DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, AND EVALUATION OF GAMIFIED SIMULATION

LEARNING PACKETS TO ENHANCE STUDENTS’ CREATIVITY AND

COLLABORATION IN MATHEMATICS

A Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School
of the Department of Mathematics Education,
College of Science and Technology Education,
University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines

In Partial Fulfilment of
The Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics Education

JUN MARK REY O. NOB

June 17, 2025
 ii

Jun Mark Rey O. Nob Design, Development, and Evaluation

Doctor of Philosophy in of Gamified Simulation Learning
Mathematics Education Packets to Enhance Students’
Creativity and Collaboration in
Mathematics

Dennis B. Roble, Ph.D.

Adviser
ABSTRACT
Gamification and simulation are recognized for enhancing student
engagement and learning in mathematics. However, their integration, termed
gamified simulation, remains underexplored, especially in promoting mathematical
creativity and collaboration. This study aimed to design, develop, and evaluate
gamified simulation learning packet to enhance these skills in mathematics
education. Four research designs guided the study: (1) exploratory design to
develop a model grounded in literature; (2) descriptive design to validate the
learning packets using DepEd standards; (3) a one-group pretest-posttest design
for implementation; and (4) an explanatory sequential mixed-method design to
interpret findings through student feedback. The materials were evaluated by four
Master Teachers, and implementation involved 38 Grade 11 STEM students from
Cogon National High School of the DepEd Division of El Salvador City, Misamis
Oriental. Quantitative data were gathered using a six-item researcher-made
creativity test and an adapted collaboration self-assessment tool, while qualitative
insights were drawn from student interviews.
Results highlighted key design elements for effective gamified simulations:
interactive content, real-life applications, inquiry-based tasks, and collaborative
problem-solving, enhanced with gamification features such as open-ended
challenges, meaningful feedback, rewards, and appealing aesthetics. Moreover,
the developed gamified simulation learning packets met all DepEd criteria for
instructional materials and aligned with the developed model. Post-implementation
results showed significant improvements in the students’ mathematical creativity
and collaboration skills, as evidenced by the statistically significant increase in
posttest scores compared to pretest scores. Students also reported other essential
benefits being exposed learning with the material such as enhancement of
conceptual understanding, (b) increased engagement and enjoyment in the
learning process, (c) improved motivation facilitated by the rewards system, (d)
diverse advantages provided by feedback mechanisms, and (e) the incorporation
of a game-like learning environment. However, some challenges have been
encountered related to technical issues during implementation. With these, the
study recommends further research using quasi-experimental designs and
advocates for teacher training and continuous refinement of the model to sustain
its effectiveness in real classroom settings.
Keywords: Creativity, collaboration, gamification, gamified simulation, gamified
simulation learning packets, simulation
 iii

APPROVAL SHEET
This dissertation entitled “Design, Development, and Evaluation of Gamified
Simulation Learning Packets to Enhance Students’ Creativity and
Collaboration in Mathematics”, prepared and submitted by Jun Mark Rey O.
Nob, in partial fulfilment for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics
Education, has been examined and approved.

DENNIS B. ROBLE, Ph.D.

Adviser

PANEL OF EXAMINERS

Approved by the committee on Oral Examination with a grade of _____________.

DENNIS B. ROBLE, Ph.D.

Chairman

LAILA S. LOMIBAO, Ph.D. GRACE S. PIMENTEL, Ph.D.

Member Member

ROSIE G. TAN, Ph.D. ANGELO MARK P. WALAG, Ph.D.

Member Member

ELMER C. CASTILLANO, Ph.D.

Member

Approved and accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics Education.

June 17, 2025 GRACE S. PIMENTEL, Ph.D.

Dean, College of Science and Technology Education
 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I extend my deepest gratitude to all who contributed to the successful

completion of this dissertation. Their unwavering support, encouragement, and
involvement have been instrumental in this academic journey.
Above all, I offer my heartfelt thanks to the Almighty Father, whose infinite
wisdom, sustaining grace, and unfailing strength guided me through every
challenge and triumph. Without His blessings of health, perseverance, and clarity,
this endeavor would not have been possible.
I am profoundly grateful to the Department of Science and Technology
(DOST) for the scholarship grant, which provided the financial assistance and
opportunity to pursue my doctoral studies. My sincere thanks also go to the
Department of Education (DepEd), particularly the Division Office of El Salvador
City, for granting me a study leave that enabled me to focus wholeheartedly on this
academic pursuit.
To my adviser, Dr. Dennis B. Roble, thank you for your exceptional
guidance, patience, and wisdom. Your mentorship was vital in shaping the
direction, depth, and quality of this research.
I am also sincerely thankful to the distinguished members of my dissertation
panel: Dr. Laila S. Lomibao, Dr. Rosie G. Tan, Dr. Angelo Mark P. Walag, Dr.
Elmer C. Castillano, and Dr. Grace S. Pimentel, including my External Examiner
Dr. Maxima J. Acelajado. Your expertise, insightful feedback, and thoughtful
recommendations significantly enriched this work and my growth as a researcher.
Most of all, to my ever-supportive wife, Ma’am Liza May D. Nob, thank you
for your unwavering belief in me, your patience, and your constant encouragement.
Your love has been a source of strength and inspiration throughout this journey.
This accomplishment is not mine alone, it is a shared achievement made
possible by the grace of God and the kindness, generosity, and support of those
around me. To each one of you, I am eternally grateful.

JUN MARK REY O. NOB

 v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
Title Page i
Abstract ii
Approval Sheet iii
Acknowledgement iv
Table of Contents v
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
List of Appendices x

CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Framework of the Study 7
Addie Framework 7
Theoretical Framework 11
Statement of the Problem 18
Scope and Limitation of the Study 19
Definition of Terms 22

2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND 24

STUDIES
Creativity 24
Collaboration 37
Simulation-Based Learning 44
Gamification 53
Synergizing Gamification and Simulation in 63
Education
Potential of Gamified Simulation in Learning 66
Calculus
Summary 70

3 METHODOLOGY 75
Phase 1: Design, Development and Validation 75
of Gamified Simulation Learning Packet
Research Designs 75
 vi

Research Setting 76
Participants of the Study 77
Research Instruments 77
Data Gathering Procedure 79
Analysis Phase 79
Design Phase 89
Development Phase 93
Data Analysis 102
Ethical Considerations 103

Phase 2: Implementation of the Developed 104

Gamified Simulation Learning Packet
Research Designs 104
Research Setting 106
Sampling Procedure 107
Participants of the Study 108
Research Instruments 108
Data Gathering Procedure 110
Implementation Phase 110
Summative Evaluation Phase 112
Data Analysis 113
Ethical Consideration 114

4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND 116

INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Proposed Model for Designing Gamified 116
Simulations to Enhance Mathematical Creativity
and Collaboration
Developed Gamified Simulation Learning Packet 126
Based on the Proposed Model
Experts’ Evaluation of the Developed Gamified 143
Simulation Learning Packet
Students’ Pre-Test and Post-Test Scores on 158
Creativity and Collaboration
Students’ Feedback on the Use of the 161
Developed Gamified Simulation Learning
Packets
Main Theme 1: Essential Benefits 171
Subtheme 1.1: Enhancement of 171
Conceptual Understanding
 vii

Subtheme 1.2: Increased Engagement 174

and Enjoyment in the Learning Process
Subtheme 1.3: Improved Motivation 176
Facilitated by the Rewards System
Subtheme 1.4: Diverse Advantages 178
Provided by Feedback Mechanisms
Subtheme 1.5: Incorporation of a Game- 180
Like Learning Environment
Main Theme 2: Challenges Encountered 182
Subtheme 2.1: Technical Issues 182
Experienced During the Implementation

5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, 185

AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of findings 185
Conclusions 187
Recommendations 189

REFERENCES 191
APPENDICES 220
CURRICULUM VITAE 259
 viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Distribution of Evaluators in Terms of Teaching 77

Experience
2 Reviewed Studies on Gamification and Simulation 80
with GeoGebra in Mathematics
3 Criteria for Selecting Competencies for Gamified 87
Simulations
4 Evaluation of Competencies Based on Gamified 88
Simulation Criteria
5 Instructional Objectives per Lesson 90
6 Pilot Testing of the Gamified Simulation Alignment 102
and Quality Evaluation Checklist
7 Comments and Action Taken to Improve Gamified 111
Simulations Features
8 Levels, Missions, and Goals in the Learning 128
Packet
9 Experts’ Evaluation in Terms of Content 143
10 Experts’ Evaluation in Terms of Format 146
11 Experts’ Evaluation in Terms of Presentation and 150
Organization
12 Experts’ Evaluation in Terms of Accuracy and Up- 153
to-datedness of Information
13 Gamified Simulation Alignment and Quality 156
Evaluation by Experts
14 Descriptive Statistics and Paired Sample t-Test 159
Results for Mathematical Creativity
15 Pretest and Posttest Scores in Mathematical 159
Creativity and Its Components
16 Descriptive Statistics and Paired Sample t-Test 161
Results for Collaboration
17 Joint Display Integrating Quantitative and 162
Qualitative Results on Creativity
18 Joint Display of Quantitative and Qualitative 168
Results on Collaboration
 ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Chyung (2008) ADDIE Instructional Model 9

2 The ADDIE Model Flowchart of the Study 11
3 Schematic Diagram Showing the Interplay of 18
Variables
4 Visual Model for One-Group Pretest-Posttest 105
Design
5 Map of El Salvador City 107
6 Conceptual Model for Designing Gamified 117
Simulations
7 Sample Screenshot for Interactive Visualization 130
and Exploration of Concepts
8 Sample Screenshot for Real-Life Application of 132
Concepts
9 Sample Screenshot for Promoting Inquiry-Based 134
Learning
10 Sample Screenshot for Open-Ended Problem 137
11 Sample Screenshot for Problem-Posing 138
12 Sample Screenshot for Interest-Based Problem 138
Solving
13 Sample Screenshot for Interest-Based Problem 139
Solving
14 Sample Feedback on Incorrect Response 140
15 Sample Feedback on Correct Response 140
16 Sample Constructive and Motivating Feedback 141
17 Sample Reward through Point System 142
18 Sample Reward through Badges 142
 x

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
1 Letter to the Schools Division Superintendent 221
2 Letter to the School Principal 222
3 Invitation Letter to Teacher-Evaluator 223
4 Letter to Parents 224
5 Sample Validation Result for the Developed Learning 225
Packet
6 Gamified Simulation Alignment and Quality 229
Evaluation Checklist
7 Relevance Ratings of the Researcher-Made Gamified 231
Simulation Alignment and Quality Evaluation
Checklist
8 Pilot Testing Reliability Results of the Gamified 233
Simulation Alignment and Quality Evaluation
Checklist
9 Table of Specifications for the Researcher-Made Test 234
on Mathematical Creativity
10 Researcher-Made Pretest-Posttest Questionnaire on 235
Mathematical Creativity
11 Rubric for Researcher-Made Pretest-Posttest 236
Questionnaire on Mathematical Creativity
12 Relevance Ratings of the Researcher-Made Test on 237
Mathematical Creativity by Experts
13 Pilot Testing Reliability Results of the Researcher- 238
Made Test on Mathematical Creativity
14 Collaboration Self-Assessment Tool 239
15 Relevance Ratings of the Collaboration 240
Self-Assessment Tool by Experts
16 Interview Questionnaire for Focus Group Discussion 241
17 Pilot Testing Reliability Results of the Collaboration 242
18 Thematic Analysis Process 243
19 Sample Pictures Taken During Implementation 256
20 Boxplot Diagram for Pretest and Posttest Creativity 257
Scores
21 Boxplot Diagram for Pretest and Posttest 258
Collaboration Scores
22 Curriculum Vitae 259
 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Global competitiveness, technological innovations, and various challenges

define the landscape of the 21st century (Karomah et al., 2024). To respond to the

demands of this generation, individuals need to develop essential skills like

creativity and collaboration (Novita & Putra, 2016; Kuhn, as cited in Evans, 2020;

Zhang, 2023). Creativity refers to the ability to generate original and valuable ideas

or products that are suitable for a given context (Hoda, 2023). This skill allows

individuals to become flexible in solving problems (Istikomah et al., 2024). As a

result, creative person can easily adapt to new circumstances, view scenarios from

different angles, and present novel solutions to problems (Febrianti & Dasari,

2024). Furthermore, a global report involving over 800 CEOs identified creativity

as the most crucial skill in the industry, serving as a key driver for technological

innovation (Kozlowski & Chamberlin, 2019). In the same way, collaboration as

described by Jeong and Hmelo-Silver (2016) as working collectively toward a

common purpose is a vital skill that needs to be developed. Studies suggest that

it does not only enhance the efficiency of activities within the industrial processes

(Meléndez et al., 2019), but it can also improve mutual interest and partnership

that are not attainable working with rivalry and competition (Tolstykh et al., 2023).

Both creativity and collaboration also play essential roles in mathematics

education. Creativity is recognized as one of the twin goals of the mathematics

curriculum, highlighting its significance in the discipline (Novita & Putra, 2016). In

addition, students who show creativity in mathematics typically have strong

 2

problem-solving capabilities and critical thinking skills (Roble, 2017). Meanwhile,

collaboration can enhance students’ comprehension of math concepts and build

knowledge collectively by allowing them to work together and discuss

mathematical ideas (Bozic et al., 2022). This simply shows that creativity and

collaboration can lay the foundation for holistic mathematical learning, equipping

students to navigate both academic and real-world challenges.

Despite their importance, studies have shown that the current teaching

practices of mathematics often overlooked both the development of creativity and

collaboration in the classroom. Among the hindering factors of creativity based on

literature include the commonly used of deductive method which prevents students

to think divergently (Walia & Walia, 2017), frequent used of tasks measuring low-

level thinking skills and less focus on creativity (Agustini & Fajriyah, 2017), and

limited integration of innovative and creative instructional media contributing to a

monotonous learning experience which prevent students’ creative potential

(Febrianti & Dasari, 2024). Meanwhile, collaboration is greatly compromised by the

dominance of expository teaching or teacher-centered instruction (Mukuka et al.,

2019). In this set-up, the teacher is considered the ultimate source of information

which limits student’s opportunities to explore mathematical ideas actively,

participate in discussions, or work together with classmates. These studies

suggest the need for intentional efforts to enhance both skills more effectively in

mathematics classroom.

Among the commonly used interventions in mathematics education,

gamification and simulation emerged as two of the powerful strategies to promote

 3

learning. Simulation is a dynamic environment used to model real-life phenomenon

(Istikomah et al. 2024) and highly theoretical math concepts (Svitek et al., 2022).

Simulations require manipulating models in a dynamic setting, which promotes

active engagement and interaction among students (Findley et al., 2017).

Gamification, on the other hand, uses game-based strategies, incorporating

elements like challenges, feedback, and rewards, to create a more enjoyable and

motivating learning environment (Lanuza, 2020; Zaharin et al., 2021). Literatures

suggest that synergizing these approaches provides a promising potential for

mathematics education. As Redhead & Saunders (2019) pointed out, combining

them can foster a more conducive atmosphere for learning. While simulations

assist in visualizing and interacting with abstract concepts, gamification elements

can be integrated to improve engagement by adding a layer of challenge and fun,

motivating the intended users in the learning process (Roolvink, 2024).

In general, there are two ways to synergize gamification and simulation to

facilitate learning. This include designing educational simulation games or

gamified educational simulation (Pirker & Gütl, 2015; Zhang, 2023). Educational

simulation games are serious games or a fully-fledged game (Pirker & Gütl, 2015),

designed to improve and promote learning (Li et al., 2017). Meanwhile, gamified

simulation is a type of gamification where gamification elements such as

challenges, points, rewards, or feedback are simply added into simulated

environments to establish a more engaging and fun learning experience

(Neendoor, 2024). However, in the context of mathematics education, little is

known about the potential of gamified simulations as the focus is primarily on

 4

simulation game. The researcher identified three possible reasons for this gap

based on existing literature. First, the emerging nature of gamified simulations

contributes to the limited research. Since gamified simulation is a new concept,

there is a lack of empirical research supporting its effectiveness (Karofyllidis et al.,

2023). This is notably different from simulation games, which have been widely

used across various fields for over 70 years, supported by hundreds of well-

established examples (Pászto et al., 2021). The second reason concerns with the

lack of methodologies concerning its design features (Pirker & Gütl, 2015). Without

established frameworks or clear guidelines, combining gamification elements with

simulation features to address the educational goals of the lesson becomes a

complex and challenging endeavor. Although Pirker & Gütl (2015) provided a

valuable framework for designing gamified simulation, it is mostly applicable for

science education. Therefore, current literature lacks a framework or a model

applicable to mathematics education suited for enhancing students’ creativity and

collaboration. The third possible reason has something to do with the

entertainment value. Pirker and Gütl's (2015) claimed that simulation games could

offer a stronger sense of playfulness and immersion compared to gamified

simulations. This potentially attracts both researchers and users due to their

widespread appeal and established frameworks. But unlike simulation games,

designing gamified simulation is a cost-effective approach of making learning more

fun rather than designing a full-pledge game that is expensive and require

specialists and several resources (Pirker & Gütl, 2015). This lack of research on

gamified simulations particularly for enhancing students’ creativity and

 5

collaboration in math suggest that the full potential of this intervention has not been

clearly documented in the literature. Addressing this gap is critical, as gamified

simulation hold promise for creating a highly interactive and engaging learning

environment among students.

Additionally, choosing appropriate simulation tool is a critical step in

designing effective gamified simulations particularly if one wishes to integrate

gamification elements directly within the simulation framework. While many

simulation tools are highly effective for visualizing and exploring mathematical

concepts, they may lack the flexibility or scripting capabilities necessary to

incorporate gamification elements such as challenges, feedback, and rewards.

Without these features, it may be harder to integrate gamification smoothly, making

the process more complicated. Therefore, only those that support both simulation

and gamification elements should be selected to provide an integrated and

seamless learning experience. One powerful simulation tool identified for this

purpose is GeoGebra. GeoGebra is a free and a dynamic math software that

integrates features of algebra, geometry, statistics, spreadsheet, and calculus in a

single user-friendly package which can be utilized across various educational

settings (Hidayat & Tamimuddin, as cited in Anggraeni et al., 2021). The software

was developed by Markus Hohenwarter as part of his master’s thesis at the

University of Salzburg in 2002 (Hohenwarter & Lavicza, 2010). With GeoGebra,

users can create dynamic and interactive simulations that can model complex

mathematical relationships (Yorganci, 2018). Furthermore, its scripting and

customization capabilities enable teachers to integrate gamification elements

 6

directly into the simulation environment (Dos Santos et al., 2022; Silva & Abar,

2024). This could include setting up challenges that require students to complete

specific tasks, embedding feedback mechanisms that guide students' learning

processes, or designing reward systems that motivate and recognize student

efforts. GeoGebra has also been proven effective in fostering students’

mathematical creativity and collaboration (Bozic et al., 2022; Karomah et al.,

2024). While GeoGebra existed long time ago, there is a lack of research

incorporating this tool in designing gamified simulations for enhancing students’

creativity and collaboration in mathematics particularly in the context where the

gamification is integrated directly with the simulation framework.

To contribute to the limited body of work on this topic, the current research

aims to design, develop, and evaluate learning packet with embedded gamified

simulations (as the main feature) using GeoGebra to enhance student’s creativity

and collaboration in mathematics. A learning packet refers to an organized set of

instructional materials created to support self-directed learning, typically containing

resources, exercises, and assessments aligned with defined learning goals

(Cevette, 1976). It has been shown to enhance high school student’s innovation

skills including creativity and collaboration (Monreal & Panoy, 2023). In the study,

the inclusion of learning packets is critical for two key reasons. First, learning

packets serve as ready to use instructional material that aligns with the curriculum

standards, enabling teachers to implement gamified simulations in their

classrooms. Second, they also function as a practical guide for educators,

illustrating effective ways to blend gamification and simulation in actual lessons.

 7

This dual functionality ensures that the develop material maximizes its overall

impact not only by fostering student’s creativity and collaboration but also

empowers teachers with practical strategies to improve their teaching competence

and pedagogies. Guided by the ADDIE framework, the development of such

gamified simulation learning packet undergone rigorous validation through expert

reviews to ensure compliance with the criteria set for printed materials by the

Department of Education namely 1) content, 2) presentation and organization, 3)

format, and 4) accuracy and up to date information aligning with the goal of

enhancing creativity and collaboration.

As a summary, the current study seeks to design, develop, and evaluate

gamified simulation learning packets to enhance student’s creativity and

collaboration in mathematics. Using the ADDIE model, the study ensures that the

material does not only meet the educational goals of the lesson but also supports

effective teaching strategies making it beneficial for both students and teachers.

The study involved two major phases. The first phase involves the design,

development, and validation of the developed material while the second phase

includes its implementation and summative evaluation.

FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

ADDIE Framework

In the field of instructional design, the ADDIE model is one of the most

popular methodologies for structuring course content and increasing the success

of training programs (Boogaard, 2019; Groh, 2024). ADDIE is an instructional

 8

design framework organized into five distinct phases: Analysis, Design,

Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. It is effective for creating engaging

learning experiences, ensuring that educational content is tailored to meet

learners’ needs and enhance outcomes (Adeoye et al., 2024). According to

Abuhassna et al. (2024), its adaptability and structured approach facilitate effective

integration of technology. Due to its efficiency and versatility, the ADDIE model is

favored by many e-learning professionals for designing online and web-based

training (Swift Elearning Services Private Limited, 2024). An additional benefit of

ADDIE is its capacity to identify and fix mistakes from previous cycles, which leads

to continuous improvement in product quality. In the current study, the researcher

opted to choose this model for creating effective learning experiences of students

through systematic integration of gamification and simulation elements in

mathematics learning with the goal of fostering students’ creativity and

collaboration.

Chyung (2008) outlines the essential tasks to be carried out in each phase

of the ADDIE model, as detailed on the next page.

 9

Analysis Design Development Implementation

& Evaluation

1. Conduct training 4. Write 9. Develop 11. Deliver instruction

needs instructional instructional 12. Facilitate
assessment” objectives guide, student implementation
2. Conduct learner 5. Design test guide, and job processes
analysis instruments ideas 13. Conduct formative
3. Conduct job/task 6. Design 10. Develop evaluation and
analysis instructional instructional
make changes if
strategies materials and
necessary
7. Design lesson media
plan 14. Conduct
8. Identify summative
instructional evaluation
resources

Figure 1. Chyung (2008) ADDIE Instructional Model

The ADDIE model presented by Chyung (2008) suggested a total of 14

steps in developing effective instructional materials. In his presentation, the model

is composed of 4 major phases namely analysis, design, and development, as well

as implementation and evaluation being fused as one. The analysis phase is

composed of 3 tasks being conducted such as training needs assessment, learner

analysis, and job/task analysis. Next is the design phase composed of 5 tasks

namely write instructional objectives, design test instruments, design instructional

strategies, design lesson plan, and identify instructional resources. Next is the

development phase compose of 2 essential tasks namely develop instructional

guide, student guide, and job ideas, and develop instructional materials and media.

This is followed by the implementation and evaluation phase compose of 4 tasks

namely deliver instruction, facilitate implementation processes, conduct formative

evaluation and make changes if necessary, and conduct summative evaluation. In

 10

the context of the study, the researcher adapted the Chyung’s model highlighting

some modifications in the process. The first modification took place in the analysis

phase where instead of conducting training needs assessment and learner

analysis, the researcher performed extensive readings in literature to guide the

model development for enhancing students’ creativity and collaboration in line with

the panelist’s recommendation. The second modification were the added activities

involved in the development phase. These include the development of gamified

simulation prior to the development of user’s guide and the learning packet where

gamified simulations were integrated, as well as the creation and validation of the

gamified simulation alignment and quality evaluation checklist which is an

important tool needed to determine if the gamified simulations were aligned with

the proposed model for enhancing students’ creativity and collaboration. The last

modification involved the timing of the formative evaluation where it was executed

in the Development phase rather than in the Implementation & Evaluation phase.

This means that after the development of the learning packet, they were subjected

to experts’ validation in terms of the set criteria to determine if there are changes

that need to be integrated before classroom implementation. This ensures that the

revised and enhanced version was utilized in the succeeding activities providing

greater effectiveness and relevance for the intended educational outcomes.

Shown below are the contextualization of the steps applied in the study.
 11

• Conduct review to establish theoretical and empirical foundation of

Analysis the study
• Determine learning competencies suitable for gamified simulation

• Establish clear, measurable objectives for enhancing creativity and

collaboration
• Design assessments for evaluating creativity and collaboration
• Design instructional strategies for promoting creativity and
Design collaboration (model development)
• Design detailed lesson plans
• Select and prepare the materials and tools needed

• Develop gamified simulations

• Create comprehensive guides for teachers and students in
Development navigating the gamified simulations
• Develop the gamified simulation learning packets
• Validate developed learning packets and make revisions
accordingly
• Pilot testing of the develop learning packets and make refinement
based on results
Implementation • Implementation of the developed gamified simulation learning
& Evaluation packet in the classroom
• Evaluation of the overall effectiveness and impact on students’
creativity and collaboration

Figure 2. The ADDIE Model Flowchart of the Study

Theoretical Framework

The current study on the design, development, and evaluation of gamified

simulation learning packets was anchored on the following concepts of Productive

Failure, Mathematical Creative Model, Self-Determination Theory, and Computer-

Supported Collaborative Learning.

Productive Failure is a teaching method introduced by Kapur (2008) where

students try to solve problems on their own before they are taught with the idea

directly, instead of after (Casing & Roble, 2021). The main idea behind productive

failure is that students learn math better after trying to solve a problem on their

own and struggling with it, compared to if they hadn’t gone through that struggle

(Kerrigan et al., 2021). In this case, students are most likely to commit mistakes,
 12

but this floundering can pave the way for deeper learning. As Bicer (2021) noted,

letting students make mistakes helps them discover unique ways to solve

problems, which can improve their fluency, flexibility, and originality in math. In the

context of the study, gamified simulation (GS) initially presented an open-ended

challenge which allow students to explore math ideas on their own before getting

direct instruction. As students work on with the problem, the simulation provided a

dynamic environment where they can engage in trial and error, conduct

mathematical experiments, and test various approaches to arrive at a solution.

This approach serves as one way to engage the students and promote

collaboration early on. However, students were not expected to solve the problem

correctly at this stage due to their lack of prior knowledge. This creates

opportunities for students to struggle first with the concepts and experience

productive failure. As students presented their answers, the GS prompted them

when errors were made. This guides them to rethink their approach, which

encourages flexibility in their problem-solving strategies.

Subanji and Nusantara (2022) expanded upon the General Creativity Model

within the context of mathematics, leading to the development of the Mathematical

Creativity Model. The model suggests that mathematical creativity develops

progressively through a hierarchical model consisting of imitation, modification,

and creation. Accordingly, the foundational step to become creative in math is

through imitation which involves students replicating an existing solution. This

process focuses on directly applying known procedures or solutions to solve

mathematical problems without altering them. Since mathematical creativity

 13

depends on expertise, students need a deep understanding of math concepts and

procedures (Grégoire, 2016). To be creative in math, they must first learn and

understand the concepts and steps well so they can use them easily. While

creativity is minimal in this level, students demonstrate it by selecting the correct

method and applying it accurately to solve a problem. The role of GS in this level

was to assist students in mastering foundational skills through visualization of

complex mathematics concepts and allowed them to practice similar problems

repetitively. The intermediate step to developing creativity in mathematics based

on the model involves some modifications in the previously given problem to

generate new challenges or tasks. Allowing the students to modify the existing

problem according to a very specific scenario is an example of structured problem-

posing (Bicer, 2021). This process can improve students’ creative thinking in math

by providing them with many possibilities to write different problems (supporting

fluency), try new and less common types of problems (encouraging flexibility), and

come up with unique problems (promoting originality) (Bicer, 2021; Wulandari et

al., 2024). In this level, GS offered tools and features helping students modify

existing problems. With GS, students can easily adjust variables, constraints, or

contexts within a problem to create new variations, ensuring their changes are

intentional and meaningful. Finally, students proceeded with the culmination of

mathematical creativity which is the creation level. At this stage, real mathematical

creativity is likely to happen and can drive the development of new mathematical

ideas or theories (Ervynck, 2002). In the context of the study, the creation level

engaged students in a sequence of mathematical modelling tasks which require

 14

them to construct mathematical models satisfying the needs of the problem. The

first task can be considered a special type of modelling task called model-eliciting

activity for it is applied to real-life scenario. Wessels (as cited in Bicer, 2021) stated

that model-eliciting activities help improve students’ divergent thinking,

communication, use of different representations, flexible thinking, and creativity in

math. Moreover, these activities also help students appreciate the subject because

they make learning more meaningful by connecting math to real-life situations

(Chamberlin & Moon, as cited in Bicer, 2021) and letting students use what they

already know to build new ideas (Kozlowski & Chamberlin, 2019). The second task

is a mathematical modelling task with a little twist. In this case, students must

construct at least three different models satisfying the problem conditions

generated by the gamified simulation. In other words, the problems are not

predetermined at first but must be generated by the computer. In this level, GS

supported the construction of models through visualization and exploration of

concepts. GS also presented immediate feedback which were essential in

constructing and modifying models. This feedback helps them evaluate their

progress and refine their approach, ensuring that their model accurately reflects

the needs of the problem.

One of the theoretical foundations involving gamification is the Self-

Determination Theory. At its core, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) explains that

people are motivated by three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence,

and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2017). When these needs are fulfilled in the

classroom, students developed intrinsic motivation and enjoyed the learning

 15

process because it feels satisfying and meaningful to them. Furthermore, active

acceleration of students’ motivation through gamification can influence self-

determination and creativity in the long run according to Kalinauskas (as cited in

Zhang, 2023).

Autonomy is the feeling that you have control over your own choices and

actions. Autonomy is a crucial motivational source for creativity as it fosters

intrinsic motivation, leading to enhanced creative production and innovative

behavior among students (Baum & Baumann, 2018). It allows students to make

creative choices in problem-solving and presentation, fostering deeper

engagement and understanding, which enhances their mathematical creativity and

expression (Oscar et al., 2017). In the study, one of the ways to promote students’

autonomy was to allow them the freedom to modify the problems in the

“modification level” based on their choice and preference.

The second component of self-determination is competence. Competence

is also crucial for developing mathematical creativity. Children who felt more

competent explored more and showed better creative problem-solving abilities (Liu

& Xu, 2020). Competence is the feeling of being effective in the game

(Kalinauskas, 2014). In the study, competence was achieved by sequencing tasks

properly, starting with manageable problems to develop student’s confidence and

progressively introducing more challenging ones to enhance their creativity and

problem-solving skills. Moreover, teams who manifested creativity skill in

answering creative challenges received positive reinforcement (badges or points)

providing them a sense of accomplishment to further boost their competence.

 16

Feedback also helps people feel more competent needed for personal growth

(MSEd, 2024). In the GS, even when students make mistakes, the motivating

prompts/feedback encouraged them to try again, reinforcing the idea that mastery

is achievable through effort.

The last component of the theory is relatedness. Relatedness is the feeling

of being linked to others through meaningful relationships and social interactions

(Kalinauskas, 2014). This was achieved by making activities as Team-Based

Challenges (group with three members) where students combined their ideas to

meet a common objective. Students have different roles to play in the activities

either as a leader, secretary, and verifier. As a leader, one student guides the

group’s overall approach. The secretary is in charged in documenting findings and

solutions. Meanwhile, the third students take on the role of verifier, in charge of

computer navigation. The division of labor ensures that each team member

contributes meaningfully to the task, leveraging their unique strengths and skills.

This collaborative aspect encouraged students to work collectively, share their

ideas, and support each other, satisfying their need for relatedness while

enhancing teamwork and collaborative creativity.

Jeong and Hmelo-Silver (2016) provided a framework how technology can

be effectively used for enhancing student’s collaboration. Four suggestions were

particularly relevant in the present study. These involve working together on a

shared task, communicating effectively, participating in meaningful collaborative

learning activities, and building knowledge collectively. In the context of the study,

the activities in the learning packet involving GS were structured around a shared
 17

task, such as solving open-ended mathematical problems or creating functions to

meet specific criteria. These tasks were inherently collaborative, requiring students

to share ideas and work together toward a shared goal. To foster effective

communication, simulations incorporated immediate feedback mechanisms. When

students provided incorrect answers, the system delivers motivating prompts,

encouraging group dialogue and idea exchange. This process required students

to discuss their reasoning, evaluate potential solutions, and refine their responses

collaboratively. Additionally, the learning packet also supported productive

collaborative learning processes by engaging students’ specific roles to play to

ensure active participation and accountability among the group members. Finally,

the packet emphasized co-construction by requiring students to create shared

outputs, such as mathematical models. This process enables students to

collectively build knowledge, refine their ideas, and arrive at original solutions that

reflect their combined efforts.

Based on the foregoing views and theories discussed, the development of

the gamified simulation learning packets and the investigation of their influence on

students’ mathematical creativity and collaboration was undertaken.

 18

Independent Variable Dependent Variables

Experimental Group Mathematical Creativity

-Gamified Simulation Collaboration
Learning Packets

Pre-test

Figure 3: Schematic Diagram Showing the Interplay of Variables

Figure 3 illustrates the relationship among the variables in the study. The

independent variable is the gamified simulation learning packet, which is designed

to influence the students' creativity and collaboration in mathematics which are the

study’s dependent variables. The intervention was implemented with a single

group of students, identified as the experimental group, who were exposed to the

developed learning packet.

Statement of the Problem

The primary purpose of this study was to design, develop, and evaluate

gamified simulation learning packets to enhance student’s creativity and

collaboration in mathematics. In particular, this study seeks to address the

following questions:

1. What model can be developed to guide teachers in designing gamified

simulation to enhance students’ creativity and collaboration in

mathematics?
 19

2. What gamified simulation learning packet can be developed based on the

proposed model to enhance students’ creativity and collaboration in

mathematics?

3. What are the experts’ assessments of the developed gamified simulation

learning packets to enhance students’ creativity and collaboration in

mathematics?

4. Is there a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores of

students exposed to the developed gamified simulation learning packets in

terms of: a) creativity; and b) collaboration?

5. What is the students’ feedback on the use of the developed gamified

simulation learning packets?

Scope and Limitation of the Study

The study focused on the design, development, and evaluation of gamified

simulation learning packets to enhance student’s creativity and collaboration in

mathematics education. It was conducted in one of the Divisions of Region X which

is the El Salvador City Division. The study involved two major phases. The first

phase includes the design, development, and validation of the gamified simulation

learning packets while the second phase is its classroom implementation and

summative evaluation.

In the first phase of the study, Chyung (2008) version of ADDIE model was

used for the design and development of the gamified simulation learning packets.

Initially, the researcher utilized Exploratory research design using secondary data

through literature review to inform the development of the model for enhancing
 20

students’ creativity and collaboration in mathematics. After this, the researcher

proceeded with the development of the gamified simulation learning packet as its

practical application based on the features highlighted in the proposed model.

Challenges, points, badges, and feedback were employed as gamification

elements while simulations were within GeoGebra dynamic environment. The

topics addressed in the study focused on the second semester learning

competencies in Basic Calculus, specifically those related to Limits and Continuity.

After its development, the learning packet was validated by Teacher Experts from

the same division using a 4-point Likert scale adapted from the DepEd’s Module

Evaluating Tool in terms of the four criteria namely content, presentation and

organization, format, and accuracy and up to date information. They were identified

based on the set criteria 1) licensed professionals, 2) public school teachers, 3)

had at least ten years of teaching experience in math, 4) teaching in the secondary

level, and 5) with a Master Teacher position during the SY 2024-2025, 6) learning

packet or module writer, and 7) evaluators for instructional materials in the

Division, and 8) express voluntary commitment to join in the study.

This stage of the study has a few limitations which may affect the findings

of the study in general. First, the study was confined only within the context of El

Salvador City Division which may affect the generalizability of the findings in the

wider context. Second, the selection of the participants was mainly focused on

public school teachers within the Division which may limit the diversity of

perspectives and may not represent the views of mathematics teachers especially

those in private schools and those working outside the said division. Third, the
 21

gamified simulation was only within GeoGebra environment which limits the use of

other simulations tools like Desmos, MATLAB, WolframAlpha, etc. In the study,

GeoGebra was chosen not only for its powerful visualization and experimentation

capabilities but also because of its cost-free nature and offline functionality. This

makes it the most practical and accessible tool unlike other tools that require

internet connection and subscription which may be difficult to avail in public

schools with less budget as they require further expenditures. Additionally,

GeoGebra also contains scripting features which the study crucially needed for the

seamless integration of the gamification elements directly within the simulation

framework which may not be available in other tools. The third reason is the lack

of research utilizing GeoGebra in developing gamified simulation-based lesson

particularly in enhancing students' mathematical creativity and collaboration.

In the second phase of the study, the developed gamified simulation

learning packets were implemented in one of the public schools in the Division of

El Salvador City which is Cogon National High School (CoNHS) during the SY

2024-2025. Since Basic Calculus was taught only to a single group of students in

the said school, the researcher opted to use one-group pretest-posttest design

where the dependent variables were measured twice: before and after the

intervention. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze students’ scores in the

pretest and posttest on creativity and collaboration in mathematics which provided

insights into the effectiveness of the learning packets. Moreover, students’

feedback on the use of the developed learning packets were analyzed using

thematic analysis to identify patterns and insights regarding their experiences.

 22

The primary limitation of the second phase of the study was the absence of

a control group, which could impact the generalizability of the results, especially

regarding the effectiveness of the intervention. Without it, it is challenging to

determine whether any observed improvements in students' creativity and

collaboration are directly attributable to the intervention or influenced by other

variables. Future studies could address this limitation by including a control group

that does not receive the intervention. Comparing the results between the

intervention group and the control group would provide stronger evidence of the

intervention's impact on students' creativity and collaboration.

Definition of Terms

For better understanding, terms are defined operationally as they are used

in this study.

Mathematical creativity. This refers to the ability to generate multiple (fluency),

diverse (flexibility), and novel (originality) solutions to mathematical problems.

Collaboration. This refers to the process of working together to solve problems

and share insights, enhancing understanding through collective reasoning and

diverse perspectives.

Simulation. This refers to the interactive, hands-on computer activities that allow

the learners to visualize and explore abstract mathematical concepts in a dynamic

environment.

Gamification. This refers to the elements such as challenges, points, badges, and

feedback mechanisms use to enhance engagement and motivation.

 23

Gamified Simulation. This refers to a form of gamification where gaming

elements such as challenges, points, rewards, and feedback are simply added into

simulated environments to make the learning process more interactive and

enjoyable.

Gamified Simulation-Based Learning Packets. This refers to the developed

learning packets (within the context of the study) with embedded gamified

simulations as its core features.

 Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the literature and studies that are relevant to the

present study on the design, development, and evaluation of gamified simulation

learning packets to enhance student’s creativity and collaboration in mathematics

education.

Creativity

One of the focused variables in the study is creativity. In psychology,

creativity refers to the ability to generate original and valuable ideas or products

that are suitable for a given context (Hoda, 2023). A person is considered creative

if he or she can solve problems or engage in activities using approaches different

from others (Ulum, 2024). Literatures suggest that creativity is not simply an inborn

talent but also a skill which can be cultivated through experience and learning

(Palupi et al., 2022; Zachepa, 2023; Ulum, 2024).

The concept of creativity as a psychological construct has gained significant

importance in the industry (Kozlowski & Chamberlin, 2019). In fact, a global report

from over 800 CEOs identified creativity as the most highly valued skill that enables

individuals to individuals to think divergently and produce technological

innovations (Kozlowski & Chamberlin, 2019). Creativity allows individuals to

become flexible in solving problems (Istikomah et al., 2024) which are important to

be able to adapt to new circumstances, weigh things from different angles, and

present novel solutions to industrial problems (Febrianti & Dasari, 2024). At the
 25

same time, creativity is also the starting point for new ideas and solutions which

are needed to make advancements in art, technology, and science (Subanji &

Nusantara 2022). Under this assumption, without creativity, the industry cannot

improve or move forward.

In the field of mathematics education, creativity is regarded as a

multifaceted phenomenon with varying definitions (Muzaini et al., 2023). In fact,

there is no agreed-upon definition of mathematical creativity in the literature (Bicer,

2021). Instead, it is examined from different perspectives (Joklitschke et al., 2019).

Mann (as cited in Leikin, 2009), pointed out that there are over 100 modern

definitions of creativity. Some considered it as a cognitive process (Walia & Walia,

2017), a product (Haylock, 1987), or a combination of both process and product

(Shin et al., 2000b; Kim and Lee, 2005). While mathematical creativity is still a

disputed concept, Lee (2015) emphasized that the widely accepted basic definition

is “the ability and process to produce new mathematical knowledge or concepts”.

Amabile's definition of creativity, as cited in Grégoire (2016), offers a

thorough explanation of how creativity appears, particularly in mathematical tasks.

According to Amabile, creativity involves creating a new and suitable answer,

product, or solution to an open-ended problem. This means that creative outputs

are not only new but also valuable and meaningful, serving a specific purpose or

goal. Creativity doesn't require complete freedom; it is shaped by various

constraints, such as material, logical, or linguistic limitations, which guide and

refine the creative process. Furthermore, Amabile asserts that creativity should be

understood as a characteristic of ideas or products rather than an inherent quality

 26

of individuals. This perspective recognizes that everyone has the potential to

engage in creative activities at different times and levels, depending on the context

and task. Creativity is a product that emerge from a creative process. There are

several expert opinions on the stages of the creative process. According to Wallas,

the stages include preparation (deeply focusing on interesting problems that spark

curiosity), incubation (a time when unusual connections form), insight (when ideas

come together suddenly), evaluation (judging if the insight is useful and worth

developing), and elaboration (working out and confirming the insight) (Wallas,

1926; Csikszentmihalyi, as cited in Moraová et al., 2018). For Siswono (as cited in

Karomah et al., 2024), creative process includes synthesizing ideas, building an

idea, planning the ideas, and applying the idea to produce something new. In line

with Subanji and Nusantara (2022) perspectives, creative products in mathematics

develops progressively through a hierarchical model consisting of imitation,

modification, and creation. Despite differences in these models, they suggest

commonality emphasizing creativity as a product reflecting the individual's thought

process and effort. These creative products in mathematics are generated as a

result of understanding, intuition, and insight (Ervynck, 2002). They do not only

integrate past knowledge and address current needs but also produce original and

often surprising outcomes (Leikin, 2009).

Subanji and Nusantara (2022) expanded upon the General Creativity Model

within the context of mathematics, leading to the development of the Mathematical

Creativity Model. The model suggests that mathematical creativity develops

progressively through a hierarchical model consisting of imitation, modification,

 27

and creation. Accordingly, the foundational step to become creative in math is

through imitation which involves students replicating an existing solution. This

process focuses on directly applying known procedures or solutions to solve

mathematical problems without altering them. Since mathematical creativity

depends on expertise, students need a deep understanding of math concepts and

procedures (Grégoire, 2016). To be creative in math, they must first learn and

understand the concepts and steps well so they can use them easily. While

creativity is minimal in this level, students demonstrate it by selecting the correct

method and applying it accurately to solve a problem. In the context of the study,

the role of GS in this level was to assist students in mastering foundational skills

through visualization of complex mathematics concepts and allowed them to

practice similar problems repetitively. The intermediate step to developing

creativity in mathematics based on the model involves some modifications in the

previously given problem to generate new challenges or tasks. Allowing the

students to modify the existing problem according to a very specific scenario is an

example of structured problem-posing (Bicer, 2021). This process can improve

students’ creative thinking in math by providing them with many possibilities to

write different problems (supporting fluency), try new and less common types of

problems (encouraging flexibility), and come up with unique problems (promoting

originality) (Bicer, 2021; Wulandari et al., 2024). In this level, GS offered tools and

features helping students modify existing problems. With GS, students can easily

adjust variables, constraints, or contexts within a problem to create new variations,

ensuring their changes were intentional and meaningful. Finally, students

 28

proceeded with the culmination of mathematical creativity which is the creation

level. At this stage, real mathematical creativity is likely to happen and can drive

the development of new mathematical ideas or theories (Ervynck, 2002). In the

context of the study, the creation level engaged students in a sequence of

mathematical modelling tasks which require them to construct mathematical

models satisfying the needs of the problem. The first task can be considered a

special type of modelling task called model-eliciting activity for it is applied to real-

life scenario. Wessels (as cited in Bicer, 2021) stated that model-eliciting activities

help improve students’ divergent thinking, communication, use of different

representations, flexible thinking, and creativity in math. Moreover, these activities

also help students appreciate math because they make learning more meaningful

by connecting math to real-life situations (Chamberlin & Moon, as cited in Bicer,

2021) and letting students use what they already know to build new ideas

(Kozlowski & Chamberlin, 2019).The second task is a mathematical modelling task

with a little twist. In this case, students must construct at least three different

models satisfying the problem conditions generated by the gamified simulation. In

other words, the problems are not predetermined at first but has to be generated

by the computer. In this level, GS supported the construction of models through

visualization and exploration of concepts. GS also presented immediate feedback

which were essential in constructing and modifying models. This feedback helps

them evaluate their progress and refine their approach, ensuring that their model

accurately reflects the needs of the problem.

