Abstract— This research was an experimental research. The

objective was to compare the achievement of using games in

teaching and regular teaching. It also compared the retention of

using games in teaching and regular teaching. This study was used

the detail of computer programming following by Bachelor of

Science in Technical Education Program in Electrical Engineering

on Flowchart lesson. The sample group in this study student was in

Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Industrial Education of

Rajamangala University of Technology Suvarnabhumi enrolled in

the computer programming subject for the 2ndsemester of 2015

education year. This sample was 20 students and divided into two

groups: 10 students were assigned to the experimental group and

10 students were assigned to the control group. The instruments

played five games include bingo games, Pinball game, UNO game,

Flowchart matching games and Flowchart reels game. The

statistical data analysis was Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The result

of the study showed that the learning achievement of using games

in teaching was higher than the learning achievement of regular

teaching and the retention of using games in teaching was higher

than the retention of regular teaching.

Keywords— Effect of using games in teaching, Games,

Flowchart, Achievement of learning, Retention of learning

I. INTRODUCTION

HE national education act of B.E. 2542 (1999) set up

education management to kept principle that students

can learn, develop themselves and a student was the

most important person. The education management had to

promote students to develop themselves, arrange contents,

and arrange activities to relate with their interesting and

aptitude. [1] The instructor should allow students to more

agile than passive receiver of information from a book or

more agile than from the teacher which only stand up to

teach in the classroom. As mathematics was thinking and

using reason subject to solved problem so that the teacher

should let student to participate in the classroom and we had

to think of interesting requirement of student too. [2]

A playing was activity to relax, has fun and enjoyment

which not only competition but think of useful of playing

that the students would know how to solve problem, forgave,

scarified, interacted, developed body, developed society and

developed intelligence. [3]

Dr. Bunthida Chunngam is with the Computer Engineering Program,

Faculty of Industrial Education, Rajamangala University of Technology

Suvarnabhumi Thailand. (Corresponding author’s

e-mail:bunthida@hotmail.com).

Besides, Kham Mani (2002) said, the using games in

teaching is a procedure to be use for students to learn from

purpose which has been set up. The instructor allowed

students to play by the rules and lesson contents after that

the students took information of playing behavior, playing

method and playing result to conclude about learning. The

purpose of this using games in teaching was to help students

to learn with fun and with challenge of the student’s ability.

The students played by themselves so it made students got

direct experience because students had high participation.

[4]

Alessi (2001) defined meaning of the word “game” which

was a tool to be used for teaching that the playing was

similar to role playing. The situation would be simulated to

get learning and skill, but this role playing would copy from

the fact and it did not matter that game playing would copy

from the fact. The game would give more fun and more

efficiency, if instructor used computer to apply with using

games in teaching. [5] The teaching was extremely

efficiency that it made students to learn by seeing the

pictures, tested, creatively thought and solved problem. The

problems were solved by thinking development with

judgment and analyze to find the solution tangibly,

reasonably and systematically. The tangible is important role

to learn by discovery and problem solving for knowledge

creation. [6]

The importance of activities for achieved learning was

participation in learning, problem solving by themselves and

competitor comparison. These activities would have a

challenge; students would collect all knowledge by

themselves and the result of learning with friends to take

their knowledge to solved problems in game. In summary,

the using games in teaching would emphasize about

students’ role, generated a body of knowledge by

themselves. Students got previous experience and new

experience to connected between each experience to

generated new knowledge so that it made students got

learning, found problem solution, could conclude knowledge

by themselves and can truly applied which correspond with

the teaching of Piaget’s constructive theory. Piaget gave

precedence to the game from his constructive theory that

students liked the game to be activities because it had fun

and enjoyment. Meanwhile, it helped students to generate all

knowledge of his theory. He used game to be a tool to

developed intelligence and children’s social. [7] Besides, the

game helped student to generated knowledge from their

actions. The students knew about the comparison between

activities with friends and attempt of finding to the best

playing method for the next playing so the students could

decide about their success when finish game playing .[8]

Effect of Using Games in Computer

Programming on Flowchart Learning and

Retention for Undergraduate Student

Bunthida Chunngam

T

International Journal of Computer Science and Electronics Engineering (IJCSEE) Volume 3, Issue 3 (2015) ISSN 2320–4028 (Online)

