The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 29 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Gamifying education: what is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a critical review
Open accessAbstract
Gamification of education is a developing approach for increasing learners’ motivation and engagement by incorporating game design elements in educational environments. With the growing popularity of gamification and yet mixed success of its application in educational contexts, the current review is aiming to shed a more realistic light on the research in this field by focusing on empirical evidence rather than on potentialities, beliefs or preferences. Accordingly, it critically examines the advancement in gamifying education. The discussion is structured around the used gamification mechanisms, the gamified subjects, the type of gamified learning activities, and the study goals, with an emphasis on the reliability and validity of the reported outcomes. To improve our understanding and offer a more realistic picture of the progress of gamification in education, consistent with the presented evidence, we examine both the outcomes reported in the papers and how they have been obtained. While the gamification in education is still a growing phenomenon, the review reveals that (i) insufficient evidence exists to support the long-term benefits of gamification in educational contexts; (ii) the practice of gamifying learning has outpaced researchers’ understanding of its mechanisms and methods; (iii) the knowledge of how to gamify an activity in accordance with the specifics of the educational context is still limited. The review highlights the need for systematically designed studies and rigorously tested approaches confirming the educational benefits of gamification, if gamified learning is to become a recognized instructional approach.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This critical review of educational gamification (June 2014–December 2015) finds that empirical evidence is fragmented and mostly inconclusive, with insufficient high-quality evidence for long-term benefits. It concludes that the practice of gamifying learning has outpaced researchers’ understanding of its mechanisms and context-specific design.
Key findings
- From 41 ABC empirical studies, only 15 had conclusive evidence: 12 positive and 3 negative; the text reports 25 inconclusive outcomes, while Table 9 lists 26 (50%).
- Most gamification studies targeted university level (44 papers) versus K-12 (7 papers); CS/IT was the most gamified subject (20 papers, 39%), followed by Others (11, 21%), Multimedia/Communication (6, 12%), Math (5, 10%), Medicine/Biology/Psychology (5, 10%), and Languages (4, 8%).
- The most common game-element combination was points, badges, and leaderboards (PBL) in 14 papers (27%); badges only in 9 (18%), leaderboards only in 3 (6%), points only in 1 (2%), and other combinations in 24 (47%).
- The review concludes: (i) insufficient evidence exists to support the long-term benefits of gamification in educational contexts; (ii) the practice of gamifying learning has outpaced researchers’ understanding of its mechanisms and methods; (iii) knowledge of how to gamify an activity according to the specifics of the educational context is still limited.
Methods
- Critical literature review; searched Google Scholar, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Explore, and ScienceDirect using (gamification OR gamify OR gameful) AND (education OR learning OR training) AND (since 2014), yielding 4,998 results.
- Included peer-reviewed empirical papers reporting findings and theoretical papers; excluded full-fledged games and purely descriptive papers; restricted to June 30, 2014–December 31, 2015; final set was 63 papers (51 empirical, 11 theoretical).
- Extracted data on game elements, educational level, academic subject, learning activity, study sample, study duration, data collection, and outcome; assessed validity via sample size, number of groups, study length, data collection, variable control, statistical procedures, and support for conclusions, classifying ABC studies as positive, negative, or inconclusive.
Limitations
- The paper states that its judgment of inconclusiveness can be viewed as rather subjective, and Table 12 lists reasons for each inconclusive classification.
- The review is restricted to papers appearing in the searched databases between June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2015; only 51 empirical studies met the criteria.
- The paper notes that representing high-dimensional data in table format is challenging, implying a tradeoff between completeness and clarity (stated); many reviewed studies had small samples, short durations, no comparison groups, descriptive statistics, or confounding variables (stated as reasons for inconclusiveness).
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
68 No basis given · 35 Own interpretation · 24 Own result · 14 No full text of the sources · 12 Sources not found · 4 Own method · 2 Partly supported · 2 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although gamifying the use of such simulations can help overcome the problems with insufficient motivation and engagement, there is a lack of studies evaluating the effects of gamified simulation-based learning.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected databases and search terms capture the relevant empirical literature on educational gamification.
- Rests on an assumption: The 51 empirical papers reviewed are representative of the empirical research on educational gamification in the survey period.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our review shows that the empirical studies on understanding what kind of game elements under what circumstances can drive desired behavior are not quite systematic.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A sizable part of the papers (16) studied gamification of courses as a whole, which implies gamifying a range of learning activities.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected databases and search terms capture the relevant empirical literature on educational gamification.
- Rests on an assumption: The 51 empirical papers reviewed are representative of the empirical research on educational gamification in the survey period.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the knowledge of how to gamify an activity in accordance with the specifics of the educational context is still limited.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · p. 3 · hedged
“we found the level of understanding of how to promote engagement and learning by incorporating game design elements to be questionable.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected databases and search terms capture the relevant empirical literature on educational gamification.
- Rests on an assumption: The 51 empirical papers reviewed are representative of the empirical research on educational gamification in the survey period.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · p. 3 · hedged
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reviewed collection of empirical studies on gamifying education is very diverse with respect to the focus of the studies and the reported outcomes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the review reveals that (i) insufficient evidence exists to support the long-term benefits of gamification in educational contexts;”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected databases and search terms capture the relevant empirical literature on educational gamification.
- Rests on an assumption: The 51 empirical papers reviewed are representative of the empirical research on educational gamification in the survey period.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The majority of gamification studies feature a subset of the following game elements: points, badges, levels, leaderboards and progress bars.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In sharp contrast, gamification experiments targeting activities related to disciplines from humanity and social sciences are extremely limited, with only one example (Holman et al., 2015) touching this subject.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Holman et al., 2015 source
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected databases and search terms capture the relevant empirical literature on educational gamification.
- Rests on an assumption: The 51 empirical papers reviewed are representative of the empirical research on educational gamification in the survey period.
In the paper
“The reviewed papers expand the scope of the empirical research on educational gamification, as compared to (Dicheva et al. 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dicheva et al. 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We noticed that in addition to the heterogeneous nature of the empirical research, the stated goals of the studies were not always in line with the reported outcomes.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 73
- It may state two separate claims as one. 46
- The quote only partly states this claim. 10
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For example, (Hakulinen et al., 2015) present convincing evidence that points, badges and leaderboard incorporated in online Java exercises increases the use of an open learning environment.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Hakulinen et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that students offered badges spent significantly more time in TRAKLA2 and had more exercise sessions than controls, supporting increased use of the online learning environment. But the study tested badges, not a combined points–badges–leaderboard intervention: exercise points applied to both groups, and Future Work says the social aspect was missing. Materials and Procedure describes algorithm-simulation exercises, not specifically online Java exercises. (LLM, conf=0.90)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For example, two papers (Hakulinen et al., 2015) and (Landers & Landers, 2015) report positive outcomes for using single game elements, but one is for badges and the other one for leaderboards.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hakulinen et al., 2015 source
The Conclusions report that this study added achievement badges to a university course’s online learning environment and found statistically significant effects on some aspects of student behavior, along with generally positive attitudes. That supports the badge-related positive outcome attributed to Hakulinen et al.; the leaderboard paper is a separate citation. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not matchedcites Landers & Landers, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The collection of papers covers a wide range of academic subjects (32) organized in six categories (see Table 2).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected databases and search terms capture the relevant empirical literature on educational gamification.