 29

Mathematical creativity is a process of producing more than one response

to a problem (Walia & Walia, 2017). It is often assessed through tasks that

measure mathematical divergent thinking (Meier et al., 2021). In this case,

participants are asked to come up with as many creative solutions as they can to

a given problem. (Walia & Walia, 2017). According to Guilford (1956), divergent

thinking is assumed to be composed of fluency, flexibility, originality, and

elaboration. This framework is commonly used in the context of mathematics for

measuring students’ creativity but focusing more on fluency, flexibility, and

originality (Leikin & Lev, 2013; Akgul & Kahveci, 2016; Molad et al., 2020; Muzaini

et al., 2023). Fluency is the ability to come up with many different ideas or answers

to a math problem. Flexibility is the ability to look at a problem in different ways

and try various methods to solve it. Originality refers to how unique or uncommon

the ideas or solutions are. Similarly, divergent tasks particularly those that involve

multiple solutions were utilized to assess student’s mathematical creativity in the

pretest and posttest measured in terms of fluency, flexibility, and originality of

solutions.

Creativity is also essential throughout the entire process of advanced

mathematical thinking, driving the development of theories, framing conjectures,

and constructing formal proofs (Ervynck, 2002). Presently, it is one of the two main

goals of mathematics education (Verzosa & Vistro-Yu, 2019), making it an integral

part of the subject (Nadjafikhah et al., 2012; Novita & Putra, 2016). In the math

classroom, creative students often show strong problem-solving and critical

thinking skills, which are essential in today’s society (Roble, 2017). As stated in
 30

the revised Bloom’s taxonomy, creativity is considered the highest level of thinking

(Subanji & Nusantara, 2022). People who think creatively often become strong

problem-solvers, initiators, and innovators. This aligns with the core goal of

mathematics education, which is to help students think creatively and logically, and

to solve problems effectively (Istikomah et al., 2024). However, rather than being

a well-developed area, mathematical creativity remains underexplored in both

mathematics and mathematics education worldwide (Permatasari & Pratiwi, 2020).

Until now, it has been largely overlooked in formal education (Romaito et al., 2021).

Among the hindering factors of creativity based on literature include the commonly

used of deductive method which prevents students to think divergently (Walia &

Walia, 2017), frequent used of tasks measuring low-level thinking skills and less

focus on creativity (Agustini & Fajriyah, 2017), and limited integration of innovative

and creative instructional media contributing to a monotonous learning experience

which prevent students’ creative potential (Febrianti & Dasari, 2024). Moreover,

the K to 12 curriculum imposes an extensive array of learning competencies for

students (Ednave et al., 2018). This creates significant pressures among

educators who are expected to cover all competencies within a semester which is

way too short to teach the content effectively (Braza & Supapo, 2014). This

resulted in teachers teaching concepts in a hurry to complete them within the

desired period and reduced mathematics instruction into the “tell”, “show”, and “do”

model. This model assumes that students will understand the rules and examples

simply presented to them. This limits the use of creativity in the classroom, turning

mathematics into just a collection of skills to learn and rules to memorize. Because
 31

of this, many children lose their natural curiosity and excitement for math as they

grow older, which becomes a big challenge for teachers who want to instill this

very quality in their students (Novita & Putra, 2016).Therefore, it is important to

encourage, nurture, and efforts for nurturing mathematical creativity should be

highly supported (Pham & Cho, 2018; Walia & Walia, 2017). For this reason,

mathematical creativity is chosen as one of the dependent variables of the study.

In his literature review, Bicer (2021) highlighted that the instructional

strategies found helpful for enhancing mathematical creativity closely aligns with

inquiry-based learning (IBL). Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) promotes students'

creativity by motivating them to ask meaningful questions, explore different ways

to solve problems, generate ideas from various sources, share their thoughts with

others, and reflect on their own learning (Bruce, 2011). It is based on constructivist

learning theories, which suggest that learners build knowledge by actively

interacting with new experiences and ideas (Alismaiel et al., 2022). IBL requires a

student-centered learning environment in which students are expected to work

both individually and cooperatively to determine a loosely defined outcome through

optional solution methods (Bicer, 2021). This approach prioritizes the development

of conceptual understanding (Rittle-Johnson et al., 2001) which goes beyond

simply mastering procedures and algorithms, enabling students to apply their

knowledge flexibly and creatively in various contexts. Moreover, inquiry-based

approaches often involve the use of open-ended tasks and real-world problems

that encourage critical, creative, and independent thinking (Suherman &

Vidákovich, 2022; Gallaun et al., 2022). These tasks offer students the opportunity
 32

to explore various solutions, understand connections between mathematical ideas,

and apply their knowledge in a relevant and meaningful situations. IBL principles

encourage students to construct their knowledge through inquiry and collaboration.

Student’s creative abilities could be fostered through asking questions, taking risks

to share their mathematical ideas, collaborating with others to hear diverse

mathematical perspectives which are indeed the core features of the IBL model

(Bicer, 2021).

One suggestion to enhance student’s creativity in mathematics is to

promote the idea that mistakes are acceptable while trying to solve a problem

(Bicer, 2021; Veith & Bitzenbauer, 2022). This idea is based on the principles of

productive failure. Productive Failure is an instructional strategy introduced by

Kapur (2008) that requires learners to struggle while they attempt to solve issues

before receiving direct instruction on a particular idea, rather than later (Casing &

Roble, 2021). The fundamental hypothesis of productive failure is that students will

better understand some mathematical explanations after struggling to solve a

problem than they would have if they did not have the experience of struggling to

solve that problem (Kerrigan et al., 2021). In this case, students are most likely to

commit mistakes, but this floundering can pave the way for deeper learning. As

Bicer (2021) pointed out, allowing students to make mistakes can lead them to find

uncommon methods of solutions that they can promote their fluency, flexibility, and

originality in mathematics. In this study, the GS created opportunities for students

to experience productive failure by encouraging them to tackle open-ended

problems without immediate solutions. This process allowed students to struggle,

 33

make mistakes, and explore multiple approaches, ultimately fostering deeper

learning and enhancing their creativity as they refine their problem-solving

strategies.

Catarino et al. (2019) noted that creativity is usually a social product

advanced through mutual consideration of diverse ideas in a collaborative context.

There are two main steps to promote students’ creativity. The first step is to engage

students in collaborative learning groups, and the second is to provide them with

a series of complex reasoning tasks and projects to work on. In the context of the

study, GS provided students with review activities which allowed them not only to

recall previously learned concepts but also encouraging them to work together and

share ideas. This collaborative review activity was done to set the environment for

creative thinking in the succeeding activities. After solving the review activity, GS

transition to posting open-ended problem concerning productive failure allowing

students to think critically and explore multiple solutions to enhance their creativity.

Grégoire (2016) argued that mathematical creativity, like other forms of

creative behavior, is deeply rooted in the intellectual abilities and personality traits

of individuals. While these characteristics are innate, the direct impact of training

programs on them is somewhat limited. However, the interaction between the

educational environment and these traits significantly influences three key

components of creativity namely expertise, original thinking, and intrinsic

motivation, all of which contribute to an individual’s creative potential. This potential

can be fully realized and demonstrated when it is nurtured and supported within a

suitable human and material environment, leading to creative performance.

 34

Teachers perform an essential role in fostering creativity in mathematics

education. In line with this, Grégoire (2016) claimed that developing mathematical

creativity in schools should begin with the education of teachers in mathematics.

Only skilled and creative teachers can build the kind of learning environment that

truly supports and nurtures students’ creativity. These teachers must effectively

balance the development of expertise (in terms of concepts and procedures) with

the encouragement of original thinking. To cultivate original thinking, a crucial

aspect of creative cognitive style, teachers should provide students opportunities

to engage with ill-posed and open-ended problems, explore mistakes, and find

various solutions to the same problem. These experiences, along with positive

emotions, can help students develop a genuine interest and inner motivation to be

creative in mathematics. Additionally, teachers should help students understand

that creative insights are often fostered through discussion, collaboration, and

social support. Teachers should not only promote original thinking but also work to

overcome obstacles to creativity, especially those related to epistemological

challenges. In support, Veith and Bitzenbauer (2022) further emphasized that

teachers need to create a supportive and safe learning environment that

encourages risk-taking, experimentation, and learning from mistakes, providing

opportunities for students to engage in open-ended tasks, real-world problem-

solving, and collaborative learning experiences, encouraging students to think

critically, reflect on their thinking, and develop a growth mindset, and modeling and

valuing creativity through their own teaching practices and interactions with

students in order to improve students creativity. Risk-taking was encouraged by

 35

not imposing penalty to students for supplying incorrect responses to problems

within GS regardless of the number of attempts made. To establish better

connections between different mathematical concepts, simulations presented real-

world problems allowing students to apply their knowledge in meaningful and

relevant contexts. Teachers should also support students to embrace challenges,

persevere through difficulties, and view mistakes as opportunities for growth (Xu

et al., 2022). This was promoted through constructive feedback or motivating

prompts made by simulation after an incorrect response is supplied, providing

them opportunities to refine their ideas and establish a mentality that success can

be achieved through constant efforts and persistence. For Fasko (2001), teachers

need to give students time to process, discuss, and conduct experiments to

develop creativity. Mann (2006) supports this claim highlighting that teacher

offering a longer time duration for engaging with mathematical problems is

necessary for fostering creativity. Students need ample time to perform creative

acts in mathematics because creativity requires students to deeply think, analyze

several methods, and refine their solutions (Wessels, 2014). The currents study

supported these findings by providing students with longer amount of time to solve

creative challenges within GS to make them engage deeply, explore approaches,

and refine solutions to foster creativity.

It is also essential to move beyond rigid, procedure-based instruction and

embrace approaches that encourage open-ended thinking and innovation.

Kozlowski & Chamberlin (2019) stated that procedure-based teacher instruction

decreases mathematically gifted students’ creative possibilities and restricts their

 36

thinking potential. By establishing unnecessary limitation on mathematical

thinking, teachers reduce the chances for mathematically gifted students to explore

different ideas, which may prevent them from developing creative outcomes. This

is supported by Ayllón et al. (2016) who claimed that teaching mathematics stops

the development of creativity in several opportunities when establishing a very

strict action guide in problem-solving. Fostering students’ creativity is essential for

improving mathematics teaching. Students need the freedom to think, act, or

reconsider their approach, allowing their imagination to grow and create new ideas

just as they do when they make sense of symbols, signs, and operations. This

study addressed these concerns by integrating learning activities in the GS that

promote open-ended thinking and creativity, allowing students to explore diverse

strategies and generate innovative mathematical ideas without the constraints of

rigid procedures.

Utilizing innovative learning media both in the classroom and home-based

learning is also a key consideration to improve student’s creativity in math

(Febrianti & Dasari, 2024). One interactive learning medium identified for this

purpose is the GeoGebra (Rachmawati et al., 2023; Febrianti & Dasari, 2024).

GeoGebra provides many opportunities for mathematical learning by serving as a

tool to demonstrate, visualize, and build abstract concepts. Using GeoGebra,

teachers can create an interactive learning environment that allows students to

explore and discover mathematical ideas on their own. Prabawanto and Jupri

(2018) supports this notion and highlighted that the Think Talk Write model when

assisted by GeoGebra can promote student’s creative mathematical thinking.

 37

GeoGebra could encourage the student creative thinking by providing the

opportunity to experiment with their own ideas and find solutions to mathematical

problems (Rachmawati et al., 2023; Istikomah et al., 2024). It can assist students

in developing their inventive thinking abilities (Istikomah et al., 2024). Similarly, the

current study leveraged the use of GeoGebra to create GS in Basic Calculus.

Another important factor supporting creativity is the environment

(Puspitasari & Wibowo, 2022). A supportive environment means the opportunities

and facilities provided to students to develop their creativity. It is crucial to create

learning environments that cater to individual student needs and promote

exploration, recognition, and challenge. Pham and Cho (2018) claimed that

students should be provided with problem choices which matches their interest,

level of conceptual understanding, and level of mastery of skills to enhance their

creativity. Researchers further noted that it is also essential to recognize and

reward this skill frequently and ensure a safe environment for taking risks with

enough time for reflection and persistence. Affirming and appreciating student

creative ideas strengthen their ability to think creatively (Istikomah et al., 2024).

For this matter, teams manifesting mathematical creativity were promptly

recognized and awarded with points and badges as positive reinforcements,

encouraging student engagement and persistence in solving challenging

problems.

Collaboration

Another focused variable of the study is collaboration. Collaboration is

defined as two or more people working together toward a shared goal (Jeong &
 38

Hmelo-Silver, 2016). It involves individuals sharing responsibilities, trusting each

other, and taking on roles to tackle complex challenges together (Alexandra &

Barton, 2017; Davis & Bos, 2018; Tracy & Xu, 2018). Collaboration is crucial in the

industry as it enhances the efficiency of activities within industrial processes,

leading to overall improvements (Meléndez et al., 2019). It can also foster mutual

interest and partnership in contrast with rivalry and competition (Tolstykh et al.,

2023). Collaboration can lead to the development of innovative products which are

unattainable working in isolation (Eglite, 2023). In the medical field, collaborative

efforts among healthcare professionals can lead to improved patient outcomes and

more effective care plans (Sanders et al., 2023).

In the context of mathematics education, collaboration is also an essential

skill to be developed. By allowing students to work together and discuss

mathematical ideas, they can deepen their understanding of mathematical

concepts and build on each other’s knowledge (Stovner & Klette, 2022; Veith et

al., 2022; Bozic et al., 2022). Group collaboration offers benefits like pooled

knowledge, explanation, cross-cueing, and error correction, while reducing

memory load (Nokes-Malach et al., 2015). It can also foster critical thinking and

problem-solving skills by encouraging students to analyze, evaluate, and

synthesize information from multiple sources and perspectives (Mater et al., 2022).

It is also one way to enhance students’ motivation and engagement by creating a

sense of community and fostering positive social interactions (Johnson & Johnson,

2009). This skill provides opportunities for students to practice and develop

essential communication and teamwork skills as they work together to achieve

 39

common goals (Yi & LuXi, 2012). Moreover, learning with technology can be

effectively facilitated through students’ collaboration compared to individual

learning (Chen et al., 2018). In line with this, all learning activities in the GS were

designed for collaborative learning.

Despite the importance of collaboration, this skill is being compromised in

current mathematics teaching practices. This is primarily due to the prevalent use

of teacher-centered instructions which limits the opportunities for students to

actively explore mathematical concepts, engage in discussion, or collaborate with

their peers (Nilimaa, 2023). When direct instruction is prioritized, students often

work independently, missing opportunities to learn from peers and develop critical

thinking skills through dialogue (Oates et al., 2016; Bature & Atweh, 2019). As a

result, mathematics classroom provides a limited space for student’s collaboration

in this setting. These studies in general suggests that classroom activities to

promote student’s collaboration in mathematics classes are necessary not only to

prepare our students for the future life but also facilitate learning of mathematics

more effectively. Furthermore, being a core component of 21st-century readiness,

Kuhn (as cited in Evans, 2020) emphasized that collaboration is a critical concern

and deserves attention as a research focus. As cited by Child & Shaw (2016), most

of the variables used in research today employ cognitive variables to support

students’ learning such as critical thinking and reasoning skills, but less on non-

cognitive variables such as collaboration. For these reasons, collaboration was

selected as another dependent variable of the study.

 40

Collaboration can be fostered using collaborative learning frameworks by

encouraging students to work together in small groups or teams to solve problems,

complete tasks, or explore concepts (Nilimaa, 2023). This approach is based on

the idea that learning happens through social interaction, and students gain more

by sharing their ideas, knowledge, and experiences with their classmates. This

social dimension of learning is given emphasis in the social constructivism and the

zone of proximal development (ZPD) by Vygotsky (1896–1934). Vygotsky argues

that learners best acquire new knowledge in a social context, with the assistance

of peers or more knowledgeable individuals (Khadidja, 2020). His concept of the

Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) suggests that learning is most effective

when students work on tasks that are just beyond their independent capabilities

but can be accomplished with appropriate guidance and support. In the current

study, students worked in groups, which is a key feature of Vygotsky’s social

constructivism. As students collaborate, they engaged in dialogue and shared

problem-solving, constructing knowledge collectively. For instance, when students

tackle the activities in the GS together, they rely on each other’s strengths and

build on each other’s ideas, aligning with Vygotsky’s view that social interaction is

crucial for cognitive development. The ZPD comes into play when students work

on tasks they may not be able to solve individually but can solve collectively with

the help of their peers. The peer-to-peer guidance and feedback from the gamified

simulation simulate the scaffolding effect that Vygotsky described, pushing

students into deeper understanding.

 41

Productive Failure, introduced by Kapur (2008) provides an avenue to

improve student’s collaboration in math by allowing them to engage in discussions,

propose and reject solutions, and explore gaps in their knowledge. Successful

collaboration in productive failure according to Kerrigan et al. (2021) involves

students working together to reach a "productive impasse," where they collectively

identify why their solutions are failing and what they are missing in terms of

knowledge. The process includes rich mathematical argumentation, with students

building on each other's contributions.

Teachers play an important role in supporting effective student collaboration

(Web et al., 2019). Some of the suggestions presented include teachers assigning

specific roles to students, asking groups to follow particular strategies or activities,

encouraging students to ask questions and explain their thinking, as well as

designing tasks that promote equal participation among all group members,

including both high-status and low-status students. In the study, specific roles were

assigned to students such as a leader, secretary, and verifier during activities to

ensure that they have an active role to play in every problem-solving. The roles

were reshuffled each day so that everyone can perform the different roles.

Gamified elements such as points and badges were used to reward group

success, promoting group participation. Additionally, dynamic simulations guided

students to ask probing questions, explain their reasoning, and collaborate on

strategies. Retnowati et al. (2017) further supports this by emphasizing that active

social interactions, group goals, and individual accountability among students as

essential components in collaborative learning.

 42

Technology has also shown to foster student collaboration. According to

Jeong et al. (2019), the provision of technological tools such as online discussion

boards, representational tools, and/or simulations as well as support for

pedagogical activities are essential to improve the quality and depth of discussion

among students in a collaborative learning activity. In line with this, Jeong and

Hmelo-Silver (2016) provides a framework how technology can be effectively used

for enhancing student’s collaboration. Four suggestions were particularly relevant

in the present study. These involve working together on a shared task,

communicating effectively, participating in meaningful collaborative learning

activities, and building knowledge collectively. In the context of the study, the

activities in the learning packet involving GS were structured around a shared task,

such as solving open ended mathematical problems or creating functions to meet

specific criteria. These tasks were inherently collaborative, requiring students to

share ideas and work together toward a shared goal. To foster effective

communication, simulations incorporated immediate feedback mechanisms. When

students provided incorrect answers, the system delivers motivating prompts,

encouraging group dialogue and idea exchange. This process required students

to discuss their reasoning, evaluate potential solutions, and refine their responses

collaboratively. Additionally, the learning packet also supported productive

collaborative learning processes by engaging students’ specific roles to play to

ensure active participation and accountability among the group members. Finally,

the packet emphasized co-construction by requiring students to create shared

outputs, such as mathematical models. This process enabled students to

 43

collectively build knowledge, refine their ideas, and arrive at original solutions that

reflect their combined efforts. These features of collaborative learning with

technology are known to improve student’s conceptual understanding,

achievement, retention, and attitude on the math topics (Birgin & Topuz, 2021; of

Birgin & Acar, 2022; Baya’a, et al., 2022; Bozic et al., 2022).

Catarino et al. (2019) further emphasized that collaborative learning,

compared with competitive learning tends to increase the number of novel

solutions to problems, results in the use of more varied reasoning strategies,

generates more original ideas, and results in more creative solutions to problems.

He also pointed out that creativity is often a social outcome, developed by sharing

and considering different ideas together in a collaborative setting. Sriraman (as

cited in Bicer, 2021) supports this view suggesting that teachers need to inspire

students to take intellectual risks and openly share their mathematical ideas with

others. When students share their mathematical point of views with each other,

their mathematical imagination becomes more diverse, and this, in turn, may

increase their cognitive flexibility in problem solving (Bicer, 2021). The current

study addressed this by promoting an atmosphere where students feel comfortable

sharing unconventional ideas without fear of judgment during group discussion.

Norms were presented for respectful listening and valuing each contribution. To

minimize the effect of competition, leaderboard where group scores are presented

with respect to other groups scores was not utilized as gamification element.

On the other hand, collaborative learning can be challenging and doesn’t

always guarantee successful outcomes. Studies by Nokes-Malach et al. (2015)

 44

pointed out that certain tasks can increase cognitive load and disrupt individual

performance, while Evans (2020) emphasized that placing students together

doesn't automatically lead to effective collaboration. Le et al. (2018) highlighted

obstacles such as a lack of collaborative skills, free-riding, and unequal

competence levels among students, which hinder effective teamwork. In view of

these challenges, the teacher monitored students’ undertakings and involvement

in the GS activities. This was done by actively circulating among the groups while

they work. This allows the teacher to observe interactions, provide guidance, and

ensure that students are on task. It also created a supportive atmosphere and

reinforces collaboration during activities.

Simulation-Based Learning

One of the technology-based media that has a positive impact on learning

is computer simulation (Simanjuntak et al., 2021). In a broader sense, the term

simulation refers to the exercise of flexible imitation of processes and outcomes to

clarify or explain the underlying mechanisms involved (Pritsker, 1979). It can be

any artificial representation use to imitate real-world or theoretical processes,

allowing people to experiment with or explore how these processes function

without directly interacting with them. Simulation can be used to apply or expand

knowledge through explorative learning (Hillmayr et al., 2020) with interactive and

scaffolded activities (Reinhold et al., 2020). In the current study, one of the main

features was the use of simulation enabling students to visualize and interact with

complex mathematical ideas, offering dynamic graphical representations making

abstract concepts more tangible and foster deeper understanding.

 45

Although many studies on simulations focused on real-life phenomena

(e.g., Jane et al., 2017; Malgieri et al., 2018; Manunure et al., 2020; Solvang &

Haglund, 2022; Çekmez, 2023; Ciobanu et al., 2023), there is a growing body of

research that employs simulations to represent purely theoretical mathematics

concepts. For example, Svitek et al. (2022) used simulations to visualize highly

theoretical concepts in number theory. From the simulations, students created

conjectures based on their observations and provided proof. Moreover, Plass et

al. (2009) considered interactive dynamic visualization as form of simulations

where learners can control and manipulate variables. Similarly, Koparan (2019)

and Septian et al. (2021) used simulations mainly to visualize probability and

calculus concepts respectively. This shows that while simulations often involve

modeling real-life events, they can also be used in a broader sense to simulate

hypothetical scenarios, virtual environments, or abstract concepts. In connection,

the current study subscribed to both ideas. Some simulations were introduced to

present the concept at first, while other simulation relate to real life applications in

the later part of the discussion. Both of which were interactive and dynamic

allowing learners to visualize, explore, and experiment with mathematical

concepts. For this purpose, pre-designed simulations were utilized for the lesson.

Simulation can be a very beneficial intervention to promote student’s

creativity in math. It provides opportunities for students to develop their divergent

thinking abilities, critical thinking, innovation, and problem-solving skills which are

all essential components of mathematical creativity (Vlachopoulos & Makri, 2017;

Bicer, 2021). Idris & Nor (2010) found that simulation through computers and
 46

graphing calculators, enhances students’ mathematical creativity by providing

interactive visual representations of concepts. Unlike traditional methods that rely

on static textbook diagrams, interactive simulations enable students to animate

geometric figures and manipulate parameters in real time, allowing for deeper

exploration of mathematical ideas. As students explore these visual

representations, students are prompted to ask questions, hypothesize, and draw

connections between concepts. One important feature of Computer-Based

Simulations (CBS) is that they can present the dynamics and complexity of certain

concepts that are very difficult to explain using words, equations, or experiments

(Jane et al., 2017). This is particularly relevant in the study where simulations were

designed to improve student’s creativity in math.

Lubis (2023) revealed that the use of interactive simulations influences

student’s mathematical creativity by providing an interactive, engaging, and

flexible learning environment that encourages active learning, knowledge

construction, inquiry, and exploration among students. Students engaged with

simulations were encouraged to generate multiple ideas and solutions through

experimenting with different mathematical scenarios and visualizations, which

enhances their ability to produce a variety of responses. Simulation provided

students with opportunities to explore and test a variety of approaches which

enhances their fluency in mathematical thinking and problem-solving. Students

adapted their strategies and approaches based on the feedback they receive from

the simulations. This requires them to be flexible in their thinking and modify their

initial ideas. Additionally, flexibility in mathematical creativity typically involves

 47

viewing problem or concepts from multiple perspectives (Findley et al., 2017; Teng,

2019). Simulation supports this by providing students with diverse representations

of concepts such as graphs, equations, or tables in an interactive and dynamic

environment allowing students to develop flexibility in problem-solving. In terms of

originality, the exploration of diverse scenarios and perspectives offered by the

simulations encouraged students to develop unique and original solutions which

fosters their creativity (Karomah et al., 2024). Aside from creativity, simulation can

also enhance student’s collaboration. Many interactive simulations were designed

for collaborative use, providing a risk-free environment where students can work

together to test hypotheses, share ideas, and refine their understanding. This

process not only strengthens their ability to reason collectively but also fosters the

development of creative solutions by encouraging diverse perspectives (Mukazi,

2022; Editorial, 2024).

Learning using simulation is a form of learning that is very suitable for

constructivism principles. It can be used to enhance teaching and to facilitate

students’ active engagement (Manunure, et al., 2020). Constructivist approaches

encourage students to build on their existing knowledge, challenge their

preconceptions, and make connections between different concepts (Nilimaa,

2023). This approach highlights the role of social interaction and collaboration that

takes place in process of learning. Students are encouraged to cooperate,

exchange ideas, and engage in discussions to strengthen their understanding and

problem-solving skills. This promotes a classroom community and helps students

develop essential communication and teamwork abilities. In the current study,

 48

students were provided with hands-on simulation activities where they have to

work in groups allowing them to have an active role to play in the learning process

instead of merely acting as passive learners. Moreover, constructivism values

collaboration which aligns with the goal of the study to improve this skill among

students through active involvement in simulation-based lessons.

In mathematics, the use of dynamic tools such as GeoGebra is considered

as one kind of simulation (Hegedus et al., 2015; Lichti & Roth, 2018) enabling

students to learn abstract subjects, such as geometry, algebra, and calculus in an

interactive and explorative manner (Bhagat & Chang, 2015; Lichti & Roth, 2018).

For example, students can explore the concept of limits in calculus by manipulating

sliders in GeoGebra to observe how a function behaves as 𝑥 approaches a certain

value. Similarly, GeoGebra was utilized to perform such simulation activities in the

study. It was installed on the computers for students to use during the

implementation of the study.

Literatures presented different ways on how to utilize simulations with

GeoGebra to influence mathematical creativity. For instance, according to

Ferdinandus (as cited in Bachore, 2021), Discovery Learning Model assisted by

GeoGebra simulations has been shown as an effective intervention to improve the

ability of creative thinking of students. The simulations play a crucial role in this

model by providing a dynamic environment for students to visualize, explore, and

discover mathematical concepts interactively.

Prabawanto and Jupri (2018) investigated the enhancement of Indonesian

students’ mathematical creative thinking skills through the GeoGebra-Assisted

 49

Think-Talk-Write (TTW) model. It addresses the issue of students’ inadequate

performance in solving non-routine problems by implementing a cooperative

learning approach where students think, talk, and write to deepen their

understanding and creativity. The literature reviewed in the study highlights that

the TTW model, supported by GeoGebra simulations, significantly improves

students’ critical and creative mathematical thinking skills compared to traditional

learning methods. This innovative approach leverages simulation to foster better

problem-solving abilities and overall mathematical creativity.

For Istikomah et al. (2024), combining Open-Ended tasks with GeoGebra

simulations can foster an environment where students can freely explore and

visualize ideas which enhances their mathematical creativity. In their study,

students were actively engaged in creating and solving mathematical problems

through hands-on and exploratory learning. Students became actively responsible

for their own learning by taking pictures of some geometric objects in their daily

lives and developing related mathematical problems. The simulations provided a

dynamic platform for visualizing and manipulating these geometrical shapes which

enables them to experiment with different solutions and real-time observation of

outcomes. This process encouraged students creative thinking, diverse problem-

solving strategies, and a deeper understanding of mathematical concepts.

Rachmawati et al. (2023) supports this notion which further revealed that the

approach of combining Open-Ended tasks with GeoGebra simulations significantly

enhances students’ creative thinking abilities, particularly in the reviewed studies

conducted between 2012 and 2022.

 50

According to Karomah et al. (2024), GeoGebra play a crucial role in

nurturing students’ mathematical creativity by offering them a platform to express

and refine their creative ideas. In their study, students were tasked with creating

simulations which served as an avenue for experimentation and idea generation.

This approach not only fosters creativity but also provides the tools necessary for

students to explore and innovate. Creativity in making simulation is the

implementation of mathematical creativity as a product, which according to Cropley

and Urban (as cited in Karomah et al., 2024), can be evaluated based on three

aspects namely novelty, relevance, and effectiveness, all of which highlight the

students' ability to produce original and meaningful work.

Selvy et al. (2020) found that using GeoGebra-assisted Problem Based

Learning (PBL) significantly improved students' mathematical creative thinking and

motivation. The experimental class, which used GeoGebra, showed a higher

increase in both pre-test and post-test scores compared to the control class, with

N-gain scores of 0.48 for creative thinking and 0.227 for motivation. Students in

the experimental class demonstrated notable improvements in fluency, flexibility,

originality, and elaboration, with fluency showing the highest gains. Additionally,

the use of GeoGebra simulations made learning more engaging and enjoyable,

leading to higher student motivation and active participation in problem-solving

activities. Overall, the study concluded that GeoGebra-assisted PBL is an effective

approach for enhancing students' motivation and mathematical creative thinking.

This is consistent with the findings of Ayyubi et al. (2024) which further noted that

the ability to think creatively in mathematics in education using the Problem-Based

 51

Learning (PBL) approach assisted by GeoGebra simulations is expected to be a

practical approach to educating students in increasing their intellectual potential

and familiarizing them to deal with non-routine problems and applying it in their

daily life to become a student who can think creatively.

The study of Romaito et al. (2021) titled "The Mathematics Learning using

GeoGebra to Improve Students’ Creative Thinking Ability" involved class VIII

students at SMP N 1 Pulau Rakyat, divided into an experimental group using

GeoGebra simulations and a control group using conventional methods. The

intervention included pretests and posttests to measure creative thinking skills,

with the experimental group receiving instruction through GeoGebra simulations,

which allowed for interactive and visual learning of mathematical concepts. Data

analysis using normality, homogeneity, and hypothesis tests revealed that the

experimental group showed significantly higher creative thinking abilities

compared to the control group, demonstrating the effectiveness of GeoGebra

simulations in enhancing students' creative thinking in mathematics. The

simulations helped students improve their mathematical creativity by providing an

interactive and visual learning environment. These allowed students to explore and

manipulate geometric shapes, algebraic equations, and calculus concepts

dynamically. This interactive approach encouraged students to think creatively and

solve problems in multiple ways. By visualizing mathematical concepts, students

could better understand and internalize them, leading to enhanced creative

thinking skills. Additionally, the use of GeoGebra made the learning process more

engaging and motivating, which further contributed to the improvement in students'

 52

creative thinking abilities. The results of the study are also consistent with the

findings of Bachore (2021), which underscore the potential of GeoGebra

simulations as a valuable tool in mathematics education particularly for enhancing

student’s mathematical creativity.

The reviewed studies on GeoGebra simulations suggest that this

intervention serve as an assisted approach to foster students’ mathematical

creativity. Moreover, it is also remarkable that this intervention can adapt to varied

theoretical frameworks, making it a highly flexible learning environment for

students.

While the interactive character of simulations can serve as an excellent tool

to engage students and encourage them to explore difficult topics in more details

(Pirker & Gütl, 2015), the use of simulations has its challenges (Roolvink, 2024;

Clark, 2017; Pirker & Gütl, 2015). For instance, Pirker, & Gütl (2015) revealed that

simply showing simulations to students does not enhance or prompt deeper

understanding of concepts. Adams et al. (2008) further added that if students only

observe simulations and do not interact, they do not ask questions and cannot

make new connections. This is also the same case at the University Medical

Center Groningen where Surgeons found the training simulation boring and made

little use of it, although they derived great pleasure from playing Angry Birds during

each break (Roolvink, 2024). These suggest that users are known to struggle with

the required motivation needed to maximize the training effect of simulations.

Student engagement is a powerful tool for enhancing understanding and

motivation to learn with the simulation (Pirker & Gütl, 2015). One approach to make
 53

the learning experience with simulation more motivating and incentivizing is

combined it with gamification strategies (Roolvink, 2024; Pirker & Gütl, 2015;

Zhang, 2023). This can be done by incorporating elements such as challenges,

rewards and competition (Roolvink, 2024). By improving the experience of

simulations through gamification, users will stay motivated longer and their training

will be improved (Roolvink, 2024).

Gamification

Mathematics as a hard subject is commonly heard (Zaharin et al., 2021).

Teachers need to take the initiative to make it an interesting and enjoyable subject.

One of the theories to improve Mathematics performance is the integration of fun

while learning such as gamification (Lanuza, 2020). Gamification is a process of

learning through games activity (Zaharin et al., 2021). It involves applying game

mechanics and game elements in a non-game context (Jagušt et al., 2018; Uz

Bilgin & Gul, 2020) in which game design elements contain goals, points, badges,

feedback, levels, challenges, competition, rewards, fun failure, etc. (Rodrigues et

al., 2019; Luo, 2022; Saleem et al., 2022). It is an emerging method aimed at

enhancing instructional content in educational settings (Sanchez et al., 2020).

Gamification affects learning variables through motivation and engagement

(Hanus & Fox, 2015; Sailer et al., 2017; YIĞ & Sezgin, 2021; Feng-Jung & Chia-

Mei, 2021; Zaharin et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2020). It has become one of the

effective ways to stimulate creativity during recent years (Hamari, 2017; Koivisto

& Hamari, 2019; Nivedhitha & Manzoor, 2020; Tang et al., 2020) and is often used

in practice (Parjanen & Hyypiä, 2019). Between internal and external rewards that
 54

gamification can offer, the former is more effective in motivating creativity (Xu &

Hamari, 2023). Xu and Hamari (2023) highlight three key reasons why intrinsic

motivation fosters creativity. First, intrinsic motivation generates positive emotions

(Gulzar et al., 2021), which broaden cognitive processes, enhance flexibility in

thinking, and promote the generation of new ideas (Amabile et al., 2005; Han et

al., 2019). Second, intrinsic motivation encourages autonomy-driven factors such

as curiosity and an interest in learning, which inspire individuals to take risks and

approach tasks with an open mind (Hagtvedt et al., 2019; Silvia et al., 2008). This

openness increases access to diverse ideas and potential solutions (Nivedhitha &

Manzoor, 2020). Finally, intrinsic motivation boosts confidence, enabling

individuals to persist in their efforts over time (Gagné & Deci, 2005) and apply

creative strategies to problem-solving (Amabile, 1996).

One of the theoretical foundations involving gamification is the Self-

Determination Theory. At its core, SDT posits that humans have three innate

psychological needs that drive motivation namely autonomy, competence, and

relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2017). If these needs are fulfilled in the classroom,

students developed intrinsic motivation and enjoyed the learning process because

it feels satisfying and meaningful to them.

Autonomy is the feeling that one has control over his own decisions and

actions. Autonomy is a crucial motivational source for creativity as it fosters

intrinsic motivation, leading to enhanced creative production and innovative

behavior among students (Baum & Baumann, 2018). It allows students to make

creative choices in problem-solving and presentation, fostering deeper

 55

engagement and understanding, which enhances their mathematical creativity and

expression (Oscar et al., 2017). In the study, one of the ways to promote students’

autonomy was giving them the freedom to modify the problems in the “modification

level” based on their choice and preference.

The second component of self-determination is competence. Competence

is also crucial for developing mathematical creativity. Children who felt more

competent explored more and showed better creative problem-solving abilities (Liu

& Xu, 2020). Competence is the feeling of being effective in the game

(Kalinauskas, 2014). In the study, this was achieved by sequencing tasks properly,

starting with manageable problems to develop student’s confidence and

progressively introducing more challenging ones to enhance their creativity and

problem-solving skills. Teams who manifested creativity skill in answering creative

challenges received positive reinforcement (digital badges or points) providing

them a sense of accomplishment to further boost their competence. Feedback also

helps people feel more competent needed for personal growth (MSEd, 2024). In

the GS, even when students make mistakes, the motivating prompts/feedback

encouraged them to try again, reinforcing the idea that mastery is achievable

through effort.

The last component of the theory is relatedness. Relatedness refers to the

sense of connection and interaction with others (Kalinauskas, 2014). This was

achieved by making activities as Team-Based Challenges (group with three

members) where students must combine their ideas to meet a common objective.

Students have different roles to play in the activities either as a leader, secretary,
 56

and verifier. As a leader, one student guides the group’s overall approach. The

secretary is in charge in documenting findings and solutions. Meanwhile, the third

student take on the role of becoming a verifier, who is assigned for computer

navigation. The division of labor ensures that each team member contributed

meaningfully to the task, leveraging their unique strengths and skills. This

collaborative aspect encouraged students to work collectively, share their ideas,

and support each other, satisfying their need for relatedness while enhancing

teamwork and collaborative creativity. According to Kalinauskas (as cited in Zhang,

2023), gamification can result in the active acceleration of students’ motivation,

which in turn influences self-determination and creativity in the long run.

Technology plays a crucial factor in enabling gamified interventions

(Antonio & Tamban, 2022; Medico et al., 2023). Students' attention can be

captured and encouraged to actively participate in learning activities through the

use of technology, which can offer immersive and interactive gamified experiences

(Garcia & Sabay, 2020; Aloya et al., 2024). Technology supports students in

understanding abstract mathematical concepts more easily, which enhances their

learning and helps improve their performance in the subject. In fact, research

suggests that technology aids in solidifying the understanding of quadratic

equations and functions (Merle, 2024). By seamlessly integrating gamification

elements with technology, educators can effectively align instructional objectives

with the dynamic needs of students (Medico et al., 2023; Garcia & Sabay, 2020).

This is typically relevant during the pandemic, when face-to-face classes were held

suspended and students needed support to continue their learning even in the new
 57

remote set up. Similarly, the current study utilized technologies including

computers to facilitate gamified activities of the lesson.

In educational contexts, the effectiveness of gamification is underscored by

a body of research. Existing studies suggest that it has a positive impact on student

performance and achievement (Garcia et al., 2015; de-Marcos et al., 2016;

Yildirim, 2017; Çakıroğlu et al., 2017; Su & Cheng, 2015), attitude towards learning

(Yildirim (2017), participation and engagement (Huang & Hew, 2015; Çakıroğlu et

al., 2017; Da Rocha Seixas et al., 2016; Leaning, 2015), and motivation (Su &

Cheng, 2015).This is further supported by the study conducted by YIĞ & Sezgin

(2021) entitled “An Exploratory Holistic Analysis of Digital Gamification in

Mathematics Education”, researchers found that most of the research on

gamification concentrates on improving mathematical problem-solving, math

achievement, performance, motivation and engagement of the students. Although

there have been numerous gamification studies with promising results, the use of

gamification in education should not be restricted to motivation, satisfaction,

academic achievement, and engagement (Uz Bilgin & Gul, 2020). This is

particularly relevant in the current study where the dependent variables were

creativity and collaboration in mathematics which are different from the commonly

used variables in gamification studies. Moreover, more studies on gamification

were conducted online with face-to-face courses requiring further research (Nadi-

Ravandi & Batooli, 2022; Pozo-Sánchez et al., 2022). In line with this, the gamified

simulation intervention in this study was conducted via a face-to-face mode of

learning.
 58

Gamification normally incorporates features of collaboration for engaging

and motivating students (Lanuza, 2020; Corpuz-Sanchez & Pasia, n.d.; Lanuza et

al., 2020; Salansan et al., n.d.). Many gamified interventions are designed for

collaborative used. Collaboration may encourage students to work together

towards common goals such as finishing the task ahead of time and receiving high

points in return (Lanuza, 2020; Corpuz-Sanchez & Pasia, n.d.). This collaborative

aspect fosters a sense of community among students and enhances their

understanding of mathematical concepts (Salansan et al., n.d.). Moreover, it can

also improve student’s engagement and confidence for finishing the work as a

group combining the knowledge of one another (Corpuz-Sanchez & Pasia, n.d.).

It can also promote group cohesion, interaction, and performance in collaborative

learning environments (Uz Bilgin & Gul, 2020; Marti-Parreño et al., 2016). This

indicates that collaboration within a gamified intervention can effectively enhance

student engagement and motivation. In the context of the study, collaboration was

being promoted by structuring activities allowing students to discuss, reflect, and

refine on their ideas. This included the use of open-ended problems as challenges

within GS promoting discussion among students to arrive at an answer, the use of

feedback mechanism within GS helping them determine if the answer is correct of

needs to be refined, and the used of reward system encouraging students to work

together to achieve group success.

Gamification has also been effective in enhancing students collaboration

skills particularly in mathematics learning. In primary education, gamification has

been observed to create meaningful relationships in students' learning processes

 59

(Cunha et al., 2018), promote collaborative group dynamics, where stronger

students assist weaker peers (Kickmeier-Rust & Niggli, 2023), and improve

students' engagement in beneficial collaborative behaviors, such as asking

questions and helping others (Knutas et al., 2019). In a study, collaborative

gamified activities led to increased student performance levels, demonstrating the

effectiveness of teamwork in learning (Jagušt et al., 2018). These findings suggest

that gamification, when thoughtfully implemented, can enhance students'

collaboration in mathematics learning across various educational levels.

Studies have also shown that gamification may be an effective teaching

strategy for enhancing students’ creativity (Bourke, 2019; Alt & Raichel, 2020;

Krath et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2020; Bagher Khatibi et al., 2021; Oliveira et al.,

2023; Zhang, 2023; Chen et al., 2020). It can even promote both individual and

collective creativity of students (Parjanen & Hyypiä, 2019; Skaržauskienė &

Kalinauskas, 2014), as well as improve their creative problem-solving skills

(Taesotikul et al., 2021). Teaching creativity is a complex, elusive, and multifaceted

process (Beghetto, 2021) therefore, activities that interest students such as

gamified interventions need to be designed to help teach this skill (Khikmah, 2019).

One of the gamification elements that has the potential to enhance student’s

creativity and collaboration in math is through the use of challenges. Challenges

in gamified interventions stimulate problem-solving and critical thinking, fostering

creativity in math as students navigate obstacles and explore innovative solutions

within engaging, interactive environments (Palomino et al., 2020). For Stolaki and

Economides (2018), challenges stimulate creativity through collaborative problem-

 60

solving and question generation, enhancing divergent thinking skills relevant to

various subjects, including math. Challenges push students to explore, innovate,

and persist, developing both their mathematical understanding and their ability to

think creatively. Without them, students may become disengaged, experience

limited growth, and miss out on opportunities to develop critical thinking, creativity,

and collaboration skills within gamified intervention.

