The power of gamification

How does incorporating a math-based game affect elementary math achievement?

At a Glance

• Game-based learning has the potential to improve student engagement and achievement in math.
• Students in grades three to five across 60 elementary schools used the First in Math platform to play math games aligned to math standards and curriculum.
• In schools with high levels of game use, achievement results were significantly higher in grades three and four than in schools with low levels of use.
• The difference for fifth grade was less significant, suggesting game effectiveness goes down as the novelty wears off and the math concepts become more complex.

Elementary mathematics forms the foundation for critical thinking and problem-solving skills students need for future academic and real-world success (Jablonka, 2020; Jurdak, 2016). Yet engaging students and fostering proficiency in mathematics remains a persistent challenge. Educators have explored various innovative approaches and platforms aimed at enhancing students’ mathematical achievements, with varying degrees of success (Higgins et al., 2019; Liu, Pan, & Lee, 2017).

One approach that has gained considerable attention is gamification, the use of game design principles in educational contexts (Kapp, 2012). Research has consistently highlighted the benefits of gamification in improving motivation and academic outcomes. For example, Dorit Alt (2023) found that gamification significantly enhanced students’ engagement and enthusiasm for learning math, while a study conducted by Önder Karamert and Aslıhan Vardar (2021) demonstrated improvements in students’ academic performance. These findings suggest that gamification provides an engaging math learning approach that fosters a more interactive, enjoyable, and accessible learning environment (Jutin & Maat, 2024).

While these studies underscore the potential of gamification, its implementation in schools varies widely. Some schools adopt a robust integration of gamification tools, while others employ it more sparingly. Does the degree of gamification affect students’ math achievement?

Our research

To explore this issue, we examined school-level math performance data from 60 elementary schools where students engaged with a math gamification platform. We focused specifically on grades three through five. Our goal was to provide actionable insights into the relationship between the use of math games and student outcomes.

Gamification platform

The gamification platform schools implemented is First in Math (Suntex International, Inc.) The platform features 250 different problem-solving activities aligned with K-8 math standards.

Research has consistently highlighted the benefits of gamification in improving motivation and academic outcomes.

For example, the game Decimals More or Less is aligned with the 5th-grade Common Core Standard NBT.A.3.B, which requires students to compare two decimals to thousandths. During gameplay, the student needs to place seven emerging balls with decimal values to thousandths in order from least to greatest. Play is dependent on the students’ accuracy, speed, and estimation.

Teachers guide students to math activities on the platform based on the lessons they are teaching each day. Activities can be personalized for each student, and teachers receive reports showing how students are performing, where they are growing, and what learning gaps remain. 

Data sources and analysis

We collected school-level performance data from 60 elementary schools in the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. These schools exhibited comparable baseline mathematics performance levels.

All participating schools had implemented the FIM program for one academic year, during which teachers incorporated FIM games into regular lessons to help students draw meaningful connections between game-based practices and core mathematical content. During small group differentiated instruction, FIM was used as a rotation activity, providing students with opportunities to independently explore math concepts and reinforce their skills.

To support goal setting and motivation, teachers used goal sheets and classroom goal boards, where students could sign their names upon reaching specific milestones in the program. Teachers also actively participated in FIM themselves, modeling enthusiasm and commitment, which contributed to a positive classroom culture that emphasized persistence, growth, and achievement in mathematics.

We categorized schools at each grade level (three, four, and five) into two groups based on their use of the FIM platform: high and low, with 30 schools assigned to each group. Then, we analyzed how differing levels of gamification platform usage impacted student performance on statewide standardized mathematics assessments.

Gamification has potential to improve achievement

At each grade level, the high-usage group achieved higher performance scores than the low-usage group, although the degree of difference varied (Table 1).

These findings suggest that the impact of the gamification platform on students’ math achievement may vary depending on the developmental stage of students, the content being taught, and how gamification interacts with those factors.

In third grade, the mean score for the high-usage group was 43.19, compared to 29.87 for the low-usage group. The magnitude of the differences was moderate. Grade four students in high-usage schools likewise achieved a higher mean score (30.87) than those in lower usage schools (19.32). The magnitude of the difference in the means for these students was large. In both cases, the difference was statistically significant.

For grade five, however, we found no significant difference in scores between the high usage group (mean score of 26.76) and the low-usage group (mean score of 19.30) in our initial two-tailed analysis. But the one-tailed test, which looked at the direction of the difference showed a small magnitude of difference, which was borderline statistically significant.

