Running Head: COMPETITIVE GAMING IN EDUCATION

Competitive Games in Education

Gary Sullivan

Towson University
COMPETITIVE GAMES IN 2
EDUCATION

Abstract

Competitive gaming is a tool widely utilized by teachers in the modern era. From Kahoot

to Quizzez to Jeopardy, review games and study tools, competitive games are integrated into the

modern classroom everywhere today (Amrein-Beardsley, 2009). Whether or not these tools are

effective at engaging students in learning in the classroom is up for debate, but several studies

suggest that competitive gaming use in the classroom has implications for student achievement

and engagement.

Competitive Gaming

Student engagement in the classroom is something all educators can agree is a key

component to successful student learning. Ways of achieving increased student engagement are

as different as the different teachers you find walking down a school hallway, but something like

competitive games is somewhat of a common theme. Studies suggest (Brom, Šisler, Slussareff,

Selmbacherová, & Hlávka, (2016), Chun-Wang Wei, Hao-Yun Kao, Hsin-Hsien Lu, & Yi Chun

Liu. (2018) that competitive gaming use in the classroom has both a positive and negative impact

on student engagement depending on the learners involved (using quantifiers like age group,

experience with games, etc.) (Brom, et. al., 2016), Chun-Wang Wei, et. al., 2018). Both

researchers suggest that student psychology links both positive and negative feelings to

competitive gaming environments.

Research Question

Students in all subjects sometimes struggle to stay engaged and on task with all their

lessons throughout the day. Are competitive games helping or hurting student engagement when

used by teachers in modern classrooms? I believe that competitive games increase student
COMPETITIVE GAMES IN 3
EDUCATION

engagement overall when used effectively. While researching games in the classroom, I found

several studies that suggest competitive games bring out the best and worst of students. The

research question I intend to address will be as follows:

1. Do competitive games increase student engagement and learning in the classroom when

used effectively?

Review of Literature

This literature review will examine both sides of this argument in order to determine

whether students who participate in competitive gaming environments display higher levels of

engagement and learning than in environments without. The articles within the review are all

recent within the last 5 years, as technology related to gaming and education is constantly

evolving.

A lot of research has been done on the positive effects of incorporating competitive

games into learning environments. In a study by Chun-Wang Wei, et al., (2018) students

reported a higher level of engagement and participation when using digitally based games.

Brom’s study mentioned earlier used the game “Europe 2045” on computers as part of a digitally

based learning initiative. Brom’s study involved 14 groups of high school and college students,

which totaled approximately 300 students. This sample included students of varying academic

achievement. Brom separated the groups based on classes and included a 60-person non-

computer-based control group working with similar content. Brom had each computer-based

group complete the “Europe 2045” simulation. The simulation started each group in the modern-

day political climate of Europe, and each “turn” involved students progressing one year and
COMPETITIVE GAMES IN 4
EDUCATION

making choices about diplomacy, economic, and policy decisions, followed by a voting phase.

The non-computer-based control group went through a similar process without the inclusion of

the competitive voting phase. Both groups examined the same source material to support their

arguments. This is important because in the computer-based group, each team of students has a

set of policies they wish to enact, but they also require votes from other groups to do so. This

greatly contrasts the control group in which participants only discussed their policies. Thus, the

only difference between the computer and non-computer groups is that there is a “victor” in the

computer-based group, providing a competitive element. Brom reported in the results that the

“games induced comparatively higher generalized positive affect and flow. Participants also

learned more with the games.” Compared to the control groups, this supports the theory that

competitive gaming introduced positive elements of engagement and learning.

Smith and Chan (2017) did a similar study in which engineering students engaged in a

collaborative competitive game called “Space Race”. This study included 485 college level

students over the course of one college semester, using pre and posttests to gather student

feedback and data. The objective of the game was to compete in four-man teams versus other

student groups, in a race to answer the 45 algebra related questions the fastest. Students

competed against others in the class in order to be the fastest to answer all questions correctly.

