LEICHA A.

BRAGG

TESTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICAL GAMES

AS A PEDAGOGICAL TOOL FOR CHILDRENS LEARNING
Received: 29 August 2011; Accepted: 21 May 2012

ABSTRACT. In an effort to engage children in mathematics learning, many primary

teachers use mathematical games and activities. Games have been employed for drill and
practice, warm-up activities and rewards. The effectiveness of games as a pedagogical tool
requires further examination if games are to be employed for the teaching of mathematical
concepts. This paper reports research that compared the effectiveness of non-digital games
with non-game but engaging activities as pedagogical tools for promoting mathematical
learning. In the classrooms that played games, the effects of adding teacher-led whole
class discussion was explored. The research was conducted with 1012-year-old children
in eight classrooms in three Australian primary schools, using differing instructional
approaches to teach multiplication and division of decimals. A quasi-experimental design
with pre-test, post-test and delayed post-test was employed, and the effects of the
interventions were measured by the childrens written test performance. Test results
indicated lesser gains in learning in game playing situations versus non-game activities
and that teacher-led discussions during and following the game playing did not improve
childrens learning. The finding that these games did not help children demonstrate a
mathematical understanding of concepts under test conditions suggests that educators
should carefully consider the application and appropriateness of games before employing
them as a vehicle for introducing mathematical concepts.

KEY WORDS: achievement tests, decimals, games, mathematics, mathematical learning,

pedagogical tools

INTRODUCTION

Teachers introduce games to students for a range of reasons, including

that for an improved attitude towards mathematics (Nisbet & Williams,
2009), enjoyment (Booker, 1996), motivation and engagement (Bragg,
2003; Provenzo, 1991), disguising of drill and practice (Lim-Teo, 1991),
the development of social skills (Ernest, 1986; Oritz, 2003) and as a
warm-up activity or reward (Bragg, 2006a). Furthermore, games involve
higher-level thinking.
Engagement in play that has implicit, internalized rules that can be negotiated among the
players requires a higher level of cognitive, social and verbal functioning than following
explicit, external and immutable rules (Saifer, 2010, p. 39).

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (2012) 10: 1445Y1467

# National Science Council, Taiwan 2012
1446 LEICHA A. BRAGG

However, the main pedagogical aim of using games in mathematics

classrooms is to develop students mathematical knowledge, and many
teachers are doubtful about the learning objectives achieved by students
from playing games by themselves (Ell, 2007). Thus, it is important to
research whether games really are useful in teaching mathematical ideas.
The research question used as a basis for this paper is whether games
result in better learning of mathematics than do non-game activities.
As learning is one of the principle outcomes of schooling, significance
is attached to measuring achievement. Achievement tests are arguably
designed to measure whether learning has taken place (Wiersma, 2009)
and are commonly used in many classrooms globally. Tests seek to
measure the learners understanding of specific content that has been
taught in school (Gay, Mills & Airasian, 2012) and, in this case, the
impact of games. This paper reports on results of achievement tests as a
measure for evaluating mathematical learning.

LITERATURE REVIEW

There is ample recent research on the effects on learning of electronic games,

including video and computer games, as well as game-based simulations and
quiz-type games (see Afari, Aldridge & Fraser, 2012), but the games used in
this research were not electronic. They were similar to what is commonly
available in many primary school activity books and teacher journals.
Commercial board, card and dice (and other) games with the potential to
develop childrens mathematical skills may be found in cupboards of many
primary classrooms, and typically teachers have a mental stock of competitive
games that they use purposefully (Bragg, 2003). Lim-Teo (1991) classified
such games as: games for drill and practice; games for concept reinforce-
ment; games which lead to concept formation; games which lead to
mathematical investigations; games which apply mathematical knowledge;
games for fun (1991, p. 48). The games in this study were selected to
investigate their potential to lead to concept formation through expanding
childrens understanding of multiplication and division of decimal numbers.

Defining Games
Samples of the games used in this research are described in the
Methodology section below, but it is noted here how games were
defined in this research to differentiate them from non-game activities.
The word game brings to mind various interpretations, so it was
important to review and synthesise published definitions.
 TESTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICAL GAMES 1447

The definition of games utilised in this research was drawn from

mathematics education research over the last three decades. Three of the
pertinent characteristics of games were selected from an early description
provided by Harvey & Bright (1985): A game involves a challenge
against either a task or an opponent; a game is governed by a definite set
of rules; a game is freely engaged in (p. ii). Although Harvey and Brights
definition is useful, in the context of education, a game requires specific
cognitive objectives. Therefore, Oldfields (1991) definition, related to
mathematics education, incorporated these points: The activity normally
has a distinct finishing point; and the activity has specific mathematical
cognitive objectives (p. 41).
Oldfields characteristics are practical and constructive as a guide for
selection of games in most situations. However, a characteristic that
facilitates dialogue was determined as necessary as peer discussion is
valuable to provide immediate feedback to students during game playing,
especially in the absence of teacher assistance (Booker, 1996). Social
engagement through discussion assists children in constructing knowl-
edge that fits with the social milieu (Wood, 1995). Gough (1993)
emphasised the social element when he defined a game as incorporating
some of the following characteristics as a group playing and thinking
activity that satisfies the following conditions: It involves more than one
player; players interact with each other what one player does in turn
will affect in some way what the subsequent player or players can do in
following turns; although there may be some degree of luck (such as a
dice roll, or dealing of cards), there should be some room for a player to
choose how to play (p. 218).
For the purpose of this study, these definitions were synthesised, and
an educationally rich mathematical game was defined as having the
following criteria:

The game has specific mathematical cognitive objectives.