- Rests on an assumption: The 51 empirical papers reviewed are representative of the empirical research on educational gamification in the survey period.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For comparison, the total number of papers included in the previous review covering the period January 2010 -June 2014 was 34.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected databases and search terms capture the relevant empirical literature on educational gamification.
- Rests on an assumption: The 51 empirical papers reviewed are representative of the empirical research on educational gamification in the survey period.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The end result was a list of 11 theoretical papers appearing in the searched databases between June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2015.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected databases and search terms capture the relevant empirical literature on educational gamification.
- Rests on an assumption: The 51 empirical papers reviewed are representative of the empirical research on educational gamification in the survey period.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A surprising fact is that the vast majority of the empirical works (25 studies) report inconclusive outcomes, which means that there is no basis for confidence in the reported results.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the reviewed collection, 11 papers report studies of the effect of a single game element, 8 papers study gamified systems using 2 game elements, 16 papers study gamified systems with 3 game elements, while the remaining 16 papers report results of gamifying systems by incorporating more than three elements (see Table 4).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Considering the educational level, the bulk of gamification studies in the survey period were conducted at university level (44 papers), with less attention to K-12 education (7 papers).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected databases and search terms capture the relevant empirical literature on educational gamification.
- Rests on an assumption: The 51 empirical papers reviewed are representative of the empirical research on educational gamification in the survey period.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In those 15 papers, the findings related to the benefits of gamification are mixed: 12 studies present evidence for positive effects of gamification in educational settings, while 3 present evidence for negative effects.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the majority of empirical works still examine the impact of the gamification on students ' engagement, performance, participation or retention, they are widening and deepening the focus of their studies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the connection between motivation and gamification design is demonstrated by a number of the reviewed studies, they do not add persuasive evidence confirming the effect of gamification as a motivational tool.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The result was a list of 51 empirical research papers.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected databases and search terms capture the relevant empirical literature on educational gamification.
- Rests on an assumption: The 51 empirical papers reviewed are representative of the empirical research on educational gamification in the survey period.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus the final number of selected papers (empirical and theoretical) amounted to 63 in total.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected databases and search terms capture the relevant empirical literature on educational gamification.
- Rests on an assumption: The 51 empirical papers reviewed are representative of the empirical research on educational gamification in the survey period.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another part of the papers addresses activities with indirect effect on learning, such as engaging students in more regular interactions with the learning environment (11).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected databases and search terms capture the relevant empirical literature on educational gamification.
- Rests on an assumption: The 51 empirical papers reviewed are representative of the empirical research on educational gamification in the survey period.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although this presumes a higher concentration of studies on gamified online learning our findings indicate the opposite.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected databases and search terms capture the relevant empirical literature on educational gamification.
- Rests on an assumption: The 51 empirical papers reviewed are representative of the empirical research on educational gamification in the survey period.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It covers studies on different configurations of game elements, used to gamify different activities and resulting in different outcomes, without any identifiable pattern of distribution.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, we note that the gamification terminology is still unsettled and various variations of the introduced above terms exist.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected databases and search terms capture the relevant empirical literature on educational gamification.
- Rests on an assumption: The 51 empirical papers reviewed are representative of the empirical research on educational gamification in the survey period.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This search yielded a total of 4998 results depicted in Table 1.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected databases and search terms capture the relevant empirical literature on educational gamification.
- Rests on an assumption: The 51 empirical papers reviewed are representative of the empirical research on educational gamification in the survey period.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In parallel, a significant part of the empirical research was nonetheless reporting success stories and possibly contributing to the ' inflated expectations ' .”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected databases and search terms capture the relevant empirical literature on educational gamification.
- Rests on an assumption: The 51 empirical papers reviewed are representative of the empirical research on educational gamification in the survey period.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The papers listed in the platform-centric category do not cover all gamified platforms proposed in the reviewed papers.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies on how distinct categories of learners are affected by gamification, what to measure as an outcome, and how to add a gamified layer to a core activity are also emerging.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While in our first review the question shared between most of the papers was ' Is gamification effective? ' , now it appears in a more extended version, in combination with the questions ' for what? ' or ' to whom? ' .”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The examination of the selected papers indicated that the empirical studies tended to use surveys and quasi-experimental designs, while the randomized controlled trials were less common.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 12 Inconclusive studies with reasons for this categorization”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, the educational benefits of gamification in terms of increasing student motivation or linking this motivation to learning outcomes are still not well understood.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the majority of the reviewed studies do analyze specific educational effects of gamification (on learning, attainment, participation), their focus is often aside from motivation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, research remains inconclusive on these assumptions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reported outcome often concludes that the gamification produced the pursued learning gains and that the users appreciated the added gamification features.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the majority of the studies target college students.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A number of gamification approaches, driven by specific objectives, have been applied to support learning and related activities in a variety of educational contexts.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are several assumptions underlying the usefulness of gamification in educational context, such as gamification is motivating, gamification is engaging, gamification can improve attendance and participation.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We maintain the view that gamification is not just a technology but also a methodology which some organizations adopt as way to increase motivation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies involving different demographic groups however are beneficial, as we cannot necessarily generalize the results of a study conducted with one demographic group to another demographic group.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also included the used game elements, mechanics and dynamics since they are inherently related to the success of a gamification application.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The review was restricted to papers appearing in the searched databases between June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2015.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The selected databases and search terms capture the relevant empirical literature on educational gamification.
- Rests on an assumption: The 51 empirical papers reviewed are representative of the empirical research on educational gamification in the survey period.