The second potential element is the use of feedback. Students involved in

gamified interventions typically receive feedback as they complete tasks or solve

problems. In the reviewed research articles, feedback refers to the information

provided to players regarding their performance, progress, and actions within a

gamified intervention (Nob et al., 2024). By providing real-time prompts, feedback

allowed students to identify and correct their own mistakes helping them improve

their comprehension of mathematical ideas (Cruz & Palaoag, 2019; Deabanico &

Caballes, 2023). Feedback reduces misconceptions and reinforces correct

concepts, which improves learning outcomes (Merle, 2024). In gamified activities,

feedback encourages open communication within groups, as students work

together to address errors and refine their solutions. This system promotes shared

responsibility and collective problem-solving, ultimately improving collaboration by

valuing each member's contributions toward achieving common goals. Besides,

feedback when combine with collaboration in a physical setting can promote

student’s creativity in mathematics (Nob et al., 2024). Collaborative efforts,

supported by clear feedback, can guide students through repeated cycles of

 61

exploring and confirming solutions which can result to a novel and meaningful

solutions to problems.

The third potential element is the use of rewards. Rewards in gamified

interventions played an important role in engaging and motivating the students as

emphasized by existing studies (Lanuza, 2020; Lanuza et al., 2020). Rewards can

help students get away from boredom feeling (Merle, 2024). It can provide a sense

of enjoyment among students while performing activities because they have

something to look forward to (Magat, 2022). It can also promote learning,

exploration, and creativity (Gallera, n.d.). By offering rewards in a gamified

intervention such as advancing students to higher levels of the game, earning

additional points in the final examination, or providing tangible incentives such as

candies and chocolates after accomplishing a task, gamification provides a

dynamic environment where students are driven to actively participate, share

ideas, and support one another in solving complex problems, ultimately

strengthening collaboration (Pelegro, 2022; Lanuza, 2020; Lanuza et al., 2020).

Additionally, Galetta (2013) also claimed that the effect of reward on creativity

development and ideas generation has already been widely tested in

brainstorming sessions where participants improve in their creative output if

members are rewarded not only for their contributions but also for what those

contributions can inspire other participants.

The reviewed studies highlight that challenges, feedback, and rewards are

crucial elements in gamified interventions which do not only enhance engagement

and motivation but significantly enhance students' creativity, collaboration, and

 62

problem-solving abilities in mathematics (Zhang, 2023; Nob et al., 2024; Galetta,

2013). In line with this, the present study utilized the same gamification elements.

Gamified challenges were provided where students have to work collaboratively.

Points were awarded for every correct response as well as badges as symbolic

representations of their accomplishments. Moreover, feedback mechanisms were

also integrated for every response allowing students to immediately check their

answers and refine them as needed.

While gamification can be a valuable instructional strategy, this may not

apply to all topics that require deep theoretical understanding (Lanuza, 2020). This

is because many of the abstract math concepts in advanced mathematics involve

complex relationships and structures that are hard to gamify (Nob et al., 2024).

Simplifying mathematical concepts through gamification may reduce the level of

rigor required to fully understand them. As a result, students might miss important

complex details, which can limit their deeper understanding of the lesson. In

addition, abstract concepts are not physically observable, making it difficult to

represent them in concrete ways. This creates a challenge in designing game

mechanics that effectively communicate these abstract ideas in a way that

students can relate to and engage with.

One way to improve the effectiveness of gamification is combine it with

interactive simulation so that students not only explore abstract mathematical

concepts through simulation but also benefit from the fun learning experience

through gamification (Nob et al., 2024). The researchers further suggested if their

synergy is effective specially in learning abstract concepts in calculus.

 63

Synergizing Gamification and Simulation in Education

Gamification and simulations are powerful tools when used strategically

(Bird, 2024). While simulations assist in visualizing and interacting with abstract

concepts, gamification elements can be integrated to improve engagement by

adding a layer of challenge and fun, motivating the intended users in the learning

process (Roolvink, 2024). As a result, the combined approach enables the

monitoring of progress and provides specific feedback, which enhances skill

development. Redhead & Saunders (2019) suggests that gamification and

simulations methods should be developed in line with the learning requirements of

end users because they synergize to create an effective training platform.

One way to synergize gamification and simulation to facilitate learning is

through designing educational simulation games (Zhang, 2023). Educational

simulation games are serious games or a fully-fledged game (Pirker & Gütl, 2015).

It involves the use of digital games to improve and promote learning by taking

advantage of entertainment (Li et al., 2017). Gamification and simulation are key

core components of every serious game (Redhead & Saunders, 2019). Without

the element of gamification, a serious game loses its distinct power to boost

learning and motivation through intrinsic rewards. Simulations, on the other hand,

provide the essential behaviors needed to create a virtual environment. By

combining these elements, their strengths are combined, merging the risk and

reward features of gamification with the unpredictable aspects of simulations. This

creates a platform that stays engaging while teaching users effectively and

efficiently.
 64

A carefully designed simulation game serves as an important tool for

education. This method of playful learning has been used for more than 70 years

in various disciplines and hundreds of simulation games already exist now (Pászto

et al., 2021). According to Hui and Mahmud (2023), simulation games impact the

students' mathematical skills primarily through the various reasoning tasks in

digital game-based learning mathematical activities. These games often involve

math-related missions, which require players to use their knowledge in strategic

decision-making, problem-solving, and real-world contexts, reinforcing the

application of math skills through interactive gameplay (Pan et al., 2022)

The second approach to synergize gamification and simulation is through

designing educational gamified simulations (Zhang, 2023; Pirker & Gütl, 2015).

Neendoor (2024) defined training with gamified simulation as a form of gamification

where the concepts of gaming elements are combined into simulated

environments. This include the use of challenges, competitions, and rewards like

points and badges being integrated within a simulation environment to make

learning more enjoyable and interactive. Adding these elements is a comparatively

cost-effective way of adapting existing processes and services to make them more

fun instead of designing an entire game, that is expensive and requires lots of

resources and specialists (Pirker & Gütl, 2015). This innovative approach creates

an engaging and effective platform for developing skills and transferring of

knowledge.

There are four key benefits of training with gamified simulation (Neendoor,

2024). First, it reshapes students’ learning experiences by providing equal access

 65

to an interactive platform where they can develop and apply critical skills across

different scenarios. Second, it enhances access to feedback and enables more

effective tracking of student progress. Third, it creates a dynamic learning

environment that promotes faster understanding of complex concepts and

enhances long-term retention. Fourth, gamification introduces elements of

excitement and healthy competition into the learning process, making education

inherently enjoyable. These features of gamified simulations capture and sustain

students’ interest. As a result, motivation and engagement can significantly

increase, with student motivation rising by nearly 48%, fostering a more positive

outlook toward learning.

The synergy of gamification and simulation has been explored in various

disciplines emphasizing positive outcomes on the user’s performance (Kerfoot &

Kissane, 2014; Ambrosio et al., 2016; López Carrillo et al., 2019; Brom et al., 2019,

Pratiwi & Istiyowati, 2020; Redelinghuys, 2021). However, in the context of

mathematics education, little is known about the potential of gamified simulations

as the focus is primarily on simulation game (Panoutsopoulos & Sampson, 2012;

Koparan, 2019; Cerqueira et al., 2020; Barbieri et al., 2021). One possible

explanation for this is line with Pirker and Gütl (2015) notion that simulation games

could provide a more playful character and engaging experience than gamified

simulations. Moreover, this lack of research on gamified simulations particularly for

enhancing students’ creativity and collaboration in math suggest that the full

potential of this intervention has not been clearly documented in the literature.

Addressing this gap is critical, as GS hold promise for creating a more interactive
 66

and engaging environment for students by combining the motivational aspects of

gamification with the exploratory nature of simulations. To address this gap, the

current study aimed to develop GS for enhancing student’s creativity and

collaboration in math. They were integrated in the developed learning packets

which serve as ready to use instructional material for teachers to use in the

classroom which also serves as practical guide for them how to effectively combine

these two powerful interventions.

Potential of Gamified Simulation in Learning Calculus

Calculus stands out as a crucial course commonly taken by students. It

focuses on studying the rate of change of variables and how to develop modeling

systems of such changes (Hammoudi & Grira, 2023). This subject is a critical

component of higher mathematics and serves as a gateway to more advanced

studies in various scientific disciplines (Roble, 2017; Domondon et al., 2022). It is

a foundation on which other skills can be built and is often a requirement or

prerequisite for STEM programmes (Alzubaidi & Jones, 2018; Roble, 2017).

Calculus performs an essential role in enhancing students higher-order

thinking skills including problem-solving, creativity, and critical thinking, particularly

through innovative teaching methods like Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and

creative reasoning assessments. PBL encourages students to engage deeply with

calculus concepts, requiring them to utilize prior knowledge, generate hypotheses,

and apply logical analysis, thereby enhancing their critical thinking skills (Djidu &

Jailani, 2019). Additionally, studies show that creative reasoning opportunities in

calculus assessments promote plausible mathematical arguments over rote

 67

learning, which is essential for developing problem-solving abilities (Mac an Bhaird

et al., 2017). Furthermore, initiatives like the Calculus for Kids project demonstrate

that even younger students can achieve high levels of understanding in calculus

through technology, showcasing the potential for creativity and collaboration in

learning environments (Chin et al., 2017). While traditional methods often

emphasize rote memorization, incorporating higher order thinking strategies in

calculus instruction fosters deeper learning and better equips students to tackle

complex real-world problems.

Despite its importance, research has consistently shown that calculus is one

of the most challenging subjects for students (Fauzan & Arnawa, 2021). Some of

the difficulties experienced by senior high students were lack of knowledge of the

concepts, poor application, complicated formulas and processes, and confusion in

understanding the problem (Domondon et al., 2022). Without adequate support to

address these challenges, students may struggle to grasp prerequisite topics,

leading to difficulties in their college courses and increasing the risk of dropping

out before finishing their formal education. Furthermore, calculus students

generally have a very high failure and dropout rates in tertiary education. Many

students when encountering difficulties with calculus, even end up abandoning

their undergraduate programs (Cezar et al., 2019). Teaching calculus therefore is

challenging area regardless of which educational institution is offering the

instruction (Petropoulou et al, 2016), as many students often struggle to engage

with the subject matter and apply the knowledge they have gained (Lee et al.,

2023). As Arsyad et al. (2017) point out, calculus teaching should be arranged well,
 68

so that goals in the cognitive, affective and also psychomotor area are met. This

gap in understanding highlights the need for innovative teaching strategies that go

beyond conventional instruction.

Gamification has shown promising results in enhancing calculus education.

Studies indicate that gamification can improve student engagement, attendance,

and performance in calculus courses (Flores et al., 2020). The implementation of

challenge-based gamification has been found to contribute to meaningful learning

of complex concepts like solids of revolution (Flores et al., 2016). Additionally, it

can also promote deeper conceptual understanding through engaging problem-

solving, immediate feedback, and visual manipulation, fostering purposeful

engagement and ownership of the learning process (Wilson et al., 2016).

Simulation-based learning, on the other hand, provides students with

dynamic visualizations and interactive tools needed to explore mathematical

principles and establish a deeper understanding (De Federico & Avogradini, 2017).

This is particularly useful in calculus, where concepts like limits and derivatives are

often difficult to understand through static diagrams alone. By allowing students to

manipulate variables and observe outcomes, simulations promote deeper

conceptual understanding and provide immediate feedback, which can enhance

both individual and group learning.

Gamification and simulation-based interventions such as gamified

intervention therefore offer a promising approach to address students’ difficulties

in learning Calculus. As noted by Bressoud et al. (2016), the abstraction of calculus

emerges as one of the most prominent issues in learning the subject, primarily
 69

because of the complexity and cognitive demands it places on learners. Many

students struggle to visualize abstract concepts, as mathematics often moves into

strict arithmetic rather than geometric understanding (Pinter & Siddiqui, 2024). As

highlighted in recent studies, students face significant difficulties when

transitioning from arithmetic and algebra, which deal with finite and tangible

numbers, to the more abstract concepts of limits, derivatives, and integrals that are

foundational to calculus (Tall, 1992). In this context, visualization plays a crucial

role in understanding complex calculus topics which are difficult to grasp using

traditional teaching methods alone. The use of simulations can therefore be

beneficial allowing students to interact with mathematical models in real-time,

enabling them to see how functions behave as variables change (Bressoud et al.,

2016). This hands-on approach helps students gain a more intuitive understanding

of these abstract concepts.

Gamification further enhances the learning process by incorporating

elements such as feedback and rewards to promote students’ creativity and

collaboration. Through feedback, gamification allowed students to identify and

correct their own mistakes helping them improve their comprehension of

mathematical ideas (Cruz & Palaoag, 2019; Deabanico & Caballes, 2023; Merle,

2024). This mechanism provides opportunity for students to evaluate their answer

and refine it if necessary. By allowing students to experiment with different

approaches in a gamified environment, they are more likely to develop creative

problem-solving strategies, which are essential for mastering calculus. Moreover,

by offering rewards, gamification provides a dynamic environment where students

 70

are driven to actively participate in the activities (Pelegro, 2022; Lanuza, 2020;

Lanuza et al., 2020).

Summary

As a summary, creativity and collaboration are two essential skills need to

be developed among learners (Kuhn, 2015; Zhang, 2023). These skills lay the

foundation for holistic mathematical learning, equipping students to navigate both

academic and real-world challenges (Alexandra & Barton, 2017; Roble, 2017;

Davis & Bos, 2018; Tracy & Xu, 2018; Pitt, 2019; Subanji & Nusantara, 2022;

Febrianti & Dasari, 2024; Istikomah et al., 2024). Despite their importance in

mathematics education, these skills are often neglected in current mathematics

teaching practices due to several reasons as identified in the existing studies

(Oates et al., 2016; Walia & Walia, 2017; Agustini & Fajriyah, 2017; Bature &

Atweh, 2019; Nilimaa, 2023; Febrianti & Dasari, 2024). Their findings emphasized

the need for intentional efforts to integrate both creativity and collaboration more

effectively into mathematics classroom.

Gamification and simulation emerged as two of the powerful strategies

commonly used in mathematics education to promote learning. Although the

individual use of these interventions has been shown to enhance student’s

creativity and collaboration in mathematics education (Wang et al., 2016;

Gruntowicz, 2020; Chacón-Castro et al., 2022; Mukazi, 2022; Lubis, 2023;

Editorial, 2024; Nob et al., 2024), their utilization is associated with challenges. In

view of these, literatures suggest combining both features to maximize their

 71

complementary strengths (Pirker & Gütl, 2015; Redhead & Saunders, 2019;

Roolvink, 2024; Zhang, 2023; Nob et al., 2024).

Synergizing gamification and simulation in the context of gamified

simulation possess a promising potential in mathematics education (Pirker & Gütl,

2015; Redhead & Saunders, 2019; Zhang, 2023; Roolvink, 2024). While

simulations assist in visualizing and interacting with abstract concepts,

gamification elements can be integrated to improve engagement by adding a layer

of challenge and fun, motivating the intended users in the learning process

(Roolvink, 2024). This synergy however has not been well explored in mathematics

education particularly for enhancing student’s creativity and collaboration since the

focus is on simulations games (Panoutsopoulos & Sampson, 2012; Koparan,

2019; Cerqueira et al., 2020; Barbieri et al., 2021). To address the gap, the current

research proposed the development and evaluation of learning packets with

embedded gamified simulation to enhance student’s creativity and collaboration in

mathematics education.

The choice of theoretical frameworks governing the development of GS has

been crucial in the study. These frameworks have been chosen based on their

potential in fostering creativity and collaboration skills among students. These

include productive failure, mathematical creative model, computer-supported

collaborative learning, inquiry-based learning by, and self-determination theory.

The intervention started by presenting students with open-ended challenge

within GS which allowed them to explore mathematical concepts on their own

before receiving direct instruction. In this setting, students were not expected to
 72

solve the problem correctly at this stage due to their lack of prior knowledge and

are most likely to commit mistakes. This creates opportunities for students to

struggle first with the concepts and experience productive failure (Kapur, 2008).

The fundamental hypothesis of productive failure is that students will better

understand some mathematical explanations after struggling to solve a problem

than they would have if they did not have the experience of struggling to solve that

problem (Kerrigan et al., 2021). Bicer (2021) claimed that allowing students to

make mistakes can lead them to find uncommon methods of solutions that they

can promote their fluency, flexibility, and originality in mathematics.

Guided with the Mathematical Creativity Model by Subanji and Nusantara

(2022), students in the study were exposed to three levels of activities consisting

of imitation, modification, and creation which are requirements for fostering

mathematical creativity. Tasks in the imitation level involved students replicating

an existing solution. This process focuses on directly applying known procedures

or solutions to solving mathematical problems without altering them. This was

followed by the tasks in the modification level which introduced some changes in

the previously given problem to generate new challenges or tasks. The goal of

which was to solve the modified problem using the same procedures introduced.

Finally, students proceeded with the culmination of mathematical creativity which

is the creation level. In this context, students create mathematical products (e.g.

mathematical models) satisfying the problem conditions.

Self-Determination Theory according to Ryan and Deci (2017) posits that

humans have three innate psychological needs that drive motivation namely
 73

autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When these needs are satisfied,

Kalinauskas (as cited in Zhang, 2023) claimed that gamified intervention can result

in the active acceleration of students’ motivation, which in turn influences self-

determination and mathematical creativity in the long run. In the study, one of the

ways to promote the student’s autonomy was giving them the freedom to modify

the problem in the “modification level” based on their preferences but also in

presenting their solutions based on their comfort levels and preferences. In terms

of competence, this skill was achieved by sequencing tasks properly, by providing

positive reinforcement in every successful creation, as well as the integration of

feedback mechanisms within GS. Lastly, relatedness was achieved by presenting

Team-Based Challenges (group with three members) where students must

combine their ideas to meet a common objective. Students have different roles to

play in the activities to maximize participation and active involvement.

Inspired by Jeong and Hmelo-Silver (2016) framework for collaborative

learning using technology, activities in the learning packets were designed to

engage students in a joint task, communicate from one another, engage in

productive collaborative learning processes, and engage in co-construction. Joint

tasks included solving open-ended mathematical problems or creating functions to

meet specific criteria within GS. These tasks were inherently collaborative,

requiring students to share ideas and work together toward a shared goal. To

foster effective communication, simulations incorporated immediate feedback

mechanisms. When students provided incorrect answers, the system delivers

motivating prompts, encouraging group dialogue and idea exchange. In terms of

 74

engaging students in productive collaborative learning processes, group members

were assigned specific roles to ensure active participation and accountability in

every activity. Finally, the study emphasized co-construction by requiring students

to create shared outputs, such as mathematical models. This process enabled

students to collectively build knowledge, refine their ideas, and arrive at original

solutions that reflect their combined efforts.

Finally, using the ADDIE model, the study ensured that the developed

learning packets do not only meet the educational goals of the lesson but also

supports effective teaching strategies making it beneficial for both students and

teachers.
 Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the procedures used in collecting and analyzing the

data per phase of the study. It includes a discussion of the research design, the

locale of the study, the participants of the study, the instrument used, collection of

data, and the statistical technique employed for data processing and analysis.

Phase 1: Design, Development and Validation of Gamified Simulation

Learning Packet

Research Designs

(1) Exploratory Research Design. Exploratory research design is conducted

to investigate problems that are not clearly defined, often addressing new issues

with little or no prior research (Olawale et al., 2023). It is typically used in the early

stages of research when the objective is theory or model development (Ramdorai

et al., 2015). This design allows for the collection of either primary data (e.g.,

interviews or surveys) or secondary data (e.g., literature reviews) in an

unstructured format, interpreted using informal procedures (Reiter, 2017). While

findings from exploratory studies are not usually generalizable, the approach is

valuable for answering foundational questions such as "what," "how," and "why".

This design is appropriate for the present study, as the goal was to develop a

model which serves as the basis for designing gamified simulation learning packet

for enhancing students’ creativity and collaboration, a topic that is typically less

explored in the field of mathematics. The current study relies on secondary

 76

research methods by synthesizing insights from existing literature to inform the

development of the model, making exploratory research an ideal approach.

(2) Descriptive Research Design. Descriptive research design is a type of

research design that aims to describe and analyze the characteristics of a

particular phenomenon or group (Andrade, 2019) without considering causal or

other hypotheses (Aggarwal & Ranganathan, 2019). It is an excellent choice when

the study aims to determine traits, frequencies, trends, and classifications

(McCombes, 2022). In the current study, this design was appropriate because it

allowed the researcher to gather expert evaluations of the developed gamified

simulation learning packet on specific aspects of content, presentation and

organization, format, and accuracy and up to date information without needing to

establish causal relationships. This design focuses on describing and analyzing

characteristics which aligns with the goal of identifying strengths, trends, and areas

for improvement in the learning packet based on expert ratings. To complement

the quantitative ratings, qualitative feedback was also collected from the experts

to provide deeper insights into the qualities of the developed material based on the

following factors.

Research Setting

This study was conducted in the Division of El Salvador City which is the

newest established Division in Region 10. Teacher experts who participated in the

validation process came from the secondary schools including Cogon National

High School, Molugan National High School, and El Salvador City High School.
 77

Participants of the Study

(1) Master Teachers. Teacher experts assigned to validate the developed

gamified simulation learning packet were identified using purposive sampling

based on the set criteria 1) licensed professionals, 2) public school teachers, 3)

had at least ten years of teaching experience in math, 4) teaching in the secondary

level, 5) with a Master Teacher position during the SY 2024-2025, 6) learning

packet or module writer, 7) evaluators for instructional materials in the Division,

and 8) express voluntary commitment to join in the study. Table 1 below shows the

distribution of Expert Evaluators in terms of teaching experience in years.

Table 1. Distribution of Evaluators in Terms of Teaching Experience

Teaching Experience (in years) Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

Above 20 2 50.00
10 – 20 2 50.00
Total 4 100.00

Research Instruments

(1) Standardized Evaluation Tool for Print Materials. The developed

gamified simulation learning packet was assessed based on four key criteria:

content, presentation and organization, format, and accuracy and up-to-datedness

of information, utilizing a standardized evaluation tool from the Department of

Education’s Learning Resource Management and Development System (LRMDS).

The evaluation employed a four-point scale, where a score of 4 indicated Very

Satisfactory, 3 Satisfactory, 2 Poor, and 1 Not Satisfactory. To meet the minimum

requirements, the material needed to obtain at least 21 out of 28 points for content,
 78

54 out of 72 points for format, 15 out of 20 points for presentation and organization,

and a perfect 24 out of 24 points for accuracy and current relevance of information.

A copy of the instrument is attached in the appendices (Please see appendix 5).

(2) Gamified Simulation Learning Packet (GSLP) Alignment and Quality

Evaluation Checklist. To evaluate the alignment and the quality of the gamified

simulations within the learning packet, the researcher created an Alignment and

Quality Evaluation Checklist with indicators guided by the features identified in the

proposed model for enhancing creativity and collaboration. The instrument has 5

domains namely simulation-based lesson design with 4 indicators, gamification

elements with 10 indicators, support for creativity with 3 indicators, support for

collaboration with 3 indicators, and aesthetics and engagement with 3 indicators

with a total of 23 indicators. A scoring scale of 1 means “Strongly Disagree”, 2

means “Disagree”, 3 means “Agree”, and 4 means “Strongly Agree”. An overall

mean score of 3.26 to 4.00 indicates that the gamified simulation is “Highly

Aligned” with the model, 2.51 to 3.25 indicates that the gamified simulation is

moderately aligned with the model, suggesting minor improvements needed, 1.76

to 2.50 indicates that the gamified simulation is partially aligned with the model,

suggesting significant room for improvement, and 1.00 to 1.75 indicates that the

gamified simulation is poorly aligned with the model, suggesting redesign. A copy

of the instrument is attached in the appendices (Please see appendix 6).

 79

Data Gathering Procedures

In the field of instructional design, the ADDIE model is one of the most

popular methodologies for structuring course content and enhancing the success

of training programs (Boogaard, 2019; Groh, 2024). It provides a systematic

framework comprising of five phases namely Analysis, Design, Development,

Implementation, and Evaluation. Various versions of the ADDIE model are

available in the literature. In the current research, the researcher adapted

Chyung's (2008) version of the ADDIE model, incorporating modifications to better

align with the nature of the study.

Analysis Phase

Step 1. Conduct Literature Review. As part of the analysis phase of the

ADDIE model, a literature review was conducted to examine existing studies

related to the integration of simulation, gamification, and GeoGebra in

mathematics education. The purpose of the review was to identify effective

instructional features, understand how various approaches support the

development of creativity and collaboration, and determine the gaps in current

research that the present study could address through the design of a gamified

simulation learning packet.

The review focused on 25 peer-reviewed studies that employed GeoGebra

either as a simulation tool or within gamified learning environments, and that aimed

to develop higher-order skills such as creativity and collaboration. Each study was

analyzed in terms of three critical aspects: (1) the features and instructional
 80

strategies implemented, (2) the documented strengths or positive learning

outcomes, and (3) the observed weaknesses, limitations, or missing elements.

These findings were organized into a literature matrix in Table 2, which served as

a visual and analytical tool to compare the scope and impact of various

interventions.

Table 2. Reviewed Studies on Gamification and Simulation with GeoGebra in

Mathematics

Author/Year Features Strengths Weaknesses

1. Yorganci Simulations contain Students develop No gamification
(2018) visual their own elements used,
representations, simulation – creativity and
interactive learning constructivist collaboration are not
environments and learning approach measured,
rich examples
2. Karomah et Students create Emphasized No gamification; did
al. (2024) GeoGebra applets; creativity levels; not focus on
observed stages of used a simulation collaboration; small
creative process tool to visualize sample size
(synthesizing → creative outcomes
applying ideas)
3. Prabawanto TTW cycle (Think, Encourages deep Lacks gamification
& Jupri Talk, Write); conceptual elements; does not
(2018) collaborative understanding, include feedback
thinking; student verbalization, and mechanics or
reflections; reflection; challenge-based
GeoGebra promotes simulations
simulation-assisted creativity
tasks
4. Rachmawati Effectiveness of Improved No gamification
et al. (2023) open-ended students’ elements used,
approach assisted mathematical collaboration not
by GeoGebra creativity measured
Simulation
5. Febrianti & Use of GeoGebra Demonstrated a Did not include
Dasari Classroom in both positive effect of gamification (no
(2024). face-to-face and GeoGebra points, badges,
home-based Classroom on challenges); media
learning; Pre-post student creativity; quality did not
 81

creativity highlighted significantly impact

measurement; interactivity learning outcomes
Focus on
interactivity and
media quality
6. Istikomah et Outdoor geometry Promoted creative No gamification
al. (2024) exploration; photo- problem elements; no
based problem formulation using structured feedback
formulation; real-world system; collaboration
GeoGebra contexts; was not a central
experimentation; emphasized idea component
open-ended tasks generation and
visual thinking
7. Ayyubi et al. Problem-Based Promotes creative Lacks gamification
(2024) Learning (PBL), and critical elements (no points,
GeoGebra-assisted thinking in solving feedback, badges);
simulations, open- non-routine collaboration is not
ended and problems; emphasized; teacher-
contextual tasks integrates dependent
authentic, real-life
tasks
8. Romaito et Quasi-experimental Provided No gamification
al. (2021) design; comparison quantitative elements; no focus on
of GeoGebra vs. evidence that collaboration; limited
conventional GeoGebra to comparison, not
instruction; pre-post enhances creative explanation of
creativity test thinking more than creative processes
traditional
methods
9. Selvy et al. Problem-Based GeoGebra No gamification;
(2020) Learning (PBL), enhances creative collaboration only
GeoGebra- thinking and implied, not explicitly
assisted, motivation more structured; limited to
randomized control than PBL alone; motivation and
group, focus on promotes creativity focus
creativity & constructivist
motivation learning
10. Maisyarah Developmental Validated and No gamification
& Mulyono research; 4-D found practical elements; no
(2020). model; GeoGebra + and effective; collaboration focus;
Problem-Based improved creative effectiveness focused
Learning (PBL); thinking; aligned on product evaluation,
trials with class XI with PBL not learner
students framework experience
 82

11. Kurniawan Task-based Promoted self- No gamification

& Rahadyan interview; regulated features; collaboration
(2022). GeoGebra problem- learning; some not addressed;
solving; qualitative students improvement in
analysis by discovered new creativity was limited
creativity/self- methods, showing or uneven across
regulated signs of creative levels
categories thinking
12. Bachore Quasi- Empirical support No gamification;
(2021) experimental; showing collaboration not
independent GeoGebra present; lacks
sample t-test; significantly detailed analysis of
GeoGebra vs. enhances creative how creativity
conventional thinking over improved or unfolded
teaching; pre-post conventional
creativity test methods
13. Kozlowski & Literature review; Strong theoretical No empirical data;
Chamberlin CBMI framework; foundation; gamification and
(2019). focus on creative emphasizes the collaboration absent;
learning processes importance of focuses only on gifted
and conceptual valuing creative students, not general
understanding output and population
divergent thinking
14. Dos Santos GeoGebra Explores AI- Gamification features
et al. (2022) Materials; large enhanced not explicitly included
task database; adaptive (e.g., badges, points);
automatic feedback; models collaboration not
feedback; cognitive learner behavior; mentioned; early-
science-informed supports stage design
task design autonomous
learning
15. Lukáč & Dynamic models in Combines visual Gamification not
Sekerák, GeoGebra; local modeling, local present; collaboration
(2015). and global feedback, and not discussed; focus
feedback; inquiry- interactive more on content
based design; learning; supports delivery than student
contextual digital contextual inquiry creativity
aids and engagement
16. Birgin & Quasi- Validated that No gamification
Topuz experimental; pre- GeoGebra with elements (e.g.,
(2021) test, post-test, collaboration badges, challenges);
delayed post-test; improves does not explore
collaborative achievement, creative thinking
retention, and processes specifically
 83

GeoGebra use; 62 attitudes;

Grade 7 students integrates CSCL
model
17. Takači et al. CSCL model; Strong focus on No gamified elements
(2015) GeoGebra collaborative (e.g., points, badges);
integration; learning and creativity not explicitly
university-level conceptual measured; feedback
calculus; pre- understanding; was teacher-led not
test/post-test; enhanced error systemized
interviews; error correction and
analysis reflection
18. Baya’a et al. GeoGebra; Highlights No gamified
(2017) collaborative pairs; conceptual elements; limited to
concept image richness and one geometry topic;
types (verbal, visual learning; creativity not directly
graphical, dynamic, shows how assessed; small
etc.); pre- and post- collaboration + sample size (n=8)
tests simulation support
angle
understanding
19. Salva et al. Collaborative Demonstrates Creativity not
(2024) problem-solving; improvement in measured;
GeoGebra use; affective gamification
communication skill (confidence) and components absent;
test; confidence cognitive limited to two class
questionnaire; t-test (communication) groups and self-report
abilities using for affective data
collaborative
GeoGebra
20. Yimer & Jigsaw strategy + Shows strong Gamification absent;
Feza GeoGebra; large conceptual gains creativity not explicitly
(2019). sample (n=150); and positive targeted; focuses on
attitude + concept attitude change conceptual knowledge
tests; grounded in using and attitude only
social collaborative
constructivism GeoGebra; blends
pedagogy and
technology
21. Lim & Gamification + Shows positive Small sample (n=4);
Leong GeoGebra; 2 motivational focuses on
(2017) learning games; impact of gamified motivation, not
observation + GeoGebra; creativity or
perception supports its use in collaboration; lacks
remedial and
 84

questionnaire; 4 primary math formal learning

remedial students settings outcome testing
22. Rivera- Focused on Explores how No student-level data
Núñez et al. continuing teacher teachers can on creativity or
(2025) education; action design their own learning outcomes; no
research; 8-stage gamified learning assessment of
training on gamified objects; student collaboration
GeoGebra design developed or gamification impact
instructional guide
for future use
23. Abar & Silva GeoGebra games; Strong alignment Very small sample
(2024) automatic with feedback- (n=4); content
feedback; based on driven knowledge was low in
Duval’s semiotic gamification; most students;
theory; small pilot supports use of creativity and
with 9th grade adaptive hints; collaboration not
students highlights visual directly measured
and algebraic
interplay
24. Dias et al. Developed a Aligns perfectly Lacks empirical data
(2024) gamified resource with the claim that or user testing; no
in GeoGebra for gamification formal assessment of
teaching high makes GeoGebra learning gains,
school functions; more usable and creativity, or
focus on usability & attractive; collaboration
interactivity improves student
engagement
25. Almeida & Developed 3D Reinforces No direct focus on
Castro GeoGebra-based GeoGebra’s utility creativity or
(2021) interactive models; in enhancing collaboration; not
focused on spatial visual designed for open-
vision and understanding ended problem
conceptual clarity and spatial solving or feedback
reasoning in mechanisms
mathematics and
engineering

Several key insights emerged from the literature review. First, GeoGebra

was consistently highlighted as a powerful tool for enhancing students’ conceptual

understanding and creative problem-solving through dynamic visualization,

interactive modeling, and open-ended task design. Many studies demonstrated

 85

improvements in mathematical creativity by engaging students in real-world

problems, exploratory learning, and reflective tasks. However, majority of these

interventions did not incorporate gamification elements such as feedback loops,

point systems, badges, or challenge-based learning mechanisms which are

components known to increase engagement, motivation, and persistence.

Second, while collaboration appeared in some studies, it was often

incidental or informally embedded in the learning process rather than intentionally

structured with measurable collaborative outcomes. Only a limited number of

GeoGebra studies used collaborative strategies rooted in social constructivist

models, such as the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL)

framework. Moreover, very few studies attempted to integrate simulation,

gamification, and collaborative learning in a cohesive and systematic way.

The findings from this review were instrumental in informing the design of

the gamified simulation learning packet developed in the present study. Effective

and evidence-based practices such as the use of open-ended and contextual

tasks, interactive simulations, and visual modeling were incorporated to promote

creativity. At the same time, gaps in the literature such as the absence of structured

collaboration and lack of gamified learning features were deliberately addressed

by embedding collaborative group work, feedback mechanisms, and other

gamified elements into the learning activities. This ensured that the design of the

learning packet was not only grounded in theory and prior research but also

responded directly to existing instructional limitations in the field.

 86

Overall, the literature review in the analysis phase was instrumental in

providing a strong empirical and pedagogical basis for the development phase. It

ensured that the learning intervention would be both innovative and relevant,

targeting unmet needs in mathematics education through the strategic synergy of

simulation, gamification, creativity, and collaboration.

Step 2. Conduct job/task analysis. After conducting literature review, the

researcher proceeded with conducting a job/task analysis. This involves identifying

the learning competencies students need to learn appropriate for gamified

simulation-based lessons. It is important to note that while gamified simulations

retain the core nature of simulations, its competencies must also closely align with

the strengths of interactive simulations. This ensures that gamified simulations

effectively target desired and appropriate learning outcomes (Nestel & Gough,

2017), to create a more meaningful and relevant learning experiences and

optimize its usage and impact (Kasperski et al., 2025). These competencies should

focus on abstract mathematical concepts which benefit from visual representation

and hands-on manipulation. These may include, but not limited to topics in

Probability (Koparan, 2019), Calculus (Yorgancı, 2018), Quadratic Functions

(Karomah et al., 2024), Geometry (Kurniawan & Rahadyan, 2022; Istikomah et al.,

2024), and Translations (Selvy et al., 2020). These topics often challenge students

to grasp relationships and behaviors that static methods cannot effectively convey.

However, with the use of interactive simulations, such as gamified simulations,

students can animate geometric figures and manipulate parameters in real time,

allowing for deeper exploration of mathematical ideas (Idris & Nor, 2010).
 87

By selecting competencies that encourage active learning, students are

prompted to explore, hypothesize, and draw conclusions within the simulation

(Idris & Nor, 2010). This approach not only enhances conceptual understanding

but also supports critical thinking and problem-solving skills, aligning with broader

educational goals like creativity and collaboration (Pirker & Gütl, 2015; Mukazi,

2022; Lubis, 2023).

Using these insights from the literature, the researcher developed selection

criteria to assess the suitability of learning competencies in relation to the strength

of interactive simulations, as outlined below in Table 3.

Table 3. Criteria for Selecting Competencies for Gamified Simulations

Criterion Description Decision Guide

1. Need for Competency benefits from Prioritize topics that are

visual visual or graphical challenging to teach using
representation representation, particularly for static methods but clearer
abstract or difficult concepts. through visualization.

2. Suitability for Competency allows students Choose competencies that

interactive to engage in interactive tasks can be represented in dynamic
simulation such as dragging points, simulations involving real-time
adjusting sliders, and manipulation.
observing immediate
feedback.

The researcher then evaluated all the learning competencies involving

Limits and Continuity in Basic Calculus following the recommendation of Yorganci

(2018) as appropriate topic for gamified simulation lessons. Only competencies

that aligned with these characteristics were included in the learning packet. This

ensured the selected learning outcomes would benefit from dynamic visualization

and interactivity, enhancing students’ conceptual understanding and engagement.

 88

Table 4. Evaluation of Competencies Based on Gamified Simulation Criteria

Learning Competencies Evaluation Lesson #
1. Illustrate the limit of a function using a table of Appropriate Lesson 1
values and the graph of the function
2. Distinguish between lim 𝑓(𝑥) and 𝑓(𝑐) Appropriate Lesson 2
𝑥→𝑐
3. Illustrate the limit laws Not Lesson not
Appropriate included in the
Packet
4. Apply the limit laws in evaluating the limit of Not Lesson not
algebraic functions (polynomial, rational, and Appropriate included in the
radical) Packet
5. Compute the limits of exponential, logarithmic, Appropriate Lesson 3
and trigonometric functions using tables of
values and graphs of the functions
6. Evaluate limits involving the expressions Appropriate Lesson 4
sin⁡(𝑥) 1−cos⁡(𝑥) 𝑒 𝑥 −1
, , and⁡ using tables of values
𝑥 𝑥 𝑥
7. Illustrate continuity of a function at a number Appropriate Lesson 5
8. Determine whether a function is continuous at a Appropriate
number or not
9. Illustrate continuity of a function on an interval Appropriate Lesson 6
10. Determine whether a function is continuous on Appropriate
an interval or not.
11. Illustrate different types of discontinuity Appropriate Lesson 7
(hole/removable, jump/essential,
asymptotic/infinite)”
12. Illustrate the Intermediate Value and Extreme Appropriate Lesson 8
Value Theorems

As shown in Table 4, ten out of the twelve non-negotiable learning

competencies under Limits and Continuity in Basic Calculus were deemed suitable

for gamified simulation-based lessons. These include competencies numbered 1

to 2 and 5 to 12. In contrast, competencies 3 and 4 were considered “Not

Appropriate” due to their intensive computational nature, which does not

significantly benefit from visual or interactive representations. Furthermore,

competencies 7 and 8 were merged as one lesson, along with competencies 9 and

10 to ensure a more organized and connected learning experience.

 89

Design Phase

The tasks involved in the design phase of the ADDIE model according to

Chyung (2008) includes writing instructional objectives, designing test instruments,

design instructional strategies, designing lesson plan, and identifying instructional

resource.

Step 1: Write instructional objectives. Based on the lessons identified in the

previous phase appropriate for gamified simulations, the researcher formulated

specific and measurable instructional objectives for each lesson aligned with the

goals for enhancing creativity and collaboration. Three instructional objectives

were carefully formulated to address both creativity and collaboration. The first two

objectives were designed to develop students’ creativity. In the first objective,

students were asked to design their own unique functions and apply the relevant

mathematical concept such as illustrating or solving limits to each function. The

second objective required students to create different functions that satisfy specific

limit conditions, generated through gamified simulations. The third objective

focused on developing collaboration skills. Students were expected to work

effectively in groups during simulation activities, and their collaboration was

assessed using a Collaboration Self-Assessment Tool. This tool provided a

structured way to measure students' participation and teamwork, ensuring that

collaboration is meaningfully integrated into the learning process. These

instructional objectives per lesson were outlined in Table 5.

 90

Table 5. Instructional Objectives per Lesson

Lesson Instructional Objectives
1. Illustrate Limit • At the end of the lesson, 90% of the students are expected to:
of Functions 1. Create at least three different functions and illustrate their limits as 𝑥 → 𝑐 (with c
chosen by the students) using tables of values and graphs, with the support of a
gamified simulation.
2. Design at least three different functions 𝑓(𝑥) such that lim 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑁, where M and
𝑥→𝑀
N are gamified simulation generated.
3. Demonstrate effective collaboration by actively participating in all assigned tasks,
as reflected by a score of 35 to 44 in the Collaboration Self-Assessment Tool,
indicating that collaboration skills are established.

2. Distinguish • At the end of the lesson, 90% of the students are expected to:
lim 𝑓(𝑥) & 𝑓(𝑐) 1. Create at least three different functions and compare lim 𝑓(𝑥) from 𝑓(𝑐) (with c
𝑥→𝑐 𝑥→𝑐
chosen by the students), supported by gamified simulation.
2. Design at least three different functions 𝑓(𝑥) such that lim 𝑓(𝑥) ≠ 𝑓 (𝑐), where c is
𝑥→𝑐
gamified simulation generated.
3. Demonstrate effective collaboration by actively participating in all assigned tasks,
as reflected by a score of 35 to 44 in the Collaboration Self-Assessment Tool,
indicating that collaboration skills are established.

3. Limits of • At the end of the lesson, 90% of the students are expected to:
exponential, 1. Create at least three different functions (involving exponential, logarithmic, and
logarithmic, trigonometric) and solve limits as 𝑥 → 𝑐 (with c chosen by the students) using
and tables of values and graphs, supported by gamified simulation.
trigonometric 2. Design at least three different functions 𝑓(𝑥) such that lim 𝑓 (𝑥) = 𝑀 and
𝑥→0
functions
lim 𝑓 (𝑥) = 𝑁 where M and N are gamified simulation generated.
𝑥→π/2
3. Demonstrate effective collaboration by actively participating in all assigned tasks,
as reflected by a score of 35 to 44 in the Collaboration Self-Assessment Tool,
indicating that collaboration skills are established.

4. Limits of • At the end of the lesson, 90% of the students are expected to:
indeterminate 1. Create at least three different functions (involving 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑥, 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑥, and⁡𝑒 𝑥 ) and solve
forms limits as 𝑥 → 𝑐 (with c chosen by the students) using tables of values and graphs,
supported by gamified simulation.
2. Design at least three different functions 𝑓(𝑥) such that 𝑓(𝑐) will result in
indeterminate form and lim 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝐿 where c and L are gamified simulation
𝑥→c
generated.
3. Demonstrate effective collaboration by actively participating in all assigned tasks,
as reflected by a score of 35 to 44 in the Collaboration Self-Assessment Tool,
indicating that collaboration skills are established.

5. Continuity of a • At the end of the lesson, 90% of the students are expected to:
function at a 1. Create at least three different functions and determine if it is continuous or not at
point a given c (with c chosen by the students), supported by gamified simulation.
2. Design at least three different functions 𝑓(𝑥) such that 𝑓(𝑥) is discontinuous at c,
where c is gamified simulation generated.
3. Demonstrate effective collaboration by actively participating in all assigned tasks,
as reflected by a score of 35 to 44 in the Collaboration Self-Assessment Tool,
indicating that collaboration skills are established.

