Investigating the Effects of Gamification and Ludicization on Learning Achievement and Motivation: An Empirical Study Employing Kahoot! and Habitica

This empirical study aims to investigate and compare the actual effects of play-related approaches— gamification and ludicization—on learning achievement and motivation. The authors have employed adapted College English Test-6 and Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire to assess learning achievement and motivation, respectively. According to ANCOVA, compared with the control group (N = 24, M = 59.979, SD = 1.836), gamification significantly enhances learning achievement (N = 23, M = 66.676, SD = 1.875), while ludicization insignificantly improves learning achievement (N = 23, M = 61.041, SD = 1.862). ANOVA has presented that gamification and ludicization insignificantly influence motivational-related subscales and that ludicization shows counterproductive effects on intrinsic orientation and learning beliefs. The main conclusion is that play-related approaches might exert insignificant effects on learning achievement or motivation. Unintended uses, excessive simplification, and addiction to external rewards lead to unstable or counterproductive impacts of playful experiences.

Pedagogies based on game-related designs has attracted rising research interest, and some studies have shown that play-related approaches could improve higher-order thinking skills (Asigigan & Samur, 2021) and test performance (Chans & Castro, 2021).However, researchers would not ignore the potential undesired side effects of the play-related approaches (Diefenbach & Müssig, 2019).In some cases, playful experiences would not lead to motivating impacts but dysfunctional effects (Diefenbach & Müssig, 2019).We would not regard play-related approaches as the "panacea" that could solve all the difficulties or dysfunctions (Diefenbach & Müssig, 2019).To avoid overemphasizing the efficiency and neglecting the side effects of the play-related approaches, we would investigate whether play-related approaches exert insignificant, unstable, or even counterproductive effects on learning achievement or motivation.
Thus, this study investigates the differences between gamification and ludicization in terms of efficiency.Learning achievement and motivation are the typical measurements assessing the efficiency of pedagogies (Kim et al., 2018;Sailer & Homner, 2020).We would investigate and compare the efficiency of gamification and ludicization in terms of learning achievement and motivation.We have raised the following two hypotheses: H1: Gamification and ludicization positively influence learning achievement to different degrees.H2: Gamification and ludicization positively influence motivation to different degrees.
"Literature Review" presents the differences between gamification and ludicization in addition to illustrating the definition and features of gamification and ludicization."Methodology" describes participants, empirical processes, and statistical analysis platform."Results" reports statistical findings and conclusions for the two hypotheses."Discussion" shows reasons and implications of the results."Conclusion" demonstrates the summary of research findings and reflection of the research designs.
Considering the potential significance, this study investigates and reflect on the actual efficiency of play-related approaches.The quantitative researches compare the efficiency of gamification and ludicization by analyzing whether these approaches could enhance learning achievement and motivation.Discussion on the potential reasons for the effects could further reflect the efficiency of play-related approaches.
Having raised the hypotheses and stated potential significance, we would review past studies to gain academic support for experimental designs.

LITERATURE REVIEw
This section describes features of gamification and ludicization, their uses in pedagogical practices, and the differences between them.