In the paper
“For example, (Pedro et al., 2015b) reported that the game mechanics implemented in a virtual learning environment did not have any effect on motivation and performance of the female students.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Pedro et al., 2015b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Online learning normally requires stronger motivation, which makes it a somewhat more promising field for applying gamification.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Motivation as a psychological process that gives behavior purpose and direction is contextual.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Although most of the reviewed 34 papers have been reporting promising results, the review concluded that more substantial empirical research is needed to determine whether both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation of the learners can be actually influenced by gamification.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Dicheva et al. 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
In the paper
“More specifically, (Ryan et al., 2006) argue that the intrinsic appeal of games is due to their ability to satisfy the basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ryan et al., 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not only are individuals motivated in multiple ways, but also their motivation varies according to the situation or context of the task.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The results show that a gamified laboratory simulation can increase both learning outcomes and motivation levels when compared with traditional teaching.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bonde et al. (2014) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this aspect, gamification is not a purely marketing trend but a behavioral/affective design trend that can be applied to different areas, including education.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“While gamification strives at its core to increase motivation, yet motivation is not a unitary phenomenon - different people may have different types and amounts of motivation, which can be shaped by the activity they are undertaking (Gooch et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gooch et al., 2016 source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The results of the study found that women in the female-dominated leaderboard condition demonstrated stronger academic identification than those in the control and maledominated leaderboard conditions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Christy & Fox, 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whilst 12 studies report encouraging outcomes, they cover a range of specific combinations of game elements, specific activities and outcomes and thus do not support practical generalization.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition to appropriate measures, the verification of the validity of reported results requires availability of relevant statistical information about the studies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“which points out that an emerging technology first climbs the ' peak of inflated expectations ' followed by a subsequent strong fall down into the ' trough of disillusionment ' , before reaching the ' slop of enlightenment ' , which marks the stage where its benefits and limitations are understood and demonstrated.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gartner, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Improving our understanding of motivational aspects of gamification will enable us to predict its effect on the related concepts.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Motivation is associated with a number of learning related concepts such as engagement, effort, goals, focus of attention, self-efficacy, confidence, achievement, interest, etc.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests a user-centered approach in the design of gamified systems, characterized by a focus on the needs and desires of learners.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increased communication, participation, punctuality”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without a theoretical framework backing the design of the studies and the interpretation of their results, it is problematic to select an appropriate gamification structure or to differentiate which of the employed game mechanisms and principles were essential for arriving at successful outcomes.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increased motivation and learning”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In several cases our judgment simply conveys the paper ' s conclusion where the authors themselves acknowledge that the results of the study should be interpreted with caution.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increased intention to use the PLE”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study reveals an interesting psychological perspective of gamification in educational environments: merely making an activity seem like a game impacts learners ' engagement.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Most emerging technologies and the accompanying research go through an initial period of hype as described by the Gartner ' s Hype Cycle, before evolving for a second period of measured popularity, in which it attains maturity and meets the expectations (Naik, 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Naik, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The theory of gamified learning proposed by (Landers et al., 2015) provides two specific causal pathways by which gamification can affect learning and a framework for testing these pathways.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Landers et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mixed acceptance of game elements”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Increased knowledge retention, reduce attrition”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites (Nevin et al., 2014)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Positive effect on student collaboration”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“reduced undesirable behaviors in VLE”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Improved retention period, and learning performance”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Increased playfulness and engagement in learning”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites (Perry, 2015)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The availability of successful gamified platforms will help widen the scope of gamified educational activities and create a ground for broadening experimental studies towards developing evidence based practices.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Motivated continuous learning for module”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Relation between badge interaction and engagement”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the first one, this behavior moderates the relationship between instructional quality and learning. In the second, this behavior mediates the relationship between game elements and learning.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Landers et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Improved learning performance”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Possible reasons for this are from one side the hype to publish on gamification and from another, the addressing of an overly broad research question based on limited supportive evidence.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the process of integrating game design principles within varying educational experiences appears challenging and there are currently no practical guidelines for how to do so in a coherent and efficient manner.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increased engagement, foster learning”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For gamification to be effective, it must successfully alter an intermediary learner behavior or learner attitude.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Landers et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Improved participation and quality of online discussion”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increased usage of the open learning environment”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“an emerging shared message particularly relevant to instructional designers recognizes that what one learner values, another may not, what one learner believes is achievable, another may not.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increased intrinsic motivation”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“Leaderboards create stereotype threat”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites (Christy & Fox, 2014)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, reported positive effects of gamification based on a two-week study could be attributed to the ' novelty effect ' of the used tool or approach rather than to the added gamification features.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increased competence need (negative) and performance (positive)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The observed emphasis on points, badges, and leaderboards is too narrow to address the relevant motivational factors.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While it seems apparent that gamification has the potential to create enhanced learning environments, there is still insufficient evidence that it (1) produces reliable, valid and long-lasting educational outcomes, or (2) does so better than traditional educational models.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We note that our judgment in studying inconclusiveness can be viewed as rather subjective.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our decision on the validity of the gamification studies was guided by the following factors: the sample size, the number of study groups, the length of the study, how the data was collected, how the variables were controlled, how and by what statistical procedures the data was analyzed, how well the conclusions are supported by the data, and does the study give enough information to convince the”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The rise and fall of expectations for applying gamification in educational contexts is nothing out of the ordinary.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Improved time on task”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“Correlation between XPs, badges and learning - positive”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites (Paiva et al., 2015)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increased disposition to the experience flow”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“Does not improve learning”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Long & Aleven, 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Relation between learner gamification typology and learner interactive”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The outcomes indicate that engagement and enjoyment increased significantly due to the psychological effects of framing the task as a game. Furthermore, no actual increased interest or enjoyment was measured by adding actual game mechanics to the task, when it was already framed as a game.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lieberoth (2015) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Improved motivation”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“The results show that although there is support for the importance of competition against peers (contrary to the current prevailing understanding), the challenge of overcoming the game ' s obstacles and mastering them is what matters the most to players, regardless of the type of the game.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tomaselli et al., 2015
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fostered learning activities”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Relation between gaming personality and game dynamics”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
The selected databases and search terms capture the relevant empirical literature on educational gamification.
“we searched the following databases: Google Scholar, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Explore and ScienceDirect using the following search terms: (gamification OR gamify OR gameful) AND (education OR learning OR training) AND (since 2014).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 51 empirical papers reviewed are representative of the empirical research on educational gamification in the survey period.
“The result was a list of 51 empirical research papers.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The reviewed studies' reported outcomes are sufficiently comparable to draw conclusions about the field.
“A literature survey typically employs a framework for structuring the evaluation of the works in the targeted area.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Video games are explicitly designed for entertainment and can produce states of desirable experience and motivate users to remain engaged in an activity with unparalleled intensity and duration.
“Since video games are explicitly designed for entertainment, they can produce states of desirable experience and motivate users to remain engaged in an activity with unparalleled intensity and duration.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Success in one educational context does not guarantee that the same mechanism will be motivationally successful in another educational context.
“Additionally, success in one educational context does not guarantee that the same mechanism will be motivationally successful in another educational context.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Performance is an indirect measure of motivation that is influenced by many non-motivational factors such as ability, prior knowledge, and quality of instruction.
“Performance is an indirect measure of motivation that is influenced by many non-motivational factors such as ability, prior knowledge, and quality of instruction, while motivation is the actual driving force which makes individuals want to do something and help them continue doing it.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Motivation is the actual driving force which makes individuals want to do something and helps them continue doing it.
