(無中文摘要)

This research is to examine the effects of meta-cognitive and gamification strategies on sixth graders’ algebra learning by conducting three studies.

The first study examined the interaction effects of self-explanation and game-reward strategies on sixth graders’ learning achievement of algebra variable, learning attitude towards algebra variable, and meta-cognitive awareness of algebra variable learning. A 2 × 2 quasi-experiment was conducted, and a mini learning system, Self-explanation with Game-reward Learning System (SGLS), was developed to support the learning activities. Ninety-seven students were invited to participate in a four-week experimental instruction and assigned to four groups: self-explanation with game-reward, self-explanation, game-reward, and control.

The second study examined the interaction effects of comparison and game-challenge strategies on sixth graders’ learning achievement of algebra variable, learning attitude towards algebra variable, and meta-cognitive awareness of algebra variable learning. To support students’ learning activities, a mini learning system, Comparison with Game-challenge Learning System (CGLS), was developed. A 2 × 2 factorial design was used, and 86 sixth graders were invited to participate in a four-week experimental instruction and assigned to four groups: comparison with game-challenge, comparison, game-challenge, and control.

The third study investigated the effects of gamified comparison on sixth graders’ learning achievement of algebra word problem solving on tests of similar and transfer problems, together with their learning attitude towards algebra word problem solving. For the research purposes, a mini learning system, Gamified Comparison Learning System (GCLS), was created. A three-group quasi-experimental design was utilised, and 72 sixth graders were invited to participate in a four-week experimental instruction and assigned to three groups: gamified comparison, comparison, and control.

The results of study 1 showed that (1) a significant interaction effect was found on the students’ learning achievement of algebra variable: the self-explanation with game-reward group performed significantly better than the self-explanation group, the game-reward group scored significantly higher than the control group, and the self-explanation group gained significantly higher scores than the control group; (2) a significant interaction effect was found on the students’ learning attitude towards algebra variable: the self-explanation with game-reward group reported significantly positive results than the self-explanation group, and the control group responded more positively than the self-explanation group; (3) no significant interaction effect was found on the students’ meta-cognitive awareness of algebra variable learning: while the game-reward strategy did not show a significantly positive effect, the self-explanation did.

The results of study 2 showed that (1) a significant interaction effect was found on the students’ learning achievement of algebra variable: the comparison with game-challenge group performed significantly better than the comparison group and the game-challenge group respectively; (2) a significant interaction effect was found on the students’ learning attitude towards algebra variable: the comparison with game-challenge group responded significantly more positively than the comparison group and the game-challenge group respectively; (3) a significant interaction effect was found on the students’ meta-cognitive awareness of algebra variable learning: the comparison with game-challenge group reported significantly higher scores than the comparison group and the game-challenge group respectively.

The results of study 3 showed that (1) a significant effect was found on the students’ learning achievement of algebra word problem solving on similar problems: the gamified comparison group performed significantly better than the comparison group and the control group respectively, and the comparison group performed significantly better than the control group; (2) a significant effect was found on the students’ learning achievement of algebra word problem solving on transfer problems: the gamified comparison group achieved significantly higher scores than the comparison group and the control group respectively, and the comparison group achieved significantly higher scores than the control group; (3) a significant effect was found on the students’ learning attitudes towards algebra word problem solving: while no significant difference was found on students’ confidence, the gamified comparison group responded significantly more positively than the comparison group and the control group on dimensions enjoyment, motivation, and perceived value, and the comparison group responded significantly more positively than the control group on the enjoyment.

Based on the results of study 1, study 2, and study 3, a feasible design of gamified meta-cognitive strategy is discussed and proposed. It covers different aspects of learning gamification (external and internal), meta-cognitive learning strategies (single and combined), and different types of knowledge (conceptual and procedural) for sixth graders’ algebra learning. This research has taken a step in the direction of implementing gamification in terms of meta-cognitive strategies and algebra learning, and several learning implications can be drawn from each study.

Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school though college. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.

Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147-179. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(02)00061-7

Alfieri, L., Nokes, T. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Learning through case comparisons: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 87-113. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2013.775712.

Apostol S., Zaharescu L., & Alexe I. (2013, April). Gamification of learning and educational games. Paper presented in the 9th International Scientific Conference eLearning and software for Education, Bucharest.

