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
Items 1,301–1,400 of 1,434
Thomas, A. A., Baby, R., Davidson, B. G. J., & George, J. P. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-4521-5.ch014 · Cited by 1
Enhancing Collaborative Learning Through Gamification in UAE Schools
Alzouebi, K., & Alhammadi, D. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-6776-7.ch005
Tyagi, M., & Jain, A. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-19239-4_3
Game on: Transforming ESL learning through gamification in higher education
Grab, M. Ö. (2026) · Next research. · doi:10.1016/j.nexres.2026.101656
Ragab, K. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-4222-1.ch012
Díaz, E. M. F., & Ordóñez, S. (2026) · Multidisciplinary Journal for Education Social and Technological Sciences · doi:10.4995/muse.2026.25238
“…students and instructors (Feijoo et al., 2019; Suárez-López et al., 2023); but also highlights risks such as stress, competition, misalignment with curricula, and insufficient depth for complex problem solving (Almeida et al., 2023; Díaz et al., 2024; Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Lester et al., 2023).”
Effectiveness of Kahoot! in Engagement and Motivation among Undergraduate Students
Kaje, D. M. (2026) · International Journal of Professional Practice · doi:10.71274/ijpp.v14i1.613
“As a result, it is gaining momentum across different higher education settings (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
Tafti, M. D., & Kang, K. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16040574
Muaddab, H., Wahyono, H., -, N., Hermawan, A., & Nafisah, K. (2026) · Multidisciplinary Science Journal · doi:10.31893/multiscience.2026565
“Gamification further enhanced task persistence, especially during longer simulations requiring verification across multiple calculation steps (Dichev and Dicheva, 2017; Jayalath, 2022).”
Sharavova, O. I., Kuzovkova, T. A., & Sharavova, M. M. (2026) · Systems of Signals Generating and Processing in the Field of on Board Communications · doi:10.1109/ieeeconf68869.2026.11461144
Satisfacción y usabilidad de Moodle en un evento científico virtual de Bioquímica
Hernández, R. R., & Rodríguez, A. A. (2026) · Revista Pulso Científico · doi:10.70577/rps.v4i2.203
USING ONLINE GAMES TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION SKILLS IN FUTURE LANGUAGE TEACHERS
D.K., K., & R.F., Z. (2026) · Научный журнал "Вестник Актюбинского регионального университета имени К Жубанова" · doi:10.70239/arsu.2026.t83.n1.15
Implementación de un programa innovador de tutorías para estudiantes universitarios en Chile
Venegas, M. A. F., & Araya, P. A. A. (2026) · Investigación en Educación Médica · doi:10.22201/fm.20075057e.2026.58.25719
Aligning Gamification with Learner Motivation: Insights from VR-Based Learning Tasks
Bai, Y., Wang, Y., Hui, P., & Wang, Y. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2026.3680716
“In recent years, gamification, defined as “the use of game design elements in non-game environments” [8], has attracted increasing attention, with education among its primary application areas [11].”
Zhang, K., & Zhang, X. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6557858
EVALUATING GAMIFICATION ASSESSMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF QUIZIZZ WITH BLOOM’S TAXONOMY
Abd.Raub, N. A., Yunus, N. A. M., Jamaludin, N. L., Ismail, S. F., Khadzar, S. M., & Bakar, Z. A. (2026) · International Journal of Modern Education · doi:10.35631/ijmoe.829005
EduLov – Personalized Learning Platform Using AI and Data Analytics
Shruthi, G. R., & Akshay, D. (2026) · Lecture notes in electrical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-5835-3_106
Grubješić, I., Ivanjko, T., & Hajdek, M. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16040629
A novel framework for analysing gamification practices and research in manufacturing
Capponi, M., Mastrogiacomo, L., & Franceschini, F. (2026) · The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology · doi:10.1007/s00170-026-18083-9
“Initially [17, 18 ], gamification has gradually found its way into industrial contexts, where it is used to support operator training, improve task execution, reduce errors, and enhance engagement [19 ].”
