Cited by 648Educational Games and GamificationMobile Learning in EducationMultimedia Learning Systems

A mobile gamification learning system for improving the learning motivation and achievements

Su, C‐H., Cheng, C‐H.·2015·Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Abstract

This paper aims to investigate how a gamified learning approach influences science learning, achievement and motivation, through a context‐aware mobile learning environment, and explains the effects on motivation and student learning. A series of gamified learning activities, based on MGLS (Mobile Gamification Learning System), was developed and implemented in an elementary school science curriculum to improve student motivation and to help students engage more actively in their learning activities. The responses to our questionnaire indicate that students valued the outdoor learning activities made possible by the use of a smartphone and its functions. Pre‐ and post‐test results demonstrated that incorporating mobile and gamification technologies into a botanical learning process could achieve a better learning performance and a higher degree of motivation than either non‐gamified mobile learning or traditional instruction. Further, they revealed a positive relationship between learning achievement and motivation. The correlation coefficient for ARCS dimensions and post‐test shows that the ARCS‐A (attention) is greater than ARCS‐R, ARCS‐C and ARCS‐S. This means that the attention (ARCS‐A) of this system is an important dimension in this research. The results could provide parents, teachers and educational organizations with the necessary data to make more relevant educational decision.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcal.12088

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Studies by de-Marcos et al. (2014) and Su and Cheng (2014) plus the first of two studies reported by Hew et al. (2016) were excluded because they reported the same experiments as previously published or more extensive studies included in the sample.

    “Furthermore, the studies by de-Marcos et al. (2014) and Su and Cheng (2014) plus the first of two studies reported by Hew et al. (2016) were excluded from the analysis because they reported the same experiments as previously published or more extensive studies included in this sample.”

    From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Su and Cheng (2014)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Su, C., & Cheng, C.
Affiliations
  • Shu-Te University (TW)
  • National Yunlin University of Science and Technology (TW)
Corresponding author
Cheng, C‐H.
Venue
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-11-06
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
268-286
ISSN
  • 0266-4909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2729
OpenAlex
W2117692546
Cited by
648
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 77 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 72 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 9
FWCI
54.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile Learning in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Multimedia Learning Systems
Keywords
gamification, mobile learning, science education, elementary school students, student motivation, academic performance, ARCS model, attention, outdoor education

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