Attali, Y., & Arieli-Attali, M. (2015). Gamification in assessment: Do points affect test performance? Computers & Education, 83, 57-63. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.012

Booth, J. L., Lange, K. E., Koedinger, K. R., & Newton, K. J. (2013). Using example problems to improve student learning in algebra: Differentiating between correct and incorrect examples. Learning and Instruction, 25, 24-34. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.002

Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2014). Gamification and student motivation. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-14. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2014.964263

Bush, S. B., & Karp, K. S. (2013). Prerequisite algebra skills and associated misconceptions of middle grade students: A review. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(3), 613-632. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.07.002

Brizuela, B. M., Blanton, M., Sawrey, K., Gardiner, A., & Newman-Owens, A. (2013, April). Bringing variable notation to the forefront of early mathematics education. Poster presented at the Annual National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Research Presession, Denver, Colorado.

Carpraro, M. M., & Joffrion, H. (2006). Algebraic equations: Can middle school students meaningfully translate from words to mathematical symbols? Reading Psychology, 27(2) 147-164. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702710600642467

Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439-477. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1803_3

Chou, C., & Liang, H. (2009). Content-free computer supports for self-explaining: Modifiable typing interface and prompting. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 121-133. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/12_1/10.pdf

Christianson, K., Mestre, J. P., & Luke, S. G. (2012). Practice makes (nearly) perfect: Solving ‘Students-and-Professors’ -type algebra word problems. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 810-822. doi: 10.1002/acp.2863

da Rocha Seixas, L., Gomes, A. S., & de Melo Filho, I. (2016). Effectiveness of gamification in the engagement of students. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 48-63. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.021

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Nacke, L.E., O'Hara, K., & Sicart, M. (2011). Gamification: Using game design elements in non-gaming contexts. In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA'11), Vancouver, BC, Canada. 2425-2428. doi: 10.1145/1979482.1979575.

Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 1-14. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/jeductechsoci.18.3.75.pdf

Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Nacarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz , L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-Herráiz, J.-J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380-392. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020

Durkin, K., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). The effectiveness of using incorrect examples to support learning about decimal magnitude. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 206-214. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.001.

Faiella, F., & Ricciardi, M. (2015). Gamification and learning: A review of issues and research. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 11(3), 1-9. Retrieved from http://www.je-lks.org/ojs/index.php/Je-LKS_EN/article/view/1072/951

Fullagar, C. J., Knight, P. A., & Sovern, H. S. (2013). Challenge/skill balance, flow, and performance anxiety. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62(2), 236-259. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00494.x

Gadgil, S., Nokes, T. J., & Chi, M. T. H. (2012). Effectiveness of holistic mental model confrontation in driving conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 47-61. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.06.002

Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 393-405. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.393

Glover, I. (2013). Play as you learn: gamification as a technique for motivating learners. In J. Herrington, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of world Conference on educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 1999-2008). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 93-103. doi: 10.3758/MC.36.1.93

Große, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Finding and fixing errors in worked examples: Can this foster learning outcomes? Learning & Instruction, 17(6), 617-634. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.008

Guo, J. P., & Pang, M. F. (2011). Learning a mathematical concept from comparing examples: The importance of variation and prior knowledge. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26(4), 495-525. doi: 10.1007/s10212-011-0060-y

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In System sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference (pp. 3025-3034). Hawaii: HICSS. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2014.377

Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Edwards, T. (2016). Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 170-179. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.045

Hanus M. D., & Fox J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance, Computers & Education, 80, 152-161. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487

Hausmann, R. G. M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2002). Can a computer interface support self-explaining? Cognitive Technology, 7(1), 4-14. Retrieved from http://chilab.asu.edu/papers/hausmannchi2002.pdf

Hsu, C.-Y., Tsai, C.-C., & Wang, H.-Y. (2012). Facilitating third graders’ acquisition of scientific concepts through digital game-based learning: The effects of self-explanation principles. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(1), 71-82. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2014.926276

Hsu, C.-Y., Tsai, C.-C., & Wang, H.-Y. (2014). Exploring the effects of integrating self-explanation into a multi-user game on the acquisition of scientific concepts. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(4), doi: 10.1080/10494820.2014.926276

Hung, C., Sun, J. C., & Yu, P. (2015). The benefits of a challenge: student motivation and flow experience in tablet-PC-game-based learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(2), 172-190. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2014.997248

Hwang, G.-J., Wu, P.-H., & Chen, C.-C. (2012). An online game approach for improving students' learning performance in web-based problem-solving activities. Computers and Education, 59(4), 1246-1256. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.009

Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2010). Applying the self-explanation principle to multimedia learning in a computer-based game-like environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1246-1252. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.025

Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Kapp, K. M. (2013). The gamification of learning and instruction fieldbook: Ideas into practice. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 390-419). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.