6. Continuity of a • At the end of the lesson, 90% of the students are expected to:
function at an 1. Create at least three different functions and determine if it is continuous or not at
interval a given interval (with interval chosen by the students), supported by gamified
simulation.
 91

2. Design at least three different functions 𝑓(𝑥) such that 𝑓(𝑥) is discontinuous at an
interval, where the interval is gamified simulation generated.
3. Demonstrate effective collaboration by actively participating in all assigned tasks,
as reflected by a score of 35 to 44 in the Collaboration Self-Assessment Tool,
indicating that collaboration skills are established.
7. Types of • At the end of the lesson, 90% of the students are expected to:
discontinuity 1. Create at least three different functions, each demonstrating a distinct type of
discontinuity (removable, jump, or infinite) at a given c (with c chosen by the
students), supported by gamified simulation.
2. Design at least three different functions 𝑓(𝑥) with a jump essential discontinuity at
𝑥 = 3.
3. Demonstrate effective collaboration by actively participating in all assigned tasks,
as reflected by a score of 35 to 44 in the Collaboration Self-Assessment Tool,
indicating that collaboration skills are established.
8. Intermediate • At the end of the lesson, 90% of the students are expected to:
Value and 1. Create at least three different functions and determine the minimum and
Extreme Value maximum values given an interval (with interval chosen by the students),
Theorems supported by gamified simulation.
2. Design at least three different functions 𝑓(𝑥) with a maximum value at 𝑥 = 0 and
a minimum value at 𝑥 = 5.
3. Demonstrate effective collaboration by actively participating in all assigned tasks,
as reflected by a score of 35 to 44 in the Collaboration Self-Assessment Tool,
indicating that collaboration skills are established.

Step 2: Design test instruments. After formulating the instructional

objectives, the next step was to design appropriate test instruments to help assess

whether students have met the intended learning outcomes. In this study, two

types of assessments were utilized: formative assessments and a performance

task. Formative assessments consisted of activities conducted during the learning

process. These were designed to monitor students’ progress, provide timely

feedback, and guide instructional adjustments as needed. They helped ensure that

students stay engaged and supported throughout the lesson. Meanwhile, the

performance task served as a more comprehensive assessment, where students

were required to create a real-life problem that applies the mathematical concept

studied. This task encouraged them to make meaningful connections between

classroom learning and real-world situations, fostering both creativity and practical

understanding.
 92

In general, the test items included a combination of closed-ended questions,

which have only one correct answer, and open-ended questions, which require

students to generate diverse responses. The open-ended items were specifically

intended to measure fluency, flexibility, and originality which are key indicators of

mathematical creativity. Finally, all test instruments were carefully developed to

support and assess students’ creativity and collaboration, ensuring alignment with

the goals of the instructional design.

Step 3: Design instructional strategies. In this step, the researcher finalized

the model designed to help teachers in designing gamified simulations to enhance

students' creativity and collaboration. The crafting of the model was informed by

the findings from literature review. These insights provided a theoretical foundation

and guide the development of effective strategies that align with the goals of

fostering creativity and collaboration in the learning process. The final version of

the model is presented in the results section of this manuscript.

Step 4. Design lesson plan. In this step, the researcher designs the lesson

plan based on topics deemed appropriate for gamified simulations. The structure

and flow of the lesson were guided by the theoretical framework underpinning the

study. Each lesson begins with a brief review of the previous content, followed by

an open-ended question of the new lesson designed to stimulate students’

creativity and encourage collaboration early on based on Catarino et al. (2019).

This initial activity aimed to engage students actively. Afterward, the main concept

was introduced through a creativity model by Subanji & Nusantara (2022) that

emphasized key stages such as imitation, modification, and creation, allowing

 93

students to explore and build on their understanding in a dynamic, interactive

manner. Finally, the lesson ended with awards and recognition where groups

exhibiting collaboration and creativity in solving problems were acknowledged and

awarded with badges, aligned with Ryan & Deci (2017) self-determination theory.

Step 5. Identifying instructional resource. In this step, the researcher

identified the instructional resources necessary for developing the gamified

simulation learning packet. For the creation of the gamified simulations, essential

resources include simulation software (such as the old version of GeoGebra 5),

computers or laptops, and digital elements like emoticons for feedback and

engagement. For the preparation and distribution of printed materials, the required

resources consisted of bond paper, a printer, and ink. These resources were

carefully selected to support both the digital and physical components of the

learning packet and to ensure effective delivery of the instructional content.

Development Phase

The tasks included in this phase of the study involved the development of

the gamified simulation, development of user’s guide, development of the learning

packet where gamified simulations were embedded, and creation and validation of

the gamified simulation alignment and quality evaluation checklist.

Step 1: Develop Gamified Simulations. The development of the gamified

simulations was implemented using GeoGebra 5, a free and open-source dynamic

mathematics software that combines geometry, algebra, calculus, and

spreadsheet capabilities in a single interactive platform. Its accessibility and

 94

versatility made it an ideal tool for creating visually rich and responsive simulations

aligned with mathematical learning goals.

To embed gamification elements into the simulations, the researcher

maximized GeoGebra’s scripting features, particularly GeoGebra Script

(GGBScript) and JavaScript. These scripting tools enabled the creation of dynamic

interactions that simulate game-like experiences while supporting conceptual

understanding. Specifically, the researcher integrated the following gamification

features such as challenges, feedback mechanisms, and rewards system. First, in

terms of challenges, each simulation included task-based challenges designed to

promote engagement and critical thinking. These challenges were aligned with the

level of cognitive demand (e.g., imitation, modification, or creation) and varied in

form, including open-ended problems, structured problem-posing tasks, and

interest-based challenges. Using scripting, challenge conditions were set so that

simulations could respond to student inputs, evaluate correctness, and activate

rewards or prompts. Second, in terms of rewards system, scripting was used to

assign points based on the completion and accuracy of tasks. Correct responses

would trigger an increase in the score, helping students track their progress and

stay motivated in the simulation activities. Third, through conditional statements

and dynamic text fields, the simulations provided instant feedback such as

“Correct!”, “Please Try Again,” or hints when incorrect answers were submitted.

This feedback guided learners while maintaining their momentum. Moreover, in

the Creation-level simulations, a “Generate New Problem” button was scripted to

randomly create new problems based on predefined criteria. Students could click
 95

this until a problem that matched their interest appeared, ensuring relevance and

autonomy.

Through these features, the GeoGebra-based simulations were

transformed into interactive and motivational environments, where students were

not only learning mathematical content but also engaging with it in a game-like

structure. The use of scripting enabled a seamless blend of pedagogical goals and

gamified mechanics, supporting creativity, collaboration, and sustained

engagement throughout the learning process.

Moreover, for each topic, five distinct simulation files were developed, each

aligned with a specific phase of the lesson and a corresponding instructional goal.

For the Warm-Up Activity, a simulation was designed to activate prior knowledge

and engage students at the start of the lesson. This simulation includes low-stakes

tasks and interactive visual elements that help learners recall and apply

foundational concepts, thereby preparing them for deeper mathematical thinking.

In the Open-Ended Problem phase, a separate simulation was crafted to promote

divergent thinking. It presents students with real-life contextual problems that have

multiple possible solutions, encouraging exploration of various solution paths. This

format fosters both creativity and collaborative engagement among learners. At

the Imitation Level, the simulation focuses on building conceptual understanding

through structured exploration. Students are guided to follow modeled examples,

recognize patterns, and solve interest-based problems. This phase emphasizes

guided practice and reinforcement of key mathematical concepts. The Modification

Level features a simulation designed to encourage flexible thinking and problem

 96

adaptation. In this activity, students are prompted to alter elements of the given

problems such as functions or parameters and solve their newly constructed

versions. This level promotes structured problem-posing and supports reasoning

in a collaborative context. Finally, the Creation Level introduces a simulation that

challenges students to construct original mathematical models or functions based

on set conditions. A key feature of this simulation is the “generate new problem”

option, which allows learners to go through cycles of system-generated problems

until they find one that aligns with their interests. This level promotes high-level

creativity, independent thinking, and group collaboration.

Each simulation was intentionally designed to scaffold students from basic

recall to original creation, supporting the overarching goals of the instructional

model namely, to cultivate mathematical creativity and collaboration through a

progressive and gamified learning experience.

Step 2: Develop User’s Guide. Following the development of the gamified

simulations, the researcher created a corresponding user’s guide for each

simulation file. The User’s Guide provided a detailed, step-by-step procedure for

navigating the gamified simulations across all phases and levels of the learning

activities, beginning with the Warm-Up Activity (Level 0) and progressing through

to the Creation Level (Level 3). For each simulation file, the guide outlined how to

interact with key components such as input boxes, sliders, buttons, and feedback

displays. It also explained how students should engage with the embedded

challenges, respond to open-ended prompts, and interpret the feedback and

rewards integrated into the simulation. By clearly structuring the instructions for
 97

each level from activating prior knowledge (Warm-Up), practicing modeled tasks

(Imitation), modifying problems (Modification), to constructing original solutions

(Creation), the guide ensured that users could effectively and confidently navigate

the learning experience. This systematic guidance supported both independent

student use and teacher facilitation, contributing to the smooth and consistent

implementation of the gamified simulation-based lessons.

Step 3. Develop the learning packet. To ensure the instructional coherence,

accessibility, and functionality of the gamified simulation learning packet, the

researcher followed a systematic process, detailed as follows:

Step 3.1: Compile All Lesson Plans into a Unified Document. All lesson

plans developed for the selected topics were compiled into a single cohesive

document to establish a unified foundation for the learning packet. This compilation

not only ensured consistency in format and instructional design but also facilitated

easier organization and sequencing in the subsequent steps of packet

development.

Step 3.2: Organize the Document Based on a Logical Instructional Flow.

After compiling the lesson plans, the researcher organized the content of each

topic in a clear, coherent, and pedagogically sound sequence to support both

instructional clarity and ease of use. Each topic followed a standardized structure

that began with the Title of the Topic, clearly stated Instructional Objectives,

establishing the focus and intended learning outcomes, and Mission and Goals of

the different levels of gamified simulation activities in the packet. This was followed

by a Warm-Up Activity (Level 0) to activate prior knowledge and a contextualized

 98

Open-Ended Problem designed to promote divergent thinking. The Getting the

Idea section provided a content overview, anchoring the conceptual foundation of

the lesson. Central to the packet were the Step-by-Step Learning Activities, which

were systematically divided into three levels: Imitation (Level 1), Modification

(Level 2), and Creation (Level 3) each increasing in cognitive complexity and

designed to foster deeper learning and creativity. Finally, each topic concluded

with an Awards and Recognition section to reinforce student motivation and

celebrate progress. This consistent structure reflects the progression from

foundational understanding to original problem-solving, in alignment with the

instructional model guiding the development of the learning packet.

Step 3.3: Insert the Guide on How to Use the Gamified Simulation. To

ensure that both students and teachers could navigate and utilize the simulations

effectively, the researcher inserted a dedicated section titled “Guide on How to Use

the Gamified Simulation” at the end of each topic in the learning packet. This guide

was carefully crafted to walk users through the simulation process in a clear, step-

by-step manner. It began with navigation instructions, detailing how to interact with

simulation components such as sliders, input boxes, buttons, and other clickable

elements. The guide then outlined the embedded gamification elements,

explaining how challenges are triggered, how feedback is given, and how points

are earned. It concluded with practical tips for maximizing engagement and

interactivity, such as when to use features like the “Generate New Problem” button,

how to explore multiple solution paths, and how to monitor progress during the

activity. By placing this guide consistently after each topic, the learning packet
 99

provided immediate support for users, ensuring smoother implementation and

promoting more meaningful learning experiences.

Step 3.4: Link the Corresponding Simulation Files via Google Drive. To

ensure easy and reliable access to the gamified simulation files, all GeoGebra-

based simulations were uploaded to a dedicated Google Drive folder. For each

topic, the researcher inserted the direct download and view links within the

corresponding “Guide on How to Use the Gamified Simulation” section. This

allowed users both teachers and students to conveniently access or download the

specific simulation file associated with the lesson, streamlining the integration of

digital resources into classroom instruction.

Step 3.5: Verify All Hyperlinks for Accuracy and Functionality. To ensure a

smooth user experience and reliable access to the embedded digital resources,

the researcher conducted a systematic verification of all hyperlinks included in the

learning packet. Each link was carefully reviewed to confirm that it redirected to

the correct GeoGebra simulation file, was publicly viewable or downloadable, and

functioned properly across different devices and internet browsers. This quality

control step was essential in preventing technical issues that could disrupt

instruction or hinder the effective use of the gamified simulations by teachers and

students.

Step 3.6: Prepare the Introductory Section of the Learning Packet. To

provide a clear and professional introduction to the learning packet, the researcher

prepared an organized opening section that helps orient users before engaging

with the lesson content. This section began with a Cover Page that included the
 100

title of the learning packet and the researcher’s name. It was followed by a Preface,

which outlined the purpose and its components. Finally, a Table of Contents was

included to present the structure of the packet, listing all key components and their

corresponding page numbers. This introductory section ensured that both teachers

and students could easily understand the document's purpose and navigate its

contents efficiently.

Step 3.7: Enhance Aesthetic Quality and Visual Appeal. To make the

learning packet more engaging and easier to use, the researcher applied basic

visual design improvements that helped create a clean and organized appearance.

Consistent formatting, clear fonts, and well-structured layouts were used to make

the content easier to read and follow. Simple icons or visual markers were also

included to highlight key parts of the lesson, such as challenges and tasks. Extra

care was taken to avoid too much information or decoration on a single page, so

learners could focus on the important content. These enhancements helped

improve the overall look and usability of the packet, supporting better

understanding and engagement.

Step 3.8: Conduct Thorough Content Review. To ensure the instructional

quality and coherence of the learning packet, the researcher conducted a

comprehensive review of the entire document. This process involved checking for

content accuracy and ensuring alignment with the curriculum standards and

intended learning outcomes. The structure and flow of each lesson were examined

to confirm instructional clarity and logical sequencing. The researcher also verified

the consistency of gamification elements such as challenges, feedback, and

 101

rewards across all topics to maintain a unified learning experience. Additionally, all

simulations and accompanying activities were reviewed to ensure they were

complete, functional, and aligned with the goals of each lesson. Revisions were

made as needed to strengthen the instructional soundness and maintain alignment

with the study’s guiding theoretical frameworks.

Step 3.9: Finalize Pagination and Table of Contents. Once the structure and

content of the learning packet were finalized, the researcher proceeded to insert

accurate page numbers throughout the document. The Table of Contents was then

updated to reflect the final layout, ensuring that all sections and subsections were

clearly listed and correctly numbered. This step was essential in helping users

easily navigate the packet, locate specific components, and follow the sequence

of lessons with minimal difficulty.

Step 4. Creation and Validation of Gamified Simulation Alignment and

Quality Evaluation Checklist. The researcher also created an Alignment and

Quality Evaluation Checklist intended to be used by expert evaluators in assessing

the degree of alignment and overall quality of the developed gamified simulations

in relation to the proposed instructional model for enhancing students’ creativity

and collaboration. This instrument is composed of 5 domains namely (1)

simulation-based lesson design with 4 indicators, (2) gamification elements with

10 indicators, (3) support for creativity with 3 indicators, (4) support for

collaboration with 3 indicators, and (5) aesthetics and engagement with 3

indicators with a total of 23 indicators. The instrument undergone and passed the

content validity following the process outlined by Yusoff (2019) with a Scale-Level
 102

Content Validity Index (S-CVI/Ave) of 1.00 and Universal Agreement (S-CVI/UA)

of 1.00 across all five domains, indicating perfect agreement among the four

experts on the relevance of each item. Furthermore, it was also pilot tested to 30

mathematics teachers within the Division of El Salvador City. Results in the pilot

testing are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Pilot Testing of the Gamified Simulation Alignment and Quality Evaluation
Checklist

Domains Cronbach Alpha Internal Consistency

1. Simulation-Based Lesson Design 0.81 Good
2. Gamification Elements 0.76 Acceptable
3. Support for Creativity 0.88 Good
4. Support for Collaboration 0.88 Good
5. Aesthetics and Engagement 0.85 Good
Overall 0.95 Excellent
Legend: Cronbach Alpha ≥ 0.9 (Excellent), 0.8 ≤ Cronbach Alpha < 0.9 (Good), 0.7 ≤ Cronbach Alpha < 0.8 (Acceptable),
0.6 ≤ Cronbach Alpha < 0.7 (Questionable), 0.5 ≤ Cronbach Alpha <0.6 (Poor), Cronbach Alpha <0.5 (Unacceptable)

Data Analysis

Descriptive Statistics. Two sets of quantitative data were obtained in the

first phase of the study based on the teachers’ evaluation of the gamified

simulation learning packets and the alignment and quality of the gamified

simulations embedded within the packets. These data were analyzed using

descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics aimed to describe and summarize the

data, providing a clear picture of its main characteristics (Blbas, 2024; Igual &

Seguí, 2024). This method was appropriate as it helped determine the overall

quality of the developed materials as a basis for implementation. Descriptive

statistics, such as the mean score and total points, were used to analyze the

evaluation results of the gamified simulation learning packets in terms of four

 103

criteria namely, content, format, presentation and organization, and accuracy and

up-to-datedness of information. The total points obtained was compared to a

threshold value to assess whether the learning packet met each criterion.

Meanwhile, the mean score and the overall mean score were used to evaluate the

gamified simulations in terms of four criteria namely simulation-based lesson

design, gamification elements, support for creativity, support for collaboration, and

aesthetics and engagement. The overall mean score served as a summary

measure of the overall alignment and quality of the gamified educational

simulations with respect to the proposed model and was compared to a threshold

to determine whether it met the required standard.

Ethical Considerations

The researcher strictly followed the ethical procedures in conducting this

study. First, the researcher seek permission from the Division Office through the

Superintendent to conduct the study within the Division premises. Second, the

researcher closely coordinated with the School Principal/School Head to ensure

proper communication and avoid bypassing of protocol. Third, letter of invitation

and informed consent were secured from each participant. Proper orientation was

done to ensure that participants know their roles should they wish to participate in

the study. Fourth, participants were not forced to share their views or evaluate the

learning packet. This is to ensure that voluntarism is observed in sharing of ideas

and evaluating the learning packet. Fifth, participants were allowed to withdraw

from the study anytime they wish. Finally, all responses were treated confidentially,

and principles of anonymity was observed. Codes were assigned to each of the
 104

participants. The code E1 represents master teacher participants’ number 1 during

the validation process.

Phase 2: Implementation of the Developed Gamified Simulation Learning

Packet

Research Designs

(1) Explanatory Sequential Mix-Method Design. An explanatory sequential

design is a mixed method approach where quantitative data is collected and

analyzed first, followed by qualitative data collection and analysis (Draucker et al.,

2020). As Creswell et al. (2023) explain, the main purpose of this design is to use

qualitative data to interpret or clarify quantitative results. In this study, the design

is particularly useful for understanding the post-test scores on creativity and

collaboration, which were measured after the implementation of the developed

gamified simulation learning packets. The quantitative results provide a broad view

of students' performance, but the qualitative phase helps explain the reasons

behind these scores. According to Draucker et al. (2020) and Katz et al. (2016),

one way to select participants for the qualitative phase is to form subgroups based

on high, medium, and low scores from the quantitative data, then randomly select

participants from each group for follow-up interviews. In this study, nine students

were selected with three from each subgroup of high, medium, and low post-test

scores. This is to ensure a diverse range of perspectives to explain the scores on

creativity and collaboration observed in the post-test results.

 105

(2) One-group pretest-posttest design. The quantitative part of the study

was guided with one-group pretest-posttest design. This design is a type of quasi-

experimental design in which the outcome of interest is measured twice: once

before and once after the participants are exposed to a specific intervention or

treatment (Choueiry, 2021). This design was appropriate for the current study

because Basic Calculus is a specialized subject taught to a single group of

students at the school where the intervention was implemented. As such, the study

followed this design to measure the outcomes of the intervention on the students'

performance. The one-group pretest-posttest design is illustrated below.

Figure 4: Visual Model for One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design

Treatment X refers to the gamified simulation learning packet implemented

in the experimental group for learning Calculus. Prior to the intervention, a pretest

(O₁) was administered to assess baseline performance on creativity and

collaboration. Following five weeks of implementation, a posttest (O₂) was

conducted with the same group. Students’ mathematical creativity and

collaboration were measured using researcher-made mathematical creativity test

and a 5-point Likert scale for mathematics collaboration, respectively. Responses

to the creativity test were evaluated using the rubric adapted from Walia and Walia

(2017).
 106

Moreover, qualitative data were also collected through focus group

discussions involving nine students. A researcher-developed semi-structured

interview guide was utilized to obtain in-depth feedback on their experiences with

the gamified simulation learning packets and how these materials contributed to

the development of their mathematical creativity and collaboration skills.

Research Setting

The implementation and summative evaluation phase of the study was

conducted in Cogon National High School (CoNHS), one of the public schools in

the Division of El Salvador City. The school is located at Zone 3 Cogon, El Salvador

City. CoNHS has a total population of 1500 from Junior to Senior high school. The

school was selected due to the lack of research highlighting gamification and

simulation activities in promoting students’ mathematical creativity and

collaboration. The study therefore aims to generate valuable insights that may

inform and improve teaching practices, while fostering a more engaging and

collaborative learning environment in mathematics education within the school.

 107

Figure 5: Map of El Salvador City

(Retrieved from: [Link] [Link])

Sampling Procedure

Purposive sampling was employed to identify the participants involved in

the implementation and summative evaluation phase of the study. This sampling

technique involves the selection of individuals who meet specific criteria relevant

to the research objectives (Andrade, 2021). In this study, two criteria were

established: 1) students must belong to a section where Basic Calculus was

offered, and 2) students must have demonstrated willingness to participate in the

study. The selected students underwent five weeks of instruction using the

developed gamified simulation learning packet, and the outcome of the

intervention were measured through their scores in mathematical creativity and

collaboration.
 108

Participants of the Study

The study involved one intact section of Grade 11 STEM students from

Cogon National High School during the five-week implementation of the gamified

simulation learning packet in the school year 2024–2025.

After the implementation, nine participants were selected for interviews to

gather feedback on their experiences with the gamified simulation learning packet.

These participants were chosen from the same group of students who were

exposed to the developed learning materials. The selection followed the procedure

outlined by Katz et al. (2016), in which students were grouped based on

performance levels such as high, medium, and low scorers. Specifically, three

participants were selected from those with the highest post-test scores, three from

the middle range, and three from the lowest scorers. This selection ensured a

diverse range of perspectives to help explain the variations in creativity and

collaboration reflected in the post-test results.

Research Instruments

(1) Mathematical Creativity Test. The teacher-made pretest-posttest

mathematical creativity test was a 6-item open-ended instrument designed to

assess students’ creativity in mathematics. The test underwent content validation

involving the same panel of experts using the procedures introduced by Yusoff

(2019) to ensure alignment for measuring mathematical creativity. Results of the

validation revealed that the instrument has a Scale-Level Content Validity Index

(S-CVI/Ave) of 1.00 and Universal Agreement (S-CVI/UA) of 1.00, indicating

 109

perfect agreement among the four experts on the relevance of each item. Following

the validation process, the instrument was pilot tested with a group of Grade 12

students which resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.898 suggesting a good internal

consistency. A copy of the instrument is attached in the appendices (Please see

appendix 10).

(2) Collaboration Self-Assessment Tool (CSAT). The mathematics

collaboration self-assessment tool used in this study was adapted from the

Collaboration Self-Assessment Tool (CSAT) by Ofstedal and Dahlberg (2009).

Permission to use the instrument was obtained from the original authors before

conducting the study. Minor revisions were made to the items to better fit the

context of the study. Prior to the study, the scale was pilot tested with Grade 12

students which resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha equal to 0.842 suggesting a good

internal consistency. A copy of the instrument is attached in the appendices

(Please see appendix 14).

The data from the CSAT were analysed using the scoring system proposed

by Ofstedal and Dahlberg (2009), which is based on a 4-point Likert scale. On this

scale, a score of 4 means "to a great extent," and a score of 1 means "not at all."

(3) Interview Questionnaire. To gather students' feedback on their

experiences with the gamified simulation learning packets, the researcher

developed a semi-structured interview questionnaire for a focus group discussion

involving nine student participants. The instrument was reviewed and validated by

the thesis adviser to ensure its relevance and appropriateness in the context of the
 110

study. A copy of the instrument is attached in the appendices (Please see appendix

16).

Data Gathering Procedure

Implementation Phase

The steps involved in the implementation phase of the study include the

conduct of usability testing of the gamified simulation learning packets and

classroom implementation.

Step 1. Conduct usability testing. In the pilot implementation of the gamified

simulation learning packet, usability testing was conducted to evaluate how the

material functions in an actual learning environment. The primary aim was to

identify any practical challenges encountered during classroom use. The usability

testing involved a small group composed of ten (10) Grade 12 STEM students

engaged in a gamified simulation activity along with one (1) Math teacher to help

students whenever necessary. Data was collected using students’ feedback and

teachers’ observation. This phase was essential in refining the tool to better align

with its educational goals of enhancing creativity and collaboration in mathematics

prior to classroom implementation. Results of the usability testing revealed some

concerns and areas of improvements raised by both students and teacher. Table

7 summarizes these comments along with the corresponding action taken to

improve the learning experience associated with the developed gamified

simulations learning packet.

 111

Table 7: Comments and Action Taken to Improve Gamified Simulations Features

Category Comments/ Suggestions Action Taken

1. Review • “… problems should not be initially • Challenges were
activity presented and should disappear hidden when time is 0
after the time limit has elapsed.” and 3 minutes
2. Display of • “… displaying the user-inputted • Simulation displays all
functions function in the simulation is user-input function
necessary for easier evaluation,
especially for piecewise functions.”
3. Challenges • “Challenges should be clearly visible • Challenges presented
to direct students’ attention.” in increased font size
4. Rewards • “Please provide more points for • More points were
creation activity.” allotted to the creation
activity
5. Feedback • “… adding emoticons (e.g., happy or • Simulation incorporates
sad faces) alongside narrative happy and sad
feedback maybe necessary to help emoticons to evaluate
students quickly recognize if our students’ responses
answers are correct or incorrect.” • Adding of varied colors
• "… consider adding color to narrative for correct and incorrect
feedback to make it easier for feedback
students to distinguish between
correct and incorrect responses."

Step 2. Classroom implementation. The researcher coordinated with the

School Principal of Cogon National High School and submitted the approved copy

of the request letter (signed by the Superintendent) granting permission to conduct

the experimental study on the school premises. The letter was then forwarded to

the math teacher of the participating section to inform her that her class would be

included in the study and that the researcher have to take over the facilitation of

the Grade 11 section in learning Limits and Continuity in Basic Calculus.

Additionally, consent letters were secured from the parents of the student

participants, specifying that they allowed their children to participate in the study.
 112

Pre-test questionnaires assessing mathematical creativity and collaboration

were administered to the group of students one week before the study began. The

students were given one hour to complete the test. Once the pre-test was

collected, the gamified simulation learning packet was distributed. The learning

packet served as the main reference for the fourth-quarter lessons in Basic

Calculus. The classroom implementation lasted five (5) weeks using the learning

packet as the intervention.

Summative Evaluation Phase

After the implementation phase, a post-test was administered to the same

group of students who were exposed to the gamified simulation learning packets.

This assessment was conducted face-to-face and lasted one hour. Following the

analysis of the post-test results, the researcher employed an explanatory

sequential mixed methods approach by selecting participants for a follow-up

qualitative phase. Specifically, students were purposively selected for a Focus

Group Discussion (FGD) based on their post-test performance with three from

each subgroup of high, medium, and low post-test scores following Draucker et al.

(2020) and Katz et al. (2016) recommendation to help further explore and explain

the quantitative findings. The FGD was conducted one week after the post-test.

During the discussion, students were asked about their experiences using the

learning packet, with a focus on elements that may have contributed to their

performance and learning outcomes. The students’ responses were audio-

recorded to facilitate accurate transcription and analysis. To ensure confidentiality,

each participant was assigned a code (e.g., S1 for Student 1).

 113

Data Analysis

(1) Descriptive Statistics. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the

students’ pretest and posttest scores on the three components of mathematical

creativity such as fluency, flexibility, and originality. This method was appropriate

for summarizing and describing the key features of the data (Blbas, 2024; Igual &

Seguí, 2024). In the study, the process began by computing the mean and

standard deviation of students’ scores to determine their average performance and

the variability of their responses to observe detailed patterns of improvement in

each aspect. Through these steps, descriptive statistics systematically organized

the data, highlighted trends of growth, and provided a clear basis for interpreting

the impact of the intervention.

(2) Paired Sample t-Test. A paired-samples t-test is used to compare the

means of two related groups or to assess the same group measured at two

different times (Ross et al., 2017). When the same participants are tested twice

using the same measurement tool, the test is referred to as a repeated measures

t-test. According to Fein et al. (2022), the fundamental assumptions of the test are:

(1) the absence of significant outliers in either of the two related groups, and (2)

the differences between the paired observations should be approximately normally

distributed. In this study, a paired-samples t-test was deemed appropriate because

the same group of students was assessed before and after exposure to the

gamified simulation learning packet, using the same measurement instruments for

both mathematical creativity and collaboration to determine whether there is a

 114

statistically significant change in the said skills after the intervention. Moreover, the

data gathered also satisfies its basic assumptions presented above.

(3) Thematic Analysis. Students’ feedback on the gamified simulation

learning packets was analyzed using thematic analysis, following the six-step

process outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). The analysis began with Step 1,

where the data was thoroughly reviewed by reading and re-reading the students’

responses to understand their experiences with the simulations. In Step 2, the data

was broken down into smaller, meaningful units, creating initial codes that

highlighted key ideas and responses. Step 3 focused on grouping related codes

into broader themes that addressed the research questions. These themes were

then reviewed and refined in Step 4 to ensure they accurately reflected the data.

Step 5 involved clearly defining each theme to capture the core meaning of

students' feedback, focusing on aspects like engagement, creativity, and

collaboration. Finally, Step 6 involved combining the themes into a clear narrative

that summarized the overall impact of the learning packets and offered insights for

future improvements.

Ethical Consideration

Ethical procedures were strictly adhered during the implementation and

summative evaluation phase of the study. First, approval and permission were

obtained from the SDS, School Head/Principal, and parents. Second, the

researcher did not inform the students about the research to avoid the Hawthorne

effect. Third, the learning environment was ensured to be safe throughout the

research to prevent any harm or risk to the participants. Finally, all responses were
 115

treated confidentially, and principles of anonymity were maintained. Each

participant was assigned a code; for example, the code S1 represented student

participant number 1.
 Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This section presents the data, its analysis, and interpretation aligned with

the research questions outlined in Chapter 1. It begins by introducing the proposed

model for helping teachers develop gamified simulations to enhance students’

creativity and collaboration, presents evaluation and implementation results, and

discusses students’ experiences with the developed gamified simulation learning

packet.

1. Proposed Model for Designing Gamified Simulations to Enhance

Mathematical Creativity and Collaboration

Gamified simulations, in essence, represent an integration of interactive

simulations with gamification elements. Both components must embody essential

features to effectively foster creativity and collaboration. For simulation-based

lessons, the simulations should enable students to visualize and explore

mathematical concepts dynamically, establish connections to real-world

applications, promote inquiry-based learning, and facilitate productive

collaborative interactions. In terms of gamification, it is critical to embed elements

such as meaningful challenges, immediate feedback, and motivating rewards

directly within the simulation environment to enhance student engagement and

support deeper learning. After incorporating these features, designers could also

include aesthetics to increased gamified simulation appeal and enhanced

 117

students’ engagement. Shown in Figure 6 is the conceptual model for designing

gamified simulations in mathematics education.

Figure 6. Conceptual Model for Designing Gamified Simulations

Step 1. Create simulation-based lessons. The literature offers various

perspectives on how simulations can be effectively utilized to enhance students'

creativity and collaboration as outlined below.

1.1 Simulations should encourage interactive visualization and exploration

of concepts. One of the important features of a simulation is its visualization

component (Yorganci, 2018). Through visualization, mathematical concepts

became more relatable and tangible to students. It allows students to transition

more easily between concrete, pictorial, and abstract mathematical

representations which is essential in developing their creative mathematical

thinking (Žakelj & Klancar, 2022). Vale et al. (2018) supports this notion

emphasizing that interactive visualization encouraged students to approach

problems from multiple perspectives and develop innovative solutions which

 118

enhances their mathematical creativity. To maximize its impact, visualization

should also be supported with active exploration. When students are allowed to

manipulate variables, test hypotheses, and observe real-time changes,

simulations create an interactive learning environment that fosters curiosity and

adaptive thinking (Istikomah et al., 2024). This exploratory approach encourages

students to refine their understanding by making predictions, analyzing patterns,

and drawing conclusions based on observed outcomes. In this manner, students

develop flexible problem-solving strategies and original mathematical insights

which are essential components of mathematical creativity (Vlachopoulos & Makri,

2017; Bicer, 2021).

1.2 Relate simulation to real-life application of concepts. Engaging students

in the real-life application of concepts fosters mathematical creativity by providing

meaningful and relevant contexts for mathematical exploration (Jacinto, 2023).

When students encounter problems rooted in real-world situations, they are

encouraged to think beyond standard procedures and explore multiple pathways

to a solution. These tasks not only help them make connections between different

mathematical concepts but also reinforce their ability to apply knowledge in

practical and meaningful ways (Nilimaa, 2023). Furthermore, research suggests

that engaging with real-life applications enhances students’ ability to think critically,

creatively, and independently by challenging them to analyze information,

recognize patterns, and develop innovative approaches (Suherman & Vidákovich,

2022; Gallaun et al., 2022). By immersing students in authentic problem-solving

 119

experiences, real-life applications help cultivate a deeper understanding of

mathematics and inspire creative mathematical thinking.

1.3 Simulation should promote inquiry-based learning. Inquiry-based

learning (IBL) plays a crucial role in fostering mathematical creativity, as it

encourages students to ask meaningful questions, explore multiple solution paths,

synthesize ideas from various sources, collaborate with peers, and reflect on their

learning (Bruce, 2011). In his literature review, Bicer (2021) emphasized that

instructional practices promoting mathematical creativity align closely with IBL,

which is grounded in constructivist theories asserting that learners build knowledge

through active engagement with new experiences and ideas (Alismaiel et al.,

2022). By integrating IBL principles, simulations create interactive environments

that support discovery, experimentation, and critical reasoning (Suherman &

Vidákovich, 2022; Gallaun et al., 2022; Lubis, 2023). For instance, in the study

conducted by Ferdinandus (as cited in Bachore, 2021), results revealed that

simulations designed around IBL have been shown to enhance students' creative

thinking skills by providing an inquiry-driven problem-solving.

1.4 Simulations should support for productive collaborative learning.

Yorganci (2018) emphasized that simulations should be intentionally designed to

encourage productive collaborative activities, encouraging students to work

together in small groups or teams to solve problems, complete tasks, or explore

concepts (Nilimaa, 2023). This approach is rooted in the idea that learning is a

social process emphasizing the benefits of students sharing ideas, knowledge, and

experiences with their peers. In mathematics education, collaborative learning has

 120

been shown to foster creativity by enabling students to build on each other’s

knowledge, engage in critical discussions, and develop problem-solving skills

(Catarino et al., 2019). In connection, Pirker & Gütl (2015) suggested the need to

integrate challenges that require teamwork, such as problem-solving tasks and

riddles that enhance students’ conceptual understanding. While gamified

simulations (GS) can also be structured for individual challenges, researchers

highlight that incorporating interactive elements and missions can effectively

support both collaborative and competitive learning experiences.

Step 2. Integrate gamification elements such as challenges, feedback,

and rewards within the simulation. Challenges, feedback, and rewards are

crucial elements in gamified interventions which do not only enhance engagement

and motivation but significantly enhance students' creativity, collaboration, and

problem-solving abilities in mathematics (Zhang, 2023; Nob et al., 2024; Galetta,

2013). These elements create an immersive learning experience that encourages

students to take risks, collaborate with peers, and actively participate in the

learning process.

2.1 Use of challenges. One of the major design elements for educational

gamified simulations according to Pirker & Gütl (2015) is its interactivity, which can

be promoted through the provision of challenges. These challenges are

responsible for engaging learners to keep playing. Challenges can be in a form of

word problems forcing students to observe or interact with the simulation. These

challenges push students to explore, innovate, and persist in the activity. Without

them, students may become disengaged, experience limited growth, and miss out
 121

on opportunities to develop critical thinking within gamified intervention. Speaking

of challenges, literatures present different ways on its nature to make it effective in

promoting students’ creativity and collaboration.

Firstly, it has been suggested that challenges should be open-ended in

nature to directly impact the dependent variables of the study. According to Nilimaa

(2023), open-ended challenges do not have a single, predetermined solution or

method of solution, allowing students to explore multiple pathways, make choices,

and develop their own problem-solving strategies. Such challenges have been

shown to foster creativity by encouraging students to think differently, take risks,

and experiment with various ideas (Nieminen et al., 2022). Supporting this notion,

Rachmawati et al. (2023) found that integrating open-ended challenges with

simulations significantly enhances students’ creative thinking abilities, particularly

in studies conducted between 2012 and 2022. Besides, these tasks are also

appropriate for enhancing students’ collaboration skills (Lotan, as cited in Bozic et

al. 2022), as they require students to discuss, share ideas, and work together to

solve problems.

Secondly, literatures also suggested that challenges should promote

students’ autonomy through problem-posing and interest-based problem choices.

Aside from answering existing challenges (not necessarily open-ended), students

should also be given the chance to modify them and solve the modified version of

the problem. Allowing the students to modify the existing problem according to a

very specific scenario is an example of structured problem-posing (Bicer, 2021).

This process can enhance students creative thinking abilities in mathematics

 122

because it offers ample opportunities for students to write various problems

(promoting fluency), discover and adopt new mathematical problems by leaving

the commonly used ones (encouraging divergent thinking or flexibility), and create

a problem that is rare (advancing novelty) (Bicer, 2021; Wulandari et al., 2024).

Stolaki & Economides (2018) supports this and further emphasize that this

approach stimulates creativity through collaborative problem-solving and question

generation which enhances their divergent thinking skills relevant to various

subjects, including math. Furthermore, Pham & Cho (2018) argued that providing

students with problem choices that align with their interests, conceptual

understanding, and skill mastery can significantly enhance their creativity. When

students tackle problems that resonate with their personal interests, they become

more motivated and invested in the learning process. This intrinsic motivation

leads to deeper engagement and fosters creative thinking.

At the core of these ideas is autonomy, which refers to the sense of control

over one’s own actions and decisions. Autonomy serves as a crucial motivational

driver for creativity, as it enables students to take ownership of their learning

experiences (Baum & Baumann, 2018). When students have the freedom to

modify problems and make creative choices in problem-solving, they develop

intrinsic motivation, leading to deeper engagement, innovative thinking, and

enhanced mathematical creativity and expression (Oscar et al., 2017).

2.2 Use of feedback mechanisms. Another essential element in every

gamified simulation is the use of feedback mechanisms (Pirker & Gütl, 2015).

Feedback is an information given to players about their performance and progress

 123

in a gamified activity (Nob et al., 2024). It has several didactic functions. Besides

the main purpose of checking the answers' correctness, it can also provide

contextual learning aid for the student and perhaps even can guide the stages of

the learning process (Lukáč & Sekerák, 2015). In gamified simulations, feedback

is triggered by students’ behaviors and interactions with the system (Pirker & Gütl,

2015). By providing real-time prompts, feedback allows students to identify and

correct their own mistakes, enhancing their comprehension of mathematical

concepts (Cruz & Palaoag, 2019; Deabanico & Caballes, 2023). Additionally,

feedback helps reduce misconceptions and reinforce correct ideas, leading to

improved learning outcomes (Pirker & Gütl, 2015; Merle, 2024). It has also critical

role for less confident students so that they do not give up and be able to be helped

in their response (Dos Santos et al., 2022). Feedback also plays a crucial role in

fostering collaboration (Nob et al., 2024). In gamified activities, it encourages open

communication within groups, as students work together to address errors and

refine their solutions. This process promotes shared responsibility and collective

problem-solving, ultimately strengthening collaboration by valuing each member's

contributions toward achieving common goals. Furthermore, when combined with

collaborative learning in a physical setting, feedback can significantly enhance

students' creativity in mathematics (Nob et al., 2024). The interplay between

feedback and collaboration enables students to engage in cycles of discovery and

verification, which can lead to more meaningful and novel solutions to

mathematical problems.
 124

Moreover, to maximize its impact on creativity, feedback should support a

safe learning simulation environment that encourage students to take risks and

explore new ideas. Veith and Bitzenbauer (2022) emphasized that such an

environment helps students feel comfortable experimenting with new ideas without

fear of failure. Thus, it should be constructive and motivating, guiding students to

embrace challenges, persevere through difficulties, and view mistakes as

opportunities for growth (Xu et al., 2022). This can be achieved through real-time

and constructive prompts that respond to incorrect answers by encouraging

students to refine their ideas and explore alternative approaches. By reinforcing

effort and persistence, feedback fosters a growth mindset, enabling students to

engage in iterative problem-solving and develop deeper mathematical

understanding. Ultimately, well-structured feedback in a gamified simulation

nurtures students’ ability to think flexibly, explore multiple solutions, and adopt

more creative approaches to problem-solving.

2.3 Use of rewards. According to Pirker & Gütl (2015), gamified simulation

mainly uses game elements involving reward systems such as points and badges

to enrich the simulation. Rewards in gamified interventions played an important

role in engaging and motivating the students as emphasized by existing studies

(Lanuza, 2020; Lanuza et al., 2020). Rewards can help students get away from

boredom feeling (Merle, 2024). It can provide a sense of enjoyment among

students while performing activities because they have something to look forward

to (Magat, 2022). It can also promote learning, exploration, and creativity (Gallera,

n.d.). By offering rewards in a gamified intervention after accomplishing a task,

 125

gamification provides a dynamic environment where students are driven to actively

participate, share ideas, and support one another in solving complex problems,

ultimately strengthening collaboration (Pelegro, 2022; Lanuza, 2020; Lanuza et al.,

2020). Galetta (2013) also claimed that the effect of reward on creativity

development and ideas generation has already been widely tested in

brainstorming sessions where participants improve in their creative output if

members are rewarded not only for their contributions but also for what those

contributions can inspire other participants. It is also shown to enhance originality

which is one component of divergent thinking allowing students to produce novel

ideas, and exhibit creativity (Gruntowicz, 2020).

Moreover, recognizing and rewarding creativity is very essential in every

gamified learning environment. In line with this, Pham & Cho (2018) emphasized

the importance of frequent recognition and affirmation in fostering creativity.

Istikomah et al. (2024) supports this and further argued that affirming and

appreciating students' creative ideas strengthens their ability to think creatively. In

this regard, teams demonstrating mathematical creativity should be promptly

recognized and rewarded like points and badges as positive reinforcements. This

approach not only sustains student engagement and persistence in solving

complex problems but also cultivates an environment where creativity is valued

and nurtured.

Step 3. Incorporate aesthetics to enhanced students’ engagement.

According to Pirker & Gütl (2015), aesthetics is an essential factor in gamified

interventions. Although it is not directly related to creativity and collaboration,

 126

aesthetics contributes to students’ engagement by making interactions visually

appealing, immersive, and enjoyable. In gamification, aesthetics help create a

compelling user experience by incorporating well-designed visuals, animations,

and themes that align with the learning objectives. This enhances motivation,

encourages participation, and fosters a sense of challenge and achievement.

2. Developed Gamified Simulation Learning Packet Based on the Proposed

Model

To answer Research Question 2, a Gamified Simulation Learning Packet

was developed based on the proposed model. In this packet, all learning activities

are designed around the use of gamified simulation, making it the central and

unifying feature throughout the instructional process.

2.1 Parts of the Gamified Simulation Learning Packet

The lesson in the learning packet is organized into several interconnected

parts, each designed to promote creativity and collaboration with gamified

simulation. The Title of the lesson clearly states the mathematical topic to be

discussed, while the Instructional Objectives specify measurable learning goals

aligned with enhancing students’ creativity and collaboration. Each lesson begins

with a Warm-Up Activity, a brief 3-minute drill designed to capture student interest

and build engagement. In this activity, students are challenged to answer as many

problems as they can, generated by the simulation, which sets the tone for active

participation. Following this, an Open-Ended Problem rooted in a real-life context

is presented. This task is purposely introduced before formal instruction, following

 127

the concept of Productive Failure (Kapur, 2008), where students explore the

problem using gamified simulation without prior knowledge about the topic,

encouraging exploration, creative thinking, and group discussion early on. The

next section, Getting the Idea, introduces students to the day’s learning

competencies, helping them frame their understanding within clear learning goals.