232

A flowchart in Computer programming subject was

related to flowchart design. The symbols were used in

flowchart design that the meaning of each symbol was

important for the students to learned computer programming

because if they did not understand flowchart design, they

would not enable to do programming. The most students did

not understand flowchart design and did not interest teacher

presentation slide because it was a lecture and it was only an

example. The flowchart design was knowledge teaching

which came from system analysis in images or symbols that

programmer could fast and easily understand the step of

programming. Besides, flowchart would help to easily

checked programming syntax. If the program had an error,

they would check the flowchart again so flowchart design

was an important step to do programming and program

running. Moreover, it was self-practice to learn

programming with high level programming language for

next step in beginning university education that most

students had not background of programming. For students’

practices in programming step understanding, the students

should attend to develop program and draw flowchart of

program procedure to be tool in flowchart drawing. Students

could show the result of each step of flowchart that they

drew it.

So, the researcher had to study the result of teaching by

using the game of flowchart design topic in computer

programming subject. The topic was Flowchart for computer

programming teaching management.

II. OBJECTIVE

1. To compare achievement between learning using the

game of the regular teaching

2. To compare retention between learning using the

game of the regular teaching

III. HYPOTHESES

1. The achievement of learning using the game higher

than regular teaching

2. The retention of learning using the game higher than

regular teaching

IV. BENEFIT

1. To knew the result of using game in teaching and

regular teaching that which one gave more achievement and

retention.

2. For teaching development, the research result was

used for basic computer programming and other related

subject activities improvement method.

V. RESEARCH SCOPE

1. This research study was used contents of computer

programming subject following by Bachelor of Science in

Technical Education Program in Electrical Engineering in

flowchart design lesson.

2. The sample group was students in Electrical

Engineering major of the faculty of Industrial Education

which has been registered to studied computer programming

subject of 2nd

semester of 2015 education year. This sample

was 20 students and divided into two groups: 10 students

were assigned to the experimental group and 10 students

were assigned to the control group.

3. Variable

a. Independent variable

I. Using game in teaching

II. Regular teaching

b. Dependent variable

I. Learning achievement from test when finished

II. Student retention from test when, after

finished for 1 month.

VI. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research was experimental research which had

research design as follow in table I.

TABLE I

THE METHODOLOGY OF USING GAMES IN TEACHING AND

REGULAR TEACHING FOR FLOWCHART TOPICS

Sample group Test Test Achievement Retention

Experimental group Pr1 X1 T1 R1

Control group Pr2 X2 T2 R2

When

Pr1, Pr2 = Basic test before experiment

X1 = Using games in teaching

X2 = Regular teaching

T1, T2 = Learning achievement after finishing the experiment

R1, R2 = Learning retention after finishing experiment for 1

month

Perform the experiment

1. Divided students group by random to be controlled

group and experimental group.

2. Took test before (pretest) of experimental group and

control group to kept score to compared with test after

finishing study (posttest)

3. Spent 3 hours of experiment after that tested for 30

minutes of each group by the step of table II.

TABLE II

THE COMPARISONS OF USING GAMES IN TEACHING AND REGULAR TEACHING

ABOUT PROGRAMMING FLOWCHART

Using games in teaching Regular teaching

1. Pretested 1. Pretested

2. Introduced to the lessen 2. Introduced to the lesson

3. Step of the using games in

teaching, the student had to

studied game playing rules of

test games type and played game

in a group. There were 5 games

to play which were Bingo game

(fig 1), Pinball game (fig 2),

UNO game (fig 3), Flowchart

matching game (fig 4) and

Flowchart wheel game (fig 5).

The students would alternate

play to complete with these 5

games.

3. Regular teaching step, the

teacher would teach in the

content of flowchart, flowchart

format, flowchart symbol and

flowchart creation method for 2

hours and students did exercise

after that teacher would give the

answer.

4. Step of lesson summary. 4. Step of lesson summary.

5. Posttest 5. Posttest

4. Took retention test after the experimental for 1 month.

This test spent 30 minutes.

