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
Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K. (2017) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.048 · Cited by 990 · cited 19×
“…Ibanez et al., 2014; Knutas et al., 2014b; Lambruschini & Pizarro, 2015; Laskowski & Badurowicz, 2014; Latulipe et al., 2015; Leach et al., 2014; Mekler et al., 2015; Morschheuser et al., 2014; Pedro et al., 2015b; Perry, 2015; Poole et al., 2014; Shi et al., 2014; Sillaots, 2014; Simoes et…”
InfluentialDeveloping a Theory of Gamified Learning: Linking Serious Games and Gamification of Learning
Landers, R. N. (2014) · Simulation & Gaming · doi:10.1177/1046878114563660 · Cited by 918 · cited 10×
“…to behavioral and motivational (Attali & Arieli-Attali, 2015; Barrio et al., 2015; Boticki et al., 2015; Christy & Fox, 2014; Davis & Klein, 2015; Hakulinen et al., 2015; Landers & Landers, 2015; Long & Aleven, 2014; Pedro et al., 2015a; Tu et al., 2015; Tvarozek & Brza, 2014) 2 elements 8 (16”
InfluentialDemographic differences in perceived benefits from gamification
Koivisto, J., & Hamari, J. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.007 · Cited by 841 · cited 1×
“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.”
A RECIPE for Meaningful Gamification
Nicholson, S. (2015) · Gamification in Education and Business · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_1 · Cited by 722 · cited 2×
“(Nicholson, 2015) that the combination of points, badges and leaderboards (sometimes referred to as PBL) is the most used one (see Table 5).”
A mobile gamification learning system for improving the learning motivation and achievements
Su, C., & Cheng, C. (2015) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12088 · Cited by 648 · cited 13×
“…learning and behavioral outcomes including: • knowledge acquisition outcomes (Jang et al., 2015); Laskowski & Badurowicz, 2014; Paiva et al., 2015; Su & Cheng, 2015) • perceptual outcomes (Christy & Fox, 2014; Codish & Ravid, 2014; Davis & Klein, 2015; Pedro et al., 2015b; Sillaots, 2014;…”
InfluentialGamification in Education and Business
Reiners, T., & Wood, L. C. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5 · Cited by 530
Gamification for Engaging Computer Science Students in Learning Activities: A Case Study
Ibanez, M.-B., Serio, Á. D., & Kloos, C. D. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2014.2329293 · Cited by 507 · cited 23×
“, 2015b) engagement outcomes (Boskic & Hu, 2015; Chang & Wei, 2015; Ibanez et al., 2014; Latulipe et al., 2015; Morschheuser et al., 2014; Poole et al., 2014) motivational outcomes (Hasegawa et al.”
InfluentialGamification in assessment: Do points affect test performance?
Attali, Y., & Arieli‐Attali, M. (2014) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.012 · Cited by 463 · cited 7×
“(Attali & Arieli-Attali, 2015; Hanus & Fox, 2015; Long & Aleven, 2014) Inconclusive 26 (50”
InfluentialA systematic mapping on gamification applied to education
Borges, S. S., Durelli, V. H. S., Reis, H. M., & Isotani, S. (2014) · ACM Symposium on Applied Computing · doi:10.1145/2554850.2554956 · Cited by 438 · cited 1×
“In addition to the gamification works with theoretical, conceptual or methodological orientation, five literature reviews (Borges, Durelli, Reis, & Isotani, 2014; Caponetto et al., 2014; Dicheva & Dichev, 2015; Faiella & Ricciardi, 2015; Gerber, 2014) have been published over the last two years.”
(Re)Defining Gamification: A Process Approach
Werbach, K. D. (2014) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5_23 · Cited by 394 · cited 1×
“…has been defined in several ways, such as “ the use of game design elements in non-game contexts ” (Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, & Nacke, 2011), “ the phenomenon of creating gameful experiences ” (Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014), or “ the process of making activities more game-like ” (Werbach, 2014).”