Knuth, E. J., Alibali, M. W., McNeil, N. M., Weinberg, A., & Stephens, A. C. (2005). Middle school students' understanding of core algebraic concepts: Equivalence & variable. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik (International Reviews on Mathematical Education), 37(1), 68-76. doi: 10.1007/BF02655899

Koning, B. B. D., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2011). Improved effectiveness of cueing by self-explanations when learning from a complex animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 183-194. doi: 10.1002/acp.1661

Koster, R. (2004). A theory of fun for game design. Farnham, UK: O'Reilly Media.

Kuhn, D., & Katz, J. (2009). Are self-explanations always beneficial?, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103(3), 386-394. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2009.03.003

Küchemann, D. (1978). Children’s understanding of numerical variables. Mathematics in School, 7(4), 23-26.

Küchemann, D. (1981). Children's Understanding of Mathematics. In K. Hart (Ed.), Algebra (pp. 11-16). London: Murray.

Landers, R. N. (2014). Developing a theory of gamified learning: Linking serious games and gamification of learning. Simulation & Gaming, 45(6), 752-768. doi: 10.1177/1046878114563660

Landers, R. N. & Callan, R. C. (2011). Casual social games as serious games: The psychology of gamification in undergraduate education and employee training. In M. Ma, A. Oikonomou, & L. C. Jain (Eds.), Serious Games and Edutainment Applications (pp. 399-424). Surrey, UK: Springer.

Lim, S. Y., & Chapman, E. (2013). Development of a short form of the attitudes toward mathematics inventory. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82(1), 145-164. doi: 10.1007/s10649-012-9414-x

Llorens-Largo, F., Gallego-Durán, F. J., Villagrá-Arnedo, C. J., Compañ-Rosique, P., Satorre-Cuerda, R., & Molina-Carmona, R. (2016). Gamification of the learning process: Lessons learned. The IEEE Journal of Latin-American Learning Technologies, 11(4), 1-8. doi: 10.1109/RITA.2016.2619138

Lucariello, J. (2009). How do I get my students over their alternative conceptions (misconceptions) for learning: Removing barriers to aid in the development of the student. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/education/k12/misconceptions.aspx

Lucariello, J., Tine, M. T., & Ganley, C. M. (2014). A formative assessment of students’ algebraic variable misconceptions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33, 30-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.09.001

MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1997). Students’ understanding of algebraic notation: 11-15. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33(1), 1-19. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1002970913563

MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1998). Cognitive models underlying algebraic and non-algebraic solutions to unequal partition problems. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 10(2), 46-60. doi: 10.1007/BF03217342

Marczewski, A. (2012). Gamification: A simple introduction. Published by Anderzej Marczewski in e-book format.

Mason, L. (2004). Fostering understanding by structural alignment as a route to analogical learning. Instructional Science, 32(4), 293-318. doi: 10.1023/B:TRUC.0000026512.88700.32

Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2010). Adding instructional features that promote learning in a game-like environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(3), 241-265. doi: 10.2190/EC.42.3.a

McEldoon, K. L., Durkin, K. L., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2013). Is self-explanation worth the time? A comparison to additional practice. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 615-632. doi: 10.1111/j.20448279.2012.02083.x

McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York, NY: Penguin.

McNeil, N. M., Weinberg, A., Hattikudur, S., Stephens, A. C., Asquith, P., Knuth, E. J., et al. (2010). A is for apple: Mnemonic symbols hinder the interpretation of algebraic expressions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 625-634. doi: http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0019105

Mora, A., Riera, D., González, C., & Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2015). A literature review of gamification design frameworks. Paper presented at the 2015 7th International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications (VS-Games). Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=7295760

National Center for Educational Statistics (2005). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2005. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf

National Research Council (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press.

Neuman, Y., Leibowitz, L., & Schwarz, B. (2000). Patterns of verbal mediation during problem solving: A sequential analysis of self-explanation. Journal of Experimental Education, 68(3), 197-213. doi: 10.1080/00220970009600092

Ngu, B. H., & Yeung, A. S. (2012). Fostering analogical transfer: The multiple components approach to algebra word problem solving in a chemistry context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 14-32. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.09.001

Nicholson, S. (2015). Exploring the endgame of gamification. In M. Fuchs, S. Fizek, & P. Ruffino (Eds.), Rethink gamification (pp. 289-303). Retrieved from http://opus.uni-lueneburg.de/opus/volltexte/2014/14305/pd-f/9783957960016_rethinking_gamification.pdf

Nokes, T. J., Hausmann, R. G. M., VanLehn, K., & Gershman, S. (2011). Testing the instructional fit hypothesis: The case of self-explanation prompts. Instructional Science, 39(5), 645-666. doi: 10.1007/s11251-010-9151-4

