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 101–200 of 1,434
Adaptive learning in computer science education: A scoping review
Barbosa, P. L. S., do Carmo, R. A. F., Gomes, J. P. P., & Viana, W. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12066-z · Cited by 55
“Inaddition,inthefaceofalltheadvancesingamification,itisalsonecessarytoresearch how to avoid gamification scenarios that may harm learning (Dichev and Dicheva, 2017), as well as to investigate personalized gamification, which was identified as a major discovery by (Kuˇcak and Kuˇcak, 2022).”
Enhancing Learning Engagement: A Study on Gamification’s Influence on Motivation and Cognitive Load
Baah, C., Govender, I., & Subramaniam, P. R. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14101115 · Cited by 111
John, D., Hussin, N., Zaini, M. K., Ametefe, D. S., Aliu, A. A., & Caliskan, A. (2023) · International Journal of Serious Games · doi:10.17083/ijsg.v10i3.633 · Cited by 78
GAMIFICATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION: EXPERIENCE OF POLAND AND UKRAINE
Głowacki, J., Kriukova, Y., & Авшенюк, Н. (2018) · Advanced Education · doi:10.20535/2410-8286.151143 · Cited by 65
“Our experience, as well as that of other scientists (Dominquez at al., 2013; Sera, & Wheeler, 2017; Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Turan & Goktas, 2015) emphasises the effectiveness of gamification in the academic context, shows that games engender motivation, at the same time indicating that it is not…”
BackgroundMétodos pedagógicos emergentes para un nuevo siglo ¿Qué hay realmente de innovación?
Montanero, M. (2019) · Teoría de la Educación Revista Interuniversitaria · doi:10.14201/teri.19758 · Cited by 49
A Conceptual Engagement Framework for Gamified E-Learning Platform Activities
Alsubhi, M. A., Ashaari, N. S., & Wook, T. S. M. T. (2020) · International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) · doi:10.3991/ijet.v15i22.15443 · Cited by 51
Higher Education Students’ Assessments towards Gamification and Sustainability: A Case Study
Villalba, M. J. S., Olivencia, J. J. L., Navas-Parejo, M. R., & Benítez-Márquez, M. D. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12208513 · Cited by 66
“In the review carried out by Dichev and Dicheva [36], as a conclusion to their study [36], they suggest that gamification should be used in education as an element of motivation and that it should try to improve the student’s commitment to the subject being studied.”
BackgroundMethodWhat Perception Do Students Have About the Gamification Elements?
Iruela, M. G., & Hijón‐Neira, R. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3011222 · Cited by 66
Use of Gamification in Primary and Secondary Education: A Systematic Literature Review
Vrcelj, A., Hoić-Božić, N., & Dlab, M. H. (2022) · International Journal of Educational Methodology · doi:10.12973/ijem.9.1.13 · Cited by 47
“In their review paper, authors Dichev and Dicheva (2017) examine the impact of gamification on increasing motivation and developing student engagement in teaching by using elements of game design in educational settings.”
InfluentialAnunpattana, P., Khalid, M. N. A., Iida, H., & Inchamnan, W. (2021) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08637 · Cited by 69
“The potential of gamification has been used to improve education, where its implementation must demonstrate an improvement in incentive, as a short-term consequence, and learning outcome, as a long-term consequence (Sanchez et al., 2020; Dichev and Dicheva, 2017).”
BackgroundRetractedAl-Said, K. M. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11720-w · Cited by 91
Gamification for Education: Review of Current Publications
Dreimane, S. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01551-0_23 · Cited by 50
Gamification to avoid cognitive biases: An experiment of gamifying a forecasting course
Legaki, N.-Z., Karpouzis, K. C., Assimakopoulos, V., & Hamari, J. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120725 · Cited by 60
Nair, B. B. (2021) · Journal of Hospitality Leisure Sport & Tourism Education · doi:10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100362 · Cited by 60
Exploring Gamification Approaches for Enhancing Computational Thinking in Young Learners
del Olmo‐Muñoz, J., Baquero, A. B., Gutiérrez, R. C., & González‐Calero, J. A. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13050487 · Cited by 72
Boosting Student’s Motivation through Gamification in Physical Education
Sotos-Martínez, V. J., Tortosa‐Martínez, J., Baena‐Morales, S., & Férriz-Valero, A. (2023) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs13020165 · Cited by 45
“Gamification has already been widely used in other disciplines such as marketing, healthcare, human resources, training, environmental protection and well-being [10], or other curricular and academic fields such as higher education [11].”
