CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 152Educational Games and GamificationEducational Robotics and EngineeringSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

Developing a gamified artificial intelligence educational robot to promote learning effectiveness and behavior in laboratory safety courses for undergraduate students

Open access
Yang, Qi-Fan, Lian, Li-Wen, Zhao, Jia-Hua·2023·International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education
DOI 10.1186/s41239-023-00391-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

According to previous studies, traditional laboratory safety courses are delivered in a classroom setting where the instructor teaches and the students listen and read the course materials passively. The course content is also uninspiring and dull. Additionally, the teaching period is spread out, which adds to the instructor's workload. As a result, students become less motivated to learn. In contrast, artificially intelligent educational robots (AIERs), help students learn while lessening the workload on instructors by enhancing teaching strategies, using robots to substitute for teachers, giving students access to a variety of instructional content, and improving interaction with students through the use of intelligent voice interactions and Q&A systems to promote student engagement in learning. If the robot is used for a long time for learning, it may lead to a decrease in students' interest in learning. Therefore, this study introduces the GAFCC model (the theory-driven gamification goal, access, feedback, challenge, collaboration design model) as an instructional design model to guide the development of a gamified AIER system, aiming to improve students' motivation and learning effectiveness for laboratory safety courses. To test the effectiveness of the system, this study conducted an experimental study at a university in China in the summer of 2022. 53 participants participated in the research, with a random sample taken from each group. Each participant was able to choose the time of their free time to engage in the experiment. There were 18, 19, and 16 participants in experimental group 1, experimental group 2, and the traditional group, respectively. Students in experimental group 1 learned using the gamified AIER system, students in experimental group 2 learned on a general anthropomorphic robot system and the control group received traditional classroom learning. The experimental results showed that compared to the other two groups, the gamified AIER system guided by the GAFCC model significantly improved students' learning achievement and enhanced their learning motivation, flow experience, and problem-solving tendency. In addition, students who adopted this approach exhibited more positive behaviors and reduced cognitive load in the learning process.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s41239-023-00391-9

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • LLMs with knowledge graphs can simulate complex learning and assessment scenarios.

    “When used with LLMs, they can simulate complex learning and assessment scenarios requiring critical thinking and problem-solving skills, such as in driving education [63], programming education [64], and laboratory safety courses [65].”

    From Promises and challenges of generative artificial intelligence for human learning (2024) · cites this paper as [65]

    The “Structure of the gamified AIER systems” section describes interactive learning tasks and questions in laboratory safety education, so the paper supports that example at a broad level. It describes a robot using keyword recognition and a database of prepared materials, not LLMs with knowledge graphs; our copy also does not establish that it simulates complex scenarios requiring critical thinking and problem-solving. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 79