An Empirical Test of the Theory of Gamified Learning
Landers, R. N., & Landers, A. K. (2014) · Simulation & Gaming · doi:10.1177/1046878114563662 · Cited by 363
A Literature Review of Gamification Design Frameworks
Mora, A., Riera, D., González, C. S. G., & Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2015) · International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications · doi:10.1109/vs-games.2015.7295760 · Cited by 333 · cited 2×
“we refer the interested readers to a corresponding literature review on this topic (Mora et al., 2015).”
Engaging Asian students through game mechanics: Findings from two experiment studies
Hew, K. F., Huang, B., Chu, K. W. S., & Chiu, D. K. W. (2016) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.010 · Cited by 298 · cited 7×
“…and levels increase performance, competence, need satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation (Mekler et al., 2015), on involving Asian students in gamified course activities (Hew et al., 2016) and on the predictive effect of gaming personality on their game dynamic preferences (Tu et al., 2015).”
InfluentialGamification as a tool for enhancing graduate medical education
Nevin, C. R., Westfall, A. O., Rodriguez, J. M., Dempsey, D. M., Cherrington, A., Roy, B., Patel, M., & Willig, J. H. (2014) · Postgraduate Medical Journal · doi:10.1136/postgradmedj-2013-132486 · Cited by 286 · cited 15×
“, 2014) To study how to enhance user’s engagement with PLE (Nevin et al., 2014) To understand how gamification affects acceptance and use of medical knowledge software”
InfluentialChristy, K. R., & Fox, J. (2014) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.005 · Cited by 276 · cited 10×
“…2015) • perceptual outcomes (Christy & Fox, 2014; Codish & Ravid, 2014; Davis & Klein, 2015; Pedro et al., 2015b; Sillaots, 2014; Sillaots, 2015; Christy & Fox, 2014) • behavioral outcomes (Barata et al., 2014; Codish & Ravid, 2015; Hakulinen et al., 2015; Hew et al., 2016; Pedro et al., 2015b)…”
InfluentialImproving biotech education through gamified laboratory simulations
Bonde, M. T., Makransky, G., Wandall, J., Larsen, M. V., Morsing, M., Jarmer, H., & Sommer, M. O. A. (2014) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.2955 · Cited by 243 · cited 19×
“, 2014; Utomo & Santoso, 2015) Medicine/Biology/ Psychology 5 (10%) (Bonde et al., 2014; Landers & Landers, 2015; Nevin et al., 2014; Pettit, McCoy, Kinney, & Schwartz, 2015; Su & Cheng, 2015) a”
InfluentialGamification and learning: a review of issues and research
Faiella, F., & Ricciardi, M. (2015) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · doi:10.20368/1971-8829/1072 · Cited by 225 · cited 1×
“In addition to the gamification works with theoretical, conceptual or methodological orientation, five literature reviews (Borges, Durelli, Reis, & Isotani, 2014; Caponetto et al., 2014; Dicheva & Dichev, 2015; Faiella & Ricciardi, 2015; Gerber, 2014) have been published over the last two years.”
Psychological Theory and the Gamification of Learning
Landers, R. N., Bauer, K. N., Callan, R. C., & Armstrong, M. B. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_9 · Cited by 211 · cited 1×
“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.”
Practical, appropriate, empirically-validated guidelines for designing educational games
Linehan, C., Kirman, B. J., Lawson, S. W., & Chan, G. (2011) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1978942.1979229 · Cited by 211 · cited 1×
“The empirical research should thereby not just be fixated on the pros of gamified learning, but also be open to the cons and the conditions when gamification for learning should be avoided (Linehan et al., 2011; Westera, 2015).”
Perry, B. (2015) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.892 · Cited by 208 · cited 14×
“(Perry, 2015) The effect on learning French as a second language (Pettit et al.”
InfluentialShallow Gamification: Testing Psychological Effects of Framing an Activity as a Game
Lieberoth, A. (2015) · Games and Culture · doi:10.1177/1555412014559978 · Cited by 208 · cited 2×
“According to Lieberoth (2015), it might not be the game itself that stimulates individuals, but rather the packaging: the fact that an activity resembles a game.”