Features and Uses of Play-Related Approaches
The distinction between "playing" and "gaming" could reflect the features of gamification.Playing versus gaming is a significant criterion to distinguish game-related concepts (Salen & Zimmermann, 2004).Playing refers to neither fixed nor rule-based playful experiences, while gaming stands for rule-based and goal-oriented playful activities (Salen & Zimmermann, 2004).Accordingly, Deterding et al. (2011) have proposed two dimensions, i.e., whole versus parts and gaming versus playing, to differentiate gamification from other related concepts (see Figure 1).Whole versus parts demonstrates the extent to which a product is using gaming elements (Deterding et al., 2011;Matallaoui, Hanner, & Zarnekow, 2017).In contrast, gaming versus playing reflects whether the product involves rule-bounded and outcome-related elements or just consists of the playing aspect (Deterding et al., 2011;Matallaoui et al., 2017).
Positioned in the right upper quadrant, gamification features "parts" and "gaming".Gamification requires separable playful elements with other aspects of the product untouched (Deterding et al., 2011;Matallaoui et al., 2017).Rule-based and goal-oriented designs are also the core elements to encourage players to accomplish tasks or surpassing others (Deterding et al., 2011;Matallaoui et al., 2017).Thus, gamification can exist without complete games by employing playful elements in everyday contexts to motivate and engage players for better performance (Deterding et al., 2011;Matallaoui et al., 2017).
In contrast, the key features of ludicization are the transformation in imaginary experiences, metaphorization of the target reference situation, and congruency between metaphors and reference situations.
Considering the first feature, ludicization could transform the target circumstance, i.e., the reference situations, into immersive ludic experiences (Sanchez et al., 2016).Notably, that transformation enables participants to perceive and evaluate their behaviors based on the values in the immersive imaginary experiences, rather than directly introducing game-related elements (Sanchez et al., 2016).Participants could also easily understand and decode hosts' expectations based on the mechanics (Sanchez et al., 2016).Avatars, rewards, or punishments could be the emblematic items projecting the potential consequences of participants' decisions or behaviors (Sanchez et al., 2016).
Considering the second feature, ludicization could metaphorize essential procedures in the reference situations into ludic or virtual elements or activities (Sanchez et al., 2016).Metaphors in ludicization could provide ontological emblem of hosts' expected and desired behaviors.In pedagogical practices, metaphorization of educational goals could provide behavioral guides for organization in practical contexts, so instructors could transfer learners' responsibility of performing desired behaviors into earning points or rewards (Sanchez et al., 2016).Accordingly, learners could associate behavioral enhancement and progress with points, rewards, and competitions.
Considering the third feature, ludicization could provide "reflexive space" that presents the congruency between metaphors and reference situations.As the he critical concept of ludicization, reflexive space refers to the environment where participants could continuously receive feedback based on their previous behaviors (Sanchez et al., 2016).Reflexive space could guide participants' future actions by ensuring relatively sufficient liberty in making decisions, contributing to their feeling of competency (Sanchez et al., 2016).Feedback in reflexive space could enhance participants' autonomy in judging and performing behaviors consistent with the objectives of the reference situations (Sanchez et al., 2016).
Thus, the positive effects of play-related approaches should not be taken for granted.Ideally, play-related approaches could motivate participants' positive behaviors consistent with the intended effects and demotivate their negative behaviors not compliant with the intended effects (Diefenbach & Müssig, 2019).However, game-related approaches would produce counterproductive effects, namely, effects opposite to the desired effects, e.g., to motivate negative behaviors and demotivate positive behaviors (Diefenbach & Müssig, 2019).

The differences Between Gamification and Ludicization
Although both gamification and ludicization emphasize playful experiences supporting the pedagogical procedures, gamification and ludicization are different in terms of game-related experiences and simulation of the reference situations.Gamification is an essentialist approach enabling players to enjoy a ludic phenomenon (Bonenfant & Genvo, 2014;Diefenbach & Müssig, 2019;Deterding et al., 2011).In contrast, ludicization highlights the participants' willingness to engage themselves in playful experiences (Sanchez et al., 2016).
In the etymological aspect, gamification and ludicization present different ways to provide playful experiences.The word "gamification" contains the Latin word "facere", indicating the action of making the game (Sanchez et al., 2016).In contrast, "ludicization" consists of "ludus" and "-icization".Rather than the process of making the game, the root "-icization" emphasizes the action of transforming the current reference situation into the idealized playful situations (Sanchez et al., 2016).
Besides, gamification and ludicization involve different approaches to maintain playful experiences.Gamification involves game mechanics such as points or rewards (Chen & Kent, 2020;Deterding et al., 2011;Kim et al., 2018;Sanchez et al., 2016).In contrast, ludicization involves particular metaphors for the classroom situation and creates a reflective space where learners could enjoy playful interactive experiences (Sanchez et al., 2016).For gamification, game mechanics is the key element to create and maintain playful and interactive experiences (Deterding et al., 2011;Kim et al., 2018;Yang & Quadir, 2018).By contrast, ludicization creates playful experiences by modifying functions of the target situations into relatively equivalent playful activities (Sanchez et al., 2016).
Additionally, gamification and ludicization differ in how to simulate playful experiences.Simulation is the core element of game-related designs and could reproduce an actual and referenceable situation or experiences (Faria & Whiteley, 1990;Kim et al., 2018).Simulated experiences could adjust the activities to ideal situations without actual consequence (Sanchez et al., 2016).However, while gamification simulates the situations compatible with the real-world contexts (Deterding et al., 2011;Kim et al., 2018), ludicization simulates the reference situations through an analogical relation between the target activities and virtual ideas (Sanchez et al., 2016).Thus, gamification simulates real-world contexts to promote participants' involvement, whereas ludicization metaphorizes players' desired behaviors into imaginary meanings.
Overall, gamification and ludicization differ in how to provide playful experiences and how to simulate the reference situations.Game mechanics in gamification could create playful experiences enhancing players' involvement in target real-world activities.By contrast, metaphorization in ludicization could transform the core procedures or functions into in the imaginary playful situations.The metaphorical analogy could reinforce players' specific behaviors through the idealized meanings.

