Cited by 439Educational Games and GamificationDigital Games and MediaOnline Learning and Analytics

Examining the effectiveness of gamification as a tool promoting teaching and learning in educational settings: a meta-analysis

Open access
Li, Minzi, Ma, Siyu, Shi, Yuyang·2023·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

The integration of gamification into educational settings has gained recognition for its potential to boost student motivation, engagement, interest, and learning outcomes. Despite its popularity, research on gamification has produced mixed results regarding student learning outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to synthesize the existing empirical evidence on the effectiveness of gamification as a tool for promoting teaching and learning in educational settings. Forty-one studies with 49 independent samples involving more than 5,071 participants were included in our analysis. Results from random effects models showed an overall significant large effect size ( g = 0.822 [0.567 to 1.078]). The research performed the moderator analysis to scrutinize the effects of a number of factors on the relationship between gamification and student learning outcomes. The study uncovered significant moderating effects for user type, educational discipline, design principles for educational gamification, duration of “gameful” experience, and learning environment. However, measurement of student outcomes and publication type did not appear to have any significant moderating effect. Those findings hold important implications for improving and implementing gamification to promote teaching and learning in future research.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1253549

Cites

105 of 105 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?

  • Educational video games may complement traditional, less-engaging forms of instruction while providing adolescents opportunities to learn and practice vital skills.

    “Educational video games may also complement traditional, less-engaging forms of instruction, while providing adolescents opportunities to learn and practice vital skills [50].”

    From Health Benefits of Video Games in Adolescents and Young Adults (2026) · cites this paper as [50]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says game-based learning uses full-featured games to deliver skills or knowledge, and describes gamification as a way to improve engagement and learning. It distinguishes gamification from game-based learning, however, and does not establish that educational video games complement traditional instruction or provide adolescents specifically with opportunities to practice vital skills. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Gamified learning platforms can boost student motivation, engagement, interest, and learning outcomes.

    “Gamified learning platforms represent a new way to democratize learning and education by boosting student motivation, engagement, interest, and learning outcomes [50].”

    From Health Benefits of Video Games in Adolescents and Young Adults (2026) · cites this paper as [50]

    The Introduction and Discussion support the potential for educational gamification to improve motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes. They do not establish increased student interest as an outcome, and the paper studies gamification across educational settings rather than gamified learning platforms specifically. The sentence’s democratization framing is not part of the quoted claim assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

2 of the 107 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Borenstein, 2005, Comprehensive meta-analysis (computer program) version 2
  2. Caponetto, 2014, Gamification and education: a literature review
  3. Jacobs, 2013, Gamification: a framework for the workplace
  4. Marczewski, 2013, Gamification: A simple introduction

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, M., Ma, S., & Shi, Y.
Affiliations
  • Guangdong University of Foreign Studies (CN)
  • Peking University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Ma, Siyu
  • Shi, Yuyang
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2023-10-09
Volume
14
Pages
1253549-1253549
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4387454440
Cited by
439
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 279 · 2025: 121 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 3
FWCI
19.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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, educational gamification, learning outcomes, student motivation, student engagement, gameful experience, educational design principles, learning environment, moderating effect

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