## 4 Results
### Learnings  
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for the pre-test, post-test, and learning gains across sex and experimental conditions. To assess the learning gains per sex and condition (gamification use or non-use), a two-way ANCOVA was performed using the pre-test as a covariate. [PERSON]'s test was F(3, 58) = 1.57, \(p\) = 0.233, indicating that the error variance of learning gains (dependent) was equal across groups. Also, an F test was taken to check for heteroskedasticity, with F(1, 60) = 1.45, \(p\) = 0.539, indicating that error variances did not depend on independent variable values. The ANCOVA results showed non-significant differences of sex (F(1, 57) = 0.29, \(p\) = 0.588) and experimental condition (F(1, 57) = 0.45, \(p\) = 0.503) for learning gains. However, a significant two-way interaction resulted in F(1, 57) = 5.45, \(p\) = 0.023, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.09, and observed power of 0.63, indicating possible differences in learning gains when considering sex and condition together. The results of the ANCOVA analysis for the pre-tests indicate that no significant differences were found in the scores between the groups (F(1, 57) = 0.0001, \(p\) = 0.991). In addition, when performing an ANOVA analysis, it was confirmed that there are no significant differences between the pre-test scores of both groups (F(1, 57) = 0.0001, \(p\) = 0.991). Analysis of the main effect for gender across conditions showed females learning significantly more than males in the non-gamified condition, with F(1, 57) = 4.02, \(p\) = 0.050, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.07, and males learning more than females in the gamified condition, although this was not statistically significant (\(p\) = 0.203). Next, analysis of the main effect for condition among gender showed that for males, there were non-significant differences in learning gains across experimental conditions (\(p\) = 0.246), while for females, learning gains were significantly higher in the non-gamified version than in the gamified version, with F(1, 57) = 4.55, \(p\) = 0.037, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.07. Figure 5 illustrates an interaction between gender and the gamification condition on learning gains, where women achieve higher results in the non-gamified condition, while men demonstrate greater learning gains in the gamified condition. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Dependent Variable: Difference**} \\ \hline
**Sex** & **Condition** & **Mean** & **Std. Deviation** & **N** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Female} & Not Gamified & 0.27 & 0.10 & 16 \\  & Gamified & 0.17 & 0.17 & 15 \\  & Total & 0.22 & 0.15 & 31 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Male} & Not Gamified & 0.16 & 0.17 & 14 \\  & Gamified & 0.23 & 0.17 & 17 \\  & Total & 0.20 & 0.17 & 31 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Total} & Not Gamified & 0.22 & 0.14 & 30 \\  & Gamified & 0.20 & 0.17 & 32 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Total & 0.21 & 0.16 & 62 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of pre-test, post-test, and gain per sex and condition. In the gamified version, a significantly higher proportion of males reported enjoyment when contrasted against females (\(\chi^{2}\) (1, N = 32) = 4.80, \(p\) = 0.028, \(\varphi_{\rm c}\) = 0.39). But there was no significant association between sex and enjoyment in the non-gamified condition (\(\chi^{2}\) (1, N = 30) = 0.06, \(p\) = 0.796), nor overall in both conditions (\(\chi^{2}\) (1, N = 62) = 1.89, \(p\) = 0.168). When focusing on the effects of the condition by gender, we observed that there were no significant differences across gamified/non-gamified conditions for males (\(\chi^{2}\) (1, N = 31) = 2.51, \(p\) = 0.112), females (\(\chi^{2}\) (1, N = 31) = 0.78, \(p\) = 0.38), or overall (\(\chi^{2}\) (1, N = 62) = 0.19, \(p\) = 0.66). When considering subjects' perceptions of usefulness, in the gamified version, males were more likely than females to find the software tool useful (\(\chi^{2}\) (1, N = 32) = 6.4, \(p\) = 0.011, \(\varphi_{\rm c}\) = 0.45).