“Performance is an indirect measure of motivation that is influenced by many non-motivational factors such as ability, prior knowledge, and quality of instruction, while motivation is the actual driving force which makes individuals want to do something and help them continue doing it.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Motivation is associated with a number of learning related concepts such as engagement, effort, goals, focus of attention, self-efficacy, confidence, achievement, interest, etc.
“Motivation is associated with a number of learning related concepts such as engagement, effort, goals, focus of attention, self-efficacy, confidence, achievement, interest, etc.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Game-based learning can be an effective approach to foster collaboration among students, essential communication and teamwork skills, which are critical in developing computational thinking (CT) and preparing students for STEM fields [38].”
From Fostering computational thinking in young students through student generated challenges in tangible mobile augmented reality games (2025) · cites this paper as [38]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The large numbers of inconclusive studies in these reviews point toward a general problem: Gamification research lacks methodological rigor.”
From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Dichev and Dicheva 2017
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Whereas the majority of studies found in reviews focusing on education were conducted in higher education settings, some of them were performed in primary and secondary school settings (see Dichev and Dicheva 2017).”
From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Dichev and Dicheva 2017
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Gamification has emerged as a promising pedagogical strategy, with the potential to capture students' attention, foster active learning, and enrich the overall learning experience, particularly in subjects where disengagement and low motivation are common (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
From Gamification on Mathematics Engagement and Motivation in Secondary School and Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as Dichev & Dicheva, 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ How conclusive are the reported results? · p. 18
“A surprising fact is that the vast majority of the empirical works (25 studies) report inconclusive outcomes”
§ How conclusive are the reported results? · p. 19
“| Inconclusive | 26 (50%) |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Search strategy and sources · p. 5
“The review was restricted to papers appearing in the searched databases between June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2015.”
§ How conclusive are the reported results? · p. 20
“| B | (Holman et al., 2013) | Badges, leveling, autonomy, leaderboard, grade predictor”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ What combinations of game elements are studied? · p. 10
“| Leaderboards only | 3 (6%) | (Christy & Fox, 2014; Landers & Landers, 2015; Poole et al., 2014)”
§ What types of goals? · p. 15
“| (Poole et al., 2014) | Points, leaderboards”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“The end result was a list of 11 theoretical papers appearing in the searched databases between June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2015. Thus the final number of selected papers (empirical and theoretical) amounted to 63 in total.”
Reported 63 · recomputed 62
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ How conclusive are the reported results? · p. 18
“For example, (Hakulinen et al., 2015) present convincing evidence that points, badges and leaderboard incorporated in online Java exercises increases the use of an open learning environment.”
§ How conclusive are the reported results? · p. 20
“| A | (Hakulinen et al., 2015) | Badges | Homework exercises | Improves motivation |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ What combinations of game elements are studied? · p. 10
“| Badges only | 9 (18%) | (Boticki et al., 2015; Davis & Klein, 2015; Hakulinen et al., 2015; Leach et al., 2014; Long & Aleven, 2014; Pedro et al., 2015a; Perry, 2015; Tu et al., 2015; Tvarozek & Brza, 2014)”
§ What types of goals? · p. 15
“| (Perry, 2015) | Points, badges”
Citations
Cites
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 · Cited by 54,599 · cited 2×
“According to the Self Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), humans seek out activities to satisfy intrinsic motivational needs, such as competence, autonomy, or relatedness.”
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 · cited 4×
“What combinations of game elements are studied? According to (Deterding et al., 2011) gamification is the use of game design elements in non-game contexts.”
InfluentialDoes 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 · cited 2×
“This findings are in line with the conclusions reported by (Koivisto & Hamari, 2014), who have shown in a more general context that women experience a greater effect when the gamification contains social aspects and men - when there is a sort of competition.”
The motivational pull of video games: a self-determination theory approach
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8 · Cited by 3,332 · cited 1×
“More specifically, (Ryan et al., 2006) argue that the intrinsic appeal of games is due to their ability to satisfy the basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness.”
Reality is Broken Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World
(2012) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.49-6095 · Cited by 2,933 · cited 1×
“The motivational outcome category concerns concepts derived from motivational principles of games such as explicit goals, rules, a feedback system, and voluntary participation (McGonigal, 2011).”
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 2×
“array of practical motivations (Seaborn & Fels, 2015).”
(2012) · Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) · Cited by 2,354
Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.019 · Cited by 1,918 · cited 8×
“(Attali & Arieli-Attali, 2015; Hanus & Fox, 2015; Long & Aleven, 2014) Inconclusive 26 (50”
Influential(2015) · Educational Technology & Society · Cited by 1,551
Self-citationFrom Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining “Gamification”
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. E. (2011) · IT University Of Copenhagen (IT University of Copenhagen) · Cited by 1,341
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Boskic, N., & Hu, S. (2015). Gamification in higher education: how we changed roles. European Conference on Games Based Learning, (pp. 741–748). Reading, UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited.
- Dicheva, D., & Dichev, C. (2015). Gamification in education: where are we in 2015? World Conference on E-Learning (ELEARN 2015), Kona, Hawaii, October 19–22 (pp. 1276–1284). Chesapeake: AACE.
- Leach, D., Laur, B., Code, J., Bebbington, T., & Broome, D. (2014). Gamification for online engagement in higher education: a randomized controlled trial (pp. 151–159). Madison: Games Learning + Society Conference.
- Tvarozek, J., & Brza, T. (2014). Engaging students in online courses through interactive badges. In 2014 International Conference on e-Learning, September 2014, Spain (pp. 89–95). Retrieved from http://elearning-conf.eu/docs/cp14/paper-12.pdf .
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis
Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w · Cited by 2,594
“Because studies in the context of gamification have often lacked methodological rigor (Dicheva and Dichev 2015, 2017), we included methodological factors to account for possible differences in methodological study design and rigor across primary studies.”
BackgroundKrath, J., Schürmann, L., & von Korflesch, H. F. O. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963 · Cited by 1,324
Bai, S., Hew, K. F., & Huang, B. (2020) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100322 · Cited by 994
Gamification of health professions education: a systematic review
van Gaalen, A. E. J., Brouwer, J., Schönrock-Adema, J., Bouwkamp-Timmer, T., Jaarsma, A. D. C., & Georgiadis, J. R. (2021) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-020-10000-3 · Cited by 625
“In doing so, we added a new perspective to existing reviews on gamification in higher (Caponetto et al. 2014; De Sousa Borges et al. 2014; Dichev and Dicheva 2017; Dicheva et al. 2015; Faiella and Ricciardi 2015; Nah et al. 2014; Subhash and Cudney 2018) and health professions education (Gentry et…”
BackgroundSmiderle, R., Rigo, S. J., Marques, L. B., Peçanha de Miranda Coelho, J. A., & Jaques, P. A. (2020) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-019-0098-x · Cited by 502
“Gamification of education is a strategy for increasing engagement by incorporating game elements into an educational environment (Dichev and Dicheva 2017).”