BackgroundYu, Y., & Tsuei, M. (2022) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2022.2028855 · Cited by 64
“Dichev and Dicheva (2017) indicated that low percentages studies of game-based learning approaches in language studies.”
BackgroundCan gamification help in software testing education? Findings from an empirical study
Blanco, R., Trinidad, M., Suárez‐Cabal, M. J., Calderón, A., Ruiz, M., & Tuya, J. (2023) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2023.111647 · Cited by 44
Lee, K. C. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20420 · Cited by 74
OneUp: Supporting Practical and Experimental Gamification of Learning
Dicheva, D., Irwin, K., & Dichev, C. (2018) · International Journal of Serious Games · doi:10.17083/ijsg.v5i3.236 · Cited by 43
“Although the majority of reported studies have found experimentally more positive than negative effects of gamification on motivation [2, 3, 4], its effectiveness for learning remains inconclusive due to limitations of study design and analysis strategies [5].”
InfluentialSelf-citationSerious game design model for language learning in the cultural context
Ishaq, K., Rosdi, F., Zin, N. A. M., & Abid, A. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-10999-5 · Cited by 44
“The research which used gamification to increase learning outcomes in the areas of vocabulary, idioms, grammar, sentence structure, tenses, and terms demonstrated far better results than the control groups (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Ishaq et al., 2021a; Jaafar et al., 2009; Zin and Yue, 2013).”
MethodBilousova, L. I., Gryzun, L., & Zhytienova, N. V. (2021) · Educational Technology Quarterly · doi:10.55056/etq.34 · Cited by 44
“At the same time, according to the theoretical background of the gamified products development [5], the trainees have to follow some principles which are meaningful in the context of the UI/UX design learning.”
BackgroundArayapisit, T., Pojmonpiti, D., Dansirisomboon, K., Jitverananrangsri, K., Poosontipong, D., & Sipiyaruk, K. (2023) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.2257 · Cited by 42
Gamification for sustainability: A systematic review of applications, trends, and opportunities
Mabalay, A. A. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108529 · Cited by 65
Quintas‐Hijós, A., Lozano, C. P., & Bustamante, J. C. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0231269 · Cited by 49
“However, as the scientific literature is still scarce and inconclusive, more empirical studies are needed [8].”
BackgroundOnline Gamified Learning to Enhance Teachers’ Competencies Using Classcraft
Krishnan, S. D., Norman, H., & Yunus, M. M. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su131910817 · Cited by 43
“The effects of online addictions such as digital and game addictions should also be looked at carefully, to investigate whether learning is promoted while avoiding addictions to online games [63,64].”
BackgroundExploring Learners Experience of Gamified Practicing: For Learning or for Fun?
Dicheva, D., Irwin, K., & Dichev, C. (2019) · International Journal of Serious Games · doi:10.17083/ijsg.v6i3.299 · Cited by 46
“Despite the range of opinions [11, 12, 14, 15], we argue that gamifying learning - a dynamic and active endeavor requiring purposeful efforts - is a particularly difficult process for several reasons.”
BackgroundSelf-citationDustman, W. A., King‐Keller, S., & Marquez, R. (2021) · Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education · doi:10.1128/jmbe.v22i1.2439 · Cited by 51
“Gamification, the use of game design elements in nongaming contexts (20, 21), has become a popular tool used by a wide array of educators during the last decade and targets students primarily at the university level (22).”