  1. Ayi, H.-R., & Hon, C.-Y. (2018). Safety culture and safety compliance in academic laboratories: A Canadian perspective. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety, 25(6), 6-12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jchas. 2018. 05. 002 · DOI
  2. Bai, M., Liu, Y., Qi, M., Roy, N., Shu, C.-M., Khan, F., & Zhao, D. (2022b). Current status, challenges, and future directions of university laboratory safety in China. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 74, 104671. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jlp. 2021. 104671 · DOI
  3. Bai, S., Hew, K. F., Gonda, D. E., Huang, B., & Liang, X. (2022a). Incorporating fantasy into gamification promotes student learning and quality of online interaction. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), 29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s41239-022-00335-9 · DOI
  4. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., & Tanaka, F. (2018). Social robots for education: A review. In Sci. Robot (Vol. 3). https:// www. scien ce. org
  6. Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Educa- tion, 58(3), 978-988. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2011. 10. 006 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Benkerzaz, S., Elmir, Y., & Dennai, A. (2019). A Study on Automatic Speech Recognition saliha 08 A Study on automatic speech recognition a study on automatic speech recognition. Journal of Information Technology Review, 10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 6025/ jitr/ 2019/ 10/3/ 77-85. · DOI
  8. Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers and Education, 72, 145-157. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2013. 10. 020 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Blanchard, S., Freiman, V., & Lirrete-Pitre, N. (2010). Strategies used by elementary schoolchildren solving robotics-based complex tasks: Innovative potential of technology. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2851-2857. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. sbspro. 2010. 03. 427 · DOI
  10. Chandra, S., Dillenbourg, P., & Paiva, A. (2020). Children teach handwriting to a social robot with different learning compe- tencies. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12(3), 721-748. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12369-019-00589-w · DOI
  11. Chen, H., Park, H. W., & Breazeal, C. (2020c). Teaching and learning with children: Impact of reciprocal peer learning with a social robot on children's learning and emotive engagement. Computers and Education, 150, 103836. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2020. 103836 · DOI
  12. Chen, X., Xie, H., Zou, D., & Hwang, G.-J. (2020b). Application and theory gaps during the rise of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100002. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. caeai. 2020. 100002 · DOI · Paper page
  13. ChenitiBelcadhi, L. (2016). Personalized feedback for self assessment in lifelong learning environments based on seman- tic web. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 562-570. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2015. 07. 042 · DOI
  14. Chin, K.-Y., Wu, C.-H., & Hong, Z.-W. (2011). A humanoid robot as a teaching assistant for primary education. Fifth Interna- tional Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computing, 2011, 21-24. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ ICGEC. 2011. · DOI
  15. Chu, S., Hwang, G., Chien, S., & Chang, S. (2022a). Incorporating teacher intelligence into digital games: An expert system- guided self-regulated learning approach to promoting EFL students' performance in digital gaming contexts. British Journal of Educational Technology. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjet. 13260 · DOI
  16. Chu, S.-T., Hwang, G.-J., & Tu, Y.-F. (2022b). Artificial intelligence-based robots in education: A systematic review of selected SSCI publications. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100091. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. caeai. 2022. 100091 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1978). Intrinsic rewards and emergent motivation. In M. R. Lepper & D. Greene (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward: New perspectives on the psychology of human motivation (pp. 205-216). Earlbaum.
  18. de-Marcos, L., Garcia-Lopez, E., & Garcia-Cabot, A. (2016). On the effectiveness of game-like and social approaches in learning: Comparing educational gaming, gamification & social networking. Computers and Education, 95, 99-113. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2015. 12. 008 · DOI
  19. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference on Envisioning Future Media Environments-MindTrek '11, 9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 21810 37. 21810 40 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Diago, P. D., González-Calero, J. A., & Yáñez, D. F. (2022). Exploring the development of mental rotation and computational skills in elementary students through educational robotics. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 32, 100388. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijcci. 2021. 100388 · DOI
  21. Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., de-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-Herráiz, J.-J. (2013). Gamify- ing learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers and Education, 63, 380-392. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2012. 12. 020 · DOI
  22. Epstein, M. L., Lazarus, A. D., Calvano, T. B., Matthews, K. A., Hendel, R. A., Epstein, B. B., & Brosvic, G. M. (2002). Immediate feedback assessment technique promotes learning and corrects inaccurate first responses. The Psychological Record, 52(2), 187-201. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ BF033 95423 · DOI