The game is enjoyable and with potential to engage.
The game is governed by a defined set of rules.
The game involves a challenge against one or more opponents.
The players turn affects the subsequent move/s of their opponent/s.
The game includes elements of skill and/or strategy: Its outcome is not solely based
on luck.
The game has a distinct finishing point (Bragg, 2006b, p. 12).

The games selected by the researcher for this study met this definition.
The non-game activities met the first two criteria but did not meet the
remaining five criteria.
1448 LEICHA A. BRAGG

Perspectives on the Potential of Games in the School Environment

Inclusion of games for pedagogical reasons became a notable movement
in primary school culture in the late twentieth century (Provenzo, 1991), in
many subject areas including mathematics. Educational commentators have
suggested that games promote mathematical learning by providing rein-
forcement and practice (Gerdes, 2001; Nilsson, 2007; Peters, 1998), and it
has been shown that games build positive learning environments in
mathematics classrooms as well as improved attitudes towards mathematics
(Bragg, 2007), engagement of students interest (Cai, Perry, Wong & Wang,
2009; Nisbet & Williams, 2009) and enhance motivation (Sullivan, Clarke &
OShea, 2009). It has also been noted that games can support the
development of childrens problem-solving abilities (Ernest, 1986), provide
an avenue for social interaction (Booker, 2000) and enhance the potential for
mathematical discussion (Ernest, 1986; Oldfield, 1991). They may also be
used as diagnostic tools (Booker, 2000). The most common claim for
mathematical games is to link affective factors to active engagement. For
example, Ernest (1986) noted:
The success of all mathematics teaching depends to a large extent on the active
involvement of the learner. Children learn mathematics by doing and by making the
concepts and skills of mathematics their own. Playing games demands involvement.
Children cannot play games passively; they must be actively involved, the more so if they
want to win. Thus games encourage the active involvement of children, making them
more receptive to learning, and of course increasing their motivation. Active involvement
not only enhances learning, but according to some psychologists is essential for learning
to take place at all. For this reason psychologists including Piaget, Bruner and Dienes
suggest that games have a very important part to play in learning, particularly in the
learning of mathematics. (p. 3)

Ernests claim of games requiring active involvement supports the

inclusion of the criteria of games that involved two or more players to
enhance the potential for stimulating interaction. This active involvement
is a pathway to encouraging engagement with the mathematical demands
of the game.
Skemp (1993) was also a strong advocate for games, linking them to
the development of mathematical understanding arising from game-based
discussion.
[Games] give rise to discussion; and since the rules and strategies of the games are largely
mathematical, this is a mathematical discussion. Children question each others moves,
and justify their own, thereby articulating and consolidating their own understanding.
Often they explain things to each other, and [most] of us have found that trying to explain
something to someone else is one of the best ways to improve ones own understanding,
and this works equally well for children. (p. 13)
 TESTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICAL GAMES 1449

Skemps view was the justification for comparing the effectiveness of

game playing with and without discussion.
Lim-Teo (1991) summarised the common position held by the early
1990s when he wrote that there is certainly a place for a games in the
teaching of Mathematics and it is up to the teacher to creatively modify
and use games to enhance the effective teaching of Mathematics (p. 53).
However, not many of the claims above seem to have been based on
empirical research. Therefore, the query Ernest (1989) raised in his
review of research on the use of games as a vehicle for teaching
mathematics over 20 years ago is still poignant today, The outstanding
question remains; can mathematics be taught effectively by using
games? (p. 3). Furthermore, some researchers (e.g. Lee, 2009; Maloy,
Edwards & Anderson, 2010) have found that the positive effects of games
are negligible, and an educator who has supported game-playing for many
years still argues It is also essential to assess the effectiveness of the
game in achieving the educational and mathematical ends for which it is
intended (Booker, 2004, p. 17).
More recently, with the increased access to the online environment,
Prensky (2005, 2010) and Gee (2007) have written extensively on the
positive impact digital games are having on learning across a range of
curriculum areas. In relation to mathematics education, educators claims
for the effects of game playing include enhanced spatial skills (Amorim,
2003), mathematical abstraction (Avraamidou & Monaghan, 2009) and
logical thinking (Higgins, 2000).
It is hypothesised that the level of enjoyment, engagement and
mathematical gains may be substantially different between digital and
non-digital games. A search of the current literature resulted in studies of
changes in cognitiveaffective states during digital games (Rodrigo,
2011) but did not result in any empirical research exploring the
differences, advantages or disadvantages of digital over non-digital
games. This paper does not explore this area of study. However, as a
consideration for further research, this question may be of importance for
teachers and schools before wishing to invest heavily, either monetarily or
in time, in digital approaches to game-based education. This paper
examines two non-digital games and, therefore, the results in this paper
are not a commentary on the impact of digital games.

Research on the Cognitive Effects of Mathematical Games

The main issues addressed in research studies that are relevant to this
paper have been the cognitive effects of mathematical games (Bright,
1450 LEICHA A. BRAGG