Backgroundda Silva, J. N., Castro, G. D. L., Leite, A. J. M., Monteiro, A. J., & Alexandre, F. S. O. (2022) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00766 · Cited by 42
Using learning analytics to explore peer learning patterns in asynchronous gamified environments
Moon, J., McNeill, L., Edmonds, C. T., Banihashem, S. K., & Noroozi, O. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00476-z · Cited by 54
“While previous research examined the gamification’s impact on student engagement and motivation (e.g., Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Subhash & Cudney, 2018), our findings offer a more nuanced understanding of how gamification elements influence the quality and depth of students’ interactions and…”
BackgroundBorgen, K. B., Ropp, T. D., & Weldon, W. T. (2021) · The International Journal of Aerospace Psychology · doi:10.1080/24721840.2021.1881403 · Cited by 40
“More study is needed in particular on behavioral phenomenon observed in this study known as “gamification effect” (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017) where learners explored device features, branched temporarily into other flight deck features salient to learning the overall flight deck layout but was not…”
BackgroundResultHow Personalization Affects Motivation in Gamified Review Assessments
Rodrigues, L., Palomino, P. T., Toda, A. M., Klock, A. C. T., Pessoa, M., Pereira, F. D., Oliveira, E., Oliveira, D. F., Cristea, A. I., Gasparini, I., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-022-00326-x · Cited by 44
“However, most gamified systems present the same design for all users, regardless of the task they will do (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Liu et al., 2017); the OSFA approach.”
Trinidad, M., Calderón, A., & Ruiz, M. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3076291 · Cited by 42
“Our decision of using this catalog was based on the extensive, completed, and clear categorization of the game elements that it provides, as well as, on the support of other studies and authors that concluded that bearing in mind the extensive number of research and empirical studies related to gamification on educati…”
BackgroundMethodGamification-as-Innovation: A Review
AlSaad, F. M., & DURUGBO, C. M. (2021) · International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management · doi:10.1142/s0219877021300020 · Cited by 40
Player profiles for game‐based applications in engineering education
Vergara, D., Antón‐Sancho, Á., & Fernández‐Arias, P. (2022) · Computer Applications in Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/cae.22576 · Cited by 46
“Gamification is known as the process of introducing game design elements into situations of a nongame nature [18].”
BackgroundSingh, G., & Ahmad, F. (2024) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-023-00287-1 · Cited by 38
“They specify the actions of game objects during gameplay (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
BackgroundPlanning Gamification Strategies based on User Characteristics and DM: A Gender-based Case Study
Toda, A. M., Oliveira, W., Shi, L., Bittencourt, I. I., Isotani, S., & Cristea, A. I. (2019) · Durham Research Online (Durham University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.09146 · Cited by 39
“There is a lot of small-scale empirical evidence, at classroom-scale, of approaches that showed mixed successes [26, 27].”
BackgroundÇiğdem, H., Öztürk, M., Karabacak, Y., ATİK, N., Gürkan, S., & Aldemir, M. H. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12845-2 · Cited by 90
“Incorporating gamified elements into online platforms has been shown to motivate learners (Chou, 2019), enhance engagement (Plass et al., 2015), and maxi - mize learning outcomes (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Smiderle et al., 2020 ).”
InfluentialMultimodal Generative Artificial Intelligence Tackles Visual Problems in Chemistry
Alasadi, E. A., & Baiz, C. R. (2024) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c00138 · Cited by 47
Design of a virtual reality serious game for experiencing the colors of Dunhuang frescoes
Liu, Z., Chen, D., Zhang, C., & Yao, J. (2024) · Heritage Science · doi:10.1186/s40494-024-01477-x · Cited by 39
“For example, research by Dichev and Dicheva suggests that providing clear game rules helps players understand their actions and objectives, which in turn ignites their interest in continuing the game and boosts their motivation to complete it [50].”
BackgroundGamification in management education - A literature mapping
Silva, R., Rodrigues, R. G., & Leal, C. T. P. (2019) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-019-10055-9 · Cited by 37
“Following this mapping of gamification as applied to management, we may conclude that such studies remain rare as the search only returned 14 articles that applied gamified tools to this field (Dichev and Dicheva 2017).”