Artificial Intelligence in STEM Education for Gamification Learning
Dohny, Q., Rajak, M. A. A., Jumat, N. R., Kiram, J. J., Halim, N. F. B. A., & Uden, L. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/407446
Theoretical Frameworks for Implementing Game-Based Learning in Language Development and Acquisition
Ghosh, O., & Kumar, B. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-4322-8.ch010
Jan, M. A., Ullah, R., Alhumaid, K. F., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Climate · doi:10.3389/fclim.2026.1741389
Gaitan, R. A. C., & Perdomo, J. D. B. (2026) · Star of Sciences Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.63969/cj6y6c33
Hambali, S., Hardi, V. J., Verianti, G., & Akbaruddin, A. (2026) · Pedagogy of Physical Culture and Sports · doi:10.15561/26649837.2026.0405 · Cited by 2
“Compared with teacher-centered instruction or repetitive drill-based activities, GBL provides learning situations in which students move, make decisions, solve problems, and interact with peers in socially meaningful contexts [7, 8].”
InfluentialЛунячек, В. E., & Rohynskyi, S. V. (2026) · Теорія та методика навчання та виховання · doi:10.34142/23128046.2026.60.07
Cheng, M., Lai, X., Zeng, W., Bai, S., Duan, C., & Sun, D. (2026) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-026-10148-1 · Cited by 2
The Psychology of Self-Directed Learning in Online Environments
Ogunleye, O. R. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-1443-1.ch005
Valea, C.-V., & Aritoni, O. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering - Companion (SANER-C) · doi:10.1109/saner-c67878.2026.00018
“In addition, gamified assessment tools such as Kahoot and Quizizz transform formative assessment into interactive learning experiences, increasing learner engagement while providing immediate feedback [61].”
Watcharinrat, D., Mbadike, I. C., Songsangyos, P., Sriphanomwon, A., Areeuea, B., & Phasinam, K. (2026) · Multidisciplinary Science Journal · doi:10.31893/multiscience.2026654
“Furthermore, in classroom settings, gamification is still a developing practice (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
Clark, S. A. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-2287-2.ch012
On Gamification in the Context of Education: A Systematic Review and Evaluation Framework
Muñoz-Calle, J., Candilejo‐Egea, J. M., Fernández-Jiménez, F. J., & Calle, J. M. M. (2026) · Computer Applications in Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/cae.70193 · Cited by 1
“• Absence of operational models: influential reviews such as those by Hamari [18] and Dicheva [19] synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of gamification, but they do not provide a unified quantitative framework integrating design quality, implementation, and multidimensional outcomes.”
Interactive Multimedia On The Water Cycle For Fifth-Grade Elementary School Students
Sumiyati, & Surjono, H. D. (2026) · JKTP Jurnal Kajian Teknologi Pendidikan · doi:10.17977/um038v9i22026p134-146
Enhancing motivation in gamified learning: how relatedness moderates the ARCS model
En, S. C., & Law, K. L. S. (2026) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2026.2665500
Wuyts, S., Everaert, P. C., & Opdecam, E. (2026) · Accounting Education · doi:10.1080/09639284.2026.2671268
Ostafe, L., & Sechedin, E. (2026) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1014726 · Cited by 4
Gamificación y motivación académica en estudiantes de educación secundaria
Jimenez-Villares, A. M., García-Burgos, E. B., Chávez-Cabrera, F. C., Arreaga-Anzules, O. B., & Ibarra-Álvarez, J. V. (2026) · Revista Científica Ciencia y Método · doi:10.55813/gaea/rcym/v4/n2/208
Tohari, D. R., & Hasnawati, L. (2026) · English Teaching Practice & Critique · doi:10.1108/etpc-09-2025-0212
Ranked and Rated: Gamification’s Role in Platform Pedagogy
Zomer, C. (2026) · Postdigital science and education · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-21035-7_3
Outcomes of a Foundational Sciences Daily Engagement Game in Medical Education
Schmidt, M. (2026) · Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education · doi:10.1002/bmb.70059
Setyasto, N., Tyas, H. C., & Xinzhe, Z. (2026) · IJORER International Journal of Recent Educational Research · doi:10.46245/ijorer.v7i3.1475