This is followed by the Your Turn segment, which contains a sequence of activities

designed to progressively build students' mathematical creativity. It begins with

Imitation, where students apply what they have just learned. Then comes

Modification, where they are required to alter given problems and solve the

modified versions. Lastly, in the Creation phase, students revisit the earlier open-

ended problem and then engage in another modeling task such as constructing

mathematical functions based on specific conditions generated by the simulation.

To sustain motivation and recognize effort, the Rewards and Recognition section

highlights students’ achievements through presenting them with badges based on

their creativity and collaboration performance. Lastly, a Guide on How to Use

Gamified Simulation is provided at the end of each lesson, offering step-by-step

instructions on how to navigate the gamified simulation in performing activities.

2.2 Gamified Simulation Levels, Missions, and Goals

To provide structure and promote learner engagement, the gamified

simulation activities in the learning packet are organized into four progressive

levels, each with a specific mission aligned with increasing complexity and

creativity.
 128

Table 8. Levels, Missions, and Goals in the Learning Packet

Levels Activities Missions Goals

Level 0 Warm Up Acquire as many points as Complete the warm-up
possible within a 3-minute challenge by recalling
time limit. key concepts from the
previous lesson to
unlock the open-ended
challenge.
Level 1 Imitation Solve at least three Solve challenges
challenges correctly using correctly to earn points
newly learned concepts. and unlock the
Modification level.
Level 2 Modification Solve at least three Modify and solve the
modified versions of revised problem
previously given challenges correctly to earn points
and unlock the creation
level.
Level 3 Creation Provide at least one correct Create an original
response to the first function satisfying given
creative challenge and at conditions to earn
least three correct mastery badge
responses to the second.

This level-based design enables students to progress meaningfully from

basic recall to advanced problem creation, while staying motivated through clearly

defined, gamified missions.

2.3 Simulation-Based Features Within the Packets

All lessons in the gamified simulation learning packet are built around

interactive simulations developed using the old version of GeoGebra 5.0, designed

to help students visualize, manipulate, and make sense of mathematical concepts

in an engaging and exploratory way. These simulations are intentionally crafted to

support students' creative and collaborative learning.

 129

2.3.1 Visualization and Interactive Exploration of Concepts

The developed learning packet presents a holistic design that seamlessly

integrates simulation and gamification to foster creativity and collaboration in

mathematics education. Central to its design is the strategic use of visualization

and interactive simulations that enable students to engage with mathematical

concepts dynamically. Within the simulation activities, learners operate under the

progressive stages of Imitation, Modification, and Creation with each offering

distinct opportunities for conceptual growth. At the Imitation level, students begin

by observing pre-designed models and replicating procedures, which allows them

to visualize mathematical patterns and relationships through guided examples. As

they move into the Modification phase, they are encouraged to tweak parameters,

adjust functions, or alter conditions within the simulation. This stage invites them

to observe how these changes influence outcomes, thereby deepening their

understanding and encouraging flexible thinking. Finally, in the Creation phase,

students design their own representations such as crafting a function that meets

specific limit criteria empowering them to explore mathematical ideas

independently and creatively. Throughout the packet, interactive GeoGebra-based

simulations serve as a foundational tool, allowing students to manipulate variables,

receive instant visual feedback, and iteratively refine their solutions. This

interactive environment transforms abstract mathematical ideas into tangible

experiences, enhancing conceptual clarity and promoting a sense of ownership

over the learning process. Thus, the packet does not merely present information
 130

but cultivates a vibrant space where learners can explore, visualize, and construct

knowledge through active engagement and discovery.

Figure 7. Sample Screenshot for Visualization and Interactive Exploration of Concepts

Figure 7 shows a sample screenshot that supports visualization and

interactive exploration of mathematical concepts. In this activity, students are

asked to explore the limit of 𝑓 (𝑥 ) = 𝑒 𝑥⁡ as 𝑥 approaches to 0.⁡Here, students enter

values of 𝑥 approaching 0 from both the left and right sides, then calculate and

input the matching y values. The simulation displays both a table of values

(accompanied with simulation feedback for correct or incorrect inputs) and a graph

at the same time, helping students clearly see what happens to the function near

𝑥 = 0.⁡On the graph, the red dots show the function values as 𝑥 approaches 0 from

the left, while the green dots show the values as 𝑥 approaches 0 from the right.

Based on the patterns in the graph and the table of values, students can observe

that the function values approach 1 as 𝑥⁡gets closer to 0 from both sides, thus

lim 𝑒 𝑥 = 1. This interactive visualization allows students to actively explore the

𝑥→0
 131

concept of limits by observing patterns, trying different inputs, and connecting

numbers with their graphical representations. Through this hands-on activity,

students build a stronger understanding of limits, improve their problem-solving

skills, and develop creative thinking in mathematics.

2.3.2 Real-Life Application of Concepts

The developed learning packet also emphasizes the real-life application of

mathematical concepts, ensuring that students not only learn procedures but also

understand the relevance of mathematics in everyday contexts. This is most

evident in the Open-Ended Problem section, where simulations are deliberately

designed around realistic scenarios that students can relate to or encounter in

practical life. By embedding mathematics within real-world situation learners are

encouraged to see mathematics as a tool for solving authentic problems, not just

abstract computations. These contextualized simulations challenge students to

analyze scenarios, formulate mathematical models, and propose meaningful

solutions based on their understanding. For example, instead of merely finding the

limit of a function, students may be asked to create a function that models a real

situation and determine its behavior as variables approach certain thresholds. The

open-ended format allows for multiple solution paths, enabling students to

demonstrate creativity, originality, and critical thinking while remaining grounded

in the application of core mathematical principles. By rooting abstract concepts in

real-life contexts, the learning packet strengthens the transferability of

mathematical knowledge, helping students appreciate the usefulness and power

of mathematics beyond the confines of the classroom. This design choice not only
 132

deepens conceptual understanding but also increases motivation, engagement,

and confidence in applying mathematics to diverse challenges.

Figure 8. Sample Screenshot for Real-Life Application of Concepts

One such example is found in Lesson 7, which addresses types of

discontinuities through a problem titled “The Unpredictable Launch Challenge” as

shown in Figure 8. In this scenario, an amusement park ride experiences a

malfunction that results in an essential jump discontinuity in the height function at

𝑥 = 3. Here, the simulation encourages them to assume the role of mathematical

analysts tasked with constructing a function 𝑓(𝑥) that accurately models the erratic

behavior. This real-world framing encourages students to think creatively as they

analyze the situation, consider multiple representations, and explore innovative

ways to express the discontinuity mathematically. By solving problems grounded

in authentic scenarios, students move beyond procedural knowledge, engaging in

 133

deeper, more meaningful exploration that nurtures their ability to apply

mathematical ideas creatively and critically.

2.3.3 Inquiry-Based Simulations

Simulations are also guided with inquiry-based learning. It is consistently

applied across the simulation activities (except Level 0) in the learning packet to

develop students’ critical thinking, exploration, and deep understanding of

mathematical concepts. Each simulation is structured to allow students to

investigate, ask questions, make predictions, and discover patterns before arriving

at formal conclusions. Before the start of the lesson, the simulation presents

students with a real-life open-ended problem aligned with the lesson topic. This

problem appears before direct instruction and is paired with a simulation that

allows students to manipulate variables and test inputs (e.g., trying values of x

approaching a certain number). Students observe how outputs change, which

encourages them to formulate hypotheses and analyze trends, a key step in

inquiry-based learning.

As the lesson progresses into the "Your Turn" segment, the simulation is

used to guide students through three phases of inquiry. In the Imitation phase,

students explore basic examples using the simulation to understand core ideas. In

the Modification phase, they are tasked to alter parameters or given problems,

which the simulation dynamically responds to, allowing students to test their own

changes and observe effects. In the Creation phase, students return to the earlier

open-ended task with deeper insight. They use the simulation to construct new

functions or models, answering questions like, “What function could have this
 134

behavior?” or “How can we change the function, so the limit is still 5?” Throughout

these levels, the simulations include embedded prompts and “what-if” exploration

paths. For instance, students might be asked by the simulation: As x approaches

2 from the left, what value does y approach? or As x approaches 2 from the right,

what value does y approach? These questions are not answered immediately;

instead, the simulation encourages trial-and-error, pattern recognition, and

reasoning based on observation. This ensures students are not passively receiving

information but actively constructing knowledge through guided discovery which is

a hallmark of inquiry-based learning.

To reinforce inquiry, the simulation only provides confirmation (e.g.,

feedback like “Good Job”) or reveals the next step after students submit responses

based on their exploration. This conditional feedback structure ensures that

learning proceeds only through engagement and reflection, not memorization.

Figure 9. Sample Screenshot for Promoting Inquiry-Based Learning

 135

2.3.4 Collaborative Simulation Activities

Finally, each simulation activity from Level 0 to Level 3 is designed to

promote collaborative learning. Students were organized into small groups of

three, with each group sharing only one computer loaded with the simulation. This

setup naturally encouraged teamwork, peer dialogue, and joint decision-making

because students must share control, discuss decisions, and coordinate actions.

Unlike individual work, where each student focuses on their own screen, sharing

a single device requires students to interact and rely on each other to complete

tasks. Collaboration was embedded into every phase of the lesson. During the

warm-up activity (Level 0), students worked together to solve as many review

problems as possible within a limited time. In the open-ended problem segment,

groups were prompted to discuss real-life problems and generate initial ideas

before formal instruction, encouraging them to explore possibilities collectively.

The Your Turn section further deepened collaboration through three levels of

activities. In the imitation phase, students took turns operating the simulation and

explaining their reasoning aloud. In the modification phase, the group jointly

revised problems and justified their changes before solving them. In the creation

phase, students constructed mathematical models or functions based on criteria

given in the simulation, requiring consensus and synthesis of ideas. Throughout

these activities, the simulation posed challenges that demanded group agreement

and rewarded collaborative effort through badges and points. Simulation feedback

guided student discussions, and teachers facilitated interactions to ensure that all

members actively participated. Collaboration, therefore, was not incidental but an

 136

intentional, structured feature of the packet’s design to enhance both creativity and

shared learning.

2.4 Gamification Elements Used

2.4.1 Open-Ended, Problem-Posing, and Interest-Based Challenges

One of the gamification elements utilized in the gamified simulation learning

packet is challenges. These challenges come in various forms such those that are

open-ended allowing multiple solution paths, problem-posing activities where

students generate their own mathematical questions, and interest-based challenge

where students have to select problems to solve based on their choices and

preferences.

First, the learning packet strategically used open-ended challenges in

creation activity (Level 3) to engage students in higher order thinking by allowing

multiple valid solutions rather than a single correct answer. One example of the

problem is, “Create a function such that lim 𝑓 (𝑥 ) = −5 and lim𝜋 𝑓 (𝑥 ) = −4” which
𝑥→0 𝑥→
2

students must satisfy using their own mathematical reasoning. Within the

simulation environment, students explore these tasks by manipulating graphs,

inputting equations, and testing various forms, enabling them to visualize the

results of their ideas in real time. The structure of open-ended challenges provides

space for students to think independently, make creative decisions, and approach

challenges from different perspectives. By incorporating open-ended challenges

at this level, the packet moves beyond rote procedures and fosters creativity,
 137

allowing learners to construct their own solutions, reflect on their choices, and

collaborate meaningfully with peers.

Figure 10. Sample Screenshot for Open-Ended Problem

Second, the learning packet also includes problem-posing challenges in the

Modification activity (Level 2). In this stage, students are required to modify key

elements of the problem such as the function, condition, or parameters and then

solve the new version they created. This process develops their ability to think

flexibly, understand problem structure, and engage more deeply with mathematical

concepts through purposeful modification and creative reasoning. An example of

such problem is presented in Figure 11.

 138

Figure 11. Sample Screenshot for Problem-Posing

Lastly, the learning packet also incorporates interest-based challenges that

give students the freedom to choose problems aligned with their interests and

curiosities. These challenges are found in Level 1 (imitation) and Level 3 (creation).

Figure 12. Sample Screenshot for Interest-Based Problem Solving

Figure 12 shows the sample screenshot for Interest-Based Problem Solving

in Level 1. Here, students are given five different continuity problems and are
 139

instructed to select at least three to solve. This setup exemplifies interest-based

learning in the Imitation Level, as it allows students to choose problems that align

with their preferences, level of challenge, or curiosity. This choice encourages

engagement and promotes a sense of ownership in group-based problem solving.

Figure 13. Sample Screenshots for Interest-Based Problem Solving

Figure 13 shows a sample screenshot for Interest-Based Problem Solving

in Level 3. In this task particularly in task #2 under the Creation Level, students are

asked to design at least three different functions f(x) such that its limit as x→c

does not equal to f(c), with c being system-generated. Here, the simulation

includes a generate new problem feature. When students click this option, the

system randomly produces a new mathematical problem that they must solve.

Students may continue clicking to generate problems until they find one that aligns

with their personal interest or comfort level. It promotes creativity, deeper

understanding of limits, and meaningful engagement by encouraging students to

formulate and solve problems based on self-selected or interest-aligned input.

2.4.2 Use of Feedback Mechanisms

The learning packet integrates feedback mechanisms across all levels of

the simulation, not only to evaluate students’ responses to challenges but also to
 140

guide them throughout the learning process. Feedback is provided in real-time

through visual cues, prompts, and encouraging messages (e.g., “Good Job”),

helping students recognize errors, confirm correct reasoning, and reflect on their

thinking. This continuous and supportive feedback enhances understanding,

sustains motivation, and enables learners to make meaningful adjustments as they

progress through each level whether they are in the level of imitation, modification,

and creation of the mathematical tasks. Samples of feedback mechanisms are

presented in Figure 14, 15, and 16 respectively.

Figure 14. Sample Feedback on Incorrect Response

Figure 15. Sample Feedback on Correct Response

 141

Figure 16. Sample Constructive and Motivating Feedback

2.4.3 Use of Rewards System

The learning packet features a dual rewards system designed to enhance

motivation and reinforce positive learning behaviors. The first component is the

point system embedded within the simulation, where students earn points as they

complete tasks or respond correctly to the challenges. This real-time reinforcement

keeps students engaged and encourages consistent effort. The second

component involves the awarding of digital badges at the end of each lesson,

based on a consolidated assessment of students’ creativity and collaboration.

These badges serve as recognition for group efforts, promoting not only academic

achievement but also key 21st-century skills. Together, these reward features

support a motivating, achievement-oriented learning environment. Samples

screenshots of rewards introduced in the study through badges and point system

are shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18 below.

 142

Figure 17. Sample Reward through Point System

Figure 18. Sample Reward through Badges

2.5 Integration of Aesthetics

Aesthetics are purposefully integrated into both the digital gamified

simulations and the printed learning packet to create an engaging, organized, and

learner-friendly experience. In the digital simulations, clean layouts, consistent

color schemes, intuitive icons, and responsive visual elements such as dynamic

graphs enhance user interaction and maintain student focus. Meanwhile, the

printed learning packet features clear formatting, well-structured activities, and

visually balanced page designs to support easy navigation and understanding.

Together, these aesthetic elements help reduce cognitive overload, stimulate

 143

interest, and foster a positive emotional and cognitive learning environment that

supports deeper engagement with mathematical content.

3. Experts’ Evaluation of the Developed Gamified Simulation Learning

Packets

Table 9: Experts’ Evaluation in Terms of Content

Factor 1: Content Mean Qualitative
Score Interpretation
1. Content is suitable to the student’s level of 4.00 Very Satisfactory
development
2. Material contributes to the achievement of specific 4.00 Very Satisfactory
objectives of the subject area and grade/year level for
which it is intended.
3. Material provides for the development of higher 4.00 Very Satisfactory
cognitive skills such as critical thinking, creativity,
learning by doing, inquiry, problem solving, etc.
4. Material is free of ideological, cultural, religious, 4.00 Very Satisfactory
racial, and gender biases and prejudices.
5. Material enhances the development of desirable 4.00 Very Satisfactory
values and traits.
6. Material has the potential to arouse interest of target 4.00 Very Satisfactory
reader.
7. Adequate warning/cautionary notes are provided in 3.00 Satisfactory
topics and activities where safety and health are of
concern.
Total Points 27.00 Passed
Legend: Mean score 1.00-1.75 = Not Satisfactory (NS), 1.76-2.50 = Poor (P), 2.51-3.25 = Satisfactory (S), 3.26-4.00 = Very
Satisfactory (VS). Total Points ≥ 21 (Passed)
Source: DepEd LRMDS (2009). Guidelines and Processes for LRMDS Assessment & Evaluation. Accessed from
[Link]

Table 9 presents the experts’ evaluation of the developed gamified

simulation learning packet in terms of content. Six out of seven indicators received

a mean score of 4.00, indicating a very satisfactory rating in terms of content

appropriateness across multiple dimensions. The item labeled as “Adequate

warning/cautionary notes are provided in topics and activities where safety and
 144

health are of concern” received a slightly lower mean score of 3.00, with a

satisfactory rating, primarily due to its limited applicability to the nature of the

material. Besides, all standard deviations were 0.00, indicating a high level of

agreement among evaluators for each item in general. The high scores in most

areas reflect that the content is considered developmentally appropriate, aligned

with the learning objectives, and effective in promoting higher-order thinking skills

including creativity and problem solving. Additionally, the material is recognized as

free from bias, supportive of value formation such as collaboration, and engaging

for learners. Although the safety-related item scored slightly lower, the total points

equivalent to 27.00 out of 28 (96.43%) still falls well within the “Passed” range,

signifying that the gamified simulation learning packet is highly acceptable in terms

of content factor. These quantitative findings are further supported by the

qualitative feedback gathered from expert evaluators as shown below.

“The content of the material is suitable for senior high school

students where it is intentionally designed for. The activities are enough to
challenge students’ understanding but not very difficult.” (E1)
“All activities in the gamified simulation learning packet aligns with
the learning competencies for Basic Calculus especially on Limits and
Continuity. I also observed that one activity allows students to create a real-
life problem related to the topic and solve it which also align with the
performance standards of the subject.” (E2)

“The gamified simulation learning packet offers a great potential to

enhance students’ creativity and collaboration through the series of varied,
interactive, and exploratory activities.” (E3)

One of the key factors in designing instructional materials is the quality of

the content according to Vergara (as cited in Baraquia, 2022). According to Olipas
 145

(2022), content must be relevant to help learners effectively acquire knowledge

and develop new skills. Without appropriate and reliable content, meaningful

learning cannot take place. This importance of content is reflected in the feedback

of the evaluators, who stated that the learning packet is suitable for senior high

school students, the group it was specifically designed for. The activities included

are enough to challenge the students' understanding but are not too difficult.

Vergara also pointed out that content need to be aligned with the required

learning competencies. It should be clear, understandable, and connected to the

learners’ real-life experiences. This idea is supported by the expert’s feedback,

where it was noted that the activities were aligned with the competencies in Basic

Calculus, especially on limits and continuity. The inclusion of tasks that involve

solving real-life problems helps students see the value of what they are learning,

making it more relevant and engaging.

Troop et al. (2020) also emphasized that effective learning happens when

there is meaningful interaction between the learner and the content. In the case of

the developed gamified simulation learning packet, this interaction is promoted

through varied, interactive, and exploratory activities. These types of activities

have strong potential to enhance students' creativity and collaboration as reflected

from the evaluators’ feedback. When students actively engage with the content,

learning becomes more effective and meaningful in this case.

Overall, the consistency between the expert feedback and quantitative

findings validate the strength of the learning packet in terms of the content factor.

The learning packet is not only aligned with the curriculum and developmentally
 146

appropriate, but it also effectively integrates features that promote inquiry,

creativity, and collaboration. The high ratings achieved in this factor indicate that

the material is suitable for enhancing students’ understanding of limits and

continuity.

Table 10: Experts’ Evaluation in Terms of Format

Factor 2: Format Mean Qualitative
Score Interpretation
1. Prints
1.1 Size of letters is appropriate to the intended user. 4.00 Very Satisfactory
1.2 Spaces between letters and words facilitate 4.00 Very Satisfactory
reading.
1.3 Font is easy to read. 4.00 Very Satisfactory
1.4 Printing is of good quality (i.e., no broken letters, 4.00 Very Satisfactory
even density, correct alignment, properly placed
screen registration).
2. Illustrations
2.1 Simple and easily recognizable. 4.00 Very Satisfactory
2.2 Clarify and supplement the text. 4.00 Very Satisfactory
2.3 Properly labelled or captioned (if applicable). 4.00 Very Satisfactory
2.4 Realistic / appropriate colors. 4.00 Very Satisfactory
2.5 Attractive and appealing. 4.00 Very Satisfactory
2.6 Culturally relevant. 4.00 Very Satisfactory
3. Design and Layout
3.1 Attractive and pleasing to look at. 4.00 Very Satisfactory
3.2 Simple (i.e., does not distract the attention of the 4.00 Very Satisfactory
reader).
3.3 Adequate illustration in relation to text. 4.00 Very Satisfactory
3.4 Harmonious blending of elements (e.g., illustrations 4.00 Very Satisfactory
and text).
4. Paper and Binding
4.1 Paper used contributes to easy reading. 4.00 Very Satisfactory
4.2 Durable binding to withstand frequent use. 4.00 Very Satisfactory
5. Size and Weight of Resource
5.1 Easy to handle. 3.25 Satisfactory
5.2 Relatively light. 2.75 Satisfactory
Total Points 70.00 Passed
Legend: Mean score 1.00-1.75 = Not Satisfactory (NS), 1.76-2.50 = Poor (P), 2.51-3.25 = Satisfactory (S), 3.26-4.00 = Very
Satisfactory (VS). Total Points ≥ 54 (Passed)
Source: DepEd LRMDS (2009). Guidelines and Processes for LRMDS Assessment & Evaluation. Accessed from
[Link]

Table 10 presents the experts’ evaluation of the developed gamified

simulation learning packet in terms of format. All indicators under the categories of
 147

prints, illustrations, design and layout, and paper and binding received a mean

score of 4.00, with a standard deviation of 0.00, indicating strong agreement

among experts that the material is visually clear, well-organized, culturally

appropriate, and professionally formatted. These results reflect the overall quality

and usability of the learning packet’s design.

However, under Size and Weight of the Resource, lower scores were

recorded. "Easy to handle" received a mean of 3.25 (Satisfactory), while

"Relatively light" was rated 2.75 (Satisfactory) which was the lowest in the entire

table. These results were attributed to the greater number of pages in the learning

packet. This was an intentional design choice by the researcher to ensure that

users are thoroughly guided in navigating and using the material. Nevertheless,

this concern is not considered major, as one practical recommendation is to print

the learning packet per topic instead of as a single volume, making it lighter and

easier to carry.

Overall, the learning packet obtained a total score of 70.00 out of 72 points

(97.22%) with a standard deviation of 0.06, which is well above the passing

threshold of 54 points. This indicates that the material has passed the evaluation

in terms of format, with only minor concerns in the weight and handling category.

Moreover, these quantitative findings are further supported by the qualitative

feedback gathered from expert evaluators as shown below.

"The font style and font size used are suitable for the learners and
facilitates easy reading.” (E1)
“Although there is textual feedback provided by the simulation in
evaluating students’ response as correct or incorrect, students can simply
 148

look at the type of icon that appears. If it is a smiley-face icon, this shows
that students are able to provide a correct response to the problem,
otherwise if it is a sad icon, this shows that the response is incorrect.” (E2)
"Functions are visually represented by their graphs which guide the
learners in answering challenges. For example, when students are task to
determine what type of discontinuity is illustrated with the given function,
students can simply look at the behavior of the graph of the function which
is provided in the first place to guide them in answering the problem.” (E4)

Another critical factor in the design of instructional materials is the format.

In line with this, Scales (2011) noted that the format of any document can

significantly enhance the speed at which students comprehend the instructional

material, or conversely, it can hinder their understanding. Format includes the

choice of proper fonts and case which is a crucial task specially when dealing with

individuals who may have reading difficulties. According to Khalid et al. (as cited

in Yongco & Del Valle, 2022), high-quality printing, along with the thoughtful use

of font style and case, plays a key role in promoting effective learning. These visual

elements provide clarity and help prevent misreading or missing critical

information. This aligns with the feedback provided by experts on the gamified

simulation learning packet, which emphasized that the choice of font style and font

size were not only suitable for the learners but also made the content easier to

read. The clear and readable text contributed to a visually comfortable experience

for the students, ensuring that the learning material remained accessible and

engaging throughout the activity.

Ensuring a strong connection between written content and visual features

in a learning packet is an essential aspect of format design in instructional

 149

materials. According to Dania (as cited in Yongco & Del Valle, 2022), learning

becomes more enjoyable and meaningful when graphs, images, and graphics are

included. Texts are more effective when placed alongside visual elements that help

explain the message more clearly. In fact, students respond more quickly to

objects rather than reading textual information (Yongco & Del Valle, 2022). This

idea is reflected in the evaluators feedback, where visual cues support the

feedback given to students. For instance, although the simulation provides written

feedback when evaluating students’ answers, students can also rely on the icons

that appear. A smiley-face icon indicates a correct answer, while a sad-face icon

shows that the response is incorrect. These visual cues help learners quickly

understand how well they are doing.

The used of visuals is also aligned with Vergara’s perspective (as cited in

Baraquia, 2022), which emphasized the importance of illustrative pictures in

helping students grasp abstract concepts more easily. Evaluators highlighted that

the inclusion of graphs in the learning packet further supports problem-solving. For

instance, when students are asked to determine the type of discontinuity in a

function, the graph's behavior serves as a visual guide to help them arrive at the

correct answer. Incorporating such visual elements not only enhances clarity but

also makes the learning experience more interactive and accessible for students.

Meanwhile, some experts noted that the learning packet was a bit bulky and

less convenient to carry. This is mainly due to the detailed step-by-step guide

included to help users understand how to use the material effectively. This detailed

approach caused the number of pages to increase during the development

 150

process. However, this can be easily addressed by dividing the material into

smaller packets per topic, making it lighter and easier to handle. In general, this is

not a major issue and does not affect the usefulness or clarity of the learning

packet.

Overall, the alignment between expert feedback and quantitative results

highlights that the learning packet performed well in terms of format, contributing

meaningfully to its overall effectiveness. The clear fonts, appropriate text sizes,

strategic color use, and integration of icons and visuals not only improved visual

appeal but also facilitated smoother navigation and better understanding of

content. This indicates that the format was not just supportive but instrumental in

promoting student engagement and learning. The results imply that a well-

designed format in the case of the developed learning packet enhances cognitive

processing by reducing distractions and helping learners focus on essential

concepts. This proves that format is a key factor in the success of instructional

materials, not just an aesthetic consideration.

Table 11: Experts’ Evaluation in Terms of Presentation and Organization

Factor 3: Presentation and Organization Mean Qualitative
Score Interpretation
1. The presentation is engaging, interesting, and 4.00 Very Satisfactory
understandable.
2. There is a logical and smooth flow of ideas. 4.00 Very Satisfactory
3. Vocabulary level is adapted to target reader's 3.75 Very Satisfactory
likely experience and level of understanding.
4. The length of sentences is suited to the 4.00 Very Satisfactory
comprehension level of the target reader.
5. Sentences and paragraph structures are varied 4.00 Very Satisfactory
and interesting to the target reader.
Total Points 19.75 Passed
Legend: Mean score 1.00-1.75 = Not Satisfactory (NS), 1.76-2.50 = Poor (P), 2.51-3.25 = Satisfactory (S), 3.26-4.00 = Very Satisfactory (VS). Total Points ≥ 15 (Passed)
Source: DepEd LRMDS (2009). Guidelines and Processes for LRMDS Assessment & Evaluation. Accessed from [Link]
 151

Table 11 presents the experts’ evaluation of the developed gamified

simulation learning packet in terms of presentation and organization. Four out of

five indicators received a mean score of 4.00, with a standard deviation of 0.00,

indicating a high level of agreement that the material is engaging, logically

structured, and appropriate in both sentence structure and length for the target

learners. These scores suggest that the content is presented in a clear and

organized manner that promotes ease of comprehension and sustained interest.

One item labeled as “Vocabulary level is adapted to target reader’s likely

experience and level of understanding” received a slightly lower mean score of

3.75 with a standard deviation of 0.50, suggesting minor differences in expert

opinions. While the vocabulary was generally seen as appropriate, one expert

noted opportunities to further simplify or align certain terms with the target learners’

proficiency level.

Despite this, the total points obtained for this factor was 19.75 out of 20

points (98.75%), which exceeds the passing mark of 15, placing it in the “Passed”

category. This indicates that the learning packet is well-structured, highly readable,

and effectively designed to enhance student engagement and comprehension.

Moreover, these quantitative findings are further supported by the qualitative

feedback gathered from expert evaluators as shown below.

"The learning packet is well presented and easy to follow. Concepts

are also properly discussed through gamified simulation activities." (E1)
"The vocabulary is mostly suitable for senior high school students.
However, some words could be simplified for better understanding." (E3)
 152

The quality of the presentation and organization is another essential factor

in designing instructional materials. As Yongco and Del Valle (2022) emphasized,

effective data organization is crucial, with presentation playing a significant role in

meeting the needs of diverse learners. In this regard, the learning packet was

found to be well-presented and easy to follow, with concepts clearly conveyed

through gamified simulation activities. This suggests a logical sequencing of ideas

that promotes student engagement and understanding. Such an approach aligns

with Roman’s (2016) assertion that instructional materials should offer clear and

thorough discussions to effectively communicate key concepts.

However, while the vocabulary used was generally appropriate for senior

high school students, a few terms were identified as potentially complex. This

concern echoes Stahl’s perspective (as cited in Melaku & Kibru, 2020), which

highlights that increased word difficulty can hinder comprehension. To address this

issue, the researcher refined and simplified specific terms within the packet,

thereby improving both the accessibility and instructional quality of the material.

Overall, the alignment between expert feedback and quantitative results

highlights that the learning packet is effectively designed in terms of presentation

and organization. The high ratings across most indicators, along with the expert

comments, underscore the packet's ability to engage students, present ideas in a

logical sequence, and maintain accessibility. The slight adjustments made to

simplify vocabulary further enhance the packet’s usability, ensuring it is tailored to

the comprehension level of senior high school students. Consequently, the

learning packet not only meets the established standards but also demonstrates a
 153

well-rounded approach to fostering student engagement and comprehension in

mathematics education.

Table 12: Experts’ Evaluation in Terms of Accuracy and Up-to-datedness of Information

Factor 4: Accuracy and Up-to-datedness of Mean Qualitative
Information Score Interpretation
1. Conceptual errors. 4.00 Very Satisfactory
2. Factual errors. 4.00 Very Satisfactory
3. Grammatical errors. 4.00 Very Satisfactory
4. Computational errors. 4.00 Very Satisfactory
5. Obsolete information. 4.00 Very Satisfactory
6. Typographical and other minor errors (e.g., 4.00 Very Satisfactory
inappropriate or unclear illustrations, missing labels,
wrong captions, etc.).
Total Points 20.00 Passed
Legend: Mean score 1.00-1.75 = Not Satisfactory (NS), 1.76-2.50 = Poor (P), 2.51-3.25 = Satisfactory (S), 3.26-4.00 = Very
Satisfactory (VS). Total Points = 20 (Passed
Source: DepEd LRMDS (2009). Guidelines and Processes for LRMDS Assessment & Evaluation. Accessed from
[Link]

Table 12 presents the experts’ evaluation of the developed gamified

simulation learning packet in terms of accuracy and up-to-datedness of

information. All six indicators received a perfect mean score of 4.00 with a standard

deviation of 0.00, indicating a high level of agreement among experts regarding

the accuracy, relevance, and technical correctness of the material. Specifically, the

learning packet was found to be free from conceptual, factual, grammatical, and

computational errors, and contained no obsolete content or typographical issues.

These results affirm that the learning packet maintains a high standard of

academic and linguistic quality, with information that is both current and precise.

The total score of 20 out of 20 points (100%), confirms that the content is accurate,

current, and appropriate for instructional use, thereby meeting the required

standards under this criterion. Moreover, these quantitative findings are further
 154

supported by the qualitative feedback gathered from expert evaluators as shown

below.

"I can say that all concepts are correct and match the current senior
high school curriculum. There were no mistakes in the discussions and
exercises." (E2)
"The explanations are accurate and use innovative teaching
methods that is self-centered in nature. I appreciate that even the
illustrations and prompts are relevant." (E3)
"There are no outdated terms or misleading content. Everything is
timely and appropriate, especially with the shift towards gamified
simulation-based learning. This innovative approach maximizes the benefit
of technology which the current generation of learners are relatively
inclined. (E4)

Results of the evaluation revealed that in terms of accuracy and up-to-

datedness of information; the developed gamified simulation learning packet is

heavily compliant with this criterion. Evaluators affirmed that the content does not

only accurately reflects the current senior high school curriculum, but it was also

noted that all concepts were correct with no identified mistakes in the discussions

and exercises. This consistency is critical, as inaccuracies in educational materials

can greatly hinder student learning orientation, motivation, and performance in the

subject (Yongco & Del Valle, 2022).

The gamified simulation approach was also recognized for being timely,

innovative, and well-suited to the current generation of learners. Evaluators

praised the effective integration of technology, noting that it aligns with the

preferences and learning styles of today’s students, who are increasingly inclined

toward interactive and digital environments. This observation is consistent with

 155

Jayalaxmi (2016), who emphasized the importance of adopting interactive

teaching methods in response to the evolving educational landscape. As

multimedia technologies continue to shape classroom practices, the role of

education inevitably shifts to accommodate a technologically savvy generation of

learners. This highlights that the learning packet not only provides accurate and

updated content but also uses a modern teaching approach through its main

feature, which is the gamified simulation, making it relevant and suitable for today’s

educational needs.

Collectively, the feedback highlights that the developed gamified simulation

learning packet is not only accurate and up to date but also pedagogically sound,

technologically relevant, and responsive to contemporary trends in education.

Finally, given that the gamified simulation learning packet meets the criteria

for content, format, organization and presentation, as well as accuracy and up-to-

datedness of information, it can be implied that the material is instructionally sound

and ready for classroom implementation. Its alignment with current curriculum

standards, combined with its modern design and interactive features, positions it

as a valuable resource for enhancing student engagement, fostering meaningful

learning experiences, and addressing the evolving needs of 21st-century learners

in mathematics education.
 156

Table 13: Gamified Simulation Alignment and Quality Evaluation by Experts

Indicators Mean SD Qualitative
Interpretation
1. Simulation-Based Lesson Design
1.1 The simulation clearly visualizes mathematical concepts. 4.00 0.00 Highly Aligned
1.2 The simulation supports inquiry-based learning (students 3.50 0.58 Highly Aligned
ask, explore, reflect).
1.3 Real-life applications are integrated meaningfully into the 3.00 0.82 Moderately Aligned
simulation. 3.50 0.58 Highly Aligned
1.4 Students are allowed to manipulate variables, test
hypotheses, and make conclusions.
Overall 3.50 0.49 Highly Aligned
2. Gamification Elements
2.1 Challenges within the simulation are interactive and 4.00 0.00 Highly Aligned
engaging.
2.2 Challenges are open-ended, allowing multiple possible 4.00 0.00 Highly Aligned
solutions.
2.3 Students are encouraged to modify or pose their own 4.00 0.00 Highly Aligned
problems.
2.4 Problem choices reflect student interest or prior 4.00 0.00 Highly Aligned
experience
2.5 Feedback is timely and contextual within the simulation. 3.25 0.50 Moderately Aligned
2.6 Feedback promotes exploration and refinement of ideas. 4.00 0.00 Highly Aligned
2.7 Feedback fosters peer discussion and collaborative 4.00 0.00 Highly Aligned
learning.
2.8 Feedback is constructive and motivating within the 4.00 0.00 Highly Aligned
simulation.
2.9 Points, badges, or progression are used effectively. 3.50 0.58 Highly Aligned
2.10 Students are rewarded for manifesting creativity. 3.75 0.50 Highly Aligned
2.11 Rewards enhance motivation and group participation. 4.00 0.00 Highly Aligned
Overall 3.86 0.14 Highly Aligned
3. Support for Creativity
3.1 Students explore various solution paths to a problem 4.00 0.00 Highly Aligned
3.2 Tasks encourage divergent thinking (fluency, flexibility, 3.50 0.58 Highly Aligned
originality).
3.3 Students are invited to generate new ideas and 4.00 0.00 Highly Aligned
approaches.
Overall 3.83 0.19 Highly Aligned
4. Support for Collaboration
4.1 Students are encouraged to collaborate and work 4.00 0.00 Highly Aligned
together to solve problems.
4.2 The simulation includes group-based tasks or team 4.00 0.00 Highly Aligned
missions.
4.3 Collaboration leads to shared insights and improves 4.00 0.00 Highly Aligned
problem-solving outcomes.
Overall 4.00 0.00 Highly Aligned
5. Aesthetics and Engagement
5.1 Visual design is engaging and aids content 4.00 0.00 Highly Aligned
understanding.
5.2 Interface is immersive, motivating, and free of 3.50 0.58 Highly Aligned
distractions.
5.3 Aesthetic design enhances the overall learning 4.00 0.00 Highly Aligned
experience.
Overall 3.83 0.19 Highly Aligned
Overall Mean 3.81 0.20 Highly Aligned
Legend. Mean ranges for alignment level: 1.00–1.75 = Poorly Aligned, 1.76–2.50 = Partially Aligned, 2.51–3.25 =
Moderately Aligned, 3.26–4.00 = Highly Aligned
 157

Table 13 shows the experts’ evaluation of the alignment and quality of the

developed gamified simulation learning packet based on the proposed model for

improving students’ creativity and collaboration in mathematics education. The

results revealed an overall mean rating of 3.81 with a standard deviation of 0.20,

indicating that the material is highly aligned with the proposed model across all

indicators.

Particularly notable results were related to creativity and collaboration which

are the two major dependent variables of this study. Under the domain of “Support

for Creativity”, all indicators received high ratings, with perfect scores (M = 4.00)

for “Students explore various solution paths” and “Students are invited to generate

new ideas and approaches,” and a strong rating (M = 3.50) for “Tasks encourage

divergent thinking (fluency, flexibility, originality).” These results suggest that the

gamified simulation effectively fosters creative mathematical thinking by

encouraging original solutions, flexibility in approach, and student-led idea

generation.

Likewise, in terms of “Support for Collaboration”, all indicators achieved a

perfect mean score of 4.00, highlighting the simulation’s strong alignment with

collaborative learning goals. Experts affirmed that the simulation consistently

promotes teamwork, integrates group-based tasks, and facilitates shared problem-

solving experiences which are key aspects of collaborative engagement.

Moreover, these quantitative findings particularly for supporting creativity

and collaboration are further supported by the qualitative feedback gathered from

expert evaluators as shown below.

 158

"The gamified simulation activities are designed so that students

must communicate and build on each other's ideas. This is particularly
important for improving their collaborative skills." (E1)
"The gamified simulation offer various opportunities for students to
improve their creativity in math. For example, the inclusion of feedback
allowed students to go through process of verifying solution which could
lead them to provide unusual responses to problems. Another feature is the
visualization of concepts which could also be a source for promoting
creativity by making concepts more tangible.” (E4)

Overall, the alignment between expert feedback and quantitative findings

supports the appropriateness of the created gamified simulation within the context

of the proposed model. The high acceptability ratings across different indicators

suggest that the gamified simulation is not only instructionally sound but also

conceptually coherent with the goals of the model. This highlights its strong

potential as a practical teaching approach, allowing teachers to implement

strategies that promote students’ creativity and collaboration in mathematics.

Supporting this, Redhead and Saunders (2019) emphasized that when

thoughtfully designed, gamification techniques can enhance simulations in the

context of gamified simulations, transforming them into effective training tools that

improve learning outcomes, engagement, and motivation. In this context, the

developed gamified simulation aligns well with these principles, offering a

meaningful and engaging learning experience for both teachers and students.

4. Students’ Pretest and Posttest Scores on Creativity and Collaboration

4.1 Pretest and Posttest Scores on Creativity

To test the hypothesis that the pretest scores (M = 3.00, SD = 1.54) and

posttest scores on mathematical creativity (M = 42.74, SD = 6.69) were equal, a

 159

paired sample t-test was performed. Before conducting the analysis, two important

assumptions were tested based on Fein et al. (2022). First, an inspection of the

boxplot diagram (Appendix 20) revealed no presence of outliers in the data.

Second, the assumption of normally distributed difference scores was evaluated

using the Shapiro-Wilk test, which indicated that the difference scores were

approximately normally distributed (p = .848). With both assumptions met, the

paired sample t-test was deemed appropriate for the analysis.

Table 14. Descriptive Statistics and Paired Sample t-Test Results for Mathematical
Creativity
Test Mean SD t df p-value Cohen’s d
Pretest 3.00 1.54 -35.42 37 .000 5.74
Posttest 42.74 6.60

Table 14 presents the descriptive statistics and paired sample t-test results

for students’ mathematical creativity scores before and after the intervention. The

null hypothesis of equal mean scores was rejected, t(37) = -35.42, p < .001. The

posttest mean score was therefore statistically significantly higher than the pretest

mean. Cohen’s d was estimated at 5.75, indicating a large effect based on Cohen’s

(1992) guidelines. This suggests that the gamified simulation learning packet had

a substantial positive impact on students’ mathematical creativity.

Table 15. Pretest and Posttest Scores in Mathematical Creativity and Its Components
Creativity Components Pretest Posttest Maximum
Score
Mean SD Mean SD
Fluency 2.34 1.10 23.84 0.97 24.00
Flexibility 0.63 0.59 15.95 3.22 18.00
Originality 0.03 0.16 3.03 4.17 30.00
 160

Table 15 presents the pretest and posttest mean scores in mathematical

creativity and its three components: fluency, flexibility, and originality. In terms of

fluency, students showed a remarkable improvement, with the mean score rising

from 2.34 (SD = 1.10) in the pretest to 23.84 (SD = 0.97) in the posttest, nearly

reaching the maximum score of 24. Flexibility also demonstrated substantial

growth, increasing from a pretest mean of 0.63 (SD = 0.59) to a posttest mean of

15.95 (SD = 3.22), out of a maximum score of 18. However, the originality

component showed relatively limited improvement. While the mean score

increased from 0.03 (SD = 0.16) to 3.03 (SD = 4.17), it remained notably low

compared to its maximum possible score of 30. This suggests that while the

gamified simulation learning packet greatly enhanced students’ fluency and

flexibility, fostering originality may require more targeted strategies or extended

exposure to creativity-focused tasks.

The findings of the study revealed that, among the three components of

mathematical creativity, students showed the greatest improvements in fluency

and flexibility but demonstrated less progress in originality.

4.2 Pretest and Posttest Scores on Collaboration

To test the hypothesis that the pretest scores (M = 32.66, SD = 3.67) and

posttest scores on collaboration (M = 36.21, SD = 4.19) were equal, a paired

sample t-test was performed. Before conducting the analysis, two important

assumptions were tested. First, an inspection of the boxplot diagram (Appendix

21) revealed no presence of outliers in the data. Second, the assumption of

normally distributed difference scores was evaluated using the Shapiro-Wilk test,
 161

which indicated that the difference scores were approximately normally distributed

(p = .154). With both assumptions satisfied, the paired sample t-test was deemed

appropriate for the analysis.

Table 16. Descriptive Statistics and Paired Sample t-Test Results for Collaboration

Test Mean SD t df p-value Cohen’s d

Pretest 32.66 3.67 -4.46 37 .000 0.72
Posttest 36.21 4.19

Table 16 presents the descriptive statistics and paired sample t-test results

for students’ collaboration scores before and after the intervention. The null

hypothesis of equal mean scores was rejected, t(37) = -4.46, p < .001. The posttest

mean score was therefore statistically significantly higher than the pretest mean.

