Rolling the Dice on Learning: Utilizing the Bomber Board Game to Improve Mastery of Simple Interest Among HUMSS Grade 11 students at Luis Y. Ferrer Jr. Senior High School

Gamification has emerged as a promising instructional approach for improving student engagement and conceptual understanding in mathematics. This action research examined whether the Bomber Board Game could improve Grade 11 Humanities and Social Sciences (HUMSS) students’ mastery of simple interest at Luis Y. Ferrer Jr. Senior High School. Using a one-group pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design, the study involved 40 students from one Grade 11 HUMSS section selected through purposive sampling. A researcher-made 10-item multiple-choice test was used as both the pretest and posttest. The instrument was reviewed by three experts a Master Teacher in Mathematics, a Business Management Master Teacher, and a Research Master Teacher using a validation checklist. Pilot testing indicated that most items had moderate difficulty; one overly difficult item was revised before the actual implementation. The intervention was administered by the researcher once a week for one month, with each session lasting three hours. Descriptive statistics and a paired-samples t-test were used to analyze the data. Results showed that the mean pretest score was 4.00 (40%), while the mean posttest score increased to 7.25 (72.5%). The improvement was statistically significant, t(39) = 12.27, p < .001, with a very large effect size (Cohen’s dz = 1.94). These findings suggest that the Bomber Board Game may be an effective supplementary strategy for improving students’ understanding of simple interest. However, the results should be interpreted with caution because the study used a single-group design and did not include a formal test of the normality assumption for the paired-samples t-test.

Gamification, Mathematics Education, Bomber Board, Mathematical Concepts, Simple Interest

1. Aguiar-Castillo, L., Clavijo-Rodríguez, A., Hernández-López, L., De Saa-Pérez, P., & Pérez-Jiménez, R. (2021). Gamification and deep learning approaches in higher education. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 29, 100290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2020.100290 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bai, S., Hew, K. F., & Huang, B. (2020). Does gamification improve student learning outcome? Evidence from a meta-analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in educational contexts. Educational Research Review, 30, 100322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100322 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Balladares, J., Miranda, M., & Cordova, K. (2024). The effects of board games on math skills in children attending prekindergarten and kindergarten: A systematic review. Early Years, 44(3–4), 710–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2023.2218598 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Department of Education. (2012, September 10). DM 160, s. 2012 – Maximizing utilization of the National Achievement Test (NAT) results to raise the achievement levels in low performing schools. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2012/09/10/september-10-2012-dm-160-s-2012-maximizing-utilization-of-the-national-achievement-test-nat-results-to-raise-the-achievement-levels-in-low-performing-schools/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Garg, N., & Singh, S. (2018). Financial literacy among youth. International Journal of Social Economics, 45(1), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-11-2016-0303 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Indefenso, E. E., & Yazon, A. D. (2020). Numeracy level, mathematics problem skills, and financial literacy. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(10), 4393–4399. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Jayaraman, J. D., & Jambunathan, S. (2018). Financial literacy among high school students: Evidence from India. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 17(3), 168–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/2047173418809712 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Kimble, T. (2020). The impact of gamification on the mathematics achievement of elementary students (Doctoral dissertation, Kennesaw State University). DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/teachleaddoc_etd/43/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Lalosa, A. A. (2020). Contributing factors of student's financial literacy in a state university in Eastern Philippines. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4454545 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 3(2), 157–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(68)90004-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Mendiola, A. C., & Estonanto, A. J. J. (2022). Utilization of instructional materials developed by the mathematics teachers in the Province of Sorsogon, Philippines. Asian Journal of Education and e-Learning, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.24203/AJEEL.V10I3.7045 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (7th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117452 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Pehlivan, F., & Arabacioglu, T. (2023). The effect of gamification on math achievement, motivation, and learning strategies in flipped classrooms. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 11(4), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.11n.4p.309 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Putz, L.-M., Hofbauer, F., & Treiblmaier, H. (2020). Can gamification help to improve education? Findings from a longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 110, 106392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106392 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. RAMOS R. R. (2023) Bomber Board [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Silver, A. M., Elliott, L., Ribner, A. D., & Libertus, M. E. (2024). The benefits of math activities depend on the skills children bring to the table. Developmental Psychology, 60(2), 376–388. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001637 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Suyanto, S., Setiawan, D., Rahmawati, R., & Winarna, J. (2021). The impact of financial socialization and financial literacy on financial behaviors: An empirical study in Indonesia. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(7), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no7.0169 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Yeban, F. I., & Florendo, J. A. (2020). PISA financial literacy framework vis-à-vis the Kto12 mathematics and social studies curricula. In M. U. Balagtas & M. A. C. Montealegre (Eds.), Challenges of PISA: The PNU report (pp. 228–261). Philippine Normal University and Rex Institute for Student Excellence, Inc. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K. W., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. J. (2020). The impact of gamification on learning and instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Educational Research Review, 30, 100326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100326 [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