Novotna, J., & Hoch, M. (2008). How structure sense for algebraic expressions or equations is related to structure sense for abstract algebra. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(2), 93-104. doi: 10.1007/BF03217479

O’Neil, H. F., Chung, G. K., Kerr, D., Vendlinski, T. P., Buschang, R. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Adding self-explanation prompts to an educational computer game. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 23-28. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.025

Panaoura, A., Philippou, G., & Christou, C. (2003). Young pupils’ metacognitive ability in mathematics. European Research in Mathematics Education, 3, 1-9. Retrieved from http://fibonacci.dm.unipi.it/cluster-pages/dida-ttica/CERME3/proceedings/Groups/TG3/TG3_Panaoura_cerme3.pdf

Philipp, R. A. (1992). A study of algebraic variables: Beyond the student–professor problem. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11, 161-176.

Reed, S. K. (1987). A structure-mapping model for word problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(1), 124-139. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.1.124

Reed, S. K., Dempster, A., & Ettinger, M. (1985). Usefulness of analogous solutions for solving algebra word problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(1), 106-125. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.11.1.106

Richland, L. E., Holyoak, K. J., & Stigler, J. W. (2010). Analogy use in eighth mathematics classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 37-60. doi: 10.1207/s1532690Xci2201_2

Richland, L. E., & McDonough, I. M. (2010). Learning by analogy: Discriminating between potential analogs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 28-43. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.09.001

Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 561-574. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.561

Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2009). Compared with what? The effects of different comparisons on conceptual knowledge and procedural flexibility for equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 529-544. doi: 10.1037/a0014224

Rittle-Johnson, B., Star, J. R., & Durkin, K. (2012). Developing procedural flexibility: Are novices prepared to learn from comparing procedures? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 436-455. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02037.x

Ross, A., & Willson, V. (2012). The effects of representations, constructivist approaches, and engagement on middle school students’ algebraic procedure and conceptual understanding. School Science and Mathematics, 112(2), 117-128. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00125.x

Roy, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Self-explanation in a multimedia context. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 271-286). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759-775. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025140

Sidney, P. G., Hattikudur, S., & Alibali, M. W. (2015). How do contrasting cases and self-explanation promote learning? Evidence from fraction division. Learning and Instruction, 40, 29-38. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.07.006

Siegler, R. S., & Chen, Z. (2008). Differentiation and integration: guiding principles for analyzing cognitive change. Developmental Science, 11(4), 433-448. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00689.x

Silver, E. A., Ghousseini, H., Gosen, D., Charalambous, C., & Strawhun, B. (2005). Moving from rhetoric to praxis: Issues faced by teachers in having students consider multiple solutions for problems in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(3-4), 287-301. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2005.09.009

Stacey, K., & MacGregor, M. (1997). Ideas about symbolism that students bring to algebra. Mathematics Teacher, 90(2), 110-113. Retrieved from: https://www.learner.org/courses/learningmath/algebra/pdfs/Mathematics_T-eacher.pdf

Star, J. R., Pollack, C., Durkin, K., Rittle-Johnson, B., Lynch, K., Newton, K., & Gogolen, C. (2015). Learning from comparison in algebra. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 41-54. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.005

Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1203_1

Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296. doi: 10.1023/A:1022193728205

Villagrá-Arnedo, C., Gallego-Durán, F. J., Molina-Carmona, R., & Llorens-Largo, F. (2016, July). PLMan: Towards a gamified learning system. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Learning and Collaboration Technologies (LCT 2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39483-1_8

Villagrasa, S., Fonseca, D., Redondo, E., & Duran, J. (2014). Teaching case of gamification and visual technologies for education. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 16(4), 38-57. doi: 10.4018/jcit.2014100104

Warren, E. (2003). The role of arithmetic structure in the transition from arithmetic to algebra. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(2), 122-137. doi: 10.1007/BF03217374

Woodward, J., Beckmann, S., Driscoll, M., Franke, M., Herzig, P., Jitendra, A., et al. (2012). Improving mathematical problem solving in grades 4 through 8: A practice guide (NCEE 2012-4055). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practice_guides/mps_pg_052212.pdf

Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by design: Implementing game mechanics in web and mobile apps. O'Reilly Media, Inc.

Ziegler, E., & Stern, E. (2014). Delayed benefits of learning elementary algebraic transformations through contrasted comparisons. Learning and Instruction, 33, 131-146. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.04.006

Ziegler, E., & Stern, E. (2016). Consistent advantages of contrasted comparisons: Algebra learning under direct instruction. Learning and Instruction, 41, 41-51. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.006