MethodMelero-Cañas, D., Morales-Baños, V., Manzano-Sánchez, D., Ardoy, D. N., & Valenzuela, A. V. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.629335 · Cited by 48
Martínez-Hita, M., Carrasco, C. J. G., & Martínez, P. M. (2021) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-021-00796-9 · Cited by 62
Designing gamification for geometry in elementary schools: insights from the designers
Kamalodeen, V. J., Ramsawak-Jodha, N., Figaro-Henry, S., Jaggernauth, S. J., & Dedovets, Z. (2021) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-021-00181-8 · Cited by 37
“Studies on gamification often present students’ perspectives use in educational contexts is important if it is to become a recognized instructional approach (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Smiderle et al., 2020).”
BackgroundJowarder, M. I. (2023) · Indonesian Journal of Innovation and Applied Sciences (IJIAS) · doi:10.47540/ijias.v3i2.878 · Cited by 36
Danka, I. (2020) · International Review of Education · doi:10.1007/s11159-020-09821-6 · Cited by 38
“4 Monitoring constant progress by achieving gradually higher scores and milestones are gamified elements that can serve as key factors in motivating learners (Dichev and Dicheva 2017; Szabó and Szemere 2016, 2017).”
BackgroundRising gamification in health education: A bibliometric study
Yıldız, M., Yıldız, M., & Kayacık, A. D. (2024) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2024.103993 · Cited by 36
The gamer psychology: a psychological perspective on game design and gamification
Gil-Acirón, L. Á. (2022) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2022.2082489 · Cited by 34
“However, Dichev and Dicheva (2017), who conducted a critical systematic review on educational gami fi cation, argue that despite the growing popularity of gami fi cation, there is still little knowledge of how to gamify an activity.”
BackgroundThe Impact of Gamification on Student Motivation and Engagement: An Empirical Study
Alsadoon, H. (2023) · Dirasat: Educational Sciences · doi:10.35516/edu.v50i2.255 · Cited by 51
“In a critical review study, Dichev and Dicheva (2017) reviewed a number of empirical studies.”
InfluentialVidenovik, M., Vold, T., Dimova, G., Kiønig, L. V., & Trajkovik, V. (2022) · JMIR Serious Games · doi:10.2196/32095 · Cited by 45
“It can support learning by providing collaboration and self-guided study and increasing motivation, engagement, creativity, and retention [21].”
BackgroundMylonas, G., Hofstaetter, J., Giannakos, M. N., Friedl, A., & Koulouris, P. (2022) · International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100562 · Cited by 34
alsswey, A., & Malak, M. Z. (2024) · Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2024.101993 · Cited by 33
The role and scope of gamification in education: A scientometric literature review
Gini, F., Bassanelli, S., Bonetti, F., Mogavi, R. H., Bucchiarione, A., & Marconi, A. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105418 · Cited by 67
A Survey on Gamification Elements in Mobile Language-Learning Applications
Govender, T., & Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2020) · Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM'21) · doi:10.1145/3434780.3436597 · Cited by 33
“In 2017, Dichev and Dicheva [7] did an extensive review of 51 papers.”
BackgroundThe new technologies in personality assessment: A review.
Ihsan, Z., & Furnham, A. F. (2018) · Consulting psychology journal · doi:10.1037/cpb0000106 · Cited by 35
“Another rapidly growing trend is the use of gamification in the workplace as well as in the education sector (Attali & Arieli-Attali, 2015; Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Fetzer, McNamara, & Geimer, 2017; Kim & Shute, 2015; Landers, 2015; Mavridis & Tsiatsos, 2016; Nacke & Deterding, 2017; Seaborn & Fels,…”
BackgroundOngoro, C. A., & Fanjiang, Y. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2023.3268282 · Cited by 43
“Furthermore, the scarcity of studies in the context of preschool education may be due to the nature of and processes involved in conducting research on young learners and the approval processes that are required prior to the evaluation [6], [27].”