Hakulinen, L., Auvinen, T., & Korhonen, A. (2015) · International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) · doi:10.3991/ijet.v10i1.4221 · Cited by 201 · cited 25×
“…to behavioral and motivational (Attali & Arieli-Attali, 2015; Barrio et al., 2015; Boticki et al., 2015; Christy & Fox, 2014; Davis & Klein, 2015; Hakulinen et al., 2015; Landers & Landers, 2015; Long & Aleven, 2014; Pedro et al., 2015a; Tu et al., 2015; Tvarozek & Brza, 2014) 2 elements 8 (16”
InfluentialUsage of a mobile social learning platform with virtual badges in a primary school
Botički, I., Baksa, J., SEOW, P. S. K., et al. (2015) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.015 · Cited by 189 · cited 18×
“, 2014) Others 11 (21%) (Barrio, Organero, & Soriano, 2015; Boticki et al., 2015 ; Chang & Wei, 2015; Davis & Klein, 2015; Lambruschini & Pizarro, 2015; Mekler, Brühlmann, Tuch, & Opwis, 2015; Morschheuser, Rivera-Pelayo, Mazarakis, & Zacharias, 2014; Pedro, Santos, Aresta, & Almeida, 2015a; Shi, Cristea, Hadzidedic,…”
InfluentialAuvinen, T., Hakulinen, L., & Malmi, L. (2015) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2015.2441718 · Cited by 178 · cited 15×
“, 2015) Study several variables - unclear which one contributed to the observed outcomes (Auvinen et al., 2015) Comparison of two approaches - a gamified version and a version with heatmaps (Barrio et al.”
InfluentialFrom Gamification to Gameful Design and Gameful Experience in Learning
Dichev, C., Dicheva, D., Angelova, G., & Agre, G. (2015) · Cybernetics and Information Technologies · doi:10.1515/cait-2014-0007 · Cited by 169 · cited 2×
“, 2015), where students can improve their algorithmic skills by practicing with interactive exercises (Dichev et al. 2014).”
Self-citationExploring Engaging Gamification Mechanics in Massive Online Open Courses.
Chang, J., & Wei, H. (2016) · Educational Technology & Society · Cited by 148
Structuring Flipped Classes with Lightweight Teams and Gamification
Latulipe, C., Long, N. B., & Seminario, C. E. (2015) · ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) · doi:10.1145/2676723.2677240 · Cited by 133 · cited 18×
“, 2015b) engagement outcomes (Boskic & Hu, 2015; Chang & Wei, 2015; Ibanez et al., 2014; Latulipe et al., 2015; Morschheuser et al., 2014; Poole et al., 2014) motivational outcomes (Hasegawa et al.”
InfluentialKrause, M., Mogalle, M., Pohl, H., & Williams, J. J. (2015) · ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S) · doi:10.1145/2724660.2724665 · Cited by 131 · cited 17×
“…Christy & Fox, 2014; Hakulinen et al., 2015; Hanus & Fox, 2015; Hasegawa et al., 2015; Ibanez et al., 2014; Jang et al., 2015; Knutas et al., 2014b; Krause et al., 2015; Landers & Landers, 2015; Laskowski & Badurowicz, 2014; Latulipe et al., 2015; Leach et al., 2014; Lehtonen et al., 2015; Long &…”
InfluentialCan Gamification Improve the Benefits of Student Response Systems in Learning? An Experimental Study
Morillas Barrio, C., Munoz-Organero, M., & Sanchez Soriano, J. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing · doi:10.1109/tetc.2015.2497459 · Cited by 124 · cited 17×
“This category includes studies of employing gamification in audience response systems (Barrio et al., 2015; Pettit et al., 2015), in mobile learning systems (Su & Cheng, 2015), in Learning Management Systems (Lambruschini & Pizarro, 2015) and in MOOCs (Chang & Wei, 2015).”