METHodoLoGy
This section describes the research participants, procedures, instruments, and analysis platforms in this quantitative study.

Research Participants
This study involved 70 seniors majoring in fine arts from Chinese universities as the participants.This study involves 48 female participants and 22 male participants.The participants attended the courses of English for general purposes to enhance their English proficiency.
We have randomly divided these participants into three classes similar in scales and homogeneity (see Figure 2).The first class, set as the first experimental group adopting gamification, involves 23 participants, including 16 female participants and 7 male participants.The second class, set as the second experimental group adopting ludicization, involves 23 participants, including 15 female participants and 8 male participants.The third class, set as the control group adopting the traditional didactic pedagogy, involves 24 participants, including 17 female and 7 male participants.
We have attempted to keep the similar ratio of females to males among three treatment groups.Although the proportion of males and females is not equal, past studies, i.e, Nizam &Law, 2021 andYang &Quadir, 2018, could provide evidences to exclude that effect.Since participants' gender is not a significant factor influencing their performance in the empirical process (Nizam & Law, 2021;Yang & Quadir, 2018), the gender proportion in this study do not determine the results.

Research Instruments
We have employed English proficiency test, the questionnaire concerned with motivation, and playrelated platforms.

Adapted CET-6 as the Assessment of Learning Achievement
Considering the instrument assessing participants' learning achievement in the College English course, we have adapted the questions in .Since College English Test-4 (CET-4) and College English-6 (CET-6) are the authorized tests to assess participants' English proficiency in China, CET-6 questions can provide relatively reliable results about participants' learning achievement in the College English course.
We have conducted a pretest and posttest involving the adapted CET-6 questions.The total score of both pretest and posttest is 100.Each test contains ten cloze questions, 10 paragraph matching questions, ten multiple-choice questions, one Chinese to English translation task, and one writing task from CET-6.

Adapted Version of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) as the Assessment of Motivation
For quantitative assessments of participants' motivation, we have utilized questionnaires quoted and adapted from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) in the study of Pintrich, Smith, García, and McKeachie (1991).The studies of Hung, Sun, & Liu (2019) and Lai, Lin, & Yueh (2020) have also offered references for question designs.The questionnaire consists of 16 questions scored with a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (see Table 1).
The questions are arranged in four motivation-related subscales.Intrinsic goal orientation refers to the degree to which learners perceive that their participation in one learning task is for challenges, curiosity, or mastery (Pintrich et al., 1991).Extrinsic goal orientation refers to how learners perceive that their participation in one learning task is for grades, rewards, performance, evaluation by others, or competition (Pintrich et al., 1991).Control of learning belief reflects how learners believe that their efforts can contribute to positive outcomes (Pintrich et al., 1991).Self-efficacy for learning and performance reflects learners' appraisal and judgements of their ability to master and accomplish a task (Pintrich et al., 1991).

