Exploring Student Attitude and Performance in Mathematics through Game- Based Learning (GBL) Using Deepseek Codes

This study examined the effectiveness of Game-Based Learning (GBL) using DeepSeek Codes in improving Grade 8 students’ mathematics performance and attitudes. It was conducted at Dagatkidavao Integrated School using two intact classes. One group was exposed to Game-Based Learning (GBL) with 29 participants, while the other group received traditional instruction (NGBL) with 30 participants. A quasi-experimental pretest–posttest research design was employed. Students’ performance was measured using a standardized test, while attitudes were assessed through a modified Auzmendi’s Scale. The scale evaluated value, anxiety, enjoyment, motivation, and confidence using a five-point Likert scale. The procedure included pretesting, implementation of the intervention, and posttesting. Data were analyzed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) to control for pretest differences. Results showed that the GBL group achieved significantly higher performance than the NGBL group. In terms of attitudes, the GBL group also demonstrated more positive attitudes toward mathematics compared to the NGBL group, indicating an improvement in learners’ affective responses alongside their academic performance. Overall, the study concludes that Game-Based Learning is an effective approach for enhancing both mathematics achievement and students’ attitudes.

Game-Based Learning, DeepSeek Codes, Mathematics Performance, Student Attitude

1. Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2018). Motivation and cognitive load in blended learning: The role of active learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(2), 1–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Adefojo, O. A., Akereyeni, O. O., & Karma, R. (2025). Effects of game-based learning on students’ motivation, interest, and achievement in mathematics. Journal of Educational Innovation and Practice, 11(2), 45–62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Adu, E. O., & Olatundun, S. O. (2022). Students’ perception of mathematics relevance and its influence on learning outcomes. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences, 18(2), 45–59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Akpalu, W. (2025). Students’ perceptions of mathematics difficulty and its impact on academic achievement. International Journal of Mathematics Education Research, 17(1), 88–102. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Akpalu, W., Mensah, J. A., & Owusu, E. (2025). Perception of mathematics relevance and student achievement in secondary schools. African Journal of Educational Studies, 22(3), 120–134. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Alipan-Tayong, R. (2023). Factors affecting students’ performance in mathematics: Motivation and practice in focus. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 15(2), 77–91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Alvarez, J., Alvarez, L., & Ortega, P. (2017). Web-based educational games and accessibility in learning environments. Journal of Digital Learning Systems, 9(4), 33–48. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. An, Y. J., & Mindrila, D. (2020). Strategies for enhancing mathematics learning through game-based instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 48(4), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2017). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80–97. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Arnab, S., et al. (2019). Serious games for higher education: A framework for reducing design complexity. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 414–426. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Auzmendi, E. (1992). Mathematics attitude scale: A study of validity and reliability. Mensajero. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Bakar, M. N., & Nor, M. M. (2020). Students’ attitudes toward mathematics and their classroom engagement. Journal of Mathematics Education Research, 12(1), 33–48. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Beetham, H., McGill, L., & Littlejohn, A. (2019). Thriving in higher education: Digital learning and student engagement. Open University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Lockyer, L. (2017). The impact of active learning on student engagement. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 14(3), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2018). Lecture-based instruction and student engagement in mathematics learning. Philippine Journal of Education, 87(2), 45–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Bishop, A. J., Clarkson, P., & Seah, W. T. (2023). Active learning strategies and students’ attitudes toward mathematics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(4), 789–805. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Boyle, E. A., et al. (2016). Computer games and serious games: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 94, 178–192. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Cabuquin, M. P., & Abocejo, F. T. (2023). Mathematics performance and academic achievement. Philippine Journal of Educational Measurement, 18(1), 34–49. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Caraang, C. (2025). Mathematics performance, attitude, and self-efficacy. Journal of Education and Learning Studies, 10(2), 90–105. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Carey, K., & Papin, A. (2019). Student autonomy and learning confidence in digital education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(4), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Carter, M., McCarthy, J., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2020). Student-centered learning and academic confidence. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2), 1–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). Technological pedagogical content knowledge review. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Chakraborty, R., & Biswas, P. (2020). Digital game-based learning and cognitive engagement. Computers & Education, 150, 103849. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Chee, Y. S., & Wong, A. F. L. (2017). Game-based learning in Singapore classrooms. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 1–18. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Chen, L., Huang, Y., & Lin, S. (2018). Lecture-based instruction and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology and Practice, 10(2), 45–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Chen, X., Xie, H., & Hwang, G. J. (2021). Gamification and student engagement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(3), 1–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016). Digital games and learning outcomes meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 79–122. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Comision, R. (2025). Study habits and mathematics performance. Asian Journal of Higher Education Studies, 8(2), 101–115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Connolly, T. M., et al. (2016). Serious games literature review. Computers & Education, 59(2), 661–686. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Corpuz, B. B. (2020). Teaching strategies and participation in mathematics. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 6(1), 33–48. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. de Freitas, S., & Arnab, S. (2017). Serious games for learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 495–504. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. De Guzman, A. B. (2020). Active learning and mathematics achievement. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(3), 67–82. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Dicheva, D., et al. (2019). Gamification in education review. Educational Technology & Society, 22(3), 75–88. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Ding, L., Kim, C., & Orey, M. (2017). Student engagement in game-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(6), 1469–1483. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Fiorella, L. (2021). The science of learning and instruction. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Freeman, S., et al. (2017). Active learning increases performance. PNAS, 111(23), 8410–8415. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Friesen, N. (2016). Traditional instruction limits. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(3), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Garrison, D. R. (2020). E-learning in the 21st century. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Hamari, J. (2016). Gamification literature review. HICSS Proceedings, 3025–3034. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Hattie, J. (2017). Visible learning for mathematics. Corwin Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Hwang, G. J., & Chen, C. H. (2017). Game-based learning motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 1–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Idris, N., Hassan, R., & Ali, S. (2018). Attitudes toward mathematics. Asia-Pacific Journal of Educational Development, 7(2), 55–70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2017). Cooperative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2017). Constructionist gaming. MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Kahu, E. R. (2018). Student engagement framework. Studies in Higher Education, 38(5), 758–773. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Karjanto, N. (2016). Attitudes toward mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education, 47(8), 1234–1245. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Khan, A., Ahmad, F., & Malik, M. M. (2020). Digital learning environments. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(2), 147–168. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Kim, S., & Park, J. (2017). Game-based learning motivation. Computers & Education, 114, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2020). Gamification and motivation review. International Journal of Information Management, 45, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Laurillard, D. (2016). Teaching as a design science. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Lee, J. J., & Hammer, J. (2016). Gamification in education. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 15(2), 1–5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Lim, C. P. (2019). Digital learning engagement. Educational Media International, 56(1), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., et al. (2016). Motivation and engagement. Educational Psychologist, 51(4), 1–19. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Littlejohn, A., & Hood, N. (2018). Learning in the digital age. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. de Freitas, S., & Liarokapis, F. (2016). Serious games: A new paradigm for education? In Handbook of digital games and entertainment technologies (pp. 1–23). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Qian, M., & Clark, K. R. (2016). Game-based learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent research. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.023 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Interplay of Students’ Emotional Intelligence and Attitude toward Mathematics on Performance in Grade 10 Algebra
• Numerical Simulation of Fitzhugh-Nagumo Dynamics Using a Finite Difference-Based Method of Lines
• Fixed Point Theorem in Controlled Metric Spaces
• Usage of Moving Average to Heart Rate, Blood Pressure and Blood Sugar
• Exploring Algebraic Topology and Homotopy Theory: Methods, Empirical Data, and Numerical Examples