International Journal of Computer Science and Electronics Engineering (IJCSEE) Volume 3, Issue 3 (2015) ISSN 2320–4028 (Online)

233

Fig. 1. Bingo game

Fig. 2. Pinball game

Fig. 3. UNO game

Fig. 4. Flowchart matching game

Fig. 5. Flowchart wheel game

VII. RESEARCH RESULT

This research required the study for achievement of

teaching which compared between using games in teaching

and regular teaching about topics of programming flowchart

as table III and IV. It also compared the student’s retention

as table V. TABLE III

TEACHING ACHIEVEMENT

Teaching

type

Ranks Wilcoxon Signed

Rank Test Pre – Pro

test

Mean

Rank

Sum of

Ranks

Using

games in

teaching

Negative

Ranks

.00 .00 Z = - 2.814

Asymp. Sig. = .005

Positive

Ranks

5.50 55.00

Regular

teaching

Negative

Ranks

.00 .00 Z = - 2.829

Asymp. Sig. = .005

Positive

Ranks

5.50 55.00

*p < .05

From table III was display of teaching achievement

by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. They tested the

different Z score as significance at p < 0.05 of these 2

teaching types. For these 2 teaching types, posttest score was

higher than the pretest score (Z = 2.83 and 2.81in order) of

using games in teaching and regular teaching

TABLE IV

COMPARED BETWEEN USING GAMES IN TEACHING AND REGULAR

TEACHING

Ranks Wilcoxon Signed

Rank Test Group Mean

Rank

Sum of

Ranks

After–Before Using

games in

teaching

14.45 144.50 Z = - 2.013

Asymp. Sig. = .003

Regular

teaching

6.55 65.50

*p < .05

From table IV was comparison between using games in

teaching and regular teaching by using Wilcoxon

signed-rank test. The different Z test score of significance at

p < 0.05 of the using games in teaching and the regular

teaching found that the using games in teaching had more

learning achievement than the regular teaching.

TABLE V

COMPARED TEACHING RETENTION BETWEEN THE USING GAMES IN TEACHING

AND THE REGULAR TEACHING

Ranks Wilcoxon Signed

Rank Test Group Mean

Rank

Sum of

Ranks

Retention–After Using games

in teaching 13.30 133.00 Z = -2.132

Asymp. Sig. = .033

Regular

teaching

7.70 77.00

*p < .05

International Journal of Computer Science and Electronics Engineering (IJCSEE) Volume 3, Issue 3 (2015) ISSN 2320–4028 (Online)

234

From table V was comparison of teaching retention

between using games in teaching and regular teaching by

using Wilcoxon signed-rank test which has different Z score

test as significance at p < 0.05 of teaching retention of the

using games in teaching and the regular teaching. The using

games in teaching had more retention than the regular

teaching.

VIII. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

The research result of teaching by using games in teaching

and regular teaching about computer programming of

workflow topic found that the 2 hypotheses were teaching

achievement of using games in teaching was higher than

regular teaching and teaching retention of using games in

teaching was higher than regular teaching.

Teaching activities management by using game brought

students to had fun and enthusiasm. It was not boring of

observation and taking notes. During teaching in classroom,

the researcher found that the students always had

attentiveness and enthusiasm to study in the specified

activities for all students to participate. However sometime

the students gave wrong answer but game had benefit which

urged students to more interest in teaching so students enjoy

and helped to review lesson. [9] Furthermore game changed

the classroom environment to be funny, game brought

students to familiar each other, help to made inspiration to

learn [10] that students felt comfortable and urged to have

good learning. [11] Students had independent learning

include choosing of learning style, could choose learning

lesson and controlled about doing exercise. [12]

For teaching retention when researcher used game in

teaching, researcher found that students could remember

more than regular teaching because retention of taking notes

was from student’s emotion for the contents and student’s

activities during the learning hour. If students felt good to

the contents and participated activities with fun, students

would longer remember contents. [13] The flexible of

learning activities would help to learn efficiently to relax

from emotion and built more agility learning. A brain and

body stimulus expressed the necessity learning which

related with previous knowledge that if the remember topic

was related to previous knowledge, students remembered

longer and students could develop the short remembering to

be longer remembering. [14] For the happened retention was

long time remembering which come from the student’s

careful listening because the lesson closed to the student’s

interesting of lesson. After finished the activities of idea,

students repeated to reviewed, connected previous

knowledge with new knowledge, could recall to correctly

used again so these knowledge was long permanent memory

.[15]

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported by Computer Engineering

Program, Faculty of Industrial Education, Rajamangala

University of Technology Suvarnabhumi.