Kahoot! and Habitica as the Platforms for Gamification and Ludicization
Kahoot! (https://kahoot.com) is a game-based student response system (GSRS) that transforms the classroom into a game question show (Wang & Tahir, 2020).Accompanied with attractive images and dynamic background, Kahoot!questions include multiple-choice questions, true-or-false questions, open-ended questions, polls, and word clouds (Wang & Tahir, 2020).
Habitica (https://habitica.com) is the gamified platform for task management with the advertising slogan "Motivate yourself to do anything" (Diefenfach & Müssig, 2019).This open-source habit- building platform gamifies users' life by embodying daily tasks, e.g., daily duties, to-dos, and intended positive habits in monsters (Diefenbach & Müssig, 2019;de Paula Porto, Ferrari, & Fabbri, 2019).Users could create three types of custom tasks: To-Dos, tasks users should finish once or rarely, Dailies, activities users do daily or on a particular day of the week, Habits, target habits users desire to develop and establish (de Paula Porto et al., 2019).

Experiment Procedures
The empirical procedures investigate and compare the effects of gamification and ludicization on learning achievement and motivation in terms of CET-6 performance and MSLQ feedback (see Figure 2).

Basic Empirical Procedures
We have conducted this experiment for six weeks (from July 19 th , 2021, to August 29 th , 2021).The participants have attended the about 100-minute College English course five times a week.Three teachers with more than five years of teaching English have taught gamification, ludicization, and traditional didactic classes.The teachers in each group are also the raters of the CET-6 pretest and posttest.Before the course began, the participants took a CET-6 pretest.We have collected and recorded participants' pretest scores reflecting their English foundation.Having finished the pretest, the participants began to take the course.Once the participants finished the six-week courses, they took a CET-6 posttest to assess their English proficiency, reflecting learning achievement.They also took a post-course questionnaire (MSLQ), reflecting the quantitative assessment of motivation.

Empirical Processes in the Gamification Group
The teachers of the gamification class edited questions in line with the syllabus before class.Having imbued participants with new knowledge, the teacher started the "Host Live" mode to gamify quizzes.As the host of the kahoot game show, the teacher invited the participants to participate in the live activity.
The quizzes involve multiple-choice questions and open-ended question.Participants answered the multiple-choice questions and gained scores based on answering accuracy.Once all the participants finished one question, the teacher observed the frequencies of each answer choice and explained the key concepts and resolved the misunderstanding based on participants' accuracy.
Once the teacher confirmed that most participants had understood all key knowledge in the multiple-choice questions, the teacher set one open-ended question.The participants submitted the answer to the dashboard.Participants shared their ideas with others and commented on the answers, while the teacher evaluated the submissions and provided feedback to the presentation contents.
Once the teacher and participants finished the "Host Live" section, Kahoot!presented a podium for the top three participants with the most scores at end of the class.Participants could review the kahoots after class.The teacher repeated this cycle in all the courses for the gamification class.

Empirical Processes in the Ludicization Group
Before the first course began, the teacher asked participants to set "answer questions in class" and "actively participate in in-class discussion" as the goals in "Habits" of Habitica.Participants were also asked to set "finish assignments" as the "Dailies" goals in Habitica for extracurricular tasks.The teacher randomly divided the class into four groups and formed four "parties" in Habitica.
Having imbued participants with new knowledge, the teacher started the question-and-answer and open-ended discussion sections.Volunteer participants actively answering the questions or joining the discussion could tick the habits and earn health points, experience, and golds as rewards.The more excellent performance participants had made, the more rewards they could gain in Habitica.
Participants could use golds to purchase virtual goods to equip and upgrade their avatar in Habitica.They could also exchange 20 golds in Habitica for real-world rewards.The teacher prepared some stationery stuff as the real-world rewards that participants could gain by paying 20 golds in Habitica.
At the end of each course, the teacher assigned the extracurricular tasks to consolidate participants' mastery of knowledge.Once participants finished the assignments after class, they could check off the daily goal.The teacher checked participants' assignments at the beginning of the next class to avoid cheating.Then the teacher repeated the cycle of the courses for the ludicization class.

