INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI | Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 2788

www.rsisinternational.org

Enhancing Communication Skills through Web-Based Gamification for

High School Students

S. Amutha Rani ,

Dr. M. Vasimalairaja

Research Scholar Centre for Distance and Online Education, (CDOE) Alagappa University

Karaikudi- 630003

Professor in Education Scholar Centre for Distance and Online Education, (CDOE) Alagappa

University Karaikudi- 630003

*Corresponding Author

DOI:

https://dx.doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.1210000240

Received: 24 September 2025; Accepted: 29 September 2025; Published: 15 November 2025

ABSTRACT

Scholars have linked improvement in English communication skills to advancements in science and future

professional achievements. While web-based games have been shown to enhance educational outcomes, their

effectiveness in teaching English to high school students has not been comprehensively studied. This study aimed

to investigate the effectiveness of web-based learning methods in enhancing English communication skills

among high school students. A total of 100 students participated and were randomly assigned to either the

experimental or control groups. A mixed-method quantitative design was employed to analyze the data. The

results indicated a significant difference between boys and girls in the experimental group. Overall, the study

concluded that a blended learning approach, combining face-to-face instruction with web-based activities, can

effectively enhance English communication skills at the high school level.

Keyword English, Communication Skills, Educational Technology, Interactive Learning Environments,

Teaching/Learning Strategies.

INTRODUCTION

Acquiring English communication skills is essential in today’s world (Crystal, 2003). English serves as the

lingua franca in business, science, technology, and diplomacy (Graddol, 2006; Jenkins, 2007; Phillipson, 1992),

and proficiency opens opportunities in multinational corporations, IT firms, tourism, and research, where

drafting emails, presenting, negotiating, and collaborating with international teams are required (Hynes, 2021).

Without these skills, career advancement and global competitiveness are limited.

Many education systems separate learning from assessment (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Web-based games offer

an engaging way to integrate both (Gardner, 2011; Gee, 2007) and can serve as effective learning and assessment

tools (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011). Digital gameplay also develops literacy suited to 21st-century

learners (Reeves & Read, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Web-based games can enhance learning and engagement (Prensky, 2001; Kapp, 2012), though much evidence

comes from studies with weak methodologies (Hodges, Moore, Lockee, Trust, & Bond, 2020; Shute, 2011).

Their effectiveness depends on alignment with learning objectives and learner characteristics (Sitzmann, 2011;

Jenkins, 2006). Well-designed games can support the acquisition of English communication skills (Hamari,

Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014).

Significance of the Study

Effective communication is a critical skill for academic success, future careers, and responsible citizenship.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI | Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 2789

www.rsisinternational.org

Many high school students struggle with these skills, leading to difficulties in classroom participation, group

projects, presentations, and expressing ideas clearly (Huang & Soman, 2013). Beyond academics,

communication is essential for social interactions, conflict resolution, relationship building, and community

engagement. As digital natives, high school students are often proficient with web-based technologies (Landers,

Auer, Collmus, & Armstrong, 2018).

Web-based platforms offer flexible opportunities for students to practice and improve their communication skills

outside the classroom (Sahin & Yurdakul, 2020). This study adds to research on gamification in education (Aulia

Fatah, 2025) and provides evidence for educators and policymakers on its potential to enhance curriculum design

and teaching strategies (Marcos-Pablos & Martínez, 2024). Gamified, collaborative activities can boost students’

self-confidence, verbal and written expression, and teamwork skills (Bayatpour, Maghami, & Hassani, 2022).

Objectives of the Study

To evaluate the effectiveness of web-based games in improving high school students’ English communication

skills.

• First, the research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of web-based games in enhancing high school students’

English communication skills, including clarity of expression, participation in discussions, and performance

of written and oral tasks.

• Second, it aims to compare the post-test performance of students using Web-Based Gamification (WBG)

with those following the Traditional Learning Instruction (TLI) to determine whether WBG yields

significantly better outcomes.

• Finally, the study aims to examine whether students’ gender and locality (urban or rural) lead to significant

differences in English communication skills when using Web-Based Gamification (WBG).

Hypothesis

Based on the above research questions, the following null hypotheses were formulated for the study:

1. There was no significant difference in the post-test performance of students learning communication skills

in English through the WBG and those learning with TLI.

2. There was no significant difference between genders regarding post-test scores in learning communication

skills in English after experimental treatments.

3. There was no significant difference between localities regarding post-test scores in learning

communication skills in English after experimental treatments.