BackgroundPitic, D., & Irimiaș, T. (2023) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100839 · Cited by 38
Chatzea, V., Logothetis, I., Kalogiannakis, M., Rovithis, M., & Vidakis, N. (2024) · Information · doi:10.3390/info15070410 · Cited by 38
“On the other hand, gamification can be generally described as using game design elements in non-game contexts [5] and is considered a practical educational approach that incorporates game elements and gameful experiences into the learning process [6].”
BackgroundDenden, M., Tlili, A., Chen, N., Abed, M., Jemni, M., & Essalmi, F. (2022) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2022.2098777 · Cited by 39
“This can be explained by CS and IT instructors are more likely to easily gamify their courses than other instructors from di ff erent subjects (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
BackgroundYang, W., Fang, M., Xu, J., Zhang, X., & Pan, Y. (2024) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics13071297 · Cited by 37
“However, due to methodological limitations, most studies were considered uncertain [22–24].”
Papaneophytou, C. P., & Nicolaou, S. A. (2025) · Trends in Higher Education · doi:10.3390/higheredu4020024 · Cited by 62
Morales-Trujillo, M. E., & García‐Mireles, G. A. (2020) · ACM Transactions on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/3427597 · Cited by 30
“The research question was defined following the recommendations stated in [14] on how to formulate a research question for studies on gamification in education.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBilro, R. G., Loureiro, S. M. C., & Angelino, F. J. D. A. (2021) · Journal of Creative Communications · doi:10.1177/0973258621992644 · Cited by 35
“…phenomenon, the literature reveals that not sufficient evidence exists to support the long-term benefits of gamification in educational contexts (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017) and that the knowledge about the gamification outcome in an educational context is still scarce (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017;…”
BackgroundLee, V., Hew, J.-J., Leong, L.-Y., Tan, G. W., & Ooi, K. (2021) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2021.1987681 · Cited by 30
“To do this, instructors could consider gamifying their teaching by incorporating relevant game elements into the lessons and assessments (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
BackgroundJanković, A., Maričić, M., & Cvjetičanin, S. (2023) · Journal of Computers in Education · doi:10.1007/s40692-023-00266-y · Cited by 55
“Gamification represents the introduction of game elements (scores, badges, rankings, rewards, leveling-up, and so on) into a non-game learning environment (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
Can gamification enhance online learning? Evidence from a meta-analysis
Yu, Q., Kun, Y., & Li, B. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11977-1 · Cited by 46
“Gamifica-tion is a technology and a methodology (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017), which refers to applying game elements to non-game environments (Deterding et al., 2011b).”
Cattoni, A., Anderle, F., Venuti, P., & Pasqualotto, A. (2024) · International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2024.100633 · Cited by 58
Mellado, R., & Cubillos, C. (2024) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.13000 · Cited by 53
Elementary Teachers' Perceptions on Genially Learning Media Using Item Response Theory (IRT)
Hermita, N., Putra, Z. H., Alim, J. A., Wijaya, T. T., Anggoro, S., & Diniya, D. (2021) · Indonesian Journal on Learning and Advanced Education (IJOLAE) · doi:10.23917/ijolae.v4i1.14757 · Cited by 29
“Gamification in education is known as an approach to motivate and involve students in learning, via the integration of game design principles (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
BackgroundSolviana, M. D. (2020) · Al Jahiz Journal of Biology Education Research · doi:10.32332/al-jahiz.v1i1.2082 · Cited by 28
Gamification-Based Learning as The Future of Language Learning: An Overview
Thurairasu, V. (2022) · European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences · doi:10.24018/ejsocial.2022.2.6.353 · Cited by 30
“According to the evidence, gamification in the context of learning involves much more than simply adding game aspects to already-existing learning content (Dichev, 2017).”
BackgroundSoriano-Pascual, M., Férriz-Valero, A., Martínez, S. G., & Baena‐Morales, S. (2022) · Children · doi:10.3390/children9121931 · Cited by 29
““Points (components) provide rewards (mechanics) and create a sense of progression (dynamics)” [24].”