Empirical Processes in the Traditional Didactic Group
The teacher arranged the same syllabus in the traditional didactic class without any playful activities or implementing any playful experiences.
The teacher taught the course contents using slides, during which the teacher asked the participants and listened to participants' responses.Having learned all the new knowledge, participants gained an open-ended question and had a discussion based on their current mastery of language usage.
Before the end of class, the teacher picked some volunteers to present their answers to the question, based on which the teacher summarized the key concepts and resolved the understanding.The teacher repeated this cycle of the courses for the traditional didactic class.

Approaches of Statistical Analyses
We have employed IBM ® SPSS ® Statistics 26 to perform statistical analyses.Considering learning achievement, we have recorded and compared participants' posttest scores (the variable group "Posttest") in the three treatment groups.Since participants' English foundation was an uncontrollable factor positively associated with the pretest scores (the variable group "Pretest"), we have implemented ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) to minimize the interfering effects of "Pretest" on the experiment results (Aldrich & Cunningham, 2015, pp. 204).
Considering the measurement of motivation, we have investigated the effects on participants' feedback to 16 MSLQ questions (variable groups from "Q1.1" to "Q4.4") to analyze whether gamification and ludicization differently influence motivation.Based on reliability and validity, we have performed ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) to identify the differences among the three groups in feedback (Aldrich & Cunningham, 2015, pp. 161).

RESULTS
This section reports the statistical findings to test the research hypotheses.We have conducted ANCOVA and ANOVA to investigate the effects of play-related approaches on learning achievement and motivation, respectively.

do Gamification and Ludicization Positively Influence Learning Achievement to different degrees?
ANCOVA involves the variable "Approach" as the independent variable, "Posttest" as the dependent variable, and "Pretest" as the covariate.Notably, we would identify whether the data could satisfy the requisites for ANCOVA.

Requisites for ANCOVA
The first requisite is normal distribution of the data.We have performed the one-sample Kolmogorov-Smimov (K-S) test to investigate the normality of the variable groups "Pretest" and "Posttest".The results have suggested that both "Pretest" and "Posttest" variable groups have the significance level > .05 of .200.Thus, the variable groups "Pretest" and "Posttest" satisfy normal distribution (Aldrich & Cunningham, 2015, pp. 125).
The third requisite is that the interaction between the fixed factor ("Approach") and the covariate ("Pretest") should be insignificant to avoid interfering effects of the covariate (Aldrich & Cunningham, 2015, pp. 208).The univariate model test has demonstrated that the significance levels of the interaction between the fixed factor ("Approach") and the covariate ("Pretest") is .945> .05,suggesting that the data could avoid the interfering effects of "Pretest" (Aldrich & Cunningham, 2015, pp. 210).Notably, the significant effect of "Pretest" (p = .008< .05)indicates that it is reasonable to regard "Pretest" as the covariate to minimize its interfering effects on ANCOVA.
The fourth requisite is the equality of the variance in the dependent variable group ("Posttest") (Aldrich & Cunningham, 2015, pp. 213).Levene's test has reported that the "Posttest" variable group maintains equality of variances among the three treatment groups because of the significance level > .05 of .881(Aldrich & Cunningham, 2015, pp. 213).Thus, the dependent variable meets the fourth demand of ANCOVA.
Since the data satisfy all the conditions for ANCOVA, we could conduct ANCOVA to investigate the impacts of play-related approaches on learning achievement.

