The Active Methodology of Gamification to Improve Motivation and Academic Performance in Educational Context: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gamification is an active methodology that involves using game elements in a non-game situation. Gamification has shown to increase motivation and learning in different types of academic students; however, the educational literature shows inconclusive findings. The aim of this meta-analysis is to analyse the effects of gamification on motivation and academic performance in an educational context. Sixteen interventions carried out between January 2010 and the end of January 2022 were retrieved from the databases and included in this meta-analysis. One study was carried out in Primary school, three in Secondary school, and twelve in universities. Four papers analysed the effects on motivation, five on academic performance and seven on both. Results showed that gamification could increase the motivation (SMD = 0.51; 95% CI [0.29, 0.73]; I2 59%; p < 0.00001) and academic performance (SMD = 0.89; 95% CI [0.45, 1.32]; I2 90%; p < 0.0001) in all the educational stages. The implications of including gamification programmes in the educational context are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".