InfluentialPettit, R. K., McCoy, L., Kinney, M. N., & Schwartz, F. N. (2015) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-015-0373-7 · Cited by 116 · cited 8×
“This category includes studies of employing gamification in audience response systems (Barrio et al., 2015; Pettit et al., 2015), in mobile learning systems (Su & Cheng, 2015), in Learning Management Systems (Lambruschini & Pizarro, 2015) and in MOOCs (Chang & Wei, 2015).”
InfluentialBíró, G. I. (2014) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.027 · Cited by 116 · cited 1×
“Yet, Biro (2014) considers gamification as a new educational theory, alongside of behavior-ism, cognitivism, constructivism and connectivism.”
Using Gamification to Motivate Students with Dyslexia
Gooch, D., Vasalou, A., Benton, L., & Khaled, R. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858231 · Cited by 106 · cited 1×
“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).”
Khan academy gamifies computer science
Morrison, B. B., & DiSalvo, B. J. (2014) · ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) · doi:10.1145/2538862.2538946 · Cited by 100 · cited 1×
“For example, purely descriptive papers such as (Morrison & DiSalvo, 2014), which describes the implementation of gamification within Khan Note: a Theoretical Papers Academy, were not included.”
Increasing collaborative communications in a programming course with gamification
Knutas, A., Ikonen, J., Nikula, U., & Porras, J. (2014) · International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies (CompSysTech) · doi:10.1145/2659532.2659620 · Cited by 84 · cited 10×
“…Chang & Wei, 2015; Codish & Ravid, 2015; Hasegawa et al., 2015; Herbert et al., 2014; Holman et al., 2015; Ibanez et al., 2014; Jang et al., 2015; Knutas et al., 2014; Knutas et al., 2014; Krause et al., 2015; Mekler et al., 2015; Morschheuser et al., 2014; Paiva et al., 2015; Pettit et al.,…”
InfluentialContextual Gamification of Social Interaction – Towards Increasing Motivation in Social E-learning
Shi, L., Cristea, A. I., Hadžidedić, S., & Dervishalidovic, N. (2014) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09635-3_12 · Cited by 81 · cited 16×
“, 2015; Long & Aleven, 2014; Tvarozek & Brza, 2014) Collaboration/discussions/ social interactions 4 (8%) (Knutas et al., 2014; Knutas et al., 2014; Shi et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2014)”
InfluentialDoes gamification work for boys and girls?
Pedro, L. Z., Lopes, A. M. Z., Prates, B. G., Vassileva, J., & Isotani, S. (2015) · ACM Symposium on Applied Computing · doi:10.1145/2695664.2695752 · Cited by 77 · cited 20×
“…to behavioral and motivational (Attali & Arieli-Attali, 2015; Barrio et al., 2015; Boticki et al., 2015; Christy & Fox, 2014; Davis & Klein, 2015; Hakulinen et al., 2015; Landers & Landers, 2015; Long & Aleven, 2014; Pedro et al., 2015a; Tu et al., 2015; Tvarozek & Brza, 2014) 2 elements 8 (16”
InfluentialAcademic Course Gamification: The Art of Perceived Playfulness
Codish, D., & Ravid, G. (2014) · Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Lifelong Learning · doi:10.28945/2066 · Cited by 76 · cited 8×
“…identifying learner types based on how students experience gamified courses (Barata et al., 2014) and how different learners perceive playfulness (Codish & Ravid, 2014), on the variation in motivation between learners with different gamification typologies (Herbert et al., 2014), on exploring…”
InfluentialGames are motivating, aren´t they? Disputing the arguments for digital game-based learning
Westera, W. (2015) · International Journal of Serious Games · doi:10.17083/ijsg.v2i2.58 · Cited by 75 · cited 1×
“The empirical research should thereby not just be fixated on the pros of gamified learning, but also be open to the cons and the conditions when gamification for learning should be avoided (Linehan et al., 2011; Westera, 2015).”
