Mixed-methods study demonstrates increased interest and self-efficacy without test score gains in secondary EFL learners, indicating motivational benefits across genders.
Background Properly designed badges and leaderboards may support English learning by fostering interest and self‐efficacy. Badges are visual symbols acknowledging individual achievements. Leaderboards display one's performance relative to others. Prior research has suggested that gender may influence students' perceptions of badges and leaderboards and their subsequent learning outcomes, although the findings are not universally consistent. Despite growing attention to potential gender differences in gamification research, few studies have examined how gender influenced the effects of gamification using badges and leaderboards on English learning. Objectives This mixed‐methods study examined the impact of gamification with badges and leaderboards on Chinese secondary students' interest, self‐efficacy and performance in learning English as a foreign language (EFL) and whether the effects differed by gender. Methods This 3‐week study recruited 396 first‐year secondary school students. After excluding participants with invalid or no responses ( n = 23), the final sample size comprised 373 students (males = 195; females = 178). Results The gamification intervention enhanced students' interest and self‐efficacy, but did not significantly affect their performance compared to non‐gamification. The effects of gamification were similar for boys and girls, and most students reported positive perceptions of the gamified course. Conclusions Using gamification with badges and leaderboards is a cost‐efficient approach to support English learning interest and self‐efficacy in formal education. Future studies should implement gamification over longer periods and investigate the effects of removing it to better understand the nonsignificant finding of performance. Moreover, future studies should investigate student perceptions of badges and leaderboards in greater depth.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: