivation and Perception by Learning Styles

It is determined positively medium or high correlations between motivation and perception of students by learning styles. This
significant correlations between the variables may have resulted from students’ participation in task-based gamified activities.
Namely, the goal-oriented activity is the factor that increases motivation (Glover, 2013). In parallel, Buckley and Doyle (2017)
revealed the positive correlation between extraverted personality trait and perception of gamification. They also suggested that
motivating external stimuli such as badges and points may contribute to student satisfaction. According to Galbis-Córdova et al.
(2017), sub-dimensions of motivation had a positive effect of students’ attitude towards the learning process.

The Enabler and Barrier Factors of Motivation and Perception by Learning Styles

As to qualitative findings, the more than three-fourth of students with different learning styles stated that engaging with web 2.0
tools in gamified learning process reinforced the knowledge. Especially, almost all of reflective and verbal learners agree with this
opinion. When the knowledge pieces about context are presented simultaneously, it can be easily linked between them (Moreno,
2010). Furthermore, various media and materials can positively affect perceived attention, relevance, and confidence as sub-
dimensions of motivation as well as increase curiosity (Galbis-Córdova et al., 2017). In current study, considering the characteristics
of students with such learning styles (Felder & Soloman, 1994), it is an interesting and remarkable finding that highlights the
contribution of gamification to positive learning outcomes. However, time-consuming and intensive workload activities negatively
affected perception by less than one-third of the participants. Inserting more instructional elements into a learning environment lead
to more mental effort (Sweller, 2010). Therefore, it is suggested to decrease the complexity of gamified learning process considering
the personality traits (Krath et al., 2021; Luo, 2022) so as not to reduce the mentioned positive contribution of gamification.

According to majority of students, especially intuitive learners, performing in-class activities increased the retention and recall of
knowledge and ensured the active participation. This is an expected result due to the characteristics of these students who have a
tendency to get information by perceiving (Felder & Soloman, 1994). Moreover, the majority of students also stated that performing
in-class activities ensured the active participation. Buckley and Doyle (2017) emphasized that students who were motivated by
engaging in active learning environments are positively tendency to gamification. However, excessive noise and confusion were
factors that negatively affect the motivation. Luo et al. (2021) expressed teachers’ concerns about losing classroom control due to
these problems.

The more than half of students stressed that getting badges and points was motivating and engaging in gamified tasks made the
learning process fun. Using gamification elements and activities by considering students’ learning can affect positively motivation
(Hassan et al., 2021). However, long duration activities, and negative badges and points caused the negative emotions in one-fourth
of students. These negative feelings may be reason why students’ motivation which expected to be higher towards gamified learning
process is getting around fifty percent. Some gamified studies revealed that students were the less motivated and satisfied (Kwon &
76 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79
 Role of the Students’ Learning Styles on Motivation and Perception
Özpolat, 2021), motivation and satisfaction of students decreased over time (Hanus & Fox, 2015). Pakinee and Puritat (2021)
determined that fun and curiosity are short-lived in gamification. They suggested to insert new gamification elements into gamified
tasks from time to time throughout the learning process to keep on the attractiveness of this learning process and the high engagement
of students.

The global learners was bored the more than others in long duration activities. This may be due to the characteristic tendency of
students with this learning style to develop their own problem-solving technique rapidly (Felder & Soloman, 1994). The same
gamified intervention creates a feeling of boredom and unwillingness in students with different learning styles (Hassan et al., 2021).
Some students may focus on collecting badges and points rather than on educational content. These gamification elements,
especially in long duration activities, can be boring and frustrating to some students. In other words, positive results can just emerge
in short-term gamified activities (Ghaban & Hendley, 2019). On the other hand, Glover (2013) stated that time-limited activities
can apply to reduce reward addiction. Contrary to Glover's statement, in this study, the time limitation for competitive tasks caused
to worry about failing to complete tasks and stress in students at the lowest percentages. This is an interesting finding, even if it is
at the lowest percentages. Fiş Erümit and Karakuş Yılmaz (2022) revealed similar result with this study.

The half of students reported that collaborative activities and competitions as excitement-booster increased the interaction between
peers and triggered the desire to be at the top of leaderboard. Similarly, Ghaban and Hendley (2019) emphasized that gamification
supports the socialization of learners. Bai et al. (2021) stated the positive attitudes of many towards the leaderboard in order to keep
competing with each other. Glover (2013) stressed that the leaderboard can be used to encourage collaboration as well as competitive
activities. In this way, it can be a powerful motivator. However, one-fourth of students reported that these cooperative activities and
competition disrupted thee peer relations and caused excessive ambition. While competitive gamified learning intervention provides
individual motivating, it can lead to negative emotions. Some students do not want to compete with peers as it reduces their
motivation. Therefore, competitive activities should be integrated by considering individual differences into a gamified learning
context to avoid the de-motivating effect (Buckley & Doyle, 2017; Buckley et al., 2017; Domínguez et al., 2013; Kyewski & Krämer,
2018; Pakinee & Puritat, 2021).

The main function of such a gamified process is to enable students with different learning styles to participate in goal-oriented
activities and improve their learning outcomes (Buckley & Doyle, 2017). The fact that enablers are the more than barriers in this
study proves the positive perspectives of the participants towards gamified learning process, even if they have different learning
styles. It can be said that these motivators are the key factors for effective gamification process. As Deterding (2012) emphasized,
designing gamified processes that use social psychological processes effectively by considering individual differences will help
improve learning outcomes. Furthermore, as different participants enjoy different gamification elements, it is important to design
gamified learning process which is suitable for a variety of participant types (Fan et al., 2015; Fitz-Walter et al., 2017; Kwon &
Özpolat, 2021).

CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

This study with 7-week gamified implementation pointed out of the role of students’ learning styles on motivation and perception
of them towards gamified learning process. It was determined that students with different learning styles had the high motivation
and perception. It was found that the reflective, sensing, visual, and global students had the higher motivation averages than the
active, intuitive, verbal, and sequential students whereas the reflective, intuitive, visual, and global students had the higher
perception averages than the active, sensing, verbal, and sequential students. However, it was figure out that there was not any
significant differences between categories of each learning style dimension in terms of motivation as well as perception. In addition,
it was determined that there was a positive and above medium or high level correlations between motivation and perception of
students by learning styles. It was also revealed that frequencies and percentages of enablers were the higher than barriers
considering students’ learning styles. Accordingly, it can be said that this gamified learning process cover a large number of elements
that respond to the various needs of students with different learning styles. Although, regardless of learning style, some students
were the less satisfied with the workload, competition, and reward system in gamified learning process, this situation did not result
in a decrease the level of motivation and perception.
On the other hand, Buckley and Doyle (2017) stated that the characteristic differences of participants affect their reactions to various
gamification elements. However, just a few studies focused on the effects of this parameter motivation and perception. For this
reason, this study will be a reference for new research on face-to-face gamified learning process that will be based on learning styles
model of Felder and Silverman (1988). Nevertheless, as a limitation of this study, there is no control group since students' motivation
and perception were compared by learning styles. New studies may focus on comparing experimental and control groups in terms
of learning style.

As a result, the gamification process should be investigated in detail, taking into account personality traits and learning styles, in
order to ensure that students exhibit positive learning behaviors (Buckley & Doyle, 2017, Denden et al., 2021; Fan et al., 2015;
Pakinee & Puritat, 2021).

77 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79

F.B. Topu
Ethical Approval Procedure

Ethics committee approval was received for this study from the Ethics Committee of Graduate School of Educational Sciences at
Atatürk University (Approval Date: April 11, 2023. Approval Number: E-30292544234-2300117196).

REFERENCES
Bai, S., Hew, K. F., Sailer, M., & Jia, C. (2021). From top to bottom: How positions on different types of leaderboard may affect
fully online student learning performance, intrinsic motivation, and course engagement. Computers & Education, 173,
104297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104297
Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2017). Individualising gamification: An investigation of the impact of learning styles and personality
traits on the efficacy of gamification using a prediction market. Computers & Education, 106, 43-55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.009
Buckley, P., Doyle, E., & Doyle, S. (2017). Game on! Students’ perceptions of gamified learning. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 20(3), 1-10. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26196115
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Denden, M., Tlili, A., Essalmi, F., Jemni, M., Chen, N. S., & Burgos, D. (2021). Effects of gender and personality differences on
students’ perception of game design elements in educational gamification. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 154, 102674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102674
Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: Designing for motivation. Interactions, 19(4), 14-17. https://doi.org/10.1145/2212877.2212883
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, September). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining
"gamification". In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic Mindtrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media
Environments (pp. 9-15). Tampere, Finland. ACM. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2181037.2181040
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://www.j-ets.net/collection/published-issues/18_3
Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-Herráiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying
learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380-392.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020
Earley, E. A. (2012). Effectiveness of virtual worlds in public health preparedness training (Doctoral dissertation, Capella
University). https://www.proquest.com/intermediateredirectforezproxy
Fan, K. K., Xiao, P. W., & Su, C. (2015). The effects of learning styles and meaningful learning on the learning achievement of
gamification health education curriculum. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(5),
1211-1229. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1413a
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7),
674-681. https://www.engr.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/drive/1QP6kBI1iQmpQbTXL-08HSl0PwJ5BYnZW/1988-LS-
plus-note.pdf
Felder, R. M. & Soloman, B. A. (1994). Index of learning styles questionnaire. https://www.webtools.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/
Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, reliability and validity of the index of learning styles. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112. https://wss.apan.org/jko/mls/Learning%20Content/ILS_Validation(IJEE).pdf
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Fiş Erümit, S., & Karakuş Yılmaz, T. (2022). Gamification design in education: What might give a sense of play and learning?
Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-022-09604-y
Fiş Erümit, S., & Karakuş Yılmaz, T. (2021). The happy association of game and gamification: the use and evaluation of game
elements with game-based activities. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 31(1), 103-121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2021.2006077
Fitz-Walter, Z., Johnson, D., Wyeth, P., Tjondronegoro, D., & Scott-Parker, B. (2017). Driven to drive? Investigating the effect of
gamification on learner driver behavior, perceived motivation and user experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 71,
586-595. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.050
Galbis-Córdoba, A., Martí-Parreño, J., & Currás-Pérez, R. (2017). Higher education students’ attitude towards the use of
gamification for competencies development. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 13(1), 129-146.
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/188128/
Ghaban, W., & Hendley, R. (2019). How different personalities benefit from gamification. Interacting with Computers, 31(2), 138-
153. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwz009
Glover, I. (2013, June). Play as you learn: Gamification as a technique for motivating learners. In J. Herrington, A. Couros & V.
Irvine (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia-World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1999-2008).
Victoria, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/112246/
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
Hassan, M. A., Habiba, U., Majeed, F., & Shoaib, M. (2021). Adaptive gamification in e-learning based on students’ learning styles.
Interactive Learning Environments, 29(4), 545-565. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1588745
78 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79
 Role of the Students’ Learning Styles on Motivation and Perception
Kapp, K. M., Blair, L., & Mesch, R. (2014). The gamification of learning and instruction fieldbook: Ideas into practice. John Wiley
& Sons.
Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3‐learning. Distance education, 29(2), 175-185.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910802154970
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of instructional development, 10(3),
2-10. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF02905780.pdf?pdf=button
Khenissi, M. A., Essalmi, F., Jemni, M., Graf, S., & Chen, N. S. (2016). Relationship between learning styles and genres of games.
Computers & Education, 101, 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.005
Krath, J., Schürmann, L., & Von Korflesch, H. F. (2021). Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and
analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior,
125, 106963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963
Kutu, H., & Sozbilir, M. (2011). Adaptation of instructional materials motivation survey to Turkish: A validity and reliability study.
Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 292-311.
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/39824
Kwon, H. Y., & Özpolat, K. (2021). The dark side of narrow gamification: Negative impact of assessment gamification on student
perceptions and content knowledge. INFORMS Transactions on Education, 21(2), 67-81.
https://doi.org/10.1287/ited.2019.0227
Kyewski, E., & Krämer, N. C. (2018). 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. Computers & Education, 118, 25-37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.006
Luo, Z. (2022). Gamification for educational purposes: What are the factors contributing to varied effectiveness? Education and
Information Technologies, 27(1), 891-915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10642-9
Luo, Z., Brown, C., & O’Steen, B. (2021). Factors contributing to teachers’ acceptance intention of gamified learning tools in
secondary schools: An exploratory study. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 6337-6363.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10622-z
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Moreno, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory: More food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 135-141.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9122-9
Oliveira, W., Hamari, J., Joaquim, S., Toda, A. M., Palomino, P. T., Vassileva, J., & Isotani, S. (2022). The effects of personalized
gamification on students’ flow experience, motivation, and enjoyment. Smart Learning Environments, 9(1), 1-26.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00194-x
Ong, D. L. T., Chan, Y. Y., Cho, W. H., & Koh, T. Y. (2013, July). Motivation of learning: An assessment of the practicality and
effectiveness of gamification within a tertiary education system in Malaysia. In Proceedings of World Academy Conference
(pp. 131-146). https://core.ac.uk/reader/148366460
Pakinee, A., & Puritat, K. (2021). Designing a gamified e-learning environment for teaching undergraduate ERP course based on
big five personality traits. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4049-4067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-
021-10456-9
Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & Mandl, H. (2017). How gamification motivates: An experimental study of the effects of
specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 371-380.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033
Samanci, N., & Keskin, M. (2007). Felder ve Soloman öğrenme stili indeksi: Türkçe’ye uyarlanması ve geçerlik-güvenirlik
çalışması. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(2), 37-54.
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1495081
Smiderle, R., Rigo, S. J., Marques, L. B., Peçanha de Miranda Coelho, J. A., & Jaques, P. A. (2020). The impact of gamification on
students’ learning, engagement and behavior based on their personality traits. Smart Learning Environments, 7(1), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0098-x
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review,
22(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5
Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Philadelphia: Wharton Digital
Press.
Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2015). The gamification toolkit: Dynamics, mechanics, and components for the win. Wharton Digital
Press.
Yildiz, İ., Topçu, E., & Kaymakci, S. (2021). The effect of gamification on motivation in the education of pre-service social studies
teachers. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 100907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100907
Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps.
O'Reilly Media.

79 © 2024, Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 9(1), 61-79