Math-Mazing Roulette: Effects on Grade 9 Learners’ Achievement and Engagement in Radicals

Gamified learning environments are increasingly explored as alternative assessment strategies that promote motivation and engagement in mathematics. This study investigated the effects of Math-mazing Roulette, a classroom-based gamified summative assessment tool, on Grade 9 learners’ achievement and engagement levels in radical expressions, specifically rational exponents and radical equations. Using a quasi-experimental posttest-only non-equivalent group design, two intact Grade 9 classes (N = 80) from a public secondary school in Marawi City were assigned to either a traditional written summative test or a gamified summative test consisting of five rotating game stations containing the same assessment items.
Quantitative findings revealed that learners who completed the gamified summative test demonstrated significantly higher achievement scores than those who took the written test, as evidenced by the Mann–Whitney U test. Engagement data showed high behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement during the gamified assessment. Students displayed active participation, enthusiasm, collaboration, and perseverance throughout the activity. Thematic analysis of student reflections further revealed key themes such as reduced test anxiety, increased motivation, enjoyment, peer support, and deeper focus during problem solving.
The results indicate that gamified summative assessments can serve as meaningful alternatives to traditional paper-based tests by reducing pressure and creating a supportive and interactive environment for demonstrating mathematical understanding. This study contributes to the growing evidence that classroom gamification can enhance assessment experiences, particularly in topics where students often struggle. Integrating structured game elements into assessment practices may help teachers promote both engagement and improved achievement in mathematics.

gamified assessment, mathematics achievement, student engagement

1. Barata, G., Gama, S., Jorge, J., & Gonçalves, D. (2013). Improving participation and learning with gamification. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/2583008.2583010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Houghton Mifflin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Chen, C.-H., & Law, V. (2016). Scaffolding individual and collaborative game-based learning in learning performance and intrinsic motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3025–3034. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Harrold, M., Thompson, K., & Hirst, J. (2021). Gamification in mathematics education: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 11(9), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090473 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1122533 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Putwain, D. W., & Symes, W. (2018). Does increased effort compensate for performance worry in examinations? School Psychology Quarterly, 33(3), 482–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000256 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study