Grade	Group	N	Mean	SD	t	df	p-value	Cohen’s d
Grade 3	H	30	43.19	16.97	3.00	58	.004**	.78
	L	30	29.87	17.33
Grade 4	H	30	30.87	12.84	3.61	58	<.001***	.93
	L	30	19.32	11.92
Grade 5	H	30	26.76	17.41	1.71	58	.046*	.44
	L	30	19.30	16.30

As indicated in Table 1, the results of this study reveal significant differences in math performance between schools with high and low FIM usage in grades three and four, but more nuanced results in grade five. These findings suggest that the impact of the gamification platform on students’ math achievement may vary depending on the developmental stage of students, the content being taught, and how gamification interacts with those factors.

For grades three and four, the significant differences in performance scores can be attributed to the developmental and curricular alignment of gamification with students’ learning needs at these levels. In these grades, students are typically building foundational skills in mathematics, such as number sense, basic operations, and corresponding problem-solving strategies (Aunio & Räsänen, 2016). Gamification platforms like FIM align well with these skill sets. Younger learners also are more likely to respond positively to the novelty and interactivity of the platform, translating to improved performance (Lamrani & Abdelwahed, 2020). Furthermore, the curriculum at these grade levels often involves highly structured content, which gamification can complement effectively through practice and repetition.

Teacher training programs should emphasize effective implementation strategies to maximize the platform’s impact across grade levels.

The outcomes for fifth grade suggest a diminishing impact of gamification platform usage. This could be because the curriculum becomes more abstract and complex as students progress into higher grades (Vural & Vural, 2020). These concepts may require instructional approaches that emphasize deeper cognitive engagement, which gamification may not always provide.

Additionally, the novelty effect of gamification (Rodrigues et al., 2022), which can drive initial engagement, may wear off by grade five, potentially reducing its effectiveness as a motivational tool. Finally, differences in how teachers implement the platform across grades could contribute to the differences in effect size (Pan et al., 2024).

Implications and future directions

Our findings suggest that gamification platforms like FIM are particularly effective for younger students, where foundational math skills and engagement are critical. However, the nuanced results for grade five indicate a need to adapt gamification strategies as students transition to more abstract mathematical concepts and higher-order thinking skills.

Future research should explore how gamification can be tailored to better align with older elementary students’ cognitive and developmental needs, such as incorporating elements that promote critical thinking, problem-solving, and self-regulation skills. Additionally, longitudinal studies could investigate the sustained impact of gamification over time, providing insights into whether its effects diminish due to reduced novelty or whether continued use leads to deeper learning benefits.

From a practical perspective, teacher training programs should emphasize effective implementation strategies to maximize the platform’s impact across grade levels. Understanding how factors like usage frequency, integration with the curriculum, and teacher attitudes influence outcomes will be crucial for optimizing the effectiveness of gamification in diverse math educational settings.

 

Reference

Alt, D. (2023). Assessing the benefits of gamification in mathematics for student gameful experience and gaming motivation. Computers & Education, 200, 104806.

Aunio, P. & Räsänen, P. (2016). Core numerical skills for learning mathematics in children aged five to eight years—a working model for educators. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24 (5), 684-704.

Higgins, K., Huscroft-D’Angelo, J., & Crawford, L. (2019). Effects of technology in mathematics on achievement, motivation, and attitude: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57 (2), 283-319.

Jablonka, E. (2020). Critical thinking in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (pp. 159-163). Springer.

Jurdak, M. (2016). Learning and teaching real world problem solving in school mathematics: A multiple-perspective framework for crossing the boundary. Springer.

Jutin, N.T. & Maat, S.M.B. (2024). The effectiveness of gamification in teaching and learning mathematics: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 13 (1).

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

Karamert, Ö. & Vardar, A.K. (2021). The effect of gamification on young mathematics learners’ achievements and attitudes. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 4 (2), 96-114.

Lamrani, R. & Abdelwahed, E.H. (2020). Game-based learning and gamification to improve skills in early years education. Computer Science and Information Systems, 17 (1), 339-356.

Liu, M., Pan, Z. & Lee, H. (2017). Using iPads in instruction: A case study. In J. Johnston (Ed.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2017 (pp. 854-859). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Pan, Z., Li, S., Zheng, J., & Biegley, L.T. (2024). Impacts of different gamified problem-solving integration approaches on elementary math: An engagement and metacognitive knowledge perspective. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1-28.

Rodrigues, L., Pereira, F.D., Toda, A.M., Palomino, P.T., Pessoa, M., Silva, L., Carvalho, G., Fernandes, D., Oliveira, E.H.T., Cristea, A.I., & Isotani, S. (2022). Gamification suffers from the novelty effect but benefits from the familiarization effect: Findings from a longitudinal study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19, 13.

Vural, Ö.F. & Vural, S. (2020). An examination of 5th grade mathematics curriculum in terms of 21st century skills. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 6 (2), 82-92.

 

---

This article appears in the Winter 2025 issue of Kappan, Vol. 107, No. 3-4.