Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Would gamification affect high and low achievers differently? A study on the moderating effects of academic achievement level

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Gamification has been reported to increase learning motivation and produce positive learning behaviors or outcomes. As gamification research continues to mature, more studies are investigating factors that may contribute to the varying effectiveness of gamification, as well as factors that may moderate its effects. This study investigated whether academic achievement levels moderated the effects of gamified learning among 118 students enrolled in a private higher education institution in Malaysia. Previous studies have shown that high, medium and low achievers do not respond equally to gamification. To explore this further, the current study evaluated gamification’s effect on motivational dimensions such as the sense of competence, intrinsic motivation, valuation and engagement on different levels of achievers. The findings showed that academic achievement levels moderated gamification’s effect on valuation. Nevertheless, there was no significant moderation effect on competence, intrinsic motivation and engagement. The findings also revealed that gamification produced more significant effect on low-level achievers compared to high level achievers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Abu-Hamour, B., & Al-Hmouz, H. (2013). A study of gifted high, moderate, and low achievers in their personal characteristics and attitudes towards school and teachers. International Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.271.11.6509.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Albuquerque, J., Bittencourt, I. I., Coelho, J. A., & Silva, A. P. (2017). Does gender stereotype threat in gamified educational environments cause anxiety? An experimental study. Computers & Education, 115, 161–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burguillo, J. C. (2010). Using game theory and competition-based learning to stimulate student motivation and performance. Computers and Education, 55(2), 566–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Codish, D., & Ravid, G. (2014). Personality based gamification: How different personalities percive gamification. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) 2014, June 9–11, 2014. Tel Aviv, Israel: AIS.

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2014). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Psychology Press.

  • Davis, M. H., & McPartland, J. M. (2012). High school reform and student engagement. In S. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 515–540). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K., & Singh, S. (2015). Digital badges in afterschool learning: documenting the perspectives and experiences of students and educators. Computers and Education, 88, 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denny, P., McDonald, F., Empson, R., Kelly, P., & Petersen, A. (2018). Empirical support for a causal relationship between gamification and learning outcomes. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18), 21–26 April, 2018 (pp. 1–13). Montreal, Canada: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173885

  • Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference on Envisioning Future Media Environments - MindTrek ’11, 28–30 Sept, 2011 (pp. 9–11). Tampere, Finland: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040

  • Ding, L., Er, E., & Orey, M. (2018). An exploratory study of student engagement in gamified online discussions. Computers and Education, 120, 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duda, J. L., Chi, L., Newton, M. C. L., Walling, M. D., & Catley, D. (1995). Task and ego orientation in intrinsic motivation in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26(1), 40–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1992). The development of achievement-task values: a theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12(3), 265–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2013). In M. Carmichael (Ed.), Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.

  • Goh, D. H., Pe-than, E. P. P., & Lee, C. S. (2017). Perceptions of virtual reward systems in crowdsourcing games. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, M. (1993). Regression with Dummy Variables. No. 93. Sage. https://doi.org/10.2307/1269395

  • Harlen, W., Crick, R. D., Gough, D., & Bakker, S. (2010). Testing, motivation and learning. Readings for Learning to Teach in the Secondary School: A Companion to M Level Study. Retrieved from http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/

  • Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. Guilford Publications. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofacker, C. F., De Ruyter, K., Lurie, N. H., Manchanda, P., & Donaldson, J. (2016). Gamification and mobile marketing effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 34, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2016.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, J., & Choi, L. (2020). Having fun while receiving rewards?: exploration of gamification in loyalty programs for consumer loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 106, 365–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jia, Y., Xu, B., Karanam, Y., & Voida, S. (2016, May). Personality-targeted gamification: a survey study on personality traits and motivational affordances. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2001–2013).

  • Kam, A. H. T., & Umar, I. N. (2018). Fostering authentic learning motivations through gamification: A Self Determination Theory (SDT) approach. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, (Special issue 11), 1–9.

