More challenging or more achievable? The impacts of difficulty and dominant goal orientation in leaderboards within educational gamification

Abstract

Abstract Background As one of the gamification elements, leaderboard, especially absolute leaderboard, is widely used in educational gamification systems. However, empirical studies on the optimal use condition of the leaderboard and underlying influence mechanisms are deficient. Objectives This study explored which difficulty was more conducive to learning performance in leaderboard context, and when and how it played a role. Methods To address these questions, this study conducted a 2 (dominant goal orientation: learning/performance) × 2 (difficulty: high/low) between‐subjects design. Seventy‐eight dominant learning‐oriented and 78 dominant performance‐oriented participants were recruited and randomly assigned to the high or low difficulty group respectively. Results and Conclusions Participants in the low difficulty group experienced more positive emotions, less negative emotions, and higher learning motivation than those in the high difficulty group, but the effect of difficulty on performance was not significant. Moreover, goal orientation did not moderate the effects of difficulty, dominant learning‐oriented and performance‐oriented learners were equally affected by difficulty. Further mediating analysis showed that negative emotions and learning motivation rather than positive emotions mediated the relationship between difficulty and learning performance. Implications These results confirmed the positive effect of low difficulty in leaderboard context, as well as the mediating roles of emotions and motivation involved in the relationship between difficulty and learning performance. These findings enlighten us that it is necessary to equip leaderboards in educational gamification with achievable difficulty.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 24 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.