Investigating Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives on Gamified Mathematics Instruction: Roles, Impacts and Challenges

This study investigates the perspectives of teachers and students on the roles, impacts, and challenges of gamified mathematics instruction at Tugbongan National High School during the 2024–2025 school year. It aims to examine how gamification facilitates instruction, influences learning experiences, and presents challenges, as perceived by both groups. Using a descriptive-comparative design, structured questionnaires were administered to purposively selected participants, and statistical analyses—including the Mann-Whitney U test—were conducted to identify significant differences in perceptions. Findings revealed that teachers strongly support gamification, viewing it as highly effective for enhancing engagement, motivation, and instructional delivery, while students also recognized its benefits but expressed more reserved confidence, especially regarding long-term retention. Both groups acknowledged implementation challenges, with teachers citing more substantial barriers such as technical limitations, resource constraints, and the need for professional development. Statistically significant differences were observed across all indicators—role, influence, and challenges—with teachers consistently showing higher mean ranks; these differences were classified as large for role and influence, and medium for challenges, indicating meaningful gaps in perception. In response, an Action Plan was developed to guide the strategic and inclusive integration of gamified strategies in mathematics instruction, emphasizing gradual implementation, educator training, student-centered design, and resource support to maximize benefits while addressing limitations.

Mathematics Education, Gamified Instruction, Teachers’ and Students Perspectives

1. Books and Encyclopedia Entries [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Sanchez, E., van Oostendorp, H., Fijnheer, J. D., & Lavoué, E. (2020). Gamification. In Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies (pp. 816–827). Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Lesh, R. A., Sriraman, B., & English, L. (2020). Theories of learning mathematics. In Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education (pp. 861–869). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Journal Articles [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Abdan Syakuran, R., & Afrianto, I. (2022). Implementation of gamification in mathematics m-learning application to creating student engagement. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 13(7). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Attard, C., & Holmes, K. (2020). “It gives you that sense of hope”: An exploration of technology use to mediate student engagement with mathematics. Heliyon, 6(1), e02945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02945 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bouchrika, I., Harrati, N., Wanick, V., & Wills, G. (2021). Exploring the impact of gamification on student engagement and involvement with e-learning systems. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(8), 1244–1257. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bouzid, T., Kaddari, F., & Darhmaoui, H. (2021). Enhancing math-class experience throughout digital game-based learning: The case of Moroccan elementary public schools. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 13(5), 1–9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Cabanilla, A., Batolbatol, G. B., Jacaban, F. S., & Bonotan, A. (2023). Gamified Instruction in Mathematics: A Meta-Synthesis. Human Behavior, Development and Society, 24(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Cade, J., Wardle, F., & Otter, J. (2022). Toddler and preschool teachers’ beliefs and perceptions about the use of developmentally appropriate practice. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2018908. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Chen, O., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2023). A cognitive load theory approach to defining and measuring task complexity through element interactivity. Educational Psychology Review, 35(2), 63–84. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Cutting, J., & Deterding, S. (2022). The task-attention theory of game learning: A theory and research agenda. Human–Computer Interaction, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Fischer, K., Sullivan, A. M., Cohen, A. P., King, R. W., Cockrill, B. A., & Besche, H. C. (2023). Using cognitive load theory to evaluate and improve preparatory materials and study time for the flipped classroom. BMC Medical Education, 23(1), 345. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Garvey, G. (2022). Perspective chapter: Ungrading, grading contracts, gamification, and game-based learning. In Active Learning—Research and Practice for STEAM and Social Sciences Education. IntechOpen. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hossein-Mohand, H., Trujillo-Torres, J. M., Gómez-García, M., Hossein-Mohand, H., & Campos-Soto, A. (2021). Analysis of the use and integration of the flipped learning model, project-based learning, and gamification methodologies by secondary school mathematics teachers. Sustainability, 13(5), 2606. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Jutin, N. T., & Maat, S. M. B. (2024). The Effectiveness of Gamification in Teaching and Learning Mathematics: A Systematic Literature Review. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Meylani, R. (2024). Gamification and Game-Based Learning in Mathematics Education for Advancing SDG 4: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis. Educational Sciences, Ziya Gokalp Faculty of Education, Dicle University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Nob, J. M. R., Roble, D. B., & Lomibao, L. S. (2024). Unveiling the Effects of Gamification on Math Learning: A Literature Review in the Philippine Context. Journal of Innovations in Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 13–19. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Safapour, E., Kermanshachi, S., & Taneja, P. (2019). A review of nontraditional teaching methods: Flipped classroom, gamification, case study, self-learning, and social media. Education Sciences, 9(4), 273. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Smith, N. (2018). Integrating Gamification into Mathematics Instruction: A Qualitative Exploratory Case Study on the Perceptions of Teachers. William Howard Taft University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Xu, J., Lio, A., Dhaliwal, H., Andrei, S., Balakrishnan, S., Nagani, U., & Samadder, S. (2021). Psychological interventions of virtual gamification within academic intrinsic motivation: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 293, 444–465. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Vankúš, P. (2019). Influence of Game-Based Learning in Mathematics Education on Students’ Affective Domain: A Systematic Review. Mathematics, 9(9), 986. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9090986 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Conference Proceedings and Dissertations [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Arnold, S. D. (2019). A quantitative descriptive-comparative study: The relationship between emotional intelligence and workplace diversity [Doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix]. Forest of the Rain Productions. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Brooks, E., Gissurardottir, S., Jonsson, B. T., Kjartansdottir, S., Munkvold, R. I., Nordseth, H., & Sigurdardottir, H. I. (2019). What prevents teachers from using games and gamification tools in Nordic schools? In Interactivity, Game Creation, Design, Learning, and Innovation: 7th EAI International Conference, ArtsIT 2018, and 3rd EAI International Conference, DLI 2018, ICTCC 2018, Braga, Portugal, October 24–26, 2018, Proceedings 7 (pp. 472–484). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Sabani, S. (2022). Using mobile video games in the teaching of foundation phase mathematics (Doctoral dissertation, University of Johannesburg). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Sidin, S. A. (2021, March). The application of reward and punishment in teaching adolescents. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language and Arts (ICLA 2020) (pp. 251–255). Atlantis Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Toda, A., Klock, A. C. T., Palomino, P. T., Rodrigues, L., Oliveira, W., Stewart, C., ... & Isotani, S. (2020, October). GamiCSM: Relating education, culture and gamification—a link between worlds. In Proceedings of the 19th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–10). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. O’Sullivan, D., Stavrakakis, I., Gordon, D., Curley, A., Tierney, B., Murphy, E., ... & Becevel, A. (2021). You can’t lose a game if you don’t play the game: Exploring the ethics of gamification in education. Preprint or unpublished manuscript. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Official Policy Documents and Online Sources [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Department of Education (DepEd). (2016). DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2016: Policy guidelines on daily lesson preparation for the K to 12 Basic Education Program. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Department of Education (DepEd). (2015). DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2015: Policy guidelines on classroom assessment for the K to 12 Basic Education Program. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Department of Education (DepEd). (2023). DepEd Memorandum No. 039, s. 2023: Administration and utilization of digital arts and multimedia tools in the Department of Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Department of Education (DepEd). (2023). DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2023: Revised guidelines on the implementation of the Department of Education Computerization Program. [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