BackgroundInfluentialGamification 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
Computer-based technology and student engagement: a critical review of the literature
Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-017-0063-0 · Cited by 475
“As a result, positive student engagement findings may be attributed to a “novelty effect” (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017) associated with using a new technology.”
BackgroundComparing success and engagement in gamified learning experiences via Kahoot and Quizizz
Orhan Göksün, D., & Gürsoy, G. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.015 · Cited by 418
Gamification of e-learning in higher education: a systematic literature review
Khaldi, A., Bouzidi, R., & Nader, F. (2023) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-023-00227-z · Cited by 694
“…back-ward snowballing search to identify further relevant studies by scanning and searching the references of papers marked as potentially relevant (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Mora et al., 2017; Gari & Radermacher, 2018; Khalil et al., 2018; Ozdamli, 2018; Subhash & Cudney, 2018; da Silva et al.,…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialHuang, B., Hew, K. F., & Lo, C. K. (2019) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2018.1495653 · Cited by 406
“A recent review by Dichev and Dicheva (2017) analyzed 51 empirical studies of gami fi cation in education.”
MethodLegaki, N.-Z., Xi, N., Hamari, J., Karpouzis, K. C., & Assimakopoulos, V. (2020) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102496 · Cited by 437
“…on the impact of gami fi cation, independently of the application domain or used gami fi ed strategy (Buckley and Doyle, 2017; Caponetto et al., 2014; Dichev and Dicheva, 2017; Dicheva et al., 2015; Hanus and Fox, 2015; Koivisto and Hamari, 2019; Lambruschini and Pizarro, 2015; Landers et al., 2018;…”
InfluentialLo, C. K., & Hew, K. F. (2018) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2018.1541910 · Cited by 380
“Although there has been an increasing use of gami fi - cation in education to increase students ’ motivation, very few studies have been conducted in a fl ipped learning environment (see Dichev & Dicheva, 2017 for a review).”
BackgroundGamification in Action: Theoretical and Practical Considerations for Medical Educators
Rutledge, C., Walsh, C. M., Swinger, N., Auerbach, M. A., Castro, D., Dewan, M. L., Khattab, M. G., Rake, A. J., Harwayne‐Gidansky, I., Raymond, T. T., et al. (2018) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002183 · Cited by 293
Analysing gamification elements in educational environments using an existing Gamification taxonomy
Toda, A. M., Klock, A. C. T., Oliveira, W., Palomino, P. T., Rodrigues, L., Shi, L., Bittencourt, I., Gasparini, I., Isotani, S., & Cristea, A. I. (2019) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-019-0106-1 · Cited by 320
“Finally, Stats is also presented in almost all educational environments, the lack of information makes the learner feel disoriented (Dignan 2011).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGamification and online consumer decisions: Is the game over?
Tobón, S., Ruiz-Alba, J., & de Madariaga, J. G. (2019) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2019.113167 · Cited by 282
Benefits of gamification in medical education
Krishnamurthy, K., Selvaraj, N., Gupta, P., Cyriac, B., Dhurairaj, P., Abdullah, A., Krishnapillai, A. D. S., Lugova, H., Haque, M., Xie, S., et al. (2022) · Clinical Anatomy · doi:10.1002/ca.23916 · Cited by 269
Dahalan, F., Alias, N., & Shaharom, M. S. N. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11548-w · Cited by 420
“However, designing successful gamification applications in education that influence positive behaviour changes is still a riddle (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
Gamification of in‐class activities in flipped classroom lectures
Sailer, M., & Sailer, M. (2021) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12948 · Cited by 234
Engaging Students in the Learning Process with Game-Based Learning: The Fundamental Concepts
Adipat, S., Laksana, K., Busayanon, K., Ausawasowan, A., & Adipat, B. (2021) · International Journal of Technology in Education · doi:10.46328/ijte.169 · Cited by 221
“Nowadays, almost all students can afford a tablet or a laptop in class, thereby enabling the employment of widespread digital game-based learning (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
BackgroundMethodLi, M., Ma, S., & Shi, Y. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1253549 · Cited by 439
“Academic performance, motivation, and engagement are frequently utilized outcome measures in gamification research (Dichev and Dicheva, 2017; Zainuddin et al., 2020; Rivera and Garden, 2021).”
BackgroundGamification as Online Teaching Strategy During COVID-19: A Mini-Review
Nieto-Escámez, F. A., & Roldán-Tapia, L. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648552 · Cited by 204
Christopoulos, A., & Mystakidis, S. (2023) · Encyclopedia · doi:10.3390/encyclopedia3040089 · Cited by 297
Gamification for student engagement: a framework
Rivera, E. S., & Garden, C. L. P. (2021) · Journal of Further and Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0309877x.2021.1875201 · Cited by 306
“Dichev and Dicheva (2017) find that points, badges, levels, leader boards and progress bars are the most common game elements used in educational contexts and propose that this is because of the familiarity of practitioners with traditional assessment models, and their ease of implementation.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGamification and physical education. Viability and preliminary views from students and teachers
Fernández-Río, J., Heras, E. P. D. L., González, T., Trillo, V., & Palomares, J. (2020) · Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy · doi:10.1080/17408989.2020.1743253 · Cited by 160
Férriz-Valero, A., Østerlie, O., Martínez, S. G., & García-Jaén, M. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17124465 · Cited by 245
“Gamification, an innovative solution inspired by the idea of the use of recreational elements applied in non-recreational contexts [5,9], has been integrated into an educational context from the moment such elements and recreational experiences became part of the design and planning of the educational process [10,11].”
BackgroundAdaptive gamification in E‐learning: A literature review and future challenges
Bennani, S., Maalel, A., & Ghézala, H. B. (2021) · Computer Applications in Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/cae.22477 · Cited by 198
“Some research papers were limited by the number of studies included: Thiebes et al. [89] limited their analysis to 26 studies; only 36 studies were included in [22] and 63 studies were reviewed by [21].”
BackgroundRodrigues, L., Pereira, F. D., Toda, A. M., Palomino, P. T., Pessoa, M., de Carvalho, L. S. G., Fernandes, D., Oliveira, E., Cristea, A. I., & Isotani, S. (2022) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-021-00314-6 · Cited by 258
“Indeed, gamification studies are often criticized, due to lack of methodological rigor Hamari et al. (2014); Dichev and Dicheva (2017).”
BackgroundTowards a motivational design? Connecting gamification user types and online learning activities
Bovermann, K., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2020) · Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning · doi:10.1186/s41039-019-0121-4 · Cited by 156
“However, the existing findings are still mixed and tend to be dependent on the context, population, or design (Dichev & Dicheva 2017).”