Harvey & Wheeler, 1983; Siegler & Ramani, 2008; Thomas & Grouws,
1984); overcoming conceptual obstacles through games (Onslow, 1990)
and learning without formal instruction (Kamii & DeClark, 1985). A
number of studies (Asplin, Frid & Sparrow, 2006; Kamii & Rummelsburg,
2008; Roche, 2010; Young-Loveridge, 2004) have incorporated games into
mathematics programs with success.
As the research reported on in this paper investigated shifts in students
mathematical understandings as a result of game-playing interventions,
studies conducted on the cognitive effects of game playing were of
particular relevance. During the games movement in mathematics
education that was mentioned above, Bright et al. (1985) undertook
extensive research on the cognitive effects of instructional mathematics
games. The researchers investigated two game-related variables: (a)
instructional/grade level and (b) Blooms taxonomic level. Judging by
differences between their subjects pre-test and post-test results, they
concluded that that games could be employed to teach content at every
taxonomic level at all instructional levels. However, the researchers
warned that teachers should be wary of claims that some particular
technique teaches logical reasoning without explicit instruction (p. 403),
and they suggested a need to compare the effects of games with those of
other kinds of instructional treatments.
Thomas & Grouws (1984) researched the effect of game playing on
inducing cognitive growth by utilised two treatment groups: one with an
observer questioning the players to stimulate student thinking and the
other with a non-verbalising observer. Greater gains were made by the
group including a verbal observer, resulting in their conclusion that it is
essential to include discursive interaction while playing games for
cognitive growth to be realised.
Ramani & Siegler (2008) found that the positive effects of playing
numerical board games were not limited to improved number line
estimation. Playing the games also improved the counting, number
identification and numerical magnitude comparison skills of young
children. In fact, Siegler & Ramani (2008) tackled an equity problem
when they showed that providing children from low-income backgrounds
with just 1 h per week of experience playing board games with
consecutively numbered, linearly arranged, equal-size squares improved
their knowledge of numerical magnitudes to the point where it was
indistinguishable from that of children from upper-middle income
backgrounds who did not play the games.
Another relevant study was undertaken by Onslow (1990) who
examined the use of games to overcome conceptual obstacles. The
 TESTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICAL GAMES 1451

intervention included game-playing and teacher-led discussion about the

generalisations formed by the students. Although the results were
encouraging, nearly half the students still had not overcome misconcep-
tions relating to multiplication and division following the intervention.
Onslow (1990) concluded that playing the game without discussion had
little effect on the students overcoming their misconceptions and
reported:
Although the students wanted to win, they did not question answers in conflict with their
beliefs until compelled to do so during the ensuing discussion. Unless we explicitly
challenge students to question their results, they are unlikely to overcome conceptual
obstacles. (p. 590)

Most research seems to indicate that games have been incorporated into
mathematics programs with success. For example, over the course of a 1-
year mathematics program that did not include formal instruction of
equations, Kamii & DeClark (1985) gradually introduced stimulating and
competitive games involving number operations, and the students
compared favourably in an end-of-year test with the control group of
students in the same school. In a long-term intervention, Young-
Loveridge (2004) combined games with number books to improve early
numeracy with success. Likewise, Roche (2010) successfully used a dice
game to help primary-school students to understand the meaning of
decimal fractions. Kamii & Rummelsburg (2008) found games along with
other activities promoted logico-mathematical thinking in first-graders.
Asplin et al. (2006), exploring the nature of students mental computation
capacities within a range of game-playing activities in one classroom,
found that extensive playing of number-based games that were scaffolded
by teacher-designed learning structures (i.e. how often and when games
were played, the game level difficulties, and who plays against whom)
supported students engagement in mental recall, mathematical verbal-
isation and mental strategies and experimentation with number combina-
tions. However, due to the multiple activities included in each of these
mathematics programs and the lack of control groups, it is difficult to
attribute the success of the programs solely to game playing and
impossible to compare students progress with that for non-game
activities.
In summary, results from the studies cited above seem to indicate that
game playing in isolation does not automatically promote cognitive
development in mathematical learning. On the other hand, they do
suggest that, in conjunction with dialogue and explicit instruction and
varied non-game activities, games with well-defined instructional objec-
1452 LEICHA A. BRAGG

tives have the potential to have a positive effect on the development of

mathematical understandings. Thus, the current study explored the impact
of game playing and games-related discussion and compared these results
with the impact of using other rich and varied mathematical activities.

METHODOLOGY

One aspect of this broader study on games as a pedagogical tool

investigated the research question, Does the use of games contribute to
mathematical learning? as well as two related sub-questions (a) How
does the learning from game playing compare with that from non-game
activities? and (b) With game playing, what effect does teacher-led
discussion have on learning? The data source presented in this paper to
measure learning were three written achievement tests (pre-test, post-test,
and 10-week delayed post-test), and the results were analysed using
quantitative methods.

The Achievement Tests

Achievement tests are the primary sources of data collection for most
educational systems. The students in this study had had recent experience
with achievement tests in the form of statewide testing in mathematics
and English. Although achievement tests are not without their critics, they
are a generally accepted measure of achievement, and thus this method is
in keeping with present pedagogical practices.
The researchers self-constructed achievement test was designed and
employed to seek a measure of mathematical learning. As suggested by
Wiersma (2009), self-constructed achievement tests have the potential to
reflect closely the objectives of the research. Questions were created to
measure learning directly related to multiplication and division of
decimals: the students capacity to perform calculations involving decimal
and whole numbers, their understanding of decimal place value, their
estimation skills and especially their understanding of the effect of
multiplying and dividing whole and decimal numbers.
Each written test included 23 multiple choice, short answer, open-
ended and problem-solving questions, some of which were based on the
games in the experimental program (see Fig. 1 below for three examples).
Children who responded correctly were taken to have demonstrated an
understanding of the effect of multiply or dividing by numbers greater
than and less than 1.
 TESTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICAL GAMES 1453

Figure 1. Samples from Question 4 on the achievement test

Prior to the commencement of the experimental teaching program, the

pre-test was administered during a mathematics lesson. The post-test was
administered 1 day after the final session of the experimental teaching
program. The delayed post-test was administered 10 weeks after the post-
test to see what learning seemed to have been retained in the longer term.
The three tests had the same questions, with numbers being changed
slightly but not enough to make the questions easier or harder.
Achievement tests are not a perfect research tool and are not without
their critics. It is recognised that the degree of accuracy of measuring
learning is dependent on many factors, amongst the most significant of
which are the students responses to testing and the formulation of the test
itself.
The results of the achievement tests were quantitative, with students
being awarded one point for each correct answer and possible totals
ranging from 0 to 23. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences was
employed to collate and analyse the data. The statistical methods
employed were a comparison of the frequencies and means of correct
responses for each group and cross-tabulations between questions.

