CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 78Educational Games and GamificationEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessOnline Learning and Analytics

Investigating the Impact of Gamification on Student Motivation, Engagement, and Performance

Open access
García-López, Iván Miguel, Acosta-Gonzaga, Elizabeth, Ruiz-Ledesma, Elena Fabiola·2023·Education Sciences
DOI 10.3390/educsci13080813
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In the academic context, the use of innovative learning techniques that can have a positive impact in the classroom is becoming increasingly common; gamification is one such technique. This study compared the effects of gamification on engagement, cognition, metacognition, and academic performance when university students used a gamified platform to when they did not in a mathematics course. Using the statistical technique of structural equation modelling (SEM) for both cases, the results show that motivation was the construct with the largest effects, influencing behavioral dissatisfaction, cognition, and metacognition. When students used the gamified platform, motivation influenced behavioral dissatisfaction, which in turn influenced academic performance. On the other hand, when the gamified platform was not used, motivation had a negative effect on academic performance. Therefore, the use of gamification learning strategies can help to reduce student demotivation.

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 · 10.3390/educsci13080813

Cites

65 of 66 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?

  • Poorly adapted designs lowered self-efficacy (García-López et al., 2023).

    “poorly adapted designs lowered self-efficacy (García-López et al., 2023)”

    From Gamification on Mathematics Engagement and Motivation in Secondary School and Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as García-López et al., 2023

    The Results (section 3.2) report lower self-efficacy among students using the gamified platform than among those not using it; the Discussion (section 4) reiterates this comparison. The paper does not identify poorly adapted design as the cause of that difference. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Collaborative rankings/team tasks can be experienced as challenging/competence by social learners and learners with high initial amotivation, and by intrinsic motivators.

    “| Collaborative rankings/ | Social learners and | Can be demotivating to | García-López et al. |”

    From Gamification on Mathematics Engagement and Motivation in Secondary School and Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as García-López et al. (2023)

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says collaborative work can increase students’ motivation through social relationships, and that levels and scores can support competence. It does not establish how collaborative rankings or team tasks are experienced by social learners, learners with high initial amotivation, or intrinsically motivated learners. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Cooperative mechanics appear beneficial, as they foster relatedness while balancing competition.

    “Similarly, cooperative mechanics appear beneficial, as they foster relatedness while balancing competition (García-López et al., 2023;Lee et al., 2023;Reyssier et al., 2022;Vandercruysse et al., 2015).”

    From Gamification on Mathematics Engagement and Motivation in Secondary School and Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as García-López et al., 2023

    The Introduction (page unavailable in our copy) says collaborative work in gamified learning can meet students’ need for social relationships and increase motivation, supporting the relatedness aspect. It discusses competitiveness separately in connection with digital badges; it does not say cooperative mechanics balance competition. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Regarding Social Cognitive Theory, most studies documented improvements in self-efficacy beliefs in mathematics, although one study reported a decline.

    “Regarding SCT, most studies documented improvements in self-efficacy beliefs in mathematics (García-Hernández & González-Ramírez, 2021;Hammad et al., 2022;McIntyre, 2023;Montero-Izquierdo et al., 2024;Robinson et al., 2023), although one study reported a decline (García-López et al., 2023).”

    From Gamification on Mathematics Engagement and Motivation in Secondary School and Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as García-López et al., 2023

  • Collaborative rankings/team tasks can be demotivating to individual competitors (extrinsic motivators).

    “| Team tasks | learners with high | individual competitors | (2023); Marinho et |”

    From Gamification on Mathematics Engagement and Motivation in Secondary School and Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as García-López et al. (2023)

    The Introduction says collaborative work can increase student motivation, while Related Works says extrinsic motivation can have negative effects. Neither passage addresses collaborative rankings or team tasks demotivating individual competitors; searches for those terms and for leaderboards and competition found no passage that does. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    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: 6

  1. Zichermann, G.; Cunningham, C. Gamification by Design: Implementing Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps; O'Reilly Media: Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2011.
  2. Kapp, K.M. Gamification Designs for Instruction. In Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Volume IV; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 351-384.
  3. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. On Assimilating Identities to the Self: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Internalization and Integrity within Cultures; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 253-272.
  4. Pintrich, P.R.; Garcia, T. Student Goal Orientation and Self-Regulation in the College Classroom; Greenwich: London, UK, 1991; pp. 371-402.
  5. Hair, J.; Anderson, R.; Black, W. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006.
  6. Guadarrama-Cárdenas, M.; Mendoza-Ruiz, M. Implementación de Estrategias Metacognitivas Con Herramientas de Gamificación. Una Experiencia En El Campo Del Desarrollo Humano En El Bachillerato a Distancia de La UAEMéx. Divers. Académica 2022, 2, 116-134.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
García-López, I. M., Acosta-Gonzaga, E., & Ruiz-Ledesma, E. F.
Affiliations
  • Instituto Politécnico Nacional (MX)
  • Unidad Profesional Interdisciplinaria de Ingeniería y Ciencias Sociales y Administrativas, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico City 08410, Mexico
  • Escuela Superior de Cómputo, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico City 07320, Mexico
ORCID
Venue
Education Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-08-07
Volume
13
Issue
8
Pages
813
ISSN
2227-7102 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/educsci13080813
OpenAlex
W4385655201
Cited by
78
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 2
FWCI
37.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Education Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Instituto Politécnico Nacional (SIP20230418)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
Keywords
gamification, student motivation, student engagement, academic performance, metacognition, demotivation, mathematics education, gamified learning platform, university students

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