  23. Evripidou, S., Georgiou, K., Doitsidis, L., Amanatiadis, A. A., Zinonos, Z., & Chatzichristofis, S. A. (2020). Educational robotics: platforms, competitions and expected learning outcomes. IEEE Access, 8, 219534-219562. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ ACCESS. 2020. 30425 55 · DOI
  24. Falkner, N. J. G., & Falkner, K. E. (2014). "Whither, badges?" or "wither, badges!" Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling Interna- tional Conference on Computing Education Research-Koli Calling '14, 127-135. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 26746 83. 26746 98 · DOI
  25. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00187 26754 00700 202 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Fridin, M. (2014). Storytelling by a kindergarten social assistive robot: A tool for constructive learning in preschool educa- tion. Computers and Education, 70, 53-64. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2013. 07. 043 · DOI
  27. Fryer, L. K., Ainley, M., Thompson, A., Gibson, A., & Sherlock, Z. (2017). Stimulating and sustaining interest in a language course: An experimental comparison of Chatbot and Human task partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 461-468. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2017. 05. 045 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Ge, Z.-G. (2018). The impact of a forfeit-or-prize gamified teaching on e-learners' learning performance. Computers and Education, 126, 143-152. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2018. 07. 009 · DOI
  29. Groening, C., & Binnewies, C. (2019). "Achievement unlocked!"-The impact of digital achievements as a gamification element on motivation and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 151-166. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2019. 02. 026 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Hassan, M. A., Habiba, U., Majeed, F., & Shoaib, M. (2021). Adaptive gamification in e-learning based on students' learning styles. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(4), 545-565. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10494 820. 2019. 15887 · DOI
  31. Hsu, C.-C., & Wang, T.-I. (2018). Applying game mechanics and student-generated questions to an online puzzle-based game learning system to promote algorithmic thinking skills. Computers and Education, 121, 73-88. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2018. 02. 002 · DOI
  32. Huang, B., & Hew, K. F. (2018). Implementing a theory-driven gamification model in higher education flipped courses: Effects on out-of-class activity completion and quality of artifacts. Computers and Education, 125, 254-272. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2018. 06. 018 · DOI
  33. Huang, B., Hwang, G.-J., Hew, K. F., & Warning, P. (2019). Effects of gamification on students' online interactive patterns and peer-feedback. Distance Education, 40(3), 350-379. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01587 919. 2019. 16321 · DOI
  34. Hung, C.-M., Huang, I., & Hwang, G.-J. (2014). Effects of digital game-based learning on students' self-efficacy, motivation, anxiety, and achievements in learning mathematics. Journal of Computers in Education, 1(2-3), 151-166. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40692-014-0008-8 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. Y. (2021). A review of opportunities and challenges of chatbots in education. Routledge. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10494 820. 2021. 19526 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Hwang, G. J., Chang, S. C., Chen, P. Y., & Chen, X. Y. (2018). Effects of integrating an active learning-promoting mechanism into location-based real-world learning environments on students' learning performances and behaviors. Educa- tional Technology Research and Development, 66(2), 451-474. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11423-017-9567-5 · DOI
  37. Hwang, G.-J., Hung, C.-M., & Chen, N.-S. (2014). Improving learning achievements, motivations and problem-solving skills through a peer assessment-based game development approach. Educational Technology Research and Develop- ment, 62(2), 129-145. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11423-013-9320-7 · DOI
  38. Hwang, G.-J., Yang, L.-H., & Wang, S.-Y. (2013). A concept map-embedded educational computer game for improving students' learning performance in natural science courses. Computers and Education, 69, 121-130. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2013. 07. 008 · DOI
  39. Hwang, G. J., Yang, T. C., Tsai, C. C., & Yang, S. J. H. (2009). A context-aware ubiquitous learning environment for conducting complex science experiments. Computers and Education, 53(2), 402-413.
  40. Kalogiannakis, M., Papadakis, S., & Zourmpakis, A. I. (2021). Gamification in science education. A systematic review of the literature. Education Sciences, 11(1), 1-36. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ educs ci110 10022 · DOI
  41. Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 4(4), 81-83. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4018/ jgcms. 20121 00106 · DOI
  42. Kasahara, R., Sakamoto, K., Washizaki, H., & Fukazawa, Y. (2019). Applying gamification to motivate students to write high- quality code in programming assignments. Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 92-98. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 33042 21. 33197 92 · DOI
  43. Kasap, Z., & Magnenat-Thalmann, N. (2012). Building long-term relationships with virtual and robotic characters: The role of remembering. The Visual Computer, 28(1), 87-97. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00371-011-0630-7 · DOI