Cohen’s d was estimated at 0.72, indicating a medium effect based on Cohen’s

(1992) guidelines. This suggests that the gamified simulation learning packet had

a meaningful positive impact on students’ collaboration skills.

5. Students’ Feedback on the Use of the Developed Gamified Simulation

Learning Packets

This section presents the qualitative findings based on students’ feedback

regarding their experience with the developed gamified simulation learning

packets. The analysis of their responses provides insights into how the intervention

supported their learning, particularly in terms of creativity and collaboration, as well

as their general perceptions of the learning experience. The feedback is

categorized into two major themes: (1) Feedback related to creativity and

collaboration, which directly connects to the intended learning outcomes, and (2)

General perceptions of the learning packet, which highlight students’ overall

 162

impressions, motivation, and engagement with the gamified simulation

environment.

5.1 Feedback Related to Mathematical Creativity and Collaboration

This section presents the qualitative feedback from students regarding how

the developed gamified simulation learning packets supported the development of

their mathematical creativity and collaboration skills. The findings are organized

into two sub-sections: (1) Feedback related to mathematical creativity, and (2)

Feedback related to collaboration, each supported by illustrative student

responses and integrated with the corresponding quantitative results.

5.1.1 Feedback Related to Mathematical Creativity

Table 17. Joint Display Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Results on Creativity

Quantitative Qualitative Follow-Up How Qualitative Findings

Results Interviews Explaining Helped to Explain
Quantitative Results Quantitative Results
Pretest Mean = “It helped sharpen my mind… The significant increase in
3.00 (SD = 1.54) [I was] encouraged to try my creativity scores is supported by
Posttest Mean = best to come up with different students’ experiences of being
42.74 (SD = 6.69) and varied correct mentally stimulated and
t(37) = -35.42, p < responses.” (S1) motivated to generate original
.001 and varied solutions.
Cohen’s d = 5.75 “I got to practice making The ability to create and solve
(large effect) applicable problems and their own problems gave
solving them myself… It’s students ownership of learning
really satisfying.” (S3) and reinforced their creative
thinking skills.
“The challenges help improve Open-ended tasks prompted
our critical and creative students to move beyond routine
thinking… functions can be thinking and explore diverse
quadratic, cubic, or other mathematical representations.
forms.” (S9)
“Others share ideas to correct Collaborative brainstorming
mistakes… we’re able to contributed to the generation and
 163

come up with different refinement of multiple creative

answers.” (S9) solutions.
“… we don't feel pressured… A low-pressure, exploratory
[we] can use trial and error… environment encouraged
until we find different experimentation, which is
answers.” (S8) essential for fostering creativity.
Originality “It’s difficult to come up with a Original thinking remained a
Pretest Mean = new solution, Sir, because our challenge for most students.
0.03 (SD = 0.16) knowledge is limited to what While the simulation fostered
Posttest Mean = has been taught to us.” (S9) basic creativity, deeper
3.03 (SD = 4.17) “It’s really difficult, Sir… we conceptual understanding,
Low score probably need more time to extended time, and explicit
compared to be able to do that.” (S3) scaffolding appear necessary to
maximum of 30 “Creating a truly unique help students develop truly
solution is more challenging… unique mathematical solutions.
we really need a deeper
understanding of the topic.”
(S2)

Table 17 shows the joint display integrating quantitative and qualitative

results on creativity and its originality component. The significant increase in

students’ mathematical creativity scores following their exposure to the gamified

simulation learning packet can be attributed to several interrelated factors

embedded in the design of the learning experience. First, the interactive and

gamified nature of the simulations mentally stimulated students and motivated

them to go beyond routine responses, encouraging the generation of original and

varied solutions. This aligns with Bird’s (2024) assertion that the strategic

integration of gamification and simulation creates a motivating environment that

fosters skill development by presenting challenges, encouraging enjoyment, and

providing targeted feedback. Similarly, Brom (2019) noted that gamified

simulations are perceived as more engaging and accessible than traditional

 164

methods, a feature that likely sustained students’ perseverance in solving complex

mathematical tasks creatively.

One critical contributor to creativity development was the opportunity for

problem posing. By allowing students to formulate and solve their own

mathematical problems, the learning packet gave them a sense of ownership over

the process, promoting fluency, flexibility, and novelty in their thinking. This is

supported by Bicer (2021) and Wulandari et al. (2024), who emphasized that

problem posing fosters various aspects of creativity by enabling learners to

generate diverse, original, and non-standard problems. Stolaki and Economides

(2018) also highlighted that creativity is stimulated when learners engage in

collaborative problem-solving and question generation, both of which were key

components of the activity design.

The open-ended nature of the tasks was another essential feature. These

challenges lacked predetermined solutions, thus encouraging students to explore

multiple pathways and develop their own strategies. This design element

resonates with Nilimaa (2023), who argued that open-ended tasks foster creative

risk-taking and flexibility in thinking. Additionally, Rachmawati et al. (2023) found

that integrating open-ended challenges into simulations significantly enhances

students’ creative thinking abilities across disciplines.

Collaboration further enriched the creative process. Students were

encouraged to share perspectives, offer suggestions, and refine one another’s

ideas, leading to more diverse and meaningful solutions. Nob et al. (2024)

supported this by noting that collaborative learning especially when paired with
 165

effective feedback mechanisms promotes cycles of idea generation and validation,

which are vital for developing novel solutions in mathematics.

Finally, the non-threatening learning environment established through

gamified simulation played a crucial role. Students felt free to experiment, make

mistakes, and try again, which are essential conditions for fostering creativity. This

observation is in line with Veith and Bitzenbauer (2022), who emphasized that low-

pressure environments support risk-taking and creative exploration by reducing

fear of failure.

Together, these features mental stimulation through gamification, problem

posing, open-ended exploration, collaboration, and a supportive environment

synergistically contributed to the substantial gains in students’ mathematical

creativity.

While the results were very remarkable on the benefits of gamified

simulation learning packet and is also consistent with the earlier findings of

Andrade and Pasia (2020), it is also important to note that these results could also

be attributed to the nature of learners in the study as they belong to the STEM

strand. According to Preca et al. (2023), STEM students tend to exhibit higher

levels of creativity compared to students in other fields. Creativity in STEM

disciplines often manifests as the ability to generate solutions and insights that are

both novel and useful. This suggests that the gamified simulation learning packet

may have been particularly successful in enhancing students’ creativity because

the learners were already naturally inclined toward creative thinking. In line with

this, the researcher recommends that future studies may explore the use of the
 166

gamified simulation learning packet with non-STEM students to determine whether

similar improvements in mathematical creativity can be observed. Such

investigations would provide deeper insight into the broader applicability and

effectiveness of gamified simulation as an instructional strategy across diverse

learner profiles.

Furthermore, despite the overall improvement in students' mathematical

creativity, the component of originality remained the most challenging. Quantitative

results showed only a modest gain from a pretest mean of 0.03 (SD = 0.16) to a

posttest mean of 3.03 (SD = 4.17), which is still significantly low compared to the

maximum possible score of 30. This finding suggests that while the gamified

simulation learning packet effectively enhanced students’ fluency and flexibility, it

was less successful in cultivating the ability to generate truly unique or rare

solutions. Qualitative feedback supports this limitation. Students shared that their

capacity for original thinking was constrained by the boundaries of their prior

knowledge and understanding of the topics covered. As Student 9 noted, “It’s

difficult to come up with a new solution, Sir, because our knowledge is limited to

what has been taught to us.” Similarly, Student 3 emphasized the need for more

time, saying, “It’s really difficult, Sir… we probably need more time to be able to do

that.” Student 2 also pointed out that creating original ideas required a deeper level

of conceptual understanding: “Creating a truly unique solution is more

challenging… we really need a deeper understanding of the topic.” These

reflections indicate that originality in mathematical problem solving may not

naturally emerge from short-term interventions alone. Rather, it may require more
 167

sustained exposure to creative thinking tasks, intentional scaffolding strategies,

and instructional designs that help students transcend procedural understanding.

Encouraging originality, therefore, calls for targeted support in both content

mastery and divergent thinking which are areas that future implementations of the

learning packet can strengthened. The findings are aligned with the earlier findings

of Narvaza and Manla (2024), who reported that while majority of students

demonstrated proficiency in fluency (58.55%) and flexibility (90.60%), fewer

exhibited proficiency in originality (24.79%) and elaboration (29.06%). Students

tend to follow step-by-step procedures to arrive at correct answers but typically

relied on familiar strategies for problem-solving (Andrade & Pasia, 2020).

Supporting this, literature indicates that generating numerous correct solutions is

typically the easiest task for students, while producing original solutions remains

the most challenging (Fortes & Andrade, 2019). Originality requires students to

present approaches that are distinct from those commonly used by their peers,

which makes it particularly difficult (Andrade & Pasia, 2020). In fact, if a solution is

replicated by more than 90% of the class, it is considered to lack originality, further

emphasizing the challenge of fostering truly unique problem-solving strategies.

As a practical recommendation, future research may be conducted to

determine the specific design features in gamified simulations that effectively

promote the originality component of mathematical creativity. In this way,

educators can intentionally design learning environments that better foster unique

and innovative problem-solving strategies among students.

 168

5.1.2 Feedback Related to Collaboration

Table 18. Joint Display of Quantitative and Qualitative Results on Collaboration

Quantitative Qualitative Follow-Up Interviews How Qualitative Findings

Results Explaining Quantitative Results Helped to Explain
Quantitative Results
Pretest Mean = “I usually prefer to work alone, but Role assignments fostered
32.66 (SD = in our group, different roles were equal participation and
3.67) assigned like leader, verifier, and accountability, reducing task
Posttest Mean secretary… collaboration monopolization and promoting
= 36.21 (SD = improved… everyone learned collaborative engagement.
4.19) something.” (S9)
t(37) = -4.46, p “We were really competing within Healthy competition among
< .001 our group to see who could find the group members increased
Cohen’s d = answer first.” (S5) engagement and motivation to
0.72 (medium participate actively.
effect) “The three of us really helped each Peer support within the group
other… the activities weren’t too enhanced comprehension and
difficult because we had someone made collaborative tasks more
to share ideas with.” (S7) enjoyable.
“Before the review activity, we ask Collaborative discussions
each other… By sharing our during review sessions
understanding, we improve and reinforced understanding and
speed up our comprehension.” (S8) improved learning efficiency.

Table 18 presents the joint display of quantitative and qualitative results on

collaboration. The quantitative findings indicate a statistically significant

improvement in students’ collaboration skills after being exposed to the gamified

simulation learning packet. The pretest mean score of 32.66 (SD = 3.67) rose to a

posttest mean of 36.21 (SD = 4.19), with a t(37) = -4.46, p < .001. The calculated

Cohen’s d of 0.72 suggests a medium effect size, indicating that the intervention

had a meaningful impact on enhancing collaborative behavior. This improvement

is further illuminated by students’ qualitative feedback, which sheds light on the

specific features of the learning packet that contributed to these gains.

 169

A key strategy that promoted collaboration was the assignment of specific

group roles such as leader, verifier, and secretary. As Student 9 shared, “I usually

prefer to work alone, but in our group, different roles were assigned… collaboration

improved… everyone learned something.” This structured division of labor

minimized task monopolization and ensured equitable participation, allowing each

member to feel accountable and engaged in the group work. Additionally, the

gamified structure of the simulation introduced elements of friendly competition.

Student 5 noted, “We were really competing within our group to see who could find

the answer first,” suggesting that the challenge-based tasks increased student

motivation and active involvement.

Another essential factor was the peer support system naturally fostered

within the collaborative setting. Student 7 remarked, “The three of us really helped

each other… the activities weren’t too difficult because we had someone to share

ideas with.” This highlights how mutual assistance reduced cognitive load and

enhanced engagement by making problem-solving more accessible and

enjoyable. The value of collaborative learning was also evident during review

activities. Student 8 explained, “Before the review activity, we ask each other… by

sharing our understanding, we improve and speed up our comprehension.” These

collaborative dynamics created a supportive environment where stronger students

assisted their peers, consistent with Kickmeier-Rust and Niggli’s (2023)

observation that peer-to-peer support enhances the learning experience.

Furthermore, the learning environment fostered beneficial collaborative behaviors

 170

such as questioning and helping others which hare behaviors linked to increased

engagement and learning, as highlighted by Knutas et al. (2019).

Beyond skill development, this collaboration also nurtured a sense of

community among learners. As noted by Salansan et al. (n.d.), such a sense of

belonging enhances understanding of mathematical concepts through shared

inquiry and support. Corpuz-Sanchez and Pasia (n.d.) also emphasize that group-

based learning encourages students to feel more confident and engaged, as they

combine their knowledge to complete tasks together which is an effect that was

echoed in students’ reflections throughout the study.

Taken together, the evidence from both quantitative outcomes and student

reflections indicates that the features of the gamified simulation learning packet

particularly those that supported structured group roles, interactive engagement,

and peer collaboration may have contributed to the observed improvement in

students’ collaborative behavior. While other factors may have also played a role,

the design and implementation of the learning packet appear to have provided a

learning environment conducive to active and meaningful collaboration.

5.2. General Perceptions of the Learning Packet.

Thematic analysis of students’ feedback on the overall use of the developed

gamified simulation learning packets revealed two main themes that reflect their

general perceptions of the intervention such as (1) Essential Benefits and (2)

Challenges Encountered.
 171

Main Theme 1: Essential Benefits

Under the theme of Essential Benefits, five subthemes emerged: (a)

enhancement of conceptual understanding, (b) increased engagement and

enjoyment in the learning process, (c) improved motivation facilitated by the

rewards system, (d) diverse advantages provided by feedback mechanisms, and

(e) the incorporation of a game-like learning environment.

Subtheme 1.1: Enhancement of Conceptual Understanding

One of the prominent themes that emerged from the students’ feedback

was the enhancement of their conceptual understanding of mathematical topics,

particularly on the concepts of limits and discontinuity. Students consistently

reported that the integration of gamified simulations allowed them to engage more

deeply with these abstract concepts, resulting in more meaningful learning

experiences.

Several participants reflected on how the hands-on and interactive nature

of the gamified simulation learning packet helped them clarify challenging

mathematical ideas. Student 5 remarked:

“Ang pagdescribe nako sa experience Sir kay I’ve learned a lot Sir in
terms of limits kay mas naexplore man gud namo siya og mas naklaro ang
concepts pinaagi sa mga hands-on activities sa computer.” [“The way I
would describe the experience, Sir, is that I’ve learned a lot in terms of limits
because we were able to explore it more and the concepts became clearer
through hands-on computer activities.”] (S5)

This statement illustrates how the simulation activities enabled students to

visualize and manipulate mathematical functions, which not only promotes

 172

exploration and experiment but also strengthened their grasp of the concept of

limits. Similarly, student 8 acknowledged a better understanding of discontinuity

despite the topic's inherent difficulty, especially due to its immediate feedback and

guided prompts:

“Nakagain gyud ko og knowledge sa discontinuity although lisod ni

siya nga concept. Makita namo ang result sa among mga desisyon og kung
sayup man, amo dayung macorrect. Dako pud og tabang ang mga prompts
nga manggawas kay guided me sa mga correct nga ideas” ["I really gained
knowledge about discontinuity, even though it's a difficult concept. We can
see the results of our decisions, and if they're wrong, we can correct them
immediately. The prompts that come out are also very helpful because they
guide us to the correct ideas."] (S8)

Beyond hands-on engagement students attributed much of their improved

understanding to the gamified features embedded within the simulation. The

inclusion of challenges, rewards, and immediate feedback mechanisms helped

sustain their attention and reinforce conceptual learning. Student 1 expressed how

the game-like aspects of the packet not only made learning more enjoyable but

also motivated them to persevere through difficult topics.

“Mas makatoon man gyud me mga estudyante basta naay dula kay
malingaw man me and makahatag pud siya og challenge.” [“We students
really learn better when there's a game because we enjoy it, and it also
provides a challenge.”] (S1)

Collectively, these responses highlight that the gamified simulation learning

packet played a crucial role in transforming abstract mathematical concepts into

more accessible and engaging experiences. The synergy of visual, interactive, and
 173

motivational elements allowed students to build a deeper and more connected

understanding on the concepts of limits and discontinuity.

According to Kholid et al. (2021), conceptual understanding is a key part of

effective mathematics learning because it helps students apply ideas logically and

think in a structured manner. It is also a foundational step to become

mathematically creative (Subanji & Nusantara, 2022). As Grégoire (2016) pointed

out, mathematical creativity is grounded in a solid foundation of expertise, which

includes a deep understanding of mathematical ideas. This means that before

students can think creatively or solve problems in new ways, they must first

understand the fundamental concepts.

In this study, the improvement of students’ conceptual understanding,

including their mathematical creativity in general, with the use of the gamified

simulation learning packet is also linked to an increase in their self-efficacy which

is their belief in their own ability to learn mathematics. As Nugroho et al. (2023)

explain, higher self-efficacy contributes to better understanding of mathematical

concepts and stronger creative thinking skills. Through repeated practice,

immediate feedback, and guided learning experiences offered by gamified

simulations, students became more confident in handling difficult topics. As a

result, they were more engaged and better able to understand and apply

mathematical concepts at a deeper level.

 174

Subtheme 1.2: Increased Engagement and Enjoyment in the Learning

Process

Another prominent theme that emerged from the students’ feedback was

the high level of engagement and enjoyment they experienced while using the

gamified simulation learning packet. Students consistently described the activities

as interactive, exciting, and a novel approach beyond the traditional structure

typically associated with mathematics instruction. The integration of game-based

elements, collaborative group tasks, and open-ended problem-solving fostered a

dynamic and stimulating learning environment.

Student 3 shared how gamification made the activities more enjoyable and

accessible:

“Mas naenjoy namo ang activities Sir labi na ang pagdula2x.” ["We
really enjoyed the activities, Sir, especially the games."] (S3)

Student 1 emphasized the enjoyment they found in the modification and

creation tasks, such as developing real-life problems and constructing functions

that meet a given limit condition:

“… didto pud ko mas nalingaw sa modification and creation activities

like maghimo gyud kog real-life problem. Kadto pung maghimo me og tulo
ka functions nga makasatisfy sa limit condition. Ang among gibuhat kay
gibase namo sa mga examples nga gihatag bitaw para makaanswer me
and we have fun man pud pagpangita og mga functions.” ["I also enjoyed
more on the modification and creation activities, like creating real-life
problems. Also, when we had to create three functions that satisfy the limit
condition. What we did was base our answers on the examples given, so
we could find the functions, and we had fun doing it."] (S1)
 175

Student 5 appreciated the novelty and engaging nature of the gamified

simulation approach, which helped sustain their interest and reduce pressure:

“You’ve taught us with a very unique way Sir like very engaging ang
imong pagtudlo sa amoa Sir and dili me mapressure and dili bitaw me
malaay Sir.” [“You taught us in a very unique way, Sir, and your teaching
was very engaging, and we didn’t feel pressured or bored at all.”] (S5)

Collaboration was another key driver of engagement. Students valued

working with peers, exchanging ideas, and jointly solving problems. As Student 7

shared:

“Malingaw bitaw ka kay syempre kaubana man gud and kaming tulo
nga magkauban kay magtinabanga gyud me mao tong magshare me sa
among mga opinion namo and among gicalculate pag ayo ang mga
problems nga gihatag sa amoa.” [“It was enjoyable because, of course, we
were working with our groupmates, and the three of us really helped each
other. That’s why we shared our opinions and carefully solved the problems
given to us.”] (S7)

Summarizing the overall sentiment, Student 8 described the experience as

both enjoyable and engaging:

“So far sa tibook weeks nga experience, akong maingon is lingaw

siya Sir at the same time engaging bitaw siya.” [“So far, from the entire
weeks of experience, I can say it was fun, Sir, and at the same time, it was
really engaging.”] (S8)

Collectively, these responses suggest that the gamified simulation learning

packet does well in terms of transforming mathematics instruction into an

engaging, interactive, and collaborative learning experience among students. The

combination of game-based elements, real-world application tasks, and peer

cooperation not only enhanced cognitive engagement but also fostered a positive
 176

emotional connection to learning mathematics. This method makes lessons more

interesting and creates a better learning environment for students.

These findings are aligned with Sharma’s (2025) assertion that gamified

simulations can boost student engagement by up to 60% achieved through

features such as interactive challenges, achievement-based rewards, immediate

feedback, immersive storytelling, and the promotion of teamwork and friendly

competition. Most of these features were embedded in the developed gamified

simulation learning packet, helping sustain student interest and motivation. As

Sharma further noted, the incorporation of gamification elements in simulated

environments enhances both interaction and fun learning experience which were

clearly reflected in the students’ feedback throughout the implementation of the

learning packet.

Subtheme 1.3: Improved Motivation Facilitated by the Rewards System

The reward system embedded in the gamified simulation learning packet

positively enhanced students’ motivation to complete activities and persist in

solving challenging problems. Earning points, a key game element, served as

positive reinforcement, encouraging both individual effort and group collaboration.

Student 5 shared that the desire to earn high scores pushed them to give

their best effort in every task:

“… among ginabuhat Sir nga buhaton among best para dako nga
points among makuha sa group. Ang tanan problem nga gihatag sa amoa
Sir, among gitarung pag answer para dako nga points ang among makuha.”
["What we do, Sir, is to do our best so that we can earn a lot of points for
 177

our group. We make sure to answer all the problems given to us correctly
so that we can get high points."] (S5)

Student 1 expressed how the immediate reward of gaining points upon

providing correct answers contributed to a sense of accomplishment and increased

persistence, even under time pressure:

“Everytime bitaw nga makaprovide me og sakto nga answer Sir,

makagain meg points. Rewarding kaayo siya sa feeling. Siyempre kung naa
tay reward nga madawat, malipay man gyud ta. Everytime nga makapoints
me mas maencourage me og samot nga mag answer pa bahalag gamay
na ang time.” ["Every time we provide the correct answer, Sir, we gain
points. It feels very rewarding. Of course, when we receive a reward, we
feel happy. Every time we earn points, we become more encouraged to
keep answering, even if there's little time left."] (S1)

Similarly, Student 7 emphasized that the point system increased their

willingness to face difficult problems, driven by the motivation to earn more points:

“Ang points Sir makamotivate gyud siya sa amoa mag answer. Kay
gusto man me og dako nga points, bisan unsa kalisod ang problem, amo
gyud anseran.” ["The points really motivate us to answer. Because we want
to get high points, no matter how difficult the problem is, we will really try to
answer it."] (S7)

These reflections highlight how the integration of rewards within the

gamified simulation learning packet greatly boosted students’ motivation, not only

by making the learning experience enjoyable but also by promoting sustained effort

and active participation. This aligns with Roolvink’s (2024) assertion that gamifying

simulations with reward elements improves user motivation and overall learning

experiences. In the context of the present study, rewards were not tangible or

extrinsically driven; instead, the system was intentionally designed to cultivate

 178

intrinsic motivation by recognizing student accomplishments through non-material

incentives like badges and cumulative points. This approach is particularly relevant

in mathematics education, where persistence and engagement are critical.

Subtheme 1.4: Diverse Advantages Provided by Feedback Mechanisms

The feedback mechanisms embedded in the gamified simulation learning

packet served multiple, essential functions that greatly supported students’

mathematical learning. These mechanisms not only guided learners toward the

correct answers but also cultivated a classroom culture where making mistakes

was viewed as a natural and welcomed part of the learning process. Students

regarded feedback as constructive, encouraging, and crucial in building their

confidence, perseverance, and willingness to engage in mathematical tasks.

Students highlighted how feedback helped them pinpoint and correct their

mistakes through meaningful prompts. Student 9 noted:

“Ang feedback Sir makatabang siya para mahibal an asa dapit ang
among wrong og tagaan kag hint kung unsay buhaton para macorrect ang
imong response.” [“The feedback, Sir, helps us understand where we went
wrong and gives us hints on what to do to correct our response.”] (S9)

More than just correcting errors, the feedback system fostered a safe space

where students could explore freely without fear of failure. Student 8 shared how

the system encouraged a trial-and-error approach:

“… dili bitaw me mapressure kay ok ra masayup. Pwede me

makatrial and error og kadaghan hantod makakita me og lahi lahi nga
answers sa mga challenge.” [“… we don't feel pressured because it's okay
to make mistakes. We can use trial and error many times until we find
different answers to the challenges.”] (S8)
 179

This atmosphere of psychological safety empowered students to adopt a

growth mindset, allowing them to actively engage with mathematical concepts

while recognizing that errors are integral to the learning journey.

In addition to providing guidance and safety, feedback was also seen as a

source of motivation, particularly in challenging situations. Students expressed

how positive reinforcement through visual cues, like emoticons and points, made

learning enjoyable and encouraged persistence. Student 7 claimed:

“Sa feedback bitaw Sir kay motivating siya labi na kung moappear
ang happy smiley. Maencourage me mo-answer pa para makadawat og
points og para mogawas balik ang happy smiley. Usahay gani Sir kay mag
awat me sa nawong sa smiley.” [“The feedback is really motivating,
especially when the happy smiley appears. It encourages us to answer
more to earn points and see the happy smiley again. Sometimes, we even
imitate the smiley.”] (S7)

These reflections underscore the multifaceted role of feedback within a

gamified learning environment, as supported by existing literature (Pirker & Gütl,

2015; Cruz & Palaoag, 2019; Dos Santos et al., 2022; Deabanico & Caballes,

2023; Merle, 2024; Nob et al., 2024). In the context of the gamified simulation in

the study, feedback serves not only as a corrective mechanism but also as a

contextual learning aid that guides students through the various stages of the

learning process (Lukáč & Sekerák, 2015). It is particularly vital for less confident

learners, offering necessary scaffolding to help them persist rather than disengage,

especially when they encounter difficulties (Dos Santos et al., 2022). Moreover,

feedback fosters collaboration by encouraging open communication within student

 180

groups, enabling them to jointly identify mistakes, exchange ideas, and refine their

problem-solving approaches (Nob et al., 2024). Ultimately, feedback within

gamified simulation learning does more than inform but it also transforms the

learning experience by supporting cognitive development, emotional resilience,

and collaborative growth.

Subtheme 1.5: Incorporation of a Game-Like Learning Environment

One surprising theme that emerged from the analysis of students' feedback

is that although the intervention only included gamification elements in the

simulation, students perceived the entire experience as very game-like. This theme

highlights how the structure, progression mechanics, and interactive features of

the learning packet resembled an actual game, transforming what was meant to

be a teaching tool into something students experienced as play. This unexpected

shift in perception led students to engage with the simulation not just as an

educational activity, but as a gaming environment.

Students shared that progressing through levels became a key motivator in

how they approached the task, reflecting how the simulation’s structure closely

mirrored that of games. Student 5 noted:

“Namotivate ko mag answer kay para makaproceed ko sa next level.”

[“I was motivated to answer so that I could proceed to the next level.”] (S5)

This reference to “levels” indicates that the progression design of the

simulation activities fostered a sense of advancement commonly found in games,

reinforcing the feeling that they were participating in a gaming experience.

 181

Additionally, students expressed that the activity immediately felt like a

game due to the nature of the tasks and interactions. Student 7 added:

“Ako ra gyung gihunahuna Sir nga ah kani dula ni, kaya nako ni kay
hilig man kog dula.” [“I just thought to myself, Sir, that this is a game, and I
can do it because I love games.”] (S7)

Even without a full game structure, the presence of familiar gaming

elements such as challenges, decision-making, and a sense of control was enough

to shift the students' mindset from academic work to playful exploration.

Similarly, students emphasized how the lesson, though mathematical and

potentially difficult, was made more enjoyable and accessible through its game-

like presentation. Student 1 commented:

“Nalingaw ko sa part nga gihimoan nimo og dula ang lesson sa limits

Sir. Ang math lingaw man siya for me pero sa others kay dili kaayo siya
lingaw kay libog bitaw pero pinaagi sa dula mahimo siya engaging.” [“I
enjoyed the part where you turned the lesson on limits into a game, Sir.
Math is fun for me, but for others, it's not very enjoyable because it's
confusing. However, through the game, it becomes engaging.”] (S1)

This quote illustrates how the gaming structure of the simulation helped

reduce the cognitive load of complex concepts by presenting them in a more

familiar, interactive, and enjoyable format.

These reflections indicate that although the intervention was not designed

to be a fully developed educational game, the smooth integration of gamification

into the simulation created a genuine game-like environment for students. The

mechanics and design elements effectively captured the cognitive and emotional
 182

aspects of gameplay, allowing students to perceive learning as a form of play. This

observation is consistent with Deterding et al. (2011), who noted that distinguishing

between gamified simulations and fully developed serious games can be

challenging due to their unclear boundaries. Similarly, Redhead & Saunders

(2019) highlighted that gamification and simulation are fundamental components

of both serious games and gamified simulations, making them similar in nature.

While a well-designed simulation game can be a powerful educational tool,

it often requires complex development and high implementation costs (Pirker &

Gütl, 2015). A gamified simulation can address these concerns provided that it

does not miss out the fun and engaging aspects, by simply adding high scores,

points, and badges without taking the design into account (Koster, 2013).

This suggests that although gamified simulation is still underexplored in the

context of mathematics education, researchers and educators might consider

developing and testing gamified simulation tools as a practical, engaging, and

scalable alternative to full educational games especially for teaching abstract or

challenging topics such as limits and functions to save cost and provide meaningful

learning experience for students in a new way.

Main Theme 2: Challenges Encountered

Conversely, the Challenges Encountered theme was characterized by a

single subtheme namely technical issues experienced during the implementation.

Subtheme 2.1: Technical Issues Experienced During the Implementation

 183

Another important theme that emerged from the students’ feedback was the

presence of technical issues during the implementation of gamified simulation.

Students emphasized the need for better computer hardware in schools to fully

benefit from the learning experience provided by the intervention. Common

technical problems included unresponsive keyboards and computers freezing

during use. These issues were reported as significant obstacles to learning. Two

students shared their experiences:

“Nagkaproblema me Sir sa among keyboard kay gahe kaayo

tuplokon og kung makusgan pud namo kay mo hang and computer. Sayang
ang among nasugdan kay need man namo ireset ang file.” ["We had a
problem, Sir, with our keyboard because it's very hard to press, and if we
press it too hard, the computer hangs. It's a waste of what we had started
because we needed to reset the file.”] (S2)
“Naay mga panahon Sir nga dili mo function among computer. Mo
hang siya. So maghulat nalang gyud me kanus a siya mogana pagbalik.
Tungod ani Sir kay naulahi na dayun me pag accomoplish sa task bitaw
Sir.”["There are times, Sir, when our computer does not function. It hangs.
So we just waited for it to work again. Because of this, Sir, we are delayed
in accomplishing the task, Sir."] (S8)

Because of these problems, students recommended upgrading the

available computer equipment to ensure a smoother and more effective

experience with the gamified simulation. One student suggested:

“Para sa akoa Sir if there would be a recommendation for the

improvement of the intervention is dapat unta tsada ang keyboard para dili
lisod tuplokon og nice nga mouse para dili lisod gamiton.” [“For me, Sir, if
there would be a recommendation for the improvement of the intervention,
it should be to have a good keyboard that is easy to press and a nice mouse
that is easy to use.”] (S5)
 184

The study’s findings show that students experienced similar technical

problems while navigating with the gamified simulation. These observations are

consistent with Johnson et al. (2016), who found that while teachers see the value

of educational technology, they often struggle to integrate it effectively into

classroom activities due to its associated barriers which include the lack of

appropriate equipment, the need to revise the curriculum, and the requirement to

learn how to use new tools.

These findings highlight the importance of having accessible, reliable, and

well-designed technologies to support meaningful learning, especially when using

gamified simulations. To overcome these challenges, schools should invest in

quality computer equipment. If these issues are not addressed, students may

become distracted or frustrated, which can negatively affect their academic

performance (Vázquez Cano et al., 2022). Therefore, interventions that require

educational technologies should be user-friendly and dependable to help students

focus more on understanding mathematical concepts.

 Chapter 5

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusion and

recommendation of the study based on the results of the analysis presented in

chapter 4.

Summary of findings

The current study aimed to design, develop, and evaluate gamified

simulation learning packets to enahance students’ creativity and collaboration in

mathematics education. Based on the results presented in the previous chapter,

the researcher come up with the following summary of findings.

First, the study revealed that for gamified simulation to promote students’

creativity and collaboration, its core components namely interactive simulation and

gamification must embody essential features. In terms of developing simulation-

based lessons (first step in the model), the simulations should enable students to

visualize and explore mathematical concepts dynamically, establish connections

to real-world applications, promote inquiry-based learning, and facilitate productive

collaborative interactions. In terms of gamification features (second step), it is

essential to embed elements such as challenges, feedback, and rewards.

Challenges should be open-ended, allows for problem posing, and satisfy

students’ interests and preferences. In terms of feedback mechanisms, they

should not just be limited for correcting students’ answers but are also motivating

and constructive. Meanwhile, rewards should promote intrinsic motivation so that

 186

students remain engaged not merely for external recognition, but for the inherent

satisfaction derived from the learning process. Finally, after incorporating these

features, designers could also include aesthetics (third step) to increased gamified

simulation appeal and enhanced students’ engagement.

Second, the study revealed that the developed gamified simulation learning

packet, as a practical application of the proposed model, has passed all the set

criteria by the Department of Education for printed instructional resources such as

content, presentation and organization, format, and accuracy and up to date

information. Additionally, the packets core feature which is the gamified simulation

showed high alignment with the proposed model for enhancing students’ creativity

and collaboration. These findings affirm the learning packet’s instructional

soundness and practical value for classroom use. Its alignment with current

curriculum standards, combined with its modern design and interactive features,

positions it as a valuable resource for enhancing students’ creativity and

collaboration in mathematics education.

Third, it was also found out that there is significant difference between the

pretest and posttest scores on both mathematical creativity and collaboration skills

among students after the intervention suggesting that the gamified simulation

learning packet may have been effective in promoting the said skills among

students. Furthermore, among the three components of mathematical creativity,

students showed the greatest improvements in fluency and flexibility but

demonstrated less progress in originality.

 187

Finally, the analysis of students’ feedback on the utilization of the developed

gamified simulation learning packets revealed two major areas: (1) Feedback

related to creativity and collaboration, which directly connects to the intended

learning outcomes, and (2) General perceptions of the learning packet, which can

be further categorized into two main themes: (1) Essential Benefits and (2)

Challenges Encountered. Under the theme of Essential Benefits, five subthemes

emerged: (a) enhancement of conceptual understanding, (b) increased

engagement and enjoyment in the learning process, (c) improved motivation

facilitated by the rewards system, (d) diverse advantages provided by feedback

mechanisms, and (e) the incorporation of a game-like learning environment.

Conversely, the Challenges Encountered theme was characterized by a single

subtheme: technical issues experienced during the implementation.

Conclusions

Based on the summary of findings shown above, the following conclusions

are presented.

First, the study concludes that the effectiveness of gamified simulation in

enhancing students’ creativity and collaboration depends on the careful

consideration and integration of specific design features. It is emphasized that

simulations should enable students to visualize and explore mathematical

concepts dynamically, establish connections to real-world applications, promote

inquiry-based learning, and facilitate productive collaborative interactions. In terms

of gamification features, it is essential to embed elements such as challenges

(should be open-ended, allows for problem posing, and satisfy students’ interests
 188

and preferences), feedback (not limited for correcting students answers but are

also motivating and constructive) and rewards (that promotes intrinsic motivation).

Designers could also include aesthetics to increased gamified simulation appeal

and enhanced students’ engagement. Without careful attention to these

interconnected elements, the potential of gamified simulations to support higher

order thinking and meaningful student interaction may not be fully realized.

Second, the study concludes that the developed gamified simulation

learning packet is ready for classroom use. It meets the Department of Education’s

criteria for quality instructional materials and closely follows the proposed model

for promoting students’ creativity and collaboration. Its strong alignment with the

curriculum, clear organization, and interactive design make it a useful and effective

resource for teachers aiming to enhance student engagement, creativity, and

collaboration in learning mathematics.

Third, the study concludes that exposure to the gamified simulation learning

packet can enhance students’ creativity and collaboration in mathematics

education. The synergy of interactive simulations and gamification elements

creates an engaging learning environment that encourages students to think

creatively and work collaboratively, leading to deeper understanding and active

participation.

Lastly, the study also concludes that students, in general, provided positive

feedback on the use of the gamified simulation learning packet. They appreciated

its engaging and interactive nature, which made learning mathematics more
 189

enjoyable and motivating. This positive reception supports the packet’s potential

to effectively enhance students’ creativity and collaboration in the classroom.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are

proposed to maximize the full potential of gamified simulation approach in learning

mathematics.

1. Future research may employ a quasi-experimental design to investigate the

effectiveness of the developed gamified simulation learning packets in

enhancing students’ creativity and collaboration in mathematics education.

2. Administrators are recommended to design professional development

programs equipping teachers with the necessary skills to effectively

implement gamified simulations aligned with the proposed model. In this

way, teachers will be better prepared to guide students during simulation

activities.

3. Future research may be conducted to help refine the proposed model based

on the gathered insights from the actual classroom experiences by both

students and teachers in the field. This initiative helps ensure that the model

remains practical and effective in real-world settings.

4. Future studies may explore the use of gamified simulation learning with non-

STEM students to determine whether similar improvements in mathematical

creativity can be observed. Such investigations would provide deeper

insight into the broader applicability and effectiveness of gamified

simulation as an instructional strategy across diverse learner profiles.

 190

5. Future research may be conducted to determine the specific design

features in gamified simulations that effectively promote the originality

component of mathematical creativity. In this way, educators can

intentionally design learning environments that better foster unique and

innovative problem-solving strategies among students.

 191

REFERENCES

Abar, C. A. A. P., & Silva, T. N. (2024). Teaching affine functions: Evaluating the
use of games with automatic feedback in GeoGebra. Education and New
Developments 2024, 2, 502-505. [Link]
Adams, W. K., Reid, S., LeMaster, R., McKagan, S. B., Perkins, K. K., Dubson, M.,
& Wieman, C. E. (2008). A study of educational simulations part I-
Engagement and learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(3),
397-419.
Adeoye, M. A., Wirawan, K. A. S. I., Pradnyani, M. S. S., & Septiarini, N. I. (2024).
Revolutionizing education: Unleashing the power of the ADDIE model for
effective teaching and learning. JPI (Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia), 13(1),
202–209. [Link]

Aggarwal, R., & Ranganathan, P. (2019). Study designs: Part 2–descriptive

studies. Perspectives in clinical research, 10(1), 34-36.
Agustini, F. & Fajriyah, K. (2017). Problematika Pengembangan HOTS (Higher
Order Thinking Skills) di Sekolah Dasar, in Prosiding Seminar Nasional
Inovasi Pendidikan, pp. 139–145.
Akgul. S., & Kahveci, N. G. (2016). A study on the development of a mathematics
creativity scale. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 62, 57- 76
[Link]

Alexandra, D. F., & Barton, S. M. (2017). Collaboration of General and Special

Education Teachers: Perspectives and Strategies. Intervention in School
and Clinic2, 1–8. [Link]

Alismaiel, O. A., Cifuentes-Faura, J., & Al-Rahmi, W. M. (2022). Online learning,

mobile learning, and social media technologies: An empirical study on
constructivism theory during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability,
14(18), 11134.
Almeida, J., & Castro, M. (2021). Applying Geogebra® in descriptive geometry
online teaching to model fundamental concepts. Blucher Design
Proceedings, Org., XXV SIGRADI, 389-400.
[Link]
Aloya, B. F., Benzon, A. M., Felipe, R., Maglaya, P. G., Marcelo, R., Panergo, D.
J, ... & Solis, C. (2024). XR Digital Classroom: An Innovative and Gamified
Tool that Aims to Aid Learning in the New Normal. International Journal of
 192

Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering, 12(3s), 112-130.

https:// [Link]/ [Link]/ IJISAE/article/view/3668.

Alt, D., & Raichel, N. (2020). Enhancing perceived digital literacy skills and creative
self-concept through gamified learning environments: Insights from a
longitudinal study. International Journal of Educational Research, 101,
101561. [Link]
Alzubaidi, I., & Jones, K. (2018). A case study of a university teacher of calculus
1. In INDRUM 2018. [Link]
01849970/document
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organizations (Vol. 5). Boston:
Harvard Business School

Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and
creativity at work. Administrative science quarterly, 50(3), 367-403.
[Link]

Ambrosio Mawhirter, D., & Ford Garofalo, P. (2016). Expect the unexpected:
Simulation games as a teaching strategy. Clinical Simulation in Nursing,
12(4), 132–136. [Link]

Andrade, C. (2019). Describing Research Design. Indian Journal of Psychological

Medicine, 41(2), 201–202. [Link]

Andrade, C. (2021). The inconvenient truth about convenience and purposive

samples. Indian journal of psychological medicine, 43(1), 86-88.
Anggraeni, E. R., Ma'rufi, M. R., & Suaedi, S. (2021). Development of Geogebra-
Based Mathematics Learning Media to improve students' ability to
understand concepts. Proximal: Journal of Mathematics Research and
Mathematics Education, 4(1), 43-55.
Antonio, J. M. A., & Tamban, V. E. (2022). Effectiveness of gamification on
Learner’s performance and attitude towards mathematics amidst the
COVID-19 pandemic. United International Journal for Research &
Technology, 3(3), 91-100.
[Link]

Arsyad, N., Rahman, A., & Ahmar, A. S. (2017). Developing a self-learning model
based on open-ended questions to increase the students’ creativity in
calculus. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 9(2), 143-147.

Ayllón, M. F., Gómez, I. A., & Ballesta-Claver, J. (2016). Mathematical Thinking

and Creativity through Mathematical Problem Posing and Solving. Journal
 193

of Educational Psychology-Propósitos y Representaciones, 4(1), 195-218.

[Link]

Ayyubi, I., Rohmatulloh, R., Suryana, I., & Wijaya, T. (2024). Improving students’
creative thinking skills assisted by GeoGebra software. Noumerico: Journal
of Technology in Mathematics Education, 2(1), 23–34.
[Link]
Bachore, M. M. (2021). The Influence of Learning Mathematics Software
Geogebra On the Ability of Creative Thinking of Students. International
Journal of Humanities Education and Social Sciences, 1(1), 37-42.
Bagher Khatibi, M., Badeleh, A., & Khodabandelou, R. (2021). A Bibliometric
Analysis on the Research Trends of Gamification in Higher Education:
2010-2020. The New Educational Review, 65, 17-28.
[Link]
Baraquia, L. (2022). DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF SELF-LEARNING
PACKETS IN PARALLELOGRAMS USING RUBIK’S CUBE. Available at
SSRN 4832766. [Link]

Barbieri, G. G., Barbieri, R., & Capone, R. (2021). Serious games in high school
mathematics lessons: An embedded case study in Europe. Eurasia Journal
of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(5), em1963.
Bature, I. J., & Atweh, B. (2019). Collaboration: A collective bargain for achieving
quality mathematics classroom practice. International Journal of
Educational Methodology, 5(3), 347-361.
Baum, I. R., & Baumann, N. (2018). Autonomous creativity: The implicit autonomy
motive fosters creative production and innovative behavior at school. Gifted
and Talented International, 33(1-2), 15-25.
Baya’a, N., Daher, W., & Mahagna, S. (2017, July). The effect of collaborative
computerized learning using GeoGebra on the development of concept
images of the angle among seventh graders. In Proceedings of the 13th
International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching, Lyon,
France (pp. 3-6).

