A Meta-Analysis on the Impact of Gamification over Students’ Motivation
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
Controversy surrounds the effectiveness of educational gamification on learners’ motivation to study. Prior papers attempting to summarize the available empirical evidence on the topic encompass too many additional domains like the academic performance so that the motivational point is discentrated. Hence, the current meta-analysis aimed to synthesize research findings limited to the clearly stated impact of gamification on higher education students’ academic motivation. Results from random effects proportion meta-analysis applied to seven relevant studies with a total of 368 students showed a pooled proportion of 29.68%. In other words, game design elements incorporated into the learning activities were significantly motivating for only about one-third of participants. The assumption of homogeneity was violated for certain reasons. As part of the discussion, previous scholars’ efforts to identify moderating factors of successful gamification were overviewed, and their practicality was questioned. It is concluded that the issue of whether educational gamification can amplify students’ learning motivation remains an area for further research.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 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