Cited by 213Educational Games and GamificationOnline Learning and AnalyticsDigital Games and Media

Research Note—Gamification of Technology-Mediated Training: Not All Competitions Are the Same

Santhanam, Radhika, Liu, De, Shen, Wei-Cheng Milton·2016·Information Systems Research

Abstract

Gamification, an application of game design elements to non-gaming contexts, is proposed as a way to add engagement in technology-mediated training programs. Yet there is hardly any information on how to adapt game design elements to improve learning outcomes and promote learner engagement. To address this issue, we focus on a popular game design element, competition, and specifically examine the effects of different competitive structures, i.e., whether a person faces a higher-skilled, lower-skilled or equally-skilled competitor, on learning and engagement. We study a gamified training design for databases, where trainees play a trivia-based mini-game with a competitor after each e-training module. Trainees who faced a lower-skilled competitor reported higher self-efficacy beliefs and better learning outcomes, supporting the effect of peer appraisal, a less examined aspect of social cognitive theory. Yet trainees who faced equally-skilled competitors reported higher levels of engagement, supporting the balance principle of flow theory. Our study findings indicate that no one competitive structure can simultaneously address learning and engagement outcomes. The choice of competitive structures depends on the priority of the outcomes in training. Our findings provide one explanation for the mixed findings on the effect of competitive gamification designs in technology mediated training.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/isre.2016.0630

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Santhanam, R., Liu, D., & Shen, W.-C. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Oklahoma (US)
  • Department of Information and Decision Sciences, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
  • University of Alabama in Huntsville (US)
Venue
Information Systems Research
Published
2016-06
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
453-465
ISSN
  • 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5536
OpenAlex
W2343413709
Cited by
213
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 3
FWCI
31.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Information Systems Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
Keywords
gamification, game elements, competition, competitive structure, online learning, student engagement, self-efficacy, peer assessment, social cognitive theory, flow theory, balance principle, database training

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