The Participants
The participants in the study were from eight classes of Year 5 and 6
students (mostly aged 10 to 12 years), in three primary schools in the
same low-economic-status suburban area of Melbourne, Australiaa
1454 LEICHA A. BRAGG

convenience-based sample. As is typical of the region, these students

were in composite classrooms in which children in Years 5 and 6 were
taught together. The three schools were comparable in teacherstudent
ratio, gender balance of pupils and class size (approximately 27 children).
In total, 224 students engaged in the larger research program, but the
data from only the students who experienced about 35 min of games or
activities and who sat all three achievements tests (n=112) are used in this
paper. Other classrooms in the broader study focused on research
questions not attended to in this report, such as varying the time spent
playing games. The classes were all of mixed gender and mixed ability, as
no setting or streaming was used in the schools. When the children played
games or completed activities in small groups, these were generally self-
chosen friendship groups.
All classes had two experimental teaching program sessions per week
for 4 weeks; a total of eight sessions. On the other days of each week,
normal mathematics classes were held, but no teaching on these days
attended to the topic of the games and activities: multiplication and
division of decimals.

The Experimental Program

In this current study, the games and activities were selected for the
mathematical content they comprised which had not yet been introduced
in the curriculum and which was not otherwise taught during the research
period. It was important that the students had not been exposed to
multiplication and division of decimals prior to the intervention, thus
making it possible to measure any learning that had taken place. In fact,
the topic was selected because (a) children typically find it hard to
understand and (b) it had not yet been taught in any of the eight
classrooms involved.

The Games
Prior to commencing this research, I trialled an assortment of games for
differing purposes in primary classroom settings. Often, the games were
utilised to enhance previously established mathematical knowledge,
whilst others were selected to create cognitive conflict through directly
challenging childrens prior understandings. The games in this study were
selected for the latter purpose to assist the children to recognise
multiplication does not always result in a larger number and division
result in a smaller number. These are typical misconceptions related to
multiplication and division of decimals (see Greer, 1987; Tirosh &
 TESTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICAL GAMES 1455

Graeber, 1990); so an element of cognitive conflict (Duit, 1995), resulting

from their counter experience with whole numbers, was involved.
Examples of such games are Guestimate (Swan, 1996) and Hone on
the Range (Brannan, 1983). Guestimate is a calculator game based on
multiplication of whole and decimal numbers. The aim of the game is to
be the first player to reach the nominated target of 100 (more precisely,
any number between 100.000 and 100.999), so answers such as 100,
100.678 and 100.9 are considered winning results. Player one begins by
entering a two-digit number in the calculator. Player two must multiply
this number so that the answer is 100. As the students take turns in
entering and multiplying numbers, they soon become aware that entering
an easy whole number such as 10 or 25 gives their opponent an
advantage. Thus, the inputting of decimal numbers becomes a strategy
used early on in the game. The games mechanics required students to
register each turn on a record sheet so that the choice of number was
documented for evaluative purposes. During the 4 weeks, Guestimate was
also played using only division, and in this version, the target to reach
was a given number such as 80.
Hone on the Range. (Brannan, 1983) follows the same procedure as
Guestimate, but the players aim for a target in the range between two
given numbers, e.g., 750 and 780. At the commencement of each game,
the players decide on the target range. Hone on the Range was also played
initially using only multiplication then later using only division. Hone on
the Range was purposively selected to closely match the mechanics of
Guestimate, so as to reveal the students choices in moderating the
complexity of the game when provided with the option.
A calculator is the only tool required for these games and is commonly
found in Australian classrooms. Therefore, all children in a class can
access these types of non-digital games easily and without the expensive
computers required of digital games. This accessibility is a particular
advantage of non-digital over digital games. I had trialled both games in
primary classrooms on many occasions as a source to promote cognitive
conflict. The strong reaction of disbelief from each class at the possibility
of creating a smaller number when multiplying and the ease of access for
teachers were the foundation for employing these particular games.
The Games Classrooms. Of the 112 subjects whose data are relevant
here, the classroom teaching for 76 of them played mathematical games,
provided by the researcher, that are aimed at developing students
understanding of the topic. The groups included game playing either with
or without formal teacher-led discussion sessions.
1456 LEICHA A. BRAGG

The games without discussion and games with discussion

classrooms. In the classes that played games, 32 children played them
fairly independently with assistance from the teacher as needed but no
planned discussion periods (i.e. 35 min of game playing). The remaining
44 were in classrooms where there was about 15 min of teacher-led
whole-class discussion in each lesson, both during and after the game.
While the students were playing the game, the teacher roved around the
classroom, assisting students and observing and discussing strategies. The
teacher then asked the children to stop playing and encouraged them to
engage in a whole-class discussion regarding the game. The teacher drew
on their observations as well as informal discussions with the students.
The first discussion took approximately 5 min. The children returned to
playing the game for a further 10 min, whilst being encouraged to employ
the strategies suggested by the group. The focused discussions were
designed so that students might gain from others suggestions and
incorporate these into their own game-playing strategic thinking. At the
conclusion of the second game-playing period, the teacher designated a
further 10 min to whole-class discussion and reflection.
This splitting of the games intervention in this way was designed to
explore whether student learn as much (or more) from playing games
independently as they do from games-based engagement that incorporated
whole-class and teacher-led discussion focused on the mathematical
concepts that have been used in playing the games.

