Play to Place Physical Gameboard as Learning Tools of Engagement and Collaboration Towards Learning Outcomes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24191/idealogy.v11i1.947Abstract
Gamification offers new possibilities for architectural education by transforming site analysis from a passive, descriptive task into an active and collaborative learning experience. Traditional approaches often limit engagement and critical interpretation, whereas gamified methods can sustain motivation, usability, and peer collaboration while linking site data to meaningful learning outcomes. This study examines the Play to Place Physical Gameboards – Seri Iskandar (P2P–SI) module, designed to integrate local cultural narratives, tangible play mechanics, and storytelling into site exploration. Grounded in constructivist and experiential learning traditions and supported by gamification theory, the research focused on three dimensions: engagement and usability, social and collaborative impacts, and learning outcomes. The module was implemented with 101 second-year architecture students at Universiti Teknologi MARA, Perak Branch, during site analysis exercises. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire and analysed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) to test the relationships between the three dimensions. The results show that engagement and usability directly influenced learning outcomes and strongly shaped social and collaborative impacts, while collaboration in turn enhanced learning outcomes. Students highlighted that clear rules, intuitive play, and immediate feedback supported sustained engagement, while collaborative play improved communication, teamwork, and shared site interpretation. These findings demonstrate that embedding usability and collaboration within gamified tools can produce stronger outcomes, including spatial reasoning, cultural understanding, and reflective thinking. The study positions P2P–SI as a student-centred and culturally relevant pedagogical innovation that bridges technical knowledge with social and reflective dimensions of architectural design education.
Keywords: Architecture gamification, learning engagement, learning outcome, collaborative learning, site-based pedagogy
References
Mohd Nadzamuddin, A. F., Sayed Abul Khair, S. M. A., Arman, M. F., Mohd Yunus, M. A., Yuserrie, F. A. H., & Zainal Abidin, M. N. (2025). Play to Place Physical Gameboards as Tools for Site Exploration: P2P–Seri Iskandar. Universiti Teknologi MARA.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning future media environments (pp. 9–15). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00500.x
Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.02
Dindar, M., Ren, L., & Järvenoja, H. (2020). An experimental study on the effects of gamified cooperation and competition on English vocabulary learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1), 142–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12977
El Mehelmy, D., & El Zeini, I. (2024). Experiential learning through gamification in interior architecture and design. International Journal of Architecture, Arts and Applications, 10(2), 42–59.
Eltahir, M. E., Zulkifli, N., & Samad, M. A. (2023). A qualitative study on Malaysian academics’ perceptions and suggestions on gamified learning. Journal of Education and Learning, 12(1), 88–98.
El-Zeini, L. (2024). Experiential learning through gamification in interior architecture and design. International Journal of Architecture, Arts and Applications, 10(2), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijaaa.20241002.13
Fahlevi, A. R., Hidayat, W. N., Widyaningtyas, T., Siswanto, F. K., Setyawan, A., Ariyandi, H. Z., Herlambang, A. D., & Abdullah, D. (2024). Integrating Big Data Concepts into Education Through RPG Games: A Study Using Agile Methodologies. 2nd IEEE International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computer and Information Technology, ICEECIT 2024, 366–371. https://doi.org/10.1109/iceecit63698.2024.10859671
Feng, L., Shen, X., Xie, Z., & Yan, X. (2024). How gamification-based course drives online learners’ engagement: Focusing on intrinsic motivation and effect mechanism. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13242-5
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Goli, A., Teymournia, F., Naemabadi, M., & Garmaroodi, A. A. (2022). Architectural design game: A serious game approach to promote teaching and learning using multimodal interfaces. Education and Information Technologies, 27(8), 11467–11498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10841-7
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hilhorst, W. (2021). Constructivism in architectural design education. In Initiations: Practices of Teaching 1st Year Design in Architecture (pp. 301–309). University of Cyprus.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Ismail, H., Ayoubi, M. E., Qassem, M., & Areefi, F. A. (2024). Assessing the Impact of Gamification Tools’ Usability on Student Engagement: A Comparative Study in Engineering Education. 4th IEEE Interdisciplinary Conference on Electrics and Computer, INTCEC 2024, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/intcec61833.2024.10603117
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057