ANCOVA Presenting the Effects of Play-Related Approaches on Learning Achievement
ANCOVA test of between-subjects effects (see Table 2) presents whether the participants' CET-6 posttests ("Posttest") are significantly different among the three treatment groups adopting gamification, ludicization, traditional didactic pedagogy.Since the independent variable group "Approach" has the significance level < .05 of .030,participants' CET-6 posttests are significantly different among the three treatment groups.In other words, play-related approaches would have significant effects on participants' CET-6 posttest.Besides, the significance level < .05 of .007for the covariate "Pretest" indicates that participants' CET-6 posttest is significantly associated with their CET-6 pretest.That statement could confirm the rationality of conducting ANCOVA involving "Pretest" as the covariate.
For detailed comparison of participants' posttest, we have analyzed the estimated means of "Posttest" in three treatment groups (see Table 3).Compared with the traditional didactic group (N = 24, M = 59.979,SD = 1.836), the gamification group presents a significant enhancement in CET-6 Pairwise comparisons could present which play-related approach significantly enhances CET-6 posttest (see Table 4).Participants' posttest in the gamification group is significantly from the posttest in the traditional didactic group (p = .014< .05).Besides, participants' posttest in the gamification group is also significantly different from the posttest in the ludicization group (p = .037< .05).However, participants' posttest in the ludicization group is insignificantly different from the posttest in the traditional didactic group (p = .686> .05).Thus, gamification could exert more significantly positive effects on CET-6 posttest, i.e., reflection of participants' learning achievement.Ludicization insignificantly influences learning achievement.
We have also calculated the effect size of the significantly different mean pairs through Cohen's d (Cohen, 1988, pp. 19).The effect sizes are 3.02 for the significant difference between the gamification and ludicization groups in CET-6 posttest and 3.61 for the significant difference between the gamification and traditional didactic groups in CET-6 posttest, reflecting the degree greater than the large (.80) size (Cohen, 1988, pp. 26).These effect sizes indicate that gamification would contribute to significantly different enhancement on learning achievement from ludicization.
Thus far, ANCOVA has demonstrated that gamification could significantly enhance learning achievement and that ludicization would exert insignificant effects on learning achievement.Therefore, we could maintain the hypothesis that gamification and ludicization positively influence learning achievement to different degrees.

do Gamification and Ludicization Positively Influence Motivation to different degrees?
ANOVA could investigate the effects of play-related approaches on motivation based on participants' feedback of MSLQ.We would first investigate whether participants' feedback could satisfy the conditions of reliability and validity.
Validity stands for the degree of consistency between the measure and the target facets of the concepts (Stockemer, 2019, pp. 14).Since factor analysis could combine variables that approximately assess the same concept (Aldrich & Cunningham, 2015, pp. 286), we could conduct factor analysis to examine whether the 16 questions validly represent facets of the four motivation-related subscales.Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity report whether the data are suitable for the factor analysis.KMO has reported a value > .6 of .760,and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity has reported the significance level < .05 of .000,indicating that the data are suitable for factor analysis (Aldrich & Cunningham, 2015, pp. 292).
Factor analysis results are the scree plot and the rotated component matrix.The scree plot (see Figure 4) shows that the eigenvalue line steadily decreases from the fifth to the sixteen components.The 16 questionnaire questions present four analyzable facets.The Rotated Component Matrix table (see Table 1) has reflected the detailed correlations between the variables and the four high-loading components (Aldrich & Cunningham, 2015, pp. 294).Questions Q1.1-Q1.4,Q2.1-Q2.4,Q3.1-Q3.4,and Q4.1-Q4.4 are most positively correlated with the second, the first, the fourth, and the third highloading component, respectively.Since four analyzable facets are compatible with the motivationrelated subscales, the data could meet the demand of validity.Thus far, the questionnaire data could satisfy reliability and validity.We have accordingly calculated the mean scores according to the high-loading components and set the variables "Extrinsic" for Q2.1-Q2.4,"Intrinsic" for Q1.1-Q1.4,"Efficacy" for Q4.1-Q4.4,and "Beliefs" for Q3.1-Q3.3.

