Cited by 193Educational Games and GamificationDigital Games and MediaEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

An alternate reality game for language learning: ARGuing for multilingual motivation

Connolly, Thomas M., Stansfield, Mark, Hainey, Thomas·2011·Computers & Education

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.009

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Connolly, T. M., Stansfield, M., & Hainey, T.
Affiliations
University of the West of Scotland (GB)
Corresponding author
Stansfield, Mark
Venue
Computers & Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-08
Volume
57
Issue
1
Pages
1389-1415
ISSN
0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2163553491
Cited by
193
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 12
FWCI
28.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computers & Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
alternate reality games, language learning motivation, modern foreign languages, high school students, Web 2.0, gaming in education, cooperative learning, teamwork, student attitudes, educational game design, Comenius project

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review