Detecting playfulness in educational gamification through behavior patterns
Codish, D., & Ravid, G. (2015) · IBM Journal of Research and Development · doi:10.1147/jrd.2015.2459651 · Cited by 72 · cited 10×
“(Codish & Ravid, 2015; Holman et al., 2015; Simoes et al., 2015) Platform-Centric Game elements and gamified platforms 7 (13”
InfluentialGamification of Joint Student/System Control over Problem Selection in a Linear Equation Tutor
Long, Y., & Aleven, V. (2014) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07221-0_47 · Cited by 71 · cited 7×
“(Attali & Arieli-Attali, 2015; Hanus & Fox, 2015; Long & Aleven, 2014) Inconclusive 26 (50”
InfluentialHolman, C., Aguilar, S. J., & Fishman, B. (2013) · International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) · doi:10.1145/2460296.2460350 · Cited by 62 · cited 6×
“, 2016) The effect on Asian students performance (Holman et al., 2013) The effect on coursework planning (Ibanez et al.”
InfluentialAn English vocabulary learning support system for the learner’s sustainable motivation
Hasegawa, T., Koshino, M., & Ban, H. (2015) · SpringerPlus · doi:10.1186/s40064-015-0792-2 · Cited by 61 · cited 15×
“…Bernik et al., 2015; Bonde et al., 2014; Boskic & Hu, 2015; Boticki et al., 2015; Christy & Fox, 2014; Hakulinen et al., 2015; Hanus & Fox, 2015; Hasegawa et al., 2015; Ibanez et al., 2014; Jang et al., 2015; Knutas et al., 2014b; Krause et al., 2015; Landers & Landers, 2015; Laskowski &…”
InfluentialOn the role of gamification and localization in an open online learning environment
Lehtonen, T., Aho, T., Isohanni, E., & Mikkonen, T. (2015) · Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research · doi:10.1145/2828959.2828973 · Cited by 57 · cited 17×
“…undesirable behaviors and increasing performance in virtual learning environments (Pedro et al., 2015b) and in personal learning environments (Lehtonen et al., 2015; Morschheuser et al., 2014); the effect of badges on student behavior (Hakulinen et al., 2015) and how they predict the student…”
InfluentialReconceptualising gamification: Play and pedagogy
Tulloch, R. (2014) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · Cited by 55
Gamification of Online Learning
Jang, J., Park, J., & Yi, M. Y. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19773-9_82 · Cited by 54 · cited 17×
“…Boskic & Hu, 2015; Boticki et al., 2015; Christy & Fox, 2014; Hakulinen et al., 2015; Hanus & Fox, 2015; Hasegawa et al., 2015; Ibanez et al., 2014; Jang et al., 2015; Knutas et al., 2014b; Krause et al., 2015; Landers & Landers, 2015; Laskowski & Badurowicz, 2014; Latulipe et al., 2015; Leach et…”
InfluentialAn Investigation of Gamification Typologies for Enhancing Learner Motivation
Herbert, B., Charles, D. K., Moore, A., & Charles, T. (2014) · International Conference on Interactive Technologies and Games (ITAG) · doi:10.1109/itag.2014.17 · Cited by 50 · cited 15×
“, 2015; Su & Cheng, 2015) More than 3 elements 16 (31%) (Amriani et al., 2014; Barata et al., 2014; Chang & Wei, 2015; Codish & Ravid, 2014; Hasegawa et al., 2015; Herbert et al., 2014; Holman et al., 2015; Jang et al., 2015; Knutas et al., 2014; Krause et al., 2015; Nevin et al., 2014; Pedro et al., 2015b; Pettit et…”
InfluentialUtomo, A. Y., & Santoso, H. B. (2015) · International HCI and UX Conference in Indonesia (CHIuXiD) · doi:10.1145/2742032.2742033 · Cited by 49 · cited 10×
“…et al., 2014; Latulipe et al., 2015; Morschheuser et al., 2014; Poole et al., 2014) • motivational outcomes (Hasegawa et al., 2015; Herbert et al., 2014; Mekler et al., 2015; Pedro et al., 2015a; Utomo & Santoso, 2015) • social outcomes (Hanus & Fox, 2015; Christy & Fox, 2014; Shi et al., 2014).”