  44. Kelleher, C., Pausch, R., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Storytelling alice motivates middle school girls to learn computer program- ming. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1455-1464. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 12406 24. 12408 44 · DOI
  45. Kewalramani, S., Kidman, G., & Palaiologou, I. (2021). Using artificial intelligence (AI)-interfaced robotic toys in early child- hood settings: A case for children's inquiry literacy. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 29(5), 652-668. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13502 93X. 2021. 19684 · DOI
  46. Kyewski, E., & Krämer, N. C. (2018). To gamify or not to gamify? An experimental field study of the influence of badges on motivation, activity, and performance in an online learning course. Computers and Education, 118, 25-37. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2017. 11. 006 · DOI
  47. Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). Effects of mobile learning participation time on high school students' 21st century core competences. Proceedings-2014 International Conference of Educational Innovation Through Technology, EITT 2014, 205-211. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ EITT. 2014. · DOI
  48. Lee, Y.-F., Hwang, G.-J., & Chen, P.-Y. (2022). Impacts of an AI-based chabot on college students' after-class review, aca- demic performance, self-efficacy, learning attitude, and motivation. Educational Technology Research and Develop- ment. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11423-022-10142-8 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Leyzberg, D., Spaulding, S., Toneva, M., & Scassellati, B. (2012). The physical presence of a robot tutor increases cognitive learning gains. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 34, 34.
  50. Limna, P., Jakwatanatham, S., Siripipattanakul, S., Kaewpuang, P., & Sriboonruang, P. (2022). A Review of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education during the Digital Era. https:// ssrn. com/ abstr act= 41607 98
  51. Lin, V., Yeh, H.-C., & Chen, N.-S. (2022). A systematic review on oral interactions in robot-assisted language learning. Elec- tronics, 11(2), 290. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ elect ronic s1102 0290 · DOI
  52. Maximova, M., & Kim, Y. (2016). Research trend analysis on the usage of robotics in education. 12(1), 45-60. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14580/ apcj. 2016. 12.1. 45 · DOI
  53. Ménard, A. D., & Trant, J. F. (2020). A review and critique of academic lab safety research. Nature Chemistry, 12(1), 17-25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41557-019-0375-x · DOI
  54. Merrill, M. D., & Gilbert, C. G. (2008). Effective peer interaction in a problem-centered instructional strategy. Distance Education, 29(2), 199-207. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01587 91080 21549 · DOI
  55. Muniasamy, A., & Alasiry, A. (2020). Deep learning: The impact on future eLearning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 15(01), 188. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3991/ ijet. v15i01. 11435 · DOI
  56. Nadi-Ravandi, S., & Batooli, Z. (2022). Gamification in education: A scientometric, content and co-occurrence analysis of systematic review and meta-analysis articles. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 10207-10238. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10639-022-11048-x · DOI
  57. Osatuyi, B., Osatuyi, T., & de la Rosa, R. (2018). Systematic review of gamification research in IS education: A multi-method approach. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 42. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17705/ 1CAIS. 04205 · DOI
  58. Pearce, J. M., Ainley, M., & Howard, S. (2005). The ebb and flow of online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(5), 745-771. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2004. 02. 019 · DOI
  59. Pei, Z., & Nie, Y. (2018). Educational robots: Classification, characteristics, application areas and problems. Seventh Interna- tional Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT), 2018, 57-62. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ EITT. 2018. 00020 · DOI
  60. Quera, V., Bakeman, R., & Gnisci, A. (2007). Observer agreement for event sequences: Methods and software for sequence alignment and reliability estimates. Behavior Research Methods, 39(1), 39-49. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ BF031 92842 · DOI
  61. Reyes, G. E. B., López, E., Ponce, P., & Mazón, N. (2021). Role assignment analysis of an assistive robotic platform in a high school mathematics class, through a gamification and usability evaluation. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(5), 1063-1078. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12369-020-00698-x · DOI
  62. Scaradozzi, D., Screpanti, L., & Cesaretti, L. (2019). Towards a definition of educational robotics: A classification of tools experiences and assessments. Smart learning with educational robotics (pp. 63-92). Springer Internation Publish- ing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3-030-19913-5_3 · DOI
  63. Shorey, S., Ang, E., Yap, J., Ng, E. D., Lau, S. T., & Chui, C. K. (2019). A virtual counseling application using artificial intel- ligence for communication skills training in nursing education: development study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(10), e14658. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2196/ 14658 · DOI · Paper page
  64. Sophokleous, A., Christodoulou, P., Doitsidis, L., & Chatzichristofis, S. A. (2021). Computer vision meets educational robot- ics. Electronics, 10(6), 730. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ elect ronic s1006 0730 · DOI