REFERENCES

[1] Long distance learning centers of Office of Advisor for Vocational

Education Standard and the Vocational Education Commission,

“Teaching Technology with Electronics Media and Multimedia”,

Bangkok: Rumthai press co., ltd., 2005.

[2] Hunt, D.E., “Learning style and student needs: An introduction to

conceptual level. In Student learning styles: Diagnosing and

prescribing programs”, Reston VA: National Association of

Secondary School Principals, 1979, pp. 27-38.

[3] Piaget, J., “PLAY, DREAMS, AND IMITATION IN CHILDHOOD”

New York: Norton, 1962.

[4] Kham Mani, T., “Learning-Teaching Styles”. Bangkok:

Chulalongkorn University Press, 2002.

[5] Alessi, S. M. and Trollip, S. R., “Multimedia for Learning: methods

and development”.3rd ed. USA. : Allyn & Bacon, 2001.

[6] Betz, J. A., “Computer games: Increase learning in an interactive

multidisciplinary environment”. Journal of Educational Technology

Systems, pp. 195 – 205, vol 24, no 2, 1995.

[7] Leeyawanich, R., “Effects of using Mathematics Games under the

Constructivist Teaching Approach on Mathematics Learning

Achievement and Number Sense of Prathom Suksa Three”, Master

Education (Early Childhood Education)., Chulalongkorn University,

2003

[8] Davis, P. and Hersh, R., The mathematical experience, New York:

Houghton Mifflin, 1982.

[9] Torut, B., “Teaching English as a Foreign Language”

,Nakornpathum: Silpakorn University, 1997, pp.147.

[10] Torut, B.,“Teaching English as a Foreign Language”

,Nakornpathum: Silpakorn University, 1997.

[11] Dickerson, D.P., “A Comparison of the Use of the Active Games

Learning Medium with Passive Games and Traditional Activities as

Means of Reinforcing Recognition of Selected Sight Vocabulary

Words with Mid-Year First-Grade Children with Limited Sight

Vocabulary”, Dissertation Abstracts International. 10: 6456-A; April,

1976.

[12] Tiangdee, B., “A Comparison of Learning Achievement on Science

Analytical Thinking Abilities of Prathom Suksa 6 Students through

Cooperative Learning Management Using the STAD Technique

versus the Knowledge Inquiry”, M.Ed. Thesis Mahasarakarm:

Mahasarakarm University, 2006.

[13] Gagne’,R.M., The Conditions of Learning. (2nd .ed.). New

York:Rinchart and Winston.lnc, 1970.

[14] Putong,V., “Teaching Result by using Semantic Field Approach,

Meaning of Vocabulary, Achievement and Retentionof Mathayom

Suksa 5 Students”, Master: Education.Graduated School.

Chaingmai University, 1994.

[15] Neisser,U.,Cognitive psychology, NewYork: Appleton-Century-

Crofts, 1967.

Dr. Bunthida Chunngam was born on October 26,

1979 in Bangkok, Thailand. She holds a B.S. in

Computer Science from the Mahasarakham

University Thailand (2001), an M.S.Ind.Ed. in

Industrial Education from the King Mongkut's

University of Technology Thonburi Thailand (2006)

and a Ph.D. in Learning Innovation and Technology

from the King Mongkut's University of Technology

Thonburi Thailand (2013).

She’s working at Computer Engineering Program, Faculty of Industrial

Education, Rajamangala University of Technology Suvarnabhumi Thailand

and teaching interests include web development technologies,

programming, and database management systems.

Her research focus is on social networks, human-computer interaction,

interaction design database management systems, web and mobile

technologies, and object-oriented analysis and design.

Author’s formal

photo

International Journal of Computer Science and Electronics Engineering (IJCSEE) Volume 3, Issue 3 (2015) ISSN 2320–4028 (Online)

235