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

To address the research question, a pre-test quasi-experimental design was employed. The study involved 100

high school students (48 boys and 52 girls) from St. Ignatius Matriculation Higher Secondary School,

Vellakulam, in Pudukottai District, Southern Tamil Nadu. Participants were selected purposefully to ensure a

homogeneous sample, as their recent academic performance was consistent. Once recruited, students were

randomly assigned to two groups of 50. The control group (24 boys and 26 girls) received traditional lecture-

based instruction, while the experimental group (24 boys and 26 girls) was taught through web-based gamified

instruction.

Study Tools and Procedure for Implementation

The study used the Communication Skills in English Questionnaire (CSQ), a 20-item multiple-choice test, to

collect data. The questionnaire has a reliability coefficient of 0.88. A pre-test was first administered to both the

control and experimental groups. Over a period of four weeks, the groups received different instructional

methods:

• The experimental group engaged with Web-Based Gamification (WBG).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI | Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 2790

www.rsisinternational.org

• The control group received traditional lecture-based instruction (TLI).

Study Variables

Independent Variables (IVs):

1. Web-based gamification (WBG)

2. Traditional learning Instruction (TLI)

Dependent Variable (DV):

1. Communication skills in English (CSE)

Statistical Treatments

The study employed SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for data analysis, setting a 0.99

confidence interval for all tests. As the data were normally distributed, parametric statistical methods were

applied.

Descriptive statistics were calculated to provide an overview of the data, including:

• Mean

• Standard deviation

Inferential statistics were then used to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention. Specifically, an

independent-samples t-test was conducted to measure the effect of web-based gamification (WBG) on student

performance and knowledge retention. In addition, a paired-samples t-test was employed to compare results both

within groups and between the independent variables.

Analysis and Interpretation

To establish the homogeneity of the control and experimental groups, a t-test was employed to evaluate the

statistical significance of any differences observed in their mean pre-test scores. The findings are summarized in

Table 1.

Table 1: Significance of the difference between pre-test mean value scores of the control and experimental

group.

Group

Mean

Calculated ‘t’value

Remarks at 5% Level

Control

34.80

3.764

4.605

Experiment

40.20

2.541

(At 5% level of significance, the table value of 't' is 1.96.

Table 1 indicates that the control (TLI) and experimental (WBG) groups were homogeneous at the start of the

study. The control group had a pre-test mean score of 34.80 (SD = 3.764), while the experimental group had a

slightly higher pre-test mean of 40.20 (SD = 2.541).

H1: There was no significant difference in the post-test performance of students learning communication skills

in English through the WBG and those learned with TLI. Table 2 describes the analysis used to test this

hypothesis.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI | Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 2791

www.rsisinternational.org

Table 2: Significance of the difference in the post-test performance between control and experimental groups.

Group

Mean

Calculated ‘t’value

Remarks at 5% Level

Control

36.67

9.308

1.340

Experiment

30.33

23.084

(At 5% level of significance, the table value of 't' is 1.96.)

Table 2 shows that the control group (TLI) scored higher (M = 36.67, SD = 9.308) than the experimental group

(WBG) (M = 30.33, SD = 23.084). However, the t-test value (1.340) was not significant at the 0.01 level, so the

null hypothesis could not be rejected. Thus, WBG did not prove more effective than TLI in improving English

communication skills.

H2: There was no significant difference between genders regarding post-test scores in learning communication

skills in English after experimental treatments. Table 3 describes the analyses used to test this hypothesis.

Table 3: Results of the t-test on learning communication skills in English between boys' and girls' students with

post-test scores in the experimental group.

Group

Mean

Calculated ‘t’ value

Remarks at 5% Level

Boys

32.47

2.875

3.040

Girls

36.13

3.681

(At 5% level of significance, the table value of 't' is 1.96.)

Table 3 indicates that in the post-test of the experimental group, the boys scored 32.47 (SD = 2.875), and the

girls scored 36.13 (SD = 3.681). A total of 100 students participated in the study and were randomly assigned to

either the experimental or control group. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected. This suggests that, due to broader

access to new technology, both male and female students use current technical methods in similar ways.

H3: There is no significant difference between localities regarding post-test scores in learning communication

skills in English after experimental treatments. Table 4 describes the analyses for testing this hypothesis.

Table 4: Results of t-test on learning communication skills in English between rural and urban students with

post-test scores in the experimental group.

Group

Mean

Calculated ‘t’ value

Remarks at 5% Level

Rural

33.93

2.865

2.584

Urban

36.87

3.335

(At 5% level of significance, the table value of 't'is 1.96.)

Table 4 shows that in the post-test of the experimental group, rural students had an average score of 33.93 (SD

= 2.865), while urban students scored 36.87 (SD = 3.335). The calculated T-value of 2.584 was not statistically

significant at the 0.01 level, leading to the failure to reject the null hypothesis. This suggests that both rural and

urban students utilize modern technological methods similarly, possibly due to the widespread availability and

access to new technological devices resulting from rapid technological progress.