The Activities Classrooms. The other students (n=36) were in class-

rooms where the children undertook about 35 min of rich and varied non-
game learning activities aimed at teaching the same content; activities
again identified by the researcher from textbooks, research reports (e.g.
Hart, 1981), and exemplary national curriculum items.
Students in these Activities classrooms engaged in five different tasks
over the eight sessions, again focusing on the topics of multiplication and
division of decimals. Each activity required the children to employ a
calculator to mirror the game-playing groups uses of calculators. For
example, the task The mathematics of diving (Lovitt & Clarke, 1988)
involved the students watching a video of a womens Olympic diving
competition. It demonstrated the scoring system and then children were
given opportunities to watch each dive, see its raw scores, and then
calculate the final totals of each diver. Once again, in this and the other
activities, multiplication by decimals did not always result in higher
scores and in the activities where division of decimals was used this often
resulted in larger numbers.
 TESTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICAL GAMES 1457

As the focus of the research was on the effects of playing of

mathematical games, and some conditions that could vary their efficacy,
teacher-led discussion was not controlled in any way for the Activities
classrooms. The teachers were asked to present the tasks using their
typical classroom approach, using discussions, groups, explanations,
equipment, etc., as they normally would.

RESULTS

Table 1 compares the pre-test, post-test and delayed post-test results over
the three sets of classrooms: (a) Games classrooms without discussion; (b)
Games classrooms with discussion and (c) Activity classrooms.
The fact that the Game without discussion students had a higher
starting point, as suggested by their pre-test score, was coincidental and
somewhat surprising because according to the policy of the participating
schools, each class represented a range of academic abilities. This
treatment group had a slightly higher percentage of Year 6 students (69%)
than the mean for all groups (63%), but this only equates to a difference
of two children. The difference in starting points may have had some
impact on the results (see below), but my focus was on the improvement
in scores between the pre- and post-test, and between the pre-test and the
delayed post test (i.e. evidence of learning during the research period).
It is clear from these results that all three forms of intervention resulted in
improved scores during that time, and this is not surprising because the
games and activities were likely to result in some learning. The Games
without discussion students correctly answered a mean of 1.46 questions
more in the post-test, which does not seem a lot (out of 23 questions), but the
result is statistically significant at the 0.05 level and represented an increase
of 12.92%. By the delayed post-test, their results had increased by 1.84
points (16.28%), so it seems that what the Games without discussion students
had learnt relatively independently had been retained very well.

TABLE 1
Mean scores on the achievement tests for all groups

Group Pre-test Post-test Delayed post-test

Game without discussion (n=32) 11.13 12.59 12.97

Game with discussion (n=44) 8.36 9.09 8.98
Activities (n=36) 8.03 9.31 10.58
1458 LEICHA A. BRAGG

Interestingly, and counter to other researchers findings and advice that

is summarised above, the students in the Games with discussion treatment
group made relatively less improvement: 0.73 points on the post-test
(8.73%, p=G0.05) and 0.62 on the delayed post-test (7.42%, p=G0.05).
Overall, though, the treatment group that made the most gains overall
was the Activities group, with an increase of 1.28 (15.94%, p=G0.05) in
the post-test results but 2.55 (31.76%, p=G0.05) by the delayed post-test
stage. It appears that the mathematically rich activities had a positive
effect on the childrens conceptual understanding of multiplication and
division of decimals and assisted them in consolidating their skills with
decimal operations. In the graph of the differences in the percentage gains
(see Fig. 2), of special interest is the relatively large gain made in the
mean scores of the Activities group on the delayed post-test: a
phenomenon that cannot be entirely explained by the data available. It
could be claimed that it was the result of repeated testing, although if that
were the case then the increase should have been evident for all three of
the treatment groups.
In summary, the data from the post-test revealed minor gains for all
groups in the study. The Games without discussion group, with an
increase of 1.5 in their mean score over their pre-test results, achieved the
largest gains. These gains were closely followed by those of the Activities
group (with an increase of 1.3) and the 20-minute game group (with an
increase of 1.2). The median score for the Games without discussion
group remained the highest across the groups for each measure, although
there was a small decline in their delayed post-test results.
An important overall feature of the delayed post-test results is that the
students not only sustained their prior test results but also showed some
improvement. With the exception of the Games with discussion group,

35 Pre-test to
Post-test
30 Pre-test to
Delayed post-test
25

20

15

10

0
Games without Games with Activities
discussion discussion
Figure 2. Percentage increases in mean scores for the three treatment groups
 TESTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICAL GAMES 1459

the groups mean scores increased by an average of approximately two

items over the measured period. Continued growth of understanding after
a teaching period is finished is an interesting phenomenon noted by
Sullivan, Mousley & Jorgensen (2009).

The Distribution of Scores

In Fig. 3, box plots are used to illustrate the distribution of the scores for
the three groups.
One box and whisker plot indicates that one child in the Game with
discussion group obtained a pre-test score of 1 out of a possible score of
23, demonstrating little prior knowledge of the content. In fact, 10% of
the children across all groups had pre-test scores of less than 5. In the
post-test and the delayed post-test, 5.4% and 3.6% respectively of the
children had a score lower than 5, showing an overall improvement across
the groups.
Conversely, nine children across the three groups had scores of 17 or
above on the pre-test, suggesting substantial knowledge prior to the
intervention. This was a surprising result, considering that multiplication

Figure 3. Frequency of correct responses on the tests by groups

1460 LEICHA A. BRAGG

and division of decimals had not been introduced at this level of their
education.
The box plots showing the post-test results for all groups indicate a
general improvement in the students scores over the measured period.
Through examination of the median scores, it is pleasing to note that
students across both the game-playing groups showed an increase in their
understanding of mathematical content examined in the test items. The
Game without discussion treatment group made more gains that the other
groups between the pre-test and post-test periods, even though they
started with higher pre-test scores. It is possible that these students prior
knowledge assisted them in making more sense of the games and hence
greater gains on the test items than students in the other groups. Likewise,
the Game with discussion group commenced the experimental teaching
program with the lowest results on the achievement test of the game-playing
groups so some of the students may not have possessed the necessary
foundations on which to build the mathematical concepts addressed in the
games. Differences in the teachers approaches, a variable that could not be
held constant, may have also influenced the outcomes for the groups.