ANOVA Presenting the Effects of Play-Related Approaches on Motivation
ANOVA involves "Extrinsic", "Intrinsic", "Efficacy", and "Beliefs" as the dependent factors and "Approach" as the independent factor.ANOVA results (see Table 5) have revealed that participants'  scores in "Extrinsic" are significantly different among the three treatment groups due to the significance value < .05 of .20 (Aldrich & Cunningham, 2015, pp. 167).However, participants' scores in "Intrinsic", "Efficacy", and "Beliefs" are insignificant different among the three treatment groups due to the levels > .05 of .383, .294, and .871, respectively (Aldrich & Cunningham, 2015, pp. 167).Thus, playrelated approaches have significant effects on extrinsic goal orientation but insignificantly influence intrinsic goal orientation, self-efficacy for learning and performance, and control of learning beliefs.
We have conducted the Scheffe post hoc anlaysis for detailed comparison of participants' scores that would contribute to the significant value (Aldrich & Cunningham, 2015, pp. 163).Scheffe post hoc results (see Table 6) have revealed that "Extrinsic" scores in the gamification group are significantly different from the scores in the traditional didactic group (p = .031< .05).Other pairs of means do not present significant differences.Thus, gamification would significantly influence extrinsic goal orientation but insignificantly influence other motivation-related facets.Ludicization does not exert significant effects on any motivation-related subscales.Additionally, homogeneity * The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
We have also calculated the effect size of the significantly different mean pair through Cohen's d (Cohen, 1988, pp. 19).The effect size is .78for the significant difference between the gamification and traditional didactic groups in "Extrinsic" scores, reflecting the degree between the medium (.50) and the large (.80) sizes (Cohen, 1988, pp. 26).The effect size indicates that gamification would contribute to visible enhancement on extrinsic goal orientation from the traditional didactic pedagogy.
Thus far, ANOVA has demonstrated that play-related approaches exert overall insignificant effects on motivation in terms of motivation-related subscales.Gamification exerts significant effects only on extrinsic goal orientation.Ludicization even exerts slightly adverse effects on intrinsic goal orientation and control of learning beliefs.Therefore, we would reject the hypothesis that gamification and ludicization positively influence motivation to different degrees.The statistical findings have suggested that gamification and ludicization would exert differently insignificant effects on motivation.

dISCUSSIoN
This section presents the potential reasons for the counterproductive effects of plat-related approaches.The potential reasons include unintended uses of gamified systems, excessive simplification, and unbalance between extrinsic rewards and intrinsic desires.
The first reason is that players tend to use the play-related platforms deviating from the original intention.Players flavor motivating gamified designs and perform behaviors inconsistent with common sense in practice (Diefenbach & Müssig, 2019).However, players could not directly apply the prototype behaviors or strategies in playful experiences to practical contexts (Deterding, 2010).Players would deliberately manipulate without considering desired intentions (Knaving & Björk, 2013).For instance, participants prefer undermining gamified mechanics because those behaviors can bring them intrinsic satisfaction and free them from control (Diefenfach & Müssig, 2019).As a result, play-related approaches would distract participants from the initial goals of promoting positive behavioral changes in real-world contexts (Diefenfach & Müssig, 2019).
The second reason is excessively simplified experiences in play-related platforms.The simulated or created models in the gamified environments are often less complex than realworld situations (Knaving & Björk, 2013).Simplification would allow players to excessively interpret the given gamified models and overlook the phenomena that could not appear in reality (Diefenbach & Müssig, 2019).For instance, participants excessively engaged in gamified experiments tend to concentrate on the simplified model emphasizing points (Knaving & Björk, 2013).Excessive orientation to points might negatively influence participants' self-efficacy in the main activities (Knaving & Björk, 2013).
The third reason is the unbalanced relation between rewards and intention.Inappropriate designs points and badges would discourage players from considering whether these rewards are appropriate in the given circumstances (Rapp, 2017).Ideally, play-related designs should involve rewards suitable for players' psychological consequences target activities and participants' psychological situations to avoid confusing reproduction with duplication of playful experiences (Rapp, 2017), associated with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, respectively (Ryan & Deci, 2000).However, overdependence on extrinsic rewards might diminish or even undermine the influence of intrinsic motivation in the playful experiences, i.e., players' intrinsic orientation to perform desired behaviors (Diefenfach & Müssig, 2019).Thus, an unbalanced relation between extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation would cause players to fail to consider the worthwhile rewards for progress, leading to players' addiction to rewards.
Overall, play-related approaches would exert effects inconsistent with the desired behaviors.Misuse of gamified mechanics, excessively simplified designs, addiction to extrinsic stimuli might lead to the counterproductive effects of playful experiences.