Guimerà-Ballesta, G., Valverde, G. J., & Fabre-Mitjans, N. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16060855 · Cited by 1
Gamification Strategies in Language Education – Challenges and Limitations
SIBIU, A. F. T. N. B., & Negoescu, A. G. (2026) · Lingua. Language and Culture · doi:10.24193/llc.2025.2.1
Mardiana, S., & Prasetyono, H. (2026) · Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary on Social and Technology · doi:10.69693/ijmst.v4i2.9551
Presbitero, A. M., & Obiso, D. L. (2026) · Psychology and Education A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.70838/pemj.570209
Ramos, D. M. A. (2026) · Actas Iberoamericanas en Ciencias Sociales · doi:10.69821/aicis.v4i1.194
Game-Based Review Strategies to Support Multilingual Learners in Secondary Science Classrooms
May, C. E., & Patzak, A. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7472-7.ch010
Ortiz, J. A. U., Ulloa, A. Z. O., Zubizarreta, G. V., & Andrade, A. I. T. (2026) · Revista Científica Multidisciplinar G-nerando · doi:10.66473/rcmg.v7i1.1206
Pre-Service Teachers as Game Designers for Children With Dyslexia
Rodríguez-Rivera, P., León, A. M., & Rodríguez-Ferrer, J. M. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7472-7.ch005
EmotiLearn: Improving Classroom Learning Experience Through Emotion Centric Approach
Tandon, V., Mundhra, M., Burman, D., Gupta, M., Saini, K., Setia, S., & Kansal, S. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-26349-0_25
Primayana, K. H., Dewi, M. M. C., Ryanti, L. P. D., et al. (2026) · Jurnal Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar · doi:10.47134/pgsd.v3i3.2684
Do Gamified Activities Influence Students’ Motivation in an Introductory Research Methods Course?
Minlikeeva, A. N., Desai, G. S., Amato, K., & Przybyla, S. (2026) · The journal of college science teaching · doi:10.1080/0047231x.2026.2686809
Transferring Competences to the Workplace Through Gamified Training: A Case Study
Periáñez‐Picón, Á., Díaz-Fernández, M., & Pasamar, S. (2026) · International Journal of Training and Development · doi:10.1111/ijtd.70034
Bastoni, R., Cowell, T. S., Murphy, A., McMahon, P., & Norberg, K. A. (2026) · ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S) · doi:10.1145/3774398.3811621
“Furthermore, even well-designed reward features can produce no effect if students do not understand how to use them [8, 23].”
InfluentialAquino, Y. T. V., Rojas, J. A. Q., Aquino, A. L. V., Yataco, A. C., Savero, P. G. S., & Camayo-Lapa, B. F. (2026) · doi:10.59899/ges-cono-89-c9
Bowrin, P., Iqbal, U., & Sanna, M. (2026) · Health Education Journal · doi:10.1177/00178969261454237
“In this study, three gamification strategies were used: •• Competitive mechanics: such as the use of live leaderboards (Dichev and Dicheva, 2017) and virtual podiums (Edwards et al., 2016); •• Progression and personalisation : including the use of customisable avatars (Johnson et al., 2016) and…”
Yılmaz, N. A., & CANER, İ. (2026) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-026-09782-8
“Both digital and non-digital game-based environments facilitate information processing through multiple sensory channels, thereby enhancing learning retention [8, 16].”
Exploring gamification: Evidence from scoping and systematic reviews
Ali, S. S., Mirzazadeh, A., Almatrafi, D., Siddiq, W., Almelayu, A., & Alghamdi, D. (2026) · Journal of Dynamics and Games · doi:10.3934/jdg.2026043
Serious Game for Music Theory Learning: Design and EvaluationPreprint
Yu, J. K., Zhang, T. B., Wu, W., Wu, S., Shu, X., Zhong, C., Wu, X., Wang, Z., & Zhang, K. Y. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7002152
Serious Game for Music Theory Learning: Design and EvaluationPreprint
Yu, J. K., Zhang, T. B., Wu, W., Wu, S., Shu, X., Zhong, C., Wu, X., Wang, Z., & Zhang, K. Y. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7002155
A workflow-based, digitally gamified teaching model for pathology education: a pilot study
ERTENER, Ö. (2026) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-026-09786-4
“Gamified activities were well received by students and appear to support engagement and recall [7, 15, 16].”