Baya’a, N., Daher, W., & Mahagna, S. (2022). Technology-based collaborative

learning for developing the dynamic concept of the angle. Emerg. Sci. J, 6,
118-127. [Link]
 194

Beghetto, R. A. (2021). Creative learning in education. In the Palgrave handbook

of positive education (pp. 473-491). Cham: Springer International
Publishing. [Link]
Bhagat, K. K., & Chang, C. Y. (2015). Incorporating GeoGebra into Geometry
learning-A lesson from India. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 11(1), 77-86.
[Link]
Bicer, A. (2021). A systematic literature review: Discipline-specific and general
instructional practices fostering the mathematical creativity of students.
International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and
Technology (IJEMST), 9(2), 252-281. [Link]

Bird, K. (2024, July 22). Gamification and simulations: powering up training and
productivity. eLearning Industry. [Link]
and-simulations-powering-up-training-and-productivity

Birgin, O., & Acar, H. (2022). The effect of computer-supported collaborative

learning using GeoGebra software on 11th grade students’ mathematics
achievement in exponential and logarithmic functions. International Journal
of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(4), 872-889.
[Link]

Birgin, O., & Topuz, F. (2021). Effect of the GeoGebra software-supported

collaborative learning environment on seventh grade students’ geometry
achievement, retention and attitudes. The Journal of Educational Research,
114(5), 474-494. [Link]
Birgin, O., & Topuz, F. (2021). Effect of the GeoGebra software-supported
collaborative learning environment on seventh grade students’ geometry
achievement, retention and attitudes. The Journal of Educational Research,
114(5), 474-494. [Link]
Blbas, H. T. A. (2024). Descriptive Statistics. In Recent Advances in Biostatistics.
IntechOpen.
Boogaard, K. (2019, November 20). The ADDIE Model: A Beginner’s Guide.
[Link]. [Link]

Bourke, B. (2019). Using gamification to engage higher-order thinking skills. In

Handbook of research on promoting higher-order skills and global
competencies in life and work (pp. 1-21). IGI Global.
[Link]
 195

Bozic, R., Takaci, D., & Grujin, M. (2022). The Influence of Collaborative Learning
on Students’ achievement in Examining Functions with Parameters in
Dynamic Software Environment. Mathematics & Informatics, 65(1).
[Link]
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
[Link]
Braza, M. T., & Supapo, S. S. (2014). Effective solutions in the implementation of
the K to12 mathematics curriculum. West Visayas State University. Iloilo
City.
[Link]
_p12to23a1.pdf
Bressoud, D., Ghedamsi, I., Martinez-Luaces, V., & Törner, G. (2016). Teaching
and learning of calculus. Springer Nature.

Brom, C., Stárková, T., Bromová, E., & Děchtěrenko, F. (2019). Gamifying a
simulation: Do a game goal, choice, points, and praise enhance learning?.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(6), 1575-1613.
[Link]
Bruce, B. C. (2011). What is inquiry-based learning. Retrieved from
[Link] -based-learning/defining-inquiry-
based-learning/
Çakıroğlu, Ü., Başıbüyük, B., Güler, M., Atabay, M., & Yılmaz Memiş, B. (2017).
Gamifying an ICT course: Influences on engagement and academic
performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 98–107.
[Link]

Casing, P. I., & Roble, D. B. (2021). Students' Mathematical Creative Thinking

Ability with Posing-Exploring-Doing-Evaluating (PEDE) Productive Failure
Model in New Normal. Online Submission, 9(7), 443-448.

Catarino, P., Nascimento, M. M., Morais, E., Campos, H., & Vasco, P. (2019).
Breaking the habit: engineering students’ understanding of mathematical
creativity. European Journal of Engineering Education, 44(4), 449-460.
[Link]
Catarino, P., Vasco, P., Lopes, J., Silva, H., & Morais, E. (2019). Cooperative
learning on promoting creative thinking and mathematical creativity in
higher education. REICE. Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad, Eficacia
y Cambio En Educacion, 17(3), 5-22.
 196

Çekmez, E. (2023). An example of the use of GeoGebra for simulation: Buffon’s

needle problem. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science
and Technology, 54(1), 132-140.
[Link]
Cerqueira, J. M., Moura, J. M., Sylla, C., & Ferreira, L. (2020). An augmented
reality mathematics serious game. In First International Computer
Programming Education Conference (ICPEC 2020). Schloss Dagstuhl-
Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik.

Cevette, M.J. (1976). Electroacoustic Impedance Measurements: A Learning

Packet. [Link]
Cezar, V., Garcia, P., Botelho, V., & Miletto, E. (2019, July). Towards an RPG
game to teach calculus. In 2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on
Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) (Vol. 2161, pp. 116-118). IEEE.
Chacón-Castro, M., Aimacaña-Espinosa, L., & Jadán-Guerrero, J. (2021). Escape
rooms: mathematical challenges available to educators. In Perspectives
and Trends in Education and Technology: Selected Papers from ICITED
2021 (pp. 195-205). Singapore: Springer Singapore.

Chen, J., Wang, M., Kirschner, P. A., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). The role of collaboration,
computer use, learning environments, and supporting strategies in CSCL:
A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(6), 799-843.
[Link]
Chen, P. Z., Chang, T. C., & Wu, C. L. (2020). Effects of gamified classroom
management on the divergent thinking and creative tendency of elementary
students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, 100664.
[Link]

Child, S., & Shaw, S. (2016). Collaboration in the 21st century: Implications for
assessment. [Link]
Chin, C., Fluck, A., Chong, C., Penesis, I., Ranmuthugala, S., & Coleman, B.
(2017). Higher order thinking through Calculus for Kids. University of
Tasmania. Journal contribution. [Link]
Choueiry, G. (2021, September 14). One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design: An
Introduction. [Link]
Chyung, S. Y. (2008). Foundations of Instructional and Performance Technology
[Book]. HRD Press, Inc. Amherst Massachusetts.
[Link]
 197

Ciobanu, A., Miron, C., BERLIC, C., & Barna, V. (2023). Teaching Geometrical
Optics by Means of Geogebra Software. Romanian Reports in Physics,
75(1). [Link]
Clark. (2017, August 7). Simulations versus games. Learnlets.
[Link]

Corpuz-Sanchez, J. J., & Pasia, A. E. Gamified Learning Environment in Improving

the Engagement and Mathematical Problem-Solving Ability of Grade 7
Students. [Link] storage/iJOINED/Vol.%20II(3),%20588-
[Link].

Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced
mixed. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, 209,
209-240.
Cruz, C. S. D., & Palaoag, T. D. (2019, March). An empirical study of gamified
learning application engagement to exceptional learners. In Proceedings of
the 8th International Conference on Informatics, Environment, Energy and
Applications (pp. 263-267).

Cunha, G.C., Barraqui, L.P., & Freitas, S.A. (2018). Evaluating the use of
gamification in mathematics learning in primary school children. 2018 IEEE
Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1-4.
Da Rocha Seixas, L., Gomes, A. S., & De Melo Filho, I. J. (2016). Effectiveness of
gamification in the engagement of students. Computers in Human Behavior,
58, 48–63. [Link]
Davis, K., & Bos, J. (2018). Playing in the Virtual Sandbox: Students’ Collaborative
Practices in Minecraft. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 8(3),
56–76. [Link]
De Federico, S., & Avogradini, M. (2017). Use of Correlated Interactive Simulations
as an Instrument for Ubiquitous Learning in Integral Calculus. Edulearn
Proceedings. [Link]
Deabanico, G., & Caballes, D. (2023). Revolutionizing Learning: How
eGamification Assessment is Changing Teaching?. Psych Educ, 10, 1030-
1034.
de-Marcos, L., Garcia-Lopez, E., & Garcia-Cabot, A. (2016). On the effectiveness
of game-like and social approaches in learning: Comparing educational
 198

gaming, gamification & social networking. Computers and Education, 95,

99–113. [Link]

DepEd LRMDS (2009). Guidelines and Processes for LRMDS Assessment &
Evaluation. Accessed from
[Link]

Dias, I. H., Scortegagna, L., Barrére, E., & David, J. M. N. (2024). GAMIFICAÇÃO
NO GEOGEBRA: Recurso Educacional Digital para o ensino e
aprendizagem de Funções do Segundo Grau. Revista de Educação,
Ciências e Matemática, 14(1).
[Link]
Djidu, H., & Jailani, J. (2019). Fostering student’s higher-order thinking skill through
problem-based learning in calculus.
[Link]
Domondon, C. S., Pardo, C. G., & Rin, E. T. (2022). Analysis of difficulties of
students in learning calculus. Science International (Lahore), 34(6), 1-4.
Dos Santos, J. M. D. S., Abar, C. A. A. P., & Almeida, M. D. (2022). Automatic
feedback GeoGebra tasks–searching and opensource and collaborative
intelligent interactive tutor. In Proceedings of the 26th World Multi-
Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics: WMSCI (Vol. 3, pp.
77-82).
[Link]
Draucker, C. B., Rawl, S. M., Vode, E., & Carter-Harris, L. (2020). Integration
through connecting in explanatory sequential mixed method studies.
Western Journal of Nursing Research, 42(12), 1137–1147.
[Link]
Editorial. (2024, March 2). Enhancing learning outcomes through interactive
simulations in education - Digital Learning Edge. The Insurance Universe.
[Link]
Ednave, R., Gatchalian, V. M. P., Mamisao, J. C. B., Canuto, X. O., Caugiran, M.
D., Ekid, J. C. A., ... & Balmeo, M. L. (2018). Problems and Challenges
Encountered in The Implementation of the K To 12 Curriculum: A Synthesis.
Eglite, Z. (2023). COLLABORATION IN CREATIVE INDUSTRIES–FROM
CREATIVE INDIVIDUALS AND INTERMEDIARIES TO NETWORKS.
Culture Crossroads, 23, 102-117.
Ervynck, G. (2002). Mathematical creativity. In Springer eBooks (pp. 42–53).
[Link]
 199

Evans, C. M. (2020). Measuring student success skills: A review of the literature

on collaboration. Dover, NH: National Center for the Improvement of
Educational Assessment. [Link]
Fasko, D. (2001). Education and Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4),
pp. 317–327. Available at: [Link]

Fauzan, A., & Arnawa, I. M. (2021). Analysis of High Order Thinking Skill of
Students in Contextual Problems Solving. In Journal of Physics:
Conference Series (Vol. 1742, No. 1, p. 012021). IOP Publishing.

Febrianti, T. S., & Dasari, D. (2024). Creativity Increment and GeoGebra

Classroom Quality: Impact on Student Learning. International Journal of
Mathematics and Mathematics Education, 31-44.

Fein, E. C., Gilmour, J., Machin, T., & Hendry, L. (2022, June 16). Section 3.4:
Paired T-Test Assumptions, Interpretation, and Write up. Statistics for
Research Students.
[Link]
test-assumptions/
Feng-Jung, L., & Chia-Mei, L. (2021). Design and implementation of a collaborative
educational gamification authoring system. International Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Learning (Online), 16(17), 277.
[Link]
Findley, K., Whitacre, I., & Hensberry, K. (2017). Integrating interactive simulations
into the mathematics classroom: Supplementing, enhancing, or driving?
Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of
the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education,
1297–1298. Retrieved from [Link]

Flores, E.G., López-Camacho, E., & López, O.O. (2020). Engaging a Calculus
Course with Telepresence through Gamification. 2020 IEEE Global
Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 1055-1059.

Flores, E.G., Ramírez-Montoya, M.S., & Mena, J. (2016). Challenge-based

gamification and its impact in teaching mathematical modeling.
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological
Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality.

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation.
Journal of Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
[Link]
 200

Galetta, G. I. U. S. E. P. P. E. (2013). The gamification: Applications and

developments for creativity and education. In Creativity and Innovation in
Education Conference, Riga, Latvia (Vol. 11, pp. 1-10).
Gallaun, D., Kruse, K., & Seifert, C. (2022). High-quality tasks for e-assessment in
mathematics. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: An International
Journal of the IMA, 41(4), 270-279.
Gallera, J. M. Development and Evaluation of an Interactive Mobile Application
Incorporating Gamification Technique for Enhancing Preschooler’s
Cognitive and Recreational Activities.
Garcia, J. M. S., & Sabay, R. L. (2020). GADIMATH: Gamified discrete
mathematics. Philippine Social Science Journal, 3(2), 181-182.

Garcia, J., Copiaco, J. R., Nufable, J. P., Amoranto, F., & Azcarraga, J. (2015).
Code it! A gamified learning environment for iterative programming.
[Link]

Grégoire, J. (2016). Understanding creativity in mathematics for improving

mathematical education. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology,
15(1), 24–36. [Link]

Groh, K. (2024, July 10). ADDIE model. Valamis.

[Link]

Gruntowicz, B. (2020). Mathematical creativity and problem solving (Graduate

Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers, No. 11562).
University of Montana. [Link]

Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological bulletin, 53(4), 267.

[Link]
Gulzar, M. A., Ahmad, M., Hassan, M., & Rasheed, M. I. (2021). How social media
use is related to student engagement and creativity: investigating through
the lens of intrinsic motivation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 1-11.
[Link]

Hagtvedt, L. P., Dossinger, K., Harrison, S. H., & Huang, L. (2019). Curiosity made
the cat more creative: Specific curiosity as a driver of creativity.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 150, 1–13.
[Link]
Hamari, J. (2017). Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on the
effects of gamification. Computers in human behavior, 71, 469-478.
[Link]
 201

Hammoudi, M. M., & Grira, S. (2023). Improving students’ motivation in calculus

courses at institutions of higher education: Evidence from graph-based
visualization of two models. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 19(1), em2209.
Han, W., Feng, X., Zhang, M., Peng, K., & Zhang, D. (2019). Mood states and
everyday creativity: employing an experience sampling method and a day
reconstruction method. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 1698.
[Link]

Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the
classroom: A longitudinalstudy on intrinsic motivation, social comparison,
satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers and Education,
80, 152–161. [Link]
Haylock, D. W. (1987). A framework for assessing mathematical creativity in
school children. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 18(1), 59-74.
[Link]
Hegedus, S. J., Dalton, S., & Tapper, J. R. (2015). The impact of technology-
enhanced curriculum on learning advanced algebra in US high school
classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 203-
228. [Link]

Hillmayr, D., Ziernwald, L., Reinhold, F., Hofer, S. I., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). The
potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in
secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis. Computers &
Education, 153, 103897. [Link]
Hoda, J. A. (2023). Creativity. In CRC Press eBooks (pp. 71–82).
[Link]

Hohenwarter, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2010). GeoGebra, its community and future. In
Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics (pp. 1-10).
[Link]
[Link]
Huang, B., & Hew, K. F. (2015, November). Do points, badges and leaderboard
increase learning and activity: A quasi-experiment on the effects of
gamification. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on
computers in education (pp. 275-280). Hangzhou, China: Society for
Computer in Education.
 202

Hui, H. B., & Mahmud, M. S. (2023). Influence of game-based learning in

mathematics education on the students' cognitive and affective domain: A
systematic review. Frontiers in psychology, 14, 1105806.
Idris, N., & Nor, N. M. (2010). Mathematical creativity: usage of technology.
Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 2(2), 1963-1967.
[Link]
Igual, L., & Seguí, S. (2024). Descriptive Statistics. In Introduction to Data Science:
A Python Approach to Concepts, Techniques and Applications (pp. 29-50).
Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Istikomah, E., Suryadi, D., Prabawanto, S., & Nurlaelah, E. (2024). Geogebra in
Real-Life: Important Tips to Support Student Creative Thinking in
Mathematics. Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and
Engineering Technology, 49(2), 248-263.
Jacinto, H. (2023). Engaging students in mathematical problem solving with
technology during a pandemic: The case of the Tecn@ Mat Club. Education
Sciences, 13(3), 271. [Link]
Jagušt, T., Botički, I., & So, H. J. (2018). Examining competitive, collaborative and
adaptive gamification in young learners' math learning. Computers &
education, 125, 444-457. [Link]
Jane, M.W., Wachanga S.W., & Anditi, Z.O. (2017). Effects of computer-based
simulations teaching approach on learners’ achievement in the learning of
chemistry among secondary school learners in Nakuru sub county, Kenya.
Journal of Education and Practice, 8(5), 65-75. Retrieved August 2022 from
[Link]
Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported
collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How can
technologies help?. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 247-265.
[Link]
Jeong, H., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Jo, K. (2019). Ten years of computer-supported
collaborative learning: A meta-analysis of CSCL in STEM education during
2005–2014. Educational research review, 28, 100284.
[Link]
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success
story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational
researcher, 38(5), 365-379. [Link]
 203

Joklitschke, J., Rott, B., & Schindler, M. (2019, July). Notions, definitions, and
components of mathematical creativity: An overview. In 43rd Annual
Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education VOLUME 2 Research Reports (AK) (p. 440).
Kalinauskas, M. (2014). Gamification in fostering creativity. Socialinės
Technologijos, 4(01), 62-75. [Link]
Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424.
[Link]

Karofyllidis, S., Kousalidis, G., Apostolidis, H., & Tsiatsos, T. (2023). Work-in-
Progress: Gamified Simulation for Interactive Experiences in Learning. In
Interactive Mobile Communication, Technologies and Learning (pp. 243-
253). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
Karomah, S., Siswono, T. Y. E., & Zulnaidi, H. (2024). Student creativity in creating
Geogebra applet for quadratic function material. Deleted Journal, 5(2), 54–
66. [Link]
Kasperski, R., Levin, O., & Hemi, M. E. (2025). Systematic Literature Review of
Simulation-Based Learning for Developing Teacher SEL. Education
Sciences, 15(2), 129. [Link]
Katz, D. A., Stewart, K., Paez, M., Holman, J., Adams, S. L., Vander Weg, M. W.,
... & Ono, S. (2016). “Let me get you a nicotine patch”: nurses' perceptions
of implementing smoking cessation guidelines for hospitalized veterans.
Military Medicine, 181(4), 373-382.
Kerfoot, B. P., & Kissane, N. (2014). The use of gamification to boost residents’
engagement in simulation training. JAMA surgery, 149(11), 1208-1209.
Kerrigan, J., Weber, K., & Chinn, C. (2021). Effective collaboration in the
productive failure process. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 63,
100892.

Khadidja, K. (2020). Constructivist theories of Piaget and Vygotsky: Implications

for pedagogical practices.
Khikmah, L. (2019). Teachers’ Creativity in Designing Learning Activities:
Sustaining Students’motivation. English Review: Journal of English
Education, 7(2), 85-92. [Link]
Kickmeier-Rust, M., & Niggli, C. (2023, October). The Effects of Gamifying
Mathematics Lessons at High School Level. In Proceedings of the 17th
 204

European Conference on Game-Based Learning: ECGBL 2023. Academic

Conferences and publishing limited.

Kim, B.Y. and Lee, J.S. (2005) ‘A note on assessment of mathematical creativity’,
Journal of the Korean School Mathematics Society, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.327–
341.

Knutas, A., Hynninen, T., Wolff, A., & Khakurel, J. (2019). Exploring the connection
between gamification and student engagement in computer-supported
collaboration. GamiFIN Conference.

Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2014). Demographic differences in perceived benefits

from gamification. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 179-188.
[Link]

Koparan, T. (2019). Teaching game and simulation-based probability. International

Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 6(2), 235-258.
[Link]

Kozlowski, J. S., & Chamberlin, S. A. (2019). Raising the bar for mathematically
gifted students through creativity-based mathematics instruction. Gifted and
Talented International, 34(1-2), 79-90.
[Link]
Krath, J., Schürmann, L., & Von Korflesch, H. F. (2021). Revealing the theoretical
basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research
on gamification, serious games and game-based learning. Computers in
Human Behavior, 125, 106963. [Link]

Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational researcher, 44(1), 46-
53. [Link]
Kurniawan, I., & Rahadyan, A. (2022). Improving Self-Regulated Learning and
Creativity of Students through GeoGebra in Solving Spatial Geometry
Problems. Symmetry: Pasundan Journal of Research in Mathematics
Learning and Education, 7(2), 89-96.
[Link]
Lanuza, M. H. (2020). Integrative gamification technique in teaching specialization
courses in mathematics. International Journal of Scientific and Technology
Research, 9(4), 1275-1281.

Lanuza, M. H., Mendoza, R. V., Bayan, R. J. R., Elipane, L., Dimaculangan, K. A.

C., & Hilario, F. F. (2020). A gamification technique through the method of
a lesson study in teaching probability. International Journal of Scientific and
Technology Research, 9(4), 3734-3740.
 205

Le, H., Janssen, J., & Wubbels, T. (2018). Collaborative learning practices: teacher
and student perceived obstacles to effective student collaboration.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(1), 103-122.
[Link]
Leaning, M. (2015). A study of the use of games and gamification to enhance
student engagement, experience and achievement on a theory-based
course of an undergraduate media degree. Journal of Media Practice, 16(2),
155–170. [Link]

Lee, J. Y., Pyon, C. U., & Woo, J. (2023). Digital twin for math education: A study
on the utilization of games and gamification for university mathematics
education. Electronics, 12(15), 3207.

Lee, K.H. (2015) Mathematical Creativity, Kyung Moon Sa, Seoul.

Leikin, R. (2009). Exploring mathematical creativity using multiple solution tasks.
In R. Leikin, A. Berman, & B. Koichu (Eds.), Creativity in mathematics and
the education of gifted students (pp. 129–145). Brill.
[Link]
Leikin, R., & Lev, M. (2013). Mathematical creativity in generally gifted and
mathematically excelling adolescents: What makes the difference?. Zdm,
45, 183-197. [Link]

Li, J., van der Spek, E.D., Feijs, L., Wang, F., Hu, J. (2017). Augmented Reality
Games for Learning: A Literature Review. In: Streitz, N., Markopoulos, P.
(eds) Distributed, Ambient and Pervasive Interactions. DAPI 2017. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10291. Springer, Cham.
[Link]
Lichti, M., & Roth, J. (2018). How to foster functional thinking in learning
environments using computer-based simulations or real materials. Journal
for STEM Education Research, 1, 148-172.
[Link]

Lim, K. C., & Leong, K. E. (2017). A Study of gamification on GeoGebra for

remedial pupils in primary mathematics. In Asian Conference on
Technology in Mathematics (ATCM) (pp. 222-228).

Liu, R., & Xu, F. (2020). Feeling of Competence Affects Children's Curiosity and
Creativity. Cognitive Science.
López Carrillo, D., Calonge García, A., Rodríguez Laguna, T., Ros Magán, G., &
Lebrón Moreno, J. A. (2019). Using gamification in a teaching innovation
 206

project at the university of alcalá: A new approach to experimental science

practices. Electronic Journal of E-learning, 17(2), 93-106.

Lubis, D. D. (2023). Using Digital Learning Media to Increase Student Creativity in

Solving Mathematics Problems. EDUCTUM: Journal Research, 2(5), 16-18.
Lukáč, S., & Sekerák, J. (2015, November). Implementation of feedback in digital
learning environment with a focus on system Geogebra. In 2015 13th
International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and
Applications (ICETA) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
[Link]
Lukáč, S., & Sekerák, J. (2015, November). Implementation of feedback in digital
learning environment with a focus on system Geogebra. In 2015 13th
International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and
Applications (ICETA) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
[Link]
Luo, Z. (2022). Gamification for educational purposes: What are the factors
contributing to varied effectiveness?. Education and Information
Technologies, 27(1), 891-915. [Link]
Mac an Bhaird, C., Nolan, B., O'Shea, A., & Pfeiffer, K. (2017). A study of creative
reasoning opportunities in assessments in undergraduate calculus courses.
Research in Mathematics Education,
[Link]

Magat, R. B. (2022). Gamified Mobile Courseware’s Effect on Students’cognitive

& Non-Cognitive Abilities: Received: 18th May 2022; Revised: 26th May
2022, 18th June 2022, 20th June 2022; Accepted: 24th June 2022. Docens
Series in Education, 17-36.
Maisyarah, R., & Mulyono, E. S. (2020). Development of Mathematical Learning
Media Based on Geogebra Based Learning Problem to Improve Students’
Creative Thinking Ability. Development, 11(2).
[Link]

Malgieri, M., Onorato, P., & De Ambrosis, A. (2018). GeoGebra simulations for
Feynman’s sum over paths approach. Il nuovo cimento C, 2018(3), 1-10.
[Link]

Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the

Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236-260.
Manunure, K., Delserieys, A., & Castéra, J. (2020). The effects of combining
simulations and laboratory experiments on Zimbabwean students’
 207

conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Research in Science &

Technological Education, 38(3), 289-307.
[Link]
Mater, N. R., Haj Hussein, M. J., Salha, S. H., Draidi, F. R., Shaqour, A. Z.,
Qatanani, N., & Affouneh, S. (2022). The effect of the integration of STEM
on critical thinking and technology acceptance model. Educational Studies,
48(5), 642-658. [Link]
McCombes, S. (October 10, 2022). Descriptive Research / Definition, Types,
Methods & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved from October 24, 2022, from
[Link] methodology/descriptive-research/
McGee, J. J., & Lin, F. Y. (2020). Focus on alternative education: An exploratory
case study. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children
and Youth, 64(2), 183-190.
Medico, J. O., Nepangue, D. S., & Derasin, L. M. C. (2023). The Impact of Digital
Gamification and Traditional Based Learning on Students’ Mathematics
Achievement: Evidence From the Philippines. Journal of Data Acquisition
and Processing, 38(4), 2108.

Meier, M. A., Burgstaller, J. A., Benedek, M., Vogel, S. E., & Grabner, R. H. (2021).
Mathematical creativity in adults: Its measurement and its relation to
intelligence, mathematical competence and general creativity. Journal of
Intelligence, 9(1), 10. [Link]
Melaku, B. W., & Kibru, E. F. (2020). Strategies of vocabulary instruction in English
language teaching: A literature review. International Journal of English
Literature and Culture, 8(5), 134–142.
[Link]

Meléndez, D., Coudert, T., Geneste, L., Romero Bejarano, J. C., & De Valroger,
A. (2019). Formalization and reuse of collaboration experiences in industrial
processes. In Complex Systems Design & Management: Proceedings of
the Ninth International Conference on Complex Systems Design &
Management, CSD&M Paris 2018 (pp. 157-167). Springer International
Publishing.
Merle, R. S. (2024). Enhancing Proficiency in Quadratic Equations and Functions
Through the MILAPlus Strategy. Journal of Contemporary Educational
Research, 8(1), 221-232
 208

Molad, O., Levenson, E. S., & Levy, S. (2020). Individual and group mathematical
creativity among post–high school students. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 104, 201-220. [Link]
Monreal, J., & Panoy, J.F. (2023). Development and Evaluation of Design
Thinking-based Learning Packets for Enhancing Innovation Skills.
International Journal of Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics.
Moraová, H., Novotná, J., & Favilli, F. (2018). Ornaments and tessellations:
Encouraging creativity in the mathematics classroom. Mathematical
creativity and mathematical giftedness: Enhancing creative capacities in
mathematically promising students, 253-283. [Link]
319-73156-8_10
MSEd, K. C. (2024, July 18). Self-Determination Theory in Psychology. Verywell
Mind. [Link]
2795387
Mukazi, F. M. (2022). Simulations as Collaborative Learning Systems to Enhance
student performance in Higher Education. In Advances in educational
technologies and instructional design book series (pp. 378–396).
[Link]

Mukuka, A., Mutarutinya, V., & Balimuttajjo, S. (2019). Exploring the barriers to
effective cooperative learning implementation in school mathematics
classrooms. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 77(6), 745.
[Link]
Muzaini, M., Rahayuningsih, S., Ikram, M., & Nasiruddin, F. A. Z. (2023).
Mathematical Creativity: Student Geometrical Figure Apprehension in
Geometry Problem-Solving Using New Auxiliary Elements. International
Journal of Educational Methodology, 9(1), 139-150.
[Link]
Nadi-Ravandi, S., & Batooli, Z. (2022). Gamification in education: A scientometric,
content and co-occurrence analysis of systematic review and meta-analysis
articles. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 10207-10238.
[Link]
Nadjafikhah, M., Yaftian, N., & Bakhshalizadeh, S. (2012). Mathematical creativity:
some definitions and characteristics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 31, 285-291. [Link]
 209

Neendoor, S. (2024, August 30). How gamified simulation transforms the learning
experience? Digital Engineering & Technology | Elearning Solutions | Digital
Content Solutions. [Link]
transforms-the-learning-experience/#what

Nestel, D., & Gough, S. (2017). Designing simulation‐based learning activities: A

systematic approach. Healthcare simulation education: Evidence, theory
and practice, 135-142. [Link]
Nieminen, J. H., Chan, M. C. E., & Clarke, D. (2022). What affordances do open-
ended real-life tasks offer for sharing student agency in collaborative
problem-solving?. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 109(1), 115-136.
[Link]
Nilimaa, J. (2023). New examination approach for real-world creativity and
problem-solving skills in mathematics. Trends in Higher Education, 2(3),
477-495.
Nivedhitha, K. S., & Manzoor, A. S. (2020). Gamification inducing creative ideation:
a parallel mediation model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 39(9),
970-994. [Link]
Nob, J. M. R. O., Roble, D. B., & Lomibao, L. S. (2024). Unveiling the Effects of
Gamification on Math Learning: A Literature Review in the Philippine
Context. Journal of Innovations in Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 13-19.
Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn
together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educational
Psychology Review, 27, 645-656. [Link]
9312-8
Novita, R., & Putra, M. (2016). Using task like PISA's problem to support student's
creativity in mathematics. Journal on Mathematics Education, 7(1), 31-42.
Oates, G., Paterson, J., Reilly, I., & Woods, G. (2016). Seeing things from others’
points of view: Collaboration in undergraduate mathematics. PRIMUS,
26(3), 206-228.
Ofstedal, K., & Dahlberg, K. (2009). Collaboration in student teaching: Introducing
the collaboration self-assessment tool. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher
Education, 30(1), 37-48. [Link]
Olawale, S. R., Chinagozi, O. G., & Joe, O. N. (2023). Exploratory research design
in management science: A review of literature on conduct and application.
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 7(4),
1384-1395. [Link]
 210

Olipas, C. N. P. (2022). Students' Evaluation of the Instructional Learning Modules

for Application Development and Emerging Technologies Course. Online
Submission, 4, 1074-1089. [Link]
Oliveira, W., Hamari, J., Shi, L., Toda, A. M., Rodrigues, L., Palomino, P. T., &
Isotani, S. (2023). Tailored gamification in education: A literature review and
future agenda. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 373-406.
[Link]

Oscar, F., Bernal, P., & Pedraza, J. (2017). Aprendo enseñando: Autonomy,
creativity, and technology to promote mathematical learning. Headache.
[Link]

Palomino, P., Rodrigues, L., Toda, A., & Isotani, S. (2020, November). Enhancing
students’ learning experience through gamification: perspectives and
challenges. In Forum on Grand Research Challenges in Games and
Entertainment (pp. 113-133). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
Palupi, D. I., Rahmani, E., Yusnita, E., Gustina, H., Pertiwi, H., & Chalid, N. (2023).
Pengembangan Kreativitas Sebagai Pembentukan Karakter Anak Usia
Dini. EDUKASIA: Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran, 4(1), 7-12.
Pan, Y., Ke, F., & Xu, X. (2022). A systematic review of the role of learning games
in fostering mathematics education in K-12 settings. Educational Research
Review, 36, 100448.
Panoutsopoulos, H., & Sampson, D. G. (2012). A study on exploiting commercial
digital games into school context. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1),
15–27.
Parjanen, S., & Hyypiä, M. (2019). Innotin game supporting collective creativity in
innovation activities. Journal of Business Research, 96, 26-34.
[Link]
Pászto, V., Pánek, J., Glas, R., & van Vught, J. (2021). Spationomy simulation
game—playful learning in spatial economy higher education. ISPRS
International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(2), 74.
Pelegro, R. (2022). Gamification in Online Education. Available at SSRN 4054977.

Permatasari, S. D. A., & Pratiwi, H. (2020, August). Does gender affect the
mathematics creativity of junior high school students?. In Journal of
Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1613, No. 1, p. 012036). IOP Publishing.
[Link]
 211

Petropoulou, G., Jaworski, B., Potari, D., & Zachariades, T. (2016). Addressing
large cohorts of first year mathematics students in lectures.9(2), 143-147

Pham, H., & Cho, S. (2018). Nurturing mathematical creativity in schools. Talent,
8(1), 65.
Pinter, L., & Siddiqui, M. F. H. (2024). Enhancing Calculus Learning through
Interactive VR and AR Technologies: A Study on Immersive Educational
Tools. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 8(3), 19.

Pirker, J., & Gütl, C. (2015). Educational gamified science simulations.

Gamification in education and business, 253-275.
Pitt, A. (2019). Working collaboratively. A Practical Guide to Teaching Mathematics
in the Secondary School.
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Hayward, E. O. (2009). Design factors for
educationally effective animations and simulations. Journal of Computing in
Higher Education, 21, 31-61. [Link]
Pozo-Sánchez, S., Lampropoulos, G., & López-Belmonte, J. (2022). Comparing
Gamification Models in Higher Education Using Face-to-Face and Virtual
Escape Rooms. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research,
11(2), 307-322. [Link]
Prabawanto, S., & Jupri, A. (2018, December). Improvement of The Ability of
Creative Thinking Mathematically Using Geogebra Assisted Think-Talk-
Write Model. In 2nd International Conference on Mathematics and
Mathematics Education 2018 (ICM2E 2018) (pp. 261-262). Atlantis Press.

Pratiwi, P., & Istiyowati, L.S. (2020). Simulation and Games Based Learning Model
for Learning Math in Higher Education. Universal Journal of Educational
Research, 8, 16-20.

Pritsker, A. A. B. (1979). Compilation of definitions of simulation. Simulation, 33(2),

61-63. [Link]
Puspitasari, Q.D. & Wibowo, A. (2022). Peran Guru dalam Mengembangkan
Kreativitas Siswa Kelas IV di SD Negeri Plebengan Bambanglipuro, Pelita:
Jurnal Kajian Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran Indonesia, 1(1), pp. 1–7.
Available at: [Link]
Rachmawati, A. D., Juandi, D., & Darhim, D. (2023). Examining the effectiveness
of a GeoGebra-assisted open-ended approach on students’ mathematical
creative thinking ability. Jurnal Elemen, 9(2), 604-615.
 212

Ramdorai, A., Herstatt, C., Ramdorai, A., & Herstatt, C. (2015). Methodology and
research process. Frugal Innovation in Healthcare: How Targeting Low-
Income Markets Leads to Disruptive Innovation, 39-46.
Redelinghuys, Z. (2021). Gamification and simulation teaching--a system created
to improve the depth of knowledge and knowledge retention of engineering
students (Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University).
Redhead, A., & Saunders, J. (2019). Gamification and simulation. Serious Games
for Enhancing Law Enforcement Agencies: From Virtual Reality to
Augmented Reality, 83-98.
Reinhold, F., Hoch, S., Werner, B., Richter-Gebert, J., & Reiss, K. (2020). Learning
fractions with and without educational technology: What matters for high-
achieving and low-achieving students?. Learning and Instruction, 65,
101264. [Link]
Reiter, B. (2017). Theory and methodology of exploratory social science research.
Retnowati, E., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2017). Can collaborative learning improve
the effectiveness of worked examples in learning mathematics?. Journal of
educational psychology, 109(5), 666. [Link]
Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual
understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 346–362.
[Link]
Rivera-Núñez, E. M., Hurtado-Aguay, W. E., Vera-Pisco, D. G., & Sornoza-
Parrales, D. (2025). GAMIFICACIÓN CON GEOGEBRA: UN ESTUDIO
SOBRE EL APRENDIZAJE DE FUNCIONES LINEALES EN
ESTUDIANTES DE BACHILLERATO. REVISTA CIENTÍFICA
MULTIDISCIPLINARIA ARBITRADA YACHASUN-ISSN: 2697-3456, 9(16),
392-405.
Roble, D. B. (2017). Communicating and valuing students’ productive struggle and
creativity in calculus. Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and
Communication, 7(2), 255-263. [Link]
Rodrigues, L. F., Oliveira, A., & Rodrigues, H. (2019). Main gamification concepts:
A systematic mapping study. Heliyon,
5(7).[Link]
Rodrigues, L. F., Oliveira, A., & Rodrigues, H. (2019). Main gamification concepts:
A systematic mapping study.
 213

Romaito, P., Safitri, I., Sarida, H., Nisah, H., Apriani, D., Afsari, S., ... & Lucky, Y.
(2021, March). The Mathematics Learning using Geogebra Software to
Improve Students’ CreativeThinking Ability. In Journal of Physics:
Conference Series (Vol. 1819, No. 1, p. 012008). IOP Publishing.
[Link]

Roman, A. (2016). Development and validation of statistics module for quality

educational research. International Journal of Science and Research, 5(9),
10-21275. [Link]

Roolvink, F. (2024, August 27). The benefits of gamification for simulations -

Grendel Games. Grendel Games. [Link]
of-gamification-for-simulations/
Ross, A., Willson, V. L., Ross, A., & Willson, V. L. (2017). Paired samples T-test.
Basic and advanced statistical tests: Writing results sections and creating
tables and figures, 17-19. [Link]
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological
needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press.
Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & Mandl, H. (2017). How gamification
motivates: An experimental study of the effects of specific game design
elements on psychological need satisfaction. Computers in Human
Behavior, 69, 371–380. [Link]
Salansan, K. M., Palmeria, Z. T., Leop, S. M., Mae, R., Boyoro, D. M., & Roxas,
D. J. B. Nearpod for Mathematics: Realizing Functions and Relations
Between Sets.
Saleem, A. N., Noori, N. M., & Ozdamli, F. (2022). Gamification applications in E-
learning: A literature review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(1),
139-159. [Link]
Salva, R. ., Hamidah, H., Ayuningtyas, V. ., & Kusuma, J. W. . (2024).
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COLLABORATIVE PROBLEM-SOLVING
LEARNING MODEL USING GEOGEBRA ON THE MATHEMATICAL
COMMUNICATION ABILITY AND CONFIDENCE OF MTS ISLAMIYAH
CIOMAS STUDENTS. International Journal of Economy, Education and
Entrepreneurship (IJE3), 4(2), 595–603.
[Link]
 214

Sanchez, D. R., Langer, M., & Kaur, R. (2020). Gamification in the classroom:
Examining the impact of gamified quizzes on student learning. Computers
& Education, 144, 103666. [Link]
Scales, A. Y. (2011). Improving instructional materials by improving document
formatting. In Unpublished paper presented at ASEE southeast section
conference, North Carolina. Retrieved May (Vol. 25).

Selvy, Y., Ikhsan, M., & Johar, R. (2020, February). Improving students’
mathematical creative thinking and motivation through GeoGebra assisted
problem-based learning. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol.
1460, No. 1, p. 012004). IOP Publishing.
Septian, A., Darhim, D., & Prabawanto, S. (2021). The development of calculus
teaching materials using geogebra. IndoMath: Indonesia Mathematics
Education, 4(1), 1-10. [Link]
Shin, H.Y., Kim, W.K., Shin, I.S. and Han, I.K. (2000b) ‘A study on improving
mathematical creativity in talented children’, Communications of
Mathematical Education, Vol. 10, pp.325–342.
Silva, T. N., & Abar, C. A. A. P. (2024). Gamification with GeoGebra: the use of
games with automatic feedback for the learning of Affine Function.
International Research Seminar on Mathematics Education, 1-15.
Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K.
I., Martinez, J. L., & Richard, C. A. (2008). Assessing creativity with
divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity 30 of new
subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the
Arts, 2(2), 68–85. [Link]
Simanjuntak, M. P., Hutahaean, J., Marpaung, N., & Ramadhani, D. (2021).
Effectiveness of Problem-Based Learning Combined with Computer
Simulation on Students’ Problem-Solving and Creative Thinking Skills.
International Journal of Instruction, 14(3), 519-534.
[Link]

Skaržauskienė, A., & Kalinauskas, M. (2014, October). Fostering collective

creativity through gamification. In The proceedings of the ISPIM Americas
Innovation Forum (October 2014): Montreal, Canada on 5-8 October 2014.

Solvang, L., & Haglund, J. (2022). Learning with Friction—Students’ Gestures and
Enactment in Relation to a GeoGebra Simulation. Research in Science
Education, 52(6), 1659-1675. [Link]
 215

Stolaki, A., & Economides, A. A. (2018). The Creativity Challenge Game: An

educational intervention for creativity enhancement with the integration of
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Computers &
Education, 123, 195-211.
Stovner, R. B., & Klette, K. (2022). Teacher feedback on procedural skills,
conceptual understanding, and mathematical practices: A video study in
lower secondary mathematics classrooms. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 110, 103593. [Link]

Su, C.-H., & Cheng, C.-H. (2015). A mobile gamification learning system for
improving the learning motivation and achievements. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 31(3), 268–286. [Link]

Subanji, S., & Nusantara, T. (2022). Mathematical Creative Model: Theory

Framework and Application in Mathematics Learning Activities. In Active
Learning-Research and Practice for STEAM and Social Sciences
Education. IntechOpen.
Suherman, S., & Vidákovich, T. (2022). Assessment of mathematical creative
thinking: A systematic review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 44, 101019.

Svitek, S., Annuš, N., & Filip, F. (2022). Math Can Be Visual—Teaching and
Understanding Arithmetical Functions through Visualization. Mathematics,
10(15), 2656.
Swift Elearning Services Private Limited. (2024, May 17). The ADDIE Model – The
Best Way To Develop Engaging eLearning. Top eLearning Solutions
Companies India, Swift Elearning Services.
[Link]
to-develop-interactive-and-engaging-e-learning-courses/

Taesotikul, T., Chinpaisal, C., & Nawanopparatsakul, S. (2021, May). Kahoot!

gamification improves learning outcomes in problem-based learning
classroom. In 2021 3rd International Conference on Modern Educational
Technology (pp. 125-129).
Takači, D., Stankov, G., & Milanovic, I. (2015). Efficiency of learning environment
using GeoGebra when calculus contents are learned in collaborative
groups. Computers & Education, 82, 421-431.
[Link]
Tall, D. (1992). The transition to advanced mathematical thinking: Functions, limits,
infinity, and proof. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 495–511). New York: Macmillan.
 216

Tang, T., Vezzani, V., & Eriksson, V. (2020). Developing critical thinking, collective
creativity skills and problem solving through playful design jams. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 37, 100696. [Link]
Teng, M. (2019, March 30). What is mathematical creativity? Why is it important?
– Let the creative juices flow! UBC Blogs.
[Link]
words-go-together/
Tolstykh, T., Shmeleva, N., Gamidullaeva, L., & Krasnobaeva, V. (2023). The role
of collaboration in the development of industrial enterprises integration.
Sustainability, 15(9), 7180.
Tracy, G. S., & Xu, Y. (2018). Scaffolded Academic Conversations: Access to 21st-
Century Collaboration and Communication Skills. Intervention in School
and Clinic, 54(2), 2230. [Link] 1053451218762478
Troop, M., White, D., Wilson, K. E., & Zeni, P. (2020). The user experience design
for learning (UXDL) framework: The undergraduate student perspective.
The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(3).
[Link]
Ulum, S. (2024). Kreativitas Guru Al Qur’an Dalam Mengelola Kelas Guna
Meningkatkan Kemampuan Membaca Dan Menghafal Al Qur’an Siswa
Kelas Vi SDIT Al Uswah Tuban. Journal of Educational Research and
Practice (JERP), 2(2), 1-14.

Uz Bilgin, C., & Gul, A. (2020). Investigating the effectiveness of gamification on

group cohesion, attitude, and academic achievement in collaborative
learning environments. TechTrends, 64(1), 124-136.
Vale, I., Pimentel, T., & Barbosa, A. (2018). The power of seeing in problem solving
and creativity: An issue under discussion. Broadening the scope of research
on mathematical problem solving: A focus on technology, creativity and
affect, 243-272. [Link]
Veith, J. M., & Bitzenbauer, P. (2022). What group theory can do for you: From
magmas to abstract thinking in school mathematics. Mathematics, 10(5),
703.