Some Interesting Itemised Results

A few of the individual students results were inexplicable and would have
had some effect on the overall results. For example, one child (a Year 5
female in the Activities group) demonstrated a large shift in understanding on
the delayed post-test. The girl scored 2 on the pre-test, 0 on the post-test and
10 on the delayed post-test. As noted above, the results of the delayed post-
test of her group appear remarkable in light of the previous test scores.
However, there was a general improvement of many of the children in that
group and deleting that childs case makes little difference in the results.
There were also some surprising results when individual item scores
were analysed. For example, there was a general improvement by two
items across the groups with the post-test results, suggesting that the
experimental teaching programs in all cases had positively influenced the
students understanding of the mathematical concepts involved. One item
was Question 3c: Write down any decimal number which is LARGER
than 3.9 but SMALLER than 4and the improvement across all groups
averaged approximately 12% (see Table 2).
The greater improvements were demonstrated by both game playing
groups directly after the experimental treatment period suggesting an
immediate impact on some childrens understanding of decimal place
value through playing the games.
 TESTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICAL GAMES 1461

TABLE 2
Percentage of correct responses on the achievement tests for all groups on item 3c

Group Pre-test Post-test Delayed Post-test

Game without discussion (n=32) 40.6% 56.3%% 56.3%

Game with discussion (n=44) 11.4% 20.5% 18.2%
Activities (n=36) 25.0% 27.8% 38.9%
All groups (n=112) 21.1% 33.0% 35.7%

The second item, 4f (see Fig. 2 earlier in this paper), requested students
to consider which choice of five numbers (0.1, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5) to divide
58 by to obtain an approximate answer of 80. Interestingly, when the
results were combined, there was an overall gain demonstrated by all
groups over the period (see Table 3). However, when examined by group
a large, 26.2% gain in correct responses is demonstrated by the Activities
group directly after the treatment period, while the Game without discussion
group declined during this period. Yet, the delayed post-test results showed a
reversal of this outcome for both groups.
The Game with discussion group demonstrated a gain in understanding
directly after and in the 10-week post-treatment. The delayed post-test
results for both the game playing groups suggests a sustained impact on
students understanding of division of numbers using decimal divisors as
a result of the game playing experience.

DISCUSSION OF GAME PLAYING AND CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING

This research focused on the use of games as a pedagogical approach to

contribute to mathematical learning. While there was some shift in a
positive direction on the achievement tests of game-playing groups,

TABLE 3
Percentage of correct responses on the achievement tests for all groups on item 4f

Group Pre-test Post-test Delayed post-test

Game without discussion (n=32) 37.5% 31.3% 59.4%

Game with discussion (n=44) 20.5% 31.8% 40.9%
Activities (n=36) 19.4% 55.6% 30.6%
All groups (n=112) 25.0% 39.3% 42.9%
1462 LEICHA A. BRAGG

greater gains were witnessed in the non-game-playing group. The data

indicate that the relatively small gains achieved in the game-playing
groups either do not support the conjecture that games independent of
alternative instructive practices should be employed as a pedagogical tool
for learning.
As described earlier, Onslow (1990) conducted a game-playing study
with slightly older students (12 to 14 years old), examining the use of
games to overcome misconceptions associated with multiplication and
division of decimals, the same concepts explored in this current study. In
light of Onslows results, which showed that nearly half the students who
engaged in games did not overcome these misconceptions, the fact that
generally there was some emerging understanding of the effect of
multiplication and division on decimals for some of the students in this
current study was encouraging. Conversely, it is also understandable that,
after a relatively short intervention period, many students would still be
struggling to overcome conceptual obstacles.
It appears that, although games seem to generate some understanding
of key mathematical content, as shown by some improvement in test
results, a more developed understanding is unlikely to be achieved in
isolation from other pedagogical practices. This supports Bright et al.
(1983) research findings that games alone may not teach particular
mathematical concepts as well as the advice of Kamii & DeClark (1985)
and Young-Loveridge (2004) to consider games as part of a varied
mathematics program. While it is more difficult in such programs to
attribute learning to game playing, it may be that this type of approach is
more beneficial for learning.
Although there are varied pedagogical approaches that may have been
examined, games were selected as they tend to be associated with fun. It
was hypothesised that participating in a fun activity, such as games,
would increase students levels of engagement in the mathematics
classroom and have a positive impact on learning. Middleton (1995)
found that children who were having fun appeared to be intrinsically
motivated and engaged in classroom activities. However, in the case of
the games employed in this particular study, as documented in Bragg
(2007), the repetitious nature of engaging in a cognitively demanding task
had an adverse impact on some students engagement and perception of
fun. In contrast, the Activities group engaged in five varied tasks, with
some including video extracts linking to real world contexts. In hindsight,
the choice of these challenging but repetitious games as a vehicle to
engage and promote learning may not have been a suitable match for
comparison with the more entertaining set of activities.
 TESTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICAL GAMES 1463