Suggestions of the Study

In conclusion, integrating web-based games alongside traditional instruction positively enhances students’

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI | Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 2792

www.rsisinternational.org

English communication skills. While female students scored slightly higher than males, the difference was not

significant, showing that gender does not influence effectiveness. Similarly, rural students outperformed urban

peers without statistical significance, suggesting a consistent impact across locations. However, significant

differences emerged between average, below-average, and above-average students, indicating that effectiveness

may vary with academic performance. Further research is needed to explore the factors behind these differences.

CONCLUSION OF THE STUDY

This study aimed to guide future curricula by aligning with technological advancements in education, where

digital tools like e-learning, mobile learning, and gamification are increasingly used. It specifically examined

the impact of web-based games on high school students’ English communication skills. Findings revealed that

students using web-based games outperformed those taught traditionally, with no significant gender differences.

These results support the integration of web-based games into classrooms as effective tools for enhancing

communication skills.

REFERENCES

1. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

https://www.cambridge.org/… or https://books.google.com/.

2. Graddol, D. (2006). English Next. British Council. https://www.britishcouncil.org/…pdf

3. Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford University Press. :

https://global.oup.com/… or https://books.google.com/.

4. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/… or

https://books.google.com/

5. Hynes, G. E. (2021). Managerial Communication: Strategies and Applications (7th ed.). SAGE

Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/… or https://books.google.com/

6. Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom

Assessment. Phi Delta Kappa, 80(2), 139-148. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172179808000208.

7. Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books.

https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/

8. Gee, J. P. (2007). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy (2nd ed.).

Palgrave Macmillan. https://link.springer.com/

9. Shute, V. J. (2011). Stealth Assessment in Serious Games. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.),

Computer Games and Instruction (pp. 503-524). https://link.springer.com/chapter/

10. Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., Macarthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic

literature review of the empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers &

Education, 59(2), 661-683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004.

11. Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-

based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489-528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-

6570.2011.01213.x

12. Gee, J. P. (2007). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy (2nd ed.).

Palgrave Macmillan. https://link.springer.com/

13. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York University

Press. https://nyupress.org/.

14. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work?—A literature review of

empirical studies on gamification. In 2014, the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System

Sciences (pp. 3025-3034). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377.

15. Huang, W. H. Y., & Soman, D. (2013). A literature review on gamification in education. University

of Toronto, Rotman School of Management. https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/…pdf.

16. Landers, R. N., Auer, E. M., Collmus, A. B., & Armstrong, M. B. (2018). Gamification of testing: A

meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 21(3), 643-661.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117719047.

17. Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-

Herráiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes.

Computers & Education, 63, 380-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI | Volume XII Issue X October 2025

Page 2793

www.rsisinternational.org

18. Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O'Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011). Gamification: Toward a

definition. In CHI 2011 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 9-12).

ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979746.

19. Reeves, B., & Read, J. L. (2009). Total Engagement: Using Games and Virtual Worlds to Change the

Way People Work and Businesses Succeed. Harvard Business Press. https://books.google.com/.

20. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.

21. Kapp, K. M. (2012). The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-based Methods and

Strategies for Training and Education. Wiley. https://books.google.com/.

22. Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2020). National Education Policy 2020.

https://www.education.gov.in/…pdf.

23. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

https://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-

%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf.

24. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, S., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The Difference Between Emergency

Remote Teaching and Online Learning. EDUCAUSE Review.

https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-

online-learning.

25. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work?—A literature review of

empirical studies on gamification. In 2014, the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System

Sciences (pp. 3025-3034). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377.

26. Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., Macarthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic

literature review of the empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers &

Education, 59(2), 661-683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004.

27. Zuckerman, O., & Gal-Oz, A. (2014). Playing with the system: The design of games for learning. MIT

Press. https://books.google.com/.

28. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W. H. Freeman. Johnson, D. W., &

Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic

learning. Allyn & Bacon. https://books.google.com/.

29. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and

individualistic learning. Allyn & Bacon. (Classic work on cooperative learning and its benefits for

social skills and confidence). https://books.google.com/.

30. Hamari, Juho; Koivisto, Jonna; Sarsa, Harri (2014). “Does gamification work?- A Literature review

of empirical studies on gamification”.

31. Sailer, Michael; Homer, Lisa (2019). “ The gamification of Learning: a Meta-analysis”, Educational

Psychology Review, Vol 32, pages 77-112.

32. Werbach, Kevin; Hunter, Dan (2012). For the Win: How Game Thinking Can Revolutionize Your

Business (revised editions 2012)/ updated editions later.