InfluentialPeer-supported badge attribution in a collaborative learning platform: The SAPO Campus case
Pedro, L. F. M. G., Santos, C., Aresta, M., & Almeida, S. F. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.024 · Cited by 39 · cited 18×
“…to behavioral and motivational (Attali & Arieli-Attali, 2015; Barrio et al., 2015; Boticki et al., 2015; Christy & Fox, 2014; Davis & Klein, 2015; Hakulinen et al., 2015; Landers & Landers, 2015; Long & Aleven, 2014; Pedro et al., 2015a; Tu et al., 2015; Tvarozek & Brza, 2014) 2 elements 8 (16”
InfluentialFostering Engagement with Gamification: Review of Current Practices on Online Learning PlatformsPreprint
Hansch, A., Newman, C., & Schildhauer, T. A. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2694736 · Cited by 36 · cited 3×
“Overall, the bulk of theoretical research addressing gamification maintains that focusing on points and rewards rather than on play and intrinsic engagement cannot always meet the goal of desired behavior change by catering to the intrinsic values of learners (Hansch et al., 2015; Songer & Miyata, 2014; Tomaselli et a…”
Get Your Head in the Game: Using Gamification in Business Education to Connect with Generation Y
Poole, S. M., Kemp, E., Williams, K. H., & Patterson, L. (2014) · USF Scholarship Repository (University of San Francisco) · Cited by 33
A systematic mapping on gamification applied to education
Borges, S. S., Durelli, V. H. S., Reis, H. M., & Isotani, S. (2014) · Scientific Electronic Library Online (São Paulo Research Foundation, Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) · Cited by 33
A playful affordances model for gameful learning
Songer, R. W., & Miyata, K. (2014) · Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM'21) · doi:10.1145/2669711.2669901 · Cited by 31 · cited 2×
“Songer and Miyata (2014) propose to deviate from using simple game elements often found in gamification approaches and move to a “ gameful ” experience that fosters intrinsic motivation of players.”
Gaming personality and game dynamics in online discussion instructions
Tu, C., Yen, C., Sujo-Montes, L. E., & Roberts, G. A. (2015) · Educational Media International · doi:10.1080/09523987.2015.1075099 · Cited by 30 · cited 20×
“…to behavioral and motivational (Attali & Arieli-Attali, 2015; Barrio et al., 2015; Boticki et al., 2015; Christy & Fox, 2014; Davis & Klein, 2015; Hakulinen et al., 2015; Landers & Landers, 2015; Long & Aleven, 2014; Pedro et al., 2015a; Tu et al., 2015; Tvarozek & Brza, 2014) 2 elements 8 (16”
InfluentialGamification of Higher Education by the Example of Course of Research Methods
Sillaots, M. (2014) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09635-3_11 · Cited by 27 · cited 18×
“…results show medium effect size and low R squared values (Codish & Ravid, 2015) Limited sample size and context (acknowledged by the authors) (Sillaots, 2014) Small population size (28 students) (Simoes et al., 2015) Small population size (26 students); Single survey based on homework…”
InfluentialIdentifying Student Types in a Gamified Learning Experience
Barata, G., Gama, S. P., Jorge, J. A., et al. (2014) · International Journal of Game-Based Learning · doi:10.4018/ijgbl.2014100102 · Cited by 25 · cited 14×
“(Amriani et al., 2014; Anderson et al., 2015; Barata et al., 2014; Codish & Ravid, 2014; Hanus & Fox, 2015; Hew et al., 2016; Lambruschini & Pizarro, 2015; Laskowski & Badurowicz, 2014; Latulipe et al., 2015; Lehtonen et al., 2015; Nevin et al., 2014; Pedro et al., 2015b; Sillaots, 2015; Smith et…”
Influential(2015) · International Conference on Information Systems · Cited by 25
Gamification of politics : start a new game!