  • Kam, A. H. T., & Umar, I. N. (2021). Fostering Autonomous Motivation: A Deeper Evaluation of Gamified Learning. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Kanthan, R., & Senger, J. L. (2011). The impact of specially designed digital games-based learning in undergraduate pathology and medical education. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 135(1), 135–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavoué, E., Monterrat, B., Desmarais, M., George, S., Lavoué, E., Monterrat, B., & George, S. (2018). Adaptive gamification for learning environments. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 12(1), 16–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez, C. E., & Tucker, C. S. (2019). The effects of player type on performance: a gamification case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 91, 333–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Z. (2022). Gamification for educational purposes: what are the factors contributing to varied effectiveness? Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 891–915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10642-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Major, B., Testa, M., & Blysma, W. H. (1991). Responses to upward and downward social comparisons: the impact of esteem-relevance and perceived control. In J. Suls, & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: contemporary theory and research (pp. 237–260). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1989.10607413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2001). A comparison of high achievers’ and low achievers’ attitudes, perceptions, and motivations. Academic Exchange, 2, 71–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcdaniel, R., & Fanfarelli, J. (2016). Building better digital badges: pairing completion logic with psychological factors. Simulation & Gaming, 47(1), 73–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878115627138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mekler, E. D., Brühlmann, F., Tuch, A. N., & Opwis, K. (2017). Towards understanding the effects of individual gamification elements on intrinsic motivation and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 525–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nebel, S., Schneider, S., Beege, M., & Rey, G. D. (2017). Leaderboards within educational videogames: the impact of difficulty, effort and gameplay. Computers and Education, 113, 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orji, R., Tondello, G. F., & Nacke, L. E. (2018). Personalizing persuasive strategies in gameful systems to gamification user types. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 21–26 April, 2018 (pp. 435–449). Montreal, Canada: ACM.

  • Pedro, L. Z., & Vassileva, J. (2015). Does Gamification Work for Boys and Girls ? An Exploratory Study with a Virtual Learning Environment Does Gamification Work for Boys and Girls ? An Exploratory Study with a Virtual Learning Environment, (APRIL),0–5. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4783.5686

  • Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1122533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preckel, F., & Brunner, M. (2015). Academic self-concept, achievement goals, and achievement: is their relation the same for academic achievers and underachievers? Gifted and Talented International, 30(1–2), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2015.1137458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putz, L. M., Hofbauer, F., & Treiblmaier, H. (2020). Can gamification help to improve education? Findings from a longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 110, 106392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 138(2), 353.Ryan, R. M, & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

  • Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: an extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sailer, M., Ulrich, J., Katharina, S., & Mandl, H. (2017). How gamification motivates: an experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, D. R., Langer, M., & Kaur, R. (2020). Gamification in the classroom: examining the impact of gamified quizzes on student learning. Computers & Education, 144, 103666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silpasuwanchai, C., Ma, X., Shigemasu, H., & Ren, X. (2016). Developing a comprehensive engagement framework of gamification for reflective learning. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’16), 4–8 June (pp. 459–472). Brisbane, Australia: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901836

  • Star, K. (2015). Gamification, interdependence, and the moderating effect of personality on performance. Coventry University.

  • Subhash, S., & Cudney, E. A. (2018). Gamified learning in higher education: a systematic review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tu, C. H., Yen, C. J., Sujo-Montes, L., & Roberts, G. A. (2015). Gaming personality and game dynamics in online discussion instructions. Educational Media International, 52(3), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2015.1075099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanZile-Tamsen, C., & Livingston, J. A. (1999). The differential impact of motivation on the self-regulated strategy use of high-and low-achieving college students. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 54–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vicente, E., Verdugo, M. A., Gómez-Vela, M., Fernández-Pulido, R., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Guillén, V. M. (2019). Personal characteristics and school contextual variables associated with student self-determination in spanish context. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 44(1), 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. H., Chen, S. Y., & Chan, T. W. (2016). An investigation of a joyful peer response system: high ability vs. low ability. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 32(6), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2016.1159800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., & Sun, C. T. (2011). Game reward systems: Gaming experiences and social meanings. In Proceedings of the 2011 DiGRA International Conference: Think Design Play, 14–17 Sept, 2011 (pp. 1–15). Hilversum, Netherlands. Retrieved from http://gamelearninglab.nctu.edu.tw/ctsun/10.11.221.4931.pdf

  • Wilson, D., Calongne, C., Henderson, S. B., & Henderson, B. (2015). Gamification challenges and a case study in online learning. Internet Learning, 4(2), 84–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R., & Coppola, B. (2003). Skill and will: the role of motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1081–1094. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000052207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Teaching and Learning, Inti International College Penang, 11900, Bayan Lepas, Penang, Malaysia

    Adele H.T. Kam

  2. Centre for Instructional Technology and Multimedia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Gelugor, Penang, Malaysia

    Irfan. N. Umar

Authors
  1. Adele H.T. Kam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Irfan. N. Umar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adele H.T. Kam.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relationship, financial or otherwise, with individuals or organizations that could influence the work inappropriately. No conflict of interest exists.

Compliance with ethical standards

In this study, only data of participants who agreed to a written informed consent for data collection and evaluation was included. The consent statement assured confidentiality of the participants.

Data

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kam, A., Umar, I. Would gamification affect high and low achievers differently? A study on the moderating effects of academic achievement level. Educ Inf Technol 28, 8075–8095 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11519-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11519-1

Keywords