  65. Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2018). Dancing robots: Integrating art, music, and robotics in Singapore's early childhood centers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 325-346. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10798-017-9397-0 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Sun, J., Gu, C., Chen, J., Wei, W., Yang, C., & Jiang, Q. (2022). A study of the effects of interactive AI image processing functions on children' s painting education (pp. 93-108). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3-031-05581-2_8 · DOI
  67. Sung, H.-Y., & Hwang, G.-J. (2013). A collaborative game-based learning approach to improving students' learning perfor- mance in science courses. Computers and Education, 63, 43-51. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2012. 11. 019 · DOI
  68. Sung, H. Y., & Hwang, G. J. (2018). Facilitating effective digital game-based learning behaviors and learning performances of students based on a collaborative knowledge construction strategy. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(1), 118-134. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10494 820. 2017. 12833 · DOI
  69. Tanaka, F., & Matsuzoe, S. (2012). Children teach a care-receiving robot to promote their learning: field experiments in a classroom for vocabulary learning. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 78-95. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5898/ JHRI.1. 1. Tanaka Timms, M. J. (2016). Letting artificial intelligence in education out of the box: educational cobots and smart class- rooms. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 701-712. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40593-016-0095-y · DOI
  70. Viitaharju, P., Yliniemi, K., Nieminen, M., & Karttunen, A. J. (2021). Learning experiences from digital laboratory safety train- ing. Education for Chemical Engineers, 34, 87-93. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ece. 2020. 11. 009 · DOI
  71. Wallace, S. A., McCartney, R., & Russell, I. (2010). Games and machine learning: A powerful combination in an artificial intelligence course. Computer Science Education, 20(1), 17-36. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08993 40090 35250 · DOI
  72. Wang, L., & Chen, M. (2010). The effects of game strategy and preference-matching on flow experience and program- ming performance in game-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 39-52. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14703 29090 35258 · DOI
  73. Wu, E.H.-K., Lin, C.-H., Ou, Y.-Y., Liu, C.-Z., Wang, W.-K., & Chao, C.-Y. (2020). Advantages and constraints of a hybrid model K-12 E-learning assistant chatbot. IEEE Access, 8, 77788-77801. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ ACCESS. 2020. 29882 · DOI · Paper page
  74. Yang, J., & Zhang, B. (2019). Artificial intelligence in intelligent tutoring robots: a systematic review and design guidelines. Applied Sciences, 9(10), 2078. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ app91 02078 · DOI
  75. Zainuddin, Z., Chu, S. K. W., Shujahat, M., & Perera, C. J. (2020). The impact of gamification on learning and instruction: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Educational Research Review, 30, 100326. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. edurev. 2020. 100326 · DOI
  76. Zhang, J. H., Zou, L., Miao, J., Zhang, Y. X., Hwang, G. J., & Zhu, Y. (2020). An individualized intervention approach to improving university students' learning performance and interactive behaviors in a blended learning environ- ment. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(2), 231-245. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10494 820. 2019. 16360 · DOI
  77. Zhang, K., & Aslan, A. B. (2021). AI technologies for education: Recent research & future directions. Computers and Educa- tion: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100025. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. caeai. 2021. 100025 · DOI · Paper page
  78. Zhao, J., Hwang, G. J., Chang, S. C., Yang, Q. F., & Nokkaew, A. (2021). Effects of gamified interactive e-books on students' flipped learning performance, motivation, and meta-cognition tendency in a mathematics course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(6), 3255-3280. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11423-021-10053-0 · DOI
  79. Zhong, B., & Xia, L. (2020). A systematic review on exploring the potential of educational robotics in mathematics education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(1), 79-101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10763-018-09939-y · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, Q.-F., Lian, L.-W., & Zhao, J.-H.
Affiliations
  • Fujian Normal University (CN)
  • Mahidol University (TH)
Corresponding author
Zhao, Jia-Hua
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-04-14
Volume
20
Issue
1
ISSN
2365-9440 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s41239-023-00391-9
OpenAlex
W4365458703
Cited by
152
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 3
FWCI
52.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (62107010)
  • Fujian Provincial Social Science Foundation (FJ2021C118, FJ2022B033)
  • Fujian Province Educational Science Planning (FJWTZD21-07)
  • Fujian Normal University New Liberal Arts Research Project (W202107)
  • Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Robotics and Engineering
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
gamification, laboratory safety education, student motivation, learning effectiveness, flow experience, cognitive load, instructional design, undergraduate students, humanoid robots

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review