Jurgina, L. Q., Aquini, L. G., Isotani, S., Da Rosa, L. S., Primo, T. T., & Moreira, F. (2025). Usability Evaluation of a Multisensory Tool for Literacy of Children and Young People with Down Syndrome. 2022 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/educon62633.2025.11016567
Kock, N., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(7), 546–580. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00302
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Marinho, A., Bittencourt, I. I., Dermeval, D., Santos, J., Challco, G., & Reis, M. (2024). How does the Mechanics of Competition and Collaboration Impact on Student’s Flow Experience in a Gamified Educational Environment? An Experimental Study in Higher Education (under review). Technology Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09796-5
Nguyen-Viet, B., & Nguyen-Viet, B. (2023). Enhancing satisfaction among Vietnamese students through gamification: The mediating role of engagement and learning effectiveness. Cogent Education, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2023.2265276
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Ortiz-Rojas, M., Chiluiza, K., Valcke, M., & Bolanos-Mendoza, C. (2025). How gamification boosts learning in STEM higher education: A mixed methods study. International Journal of STEM Education, 12(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-025-00123
Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216970212006
Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216970212006
Redondo, E., Fonseca, D., & Sánchez, A. (2020). EDUGAME4CITY: A gamification-based learning tool to improve spatial reasoning in urban design education. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Educational Technologies (pp. 73–80). IADIS Press.
Rey, W., & Defensor, K. E. (2024). OS Odyssey: Developing and Assessing Gamified Learning in Operating Systems Instruction. 8th International Conference on Digital Technology in Education, ICDTE 2024, 78–83. https://doi.org/10.1145/3696230.3696259
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2020). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In C. Homburg, M. Klarmann, & A. Vomberg (Eds.), Handbook of market research (pp. 1–47). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-
Schnabel, M. A., Lo, T. T., & Aydin, S. (2014). Gamification and rule-based design strategies in architecture education. In DesignEd Asia Conference Proceedings (pp. 213–222). Hong Kong Design Centre.
Slamet, T. I., & Meng, C. (2025). Gamification in collaborative learning: synthesizing evidence through meta-analysis. Journal of Computers in Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-024-00349-4
Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. C. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The Community of Inquiry framework. In T. Anderson (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43–57). IGI Global.
Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432–2440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.008
Toda, A. M., Klock, A. C., Oliveira, W., Palomino, P. T., Rodrigues, L., Shi, L., Bittencourt, I., Gasparini, I., Isotani, S., & Cristea, A. I. (2019). Analysing gamification elements in educational environments using an existing gamification taxonomy. Smart Learning Environments, 6(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0098-x
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 UiTM Press
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
UiTM Press (the Publisher) has agreed to publish the undersigned author’s paper in Idealogy Journal. The agreement is contingent upon the fulfilment of a number of requirements listed below.
1. The undersigned author warrants that the paper entitled below is original, that it is not in any way libellous or unlawful in Malaysia, that it does not infringe any copyright or other proprietary right. The undersigned hereby represents and warrants that he/she is the author of the paper, except for material that is clearly identified as to its original source, with permission notices from the copyright owners where required. The undersigned represents that he/she has the power and authority to sign and execute this agreement.
2. The undersigned author warrants that the paper entitled below has not been published elsewhere, and also it will not be submitted anywhere else for publication prior to acceptance/rejection by this Journal.
3. By submitting the paper entitled below, the undersigned author agrees to transfer the rights to publish and distribute the paper in an international e-journal (entitled above) to Publisher.
4. The undersigned author agrees to make a reasonable effort to conform to Publisher's submission guidelines and to liaise with the editor to ensure that the requirements of these guidelines are met to a reasonable degree.
5. The corresponding author signs for and accepts responsibility for releasing this material on behalf of any and all coauthors. This agreement is to be signed by at least one of the authors who has obtained the assent of the co-author(s) where applicable. After submission of this agreement signed by the corresponding author, changes of authorship or in the order of the authors listed will not be accepted.
