Results

Student Gaming Background

Before evaluating the impact of the game-based learning (GBL) intervention, a pre-test was conducted to assess participants' gaming preferences, prior exposure to GBL, and familiarity with card-based mechanics. The majority of students reported a strong preference for games, with a mean of 4.64 (on a 5-point scale) for the statement, "I enjoy playing games (analogue or digital)." Nearly all participants (93%, $N=42$) enjoyed playing video games, with 74% playing at least once a week. Board games (67%) and card games (62%) were also popular.

Despite this enthusiasm for gaming, prior exposure to GBL in academic settings was limited. Only 5% of participants reported frequent exposure, while 57% had rarely experienced such learning activities, and 42% had never participated in GBL. Given that the intervention used a card-based peer feedback game, familiarity with card games was also assessed, with 95% of students indicating at least some familiarity.

When it came to gameplay preferences, 64% of students preferred playing with others, 26% had no preference, and only 10% preferred playing alone. Competitive games were slightly more popular, with 52% favouring them, while 28% had no preference, and 20% preferred cooperative experiences.

Peer Feedback Quality (RQ1)

Each student ($N=37$) provided three separate peer feedback scores which were analyzed using a Code Review Taxonomy (Appendix B) and assigned a numerical score, using the median, based on predefined criteria (see [Table 1] in Methodology). These scores ranged from 0 (off-topic/irrelevant feedback) to 5 (strong actionable feedback). A visual representation of the distribution of pre- and post-intervention feedback quality scores is shown in Figure 2, reporting that post-test feedback scores demonstrated an increase in median values.

Figure 2

Pre- and Post-Intervention Peer Feedback Scores

To test whether the quality of peer feedback increased after the game-based intervention, a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted to assess if the median feedback quality scores significantly increased after the intervention. The results indicated that post-intervention feedback scores ($Mdn=4.0$) were significantly higher than pre-intervention scores ($Mdn=3.0$), $z=-3.09,p=.03$.

Motivation Sub-Scales (RQ2)

To assess changes in students' motivation as conceptualized by Self-Determination Theory (SDT), pre- and post-test surveys measured perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness using adapted items from the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (Appendix D). These were administered before and after the game-based intervention. [Figure 3] presents grouped box plots comparing pre- and post-test scores across the three sub-scales.

Figure 3

Pre- and Post-Test Scores for Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness

To determine whether any of these differences were statistically significant, independent t-tests were conducted for each sub-scale. Results are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2

Independent t-test Results for SDT Sub-Scales

Only autonomy showed a statistically significant increase following the intervention ($p<.05$), while no significant differences were observed in competence or relatedness scores.

Qualitative Findings

As a secondary measure of the intervention's effectiveness, students ($N=39$) were asked to rate how fun they found the peer feedback card game. The results indicate a high level of enjoyment, with a mean of 4.79 (on a 5-point scale).

Students also provided open-ended responses to the following question: "Did participating in the card game influence your approach to giving or receiving peer feedback? Please describe any specific ways the game affected your motivation, engagement, or quality of feedback, or if it had no impact." A thematic analysis revealed four primary themes and the distribution of responses is summarized in Figure 4.

Figure 4

Thematic Breakdown of Student Feedback

Over half of the students (54%) reported that the game-based intervention increased their motivation to provide better feedback. Many described the incentive structure as a driving force behind their work. One student shared, "100%, before I only put 'good job' or 'error in x.js,' but now I went in-depth knowing it would give me an edge while playing the game" (Participant 27). Another noted, "It simply motivated me to look at their code further and give more insightful feedback" (Participant 13). Many students described writing longer comments, checking the code more carefully, or being more specific because their feedback now had an impact on the game.

Despite this, 21% of students reported that the game had no meaningful effect on their approach to peer feedback. Some explained that they were already motivated to provide detailed responses and did not feel the game altered their process. One student reflected, "Not necessarily. My approach for giving peer feedback is being as fair as possible, and I don't let the thought of it affecting the card game sway my decisions" (Participant 21).

For 15% of students, the game increased their awareness of feedback quality without fully changing their habits. One student shared, "Not really, however I think this is just because I am not someone easily swayed and I had good results to begin with" (Participant 10). Another noted, "I wouldn't go out of my way to provide feedback, but if it was an easy bug fix that I could provide, I would give them the feedback on it" (Participant 14).

A smaller group (10%) reported feeling pressured or confused about how the game tied into their feedback quality. One student expressed concern that "After the card game, I felt that the bar for effort in grading was set from our previous results. It put pressure to either match how we graded previously or improve while discouraging doing any less than that" (Participant 32). Another noted, "Today was the first day that I played the card game, and honestly, I had no idea how it worked, so I never thought of the card game when I was grading before" (Participant 36).

These qualitative insights highlighted the varying degrees to which students responded to the intervention. Student responses varied, with some expressing strong motivation, others showing minimal change, and a few feeling pressure or confusion.