Mahnič, N. (2014) · Teorija in praksa · Cited by 25
Knutas, A., Ikonen, J., Maggiorini, D., Ripamonti, L. A., & Porras, J. (2014) · International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies (CompSysTech) · doi:10.1145/2659532.2659612 · Cited by 24 · cited 15×
“, 2015; Long & Aleven, 2014; Tvarozek & Brza, 2014) Collaboration/discussions/ social interactions 4 (8%) (Knutas et al., 2014; Knutas et al., 2014; Shi et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2014)”
InfluentialGamifìed E-Learning model based on Community of Inquiry
Utomo, A. Y., Amriani, A., Aji, A. F., Wahidah, F. R. N., & Junus, K. M. (2014) · International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems · doi:10.1109/icacsis.2014.7065830 · Cited by 23
An Iterative, Multidisciplinary Approach to Studying Digital Play Motivation
Herodotou, C., Winters, N., & Kambouri, M. A. (2014) · Games and Culture · doi:10.1177/1555412014557633 · Cited by 23
Badges and XP: An observational study about learning
Paiva, R., Barbosa, A., Batista, E., Pimentel, D., & Bittencourt, I. I. (2015) · IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) · doi:10.1109/fie.2015.7344074 · Cited by 23 · cited 17×
“Table 2 Distribution of papers among subjects of studies Subjects Nu (%) Papers CS/IT 20 (39%) (Amriani, Aji, Utomo, Wahidah, & Junus, 2014 ; Anderson, Nash, & McCauley, 2015; Auvinen, Hakulinen, & Malmi, 2015; Bernik, Bubaš, & Radošević, 2015; Codish & Ravid, 2014; Codish & Ravid, 2015; Hakulinen, Auvinen, & Korhonen…”
InfluentialGamification in higher education: A case study
Laskowski, M., & Badurowicz, M. (2014) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.13140/2.1.3311.9046 · Cited by 22
Preface: IBM POWER8 technology
Pattnaik, P., Moreira, J. E., & Victor, D. W. (2015) · IBM Journal of Research and Development · doi:10.1147/jrd.2014.2374271 · Cited by 22
Facilitating Programming Success in Data Science Courses through Gamified Scaffolding and Learn2Mine
Anderson, P. E., Nash, T., & McCauley, R. A. (2015) · ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE) · doi:10.1145/2729094.2742597 · Cited by 18 · cited 6×
“(Amriani et al., 2014; Anderson et al., 2015; Barata et al., 2014; Codish & Ravid, 2014; Hanus & Fox, 2015; Hew et al., 2016; Lambruschini & Pizarro, 2015; Laskowski & Badurowicz, 2014; Latulipe et al., 2015; Lehtonen et al., 2015; Nevin et al., 2014; Pedro et al., 2015b; Sillaots, 2015; Smith et…”
InfluentialInteraction and Reflection with Quantified Self and Gamification: an Experimental Study
Morschheuser, B., Rivera-Pelayo, V., Mazarakis, A., et al. (2014) · Cited by 18
Tech — Gamification in university engineering education: Captivating students, generating knowledge
Lambruschini, B. B., & Pizarro, W. G. (2015) · International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE) · doi:10.1109/iccse.2015.7250259 · Cited by 17 · cited 7×
“This category includes studies of employing gamification in audience response systems (Barrio et al., 2015; Pettit et al., 2015), in mobile learning systems (Su & Cheng, 2015), in Learning Management Systems (Lambruschini & Pizarro, 2015) and in MOOCs (Chang & Wei, 2015).”
InfluentialInvestigating High School Students' Perceptions of Digital Badges in Afterschool Learning
Davis, K. S., & Klein, E. (2015) · doi:10.1145/2702123.2702413 · Cited by 16 · cited 12×
“…elements are linked to behavioral and motivational (Attali & Arieli-Attali, 2015; Barrio et al., 2015; Boticki et al., 2015; Christy & Fox, 2014; Davis & Klein, 2015; Hakulinen et al., 2015; Landers & Landers, 2015; Long & Aleven, 2014; Pedro et al., 2015a; Tu et al., 2015; Tvarozek & Brza,…”
InfluentialPlanning for success: how students use a grade prediction tool to win their classes
Holman, C., Aguilar, S. J., Levick, A., Stern, J., Plummer, B., & Fishman, B. (2015) · Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge · doi:10.1145/2723576.2723632 · Cited by 16 · cited 18×
“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.”