CoNCLUSIoN
This section presents the conclusions for the research hypotheses and the main conclusion of this study.

Major Findings
This study investigates and compares the effects of play-related approaches: gamification and ludicization, in terms of learning achievement and motivation.The empirical processes involve 70 participants divided into two experimental groups and one control group (see Figure 2).We have employed the adapted CET-6 and MSLQ to measure learners' learning achievement and motivation, respectively.
H1 focuses on the effects of play-related approaches on learning achievement.ANCOVA has demonstrated that the effects on learning achievement are significantly different among the three treatment groups (p = .030< .05)(see Table 2).Compared with the control group (N = 24, M = 59.979,SD = 1.836), gamification can significantly enhance posttest performance (N = 23, M = 66.676,SD = 1.875), while ludicization does not significantly increase posttest performance (N = 23, M = 61.041,SD = 1.862) (see Table 3 & 4).Therefore, we can maintain the hypothesis that gamification and ludicization positively influence learning achievement to different degrees.
H2 concentrates on the effects of play-related approaches on motivation.ANOVA has demonstrated that play-related approaches have overall insignificant effects on motivation-related subscales (see Table 5) except significant positive effects of gamification on extrinsic goal orientation (p = .031< .05)(see Table 6).Ludicization even shows counterproductive effects on intrinsic goal orientation and control of learning beliefs (see Table 6).Therefore, we would reject the hypothesis that gamification and ludicization positively influence motivation to different degrees.
The main conclusion is that play-related approaches would not exert overall significant effects on learning achievement or motivation.Although gamification could significantly enhance learning achievement and extrinsic goal orientation, ludicization exerts unstable effects on learning achievement and counterproductive effects on motivation.Therefore, educators would notice the potential impacts of game-related designs based on practical needs.

Limitations of This Study and Insights for Future Research
The first limitation is the coverage of participants.We have focused on senior students and investigated their learning achievement and motivation.We could extend the coverage of participants to groups of pupils, junior high students, senior high students, postgraduates, or doctors.
The second limitation is the experiment design.We have concentrated on quantitative researches of the effects of play-related approaches on learning achievement and motivation.We could add qualitative research, e.g., interview and content analyses.A combination of quantitative and qualitative researches can report more accurate results based on statistical findings and participants' feedback.
These points can provide some insights for future research.Future research could involve inclusive participant groups in the following grades: pupils, junior high students, senior high students, graduates, postgraduates, and doctors.Future research could combine quantitative and qualitative researches for more comprehensive results.

CoNFLICT-oF-INTEREST STATEMENT
We have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

FUNdING INFoRMATIoN
This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, and the Research Funds of Beijing Language and Culture University [grant numbers: 21YCX047].

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. The empirical procedures investigating and comparing the effects of gamification and ludicization on learning achievement and motivation

Figure 3 .
Figure 3.The grouped scatter chart presenting the homogeneous regression slopes of the linear relations between pretest and posttest scores by three approaches

Figure 4 .
Figure 4.The scree plot presenting high-loading components for the factor analysis

Table 2 . ANCOVA test of between-subjects effects examining the significant differences among three treatment groups Dependent Variable: Posttest Scores
a. R Squared = .214(Adjusted R Squared = .178)

Table 3 . ANCOVA estimates comparing the effects of play-related approaches on learning achievement Dependent Variable: Posttest Scores
a. Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Pretest scores = 52.5500.

Table 4 . Pairwise comparisons comparing the effects of play-related approaches on learning achievement Dependent Variable: Posttest Scores
Based on estimated marginal means * The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.b.Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).