Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 12 Inconclusive studies with reasons for this categorization

From: Gamifying education: what is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a critical review

Paper No Reason (data collection/statistical evidence)
(Amriani et al., 2014) Small population size (38 students); Short period of study (2 weeks)
(Anderson et al., 2015) Study several variables - unclear which one contributed to the observed outcomes
(Auvinen et al., 2015) Comparison of two approaches - a gamified version and a version with heatmaps
(Barrio et al., 2015) Short study period (four 90 min sessions)
(Bernik et al., 2015) Short study period (two weeks) and limited context
(Boskic & Hu, 2015) Weak evaluation, based on interviews with the instructor who taught all 7 classes and one student
(Boticki et al., 2015) Reported statistical results show medium effect size and low R squared values
(Codish & Ravid, 2015) Limited sample size and context (acknowledged by the authors)
(Hew et al., 2016) Short study period (23+ 19 days) with small population size (22 + 43)
(Ibanez et al., 2014) Evidence are inconclusive as acknowledged by the authors + Small population size (22 students)
(Knutas et al. 2014b) Small population size; No comparison group
(Lambruschini & Pizarro, 2015) Small population size. No comparison group
(Laskowski & Badurowicz, 2014) Reported positive and negative results (the gamified group had lower average grade)
(Latulipe et al., 2015) Study 3 factors at the same time, unclear which one led to improved performance
(Leach et al., 2014) Positive and negative results with no evidence of improved learning
(Mekler et al., 2015) Short study session (22 min) with self-reported measurement
(Morschheuser et al., 2014) Short study period (20 days)
(Pedro et al., 2015b) Small population size (16 students) for statistical significance; Short study period (1 h)
(Perry, 2015) Small population size (11 students). No control group. Weak evidence.
(Poole et al., 2014) Short study period (3 weeks)
(Shi et al., 2014) Short study period (two weeks); Small population size (20 students)
(Sillaots, 2014) Small population size (28 students)
(Simoes et al., 2015) Small population size (26 students); Single survey based on homework activity with no control group.
(Su & Cheng, 2015) Unclear measurements for the motivational outcomes
(Tu et al., 2015) Results do not support the predictive relationship between gaming personality and game dynamics
(Utomo & Santoso, 2015) Small population size (31 students); Short period of study (1 week)