BackgroundCao, Y., Gong, S., Wang, Y., Zheng, Q., & Wang, Z. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107477 · Cited by 33
Zapata-Cáceres, M., Marcelino, P., El‐Hamamsy, L., & Martín, E. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12441-w · Cited by 28
“In the educational domain, gamification refers to the use of game elements to increase the students’ motivation and engagement in learning activities (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
Prieto, J. L., González‐Víllora, S., & Fernández‐Río, J. (2020) · Retos · doi:10.47197/retos.v38i38.77276 · Cited by 27
“…El término gamificación hace referencia a aprovechar el potencial motivacional de las dinámicas de los videojuegos Retos, número 38, 2020 (2º semestre)- 756 - para provocar un cambio de comportamiento en diferentes contextos: negocios, rendimiento o lealtad social (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
BackgroundDeveloping an interactive PBL environment via persuasive gamify elements: a scoping review
Ghani, A. S. A., Rahim, A. F. A., Yusoff, M. S. B., & Hadie, S. N. H. (2022) · Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning · doi:10.1186/s41039-022-00193-z · Cited by 39
“Gamification also increases stu - dents’ participation in class, strengthens their collaboration, motivates them to perform self-study and complete assignments, promotes exploratory approaches to learning and enhances their creativity (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017).”
BackgroundSoboleva, E. V., Galimova, E. G., Maydangalieva, Z. A., et al. (2018) · Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education · doi:10.29333/ejmste/89843 · Cited by 27
Bernik, A., Bubaš, G., & Radošević, D. (2018) · International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics · doi:10.23919/mipro.2018.8400149 · Cited by 34
“A review performed by Dicheva et al. [1] on the application of gamification in e-learning revealed that most of the analyzed studies were related to courses on (a) Computer Science or (b) Information Technology.”
BackgroundGamification: a new key for enhancing engagement in MOOCs on energy?
Rincón-Flores, E. G., Mena, J., & Soledad, M. (2020) · International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM) · doi:10.1007/s12008-020-00701-9 · Cited by 27
Bräuer, P., & Mazarakis, A. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2160228 · Cited by 36
“” Besides the potential to increase user motivation, gamification has also been established as a helpful tool in the field of education (Bai et al., 2020; Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Dicheva et al., 2015; Majuri et al., 2018).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe effects of gamified flipped classroom on student learning: evidence from a meta-analysis
Yu, Q., & Yu, K. (2024) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2023.2209791 · Cited by 26
“Gami fi cation is a technology and a methodology (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017), which means applying game elements to non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011).”
Gamification in nursing literature: an integrative review
Sarker, U., Kanuka, H., Norris, C. M., Raymond, C., Yonge, O. J., & Davidson, S. (2021) · International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship · doi:10.1515/ijnes-2020-0081 · Cited by 31
Rodrigues, L., Pereira, F. D., Toda, A. M., Palomino, P. T., Oliveira, W., Pessoa, M., de Carvalho, L. S. G., de Oliveira, D. B. F., Oliveira, E., Cristea, A. I., et al. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/3485732 · Cited by 30
“, [18, 60]), as well as has been shown in the context of games (e.”
BackgroundInfluentialDigital badges affect need satisfaction but not frustration in males in higher education
Schürmann, L., & Quaiser-Pohl, C. M. (2022) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104484 · Cited by 36
Gamification resources in education: A theoretical approach
Асташова, Н. А., Bondyreva, S. K., & Popova, O. S. (2023) · The Education and science journal · doi:10.17853/1994-5639-2023-1-15-49 · Cited by 26
Business Decision-Making and Complex Thinking: A Bibliometric Study
Pacheco-Velazquez, E. A., Parra, J. C. V., Cruz-Sandoval, M. A., Salinas-Navarro, D. E., & Carlos-Arroyo, M. (2023) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci13030080 · Cited by 27
Gaalen, A. E. J. V., Jaarsma, D. A. D. C., & Georgiadis, J. R. (2021) · JMIR Serious Games · doi:10.2196/25637 · Cited by 27
“Strikingly, social play is underrepresented in GBL research, since most studies adopt a single player approach [4,9,26,114,115].”
