The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Implementing a theory-driven gamification model in higher education flipped courses: Effects on out-of-class activity completion and quality of artifacts
Abstract
Abstract: Flipped learning can provide more in-class time for students to practice and apply knowledge and to receive feedback from peers and teachers. However, empirical studies have reported several problems that may occur with flipped classroom activities, including the failure of students to access out-of-class learning materials. Students who do not complete out-of-class work benefit little from the subsequent in-class discussion and problem-solving activities. This study offers a new contribution by exploring whether gamification could be a strategy to motivate students to participate in more out-of-class activities without forfeiting quality of work. We applied crucial aspects of five motivation theories to propose a goal-access-feedback-challenge-collaboration (GAFCC) gamification design model. We then implemented and tested this theory-driven model in two quasi-experimental studies involving postgraduate students. Collective results from the two experiments revealed that (a) the GAFCC class completed significantly more pre- and post-class activities than the control class and (b) the GAFCC class produced higher quality work than the control class. Participants’ perceptions of gamification were also collected through interviews, and reported in this study. This evidence supports a call for further research into the use of the GAFCC model in flipped classroom implementation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01 · Cited by 34,210
A theory of social comparison processes
Festinger, L. (1954) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872675400700202 · Cited by 20,926
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006) · Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x · Cited by 12,604
From game design elements to gamefulness: defining "gamification"
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011) · Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments · doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040 · Cited by 8,402
Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.57.9.705 · Cited by 7,766 · cited 4×
“A goal is an objective or purpose that one consciously strives to attain (Locke & Latham, 2002).”
BackgroundInfluentialDoes Gamification Work? -- A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014) · 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.1109/hicss.2014.377 · Cited by 5,201
Self-Efficacy and Academic Motivation
Schunk, D. H. (1991) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.1991.9653133 · Cited by 4,292
Gamification in theory and action: a survey
Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.006 · Cited by 2,515 · cited 4×
“Examining how gami fi cation can be used to facilitate fl ipped learning is still at its initial stage (Dicheva, Dichev, Agre, & Angelova, 2015; Seaborn & Fels, 2015).”
BackgroundInfluentialSailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & Mandl, H. (2017) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033 · Cited by 2,064 · cited 4×
“This gave learners an opportunity to exercise their sense of autonomy (i.e., experiencing decision freedom in choosing between several courses of action) (Sailer et al., 2017).”
BackgroundInfluentialStudent engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Shneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003) · School Psychology Quarterly · doi:10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860 · Cited by 1,237
Cited by
Bai, S., Hew, K. F., & Huang, B. (2020) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100322 · Cited by 994
Self-citationHuang, B., Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2019) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2018.1495653 · Cited by 406
Self-citationYang, Q.-F., Lian, L.-W., & Zhao, J.-H. (2023) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-023-00391-9 · Cited by 152
Impact of Gamification on Motivation and Academic Performance: A Systematic Review
Jaramillo-Mediavilla, L., Basantes-Andrade, A., Cabezas-González, M., & Casillas-Martín, S. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14060639 · Cited by 160
“However, certain studies indicate that leaderboards [13,14] or some technical issues (system failures) can demotivate and frustrate students with their learning [15].”
BackgroundChien, C.-C., Chan, H.-Y., & Hou, H.-T. (2025) · Journal of Research on Technology in Education · doi:10.1080/15391523.2024.2338085 · Cited by 90
Effectiveness of Gamification Elements in Blended Learning Environments
MESE, C., & DURSUN, O. O. (2019) · Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education · doi:10.17718/tojde.601914 · Cited by 83
Xu, Y., Zhu, J., Wang, M., Qian, F., Yang, Y., & Zhang, J. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14156418 · Cited by 60
A Review of Gamification Impact on Student Behavioural and Learning Outcomes
Nurtanto, M., Kholifah, N., Ahdhianto, E., Samsudin, A., & Isnantyo, F. D. (2021) · International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) · doi:10.3991/ijim.v15i21.24381 · Cited by 59
Metadata
- Authors
- Huang, B., & Hew, K. F.
- Venue
- Computers & Education
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-10
- Volume
- 125
- Pages
- 254-272
- ISSN
- 0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2808800014
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 34.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
