Does Gamifying Homework Influence Performance and Perceived Gameful Experience?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing body of literature that recognizes the importance of applying gamification in educational settings. This research developed an application to gamify students’ homework to address the concern of the students’ inability to complete their homework. This research aims to investigate students’ performance in doing their homework, and reflections and perceptions of the gameful experience in gamified homework exercises. Based on the data gathered from experimental and control groups (N = 84) via learning analytics, survey, and interview, the results show a high level of satisfaction according to students’ feedback. The most noticeable finding to extract from the analysis is that students can take on a persona, earn points, and experience a deeper sense of achievement through doing the gamified homework. Moreover, the students, on the whole, are likely to be intrinsically motivated whenever the homework is attributed to factors under their own control, when they consider that they have the expertise to be successful learners to achieve their desired objectives, and when they are interested in dealing with the homework for learning, not just achieving high grades.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".