CONCLUSION

One of the aims of this study was to provide insights into the
mathematical game-playing experience and its impact on mathematical
learning. The results revealed that game playing had a minor, but
statistically significant, positive effect assisting students development of
conceptual understanding of key mathematical concepts. A comparison of
the effects of game playing with the effects of using varied non-game
activities does not support the claim that games are a very useful vehicle
for promoting mathematical learning, even when game playing is
supported by teacher-led discussion.
The research reported in this paper has implications for teachers,
teacher educators, curriculum developers and educational researchers. The
general results seem to suggest that primary mathematics classrooms
should not have a heavy emphasis on games, with or without whole-class
discussion. If creating a deep understanding of mathematical concepts is
the goal of mathematics teaching, then employing these games at a pre-
instructional stage may not be an effective tool for achieving this
objective. However, it may be the case that the games in the current study
may have been more effective if played at a co-instructional or post-
instructional stage of the childrens understandinga factor that needs
further researchso when selecting a game for use in the classroom,
teachers could consider when and how to use games as well as the
appropriateness of the mathematical content for the students level of
understanding.
The use of achievement tests to provide an accurate measure of
students understandings has its critics (Kamii & DeClark, 1985), and
teachers may choose to measure learning generated through game playing
using more probing assessment methods. Student interviews are time-
consuming but may paint a more accurate picture of the students
understandings than achievement tests. Teacher observations and informal
questioning of the children during game-playing may also produce
valuable insights into the strategies children employ. Whole-class
discussions and reflective journals would give students an opportunity
to share their understandings of a game and its mathematical intent. As
with all studies, there are limitations associated with the measuring
instruments, and further research into games might productively employ a
range of instruments to measure learning in order to build a more nuanced
picture of the effect of game playing on students mathematical
understanding. While there is a plethora of mathematical games available
to classroom teachers and quite a few researchers who make claims about
1464 LEICHA A. BRAGG

their efficacy, there are few available instruments with which to measure
the mathematical learning children achieve through game playing.
While the case for the use of games in classrooms remains inconclusive
and requires further investigation, teachers can be encouraged to continue to
use games as long as they are just one component of varied learning activities
that actively support mathematical learning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge and thank my doctoral supervisor, Professor

Peter Sullivan, for his unwavering encouragement and support throughout
this research.

REFERENCES

Afari, E., Aldridge, J., & Fraser, B. (2012). Effectiveness of using games in tertiary-level
mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
online, 124.
Amorim, M. A. (2003). What is my avatar seeing?: The coordination of out-of-body
and embodied perspectives for scene recognition across views. Visual Cognition, 10
(2), 157199.
Asplin, P., Frid, S. & Sparrow, L. (2006). Game playing to develop mental computation:
A case study. In P. Grootenboer, R. Zevenbergen & M. Chinnappan (Eds.), Identities,
cultures, and learning spaces: Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the
Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Canberra (pp. 4653).
Adelaide: MERGA.
Avraamidou, A. & Monaghan, J. (2009). Abstraction through game play. In M. Tzekaki,
M. Kaldrimidou & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the
International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 7380).
Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.
Booker, G. (1996). Instructional games in the teaching and learning of mathematics. In H.
Forgasz, T. Jones, G. Leder, J. Lynch, K. Maguire & C. Pearn (Eds.), Mathematics: Making
connections (pp. 7782). Brunswick, Victoria: The Mathematical Association of Victoria.
Booker, G. (2000). The maths game: Using instructional games to teach mathematics.
Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Booker, G. (2004). Playing to win: Using games for motivation and the development of
mathematical thinking. In A. Rogerson (Ed.), The future of mathematics education.
Proceedings of the Mathematics into the 21st Century International Conference (pp.
1620). Poland: Ciechocinek.
Bragg, L. A. (2003). Childrens perspectives on mathematics and game playing. In L.
Bragg, C. Campbell, G. Herbert & J. Mousley (Eds.), Mathematics education research:
Innovation, networking, opportunityProceedings of the 26th annual conference of the
Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 160167). Deakin
University, Geelong: MERGA.
 TESTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICAL GAMES 1465

Bragg, L. A. (2006a). Hey, Im learning this. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom,

11(4), 49.
Bragg, L. A. (2006b). The impact of mathematical games on learning, attitudes, and
behaviours., Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.
Bragg, L. A. (2007). Students conflicting attitudes towards games as a vehicle for
learning mathematics: A methodological dilemma. Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 19(1), 2944.
Brannan, R. (1983). Problem solving in mathematics, Grade 8. Lane County Mathematics
Project (Vol. 5). Palo Alto, USA: Dale Seymour Publications.
Bright, G. W., Harvey, J. G. & Wheeler, M. M. (1983). Use of a game to instruct on
logical reasoning. School Science and Mathematics, 83(5), 396405.
Bright, G. W., Harvey, J. G. & Wheeler, M. M. (1985). Learning and mathematics games.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education-Monograph Number, 1, 1189.
Cai, J., Perry, B., Wong, N.-Y. & Wang, T. (2009). What is effective teaching? In J. Cai,
G. Kaiser, B. Perry & N.-Y. Wong (Eds.), Effective mathematics teaching from
teachers perspectives: National and cross-national studies. Rotterdam: Sense.
Duit, R. (1995). The constructivist view: A fashionable and fruitful paradigm for science
education research and practice. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in
education (pp. 271285). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Ell, F. (2007). Keeping going at country school: Sustaining numeracy project practices
Findings from the New Zealand Numeracy Development Project 2006. Wellington,
New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Ernest, P. (1986). Games: A rationale for their use in the teaching of mathematics in
school. Mathematics in School, 15(1), 25.
Ernest, P. (1989). Games: A rationale for their use in the teaching of mathematics. In P. Ernest
(Ed.), Mathematics teaching: The state of the art (pp. 8895). London: Falmer Press.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E. & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Educational research: Competencies
for analysis and applications (Vol. 10th). USA: Pearson.
Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd
ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gerdes, P. (2001). Exploring the game of julirde: A mathematical-educational game
played by fulbe children in Cameroon. Teaching Children Mathematics, 7(6), 321
327.
Gough, J. (1993). Playing games to learn maths. In J. Mousley & M. Rice (Eds.),
Mathematics of primary importance (pp. 218221). Brunswick, Victoria: The
Mathematical Association of Victoria.
Greer, B. (1987). Nonconservation of multiplication and division involving decimals.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18(1), 3745.
Hart, K. (Ed.). (1981). Childrens understanding of mathematics (pp. 1116). London:
John Murray.
Harvey, J. G. & Bright, G. W. (1985). Basic math games. Palo Alto, California: Dale
Seymour Publications.
Higgins, S. (2000). The logical zoombinis. Teaching Thinking, 1(1).
Kamii, C. K. & DeClark, G. (1985). Young children reinvent arithmetic: Implications of
Piagets theory. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kamii, C. K. & Rummelsburg, J. (2008). Arithmetic for first graders lacking number
concepts. Teaching Children Mathematics, 14(7), 389394.
1466 LEICHA A. BRAGG