Veith, J. M., Bitzenbauer, P., & Girnat, B. (2022). Assessing learners’ conceptual
understanding of introductory group theory using the CI2GT: Development
and analysis of a concept inventory. Education Sciences, 12(6), 376.
[Link]
 217

Verzosa, D. M. B., & Vistro-Yu, C. P. (2019). Prospects and challenges in

implementing a new mathematics curriculum in the Philippines. School
mathematics curricula: Asian perspectives and glimpses of reform, 207-
226.
Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2017). The effect of games and simulations on
higher education: a systematic literature.
Walia, P., & Walia, P. (2017). Developement and Standardisation of Mathematical
Creativity Test. International Journal of Advanced Research, 5(7), 1293-
1300.
Wallas, G. (1926) The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich.
Wang, C. H., Hsu, Y. C., Yeh, P. C., Lin, C. Y., & Lai, I. W. (2016). Edventure:
Gamification for collaborative problem design and solving. In 2016 15th
International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher
Education and Training, ITHET 2016 Article 7760719 (2016 15th
International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher
Education and Training, ITHET 2016). Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers Inc.. [Link]

Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Turrou, A. C., Johnson, N. C., & Zimmerman,
J. (2019). Teacher practices that promote productive dialogue and learning
in mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research,
97, 176-186. [Link]
Wessels, H. M. (2014). Levels of mathematical creativity in model-eliciting
activities. Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Application, 1(9), 22-40.
Wilson, N. S., Elizondo, J., Ralston, R., Lee, Y.-H., Dunbar, N. E., Kornelson, K.,
Savic, M., Stewart, S., Lennox, E. A., & Thompson, W. (2016). Digital game-
based learning for undergraduate calculus education: Immersion,
calculation, and conceptual understanding. International Journal of Gaming
and Computer-mediated Simulations, 8(1), 13–27.
[Link]
Wulandari, A. T., Abadi, A. M., & Radite, R. (2024). The Effectiveness of Problem-
Posing Learning Model in Terms of Creative Thinking Skills and Math
Anxiety. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management
(IJSRM), 12(09), 3660-3671.
Xu, H., & Hamari, J. (2023). How to improve creativity: a study of gamification,
money, and punishment. Behaviour & Information Technology, 42(15),
2545-2559.
 218

Xu, X., Zhang, Q., Sun, J., & Wei, Y. (2022). A bibliometric review on latent topics
and research trends in the growth mindset literature for mathematics
education. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1039761.
[Link]
Yi, Z., & LuXi, Z. (2012). Implementing a cooperative learning model in universities.
Educational studies, 38(2), 165-173.
[Link]
YIĞ, K. G., & Sezgin, S. (2021). An exploratory holistic analysis of digital
gamification in mathematics education. Journal of Educational Technology
and Online Learning, 4(2), 115-136.
Yildirim, I. (2017). The effects of gamification-based teaching practices on student
achievement and students’ attitudes toward lessons. The Internet and
Higher Education, 33(2016), 86–92.
[Link]

Yimer, S. T., & Feza, N. N. (2019). Learners’ conceptual knowledge development

and attitudinal change towards calculus using jigsaw co-operative learning
strategy integrated with GeoGebra. International Electronic Journal of
Mathematics Education, 15(1), em0554.
[Link]

Yongco, J., & Del Valle, J. (2022). Development and evaluation of instructional
module for special program in Journalism. International Journal of
Educational Management and Development Studies, 3(4), 97-117.
[Link]

Yorganci, S. (2018). The Use of Interactive Simulations in Teaching Calculus

Concepts. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Humanities
and Educational Research.
Zachepa, N. (2023). HUMAN ACTIVITY AS THE MAIN FORM OF
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Collection of scientific papers «ΛΌГOΣ»,
(July 21, 2023; Paris, France), 126-127.
Zaharin, F. Z., Abd Karim, N. S., Adenan, N. H., Junus, N. W. M., Tarmizi, R. A.,
Abd Hamid, N. Z., & Abd Latib, L. (2021). Gamification in mathematics:
Students’ perceptions in learning perimeter and area. Jurnal Pendidikan
Sains Dan Matematik Malaysia, 11, 72-80.
 219

Žakelj, A., & Klancar, A. (2022). The Role of Visual Representations in Geometry
Learning. European Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 1393-1411.
[Link]
Zhang, Y. (2023). Fostering creativity in K12 education with [Link]?
Cognitive Development, 45, 68–76.
[Link]
 220

APPENDICES
 221

APPENDIX 1

LETTER TO THE SCHOOLS DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT

 222

APPENDIX 2

LETTER TO THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL

 223

APPENDIX 3

INVITATION LETTER TO TEACHER-EVALUATOR

 224

APPENDIX 4

LETTER TO PARENTS
 225

APPENDIX 5

SAMPLE VALIDATION RESULT FOR THE DEVELOPED LEARNING PACKET

226
227
228
 229

APPENDIX 6

GAMIFIED SIMULATION ALIGNMENT AND QUALITY EVALUATION

CHECKLIST

Name of Teacher-Evaluator: ______________________________ Signature:

_________
Highest Educational Degree: ______________________________ Position:
__________

Purpose: This checklist is designed to assess the alignment and quality of the gamified
simulation based on the proposed model for enhancing students’ creativity and
collaboration in mathematics.
Instructions: Please rate each item based on the degree to which it is present or evident
in the gamified simulation learning packet. Use the 4-point scale below:
Rating Meaning
4 - Strongly Agree
3 - Agree
2 - Disagree
1 - Strongly Disagree

A. Simulation-Based Lesson Design 4 3 2 1

1. The simulation clearly visualizes mathematical concepts.
2. The simulation supports inquiry-based learning (students ask,
explore, reflect).
3. Real-life applications are integrated meaningfully into the simulation.
4. Students are allowed to manipulate variables, test hypotheses, and
make conclusions.
B. Gamification Elements
Challenges
1. Challenges within the simulation are interactive and engaging.
2. Challenges are open-ended, allowing multiple possible solutions.
3. Students are encouraged to modify or pose their own problems.
4. Problem choices reflect student interest or prior experience.
Feedback
1. Feedback is timely and contextual within the simulation.
2. Feedback promotes exploration and refinement of ideas.
3. Feedback fosters peer discussion and collaborative learning.
4. Feedback is constructive and motivating within the simulation.
Rewards
1. Points, badges, or progression are used effectively.
 230

2. Students are rewarded for manifesting creativity.

3. Rewards enhance motivation and group participation.
C. Support for Creativity
1. Students explore various solution paths to a problem
2. Tasks encourage divergent thinking (fluency, flexibility, originality).
3. Students are invited to generate new ideas and approaches.
D. Support for Collaboration
1. Students are encouraged to collaborate and work together to solve
problems.
2. The simulation includes group-based tasks or team missions.
3. Collaboration leads to shared insights and improves problem-solving
outcomes.
E. Aesthetics and Engagement
1. Visual design is engaging and aids content understanding.
2. Interface is immersive, motivating, and free of distractions.
3. Aesthetic design enhances the overall learning experience.
Note. Mean ranges for alignment level: 1.00–1.75 = Poorly Aligned, 1.76–2.50 = Partially Aligned, 2.51–3.25 =
Moderately Aligned, 3.26–4.00 = Highly Aligned

Follow-up Questions:
(Please answer briefly.)
1. What strengths do you observe in the gamified simulation learning packet?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
_____
2. What suggestions would you give for enhancing alignment with the model?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________

3. Does the packet reflect the objectives of promoting creativity and

collaboration through gamified simulation?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
 231

APPENDIX 7

RELEVANCE RATINGS OF THE RESEARCHER-MADE GAMIFIED

SIMULATION ALIGNMENT AND QUALITY EVALUATION CHECKLIST

1. Simulation-Based Lesson Design

Experts in
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 I-CVI UA
Agreement
Item 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
S-CVI/Ave 1
Proportional 1 1 1 1 1
S-CVI/UA
Relevance
Average proportion of items judged as relevance across the four 1
experts

2. Gamification Elements
Experts in
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 I-CVI UA
Agreement
Item 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q6 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q7 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q8 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q9 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q10 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
S-CVI/Ave 1
Proportional 1 1 1 1 1
S-CVI/UA
Relevance
Average proportion of items judged as relevance across the four 1
experts

3. Support for Creativity

Experts in
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 I-CVI UA
Agreement
Item 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
S-CVI/Ave 1
Proportional 1 1 1 1 1
S-CVI/UA
Relevance
Average proportion of items judged as relevance across the four 1
experts
 232

4. Support for Collaboration

Experts in
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 I-CVI UA
Agreement
Item 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
S-CVI/Ave 1
Proportional 1 1 1 1 1
S-CVI/UA
Relevance
Average proportion of items judged as relevance across the four 1
experts

5. E. Aesthetics and Engagement

Experts in
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 I-CVI UA
Agreement
Item 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
S-CVI/Ave 1
Proportional 1 1 1 1 1
S-CVI/UA
Relevance
Average proportion of items judged as relevance across the four 1
experts
 233

APPENDIX 8

PILOT TESTING RELIABILITY RESULTS OF THE GAMIFIED SIMULATION

ALIGNMENT AND QUALITY EVALUATION CHECKLIST

1. Cronbach Alpha for Simulation-Based Lesson Design

2. Cronbach Alpha for Gamification Elements

3. Cronbach Alpha in Support for Creativity

4. Cronbach Alpha in Support for Collaboration

5. Cronbach Alpha for Aesthetics and Engagement

6. Overall Cronbach Alpha

 234

APPENDIX 9

TABLE OF SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE RESEARCHER-MADE TEST ON

MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY

# of % of Creativity
Skills Total
Learning Competencies recite allotted
Items
days items
1. Illustrate the limit of a function using a 6
table of values and the graph of the 1 7.14% 1
function
2. Distinguish between lim 𝑓(𝑥) and 𝑓(𝑐) 1 7.14% 2 1
𝑥→𝑐
3. Compute the limits of exponential,
logarithmic, and trigonometric functions 8,9
2 16.7% 2
using tables of values and graphs of the
functions
4. Evaluate limits involving the
sin⁡(𝑥) 1−cos⁡(𝑥) 𝑒 𝑥 −1 5,10
expressions , , and⁡ using 2 16.7% 2
𝑥 𝑥 𝑥
tables of values
5. Illustrate continuity of a function at a 7.14% 1
1 1
number
6. Determine whether a function is 7.14%
1 0
continuous at a number or not
7. Illustrate continuity of a function on an 7.14% 7
1 1
interval
8. Determine whether a function is 7.14%
1 0
continuous on an interval or not.
9. Illustrate different types of discontinuity
(hole/removable, jump/essential, 2 14.28% 3,4 2
asymptotic/infinite)
10. Illustrate the Intermediate Value and 7.14%
1 0
Extreme Value Theorems
11. Solve problems involving continuity of 7.14%
1 0
a function
TOTAL 14 100% 10 10
 235

APPENDIX 10

RESEARCHER-MADE PRETEST-POSTTEST QUESTIONNAIRE ON

MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY

Instructions:

• Answer the following questions in 1 hour.

• Use a separate paper (1 whole) for your computations or solutions.
• Response will be evaluated based on fluency, flexibility, and originality per
item.

1. Design at least four different functions 𝑓(𝑥) that are continuous at 𝑥 = 2.

Justify your answer.
2. Design at least four different functions⁡𝑓 (𝑥 ) such that lim 𝑓 (𝑥 ) ≠ 𝑓 (2). Justify
𝑥→2
your answer.
3. Sketch at least four different functions⁡𝑓(𝑥) defined on ℝ such that lim 𝑓(𝑥)
𝑥→−3
does not exist (DNE). Justify your answer.
4. There are two examples below.
Please provide at least four different examples that express a similar
relationship to the examples presented.
Example1: The function 𝑓(𝑥 ) = 2𝑥 + 1⁡is continuous at 𝑥 = −2. However,
1
the function 𝑔(𝑥 ) = 𝑥+2 is discontinuous at 𝑥 = −2.
Example2: The function 𝑓(𝑥 ) = √𝑥 − 3⁡is continuous at 𝑥 = 4. However, the
function 𝑔(𝑥 ) = √−𝑥 + 2⁡ is discontinuous at 𝑥 = 4.
2𝑥 2 −2
5. Show that lim = 2 in at least four different ways.
𝑥→0 𝑥−1
6. Design at least four different functions 𝑓 (𝑥 ) that are continuous at (0,5].
Justify your answer.

Note: Final copy of the instrument after four items were removed.
 236

APPENDIX 11

RUBRIC FOR RESEARCHER-MADE PRETEST-POSTTEST QUESTIONNAIRE

ON MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY

Criteria Score Description Score

Range
Fluency 0-4 The number of 0: No relevant or correct responses.
relevant and 1: One correct response.
correct responses 2: Two different correct responses.
given by the 3: Three different correct
student. No extra responses.
points for 4: Four or more different correct
repeated answers responses.
Flexibility 0-3 The number of 0: Responses all belong to a single
distinct categories category.
into which the 1: Responses fall into 2 distinct
student’s categories.
responses can be 2: Responses fall into 3 distinct
classified. categories.
3: Responses fall into 4 or more
distinct categories.
Originality 0-5 The 0: Response given by more than
uncommonness 25% of students.
of the student’s 1: Response given by 20% to 25%
responses based of students.
on how many 2: Response given by 15% to 20%
other students of students.
provided the 3: Response given by 10% to 15%
same answer. of students.
4: Response given by 5% to 10% of
students.
5: Response given by less than 5%
of students.
Total 0-12 The sum of Maximum possible score = 12
Score fluency, flexibility, Minimum possible score = 0
and originality
scores.

Adapted from:
Walia, P., & Walia, P. (2017). Development and Standardisation of Mathematical
Creativity Test. International Journal of Advanced Research, 5(7), 1293-
1300.
 237

APPENDIX 12

RELEVANCE RATINGS OF THE RESEARCHER-MADE TEST ON

MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY BY EXPERTS

I. Alignment with Mathematical Creativity

Experts in
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 I-CVI UA
Agreement
Item 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q6 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q7 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q8 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q9 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q10 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
S-CVI/Ave 1
Proportional 1 1 1 1 1
S-CVI/UA
Relevance
Average proportion of items judged as relevance across the four 1
experts
 238

APPENDIX 13

PILOT TESTING RELIABILITY RESULTS OF THE RESEARCHER-MADE

TEST ON MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY
 239

APPENDIX 14

COLLABORATION SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL

Note: mean range for collaboration: 10-25 = Collaboration skills are emerging, 26-34 = Collaboration skills
are developing, 35-44 = Collaboration skills are established.

Adapted from:
Ofstedal, K., & Dahlberg, K. (2009). Collaboration in student teaching: Introducing
the collaboration self-assessment tool. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher
Education, 30(1), 37-48. [Link]
 240

APPENDIX 15

RELEVANCE RATINGS OF THE COLLABORATION

SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL BY EXPERTS

I. Alignment with Collaboration Skills Based on Ofstedal & Dahlberg

(2009)

Experts in
Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 I-CVI UA
Agreement
Item 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q6 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q7 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q8 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q9 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q10 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
Q11 1 1 1 1 4 1 1
S-CVI/Ave 1
Proportional 1 1 1 1 1
S-CVI/UA
Relevance
Average proportion of items judged as relevance across the four 1
experts
 241

APPENDIX 16

SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FOCUS GROUP

DISCUSSION

1. Can you describe your overall experience using the learning packet with
gamified simulation? What did you like most and least? (Encourages
balanced feedback)
2. What specific features of the learning packet made it engaging or
enjoyable? Can you rank them from most to least engaging? (Adds a
ranking component)
3. Were there any parts of the learning packet that you found difficult or
confusing? What made them challenging? (Encourages detailed
explanations)
4. In what ways did the learning packet encourage you to think creatively
when solving mathematical problems?
5. Can you describe a situation where you used a creative or unconventional
approach to solve a problem? What made this approach different?
6. Did the gamified elements (e.g., points, badges, challenges, feedback)
encourage you to try new strategies or solutions? Why or why not?
7. How did the learning packet influence your collaboration with classmates?
Did it encourage more discussions and teamwork?
8. Can you share an experience where working with peers helped you
understand a concept better? What aspect of collaboration was most
helpful?
9. Did the simulations encourage teamwork? If so, how? If not, what could be
improved to make them more collaborative?
10. How did the use of simulations help you understand mathematical
concepts better? Can you give a specific example?
11. Which gamified elements (e.g., points, levels, rewards) were most
effective in keeping you engaged? Which elements could be improved?
12. If you could change or improve one thing in the learning packet, what
would it be and why?
13. What new features should be added to make the gamified simulation more
effective in learning math?
14. On a scale of 1-5, how likely are you to recommend this learning packet to
other students? Why? (Adds a measurable metric)
 242

APPENDIX 17

PILOT TESTING RELIABILITY RESULTS OF THE COLLABORATION

SELF-ASSESSMENT TOOL
 243

APPENDIX 18

THEMATIC ANALYSIS PROCESS

Overview
This appendix outlines the six-phase process of thematic analysis as applied to
the qualitative data (students’ feedback) in the study. It follows Braun and Clarke’s
(2006) model.
Step 1: Familiarization with the Data

• The researcher transcribed all interviews and verbal data, then read and re-
read the transcripts to ensure immersion in the data.
• Table 1 below shows the output of step 1.
Table 1: Transcribed Feedback with Notes

Raw Data Excerpt Transcription Initial Notes

“Ang pagdescribe nako sa “The way I would Learned a lot, explore
experience Sir kay I’ve describe the concepts, hands-on
learned a lot Sir in terms of experience, Sir, is that activities
limits kay mas naexplore I’ve learned a lot in
man gud namo siya og mas terms of limits because
naklaro ang concepts we were able to explore
pinaagi sa mga hands-on it more and the
activities sa computer.” (S5) concepts became
clearer through hands-
on computer activities.”
(S5)
“Nakagain gyud ko og "I really gained Gain knowledge, prompts
knowledge sa discontinuity knowledge about are useful, feedback loop
although lisod ni siya nga discontinuity, even
concept. Makita namo ang though it's a difficult
result sa among mga concept. We can see
desisyon og kung sayup the results of our
man, amo dayung decisions, and if they're
macorrect. Dako pud og wrong, we can correct
tabang ang mga prompts them immediately. The
nga manggawas kay guided prompts that come out
me sa mga correct nga are also very helpful
ideas” (S8) because they guide us
to the correct ideas."
(S8)
“Mas makatoon man gyud “We students really Students learn through
me mga estudyante basta learn better when games, enjoyable and
naay dula kay malingaw there's a game because challenging experience
we enjoy it, and it also
 244

man me and makahatag provides a challenge.”

pud siya og challenge.” (S1) (S1)
“Mas naenjoy namo ang "We really enjoyed the Enjoyment, playful activity
activities Sir labi na ang activities, Sir, especially
pagdula2x.” (S3) the games." (S3)
“… didto pud ko mas "I also enjoyed more on Enjoyment, highly engaged,
nalingaw sa modification the modification and modify and create problems
and creation activities like creation activities, like
maghimo gyud kog real-life creating real-life
problem. Kadto pung problems. Also, when
maghimo me og tulo ka we had to create three
functions nga makasatisfy functions that satisfy the
sa limit condition. Ang limit condition. What we
among gibuhat kay gibase did was base our
namo sa mga examples nga answers on the
gihatag bitaw para examples given, so we
makaanswer me and we could find the functions,
have fun man pud and we had fun doing
pagpangita og mga it." (S1)
functions.” (S1)
“You’ve taught us with a “You taught us in a very Unique way of teaching,
very unique way Sir like very unique way, Sir, and engaging, not pressured in
engaging ang imong your teaching was very doing activities, and not
pagtudlo sa amoa Sir and engaging, and we didn’t boring
dili me mapressure and dili feel pressured or bored
bitaw me malaay Sir.” (S5) at all.” (S5)
Malingaw bitaw ka kay “It was enjoyable Enjoyment, helping each
syempre kaubana man gud because, of course, we other, sharing of ideas
and kaming tulo nga were working with our
magkauban kay groupmates, and the
magtinabanga gyud me mao three of us really helped
tong magshare me sa each other. That’s why
among mga opinion namo we shared our opinions
and among gicalculate pag and carefully solved the
ayo ang mga problems nga problems given to us.”
gihatag sa amoa.” (S7) (S7)
“So far sa tibook weeks nga “So far, from the entire Enjoyable experience and
experience, akong maingon weeks of experience, I engaging
is lingaw siya Sir at the can say it was fun, Sir,
same time engaging bitaw and at the same time, it
siya.” (S8) was really engaging.”
(S8)
“… among ginabuhat Sir "What we do, Sir, is to Motivated to earn bigger
nga buhaton among best do our best so that we points,
para dako nga points among can earn a lot of points
makuha sa group. Ang for our group. We make
tanan problem nga gihatag sure to answer all the
sa amoa Sir, among problems given to us
gitarung pag answer para correctly so that we can
get high points." (S5)
 245

dako nga points ang among

makuha.” (S5)
“Everytime bitaw nga "Every time we provide Rewarding experience,
makaprovide me og sakto the correct answer, Sir, happy, encouraging,
nga answer Sir, makagain we gain points. It feels motivated
meg points. Rewarding very rewarding. Of
kaayo siya sa feeling. course, when we
Siyempre kung naa tay receive a reward, we
reward nga madawat, feel happy. Every time
malipay man gyud ta. we earn points, we
Everytime nga makapoints become more
me mas maencourage me encouraged to keep
og samot nga mag answer answering, even if
pa bahalag gamay na ang there's little time left."
time.” (S1) (S1)
“Ang points Sir "The points really Points are motivating,
makamotivate gyud siya sa motivate us to answer. resilient in solving problems
amoa mag answer. Kay Because we want to get
gusto man me og dako nga high points, no matter
points, bisan unsa kalisod how difficult the
ang problem, amo gyud problem is, we will
anseran.” (S7) really try to answer it."
(S7)
“Ang feedback Sir “The feedback, Sir, Feedback is helpful in
makatabang siya para helps us understand evaluating responses and
mahibal an asa dapit ang where we went wrong correcting misunderstanding
among wrong og tagaan kag and gives us hints on
hint kung unsay buhaton what to do to correct
para macorrect ang imong our response.” (S9)
response.” (S9)
“… dili bitaw me mapressure “… we don't feel Mistakes are Ok, can-do trial
kay ok ra masayup. Pwede pressured because it's error
me makatrial and error og okay to make mistakes.
kadaghan hantod makakita We can use trial and
me og lahi lahi nga answers error many times until
sa mga challenge.” (S8) we find different
answers to the
challenges.” (S8)
“Sa feedback bitaw Sir kay “The feedback is really Motivating feedback through
motivating siya labi na kung motivating, especially happy smiley
moappear ang happy when the happy smiley
smiley. Maencourage me appears. It encourages
mo-answer pa para us to answer more to
makadawat og points og earn points and see the
para mogawas balik ang happy smiley again.
happy smiley. Usahay gani Sometimes, we even
Sir kay mag awat me sa imitate the smiley.” (S7)
nawong sa smiley.” (S7)
 246

“Namotivate ko mag answer “I was motivated to Motivated, proceed to next

kay para makaproceed ko answer so that I could level
sa next level.” (S5) proceed to the next
level.” (S5)
“Ako ra gyung gihunahuna “I just thought to myself, Act of playing
Sir nga ah kani dula ni, kaya Sir, that this is a game,
nako ni kay hilig man kog and I can do it because
dula.” (S7) I love games.” (S7)
“Nalingaw ko sa part nga “I enjoyed the part Enjoyed through game
gihimoan nimo og dula ang where you turned the activity, game is engaging
lesson sa limits Sir. Ang lesson on limits into a
math lingaw man siya for game, Sir. Math is fun
me pero sa others kay dili for me, but for others,
kaayo siya lingaw kay libog it's not very enjoyable
bitaw pero pinaagi sa dula because it's confusing.
mahimo siya engaging.” However, through the
(S1) game, it becomes
engaging.” (S1)
“Nagkaproblema me Sir sa "We had a problem, Sir, Problematic keyboard,
among keyboard kay gahe with our keyboard computer freezing
kaayo tuplokon og kung because it's very hard
makusgan pud namo kay to press, and if we
mo hang and computer. press it too hard, the
Sayang ang among computer hangs. It's a
nasugdan kay need man waste of what we had
namo ireset ang file.” (S2) started because we
needed to reset the
file.” (S2)
“Naay mga panahon Sir nga "There are times, Sir, Computer not functioning,
dili mo function among when our computer freezing computer
computer. Mo hang siya. So does not function. It
maghulat nalang gyud me hangs. So we just
kanus a siya mogana waited for it to work
pagbalik. Tungod ani Sir kay again. Because of this,
naulahi na dayun me pag Sir, we are delayed in
accomoplish sa task bitaw accomplishing the task,
Sir.” (S8) Sir." (S8)
“Para sa akoa Sir if there For me, Sir, if there Recommend improving
would be a recommendation would be a keyboard
for the improvement of the recommendation for the
intervention is dapat unta improvement of the
tsada ang keyboard para dili intervention, it should
lisod tuplokon og nice nga be to have a good
mouse para dili lisod keyboard that is easy to
gamiton.” (S5) press and a nice mouse
that is easy to use.”
(S5)
 247

Step 2: Generating Initial Codes or Categories

• The researcher generated initial codes or categories by systematically

tagging important features of the data.
• Table 2 below shows the output of step 2.
Table 2: Excerpt from Transcript with Initial Code (Category)

Excerpt from Transcript Initial Code (Categories)

"I’ve learned a lot in terms of limits" (S5) Improved conceptual understanding
"We are able to explore it (concepts) Exploratory learning
more" (S5)
"Concepts became clearer through Clarification of abstract concepts through
hands-on computer activities " technology-assisted learning / Interactive
learning experience
"I really gained knowledge about Improved understanding of complex
discontinuity, even though it's a difficult concept
concept.” (S8)
“We can see the results of our decisions, Immediate feedback / Self-correction
and if they're wrong, we can correct them
immediately.” (S8)
“The prompts that come out are also very Guided learning / Use of prompts as
helpful because they guide us to the scaffolds
correct ideas." (S8)
“We students learn better when there’s a Gamified learning enhances
game because we enjoy it” (S1) understanding
“It (game) also provides a challenge” (S1) Gamified learning provides challenge
"We really enjoyed the activities, Sir, Gamification provides enjoyment in
especially the games." (S3) learning
"I also enjoyed more on the modification Enjoyment in creative tasks/ preference
and creation activities, like creating real- for open-ended activities like real-world
life problems ” (S1) application or Student-generated
problems
“Also, when we had to create three Multiple solution generation / Deep
functions that satisfy the limit condition.” conceptual engagement
(S1)
What we did was base our answers on Positive emotional response to learning
the examples given, so we could find the
functions, and we had fun doing it." (S1)
“ You taught us in a very unique way, Sir.” Innovative teaching approach /
(S5) Instructional novelty
“Your teaching was very engaging.” (S5) High student engagement
“We didn’t feel pressured or bored at all.” Low anxiety learning environment /
(S5) Enjoyable and relaxed learning
“It was enjoyable because, of course, we Enjoyment in collaboration / Positive
were working with our groupmates.” (S7) group dynamics
“The three of us really helped each Peer support / Collaborative problem-
other.” (S7) solving
“We shared our opinions and carefully Idea sharing and Focused teamwork on
solved the problems given to us.” (S7) academic tasks
 248

“I can say it was fun, Sir, and at the same Fun and engaging learning experience
time, it was really engaging.” (S8)
“…do our best so that we can earn a lot Motivation through point system
of points for our group” (S5)
“We make sure to answer all the Accuracy-focused problem-solving /
problems given to us correctly so that we Performance-oriented behavior
can get high points." (S5)
“Every time we provide the correct Increased motivation through point
answer, Sir, we gain points. It feels very rewards
rewarding.” (S1)
"The points really motivate us to answer" Motivation through point-based rewards
(S7)
“Because we want to get high points, no Persistence despite task difficulty
matter how difficult the problem is, we will
really try to answer it." (S7)
“The feedback, Sir, helps us understand Guided correction through formative
where we went wrong and gives us hints feedback
on what to do to correct our response.”
(S9)
“… we don't feel pressured because it's Safe space for learning through trial and
okay to make mistakes. We can use trial error
and error many times until we find
different answers to the challenges.” (S8)
“The feedback is really motivating, Motivation through visual feedback
especially when the happy smiley
appears. It encourages us to answer
more to earn points and see the happy
smiley again. Sometimes, we even
imitate the smiley.” (S7)
“I was motivated to answer so that I could Enhanced motivation through game-like
proceed to the next level.” (S5) structure
“I just thought to myself, Sir, that this is a Confidence and motivation through game-
game, and I can do it because I love like learning
games.” (S7)
“I enjoyed the part where you turned the Enjoyable learning experience through
lesson on limits into a game, Sir. through game-like structure
the game, it becomes engaging.” (S1)
"We had a problem, Sir, with our Hardware malfunction affecting usability
keyboard because it's very hard to press,
and if we press it too hard, the computer
hangs.”(S2)
“It's a waste of what we had started Loss of progress due to technical failure
because we needed to reset the file.” (S2)
“There are times, Sir, when our computer Need for improved hardware quality
does not function. It hangs.”(S8)
“So, we just waited for it (computer) to User discomfort with input devices
work again. Because of this, Sir, we are
delayed in accomplishing the task, Sir."
(S8)
 249

“If there would be a recommendation for Recommendation to improve hardware

the improvement of the intervention, it usability
should be to have a good keyboard that is
easy to press and a nice mouse that is
easy to use.” (S5)

Step 3: Searching for Themes

• The researcher collated similar codes into potential themes and subthemes
for further analysis.
• Table 3 below shows the output of step 3.
Table 3: Codes with Potential Themes and Subthemes

Codes Potential Potential

Themes Subthemes
• Improved conceptual understanding Essential Enhancement of
• Improved understanding of complex Benefits Conceptual
concept Understanding
• Clarification of abstract concepts
through interactive learning
experience with technology
• Gamified activities enhance
understanding
• Gamification provides enjoyment in Increased
the learning process Engagement and
• Enjoyment in creative tasks like Enjoyment in the
creating real-world application or Learning Process
student-generated problems
• High student engagement
• Positive emotional response to
learning
• Fun and engaging learning experience
• Enjoyment in collaborative problem
solving
• Motivation through point system Improved
• Increased motivation through point Motivation
rewards Facilitated by the
• Motivation through point-based Rewards System
rewards
• Motivation and persistence despite
task difficulty
• Motivation through points system
• Immediate feedback / Self-correction Diverse
• Guided correction through formative Advantages
feedback Provided by
• Safe space for learning through trial Feedback
and error Mechanisms
 250

• Motivation through visual feedback

• Guided learning / Use of prompts as
scaffolds
• Provision of game structured activities Incorporation of a
• Gamification provides enjoyment in Game-Like
learning Learning
• Enhanced motivation through game- Environment
like structure
• Confidence and motivation through
game-like learning
• Enjoyable and engaging learning
experience through game-like
structure
• Hardware malfunction affecting Challenges Technical Issues
usability Encountered Experienced During
• Need for improved hardware quality the Implementation
• Recommendation to improve
hardware usability
• Hardware malfunction affecting
usability
• Loss of progress due to technical Technical
failure Difficulties
• User discomfort with input devices Hindering Task
Completion

Step 4: Reviewing Themes

• The researcher reviewed potential themes and subthemes to ensure they

accurately reflected the data and were distinct.
• Table 4 below shows the output of step 4 highlighting the merging of
potential subthemes namely “Technical Issues Experienced During the
Implementation” and “Technical Difficulties Hindering Task Completion” into
one subtheme labeled as Technical Issues Experienced During the
Implementation under the theme Challenges Encountered.
Table 4. Codes with Revised Subthemes

Codes Potential Potential

Themes Subthemes
• Improved conceptual understanding Essential Enhancement of
• Improved understanding of complex Benefits Conceptual
concept Understanding
• Clarification of abstract concepts
through interactive learning
experience with technology
• Gamified activities enhance
understanding
 251

• Gamification provides enjoyment in Increased

the learning process Engagement and
• Enjoyment in creative tasks like Enjoyment in the
creating real-world application or Learning Process
student-generated problems
• High student engagement
• Positive emotional response to
learning
• Fun and engaging learning experience
• Enjoyment in collaborative problem
solving
• Motivation through point system Improved
• Increased motivation through point Motivation
rewards Facilitated by the
• Motivation through point-based Rewards System
rewards
• Motivation and persistence despite
task difficulty
• Motivation through points system
• Immediate feedback / Self-correction Diverse
• Guided correction through formative Advantages
feedback Provided by
• Safe space for learning through trial Feedback
and error Mechanisms
• Motivation through visual feedback
• Guided learning / Use of prompts as
scaffolds
• Provision of game structured activities Incorporation of a
• Gamification provides enjoyment in Game-Like
learning Learning
• Enhanced motivation through game- Environment
like structure
• Confidence and motivation through
game-like learning
• Enjoyable and engaging learning
experience through game-like
structure
• Hardware malfunction affecting Challenges Technical Issues
usability Encountered Experienced During
• Need for improved hardware quality the Implementation
• Recommendation to improve
hardware usability
• Hardware malfunction affecting
usability
• Loss of progress due to technical
failure
• User discomfort with input devices
 252

Step 5: Defining and Naming Themes

• The researcher finalized the themes and defined what each theme
represents in the context of the study through their subthemes. For the main
theme: Essential Benefits, students feedback revealed that their
experiences learning with gamified simulation learning packets is
associated with enhancement of their conceptual understanding, increased
engagement and enjoyment in the learning process, improved motivation
facilitated by the rewards system, diverse advantages provided by feedback
mechanisms, and incorporation of a game-like learning environment. In
terms of the main theme: Challenges Encountered, the experiences were
associated with some technical issues during implementation.

• Table 5 below shows the output of step 5.

Table 5. Final List of Main Themes and Subthemes

Excerpt from Codes Main Themes Subthemes

Transcript
"I’ve learned a lot in Improved conceptual Essential Enhancement of
terms of limits" (S5) understanding Benefits Conceptual
"I really gained Improved Understanding
knowledge about understanding of
discontinuity, even complex concept
though it's a difficult
concept.” (S8)
"Concepts became Clarification of abstract
clearer through hands- concepts through
on computer activities interactive learning
" (S5) experience with
technology
“We students learn Gamified activities
better when there’s a enhance understanding
game because we
enjoy it” (S1)
"We really enjoyed the Gamification provides Increased
activities, Sir, enjoyment in the Engagement
especially the games." learning process and Enjoyment
(S3) in the Learning
"I also enjoyed more Enjoyment in creative Process
on the modification tasks like creating real-
and creation activities, world application or
like creating real-life student-generated
problems ” (S1) problems
“Your teaching was High student
very engaging.” (S5) engagement
What we did was base Positive emotional
our answers on the response to learning
examples given, so
 253

we could find the

functions, and we had
fun doing it." (S1)
“I can say it was fun, Fun and engaging
Sir, and at the same learning experience
time, it was really
engaging.” (S8)
“It was enjoyable Enjoyment in
because, of course, collaborative problem
we were working with solving
our groupmates.” (S7)
“…do our best so that Motivation through Improved
we can earn a lot of point system Motivation
points for our group” Facilitated by
(S5) the Rewards
“Every time we Increased motivation System
provide the correct through point rewards
answer, Sir, we gain
points. It feels very
rewarding.” (S1)
"The points really Motivation through
motivate us to answer" point-based rewards
(S7)
“Because we want to Motivation and
get high points, no persistence despite
matter how difficult the task difficulty
problem is, we will
really try to answer it."
(S7)
“We make sure to Motivation through
answer all the points system
problems given to us
correctly so that we
can get high points."
(S5)
“We can see the Immediate feedback / Diverse
results of our Self-correction Advantages
decisions, and if Provided by
they're wrong, we can Feedback
correct them Mechanisms
immediately.” (S8)
“The feedback, Sir, Guided correction
helps us understand through formative
where we went wrong feedback
and gives us hints on
what to do to correct
our response.” (S9)
“… we don't feel Safe space for learning
pressured because it's through trial and error
okay to make
 254

mistakes. We can use

trial and error many
times until we find
different answers to
the challenges.” (S8)
“The feedback is really Motivation through
motivating, especially visual feedback
when the happy
smiley appears. It
encourages us to
answer more to earn
points and see the
happy smiley again.
Sometimes, we even
imitate the smiley.”
(S7)
“The prompts that Guided learning / Use
come out are also of prompts as scaffolds
very helpful because
they guide us to the
correct ideas." (S8)
“We students learn Provision of game Incorporation of
better when there’s a structured activities a Game-Like
game because we Learning
enjoy it” (S1) Environment
"We really enjoyed the Gamification provides
activities, Sir, enjoyment in learning
especially the games."
(S3)
“I was motivated to Enhanced motivation
answer so that I could through game-like
proceed to the next structure
level.” (S5)
“I just thought to Confidence and
myself, Sir, that this is motivation through
a game, and I can do game-like learning
it because I love
games.” (S7)
“I enjoyed the part Enjoyable and
where you turned the engaging learning
lesson on limits into a experience through
game, Sir. through the game-like structure
game, it becomes
engaging.” (S1)
"We had a problem, Hardware malfunction Challenges Technical Issues
Sir, with our keyboard affecting usability Encountered Experienced
because it's very hard During the
to press, and if we Implementation
press it too hard, the
computer hangs.”(S2)
 255

“There are times, Sir, Need for improved

when our computer hardware quality
does not function. It
hangs.”(S8)
“If there would be a Recommendation to
recommendation for improve hardware
the improvement of usability
the intervention, it
should be to have a
good keyboard that is
easy to press and a
nice mouse that is
easy to use.” (S5)
"We had a problem, Hardware malfunction
Sir, with our keyboard affecting usability
because it's very hard
to press, and if we
press it too hard, the
computer hangs.”(S2)
“It's a waste of what Loss of progress due to
we had started technical failure
because we needed to
reset the file.” (S2)
“So, we just waited for User discomfort with
it (computer) to work input devices
again. Because of
this, Sir, we are
delayed in
accomplishing the
task, Sir." (S8)

Step 6: Producing the Report (Final Themes)

• The researcher presented the final themes into the results section of the
study.
 256

APPENDIX 19

SAMPLE PICTURES TAKEN DURING IMPLEMENTATION

 257

APPENDINX 20

BOXPLOT DIAGRAM FOR PRETEST AND POSTTEST CREATIVITY SCORES

 258

APPENDINX 21

BOXPLOT DIAGRAM FOR PRETEST AND POSTTEST COLLABORATION

SCORES
 259

APPENDIX 22

CURRICULUM VITAE

Curriculum Vitae
Jun Mark Rey O. Nob
Address: Zone 3 Cogon, El Salvador City,
Misamis Oriental
Contact number: 09161758005
Email Address: [Link]@[Link]

OBJECTIVE
As a dedicated educator, my goal is to provide quality education by delivering
engaging and well-structured mathematics lessons. I strive to foster a deep
understanding of mathematical concepts through effective teaching strategies,
innovation, and a commitment to student success. Equipped with strong
pedagogical competence, I aim to inspire critical thinking, creativity, and
collaboration among learners, preparing them for academic and real-world
challenges.
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

Post-Graduate Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics 2022-

Education Present
University of Science and Technology of
Southern Philippines
Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro, City
DOST Scholar

Graduate Master of Science in Applied Mathematics 2018-2020

University of Science and Technology of
Southern Philippines
Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro, City
DOST Scholar

College Bachelor of Science in Applied 2016-2010

Mathematics
 260

Mindanao University of Science and

Technology
Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro, City
Academic Scholar
Magna Cum Laude

High School Cogon National High School 2002-2006

Cogon El Salvador City
Class Valedictorian

Elementary Cogon Elementary School 1996-2002

Cogon El Salvador City
Class Salutatorian

TEACHING WORK EXPERIENCES

Junior High Math Teacher Xavier University High 2015-2016

School
Pueblo, Cagayan De Oro
City

LET and Civil Service St Louis Review Center 2016-Present

Exam Review Instructor Cagayan De Oro City
Master Teacher II Cogon National High 2016-Present
School
Cogon El Salvador City

AWARDS AND RECOGNITION

1. Research Presenter 2016 Regional Grand Caprice,

Research Congress Limketkai Center, CDO
held on October 24-25,
2016

2. National Research 2016 Philippine Philippine International

Presenter Conference of Basic Convention Center
Education (PICC) Manila held on
Researchers December 7, 2016
 261

3. Model Employee 2016 Search for Division Office of El

Award Model Employee Salvador City

4. Best Demonstration Regional Mass Hotel Koresco, Pueblo

Teaching in Training of Grade 11 De Oro held on June
Mathematics Senior High School 25, 2017
Teachers (Tranche 2)

5. Winning Coach in Palarong Pampook Tangub City held on

Chess Secondary December 16-20, 2018

6. Oral Research 2019 Regional Grand Caprice,

Presenter Research Conference Limketkai Center,
Lapasan held on
November 14-15, 2019

7. Outstanding Paper 1st Division Research Country Village Hotel,

and Oral Presenter Congress CDO held on
September 24-25, 2019

8. Division Research 2021 Divisional Via Microsoft Teams

Winner Research Conference held on March 18, 2021

9. Research Cash 2021 Research Via Google Meet held

Prize Awardee Symposium on December 2-3, 2021
conducted by the
National Literacy
Coordinating Council
of the Philippines

10. International 6th International Via Google Meet held

Research Presenter Congress on Action on May 20-22, 2022
Research, Action
Learning (ARAL 2022)
11. Oral Research 2022 Regional Via Zoom held on July
Presenter Research Conference 20, 2022
 262

RESEARCH CONDUCTED

Education Research
1. Effects of GeoGebra Application and Food for the Brain Weekly Task on
Students’ Conceptual Understanding in Mathematics
2. Enhancing Student’s Performance in Learning Conic Sections through
Digital Applications
3. Make a Mentee, a Mentor: Developing the Culture of Research through
Research Cell
4. Modelling through Digital Simulation: An Intervention to Enhance
Student’s Performance in Solving Optimization Problems in Calculus
5. The Use of Feedback Network (FeedNet) Strategy and RoBenj
Technique to Aid Low Performing Students in Solving Implicit
Differentiation Problems in Times of Pandemic
6. Teachers’ Use and Perceptions of GeoGebra in Designing eSimulation-
Based Mathematics Lessons in the 21st Century Teaching
7. Ang Magturo ad Di Biro: A Phenomenological Study on the Lived-
Experiences of Math Educators in Out-of-Field Teaching
8. Unveiling the Effects of Gamification on Math Learning: A Literature
Review in the Philippine Context
9. Forecasting the Global Landscape of Science, Technology, and
Innovation in DepEd by 2035: A Delphi Study for Building a SMART
DepEd

Applied Mathematics
1. Forecasting Based-On Holt Winters Smoothing Model
2. On the Finite Sample Performance of Some Estimators for Left-Censored
Regression Model

SPEAKERSHIP/TRAININGS CONDUCTED

1. Resource Person/Trainer in the workshop Ateneo De Davao

entitled “Algebra Made Easy with GeoGebra” University held on April
7, 2016

2. Resource Person/Trainer during the In-Service El Salvador City

Training of Teachers on Basic Action Central School held on
Research October 23, 2018
 263

3. Resource Person/ Trainer for Research Division Office

Statistics and Data Gathering Procedures Conference Room, El
conducted for Division Office Admin-Personnel Salvador City,
Unit of El Salvador December 18, 2020

4. Resource Person/Trainer during the conduct of Via Google Meet held

the Clustered Rollout of Action Research on December 15, 2021
Modules in the Regional Level

5. Resource Speaker/Trainer during the Via Google Meet held

Workshop on the Integration of GeoGebra on July 28-August 2,
Application in Teaching and Learning Grades 2021
1-12 Mathematical Concepts in the Division
Level

6. Resource Speaker/Trainer during the Via Google Meet held

Clustered District Rollout of Action Research on March 24, 2022
Modules in the Division of Cagayan De Oro
City

7. Resource Speaker/Trainer during the Roll Out Kibonbon Elementary

on Action Research Workshop School - April 22, 2022

8. Resource Speaker/Trainer during the Learning Cogon Elementary

Action Cell (LAC) on Action Research Rollout School – May 26, 2022

9. Resource Speaker/Trainer during the Training Country Village Hotel,

Workshop on Research Data Analysis Using Carmen, CDO City,
Power Analysis Tools March 17-19, 2025.

AFFILIATIONS

1. Mathematical Society of the Philippines - member

2. National Chess Federation of the Philippines -
member
3. Knights of Columbus – member
HOBBIES

1. Playing Chess
2. Watching NBA
3. Eating
264