Incorrect submissions required the team to work together to fix the answer, resulting in

engagement of the entire team for the game. The results of their study found that 82% of students

who engaged in the competitive game were likely to recommend it to others based off a post

lesson questionnaire, and that often participants who played the game scored higher than the

control group traditional instruction students on the end of course exams (Smith, et. al., 2017).
COMPETITIVE GAMES IN 5
EDUCATION

Another study done by researchers Chun-Wang Wei, Hao-Yun Kao, Hsin-Hsien Lu, &

Yi Chun Liu used a modified version of the board game “Monopoly” to teach vocabulary to

students. The key modification was that rather than using a dice roll for movement players had to

earn tokens from correctly completed vocabulary-based questions. The competitive gaming

session was compared to a session using a personalized assistance strategy. They reported in

their results that the “integration of a competitive gaming scenario with a personalized assistance

strategy helped students improve their vocabulary acquisition. (Chün-Wang Wei, et. al., 2018)"

The addition of the competitive gaming scenario led to an increase of overall engagement and

learning.

In the same vein, researcher Noboru Matsuda and his team conducted a research study on

the effect of using a competitive game show to teach algebra. The goal of this study was to

determine the effect of competitive games on student engagement using a rating system and

“simStudent” to work towards higher ratings when solving algebraic equations. The study was

comprised of 141 9th grade students, with a control group utilizing the core algebra curriculum,

and the experimental group using both the core curriculum and the game show program. There

was a pre and posttest associated with the assessed knowledge gained during the duration of the

study. The results indicated that student engagement in the game show group increased, due to a

desire of the involved students to “win” the game. (Matsuda, Yarzebinski, Keiser, Raizada,

Stylianides, & Koedinger (2013)).

Conversely, Bernstien conducted a study which used the game “Dance Dance

Revolution” to assess student engagement. Students were put through two sessions, the first of

which used no scoring and the second which involved the on-screen scoring system. Students
COMPETITIVE GAMES IN 6
EDUCATION

were separated into brackets prior to the experiment based on similar experience with games in

the same genre or format. Bernstien separated the students into high, medium, and low brackets

based on this prior experience. The results suggested that “Lower skilled students in the

noncompetitive situation focused on success more frequently and in the competitive situations

reported liking task elements and competition less frequently than did other skill groups.”

(Bernstein, Gibbone, & Rukavina, (2015). When students of various skill levels participate in

competitive games, learners who are less skilled are less engaged than higher skill level

participants.

A study done by researchers Lobel, A., Engels, R., Stone, L., Burk, W., & Granic, I.

(2017) evaluated parents reports on their children who did or did not play games and their

wellbeing. Extrapolating from that data, the researchers linked competitive gaming with

decreases in prosocial behavior. These researchers examined children who self-reported on the

amount of video games played per week. The researchers then used questionnaires and

interviews in person and over the phone to evaluate the psychological state of the children. The

researchers proposed that students may be finding themselves placed in a competitive gaming

environment with few choices about their level of participation and teammates, which could be

resulting in lower overall engagement.

Implications and Applications

There are several audiences that could find this information relevant including teachers,

curriculum planning specialists, and parents. Teachers could apply this research to determine

whether competitive gaming is relevant and engaging, and design lessons appropriately to

incorporate them or not. Curriculum specialists can create curriculum to differentiate and provide
COMPETITIVE GAMES IN 7
EDUCATION

material for teachers that is relevant and modern and includes ideas they may be unfamiliar or

unaware with and couldn’t develop on their own. Parents could use this information to collect

information on modern teaching methods in order to better assist their students in the home

environment. One element that may be overlooked and is worth further study would be the effect

of learning using games in a competitive environment where students have very little choice, and

possible psychological effects that may occur as a result. Competitive gaming use in education is

a developing field and as such the results of these studies are not concrete and subject to change

especially with the advances in technology and educational gaming.

There are of course limitations to the review of literature. I have only had the opportunity

to examine less than 20 studies in total and included only 8 in my literature review. When there

are hundreds or even thousands of studies done on this topic, it is entirely possible that I have

examined most of the arguments from one viewpoint. The research could be skewed entirely in

the direction of competitive games causing lower engagement, but because I have presented my

review in a somewhat balanced way skewed the overall perspective to fit my research question.

Additionally, my conclusions are based on only my experience and a review of the

literature done by researchers. I have had no opportunity to test any of my theories in depth

myself and as such possibly lack the experience with which I have made such a solid conviction

that I am right.

