Motivation and Engagement of Nursing Students in 2 Gamified Courses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that gamification increases student engagement in course activities. However, student feedback about gamification in nursing contexts is needed. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe nursing student perceptions of how gamification impacts student motivation and engagement. METHODS: A convergent mixed-methods study was conducted. Surveys were completed by 58 first-year nursing students. Survey comments and data extracted from the learning management system were also collected. RESULTS: Students generally found gamification valuable, interesting, and enjoyable. Gamification took effort and was perceived as important. Students felt that they had some choice in participation in the gamified activities. CONCLUSIONS: Gamification is a viable strategy for promoting motivation and engagement among first year nursing students. More qualitative research is needed to enable game design refinement through investigation of contextualized student experiences. Refined game design may impact the development of learner skills through a moderating effect on engagement in course activities.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it