BackgroundA systematic review of the use of gamification in flipped learning
Ekici, M. (2021) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-020-10394-y · Cited by 187
The Shift to Gamification in Education: A Review on Dominant Issues
Ofosu‐Ampong, K. (2020) · Journal of Educational Technology Systems · doi:10.1177/0047239520917629 · Cited by 187
Una revisión sistemática sobre gamificación, motivación y aprendizaje en universitarios
Andreu, J. M. P. (2019) · Teoría de la Educación Revista Interuniversitaria · doi:10.14201/teri.20625 · Cited by 262
Chen, C., Li, M.-C., & Chen, T.-C. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103697 · Cited by 141
Bovermann, K., Weidlich, J., & Bastiaens, T. (2018) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-018-0107-0 · Cited by 139
“Different results were also found in the application of the same type of game elements regarding motivation, engagement, or learning performance (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Nacke & Deterding, 2017).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialA Taxonomy of Game Elements for Gamification in Educational Contexts: Proposal and Evaluation
Toda, A. M., Cristea, A. I., Oliveira, W., Klock, A. C. T., Palomino, P. T., Pimenta, M. S., Gasparini, I., Shi, L., Bittencourt, I. I., & Isotani, S. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) · doi:10.1109/icalt.2019.00028 · Cited by 139
Wannapiroon, N., & Pimdee, P. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10849-w · Cited by 138
“Other studies have also stated that gamification can be a tool for optimizing learning, behavioral change reinforcement, and a socialization mechanism (Krause et al., 2015; Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
BackgroundXu, J. H., Lio, A., Dhaliwal, H., Andrei, S., Balakrishnan, S., Nagani, U., & Samadder, S. (2021) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2021.06.070 · Cited by 151
Using gamification to support learning in K‐12 education: A systematic literature review
Dehghanzadeh, H., Farrokhnia, M., Dehghanzadeh, H., Taghipour, K., & Noroozi, O. (2023) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13335 · Cited by 224
Toda, A. M., do Carmo, R. M. C., da Silva, A. P., Bittencourt, I. I., & Isotani, S. (2018) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.001 · Cited by 125
Azzouz Boudadi, N., & Gutiérrez-Colón, M. (2020) · The EuroCALL Review · doi:10.4995/eurocall.2020.12974 · Cited by 124
“…of Gamification, some researchers also detected little evidence supporting positive effects on both psychological states and cognitive processes, and focussed their work on finding out more about its long-term effects on learning (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Hew, et al. 2016; Severengiz, et al., 2018).”
BackgroundKaya, O. S., & Ercag, E. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11585-z · Cited by 121
“It is surmised that employing games in the learning frameworks can positively affect the motivation of individuals (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Shernoff & Hoog-stra, 2001).”
BackgroundPalomino, M. C. P. (2021) · Revista de Investigación Educativa · doi:10.6018/rie.419481 · Cited by 150
Zeng, J., Sun, D., Looi, C., & Fan, A. C. W. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13471 · Cited by 241
Gamification in engineering education – An empirical assessment on learning and game performance
Díaz-Ramírez, J. (2020) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04972 · Cited by 150
Equitable and Inclusive Practices Designed to Reduce Equity Gaps in Undergraduate Chemistry Courses
White, K. N., Vincent-Layton, K., & Villarreal, B. J. (2020) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01094 · Cited by 120
Gamification during Covid-19: Promoting active learning and motivation in higher education
Rincón-Flores, E. G., & Santos-Guevara, B. N. (2021) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.7157 · Cited by 111
“The student also develops transversal competencies and attitudes through gamification, such as collaboration, self-regulated learning, and creativity (Caponeto et al., 2014; Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
BackgroundBakhanova, E., Garcia, J. A., Raffe, W. L., & Voinov, A. A. (2020) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104846 · Cited by 116
A Bibliometric Analysis of Gamification Research
Trinidad, M., Ruiz, M., & Calderón, A. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3063986 · Cited by 129
“The exploration of the educational applications of gamification along this historiography is closed with a mapping study published in 2017, reviewing the literature to summarize the existing knowledge and the future prospects of using gamification in education [99].”
BackgroundNadi-Ravandi, S., & Batooli, Z. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11048-x · Cited by 113
“In fact, this is important whether the effects of gamification last long time or not (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Hamari et al., 2014; Seaborn & Fels, 2015).”
BackgroundTeaching Presence in Online Gamified Education for Sustainability Learning
Mahmud, S. N. D., Husnin, H. B., & Soh, T. M. T. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12093801 · Cited by 98
“Drawing from the literature, game elements can be categorised into a few categories such as surface elements, underlying dynamics, and game experience [14].”
BackgroundInfluentialA systematic evaluation of game elements effects on students’ motivation
Leitão, R., Maguire, M. C., Turner, S., & Guimarães, L. (2021) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10651-8 · Cited by 147
Learning in immersed collaborative virtual environments: design and implementation
de Back, T. T., Tinga, A. M., & Louwerse, M. M. (2021) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2021.2006238 · Cited by 128
“A prominent reason for the use of gami fi cation is its ability to increase motivation, which is predictive of performance (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
BackgroundBai, S., Hew, K. F., Sailer, M., & Jia, C. (2021) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104297 · Cited by 119
Gamification in Management Education: A Systematic Literature Review
Silva, R., Rodrigues, R. G., & Leal, C. T. P. (2019) · BAR - Brazilian Administration Review · doi:10.1590/1807-7692bar2019180103 · Cited by 124
Gamificación, motivación y rendimiento en educación: Una revisión sistemática
Andreu, J. M. P., Gómez-Escalonilla-Torrijos, J. D., & Said-Hung, E. M. (2021) · Revista Electrónica Educare · doi:10.15359/ree.26-1.14 · Cited by 108
Lorenzo-Álvarez, R., Rudolphi‐Solero, T., Ruiz-Gomez, M. J., & Sendra‐Portero, F. (2019) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.1927 · Cited by 95
“Its application to a learning activity increases learner engagement, motivation, retention, and even the ability to solve problems (Brigham, 2015; Dichev and Dicheva, 2017; van Roy and Zaman, 2017), providing students with a sense of accomplishment and progress (Brigham, 2015).”
BackgroundAsigigan, S. İ., & Samur, Y. (2021) · International Journal of Education in Mathematics Science and Technology · doi:10.46328/ijemst.1157 · Cited by 93
“The aim of the gamification is to help students learn and practice in a fun way, to increase their motivation, participation (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017) and to improve their performance while having fun (Mert & Samur, 2018) and providing more positive feedback (Muntean, 2011) compared to traditional…”
BackgroundQuintás, A., Bustamante, J. C., de la Fuente, F. P., & Otín, C. C. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103874 · Cited by 97
Serious games in management education: An acceptance analysis
López, F. R., Arias-Oliva, M., Borondo, J. P., & Marín-Vinuesa, L. M. (2021) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100517 · Cited by 104
“Among the new emerging methods, the use of gamification is on the rise (e.g., Papert, 1990; Said, Roos & Statler, 2001; Kampker, Deutskens, Deutschmann, Maue, & Haunreiter, 2014; Al-Azawi, Al-Faliti, & Al-Blushi, 2016; Dichev & y Dicheva, 2017).”
