The DOI matches its Crossref record; 152 of the 190 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does gamification improve student learning outcome? Evidence from a meta-analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in educational contexts
Abstract
Despite the buzz around gamification as an exciting new method to engage students, evidence of its ability to enhance learning is mixed. In fact, gamification has attracted considerable controversy (“gamification is bullshit”) and some derogatory labels such as “exploitationware.” Therefore, in order to make the case for or against gamification in education, it is important to examine the effects (if any) of gamification on student learning achievements. This study is a meta-analysis of 30 independent interventions (3,202 participants) drawn from 24 quantitative studies that have examined the effects of gamification on student academic performance in various educational settings. The results show an overall significant medium effect size in favor of gamification over learning without gamification (Hedges' g = 0.504, 95% CI [0.284–0.723], p
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 · Cited by 54,599
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
A theory of social comparison processes
Festinger, L. (1954) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872675400700202 · Cited by 20,926
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency
Bandura, A. (1982) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122 · Cited by 15,975
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & the PRISMA-P Group (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647 · Cited by 13,120
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Arkün Kocadere, 2018, 21, 12
- Caponetto, 2014, Gamification and education: A literature review, 50
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Krath, J., Schürmann, L., & von Korflesch, H. F. O. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963 · Cited by 1,324
Gamification in Science Education. A Systematic Review of the Literature
Kalogiannakis, M., Papadakis, S., & Zourmpakis, A.-I. (2021) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci11010022 · Cited by 890
“Nonetheless, gamification is often characterized by fostering enthusiasm, a sense of enjoyment, fun, and general positive feelings towards learning, values that are directly associated with intrinsic motivation [59,82,114].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialDo AI chatbots improve students learning outcomes? Evidence from a meta‐analysis
Wu, R., & Yu, Z. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13334 · Cited by 576
Gamification applications in E-learning: a literature review
Saleem, A. N., Noori, N. M., & Ozdamli, F. (2022) · Technology, Knowledge and Learning · doi:10.1007/s10758-020-09487-x · Cited by 478
Virtual reality and gamification in education: a systematic review
Λαμπρόπουλος, Γ., & Kinshuk, K. (2024) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-024-10351-3 · Cited by 569
Metadata
- Authors
- Bai, S., Hew, K. F., & Huang, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Corresponding author
- Hew, Khe Foon
- Venue
- Educational Research Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-06
- Volume
- 30
- Pages
- 100322
- ISSN
- 1747-938X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3010425548
- Cited by
- 994
- References
- 190
- Citations by year
- 2026: 270 · 2025: 203 · 2024: 181 · 2023: 160 · 2022: 94 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 20
- FWCI
- 14.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Educational Research Review (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R25GM129219)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Keywords
- gamification, learning outcomes, academic performance, student engagement, joyful learning, performance feedback, recognition, goal setting, student anxiety, jealousy, educational technology
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