Despite that, given the chance to implement competitive games as a tool for engagement

in the classroom, I would make the following three recommendations. First, experiment with

multiple different types of competitive games to get a feel for what fits your curriculum, your

students, and yourself the best. Competitive games include a wide variety of options and picking
COMPETITIVE GAMES IN 8
EDUCATION

the first thing on a search and sticking with it without ever trying out other things to see if they

work better doesn’t help. Many students excel in different areas that can be addressed in different

games to varying levels of success. For example, some students might be better at a memory

game, while others would excel at a game involving making up rhymes, and others are best at

games that require a fast response. Using a variety of competitive games is much more time

consuming than reusing the same Jeopardy template for each unit review with some updated

questions, but it can serve to engage students who might not be otherwise engaged. Trying out

multiple formats can help teachers identify the different ways their students learn and could even

provide information that could be used to help them in other areas.

Second, use a mix of digital and traditional games. To piggyback off the previous point, I

believe many students could see large changes in the level of engagement based on the format of

the game presented itself. Using a laptop or a cellphone to play Kahoot on the interactive

smartboard is a lot different to students than having them sit in groups in engage in a board game

for review. There is also the level of accessibility to consider when using any kind of digital

devices, at least in the school I work at. Students don’t always have the option of using a phone

to participate, and planning alternatives to work around issues like this will keep these students

from being bored and unengaged.

Finally, I would recommend using competitive games as a source of student engagement

sparingly. I think this biggest issue I foresee with utilization of this research. Students right now

become engaged in games and tend to not only enjoy them but remember the content and

participate. However, playing a competitive game every time, you have students in class very

quickly have it becoming the norm. If students come in expecting to play a game every class, it's
COMPETITIVE GAMES IN 9
EDUCATION

not exciting or different from a more traditional approach in any way and could possibly even

lower engagement. I currently use competitive games approximately once a unit on review day

to cover material for the unit in preparation for the test. I feel like this helps students get excited

for what is essentially a big study session. I think overuse of this mechanic could backfire if not

approached correctly and would caution overuse.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this review has led me to believe very strongly in the use of competitive

games as an effective classroom engagement tool. As a result of this research I have learned that

students would often associate competitive games as a kind of standout to the regular classroom

lesson, and as such would have much greater ease recalling content taught in those lessons as

they stood out quite easily in their memory. The implication of this would be that overuse of

competitive games as an engagement tool could suffer from diminishing returns if overutilized.

Additionally, one thing that really stuck out to me was the potential negatives found

when forcibly assigning students to compete in groups they don’t choose as part of a competitive

game. People being forced into a situation where they are attempting to be competitive, but

people on their team aren’t trying or are failing intentionally at the activity can have the exact

opposite of the intended effect of increasing engagement.

As a teacher myself I believe that more research into this field needs to be done before

specific conclusions about student engagement and the effect of competitive gaming can be

drawn. However, I want to continue using competitive games in my classroom and see about the

potential possibility of increasing their frequency despite the limited amount of time I can
COMPETITIVE GAMES IN 10
EDUCATION

schedule technology to be available for students. I think alternate approaches to competitive

games that aren’t digital for instance could be a way to solve this problem.

Additionally, the research needs to keep up with the ever-changing field of games and

education. As the world of games changes, so does the application of it to the classroom.

Teachers are never going to have the time to test every new approach, so things like these

research studies are key when attempting to analyze what works, and what does not. Finally,

things like Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and overall more affordable technologies have

incredible potential in a wide variety of subjects as well.

COMPETITIVE GAMES IN 11
EDUCATION

References

Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2009). “This is Jeopardy!”. Education Digest, 74, 14-18.

Bernstein, E., Gibbone, A., & Rukavina, P. (2015). Task design and skill level perceptions of
middle school students toward competition in dance-related active gaming. Physical
Educator, 72(5), 99–122
Brom, C., Šisler, V., Slussareff, M., Selmbacherová, T., & Hlávka, Z. (2016). You like it, you
learn it: affectivity and learning in competitive social role play gaming. International
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(3), 313–348.
Chun-Wang Wei, Hao-Yun Kao, Hsin-Hsien Lu, & Yi Chun Liu. (2018). The effects of
competitive gaming scenarios and personalized assistance strategies on English
vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3),
Lobel, A., Engels, R., Stone, L., Burk, W., & Granic, I. (2017). Video gaming and children’s
psychosocial wellbeing: A longitudinal study. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 46(4),
884–897.
Matsuda, N., Yarzebinski, E., Keiser, V., Raizada, R., Stylianides, G. J., & Koedinger, K. R.
(2013). Studying the effect of a competitive game show in a learning by teaching
environment. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IOS Press),
23(1–4), 1–21
Smith, S., & Chan, S. (2017). Collaborative and Competitive Video Games for Teaching
Computing in Higher Education. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 26(4),
438-457.