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
“Gamification Growing of gamification, both in practice and in the field of research (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017, is defined by researchers in different ways (Deterding et al., 2011; Marczewski, 2015; Werbach & Hunter, 2012; Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011).”
BackgroundEscape ClassRoom: Can You Solve a Crime Using the Analytical Process?
Ferreiro-González, M., Amores-Arrocha, A., Espada-Bellido, E., Aliaño-Gonzalez, M. J., Vázquez-Espinosa, M., González-de-Peredo, A. V., Sancho-Galán, P., Álvarez-Saura, J. Á., Barbero, G. F., & Cejudo-Bastante, C. (2019) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00601 · Cited by 88
Spielerische Ansätze in Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung: Serious Games und Gamification
Tolks, D., Lampert, C., Dadaczynski, K., Maslon, E., Paulus, P., & Sailer, M. (2020) · Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz · doi:10.1007/s00103-020-03156-1 · Cited by 93
“Auch allgemein im Bildungsbereich und speziell in der Metaanalyse zeigt sich ein hoher Anteil an Untersuchungen mit geringer bis moderater Studienqualität [17, 49].”
BackgroundMobile-assisted and gamification-based language learning: a systematic literature review
Ishaq, K., Zin, N. A. M., Rosdi, F., Jehanghir, M., Ishaq, S., & Abid, A. (2021) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.496 · Cited by 86
Rincón-Flores, E. G., Mena, J., & López-Camacho, E. (2022) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci12010049 · Cited by 106
“Gamification includes elements and experiences of games in the design of learning processes (of any area of study) with the purpose of engaging, motivating, and improving learning, as well as developing and strengthening transversal skills such as collaboration, self-regulation of learning, and creativity [22,23].”
BackgroundA ROS-Based Open Tool for Intelligent Robotics Education
Cañas, J. M., Perdices, E., Pérez, L. G., & Fernández-Conde, J. (2020) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app10217419 · Cited by 85
“They provide instant feedback for students and allow gamified educative approaches [53].”
BackgroundNarrative for Gamification in Education: Why Should you Care?
Palomino, P. T., Toda, A. M., Oliveira, W., Cristea, A. I., & Isotani, S. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) · doi:10.1109/icalt.2019.00035 · Cited by 92
“Concerning the gamification educational potential, the process has been achieving positive results [1], [3], [4], when used concomitantly with traditional methodologies or as a complement to virtual applications.”
MethodBalci, S., Secaur, J. M., & Morris, B. J. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-10983-z · Cited by 74
“An online class could be gamified in various ways, and our way of implementation of gamification tools in the online classes chosen for this study might have fallen short of creating the conditions to reveal their effectiveness (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Sailer et al., 2017).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRevealing the hotspots of educational gamification: An umbrella review
Metwally, A. H. S., Nacke, L. E., Chang, M., Wang, Y., & Yousef, A. M. F. (2021) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101832 · Cited by 74
Mazarakis, A., & Bräuer, P. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2041909 · Cited by 71
“Various studies have already shown that gamification has in general a motivating effect (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Hamari et al., 2014).”
BackgroundPersonalized gamification: A literature review of outcomes, experiments, and approaches
Rodrigues, L., Toda, A. M., Palomino, P. T., Oliveira, W., & Isotani, S. (2020) · Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM'21) · doi:10.1145/3434780.3436665 · Cited by 73
The impact of Exergames on emotional experience: a systematic review
Marques, L. M., Uchida, P. M., & Barbosa, S. P. (2023) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1209520 · Cited by 70
“Also, games can be designed to provide educational content, making it easier for individuals to understand health concepts and apply them in their daily lives (14).”
BackgroundSamala, A. D., Rawas, S., Criollo-C, S., Bojić, L., Prasetya, F., Ranuharja, F., & Marta, R. (2024) · SN Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s42979-024-03538-1 · Cited by 85
Gamification in education and training: A literature review
Triantafyllou, S. A., Georgiadis, C. K., & Sapounidis, T. (2025) · International Review of Education · doi:10.1007/s11159-024-10111-8 · Cited by 162
Systematic literature review about gamification in MOOCs
Jarnac de Freitas, M., & Mira da Silva, M. (2023) · Open Learning The Journal of Open Distance and e-Learning · doi:10.1080/02680513.2020.1798221 · Cited by 63
“In a subsequent critical review, Dichev and Dicheva (2017) reported that the use of gamification in education studies lacks a theoretical background.”
BackgroundThomas, N. J., & Baral, R. (2022) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100718 · Cited by 75
Emerging trends in gamification for clinical reasoning education: a scoping review
Lee, C.-Y., Lee, C.-H., Lai, H.-Y., Chen, P.-J., Chen, M.-M., & Yau, S.-Y. (2025) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-025-07044-7 · Cited by 60
“…innovation into a rigorously evidence-based strategy for enhancing clinical reasoning competence in healthcare education. time and financial investment for initial development; and variability in efficacy, as gamified approaches differ widely in design, execution, and educational impact [1, 28].”
An Analysis of Game Design Elements Used in Digital Game-Based Language Learning
Govender, T., & Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13126679 · Cited by 71
“General literature reviews on gameful approaches to education such as Boyle [24] and Dichev [25] revealed low percentages for language education studies (3.1% and 8%, respectively).”
BackgroundInfluentialSotos-Martínez, V. J., Férriz-Valero, A., Martínez, S. G., & Tortosa‐Martínez, J. (2022) · Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy · doi:10.1080/17408989.2022.2039611 · Cited by 108
“Gami fi cation has already been widely used in other disciplines such as marketing, healthcare, human resources, training, environmental protection and well-being (Dichev and Dicheva 2017), or other curricular and academic fi elds such as higher education (Dicheva et al. 2015).”
Bachiri, Y.-A., Mouncif, H., & Bouikhalene, B. (2023) · International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP) · doi:10.3991/ijep.v13i8.40853 · Cited by 59
Gamification and entrepreneurial intentions
Ruiz-Alba, J., Soares, A., Molina, M. Á. R., & Banoun, A. (2019) · Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development · doi:10.1108/jsbed-09-2018-0266 · Cited by 66
Brazilian and Spanish Mathematics Teachers’ Predispositions towards Gamification in STEAM Education
López, P., Rodrigues-Silva, J., & Alsina, ́. (2021) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci11100618 · Cited by 58
“Although gamification is a relatively young topic, it is an increasing research interest topic [2,3].”