Denientya, R., Puspasari, M. A., & Tantrika, C. F. M. (2026) · Jurnal Sistem dan Manajemen Industri · doi:10.30656/jsmi.v10i1.11987
Manral, I., Dey, D., Chopra, M., et al. (2026) · Journal of Education and Health Promotion · doi:10.4103/jehp.jehp_1452_25
“[15] ] Consistent with previous literature, [11,13] students reported high levels of engagement and enjoyment, describing the gamified session as a refreshing alternative to routine lectures.”
Gamification Strategies in Climate Education
Moreno-Cruz, A., Gallegos, J. C. P., & Padilla-Díaz, A. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-9048-2.ch015
Escape room clínico para treinamento de tomada de decisão e habilidades clínicas no ensino em saúde
Hutchison, M. P. C. V., de Melo, M. C., Appolari, H., et al. (2026) · Research Society and Development · doi:10.33448/rsd-v15i7.51344
Bazouche, F. (2026) · Smart innovation, systems and technologies · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-18849-6_31
Technology Acceptance from DuckMath Quest, a Web-Based Gamified Platform for Algebra Learning
Hernández, C., Paredes, R. G., Mena-Avilés, E., et al. (2026) · doi:10.1109/lt68265.2026.11592561
“Consequently, educational technologies that integrate adaptive and gamified strategies have emerged as effective means to enhance learning outcomes, particularly in foundational STEM subjects [4], [5].”
Designing an Educational Video Game for Science and Technology Students: A Validation Study
Salazar, H., Baldeón, J., & Vega, V. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-30408-7_6
Lubenets, Y. V., & Miroshnikov, A. I. (2026) · International Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning in Higher Education (TELE) · doi:10.1109/tele71748.2026.11591366
“Research in educational game design [6] shows that penalty constraints stimulate reflective behavior — participants learn to assess risks, test edge cases, and avoid impulsive submissions.”
Gamification in Secondary Vocational Education: A Case Study of Student and Teacher Perspectives
Hajdin, G., Vukovac, D. P., & Milec, T. (2026) · International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics · doi:10.1109/mipro70003.2026.11591934
Jin, P. (2026) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2026.2702451
Gamification in STEM education: Mapping the scientific research landscape
Yindeemak, A., Boonkwang, K., Pachumwon, T., et al. (2026) · Multidisciplinary Reviews · doi:10.31893/multirev.2026594
“Understanding the scientific landscape of gamification research in STEM education holds significant implications for educational practitioners, instructional designers, and policymakers seeking evidence-based approaches to enhance STEM teaching and learning (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
Lapo, D. A. S., Cueva, A. L. L., Castañeda, A. I. V., Encalada, S. H. J., & Fernández, R. L. (2026) · Revista Amazonia Investiga · doi:10.34069/ai/2026.87.01.6
Owolabi, T. J., Garutsa, T. C., & Maunatlala, O. (2026) · Journal of Education and Learning Technology · doi:10.38159/jelt.2026763
Alharthi, S. M. (2026) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-026-14099-6
Game-Based Learning Strengthens Attitudinal and Normative Pathways for Sustainable Tourism Practice
Ramírez, R. R., Leal‐Solís, A., Roets, A. O., & González, M. J. S. (2026) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems14070869
Formación docente, los juegos serios como recursos didácticos: revisión sistemática
Piñeros, F. J. S. (2026) · Revista Lasallista de Investigación · doi:10.22507/rli.v23n1a3496
Gamification of Strategy Courses and Student Engagement: NCA-MGA Conditions for ExcellencePreprint
Gh, U. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7151907
SAMASHOVA, G., Azimbayeva, Z., Kurymbay, S., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1866375
Callahan, R. T., Boudreaux, K. A., Chigerwe, M., Al‐Nadaf, S., Rebhun, R. B., Skorupski, K. A., & Lejeune, A. T. (2026) · Journal of Veterinary Medical Education · doi:10.3138/jvme-2025-0060