InfluentialA Pilot Study of the Influence of Gamification on the Effectiveness of an e-Learning Course
Bernik, A., & Bubaš, G. (2015) · Cited by 15
Problems and Possibilities of Gamifying Learning: A Conceptual Review
Gerber, H. R. (2014) · Internet learning · doi:10.18278/il.3.2.4 · Cited by 13 · cited 1×
“In addition to the gamification works with theoretical, conceptual or methodological orientation, five literature reviews (Borges, Durelli, Reis, & Isotani, 2014; Caponetto et al., 2014; Dicheva & Dichev, 2015; Faiella & Ricciardi, 2015; Gerber, 2014) have been published over the last two years.”
Gamification and the Trough of Disillusionment
Broer, J. (2014) · Mensch & Computer 2014 - Workshopband · doi:10.1524/9783110344509.389 · Cited by 13 · cited 1×
“This controversy is reflected also in some scientific studies of gamification, which show that its effect on motivation or participation is lower than the expectations created by the hype (Broer, 2014).”
Smith, E., Herbert, J., Kavanagh, L., et al. (2013) · Cited by 12
Gamification of Higher Education by the Example of Computer Games Course
Sillaots, M. (2015) · Cited by 10
An Experiment to Assess Students’ Engagement in a Gamified Social Learning Environment
Simões, J. M. D. A. P., Mateus, S., Redondo, R. P. D., et al. (2015) · doi:10.13140/rg.2.1.2384.0488 · Cited by 7
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Boskic, N., & Hu, S. (2015). Gamification in higher education: how we changed roles. European Conference on Games Based Learning, (pp. 741–748). Reading, UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited.
- Dicheva, D., & Dichev, C. (2015). Gamification in education: where are we in 2015? World Conference on E-Learning (ELEARN 2015), Kona, Hawaii, October 19–22 (pp. 1276–1284). Chesapeake: AACE.
- Leach, D., Laur, B., Code, J., Bebbington, T., & Broome, D. (2014). Gamification for online engagement in higher education: a randomized controlled trial (pp. 151–159). Madison: Games Learning + Society Conference.
- Tvarozek, J., & Brza, T. (2014). Engaging students in online courses through interactive badges. In 2014 International Conference on e-Learning, September 2014, Spain (pp. 89–95). Retrieved from http://elearning-conf.eu/docs/cp14/paper-12.pdf .
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis
Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w · Cited by 2,594
“Because studies in the context of gamification have often lacked methodological rigor (Dicheva and Dichev 2015, 2017), we included methodological factors to account for possible differences in methodological study design and rigor across primary studies.”
BackgroundKrath, J., Schürmann, L., & von Korflesch, H. F. O. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963 · Cited by 1,324
Bai, S., Hew, K. F., & Huang, B. (2020) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100322 · Cited by 994
Gamification of health professions education: a systematic review
van Gaalen, A. E. J., Brouwer, J., Schönrock-Adema, J., Bouwkamp-Timmer, T., Jaarsma, A. D. C., & Georgiadis, J. R. (2021) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-020-10000-3 · Cited by 625
“In doing so, we added a new perspective to existing reviews on gamification in higher (Caponetto et al. 2014; De Sousa Borges et al. 2014; Dichev and Dicheva 2017; Dicheva et al. 2015; Faiella and Ricciardi 2015; Nah et al. 2014; Subhash and Cudney 2018) and health professions education (Gentry et…”
BackgroundSmiderle, R., Rigo, S. J., Marques, L. B., Peçanha de Miranda Coelho, J. A., & Jaques, P. A. (2020) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-019-0098-x · Cited by 502
“Gamification of education is a strategy for increasing engagement by incorporating game elements into an educational environment (Dichev and Dicheva 2017).”
BackgroundInfluential
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
