The effects of gamified flipped classroom on student learning: evidence from a meta-analysis
Abstract
Gamified flipped classroom (GFC) is becoming more and more popular. Is it more effective than traditional flipped learning? This meta-analysis explores the effects of GFC on students’ learning based on 17 high-quality experimental articles. The results suggest that GFC has an upper-medium positive effect on students’ learning (SMD = 0.769, p < 0.000), indicating that GFC is more effective than the flipped classroom. Furthermore, moderator analyses find that GFC is more effective (1) on academic achievement, motivation, engagement, and satisfaction; (2) among secondary and university students; (3) for 51–100 students; (4) for interventions between 1 and 3 months; (5) on No-STEM subjects, smaller on STEM subjects; (6) with storytelling, points, badges, leaderboards, levels, and timed tasks; (7) with less number of gamified elements; (8) when using experimental design; (9) on Asian and African students; (10) in journal articles and dissertations; (11) in former publication year.
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
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.
Cites
Sailer, 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 · see citing works
Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019 · Cited by 1,918 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Moreover, some gami fi ed elements may harm student learning (Hanus & Fox, 2015).”
InfluentialGamifying education: what is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a critical review
Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2017) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-017-0042-5 · Cited by 1,451 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Gami fi cation is a technology and a methodology (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017), which means applying game elements to non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011).”
Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010) · British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1348/000711010x502733 · Cited by 1,162 · see citing works
Gamified learning in higher education: A systematic review of the literature
Subhash, S., & Cudney, E. A. (2018) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.028 · Cited by 1,043 · see citing works
Bai, S., Hew, K. F., & Huang, B. (2020) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100322 · Cited by 689 · cited 9× · see citing works
“Furthermore, they all found that gami fi cation positively a ff ected students ’ learning (e.g. Bai et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2020; Ho et al., 2022; Kim & Castelli, 2021; Ritzhaupt et al., 2021; Y ı ld ı r ı m & Ş en, 2021).”
InfluentialCheng, L., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Antonenko, P. (2019) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-018-9633-7 · Cited by 494 · see citing works
Huang, B., Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2019) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2018.1495653 · Cited by 406 · see citing works
The impact of gamification in educational settings on student learning outcomes: a meta-analysis
Huang, R., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Sommer, M., Zhu, J., Stephen, A., Valle, N., Hampton, J., & Li, J. (2020) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-020-09807-z · Cited by 340 · cited 4× · see citing works
“The publication type has a moderating e ff ect, consistent with Huang et al. (2020) but inconsistent with Ritzhaupt et al. (2021).”
InfluentialYildirim, I. (2017) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.02.002 · Cited by 320 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Yu, Q., & Yu, K.
- Affiliations
- Fudan University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Yu, Qing
- Yu, Kun
- Venue
- Interactive Learning Environments
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2023-05-10
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 5126-5141
- ISSN
- 1049-4820 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-5191
- OpenAlex
- W4376140563
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 1.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Interactive Learning Environments (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (20ZR1416400)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methodologies in Social Sciences
- Keywords
- gamification, flipped classroom, student learning, academic performance, student motivation, student engagement, student satisfaction, STEM education, storytelling, badges, leaderboards, game elements
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