Lee, Y. L. (2009). Enhancement of fractions from playing a game. In R. Hunter, B.

Bicknell & T. Burgess (Eds.), Crossing divides: MERGA 32: Proceedings of the 32nd
Annual Conference of the Mathematics (Vol. 1, pp. 323330). Palmerston North, NZ:
MERGA.
Lim-Teo, S. K. (1991). Games in the mathematics classroom. Teaching and Learning, 11
(2), 4756.
Lovitt, C. & Clarke, D. M. (1988). The mathematics curriculum and teaching program
professional development package (Vol. 1). Canberra: Curriculum Development Centre.
Maloy, R. W., Edwards, S. A. & Anderson, G. (2010). Teaching math problem solving
using a web-based tutoring system, learning games, and students writing. Journal of
STEM Education, 11(1&2), 8289.
Middleton, J. A. (1995). A study of intrinsic motivation in the mathematics classroom: A
personal constructs approach. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(3),
254279.
Nilsson, P. (2007). Different ways in which students handle chance encounters in the
explorative setting of a dice game. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(3), 293
315.
Nisbet, S. & Williams, A. (2009). Improving students attitudes to chance with games and
activities. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 65(3), 2537.
Oldfield, B. J. (1991). Games in the learning of mathematicsPart 1: Classification.
Mathematics in School, 20(1), 4143.
Onslow, B. (1990). Overcoming conceptual obstacles: The qualified use of a game.
School Science and Mathematics, 90(7), 581592.
Oritz, E. (2003). Research findings from games involving basic facts operations and
algebraic thinking at a PDS. Paper presented at the Annual Holmes Partnership
Conference, Washington, DC.
Peters, S. (1998). Playing games and learning mathematics: The results of two
intervention studies. International Journal of Early Years Education, 6(1), 4958.
Prensky, M. (2005). Dont bother me MomIm learning. USA: Paragon House.
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. USA: Corwin.
Provenzo, E. F. (1991). Video kids: Making sense of Nintendo. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Ramani, G. & Siegler, R. S. (2008). Promoting broad and stable improvements in low-
income childrens numerical knowledge through playing number board games. Child
Development, 79(1), 375394.
Roche, A. (2010). Helping students to make sense of decimal place value. Australian
Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(2), 410.
Rodrigo, M. M. T. (2011). Dynamics of student cognitive-affective transitions during a
mathematics game. Simulation & Gaming, 42(1), 8599.
Saifer, S. (2010). Higher order play and its role in development and education.
Psychological Science and Education, 3, 3850.
Siegler, R. S. & Ramani, G. B. (2008). Playing linear numerical board games promotes
low-income childrens numerical development. Developmental Science, 11(5), 655
661.
Skemp, R. (1993). Structured activities for intelligent learning. Calgary, Canada: EEC
Ltd.
Sullivan, P., Clarke, D. M. & OShea, H. (2009). Students opinions about characteristics
of their desired mathematics lessons. In L. Sparrow, B. Kissane & C. Hurst (Eds.),
 TESTING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICAL GAMES 1467

Shaping the future of mathematics education: Proceedings of the 33rd annual

conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 531539).
Fremantle: MERGA.
Sullivan, P., Mousley, J., & Jorgensen, R. (2009). Tasks and pedagogies that facilitate
mathematical problem solving. In B. Kaur, Y. B. Har & M. Kapur (Eds.), Mathematical
problem solving : Yearbook 2009 (pp. 1742). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing
Co.
Swan, P. (1996). Kids and calculators: Using calculators in the primary classroom.
Bunbury, Western Australia: A-Z Type.
Thomas, W. E. & Grouws, D. A. (1984). Inducing cognitive growth in concrete-
operational college students. School Science and Mathematics, 84(3), 233243.
Tirosh, D. & Graeber, A. (1990). Evoking cognitive conflict to explore preservice
teachers thinking about division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21
(2), 98108.
Wiersma, W. (2009). Research methods in education: An introduction (9th ed.). Needham
Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Wood, T. (1995). From alternative epistemologies to practice in education: Rethinking
what is means to teach and learn. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in
education (pp. 331339). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Young-Loveridge, J. M. (2004). Effects on early numeracy of a program using number
books and games. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 8298.

Faculty of Arts and Education, School of Education

Deakin University
221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Victoria, 3125, Australia
E-mail: Leicha.Bragg@deakin.edu.au