Ponce, O. Z. T., & González, M. D. L. N. L. (2026) · ASCE MAGAZINE · doi:10.70577/asce.v5i3.1043
Citizen Preparedness as Foundation of Societal Resilience
Székely, Z., Székely-Keresztesi, O., Kerekes, K., Juhász, B., Péti, M., Mozga, G., & Majdik, A. L. (2026) · Understanding China · doi:10.1007/978-981-92-0321-5_9
Active Learning Strategies in Veterinary Medicine: A Literature Review
Garner, B. C., Cazzini, P., & Marcos, R. (2026) · Veterinary Medicine International · doi:10.1155/vmi/7397383
Aguado-Linares, P., Rodríguez-Yanes, M., Galván-Vázquez, P., & Sendra‐Portero, F. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.108227
Punja, D., & Tomar, A. (2026) · Medical Education Online · doi:10.1080/10872981.2026.2715862
Methodology Of Using Digital Learning Platforms In Informatics Education
Po'lotova, S. (2026) · Journal of Interdisciplinary Human Studies · doi:10.57033/mijournals-2026-9-0269
Purankar, S. A., Chauhan, D. K., Gupta, P., & Rai, P. (2026) · International Journal of Systems Assurance Engineering and Management · doi:10.1007/s13198-026-03387-6
Nazarejova, J., & Šoltysová, Z. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16081303
Villegas-Cubas, J. E., Otake, L., Uceda, O. E. C., Valdera-Chiscol, C. Y., Santamaría-Oblitas, S. N., & Jara-Huaman, C. D. (2026) · Information · doi:10.3390/info17080782
“Additionally, research on gamifi-cation in early childhood education shows that playful elements—such as star-rating scales and motivational messages—increase engagement and perseverance in skill-acquisition tasks [18–21].”
Azad, H. G., Guedidi, A., Poëllhuber, B., & Hurtut, T. (2026) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app16168128
Lim, J., Park, K., & Kim, M. (2026) · International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education · doi:10.1007/s10763-026-10711-w
“These elements are often categorized as performance-based or social elements (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
Rais, D., Juan, Z., & Yue, W. Y. (2026) · Venn Journal of Sustainable Innovation on Education Mathematics and Natural Sciences · doi:10.53696/venn.v5i3.480
Helgert, A., Dossena, G. L., & Eimler, S. C. (2026) · Mensch und Computer (MuC) · doi:10.1145/3820253.3831376
“This means that VR mechanics should be connected to scientifc decisions, consequences, or trade-ofs [8, 22].”
Arif, R. N. H. (2026) · Venn Journal of Sustainable Innovation on Education Mathematics and Natural Sciences · doi:10.53696/venn.v5i4.491
“Dichev and Dicheva (2017) similarly noted that 'one-size-fits-all' gamification approaches consistently underperform relative to designs that account for student motivational profiles.”
Dallal, A. H. (2026) · ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition · doi:10.18260/1-2--59971
Nafisah, J. (2026) · Assyfa Journal of Multidisciplinary Education. · doi:10.61650/ajme.v4i1.1275
Gamification in radiography education: Impressions and perceptions from a european survey
Iosca, N., Lastrucci, A., Votta, C., Bernabucci, L., Maran, I., Monaco, I. P., Francioni, S., Marrazzo, L., Wandael, Y., Ricci, R., et al. (2026) · Radiography · doi:10.1016/j.radi.2026.103548 · Cited by 1
Patra, E., Hassapidou, M., Androutsos, O., Diou, C., & Pagkalos, I. G. (2026) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu18172812
“This highlights an opportunity for future development, including peer comparison or collaborative features that have been shown to enhance engagement and motivation in school-based digital interventions, particularly among adolescents [53,54].”
Asante, G. A., Kumar, R., & Ozbek, E. (2026) · Journal of International and Intercultural Communication · doi:10.1080/17513057.2026.2713540
Lee, T. O., & Neeson, T. M. (2026) · Journal of Geography in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03098265.2026.2722200
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