BackgroundUnderpinning Learning Theories of Medical Educational Games: A Scoping Review
Bigdeli, S., Hosseinzadeh, Z., Dehnad, A., et al. (2023) · Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · doi:10.47176/mjiri.37.26 · Cited by 25
“Gamification is growing as a research domain and practice (5).”
BackgroundKaynak, S., Ergün, S., & Karadaş, A. (2023) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103618 · Cited by 25
Rayan, B., & Watted, A. (2024) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci14030277 · Cited by 25
“A comprehensive review of 63 studies by Dichev and Dicheva [18] led them to conclude that the growing body of reported results is supported by inconclusive and inadequate evidence.”
BackgroundInfluentialSanchez, É., van Oostendorp, H., Fijnheer, J. D., & Lavoué, É. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-10576-1_38 · Cited by 34
Effectiveness of Digital Health Tools to Prevent Bullying among Middle School Students
WILLIAMS, C. R., Griffin, K. W., Botvin, C. M., Sousa, S. M., & Botvin, G. J. (2023) · Adolescents · doi:10.3390/adolescents3010009 · Cited by 33
“A growing body of school-based research indicates that integrating prevention content with educational video games can be an effective approach for exposing youth to common, real-life difficulties and situations that allow prevention educators to teach important evidence-based content in a way that students find appea…”
BackgroundEspartero, M. M., Caldaza, K. P. D., & Prado, R. T. D. (2024) · Environment and Social Psychology · doi:10.54517/esp.v9i4.2167 · Cited by 23
Gamification of Cybersecurity Awareness for Non-IT Professionals: A Systematic Literature Review
Gwenhure, A. K., & Rahayu, F. S. (2024) · International Journal of Serious Games · doi:10.17083/ijsg.v11i1.719 · Cited by 43
“In order to do this, a methodical investigation of the effects of each game element independently is required [54].”
BackgroundÇakıroğlu, Ü., & Güler, M. (2021) · E-Learning and Digital Media · doi:10.1177/2042753020987016 · Cited by 24
“The outstanding popularity of gamification is originating in the belief in its potential to foster motivation, behavioral changes, friendly competition and collaboration in different contexts, such as engagement (Dichev and Dicheva, 2017).”
BackgroundCao, Y., Gong, S., Wang, Z., Cheng, Y. J., & Wang, Y. (2022) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12652 · Cited by 29
Gamification in the University Context: Bibliometric Review in Scopus (2012-2022)
Alcedo, J. M. G., Espina-Romero, L. C., & Chirinos, Á. A. N. (2022) · International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research · doi:10.26803/ijlter.21.5.16 · Cited by 23
“In addition, games have motivational properties that can be used for educational purposes (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Gentry et al., 2019; Smiderle et al., 2020).”
BackgroundTHE ROLE AND CHALLENGES OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION
Bai, X. (2024) · Pacific International Journal · doi:10.55014/pij.v7i1.524 · Cited by 32
Is Classroom Gamification Opposed to Performance?
Hernández-Fernändez, A., Torre, N. O., & Peña, M. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12239958 · Cited by 35
“Finally, while pedagogy research discusses the validity (or not) of the empirical evidence of gamification [12,13,37], a varied gamification must account for the crucial aspects of evaluation according to the context, taking into account [30]:”
BackgroundInfluentialWong, M. W.-Y. (2020) · Music Education Research · doi:10.1080/14613808.2020.1862777 · Cited by 27
“…gami fi cation has attracted a range of critiques in education and requires more research to determine how the motivation of the learners can be in fl uenced (Dicheva et al. 2015), and requires more evidence to support the bene fi ts of gami fi cation in educational contexts (Dicheva and Dicheva 2017).”
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