BackgroundPersonalization Improves Gamification
Rodrigues, L., Palomino, P. T., Toda, A. M., Klock, A. C. T., Oliveira, W., Avila-Santos, A. P., Gasparini, I., & Isotani, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3474714 · Cited by 65
“Common to most recommendations is that the game elements are to be defined based on a single criterion [32], whereas there is empirical evidence demonstrating multiple factors affect users’ preferences and, therefore, gamification success [19, 26, 31].”
BackgroundGamification is not Working: Why?
John, D., Hussin, N., Zaini, M. K., Helda, L. I., Ametefe, D. S., & Aliu, A. A. (2024) · Games and Culture · doi:10.1177/15554120241228125 · Cited by 67
“Its success fundamentally depends on a nuanced and calibrated integration of both extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors, which of course is a factor of proper design (Dah et al., 2023; Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Krath et al., 2021; Lieberoth, 2014; Nicholson, 2015; Sailer & Homner, 2020).”
InfluentialAn escape-room inspired game for genetics review
Brady, S. C., & Andersen, E. C. (2019) · Journal of Biological Education · doi:10.1080/00219266.2019.1703784 · Cited by 54
“Although the use of gami fi cation to improve learning outcomes has mixed results, proper implementation of game-based learning can increase student engagement and motivation (van Roy and Zaman 2017; Dichev and Dicheva 2017; Landers 2014; de Sousa Borges et al. 2014).”
BackgroundKabilan, M. K., Annamalai, N., & Chuah, K.-M. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11723-7 · Cited by 91
“…are used to increase learner motivation and engagement, as research in gamification has predominantly demonstrated a significant linkage between increased motivation, effort and time spent on a task and learning performance among students (Chans & Portuguez-Castro, 2021; Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
BackgroundAlenezi, A. (2023) · Information Technologies and Learning Tools · doi:10.33407/itlt.v97i5.5437 · Cited by 55
“Research by Dichev & Dicheva [18] demonstrates that AI-powered gamification can enhance students' problem-solving abilities, as well as promote higher student motivation and engagement.”
BackgroundGenerative AI and Gamification for Personalized Learning: Literature Review and Future Challenges
Abbes, F., Bennani, S., & Maalel, A. (2024) · SN Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s42979-024-03491-z · Cited by 53
“Dichev et al. [20] presents gamification as a systematic endeavour to render learning more immersive.”
Grabner-Hagen, M. M., & Kingsley, T. L. (2023) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100131 · Cited by 88
Review of Learning Tools for Effective Radiology Education During the COVID-19 Era
Chen, D., Ayoob, A. R., Desser, T. S., & Khurana, A. (2021) · Academic Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.acra.2021.10.006 · Cited by 52
“It helps prepare students for clinical practice through emphasizing problem-solving and clinical reasoning. c) Gami fi cation uses game design elements, such as point systems, leaderboards, badges, and rewards, in traditional nongame contexts (45,46).”
Taşkın, N., & Çakmak, E. K. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2096190 · Cited by 63
“Although there are many studies in the literature pointing out the effect of gamification on increasing engagement, there are also studies that could not be observed effect despite the use of similar elements (Dehghanzadeh et al., 2021; Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
BackgroundThe effects of virtual reality on EFL learning: A meta-analysis
bin Qiu, X., Shan, C., Yao, J., & Fu, Q. K. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11738-0 · Cited by 54
“On the other hand, this conclusion supports some studies that found that the pedagogical benefits of game elements have not yet been scientifically confirmed (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
Narrative and aesthetics as antecedents of perceived learning in serious games
Alexiou, A., Schippers, M., Oshri, I., & Angelopoulos, S. (2020) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-08-2019-0435 · Cited by 40
Effectiveness of Gamification in Flipped Learning
Gündüz, A. Y., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2020) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244020979837 · Cited by 71
“This combination can be applied to almost any context (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
BackgroundFernández‐Río, J., Zumajo-Flores, M., & Aguilar, G. F. (2021) · European Physical Education Review · doi:10.1177/1356336x211052883 · Cited by 68
“The intervention programme was based on previous studies on gamification (Dichev and Dicheva, 2017; Fernandez-Rio et al., 2020; Quintas et al., 2020), and it included the basic elements of gamification previously introduced (Werbach and Hunter, 2012).”
MethodWong, J. Y. H., Ko, J., Nam, S., Kwok, T. T.-O., Lam, S., Cheuk, J., Chan, M. M. K., Lam, V. S. F., Wong, G. T. C., Ng, Z. L. H., et al. (2022) · JMIR Serious Games · doi:10.2196/35269 · Cited by 52
“Indeed, the growing popularity of serious gaming in clinical education has been noted since 2010 [10,11].”
BackgroundZheng, H., Han, F., Huang, Y., Wu, Y., & Wu, X. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13299-2 · Cited by 84
“These finding suggests that e-learning designers should incorporate interactive and gamification elements to enhance user engagement (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Saleem et al., 2022).”
Nylén‐Eriksen, M., Stojiljkovic, M., Lillekroken, D., Lindeflaten, K., Hessevaagbakke, E., Flølo, T. N., Hovland, O. J., Solberg, A. S., Hansen, S., Bjørnnes, A. K., et al. (2025) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-06531-7 · Cited by 55
“The lack of a clear framework has led to subjectivity in defining SG and gamification [5, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 116].”
Calderón, A., Boubeta-Puig, J., & Ruiz, M. (2017) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2017.11.009 · Cited by 51
An interdisciplinary perspective on gamification: Mechanics, psychological mediators and outcomes
Helmefalk, M. (2019) · International Journal of Serious Games · doi:10.17083/ijsg.v6i1.262 · Cited by 56
Mylonas, G., Paganelli, F., Cuffaro, G., Nesi, I., & Karantzis, D. (2021) · Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing · doi:10.1007/s12652-020-02838-7 · Cited by 50
Arias‐Calderón, M., Castro, J., & Gayol, S. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.889975 · Cited by 50
“Using games in various educational contexts has been previously investigated, where positive results were obtained in terms of learning improvement (Dichev and Dicheva, 2017).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D.
- Affiliations
- Winston-Salem State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Dicheva, Darina
- Venue
- International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education
- Published
- 2017-02-20
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2365-9440 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2590009086
- Semantic Scholar
- 9eccfc54e7b125f3c3e044e0fca40c3e80dccbac
- Cited by
- 2,112
- References
- 88
- Citations by year
- 2026: 458 · 2025: 435 · 2024: 316 · 2023: 257 · 2022: 194 · 2021: 194 · 2020: 119 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 14
- FWCI
- 112.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Redalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Division of Human Resource Development (1623236)
- 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, game elements, student motivation, student engagement, research evidence base, higher 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
